The Great Southern League Race Debate

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 <freecsa@phoenix.net

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! <SMILE>

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! <SMILE>

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! <SMILE>

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. <GRIN>

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? <INCREDULOUS STARE> 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" <secesh@msn.com>

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 position is that God divided the human race into ethnic/linguistic subdivisions to reduce mankind's ability to unite and wage war against the kingdom of God in a united effort. The Humanist religion has always sought to unify mankind through ethnic integration. This was true of the Assyrians, the Babylonians, Alexander the Great's Greek Empire, the Roman Empire, the Communist Empire, and now the United Nations and its New World Order.

Being a Christian society that believed in neither equality nor unity, the Confederacy unsuccessfully waged war against such a belief system. Historian Richard Weaver quotes a Confederate general who published a pro-South newspaper in North Carolina after the war. He wrote: "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."

I do not say that the races should be separated because, as I've stated elsewhere, "race" is a Darwinian term and not one found in the Bible. This is significant because if God has not interpreted His creation with this word or concept, but has used other concepts, then "race" becomes a false interpretation of items in the world.

I do say the nations should remain separated because this is God's World Order and is the system of ethnic relations which most aptly ensures peace and social order. By way of illustration, the civil strife in Canada, Burundi, Yugoslavia, Liberia, Somalia, the U.S., and many other places is almost all caused by one event the integration of two or more peoples in the same geopolitical location. Generally speaking, I'd say that segregation brings peace and integration brings war. This is true in every century and on every continent as far as I can see. I'm sure if someone out there knows of an exception, then I'll hear about it.

(2) I'm on weak ground in asserting that a large percentage of SL members hold views similar to mine. The ones I talk to regularly do. I went to Montgomery and heard all the griping about things that were being said from the podium. The first SL meeting I attended was in Athens, GA and Jarred Taylor was the speaker. And although Taylor speaks in terms of sociology rather than morality, I have always assumed we were in basic agreement and I cannot imagine him cottoning to some of the comments I've seen posted on this list server.

Now I will say that Franklin Sanders does not agree with me. He told me in New Orleans last year that my views were a denial of the efficacy of Christ's atonement. I disagree and still contributed financially to his legal defense and sent his wife a little money while he was in jail.

I really can't defend my phrase "large percentage," so please let me amend that to "meaningful percentage."

(3) You also asked, "Who is `us'?" This question goes to the heart of the issue. What is a nation? And who comprises the Southern nation? I would answer that the Southern nation "us" is comprised of the blood descendants of the ScotchIrish and Cavalier peoples who inhabited the South during the Civil War, along with those who have been incorporated into the nation by marriage.

I've got some work to do today, so I'll let it go at that for now. Again, I'm sure if my conclusions show some logical error, it will be found out quickly and posted almost as fast. That's okay. I really enjoy this. I hope to hear from you again.

Dennis Wheeler

[Editor's note: In my response I made statements that should have allayed all fear from Daniel and the other Southerners who have married foreigners and now have children who are half-white and half-something else. I mean, how clearly can I state it? ... those who have been incorporated into the nation by marriage."

But this wasn't good enough for those who became my opponents in this great debate. Time and again you will see them ignore this statement and charge me with wanting to exclude their children. I have never been able to figure this out. -- Dennis Wheeler.]

#26.

From Gary Waltrip to Jeff Quinton.

July 28, 1996

Gary begins with a quote by Jeff Quinton from an earlier post:

In a message dated 960727 02:09:13 EDT, you write: "We need to talk more about race, especially because it has been taboo to even mention it for so long. Let us not fall in to the conventional trap of saying race `does not matter.' Race does matter, just like culture, religion and ethnicity. Again, HOW it matters is the issue."

I do strongly agree with you on this, Jeff. I have been a leading instigator of racial discussions on this listserve. Race is a major issue and problem that we face. We do need an honest discussion of race, its problems, and possible solutions. As Jared Taylor says in "Paved With Good Intentions, "stylized discussions of race (i.e., pre-programmed speeches that are rote recitations of "acceptable" social theories) do nothing.

An honest discussion is needed, once again to quote Taylor, because "stylized thinking does not solve real problems." We do need to think and talk about the issue of race and do so for two reasons. One, by doing so we learn more about who we are as Southerners. And, two, we have to because we are living in a political environment that demands we do. We cannot consider ourselves intellectually responsible and politically significant if we don't. No argument here.

I am in an interracial marriage; it is a very happy marriage that has lasted 20 years, and I will be very obstinate and unrelenting in my attacks on those who would reinstitute the doctrines of white supremacy, or divide the country up into a caste system based on race, with the higher caste's position determined by the absence of skin pigmentation. (If the white supremacists wanted to base the caste system on IQ, they would be third, after Asians and Jews, a fact which I doubt would bring them much joy.)

On the other hand, the growth of the black underclass with soaring crime, welfare, and illegitimacy rates is a significant social problem that must be solved before it tears society apart. A highly dysfunctional and self-destructive culture within America is responsible for most crime and its attendant sorrows and costs. This culture's primary premise seems to be that all of its problems are caused by white racism. That is nonsense, of course, but it is a major premise of the "civil rights" leaders and left-wing liberals who have certain vested interests in having the problem continue (both Jared Taylor and Dinesh D'Souza have described this phenomenon).

Meanwhile, the liberal media hushes up the whole awful reality with which we have to deal, and society's discussion of such problems is socially taboo and forbidden, under penalty of social ostracism or worse, being branded a "racist." There really ARE racists whose feelings of self-importance seem to involve some official recognition of white supremacy. I don't like these people, and consider them to be as big a threat to our movement as Yankee carpetbaggers. But most of us who are fed up with the severe social problems caused by the black underclass are not racists. We simply realize, as did Jared Taylor and Dinesh D'Souza, that a problem must be adequately defined before it can be solved. Although the problem is far larger than my grasp of it, it seems to me that solutions would have to involve the following:

1. There is a scientifically proven average IQ gap between blacks and other ethnic groups (it is one standard deviation, or 15 points, which is significant). This gap explains why a natural hierarchy of economic achievement exists between blacks and other groups. I wish this gap did not exist, and I fear that its existence will feed the theories of those who wish to relegate blacks to a lower social caste and help them justify racial hate.

But regardless of what I personally want, the gap is real and should be acknowledged, so that those who are less cognitively gifted can be steered into trade schools or jobs where they have a chance to support themselves and succeed. (There are millions of blacks who are above this 85 IQ average, and everyone should be allowed to rise as high as he can in society as long as it is by his own efforts and talents.)

The important thing to note, however, is that racial quotas and laws based on the assumption of IQ parity are built on a false premise that cause far more harm to the private sector than they do good. So the EEOC and affirmative action should be dismissed and done away with ASAP.

2. The belief that when blacks fail, it is white people's fault is highly prevalent throughout social thinking today. This is another false premise that actually keeps blacks in failure by providing them with a built-in excuse for not trying in the first place. This premise must be openly discussed and widely rejected, and all races will benefit as a result.

3. We must address the problems of the black underclass, e.g., their soaring crime, welfare, and illegitimacy rates. Possible solutions would involve a more aggressive crime prevention program (this can only come about when the real problems are openly discussed and understood by society as a whole, instead of repressed as they are now); radical welfare reform, including phasing out chronic recipients off the program over a relatively short period of time, say two years; not paying for more illegitimate babies and even requiring voluntary birth control in order to stay on the program; and a major shift in public attitudes that holds the dysfunctional personally accountable for their own failures instead of giving them a built-in excuse.

Sorry to ramble on for so long, but this problem really interests me.

Gary Waltrip

[Editor's note: Waltrip obviously understands a lot of things well. He can conceive of blacks as a group when it comes to intelligence, but believes it immoral to acknowledge them as a group when it comes to citizenship, voting, or social standing. So, he's calling for an honest dialogue on race, but in his mind, the legal ramifications of the dialogue can only end with one result and system, the ones we presently have.

-- Dennis Wheeler]

#27.

From Jason Russo to Gary Waltrip.

July 28, 1996

Gary,

Your anger and flame are well appreciated and well directed!!! It appears that years of Yankee's telling us that we are bigots has some believing that's what it means to be Southern. How wrong they are!! There is a big difference of having a culturally Southern South, and a Racially pure south. It used to be when an immigrant came to Ellis Island in New York, they changed their names to American names, they learned to speak the language quickly. It was all important to become an American and to adopt American Culture, to go to Yankee stadium and eat a hot dog.

The South is no different, someone coming to the South, adopting Southern Culture will only add to our own. What those individuals bring with them will add to the diversity of our Southern Culture. Heck, I would hate to see an entire strip mall of nothing but Southern Cookin'. Sure it would be great for a while, but what do you do when you get to craving some Korean BBQ, or Italian food, French food, or Chinese food.

It would be a silly sight to go into Billy Ray's Chinese food stop and order some Kung Pau Chicken from Billy Ray in overalls and a John Deer hat.

We need diversity, and not just for ethnic restaurants, and just because their is diversity does not mean that Southern Culture will be in jeopardy. I will be honest, the only animosity that I have towards a particular group of people are the Cubans who are invading Florida, and the Mexican's who are invading Texas. The reason is that these individuals have no desire to become American let alone Southern. They come not to add to our society, but to create their own, an invasion force to extend the boundaries of Cuba and Mexico.

Now this does not mean that I hold animosity towards individual Cuban's or Mexican's who are willing to become Americans, and hopefully Southerners. Because they would be adding to our society not taking away.

That is the key, accept those who wish to add to, reject those who come to take away. This is true whether they are Yankee's coming to our Southern Cities to recreate a Yankee slum, or Cubans who wish to create an entire nation in exile in South Florida. They have come to take away.

However, an individual can be Malaysian, Afghani, or Sudanese, and if they wish to adopt Southern Culture, I would more than welcome them in, Buddhist, Muslim and all. I must say that would be a sight, an arab with a pickup truck and battle flag, with an Arabic-Southern twang. Hey it's possible! and that is what should be great about the South.

Your Humble Servant,

Jason

[Editor's note: Here's the first mention of the concept that true Southern nationalists are exactly what the Yankees have characterized them as -- racists and bigots. You will see it appear several more times. The truth is that those making these claims have actually accepted the first principal of abolitionism -- that all governments must grant equal political and social treatment to all people living within its borders or be racists, bigots, and hate-mongers. And once having agreed with the South's enemies on this essential premise, they are left with no choice except to call us the same names the abolitionists do. -- Dennis Wheeler]

#28.

From David Rockett to all.

Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1996 10:55:14 0500

From: David Rockett <steward@mail.bayou.com

Subject: Re: Is Race alone the definition of a "nation?"

First of all, I believe that my friend George Kalas's enunciation of the SL qualified 'open-door' policy is right though possibly overreacting to my friend Dennis Wheeler's first post. As applied to Dennis's question concerning the power of the voting 'franchise', I think this is somewhat easy. The SL will not use race an a sole reason to deny voting rights.

After a future secession I suppose that States would retain their original constitutional right to restrict 'voting' however they wish which foretells some diversity among the states (assuming the states desire some form or new confederation). Though neither George nor Dennis have said, Dennis seems to imply that race alone would/should be reason enough to deny voting rights. George and I disagree with this making 'other' criteria central (literacy, property, Christian profession like Apostles Creed, vouched by three references, etc., etc....).

Secondly, I think we need to beware of emotional reactions to posts on the LS simply because they rub us uncomfortably. It could be we have not understood well or that we think too highly of our opinion as to what will 'destroy our cause' and what helps. There seem to be far too much concern with what our enemies and the media might or might not be able to do with our post. This of course does NOT mean we shouldn't be careful and clear. However, for example, an essentially 'segregationist' position on race is neither hostile, mean-spirited or white supremacists. Faharrakan is an open segregationists. We too often fear what our enemies 'might use against us' when in reality, THAT very thing will do us the most good. (Note: President Michael Hill confesses that the 'Bad Press' we've gotten has helped GREATLY!) Yet 'conservative candidates are often persuaded by their 'advisors' to 'go soft on abortion, sodomites, guns, states rights, welfare, immigration, foreign aid, Christianity' anything their enemies might use against them.)

IF we buy the logic of avoiding anything that our enemies or 'the media might use against us' we say and do nothing publicly. Obviously, given our books, post and membership in The Southern League we DON'T do this. So, do we really believe our books etc. have not, and will not be use to brand us, and ANYONE who agrees with us 'homophobic, racist, reactionary DANGEROUS bigots'? Of course they have and will increasingly so IF we are seen as a THREAT. We in The Southern League need to learn this VERY EARLY. IF we are EVER perceived as a real threat to the political status quo, and that our TALK of secession is serious WE WILL BE VILIFIED AS THE WORST UNPATRIOTIC SCUM AND THREAT TO THE NATION. What they attempted to do to Buchanan will look like child's play IF we are taken seriously. (Notice that the Atlanta bomb has already been used to vilify 'militia and patriot groups.') Fact is, this only hurt us with liberal enemies we already had while FLUSHING OUT OUR SUPPORTERS!

A few have rebuked me for writing a 'politically incorrect' method of HOW secession might be defended from aggression just as anyone might train their wife and daughters HOW to shoot dead a rapist or burglar. Both are DEFENSIVE positions which do NOT embarrass me. And, IF our forefathers did what was indeed RIGHT (shooting Yankees) they should not embarrass ANY southerner.

I'm less and less concerned with how we are portrayed by enemies who can and will slander us and our cause. I'm FAR more concerned with laying out the PLAUSIBILITY of secession in time and history so that compatriots and potential compatriots will join us with zeal and expectation for a REAL future which will surely have REAL HOT enemies who say mean things about us.

By the way I was told repeatedly five years ago by many that my open talk about PEACEFUL SECESSION was subversive, illegal, foolish and played into the hands or our enemies who could easily make us look kooky. Some might even remember this was the opinion of SEVERAL at the Tuscaloosa and Nashville meetings of The Southern League. Today, just a few years later MANY talk openly and BOLDLY about a future secession without a worry about how our enemies MIGHT use it to destroy everything we have done thus far.

In Him......For a Christian & Independent LOUISIANA,

David E. Rockett

[Editor's note: I was always of the opinion that David placed too much emphasis on finding a procedural answer to the ethnic/

national/racial dilemma. The Old South wasn't made great by state's rights, although state's rights enabled the Southerners of old to keep that which they had established. And how did it do this? By denying the voting franchise to the Africans among them who were not able to build such a grand society. -- Dennis Wheeler]

#29.

From Glenn Ferrell to all.

July 29, 1996

I have a friend, lets call him John, who is a missionary in a very dangerous and "closed" middle-eastern country. John is there to take the gospel to the Kurdish people. Until a very short time ago, there was no church among this third largest "Moslem" people group. Now, there are several "fellowships" meeting in Kurdistan with Kurdish leadership. When a Kurd comes to faith in Jesus Christ, John rejoices. Not because he is a racist or believes that the Kurds or Kurdish culture is superior to or equal with any other people or culture. Nor because John is seeking to enlist a "token" minority or reach some affirmative action quota of Kurds in the Christian church. John rejoices because of the promise of the God of Abraham that "in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed." (Gen. 12:3)

God has a plan for all the nations and cultures of the earth. Not only to Abraham was this plan revealed. Isaiah said of Israel: "Also the sons of the foreigner who join themselves to the LORD, to serve Him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be His servants ... even them I will bring to My holy mountain and make them joyful in My house of prayer." (Isa 56:6,7) God promised to make Israel "a light to the Gentiles (nations)." (Isa. 49:6)

Nor is this just some Old Testament idea. Jesus commands the post-resurrection Church to "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you...." (Matt. 28:19,20) The Greek word for nations here is "ethnee" from which we get the word ethnic. Therefore, nation did not have the modern meaning of the word. It means what we today call "people groups" like the Kurds, Turks, Arabs, Cherokee, Jews, Irish, etc.

And the plan will be successful. In the book of Revelation, before the throne of God, we find gathered a multitude "out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation," (Rev. 5:9). Ultimately, the prayer He taught us to pray that 'His Kingdom might come and His will be done on earth as in heaven' is answered.

I am a member of the Southern League because I believe that the Confederate States of America and Southern Christian culture has historically been a vehicle for God's blessing of all the families of the earth. I believe it still has the capacity to be such. I am not an "egalitarian". All cultures and peoples are not equal. Nor do I believe that our genetic connection to a particular ethnic group makes any of us superior. The Celtic, Iberian, Anglo-Saxon, Viking and Germanic ancestors of most of us were once part of a depraved pagan culture in covenant with demonic gods. Even after the coming of Christianity, Scottish and Irish culture was among the most primitive in Europe until the Reformation. It is the truth of God's Word that transforms and lifts any people, that takes what is best among each people and uses it for the glory of God and the blessings of all peoples. If the Southern League is simply a worship of some Anglo-Celtic ethnic "totem" or some pantheon of "tribal ancestors", we are no better than the most primitive pagan peoples or Nazi pagans, in need of conversion.

All cultures are not equal. Some have been impregnated with and transformed by the Word of God. All individuals within a culture are not equal. Some have been "made ... alive ... with Christ" and are in covenant with the living God; some are "sons of disobedience" and "children of [God's] wrath" dead in trespasses and sins" serving the "prince of the power of the air" (Eph. 2:4,1,2).

Some peoples and nations are in a covenant relationship with the God of Abraham and Jesus and are therefore a blessing to all the families of the earth. All cultures are not equal, some are superior, but neither is any culture or people the standard by which any other is judged. All cultures and peoples and nations are judged by God's revealed Word and the Word Himself, Jesus Christ, the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords. Anything less is idolatry and is subject to the judgement of Almighty God.

I appreciate the responses of many on this listserver, who seem to affirm what I had believed to be the purpose of the Southern League. A few posts have disturbed me. Some seem to be worshipping some strange pagan Anglo-Celtic racial tribal god. If we are not a vehicle to bring God's dominion into this world, teaching the nations (people groups, races, tribes and languages) to obey His will and submit to His Son, if we are not in accord with his revealed plan for the culmination of history, we are wasting our time.

My concern is not that the Southern League will be diluted by the inclusion of persons of African, Hispanic, Asian, or Jewish ancestry. My concern is that we might be diluted by pagan racists who worship this strange tribal god. If I have missed the purpose of the Southern League, let someone in authority tell me that I am mistaken and I will resign my membership immediately. Otherwise, I remain...

Your Most Obedient and Humble Servant;

J. Glenn Ferrell

[Editor's note: Glenn's argument is sound throughout, but his conclusion is mistaken. He acknowledges all the components of nationhood, but he doesn't acknowledge the Creation-order of separate peoples and separate nations. This leads him to an unstated conclusion upon which his stated conclusion is based. The unstated conclusion is that acceptance into the kingdom is tantamount to acceptance into the nation. Logically then, any Christian is welcome into America, the South, and the Southern League. -- Dennis Wheeler]

#30.

From Dennis Wheeler to Glenn Ferrell.

July 30, 1996

Glenn,

I appreciate your efforts to build Biblical positions on both interethnic marriage and nationhood. I do, however, think that your conclusion has opened the door to sinister persons advancing a gross error.

First, comparing and contrasting "covenant" to "genetics" does not seem to me to be comparing apples to apples. The salvation covenant has been extended to all peoples and nations, but the two words do not express similar concepts, nor is it necessary for a people to be a part of the covenant to be a nation or possess nationhood. For instance, the Japanese people comprise the Japanese nation, but the overwhelming majority of them have not embraced God's covenant. The same can be said for most nations in the world.

Nationhood is not a matter of faith or belief, as a nation can embrace many different belief systems. If nationhood did depend on faith or belief, then the nations of the earth would be called Christendom, Judaism, Islam, Shinto-land, etc. And when a person converted from one belief system to another, he would become part of the nation that shared his belief system.

The Bible advances the concept of a nation being a matter of blood from Genesis to Revelation. In Genesis 910, where we read the account of the time when God divided mankind into separate nations, we see the phrase "every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations" used over and over again. The division that God made of mankind concerning social relations is an ethnic division, not an ethical division.

A German is easy to identify. So is a Korean, a Chinese, or a Scot. These nations exist. The Southern nation also exists. It too is an ethnic entity. Most Southerners do not agree with me on a great many important matters, but that doesn't change the fact that we are of the same people and belong to the same nation.

Like electricity, I may not be able to give a binding definition of the Southern nation and the Southern people. But I can describe them and I know they exist. Our existence as Southerners does not depend on us all holding like beliefs; it depends on our blood relation to one another.

Much talk goes on in the SL about secession. I hope it occurs and the sooner the better. But secession cannot be based on ideas; it must be based on blood. Otherwise, by logical extension anyone in the new nation could secede, and be perfectly legitimate, by simply developing a different belief system from the majority.

As I see it, the only defensible position for the SL to take is that the Southern people have a God-given right to self-determination in their own land free from outside interference, and although that right was denied to them 130 years ago by tyranny and murder, the right still exists and we demand that Washington allow us to exercise it. This right to self-determination is expressed in the United Nations Charter and virtually every other international agreement that bears upon the subject of nationhood. We are one people with one flag, one history, and one glorious future.

In my mind, any other position has too many holes in it to possibly succeed.

The position I have outlined is essentially that taken by the French Canadians. They stress their differences with those around them, not their similarities. And they have come within an eyelash of gaining the independence they want or forcing the English Canadians to resort to tyranny and murder to hold them.

The popular perspective that I have heard many SLers advance that we are citizens under the U.S. Constitution who believe in states rights, limited government, decentralized government, and a few other items, and we demand the right to secede from the United States has about as much chance of success as a guy trying to hold back the incoming tide with a broom, in my view.

Let me hear from you'll.

Dennis Wheeler

#31.From Dennis Wheeler to all on the Listserver.

August 5, 1996

Note: Philip-Underwood Sheppard had posted a message that contained an article he had clipped. That article brought attention to the ramifications of the trend of countries breaking down into their ethnic components that is currently sweeping the globe. This post is my response to Philip's previous post:

I'm glad to see articles like "Is the United States Beginning to Break Up?" appear on the listserver. This is right in line with the ideas I have been putting out. I'm also glad to see the article evoke such a positive response. Perhaps the author has said things better than me.

Two paragraphs are very important.

A quote from the article:

First: "Why would the U.S. break up? Two reasons. First, the demographic forces similar to those which have torn Bosnia asunder, and are threatening Serbia, are present in the U.S., too. Second, a technological revolution is under way which will accelerate the process, and will forever change the way we think and work. There is only one kind of a country which is secession-proof. It's a homogeneous single ethnic state. The U.S. isn't it."

My comments:

Integration has set the peoples of the United States at each other's throats. Race relations are at an all-time low in America. The Southerners who fought the Union in the Civil War knew that [would happen]. So did the Southerners who fought the Civil Rights Movement. by comparison, homogeneous, single ethnic states enjoy rather peaceful civil relations.

A second quote from the article:

Second: "Bosnia is also 50+ years ahead of the U.S. because our country is certain to disintegrate along racial or ethnic lines as Bosnia did. Professor Samuel Huntington predicted in his 1993 essay "Clash of Civilizations," published in FOREIGN POLICY, that the next world war or a major regional conflict will be a clash of civilizations, not ideologies (e.g., communism vs. democracy; or fascism vs. all)."

My comments:

This is also a point I've been trying to make: Ethnicity is the key component in a society, not ideology. There are millions of Southerners who disagree with the Southern League. That does not diminish their being Southerners in the least.

The breakup of the U.S. will be primarily an ethnic break up. Those that want secession and an independent South, will strike the Union where it is most vulnerable, at its achilles heal and that is on the point of integration.

Without ethnic integration, we'd have no huge quarrel with Washington because we would have control of our political destiny. But it's integration that has stripped that control away from us and turned the U.S. into a country in which we and our ideals are foreign. But integration is now working to Washington's destruction, just like it did in Yugoslavia. Our strength comes in our solidarity, not our inclusiveness. Even our opponents are beginning to see this.

Dennis Wheeler

#32.

From Dennis Wheeler to Jeff Quinton.

August 5, 1996

Jeff,

Thank you for the response. I'm glad free men can have disagreements. And I really must disagree with you that a color-blind society is an admirable goal. This is contrary to God's World Order as expressed in the Bible (Genesis 9 and 10 and many other places). This means that those who work for a color blind society are arraying themselves against the societal order of separate peoples and nations that God has imposed on the world.

A color-blind society is therefore impossible because nothing can thwart the plan of Gold. Attempts at a color-blind society tend towards malice, mayhem, and murder and are therefore a violation of the sixth commandment, Thou shalt not kill.

Dabney was quite aware of this. He wrote: "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."

I'm sorry, friend, I don't think there will be a color-blind society. You seem to disagree and have even taken matters one step further; you call all those who oppose a color blind society racists.

I would like you to consider and explain how your perspective differs from that of Martin Luther King, the Massachusetts Kennedys, Morris Dees, Andrew Young, ACOG, or any of the other enemies of the South.

In fact, I would assert that the reason ACOG forbade the flying of the Battle Flag at Olympic events is because they rightly understood that it is one flag which stands foursquare against a color-blind society. I would invite you to show me how I've misunderstood you or explain how you can believe we have a right to fly the flag, but also believe that those who believe the ideals the flag stands for are exactly what their enemies say they are racists.

As for Bosnia, let me say that regardless of the problems those peoples have visited on one another in past ages, the present trouble is caused by the communist imposition of a color- blind society. Once the communists were gone and no longer able to impose this state of affairs, the peoples began doing what peoples always do, fighting for their own homeland where they can

rule themselves unimpeded by others.

As I understand it, the length of time involved, whether it be 50 years or 1,300 years, is not important. It's the principle that's important. Segregation brings peace and integration brings war. And as the Lord Jesus Christ stated: Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the sons of God. Dennis Wheeler

#33.

From Gary Waltrip to Dennis Wheeler.

August 5, 1996

Gary begins with a quote by Dennis from a previous post written to Jeff Quinton:

In a message dated 960806 09:42:25 EDT, you write: "Dabney was quite aware of this. [He wrote] `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.'

"I'm sorry, friend, I don't think there will be a color- blind society. You seem to disagree and have even taken matters one step further; you call all those who oppose a color-blind society racists."

Gary's response:

Well Dennis, in your case the description seems to fit. The word "racist" is over used by the liberals and is often a smear word to stifle debate and intimidate the opposition into silence. However, there are real racists too, and we must not lose sight of that fact.

All kinds of evil things have been "justified" by someone's interpretation of the Bible. As Pat Buchanan once wrote in one of his columns, "many evil things have been done under the cross of Christ." (or words to that effect).

I would be interested in hearing your proposed scenario for accomplishing your goal of a non-color-blind society. Do you plan to reinstitute segregation? Ban blacks from restaurants? Reinstitute separate drinking fountains, public bathrooms? Make them sit in the back of the bus? What about Jews, Asians, Hispanics and others not blessed with pastel pink epidermis? What will you do with them? How will you square this with the Constitution, or do you plan to do away with that, too?

Come on, Dennis. If your views are right, then surely you aren't ashamed to tell us what they are.

Gary Waltrip

[Editor's note: The course of this debate will demonstrate how that Gary Waltrip holds a great many ideals in common with modern liberals. Here he shows at least two of them. (1) He believes in the myth of the color-blind society. (2) He believes the U.S. Constitution sanctions a color-blind society. -- Dennis Wheeler]

#34.

From: George Kalas to Harris Ford.

Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 01:15:56 0400

George called me a white separatist and Harris asked him what he meant by that.

Well, let's see I had foolishly supposed that the term would be pretty self-explanatory. (Guess not...) Here's a reasonable definition:

(1) You gotta be white.

(2) You gotta favour the separation of the races.

Based upon this simple logic, I'd say that Mr. Wheeler seems to meet that criteria if his own postings are to be taken at face value.

What's *your* definition of a white separatist? Also, I'm curious why you wanted to know mine?

Cordially,

George Kalas

DixieNet

#35.

From: George Kalas to Dennis Wheeler.

Date: Wed, 07 Aug 1996 22:00:37 0400

Here George responded to a post I sent to Gary Waltrip:

Dennis,

I agree with most everything you've said below, but I think you make a huge mistake when you take these very broad complaints regarding the genuine evils of forced integration and the Civil Rights laws and then offer as a solution the opposite extreme by proposing the reinstitution of forced, state sponsored segregation. If the races tend to segregate themselves in the absence of government intervention, (and I agree with you that they do), then we should just remove government entirely from the picture of race relations.

That's what we mean around here when we talk about establishing a color-blind society. Such a society would vastly ameliorate the evils of liberal racial social engineering.

Now, let's refocus this thread back upon the statements you made that started this debate. My disagreement with your line of thought is that you seem to have a genuine problem with admitting blacks, Hispanics, Jews, etc. into the SL's ranks and you've yet to justify why we should deny membership to persons from these backgrounds who wholeheartedly embrace our culture and our cause. That is the *specific* bone of contention here and I'd like to hear you address it specifically without going off on a tangent about liberal race-based laws that we all mutually abhor and that have nothing to do with the question at hand.

Cordially,

George Kalas

Dixienet

[Editor's note: The problem with George's statements is that his concept of a color-blind society is predicated on the government being taken out of the picture. This is not possible because at all times the government must be enforcing some law in regards to the different peoples under its supervision. The issue boils down to one of freedom of association. Prior to 1965, the Southern people had this freedom. But they had it only because they held political supremacy over their internal affairs. The government's law allowed them to do that. The Civil Rights Act took that freedom away from us. And as long as the blacks and others are allowed to vote in elections that determine the laws we live under, then I see no chance of the Civil Rights Act being repealed.

Therefore I see myself as advocating a policy that will return freedom of association to the Southern people and George advocating a policy that will preserve the status quo. -- Dennis Wheeler]

#36.

From Dennis Wheeler to George Kalas.

August 9, 1996

George,

Thank you for stating you agree with almost everything I said. It is a great step forward to lower the decibel level in this debate. I don't want to split hairs or disagree to be disagreeable, but I don't believe that you have accurately portrayed me position correctly concerning other peoples joining the SL. In fact, I believe we've held this same discussion before because in a post dated 7/23, I wrote this to you: "There's nothing in anything I said that could lead you to this conclusion [that I believed the SL should be a `whites only,' `white supremacist' organization], 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."

I guess I am confusing the SL with the Southern nation in this statement. And that may be what caused a lot of the contention. From my point of view, the Southern League has yet to define its goal or goals in concrete terms. I've seen it written: "The Southern League seeks to advance the cultural, social, economic, and political well-being and independence of the Southern people by all honorable means." This is what the Statement of Purpose that I received in Montgomery says.

I have tried to get defined for me what the term "Southern people" means. Every attempt at a definition of "us" that I have made has been met with a virtual firestorm on this listserver. I don't mind being shown where I am wrong, but I have been told that I am not only wrong, but evil as well.

You and others have also posted definitions of what the term "Southern people" means. But I have found fault with various aspects of these and have posted my objections. I have tried to steer clear of name-calling and vindictive denunciations of those who disagree with me. And I have also never doubted the sincere motives of my opponents.

But the dilemma here is that when I say the Southern people is an ethnic group of Northern European descendants of the ScotchIrish and Cavaliers who had ancestors here during the Civil War, you and others belief that is too narrow. (And maybe it is.) Then when someone says it is" anyone who agrees with us regardless of race or creed," then I say that's too broad. I get called a racist for my position and I say your position is too close the United Nations position of a unified world.

Where the debate goes next, I don't know. But I do know it has to be settled. As I see it, this is similar to the debate held in Israel some years ago as to who is, and who is not, a Jew.

Also, when Latvia attained independence from the Soviet Union five years ago, they had a big problem: because of the communist program of Russification sending Russians to live in the occupied nations 53% of the people who lived in Latvia weren't Latvians. So they had a similar dilemma to wrestle with.

This is a lot of fun, but it's also a very serious game.

Dennis Wheeler

#37.

From David Rockett to all.

Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 10:28:25 0500

From: David Rockett <steward@mail.bayou.com

Subject: Creation, Nationhood & Racism

To All,

Dennis Wheeler's use of R.L. Dabney and Scripture to bolster his view is (IMO) partly right, partly wrong (imagine that!), and terribly applied. Obviously, part of God's Creation ordinance is variation within kinds, which includes most ANY category of the created order. To deny or ignore this is foolish. It is also foolish to assume that this Creational Diversity offensive and should be bred OUT of Creation by amalgamation. Creation, in all its diversity and complexity is gloriously wonderful and awesome. Richard Weaver said the Agrarian mind historically enjoyed a relaxed and contented Piety by resting in humility before the Created order. In this man is a Steward of property not absolutely 'his' a Gardener and Husband of Creation. (NOT an Industrial Rapist and Exploiter note the connection between the Agrarian and Marriage analogies.)

If Dennis were only taking this Creational reality and pointing out the overwhelming evidence that similar 'kinds' prefer their own 'kind', that also would be fine. Even in the most liberal northeast yankee college settings (where children have been manipulated and propagandised from birth) bleeding- heart professors bewail the stark segregation in the student centers and cafeterias. Thus, interracial marriages have and historically will be the EXCEPTION to the rule (probabaly less than 5%).

But Dennis is ABUSING (IMO) Dabney's quote and Scriptures' Creational diversity to presume a HOSTILITY between kinds. This is simply false. Dabney was only stating a current historic reality existing within the Yankee, secularist framework of the late 1800s, and proved himself a wise prophet again. Dennis also assumes falsely that race or ethnicity is the Only or Primary division among men thus ignoring Language and FAITH. Common Faith, language and cultural heritage can largely ameliorate racial differences. Thus, Dennis's partly-christian premise becomes foolishly anti-Christian, distorted at its presuppositional foundation which he then misapplies.

The Old South was perhaps the MOST INTEGRATED society that ever existed. But it was English speaking and dominated by Anglo-Celtic Protestant CHRISTIANITY as a cultural heritage. AND, it was HAPPY before Yankee Unitarian Abolitionists agitators took power over all in Reconstruction! It should be noted that this cultural 'inclusion/integration' did NOT presume 'Equality' or 'Voting Rights' neither did it for WHITES! Irresponsible, non-Christian Celts did NOT vote, rule or exercise ANY power. If Dennis is to establish voting rights and privileges strictly upon race (which I think he's implied), where will he draw the line? Should Asians, Arabs, Eskimos, Germans, Italians, Jews, Indians (both kinds!) be denied SL membership despite how responsibly Christian and zealous for our cause they are? Here we have a bad application of a distorted principle BOTH ANTI-CHRISTIAN. Faith, and responsible fidelity to cultural heritage must not be swallowed up by a convoluted racial hairsplitting. Our current open-door membership policy, with the duty to expulsion for moral and principled reasons, is far and away the best policy.

In Him.........For a Christian and Independent LOUISIANA,

David E. Rockett

PS. None of this, of course, argues FOR our gloating publicly (like self-righteous politically correct media and liberal/conservative proud of their 'Tokens') over new ethnic or racial members. This also is embarrassingly silly and wins us nothing but perhaps amusing contempt.

[Editor's note: Here David introduces the antebellum South as a multi-ethnic paradise. His perspective is that the divisions the laws of that era imposed were not racial in reality, but moral. By calling the Old South "most integrated society that ever existed," he is changing the meaning of the word "integrated" as it has been used in America for many, many decades, if not centuries.

To call the Old South integrated is like calling South Africa when governed under the apartheid laws integrated. In apartheid-South Africa as in the Old South, blacks and whites lived together within the boundaries governed by a single government. They worked in proximity to one another in a multitude of areas. But to say the country was integrated uses the word integrated in a very befuddling manner. In my opinion, it just doesn't wash.]

#38.

From Dennis Wheeler to David Rockett.

August 12, 1996

David,

In a post dated 8/8, you wrote:

(1) "But Dennis is ABUSING (IMO) Dabney's quote and Scriptures' Creational diversity to presume a HOSTILITY between kinds. This is simply false. Dabney was only stating a current historic reality existing within the Yankee, secularist framework of the late 1800s, and proved himself a wise prophet again"

I can't agree that Dabney was "only stating a current historic reality." He used the word "always." and I see no reason to believe he meant anything else. To hold that Dabney is to be interpreted "within the Yankee, secularist framework of the late 1800s" is to forego passing judgement on the merits of his argument and excuse him as a victim of his times. Dabney stated: " 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."

History had showed this up to his time, and history has continued to show it since his time Bosnia, Canada, Burundi, the former Soviet Union, India, America, etc. To say that Dabney meant anything other than what he said is to practice a form of historical revisionism, thereby excusing yourself from the responsibility of holding that Dabney was either right or that he was wrong. But that's how it is: either he was right or he was wrong. And either the Southern society that was based upon his premise was right or it was wrong. And therefore the condemnation of the South by Martin Luther King and his civil rights cohorts is either right or it is wrong.

I say that Dabney was right and that Southern society from that time until the Civil Rights War of the 1960s was ordered to show an agreement with the rightness of his statement. In fact, the awful condition the South finds itself in today, with murder, theft, adultery, and blasphemy abounding, is a result of those policies the North intended to push onto the South after the Civil War. Dabney discovered a way to defeat their scheme and thus postponed the destruction of Southern society and the Southern people for almost 100 years. The man is to be applauded, not relegated to some file of irrelevancy; not revised and watered-down to show him a victim of his times.

(2) You also raised the point: "Dennis also assumes falsely that race or ethnicity is the Only or Primary division among men thus ignoring Language and FAITH. Common Faith, language and cultural heritage can largely ameliorate racial differences."

I'm not sure what you mean by "Primary division," but I do know that the primary division God made between men when He separated them into nations in Genesis 10 and 11, was language. I also know that this linguistic difference was not merely a difference of the lips and speech organs, in which the different nations conceived of things the same but pronounced similar ideas with different diction. The linguistic difference went all the way to the mind. Each people had a distinct manner of conception, not merely distinct conceptions. We still see that plainly evident today.

After the Tower of Babel, people of like language had to organize into separate groups. The most probable way that these groups developed into nations was that because of the necessarily small breeding pool, genetic traits of similar physical characteristics were rapidly bred into each people and complemented their God-given similar mental characteristics.

FAITH is never spoken of in Scripture as a societal organizer, in the primary sense. It is at most a secondary organizer. And even this is debatable. For instance, in Old Testament Israel, different peoples could come into, and become a part of, the nation on the basis of faith. But it took from three to ten generations before their descendants were incorporated as "full" citizens, depending on the debauchery of the nation they came from.

Also, the Great Commission envisioned taking the gospel to the nations which already existed; not getting Christians of different nations to come together and form a new nation based on their common faith.

(3) Your next point was: "The Old South was perhaps the MOST INTEGRATED society that ever existed. But it was English speaking and dominated by Anglo-Celtic Protestant CHRISTIANITY as a cultural heritage. AND, it was HAPPY before Yankee Unitarian Abolitionists agitators took power over all in Reconstruction! It should be noted that this cultural 'inclusion/integration' did NOT presume 'Equality' or 'Voting Rights' neither did it for WHITES! Irresponsible, non-Christian Celts did NOT vote, rule or exercise ANY power. If Dennis is to establish voting rights and privileges strictly upon race (which I think he's implied), where will he draw the line? Should Asians, Arabs, Eskimos, Germans, Italians, Jews, Indians (both kinds!) be denied SL membership despite how responsibly Christian and zealous for our cause they are? Here we have a bad application of a distorted principle BOTH ANTI-CHRISTIAN. Faith, and responsible fidelity to cultural heritage must not be swallowed up by a convoluted racial hairsplitting. Our current open-door membership policy, with the duty to expulsion for moral and principled reasons, is far and away the best policy."

I'll agree that establishing voting rights is a problem. But a decision on that is a long way down the road. But assuming for a moment that the South does gain independence from Washington, then I'd say that all sides will have a problem with this. You describe the Old South as "English speaking and dominated by Anglo-Celtic Protestant Christianity as a cultural heritage." With that in mind, let me say that allowing a few Asians, Arabs, Eskimos, Germans, Italians, Jews, and Indians to vote could occur without threatening your description of the Old South. But if too many are allowed to vote, then it will no longer be "English speaking and dominated by Anglo-Celtic Protestant Christianity as a cultural heritage."

I say this because the English language and AngloCeltic culture are not products of the Christian religion; they are products of the Anglo-Celtic people or peoples. Inclusion of too many outsiders effectively destroys what we are. Culture must by definition be exclusive, otherwise it isn't culture, it's anti-culture.

Richard Weaver stated it this way: "Culture reflects different regions and varying kinds of historical endowment. But the decisive thing is the work of the spirit, which always operates positively by transfiguring and excluding. It is of the essence of culture to feel its own imperative and to believe in the uniqueness of its worth. In doing so, it has to reject others which are objectively just as good, yet for it, irrelevant. Syncretistic cultures like syncretistic religions have always proved relatively powerless to create and to influence; there is no weight of authentic history behind them. The very concept of eclectic culture derives from an inappropriate analogy which suggests that a plurality can be greater than one. Culture derives its very desire to continue from its unitariness."

Perhaps it is true that "faith and responsible fidelity to cultural heritage must not be swallowed up by a convoluted racial hairsplitting," but what we must hammer out is an answer to the question, "What is convoluted racial hairsplitting and what is legitimate definition and protection of Southern culture?"

In conclusion, I'll have to disagree with you that I have misapplied any of Dabney's teachings and will assert that you have revised Dabney and thus rendered him irrelevant for today on this point. I'll also have to disagree with you that I have implied a hostility between kinds. I have agreed with Dabney and the consensus of Southerners up to the present that it is the integration of peoples that God has segregated that causes the hostility.

I look forward to your answer.

Dennis Wheeler

#39.

From Dennis Wheeler to Gary Waltrip:

From: jessej <dennisw@atl.mindspring.com

Date: Wed, 07 Aug 1996 22:00:37 0400

Subject: Re: Is America Starting to Break Up?

Gary,

I am curious to know which of my statements lead you to conclude I am a racist. You made no case for the name calling. I think I accurately demonstrated that my beliefs are the same as Dabney's, who was (1) Stonewall Jackson's chief of staff, (2) the man who preached Stonewall Jackson's funeral, (3) the man asked by Jackson's family to compile and write his life story, (4) the greatest theologian and prophet in American or Southern history, (5) the man who the Southern people most took their advice concerning how to survive under occupation after the war, and (6) the epitome of what a Southerner is.

I am in complete congruence with him. My ideas have an historical tie with the Southern people of ages past and today.

As for recreating a non-color-blind society, that doesn't have to be done since a non-color-blind society has never existed and will never exist. Integration is an artificial construction imposed on a society. It had to be forced on the Southern people in the schools, in the neighborhoods, and in the workplace.

In a recent Time magazine article, wherein the liberals were asked to explain the failure of their racial policies, their only regret was that they were not more authoritarian and totalitarian in forcing integration on the South. Seems they left too many loopholes for Southerners to slip through.

As the old adage says, "Birds of a feather, flock together." People tend to segregate where they are allowed to freely associate and disassociate with one another. It's perfectly natural. Just look at the churches. CNN recently ran a tv article about how Sunday morning at 11AM was the most segregated hour in the American week. This is because the government has made no attempt to forcibly integrate the churches.

As for what kind of society I envision, the cartoonish policies you suggested served their purpose in their day they protected and preserved the Southern nation and Southern culture from the African-Americans. But that day is now over and the only tool at our disposal, until Washington collapses, is what is called "White Flight." Southerners by the millions have employed this tactic, walking off from hundreds of millions of dollars worth of houses, schools, businesses, and churches, just so they could sustain their cultural identity . We'll see what Washington's next step will be.

What we need to do now is to work for the repeal of the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, all minority set-asides, quotas, and programs of affirmative action. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 imposed an alien conception of civil rights onto an Anglo-Saxon culture. This new ideology violated our long cherished, tenaciously held concept of civil liberties. Our common law taught us that as long as a man was left in tact in life, and limb, and property, in all his dealings, he had suffered no injustice. But the new civil rights law teaches that if a man is denied some hypothetical benefit, the person denying him that benefit has committed an injustice.

For instance, under the common law if I don't want to sell something to you, buy something from you, hire you, or be around you, then I have done you no wrong because you are left with everything you had before you came into contact with me. But under the civil rights law, my refusal to deal with you becomes a crime.

The Southerner must sell his house to an African-American. He must hire them to work in his shop. His refusal to do so is now a criminal act. He must dispose of his property and order his affairs in ways that he does not perceive to be in his best interest. This places the Southerner in bondage to the perceived benefit of the African-American. The Lord Jesus Christ asked: "Is it not right for a man to do what he will with his own?"

But the Civil Rights Act has taken this right away from the Southerner and is therefore a violation of the eighth commandment: "Thou shalt not steal."

The Civil Rights Act also makes the government an instigator of coercion in the market place instead of a protector against coercion, which is its rightful function. If I bring a gun into your store and "buy" groceries with it, I have coerced you into giving me those groceries. It's the government's job to prevent me from doing this to you. But under a Civil Rights regime, the government steps into the market place and forces me to perform economic acts I may not perceive to be in my best interest.

Government therefore becomes the real criminal.

So as you can see, the real war for the Southerner today is destroying the Civil Rights movement.

Dennis Wheeler

#40.

From Gary Waltrip to Dennis Wheeler.

August 9, 1996

Gary begins with a quote by Dennis Wheeler from a previous post:

In a message dated 960808 02:16:54 EDT, you write: "I am curious to know which of my statements lead you to conclude I am a racist. You made no case for the name calling."

Gary's answer:

The term "racist" is not name calling if it is accurate. You tell me: are you a racist or not?

Gary gives another quote from Dennis:

"I think I accurately demonstrated that my beliefs are the same as Dabney's, who was (1) Stonewall Jackson's chief of staff, (2) the man who preached Stonewall Jackson's funeral, (3) the man asked by Jackson's family to compile and write his life story, (4) the greatest theologian and prophet in American or Southern history, (5) the man who the Southern people most took their advice concerning how to survive under occupation after the war, and (6) the epitome of what a Southerner is.

"I am in complete congruence with him. My ideas have an historical tie with the Southern people of ages past and today."

Gary's answer:

Some of Dabney's ideas are dated. He lived in a different time. Some of my heroes (like Jefferson Davis) believed in slavery, and in the context of their times, I do not dispute them. However, this is the late 20th century. If we attempted to apply whole-scale segregation to blacks or any other ethnic groups today, we would be laughed out of town in billows of incredulous laughter. We would also be the subjects of some rather intense and probably violent opposition. Politically, a return to such a goal is neither practical nor viable, except to give tremendous ammunition to our opposition.

Gary gives a third quote by Dennis:

"As the old adage says, `Birds of a feather, flock together.' People tend to segregate where they are allowed to freely associate and disassociate with one another. It's perfectly natural. Just look at the churches. CNN recently ran a tv article about how Sunday morning at 11AM was the most segregated hour in the American week. This is because the government has made no attempt to forcibly integrate the churches."

Gary's answer:

I have no problem with voluntary segregation as such that occurs in ethnic neighborhoods, churches and schools. I do not oppose de facto segregation as a matter of freedom of association. I cannot support de jure (legislated) segregation for the reasons described above.

Gary gives a fourth quote from Dennis:

"As for what kind of society I envision, the cartoonish policies you suggested served their purpose in their day they protected and preserved the Southern nation and Southern culture from the AfricanAmericans. But that day is now over and the only tool at our disposal, until Washington collapses, is what is called `White Flight.' Southerners by the millions have employed this tactic, walking off from hundreds of millions of dollars worth of houses, schools, businesses, and churches, just so they could sustain their cultural identity . We'll see what Washington's next step will be."

Gary's answer:

White flight, and also the flight of the black middle class, away from crime and the social pathologies of the black under-class and the growing white underclass is understandable. D'Souza calls it "rational discrimination," of the same sort that taxi drivers practice when, in fear for their lives, they do not pick up shabbily dressed blacks in dangerous parts of town. Again, I have no problem with this, as it merely reflects reality.

Gary gives a fifth quote from Dennis:

"What we need to do now is to work for the repeal of the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, all minority set-asides, quotas, and programs of affirmative action. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 imposed an alien conception of civil rights onto an Anglo-Saxon culture. This new ideology violated our long cherished, tenaciously held concept of civil liberties. Our common law taught us that as long as a man was left in tact in life, and limb, and property, in all his dealings, he had suffered no injustice. But the new civil rights law teaches that if a man is denied some hypothetical benefit, the person denying him that benefit has committed an injustice."

Gary's answer:

I agree with all of this, including the repeal of all civil rights laws, affirmative action, quotas and minority set asides. However, I do not agree that a black man who is responsible and earning an honest living should be forced to live in a segregated neighborhood unless he of his own free will wishes to do so.

Gary gives a sixth quote from Dennis:

"For instance, under the common law if I don't want to sell something to you, buy something from you, hire you, or be around you, then I have done you no wrong because you are left with everything you had before you came into contact with me. But under the civil rights law, my refusal to deal with you becomes a crime."

Gary's answer:

I know all of this, and agree with it. Still, nothing you say here supports the premise that de jure segregation is the answer. I agree with Stanley Burnham, who wrote the book "America's Bimodal Crisis: Black Intelligence In White Society." While recognizing the social pathologies of the black underclass and its terrible burden to society, he does recognize that there are millions of blacks who are intelligent, hard working, and productive; and that they should be allowed to reach whatever station in life that they can through their own talents and ambition. Burnham also rejects a new de jure segregation as the solution to our racial problems.

Gary Waltrip

[Editor's note: Sometimes I wondered what we were arguing about. Gary agreed with a lot of what I had said. The most basic issue at stake was the role of the government in racial and ethnic issues. He truly doesn't believe a government has a right to make laws which protect the Southern people from social and political encroachment by blacks and other non-Southerners in the South.

And, again, the problem with that is, as long as they have the ability to vote in and affect the political dispensation that we live under, then they will use that vote to take what we have away from us. It's that simple.

You can try and construct different tests for political participation, such as intelligence and property ownership. But these are things the Southerners did after the Civil War. These defenses have been stripped away from us by the Civil Rights Act. Gary pretends that we can still defend ourselves from black encroachment even though these defenses have been taken away from us and are not going to return while the government in Washington still stands.

I think I have rightly concluded that until Washington collapses, the only defense we have available to us now is "white flight." Also, in the end, after the many different attempts have been made at determining who should and who should not participate in a certain government, I think that it will be found best to use the one that God instituted at the Tower of Babel, ethnicity. Why try and reinvent the wheel? -- Dennis Wheeler]

#41.

From Dennis Wheeler to Gary Waltrip:

August 10, 1996

In a message dated 8/8, you wrote: "Some of Dabney's ideas are dated. He lived in a different time. Some of my heroes (like Jefferson Davis) believed in slavery, and in the context of their times, I do not dispute them. However, this is the late 20th century. If we attempted to apply wholescale segregation to blacks or any other ethnic groups today, we would be laughed out of town in billows of incredulous laughter. We would also be the subjects of some rather intense and probably violent opposition. Politically, a return to such a goal is neither practical nor viable, except to give tremendous ammunition to our opposition."

Perhaps some of Dabney's ideas are dated, but I have never read one that is. The day for slavery is gone, and the day for "wholescale" segregation is gone. Both existed at one time and both are morally defensible and must be defended morally for a man to call himself an ideological Son of the Confederacy. Dabney himself stated: "As long as the hearts of the New South thrill with the generous though defeated endurance of the men of 1861; as long as they cherish these martyrs of constitutional liberty as the glory of Virginia and its history, you will be safe from any base decadence. But if the generation that is to come ever learns to be ashamed of these men because they were overpowered by fate, that will be the moral death of Virginia, a death on which there will wait no resurrection."

I think the same statement applies to the Southern defenders of 1961. Here's why:

Once the North imposed Reconstruction on the South, all was lost and the South was headed for what it has now become. But Dabney and others found a legal loophole in the new Constitution. They exploited it and saved the Southern people for nearly 100 years. Dabney wrote: "In endeavoring to remedy the dangers of the commonwealth, we must remember that we are a conquered people, and have to obey our masters. Otherwise, our straight road back to safety would be at once to repeal negro suffrage. But our masters will not hear of that! What is called impartial suffrage is, however, permitted by their new Constitution. We should at once avail ourselves of that permission and without attempting any discrimination on grounds of race, color, or previous condition of bondage, establish qualifications, both property and intelligence, for the privilege of voting. This would exclude the great multitude of negroes and a great many white men.... the mass of white men are now so impressed with the dishonor and mischiefs of negro suffrage, the majority of those white men with no property would, even joyfully, surrender their privilege, tarnished and worthless as it is, if thereby the negro could be excluded."

This is exactly what the people of the South did, in virtually every state; they protected their way of life through the poll tax and other restrictions on voting. It took Washington until 1965 to get wise to the ploy and once these laws were wiped off the books, the moral and social wellbeing of the South began to erode. In 30 short years, our society has become barely recognizable as what it had been for more than 200.

We are no longer free from base decadence, greatly because the blacks in the South have used their vote to elect the most base and corrupt politicians. In fact, in our society today, corruption and moral deviance are assets in a political campaign. At this point, we can't turn back the clock, the only tactic Southerners have used to protect themselves and their culture is "White flight."

So that's what I believe the Southern League should be trying to promote. We should come to the aid of Southerners under attack from blacks, both criminally and politically. There are a number of causes we could assist in and more spring up throughout the South every week. We should become known to the Southern people as an organization that stands for the Southerner in his attempt to promote himself.

As for violent opposition, the Southern perspective has continually caused violent opposition in America since 1861. The entire point of movies like Mississippi Burning is that white Southern Christians are so despicable, morally degenerate, unredeemable, and subhuman that to trample on their Constitutional rights is not only allowable, but a sign of moral superiority.

We can still express our opinion, however. But we can never move against the government until it has collapsed from its own corruption or has been so weakened by it that it can oppose us no longer. Solidarity is our strength. And time is on our side.

Dennis Wheeler

P.S. -- I'm getting so many responses, I can't answer them all. I's atryin', but am fallin' behind. Keep it coming. I'm just warmin' up.

#42.

From John Sigmon to Gary Waltrip.

August 9, 1996

John begins with a quote by Gary from a previous post:

In a message dated 960806 11:42:06 EDT, you write: "What about Jews, Asians, Hispanics and others not blessed with pastel pink epidermis? What will you do with them? How will you square this with the Constitution, or do you plan to do away with that, too? Come on, Dennis. If your views are right, then surely you aren't ashamed to tell us what they are.

Gary Waltrip

John's response:

`Fraid I have to agree with you, Gary. I respect the right to this person's opinion, but this is nothing less than a reversion to the Jim Crow Days of the past. Integration has been painful for this country, but I for one am glad, when it comes down to it, that it occurred. I cannot for the life of me see how a reversion to those black days would benefit our country, and for whatever problems and growing pains integration has presented, it is a step in the direction of fairness and human decency. Far better we attempt to grope with the problems than return to the "back of the bus" days.

just an opinion...

John Sigmon

[Editor's note: Our Southern forebears told us how bad things would be if we integrated with the blacks. Everything they said would happen has happened and far worse. We should be applauding them for their foresight. Instead, John calls our present way of life better than it was before integration began. He calls the integrated way of life a great step in the direction of fairness and human decency.

I guess when he made these statements he wasn't thinking about the tens of thousands of Southerners who have been murdered by the blacks, nor the tens of thousands of Southern women who have been raped by blacks, nor of the millions of Southern homes, businesses, or cars that have been burglarized by blacks. Otherwise, why would a man with these views be in a Southern organization when his views are so contrary to those of the South and the Southern people?]

#42.

From Philip Underwood-Sheppard to Dennis Wheeler.

August 9, 1996

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

At 08:17 PM 8/7/96 0400, you wrote: "Philip,

Thank you for the post about Northern Ireland. As I understand the situation there, sometime around the year 1600 AD, the six northernmost counties of Ireland were wiped out by a plague of some kind, King James of King James Bible fame sent Scots across the English Channel to repopulate the area. I think that this may be where the ScotchIrish come from.

Philip's response:

Dennis,

Actually, the act had a twofold purpose. One was to move the poor Scots off the land and the other was to build a supportive presence in Ireland. The Scottish Calvinists would hate the "Romans" enough to forgive James for the forced removal and support his policies in Ireland. The ScotchIrish are not Irish at all. The "Irish" part of the moniker that showed a geographical presence. It had nothing to do with intermarriage, which was almost nonexistent. My ScotchIrish blood is "Protestantly pure". In my mind, a good ScotchIrish has no business celebrating St. Patrick's Day the Irish way. Patrick was a Welsh Briton, not Irish at all.

Philip then gives a second quote by Dennis."

"Whether these are the correct historical facts or not, today Northern Ireland is a place, like many other places, where two peoples are vying for political supremacy. The Protestants cannot afford to allow the Irish to rule them as they know all too well from history that such a state of affairs will mean an unabidable tyranny."

Philip's response:

This is exactly right. Why, when Northern Ireland has continually voted to remain a part of Britain, should American politicians and bureaucrats stick their noses in and tell Britain to "settle" with the Irish on this matter?

Philip then gives a third quote by Dennis:

"It's like Atlanta in 1989 when five whites wanted to march in protest of the Martin Luther King Holiday. They were met by 20,000 hatefilled, murderous blacks who tried to kill them."

Philip's response:

I never heard about this. Was there a coverup?

Philip then gives a fourth quote by Dennis:

"The AfricanAmerican leadership never offered any apology for their followers. They merely attacked the law enforcement personnel for racism."

Philip's response:

Typical. Of course, it was "my fault" that they went on a rampage because I oppress them with my very existence.

Philip then gives a fifth quote by Dennis:

"Things are little different in Belfast. You have two separate peoples with two separate outlooks on life living in proximity to one another. This is a sure recipe for distress."

Philip's response:

As I recall my years growing up, it appeared to me that blacks and whites in my community had similar outlooks on life. It wasn't until black activism that changed. Without those who get their livelihood from promoting hate, things would have pretty much stayed the same. How much better off the South would have been without this promotion of hatred, a promotion of differences that didn't exist or were so beneath the surface that they wouldn't have made that much in a difference in our relations had they not been pushed to the top.

Philip then gives a sixth quote by Dennis:

The U.S. government is trying to impose a surrender on the part of the Protestants. This would put them at a tremendous security risk. Reunification with Ireland would allow Ireland the right to use federal troops to destroy the Protestants.

Philip's response:

I think Washington would relish such a turn of events. How is it that our government pushes this? It seems to me to be very similar to the Imperial Government's push to eradicate our culture, to assimilate us into their humanist outlook.

Dennis, I have enjoyed reading your posts on this thread. Though I haven't come to a conclusion yet, you have made me think. I admire your willingness to "stick to your guns" and keep the discussion going on very gentlemanly terms.

Kindest regards,

Philip

Philip UnderwoodSheppard

Salem Plantation

Port Royal Island

Occupied South Carolina

#43.

From Gary Waltrip to Steve Latiluppe.

August 9, 1996

Gary begins with a long quote from Steve in a post written to Dennis Wheeler:

In a message dated 960809 23:28:04 EDT, you write: "I think that you are addressing a very important issue ... one that has no easy answer. In fact, this issue is one of the most difficult yet crucial issues of our time: What is the place of `ethnicity' in the definition of a given nationstate? What defines `a people'? [Is it] Religion? Ideology? Culture? Language? Biology?

"I once saw a definition of `a people' as: A group living in a certain geographical area who BELIEVE themselves to be related biologically, and who share SIMILAR religious, linguistic, and cultural characteristics.

"I like this definition because it makes two important points: first, few peoples are actually as closely related as they think they are. 1) a person who BELIEVES himself to be related to the people of the South. (regardless of biological reality) 2) a person who follows the JudeoChristian philosophy/religion 3) a person who speaks English 4) a person who admires and participates in the literary/musical/poetic culture of the South 5) a person who believes in the political philosophy of Jefferson, Washington, and Madison. 6) a person who admires the heroism of the CSA 7) a person who admires and/or lives an agrarian/rural lifestyle.

"In my book, if someone landed from Mars tomorrow (after having been flown here with a NASA grant) and adhered to these principles, he/she/it would be a Southerner."

Gary's answer:

Steve, a wonderful discussion of a complex issue! My congratulations. On this listserve we do not come up with all of the answers, but we are coming up with the questions, and they become more intelligent day by day. DEFINING OURSELVES AS A PEOPLE is most important. I like your definition, as it resonates well with my own instincts and feelings. To my mind, Hong Min Zou is a Confederate while Zell Miller is not.

I print a newsletter under the auspices of the Confederate Society of America (they pay for all the printing and mailing costs) called "The Confederate Sentry," and one of the major issues I want to address is the one you and Dennis have been discussing. George has already given permission to print one of his reasoned dissertations on the matter, and I would like your permission to print the message quoted above, in full, as a related article.

I suppose technically the Confederate Society is a competing organization to the Southern League, but I don't see it that way. As the newly elected President of the CSA, I intend to recommend to all CSA members that they join the Southern League, too.

If I may use your discussion as an article, please supply me with some background on yourself.

Gary Waltrip

[Editor's note: This post began some trouble for Mr. Waltrip. Some of the board members of the CSA didn't want him to use their publication to air his Libertarian views. There was a move to oust him as president of the organization. At present, the outcome of that move is still up in the air. -- Dennis Wheeler]

#44.From Gary Waltrip to Dennis Wheeler.

August 11, 1996

Gary begins with a quote from Dennis.

In a message dated 960810 18:37:50 EDT, you write: "Both existed at one time and both are morally defensible and must be defended morally for a man to call himself an ideological Son of the Confederacy."

Gary's answer:

Tsk, tsk, Dennis. I doubt that the Southern population has appointed you to be the arbiter of what is and is not Southern. In any case, however defensible either slavery or segregation may be within the context of their times, neither is morally or politically acceptable in today's world.

Frankly, I think you just do not like people who are not white, and that your long dissertations are really an attempt to rationalize those positions. If most of the people in the Southern heritage movement agreed with you, we would lose our battles for selfdetermination and cultural regeneration.

Do you think that, by taking an official stance to segregate and disenfranchise a significant part of the Southern population based on race that we would enhance our credibility or destroy it? Do you think the Washington Post would entertain published articles by Dr. Michael Hill and Dr. Thomas Fleming? Do you believe that George Will would write columns complimentary to us? By assuming the stances that you support, we would tell the world loud and clear that all of the Northern propaganda against us was right all along. We would reinforce the need for a strong, centralized interventionist federal government rather than underscore the need to get rid of it. We would, in a word, be shooting ourselves in the foot, and perhaps the head as well. Your ideas are not only politically inviable, they would be selfdestructive and selfdefeating.

Gary gives a second quote from Dennis

"As for violent opposition, the Southern perspective has continually caused violent opposition in America since 1861. The entire point of movies like Mississippi Burning is that white Southern Christians are so despicable, morally degenerate, unredeemable, and subhuman that to trample on their Constitutional rights is not only allowable, but a sign of moral superiority."

Gary's answer:

All the more reason not to live up to old stereotypes. Why prove that they are correct by acting exactly as they claim we are?

Gary Waltrip

[Editor's note: Gary was beginning to come unglued at this point. He had lost the argument as to who the Southern people are and had begun to bring in extraneous issues such as how unpopular my ideas are. His throwaway line about me just not liking people who are non-white was a classic. He offered no evidence to support his assertion, he was just trying to win an argument here, despite the fact that he had no further support of his position. From this point on, you'll see him becoming more and more irrational and combative. -- Dennis Wheeler]

#45.From Dennis Wheeler to Gary Waltrip.

August 12, 1996

Gary,

In a message dated 8/11, you wrote: "In any case, however defensible either slavery or segregation may be within the context of their times, neither is morally or politically acceptable in today's world."

I think this is the clearest pronouncement you've made yet concerning your position and beliefs. As I see it, you have accepted the basic assumption of the Northern perspective that the South's position is not morally defensible or acceptable. Let me remind you that this was the goal of Reconstruction to get the Southerners to believe their position was immoral and the North's position was moral.

The North believed in a unitarian, equalitarian democracy. And the South held to a particularistic, exclusivistic, republican society. It is not our view that has failed and is no longer morally acceptable, it is their view that has failed and is morally indefensible.

The unitarian, equalitarian democracy is what has bankrupted the national treasury, perverted justice, unleashed a torrent of crime in the streets, along with a host of other evils.

The Southern position is the only one that can make things right. We have nothing to be ashamed of; they have everything to be ashamed of.

You continued: "Frankly, I think you just do not like people who are not white, and that your long dissertations are really an attempt to rationalize those positions."

This statement reminded me of the preacher who wrote in the margin of his sermon notes: "Weak point, yell loud!"

You also wrote: "If most of the people in the Southern heritage movement agreed with you, we would lose our battles for selfdetermination and cultural regeneration."

I don't agree with that and believe that the arguments I have framed give us the only chance we have. The separatist movements that have succeeded are the ones that have stressed their differences with other peoples, not their similarities (Latvia, Lithuania, Tigrea, Serbia, Estonia, Slovenia, etc.)

Also, I can't for the life of me see that your position is one of selfdetermination or cultural regeneration. As I understand what you've said, the South you envision would be exactly like the United States is now, only smaller. We would have a multiethnic, onemanonevote democracy. We could not assert that the Southern people are a distinct and separate people. Where would that leave us?

If I'm misinterpreting you, then I sincerely want you to correct me. But as I see what you're saying, if your plan were to win, then the Southern states would secede from Washington. But after that I'm a little fuzzy. Would the Southern League then impose its will on the rest of society but be pledged to never discriminate on the basis of race or skin color? Or would the Southern League be just one political party among many that would fight it out in democratic elections? Or is there another scenario that I have missed? I hope there is because neither one of those seem too attractive.

I think the best way for us to proceed, and the only argument that carries a moral weight that can bring success, is to declare that the Southern nation is a separate nation and people that has a Godgiven right to selfdetermination. We can negotiate with responsible black and Hispanic leaders as to who will control what land, but we must always demand our own homeland, our own borders, and our own liberty to rule ourselves unimpeded by nonSoutherners.

This is my belief. And this is why it's so crucial to hammer out the answer to the question, "Who is a Southerner?"

You advance many pragmatic reasons that show your plan to be the best one. And if you argued that my goal of a separate homeland for the Southern people was the moral and final goal, but we need to take it in slow steps to fake our enemy out before hitting him with the cold truth, then I could go along with you. But this is not what you've argued. You have argued that the historic Southern position is today morally and politically unacceptable. I can't go along with that and I think you'll find a tough row to hoe in getting many Southerners to go along with that, either.

Now there's no problem getting the mainstream U.S. media to go along with it. They've always believed it. You are no threat to them as long as you believe the basic tenant of Yankeeism. But I hope the Southern people won't fall for that, even though they presently bow down to it out of necessity. I would hope that 10 minutes after they find out they can't be bound by Washington any more, and they don't have to put up with the Civil Rights injustice anymore, they will rise as one man and throw off their chains.

Dennis Wheeler

#46.

From Jay Moshlak to all.

August 11, 1996

Gentlemen [& Ladies]

I saw something on PBS that I am still in a state of shock. They talked about Los Angeles through the 40's and the Jim Crow Laws that were in effect. THAT'S RIGHT, Jim Crow Laws.

There was a strip of Los Angeles known as the "Crenshaw Corridor" where Blacks settled. Get a load of this; THE BEACHES WERE SEGREGATED!!!

The next time you here Californian's being holier than thou, give them something to think about.

Steven Jay Moshlak

http://members.tripod.com/~century/

Jay's message was in response to this post from Stacy McCain to George Kalas:

On Thu, 8 Aug 1996, RStacy2229@aol.com wrote: "George, I would like to point out that the rise of Jim Crow in the late 1800s involved several factors, among them:

1. Republican racial agitation dating to Reconstruction had caused former slaves to view Southern whites with contempt, and thus led to antiwhite behavior by blacks which in turn promoted a violent white backlash. The period 18801910 was the height of whiteonblack terror.

2. Those who promoted and participated in racial attacks upon blacks during that period almost universally came from the lowest caste of Southern white society: The sons of men who had deserted or betrayed the Confederacy, and descendants of the worthless, nocount carpetbaggers themselves.

3. Partly to protect blacks from white terrorism, partly to prevent interracial contact which could lead to incidents that might provoke such terrorism, CONSERVATIVE Southerners that is, the most eminent and most revered men in Dixie adopted the convenience of separate public accommodations for blacks and whites. Over the years, of course, the artificial estrangement which Jim Crow produced between the Southern races led to fear and suspicion, so that by the postWWII era, many poor whites were as ignorant of blacks as any Yankee.

4. The worst element of the Jim Crow era was undoubtedly the widespread disenfranchisement of blacks. Booker T. Washington, in his famed Atlanta speech, which brought white Southerners to their feet in applause, had asked only that such devices as literacy tests be applied equally to the races. Yet under Jim Crow, illiterate whites were allowed to vote, while many literate blacks were not. (Yes, I realize that respected blacks in many parts of the South continued to enjoy their right to vote.)

Whatever one thinks of voluntary social segregation and the right of a private business to refuse service to unwelcome customers, the denial of voting rights was unjustified. If a man is a slave by law, he is a slave; if he is a citizen, he is a citizen; and a citizen in a representative republic has the right to the franchise. In some ways, then, it has always seemed to me that Jim Crow was a greater evil than slavery, since it placed black people into a curious limbo where they were neither slaves, nor fully citizens, nor anything else but a vulnerable political cipher. That actual conditions under such an absurd system were not much worse than they were is a credit to Southerners, both white and black.

Finally, there is what has been termed "rational discrimination" actions and attitudes which are properly based on knowledge of actual group attributes. [All discrimination is based on all the knowledge available.] When the high school track coach who sees that only white kids have come out for the team this year and laments that it might be a long year, he his exercising rational discrimination. But if the same coach begins randomly grabbing black kids in the hallway and dragging them to practice, assuming that one of them will be Carl Lewis or Jesse Owens, he is thereby exercising irrational discrimination, otherwise known as prejudice.

Prejudice may be either positive or negative. But if the coach without good evidence leaps to the assumption that his young black proteges are stupid, lazy, criminal and/or lacking in selfesteem, he has entered the realm of bigotry, which is irrational and negative prejudice. And then if the experiment with black track team members doesn't for whatever reason work out, and the coach begins to spew venomous invectives about "all niggers this" and "all niggers that" based upon this single incident, he has clearly steeped into the world of racism.

If, from his racist views, the track coach goes on to advocate punitive, restrictive or retaliatory actions against blacks, he has transcended all these categories to become a hatemonger.

Oddly enough, just as racism among whites is beginning to fade away, we see that black racism (Afrocentrism, separatism, Nation of Islam) is appearing upon the horizon. Hating white folks is IN, with the approval of the "multicultural" mediapolitical elites, and is egged on daily by the race merchants and poverty pimps of "the Klan with a tan," a/k/a The NAACP, loyally assisted by the "civil rights establishment" of the federal Justice and Education departments.

This goes to show why we should not stomach the promulgation of odious and hateful doctrines among our friends, because soon or later, our enemies are liable to coopt those same doctrines and use them against us. Even the ridiculous absurdities of the Afrocentrists are scarcely more idiotic than what is taught by Christian Identity, Aryan Nations and the Odinists, who sometimes sound just like Afrocentrists in their pretzel logic and dubious standards of proof.

We must reject all such doctrines. The truth is not in them.

[Editor's note: In one sense, Stacy's argument is sound; it is irrational to not allow citizens to vote. But what he's missing is that the blacks were not citizens by the South's choosing; their citizenship had been tyrannically forced on us by a hostile army that had enforced a policy that was both illegal and immoral. Our people merely rallied when the time was right and took back possession of what rights Washington had left them. He says the South's action was unjustified. But in a fight for survival, I don't think it was unjustified at all.

When he starts talking about "rational discrimination," he uses the phrase "discrimination is based on all the knowledge available." The problem with his position here is that he's assuming the discrimination the South exercised in regard to the blacks was irrational and not based on any available knowledge. But here he shows his own lack of knowledge, not theirs. The Southerners understood the blacks far better than Stacy does. That's why they knew that it was of paramount importance to keep as many of them from voting as possible if they were to preserve their society and national existence. -- Dennis Wheeler]

Stacy's message was a response to this message written from George Kalas to Dennis Wheeler:

In a message dated 960808 12:55:38 EDT, you write: "...very broad complaints regarding the genuine evils of forced integration and the Civil Rights laws and then offer as a solution the opposite extreme by proposing the reinstitution of forced, statesponsored segregation. If the races tend to segregate themselves in the absence of government intervention, (and I agree with you that they do), then we should just remove government entirely from the picture of race relations. That's what we mean around here when we talk about establishing a colourblind society. Such a society would vastly ameliorate the evils of liberal racial social engineering.

[Editor's note: George offered this Libertarian argument, but from other statements he made, he could not have been sincere or consistent. Because any talk or attempt about the Southerners segregating themselves was attacked by him as racist and bigoted behavior. Besides that, you can never remove government from the picture entirely. The government will always have one position or another on the subject. Also, the Southern people need the safeguard of the government to keep them from being overwhelmed by the blacks, as the blacks have found it to their advantage to sponge off the whites in the South. And when given the choice, they have always chosen to use their governmental powers to take from us what is rightfully ours. -- Dennis Wheeler]

#47.

From Steve Latiluppe to Dennis Wheeler.

August 11, 1996

Dennis,

I think that you are addressing a very important issue ... one that has no easy answer. In fact, this issue is one of the most difficult yet crucial issues of our time: What is the place of "ethnicity" in the definition of a given nation

state? What defines "a people"? Religion? Ideology? Culture? Language? Biology?

You state that Southerners are "ScotchIrish and Cavaliers". This creates several problems. First, the Cavaliers were Englishmen who fought against Cromwell. What is an Englishman? They are a mixture of Celtic Britons, German Angles and Saxons, Romans, Norman French, and others. If the Englishmen themselves are an amalgamation of various ethnic groups, their ancestors in the New World (who have mixed with an even more extensive list of various peoples) are an even more derived group.

Secondly, there are many groups in the South who do not fit neatly into this dual population but who must be considered "Southern" by any stretch of the imagination. The Louisiana French are certainly Southern (Gen. Beauregard would be very upset if you denied his "Southerness"), yet he is clearly not a direct descendent of the groups you mention in your definition. Is a second generation ScottishAmerican living in Georgia somehow more "Southern" than a Cajun whose ancestors have lived in Louisiana for 250 years?

The Blacks also do not fall under this definition, yet they are undeniably Southern. For better or worse, they are a defining element of Southern civilization and culture. Imagine how utterly different the South would be without the historic interaction between blacks and whites.

I once saw a definition of "a people" as: A group living in a certain geographical area who BELIEVE themselves to be related biologically, and who share SIMILAR religious, linguistic, and cultural characteristics.

I like this definition because it makes two important points: first, few peoples are actually as closely related as they think they are. Studies of "Germans", "French", and other "peoples" reveal that these terms are more a product of consciousness than actual biology. Migrations of peoples have always occurred and this creates constant mixing of groups. But, if the population believes themselves to be related, then in a sense, they are.

Second, this definition emphasizes "similar" rather than "identical". Almost every group of people has a level of religious/linguistic/cultural variation (ie: Bavarians are mostly Catholic, while Prussians are historically Protestant,

yet they are both certainly "German").

Once this definition is accepted (for argument's sake), then the only issue is the level of variation which people generally accept as "similar". At any rate, I think that this issue will be an endless source of bickering between us (and every other nation in the world), for some time to come. Any definition which creates an "us" will immediately create a "they". And anyone who falls in the "they" category, will be upset at their exclusion.

Unfortunately, if you spread the definition of "us" too broadly, the term loses its meaning altogether (and you end up being a universalistic liberal). For my two cents, I would begin the definition of "a Southerner" with the following broad categories:

1) a person who BELIEVES himself to be related to the people of the South. (regardless of biological reality)

2) a person who follows the JudeoChristian philosophy/religion

3) a person who speaks English

4) a person who admires and participates in the literary/musical/ poetic culture of the South

5) a person who believes in the political philosophy of Jefferson, Washington, and Madison.

6) a person who admires the heroism of the CSA

7) a person who admires and/or lives an agrarian/rural lifestyle.

In my book, if someone landed from Mars tomorrow (after having been flown here with a NASA grant) and adhered to these principles, he/she/it would be a Southerner.

Steve Latiluppe

#48.

From Dennis Wheeler to Steve Latiluppe.

August 11, 1996

Steve,

I really liked the definition you came up with for a "people." If I have one fault with it it's that it is very heavy on the subjective side of peoplehood, but very light on the objective side. A "people" has an objective existence. It has a subjective existence, too, but its objective existence is also a reality. For instance, the Japanese people exist. They exist objectively. They may not exist if they don't subjectively believe themselves to exist, but since they do subjectively believe themselves to exist, they have an objective existence. (I think I got that right.)

You state: "The Blacks also do not fall under this definition [meaning my definition which you reasonably consider as too narrow], yet they are undeniably Southern. For better or worse, they are a defining element of Southern civilization and culture. Imagine how utterly different the South would be without the historic interaction between blacks and whites."

But in this I think you stray from your definition and add elements that aren't part of that definition. To illustrate, the Tibetans have spent most of the past several hundred years under the domination of the Chinese. Still, Tibetans and Chinese are two distinct peoples. Also, there were nearly as many Russians living in Latvia in 1990 as there were Latvians. This condition had existed for decades. Still, the Latvians and the Russians are distinct peoples. Further, the Hutu and the Tutsi of Burundi and Rwanda have lived much of the past 500 years in a slave/master relationship. Still, the two peoples can easily tell one another apart, and over the past 25 years, since the United Nations has tried to make them live as equals in two unified countries, they have taken several opportunities to butcher one another mercilessly.

Also, it's hard for me to imagine two peoples who consider themselves more distinct and separated than the Southern people and the blacks who live in the South. The blacks refer to themselves as "Bro," which is a slang term for brother. This distinguishes them from us. And the efforts of Southerners to distance themselves from the blacks who live in the South is well documented.

The definition you began with included a biological relationship, or at least a belief that a biological relationship existed. But the definition you ended with went out of its way to exclude a biological relationship. Vine's Expository Dictionary defines the Hebrew word "laos," which is interpreted "peoples," as "persons related by race and language." Obviously, the blacks who live in the South don't relate to us that way. Dennis Wheeler

[Editor's note: Steve was right about my definition of a Southerner being too narrow. Of course, the Louisiana French are included and there are smatterings of other groups throughout our land who are to be counted among the Southern people but do not fit into the Anglo-Saxon category. It's mostly the Africans, Asians, and Hispanics that constitute the largest threat to our existence as a separate people. Any attempt to include them as Southerners must be repudiated. -- Dennis Wheeler]

#49.

From Steve Latiluppe to Dennis Wheeler.

August 11, 1996

Dennis,

I do not doubt that "peoples" , defined biologically, exist. The Australian aborigines, for instance, are very biologically distinct, and have not mixed with other peoples for tens of thousands of years. Three million French Canadians are all descendants of perhaps 10,000 original French settlers (and are thus each related to each other many times over).

On the other hand, there are many "peoples" who think themselves to be a homogenous entity, who really are not. The Prussians, for instance, are actually not even German. They are descendants of a Slavic tribe which adopted the German language and culture. Yet, they came to be seen as the most German of Germans. Given this example, how important can biology be? The Prussians came to believe themselves to be Germans (even though they were not biologically German), and that is what they became Germans.

I admit that I have a bias in this issue. I strongly believe in the power of the human mind -- much more so than the power of biology. I am less concerned with a person's actual family tree than I am with what that person's beliefs, convictions, and cultural practices are. Given this bias, I still favor a "cultural" rather than "genetic" definition of "a people". In my view, the ChineseConfederate artist is much more of a Southerner than someone like Bill Clinton.

Steve Latiluppe

PS: My father's side of the family is from Quebec. My wife is from a family of crazy, liberal Jewish folks from New York City (which creates a lot of fun debates at family events).

#50.

From David Rockett to all.

Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 14:50:31 0500

From: David Rockett <steward@mail.bayou.com

Subject: Re: Creation, Nationhood & Racism

Dennis & All,

Though we're focusing on disputed areas note that I've cut most places where Dennis, as I clearly said is "partly right" & we obviously agree.

David then quotes Dennis from a previous post:

"I can't agree that Dabney was `only stating a current historic reality.' He used the word `always.' And I see no reason to believe he meant anything else. To hold that Dabney is to be interpreted `within the Yankee, secularist framework of the late 1800s' is to forego passing judgement on the merits of his argument and excuse him as a victim of his times. I say that Dabney was right and that Southern society from that time until the Civil Rights War of the 1960s was ordered to show an agreement with the rightness of his statement. In fact, the awful condition the South finds itself in today, with murder, theft, adultery, and blasphemy abounding, is a result of those policies the North intended to push onto the South after the Civil War. Dabney discovered a way to defeat their scheme and thus postponed the destruction of Southern society and the Southern people for almost 100 years. The man is to be applauded, not relegated to some file of irrelevancy; not revised and watereddown to show him a victim of his times."

David's response:

I never argued the point of Dabney's wisdom in 'salvaging' the Southern State's right to limit the franchise to 'property, intelligence, etc', I only contended that you distort and misapply Dabney's wisdom by assuming Dabney thought race alone the source of 'hostility.' Dabney was likely taking Federal intrusion as an occasion to argue for a more Biblical limitation of voting rights for WHITES and Negroes. But the SOURCE of the hostility was/IS Secular, manipulating policies of the Egalitarian SuperState to coerce an unnatural integration. Creation is the source of natural/peaceful segregation and yet Dabney argued that the old South's racially INTEGRATED society WAS PEACEFUL and happy. You can't have it both ways. Race itself is NOT the source of domestic hostility FORCED INTEGRATION and the power of political usurpation IS. This I believe you confuse and wrongly try to enlist Dabney in your error. Now, this FAR from relegates Dabney to some 'file of irrelevancy' or 'victim of his times.' This stupid characterisation is beneath you Dennis.

(2) Dennis also assumes falsely that race or ethnicity is the Only or Primary division among men thus ignoring Language and FAITH. Common Faith, language and cultural heritage can largely ameliorate racial differences."

David gives a second quote by Dennis:

"FAITH is never spoken of in Scripture as a societal organizer, in the primary sense. It is at most a secondary organizer. And even this is debatable. For instance, in Old Testament Israel, different peoples could come into, and become a part of, the nation on the basis of faith. But it took from three to ten generations before their descendants were incorporated as "full" citizens, depending on the debauchery of the nation they came from."

David's response:

It is true that a pagan convert who embraced the gospel in Old Covenant Israel, was circumcised and allowed to take passover, did NOT immediately obtain all citizenship rights. But Dennis misses the point the ENTRANCE into the culture and community life is FAITH. After conversion and seven years of loyal disciplingservitude in the FAITH, there then be increasingly responsible citizenship.

Now, I believe there would be a natural desire for missions and reassimilation with their own racial kind & State rule over voting. But the point of contention here is the source of hostility and that's the coercive Federal Leviathan forcing many matters which cause hostility beyond ethnicity.

David gives a third quote by Dennis:

"I say this because the English language and AngloCeltic culture are not products of the Christian religion; they are products of the AngloCeltic people or peoples. Inclusion of too many outsiders effectively destroys what we are. Culture must by definition be exclusive, otherwise it isn't culture, it's anticulture."

David's response:

This is false because anyone who has studied language a little knows you can't separate language from the underlying religious faith. The Christian Faith has over the past 1500 years DRASTICALLY changed the English language. The south especially was dominated MOST by the Faith & Language of the Reformation its doctrine of man as sinful in need of salvation and redemption in Christ and its doctrine of God. Thus, the theology of the Christian FAITH was THE most fundamental unifier in the Old South family, customs, property, land growing out of it.

Even the Celtic Chilvary grew out of the Christian Ideal of the Knighthood of what a Christian Gentlemen was. I hope Dennis isn't about to argue for a 'culture' without a 'cult' under-lying FAITH????

David gives a fourth quote by Dennis:

"Perhaps it is true that `faith and responsible fidelity to cultural heritage must not be swallowed up by a convoluted racial hairsplitting,' but what we must hammer out is an answer to the question, `What is convoluted racial hairsplitting and what is legitimate definition and protection of Southern culture?' In conclusion, I'll have to disagree with you that I have misapplied any of Dabney's teachings and will assert that you have revised Dabney and thus rendered him irrelevant for today on this point. I'll also have to disagree with you that I have implied a hostility between kinds. I have agreed with Dabney and the consensus of Southerners up to the present that it is the integration of peoples that God has segregated that causes the hostility."

David's response:

Your nexttolast sentence IS what I originally disputed and objected to your use of Dabney ie. that Creational distinctions (race/ethnicity) imply hostility! Now, your last sentence seems to concede my point except that it is the coercive Leviathan superstate that is the real antagonists, not race. I have hope for you Dennis! You must either argue for a divinely ordained racial 'hostility' or you're actually backing RACE as the cause for hostility, and coming around to mine (and Dabney's I think) view that 1) segregation is the natural result and order of Creation, and does NOT imply interRacial hostility, and 2) that it is the coercive force of Statist power which breeds hostility.

Obviously, Dabney is wise and relevant even if I reject and oppose your trying to draft him to support your views.

In Him,

David Rockett

#51.

From Dennis Wheeler to David Rockett.

August 15, 1996

David,

I think this quote contains the majority of our disagreement, so I'll restrict my comments to this:

(1) "I only contended that you distort and misapply Dabney's wisdom by assuming Dabney thought race alone the source of 'hostility.' Dabney was likely taking Federal intrusion as an occasion to argue for a more Biblical limitation of voting rights for WHITES and Negroes. But the SOURCE of the hostility was/IS Secular, manipulating policies of the Egalitarian SuperState to coerce an unnatural integration. Creation is the source of natural/peaceful segregation and yet Dabney argued that the old South's racially INTEGRATED society WAS PEACEFUL and happy. You can't have it both ways. Race itself is NOT the source of domestic hostility FORCED INTEGRATION and the power of political usurpation IS. This I believe you confuse and wrongly try to enlist Dabney in your error."

Dennis's response:

Dabney and Wheeler argue that a natural antipathy develops whenever two races were in close proximity. (I gave Dabney's direct quote in a previous post.) I agree with him. What you have said, if I understand correctly, is that it's not the close proximity of the races that brings the hostility for that would make race the source of the hostility and since God's creation is natural and peaceful, it is not the source of hostility between men but forced integration and the power of political usurpation bring hostility. "It is the coercive force of Statist power which breeds hostility."

The Southern tradition has always held that God divided mankind into separate peoples and intended them to remain separate. In the English language that I am familiar with and perhaps I'm ignorant here this state of affairs has always been referred to as segregation or a segregated society. As I understand it, this segregation is what caused Washington, DC to be so hostile to the South in the 1960s. And to this day I continue to hear people rail against segregation in the South.

Now it seems to me that you have stood this concept on its head and have proclaimed that the South was the most integrated section in America. You have only referred to this state of affairs existing in the antebellum South. I am curious to know if you consider the precivil rights South of the 1950s an integrated society. I'm not going to criticize you on this until I understand what you're saying. Would you please explain your understanding of the words segregation and integration?

Now as for "coercive force of Statist power" breeding hostility, that is sometimes true and sometimes false. The civil government is designed to be a minister of God and to use its coercive power for righteousness and peace. When a government does what it is supposed to, its coercive power is not being used to bring hostility, but peaceful relations among men. For instance, once the Civil War ended, the U.S. government used its coercive power to breed hostility by placing former slaves in positions of political office to lord the North's victory over the defeated Southerners. Dabney and others found a legal loophole and laws were passed which protected the Southerner from the ravages of the blacks. These laws gained the sanction of the U.S. Supreme Court in Plessy vs. Ferguson in 1896 and the coercive power of the state was once again being used to promote peace and harmony. In 1965, with the signing of the Civil Rights Act, the coercive power of the state once again began to be used to promote injustice and hostility. This continues today.

The point I'm making is that the hostility is not resident within the coercive power of the state, it is resident within evil acts of the state and shows itself when the state uses its coercive power for evil. And what is the evil the state has coerced upon us that has resulted in a host of other evils? It is the form of integration which the state now coerces and compels us to practice. (Maybe it's not integration, per se, as you will define for us, but the peculiar form of integration the state has placed on us is the cause of the hostility.)

The main fault line of the hostility lies in political power. We have two peoples in the South with different histories, different traditions, different ways of looking at things, different mores, and different agendas. IMO, the two peoples were able to live harmoniously and peaceably only because they were no political threat to us. Once the coercive power of the state was no longer used to prevent them from being a political threat to us, then they became a physical and fiscal threat, and hostility began to develop.

I again think you have revised Dabney by writing: "Dabney was likely taking Federal intrusion as an occasion to argue for a more Biblical limitation of voting rights for WHITES and Negroes." If you could show some evidence for this assertion, it would be most appreciated. In my view, it goes against every thing he says. I don't know your motive for making this statement, but I suspect that this reflects your view that Christians and only Christians should be given the right to vote regardless of ethnic distinction and you want to believe, and for us to believe, that Dabney agreed with you. But in the post I sent George Kalas this morning, as well as other places, I have given direct quotes from Dabney that contradict this position. If you could show some evidence that in other places he said things which uphold it, then I would rethink my position and see if I'm being too hasty. But until you can present something that shows Dabney's view to be anything other than what I have stated it to be, I'll have to maintain that you are revising him to say what you wish he had said.

I could go on about the other topics you raised like language and culture and religion, but I don't see much point in debating every point.

Dennis Wheeler

#52.

From Robert Stacy McCain to all.

August 11, 1996

Stacy begins with a quote by De Toqueville:

ALEXIS DE TOQUEVILLE, writing in Chapter XVIII of his 1835 classic, "Democracy in America" Vol. I (Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1960), pp. 359360:

"Whoever has inhabited the United States must have perceived that in those parts of the Union in which the Negroes are no longer slaves they have in no wise drawn nearer to the whites. On the contrary, the prejudice of race appears to be stronger in the states that have abolished slavery than in those where it still exists; and nowhere is it so intolerant as in those states where servitude has never been known....

"In the South, where slavery still exists, the Negroes are less carefully kept apart; they sometimes share the labors and the recreations of the whites; the whites consent to intermix with them to a certain extent, and although legislation treats them more harshly, the habits of the people are more tolerant and compassionate....

"Thus it is in the United States that the prejudice which repels the Negroes seems to increase in proportion as they are emancipated, and inequality is sanctioned by the manners while it is effaced from the laws of the country. But if the relative position of the two races that inhabit the United States is such as I have described, why have the Americans abolished slavery in the North of the Union, why do they maintain it in the South, and

why do they aggravate its hardships? The answer is easily given. It is not for the good of the Negroes, but for that of the whites, that measures are taken to abolish slavery in the United States...."

****************************************

Just some racist French aristocrat talking here? Don't think so, folks, as witness....

"Prejudice against color is stronger North than South."

Frederick Douglas, cited in

William S. McFeely, "Frederick Douglass,"

W.W. Norton, New York, 1991, p. 94

****************************************************************

Stacy's comments:

And a big DEO VINDICE to Mssrs. De Toqueville and Douglass for taking care to document these great truths I have always instinctively believed, but never before seen stated so clearly by an impartial eyewitness source. I am posting these quotes to both "Civil War" newsgroups and to "soc.cult.african.american" for the consternation of our enemies, and urge y'all to forward this to all defenders of Dixie, to save it to your hard drive, and to quote it with glee next time some damned Yankee (or Klansman, Nazi, Christian Identity fool, or scalawag apostate) starts in on his "racism is a Southern thing" rap. WHOMP him between the eyes with THIS!

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 Godfearing man who truly wishes to honor the Confederate cause.

Robert Stacy McCain

Rome, GA

[Editor's note: Stacy draws the wrong conclusion from the right facts. His argument is that the South has done a better job of integrating with the blacks than the North has, hence it is morally superior. He groups together disparate factions like the Nazis and the Yankees because of his belief that they hold in common the ideal of racism.

The thinking behind this conclusion is that (1) the South had no racial axe to grind but was somewhat of an experiment in multiculturalism where blacks and whites got along together well. (2) He can find statements in history that show there was racism in the North, so he charges the North with the racist tag. (3) This, in his mind, puts them in league with the Nazis who were also racists.

As difficult as this may be for you to believe, this is actually the logical thread that he is taking. And he's not alone. These guys are becoming victims of their own propaganda.

The correct conclusion he should have been drawn from De Toqueville's statements is that when whites hold political and social superiority over the blacks, then they have the luxury of dealing with them in a kind and genteel manner because they are not in competition with them. Stacy should have seen that even in the North, where they didn't understand our black problem until many blacks from the South migrated there, they came to realize that when put on equal terms with the blacks, they were forced to deal with them in a rough and tumble manner or be overrun by them. -- Dennis Wheeler]

#53.

From George Kalas to Dennis Wheeler

August 13, 1996

Dennis Wheeler wrote: "...At this point, we can't turn back the clock, the only tactic Southerners have used to protect themselves and their culture is "White flight." So that's what I believe the Southern League should be trying to promote. We should come to the aid of Southerners under attack from blacks, both criminally and politically. There are a number of causes we could assist in and more spring up throughout the South every week. We should become known to the Southern people as an organization that stands for the Southerner in his attempt to promote himself."

Dennis,

You argue powerfully and articulately for your point of view and your comity in this exchange is commendable. But, with that having been said, the facts remain: (1) The Southern League is not organised around the principle of "whites only" Southern nationalism that you have espoused. (2) You have continuously grouped all blacks together and sought to paint every black as a member of the black underclass.

My experience in life has taught me that this is a falsehood. One of the most gracious, Southern ladies I know is a black Houstonian who was very openminded and interested in hearing the Southern perspective on our history, culture and heritage. She is middleclass in her outlook on politics and economics and does not fit within the stereotype you have painted. Yet you would ignore the existence of such people. (And there are quite a few middleclass, conservative blacks in America they just don't get much media attention.)

That won't work, my friend. The Southern League will not prevail if we tarbrush others in this manner. Who are we to object to antiSouthern bigotry and stereotyping if we start engaging in exactly the same type of behaviour towards blacks? This is not a morally or ethically defensible position and the only way you have been able to make a case for your position is by adopting a defacto racist view that stipulates that *ALL* blacks are hopeless and *ALL* blacks are enemies of progress and freedom in this country.

While I'd agree with you that a darn big segment, (i.e. the black underclass) are a national problem, I still have to disagree with you that the solution is to adopt a wholesale policy of rejection of people solely on account of their race without any consideration for their character and political and moral views.

(3) Your call for the Southern League to become a movement to lead whites against blacks is incendiary and I again ask you, why do you not join an avowedly racist organisation like the KKK or the Aryan Nations they are much closer to your beliefs system than the SL is and the SL will never become what you wish for it to be.

I'm sorry if you might find this offensive, but I calls 'em as I sees 'em...

For Dixie,

George Kalas

DixieNet

[Editor's note: With this post you can see that George was beginning to get nervous by the forcefulness of my arguments. He predicated his view on his contention that I was painting all blacks as part of the black underclass. But note that he did not give any evidence to support that contention. He just pulled it out of the air.

Also, his point about being bigots will destroy our credibility of claiming our opponents are engaging in anti-Southern bigotry is quite instructive. Much of the Southern "heritage defense" that has taken place the past several years has employed a logic goes something like this: "You Yankees say you're against bigotry. We are too. But you are practicing bigotry against us by not allowing us to fly our flag and display our symbols. The South is not a place of bigotry. Never was."

The big problem with this line of argument is that it legitimizes the Abolitionist perspective on bigotry while attempting to show that the Abolitionist perspective is operating inconsistently and hypocritically when it persecutes the South.

What is needed instead is to attack the Abolitionist perspective, not agree with it and then rewrite history to show that they are right in principle, but the South wasn't really what they thought was. We need to attack the Abolitionist view of bigotry and contend that the Southern perspective of what would happen if the blacks got the vote was correct and that any sane person and/or people should see its wisdom and support it.

George declares himself on this point. He believes it is immoral to limit the vote -- "the wholesale rejection of people" -- based on their ethnicity. So in this, he agrees with the Abolitionists and together they hold me and all those who believe in the traditional Southern perspective as mutual enemies. -- Dennis Wheeler]

#54.

From Charles Upshaw to Dennis Wheeler.

August 13, 1996

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.

The South purportedly wanted the freedom to arrange its affairs as it saw fit, without the approval of a far-off master.

The "unitarian, equalitarian democracy" you mentioned in your post did not destroy this country. It was the centralized power which wielded these foolish notions that has done such violence to our culture. Were it not for these notions, there would be others, perhaps just as destructive.

Where the power exists, guard against mischief.

The racial/cultural arguments you advance are well put. There is no doubt much literature supports your views. While Dabney may have offered an admirable defense of slavery, remember that Robert E. Lee called the institution an evil.

There are other elements of our culture which I would like to see returned to the ways of the nineteenth century, especially with respect to industrialization vs agrarianism. But we must face the fact that the modernism genie is out of the bottle. We are not going to return to the days where farming is the primary vocation of Southerners. The computer is here to stay; the internet, the automobile, the interstate highway, air

conditioning, etc.

Likewise, we will need to begin building with what we have. And that is a multiracial society. Let's just hope that we are able to impart virtue and wisdom to our countrymen.

One more thing, I am a strong believer in freedom of association - in business as well as personally. The races will naturally segregate. That's the way it has always been. I don't think we need a government agent to tell us who we must associate with.

Please don't attempt to engage me in an ongoing debate - I'm no match for you. I simply felt that the discussion was going astray. I respect your views and greatly admire your scholarship.

Your brother for the cause,

Pat Upshaw

[Editor's note: I don't want to be mean-spirited, but there is a slave mentality setting in among Southerners. They are coming to believe that there is no better life to be hoped for among our people than the one we presently have. Pat says: "Let's just hope that we are able to impart virtue and wisdom to our countrymen." But what if we are not able to do it? Or worse, what if the lack of virtue of the African-American continues to be imparted to our people?

We must fight tyranny. We must fight slavery. We cannot lay down and accept defeat. That is not the Southern tradition. There is only one reason our forefathers were able to throw off the tyranny of Reconstruction after the Civil War and preserve Southern society for another 100 years. And that one reason is "Southern resistance." We must resist. We must never surrender. -- Dennis Wheeler]

#55.

From Ron Courtney to Pat Upshaw.

August 16, 1996

Pat:

You said in a message to Dennis Wheeler that "the Southern breakaway from the Union had everything to do with state sovereignty and little to do with slavery."

I am as proSouth as anyone in the SL, but I believe the War For Southern Independence had a great deal to do with slavery. Sometimes I think that we, in our enthusiasm to defend our Southern heritage, are not being realistic in understanding the reasons for the War. I believe the Southern leaders supported secession to preserve their way of life, which depended greatly on slavery, and they often voiced this support in terms of defending state sovereignty. I also believe the ordinary soldiers cared little for either slavery or state sovereignty; they fought because their homes and families were threatened by the Yankee invasion.

Ron Courtney

#56.

From: George Kalas to Ron Courtney.

August 17, 1996

"From: DIXIEART@aol.com

Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1996 21:46:57 0400

Subject: Re: Why won't they slap YOUR back in public? Hmmmm....?

Ron Courtney wrote: "George, I suspect there are more SL members and subscribers than you might think who agree with most or all of what Dennis says but who are reluctant to say it publicly."

Dear Ron,

Why should we have to "suspect" that there are many SL'ers here who support Dennis. If there are hordes of bonafide racists on this listserver then let them stand and be counted. Why should they lack the courage to state their convictions plainly and articulately as Mr. Wheeler has? Despite my disagreement with Mr. Wheeler that blacks and other minorities have no place in the SL or the South, I can at least say that I admire his tenacity and his ability to present his views in a forthright manner.

Ron also wrote: "You and Gary and a few others more or less set the tone of the discussions on the listserver, which is fine, but it can be intimidating to other subscribers who don't have the courage or the intellect that Dennis has. I think Dennis is to be commended for making a very controversial case."

This is a free and open listserver to any SL member who wants to sound off. So long as one abides by the rules of the listserver you'll find that Ron Colson and I do not censor people here. The only reason for anyone to be intimidated is if they know, deep down in their hearts and their consciences, that the position advocated by Mr. Wheeler is unChristian, unSouthern and at odds with the officially articulated policy of the national SL leadership.

This entire thread of discussion boils down to a single question: "Should the Southern League become a white racialist organisation that excludes nonwhites and nonChristians from it's ranks?" Those of us who oppose letting the SL degenerate into a racist organisation have made it plain that such a policy would be foolish for two major reasons: (1) It would destroy this movement by marginalising us as just a cleanedup version of the Ku Klux Klan with business suits and PhD's. (2) It flies in the face of our history as a people.

Being "Southern" is not a function of race, but a state of mind and cultural affinity. What more needs to be said?

Just out of curiosity, Ron, do you support the idea that the SL should exclude nonwhites and nonChristians who embrace our cause, our culture and our values 100%? If so on what basis would you justify turning these friends of Dixie away? In fact, why don't we go one step further let's restrict membership solely to people of 100% Irish or Scottish blood only Celts need apply.

Ooops! I forgot, the Irish and Scots have been overrun and intermarried with Normons, Saxons, Scandinavians, etc. over the centuries. Guess we'll have to do a 1,000-year genealogical search of every applicant's family tree to see if their blood is pure enough to rate membership in our wonderful little organisation. Of course, that would exclude a mongrel like me whose family tree includes Choctaw Indians, Greeks, Moors, Irishmen, Scotsmen, Germans, Englishmen, Cajuns and, <GASP!>, even a few Jews!

I guess the Confederate service of my four great

grandfathers at places like Vicksburg and Port Hudson during the War for Southern Independence are insufficient to establish my pedigree as a Southron. No, my bloodlines and genes are the only relevant factor I guess.

Give me a break! One thing is for sure. If we start tracin' everyone's family tree around here and restricting membership to only those of the most high and pure Celtic blood, I can assure you that the SL would have to dissolve itself overnight.

Deo Vindice,

George Kalas

Dixienet

[Editor's note: George was starting to get a little incoherent. It seemed that when anyone showed disagreement with his perspective, he got at once very defensive and vindictive. It was only going to degenerate from here. -- Dennis Wheeler]

#57.

From Dennis Wheeler to George Kalas.

August 14, 1996

George,

It's obvious that you and I still aren't on the same page. We do seem to see things differently, vastly differently. I think you are twisting language when you say I "group all blacks together and paint them as a member [sic] of the black underclass." When Jesus called the Jews in Jerusalem a "wicked and perverse generation," obviously he didn't mean every single one of them were wicked and perverse. And when we say "the Japanese bought an awful lot of gold last year," obviously we don't mean every Japanese purchased gold.

I can't recall writing about the black underclass except for a passing reference or two. But at this point, what good would it do to defend myself against your charges of my falsehood? The blacks in the South do vote in a block, about 90% Democrat. They do swing elections in favor of the worst available candidates. Their religious, social, and political leaders have virtually all spoken with one voice the past 50 years. And that voice has been the voice of civil rights, using the engines of the state to steal the "white man's" money and freedom.

Today, a new leadership is emerging among the blacks. But this one, although contemptuous of the civil rights leadership, advocates something even worse. (To my knowledge, there are no black leaders who command a black following of any significant percentage that advocate any policies that I would consider Biblical and that you would consider "middle class.") Islam is making its pitch among African-America and we'll have to see how far it goes, but so far has made great inroads among that people.

This shouldn't surprise us. It was R.L Dabney who stated: "The tenor of the argument concedes, what every man, not a fool, knows to be true: that the negroes, as a body, are now glaringly unfit for voting. What makes them unfit? Such things as these: ... an almost universal lack of that share in the property of the country, which alone can give responsibility, patriotic interest, and independence to the voter; a general moral grade so deplorably low as to permit their being driven or bought like a herd of sheep by the demagogue ... and last, an obstinate set of false traditions, which bind him as a mere serf to a party, which is the born enemy of every righteous interest of our State."

Now obviously, these things don't apply to each and every black. But they are nonetheless true and are a part of the Southern tradition.

On another topic, I have been encouraged lately by the support I've been given by members of the SL. Three people have come on this listserver and agreed with me and I've received laudatory and congratulatory posts from five other members privately. A few others have indicated they are listening to the debate and have not made up their minds one way or the other, yet. George, you'd be surprised if you knew who some of these people are.

The one I liked best was the woman who told me: "Thank you for making the listserver more than just a KalasWaltrip backslapping exercise."

Dennis Wheeler

[Editor's note: I carefully robbed George of one his main points here by showing that a group generalization did not necessarily include every member of the group. That was just a red herring he was throwing out to hide the fundamental weakness of his argument. As you'll see in his next message, he wouldn't concede the point. Actually, I think it would be better to say he couldn't concede the point. -- Dennis Wheeler]

#58.

From George Kalas to Dennis Wheeler.

From: jessej <dennisw@atl.mindspring.com>

Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 15:03:54 0400

Subject: Re: You are still offbase

Dennis,

Try to wriggle out of it as you might, the fact remains that you advocate treating all blacks the same, regardless of personal merit. You have not denied this you simply continue trying to justify it by citing the deficiencies of blacks as a group.

While I have no gripe with you when you observe that 90% of American blacks support Democrat causes and candidates to the harm of us all, I must part company with you when you argue that the solution is to form a white separatist Southern nation and here is why:

(1) Liberalism is not confined to the black race alone. There are plenty of liberal Southern whites who enjoy sucking on the Federal teats every bit as much as their black fellowloafers. Since these folks look like you and I are they somehow exempt from your master plan?

(2) By condemning an entire race of people for the sins of the underclass you will confirm every negative stereotype that exists about the South and Southerners. In doing so, you will do more to ACCELERATE the continued prostration and eradication of Southern culture, heritage and prospects of independence than a new invasion by the federal army. A policy like the one you are advancing would provide our enemies with the rope to hang us with.

(3) You have continuously failed to address the numerous references made here regarding the positions of men like Robert E. Lee and Patrick Cleburne whose views do not support your peculiar worldview. Was Jefferson Davis a fool to adopt Jim Limber. Was Stonewall Jackson an idiot to allow Southern blacks to serve in his ranks under arms? While none of these men were equalitarians, (nor are we), they were not deterred from cooperating with their fellow Southerons for the cause of independence just because their ancestors hailed from Africa.

(4) I firmly believe that if one removes government from the daytoday lives of the Southern people that they will be quite capable of rearranging their social, business and political relations in a satisfactory manner without the meddling of neosegregationists who would *compel* the separation of the races by force of law. I think that black and white cultural preferences are sufficiently different that most folks would separate voluntarily like oil and vinegar but that doesn't mean we can't exist under one government in peace.

Oh yes, one last thing you wrote: "On another topic, I have been encouraged lately by the support I've been given by members of the SL. Three people have come on this listserver and agreed with me and I've received laudatory and congratulatory posts from five other members privately. A few others have indicated they are listening to the debate and have not made up their minds one way or the other, yet. George, you'd be surprised if you knew who some of these people are. The one I liked best was the woman who told me: "Thank you for making the listserver more than just a KalasWaltrip backslapping exercise."

Well then surprise me.

Who are these anonymous SL members, Dennis? If they truly are proud of your racialist stance why won't they communicate their agreements publicly? I've yet to see one single member of this listserver post a message that wholeheartedly agrees with the most contentious and controversial stances you've advanced. Heck, even I've agreed with many of the things you post since most of what you post has nothing to do with the central point of this thread: i.e. Should the Southern League become a white racialist movement advocating a white separatist Southern "nation" based on ethnicity.

If you were intellectually honest, Dennis, you'd stick to the theme you defined instead of trying to misguide us with your long dissertations on Dabney, the Bible, black liberal voting trends, etc. Your efforts at misdirection in this debate would make any master magician envious.

It's sort of like advocating wife beating, but then defending that position by extolling the sins of Molly Yard and the National Organisation for Women at length and quoting the Bible about the proper role of women in society...

Oh yes, and lest I forget to mention, I have received plenty of agreement PUBLICLY from SL members on this listserver, including from Gary Waltrip, who I am proud to call my friend and a fine Southern Leaguer. (And I might mention that Gary was the first to kick my rear end on this listserver a few months ago when he felt that I was too harsh in my opinion of the militia movement in this country. He is no sycophant as you seek to imply.) At least Gary and the others who oppose your position are man enough to sign their names to their opinions and post them to this listserver for all to read and consider.

If SL members who support you can't muster the courage to stand together boldly before their fellow SL'ers, then how, pray tell, do you think you and your merry band will manage to find brave souls to promote your "vision" to the general public? You're barkin' up the wrong tree and you know it.

Deo Vindice,

George Kalas

Dixienet

[Editor's note: George was growing angrier and more vehement with each post. He and I hold mutually exclusive ideals. We can agree on many sub-points, but on the essentials, we can never agree. He holds the Abolitionist view on the essentials and I hold the Southern view. There can be no compromise, there can only be total war.

At this point, he couldn't deal with the issue of Southern Nationalism, or what the traditional view of the South was, so he tried to narrow the scope of the argument to who should be allowed to join the Southern League. He found this island more defensible and you'll read how he kept going back to this issue every time the real issue got too hot for him. -- Dennis Wheeler]

#59.

From Dennis Wheeler to George Kalas.

August 16, 1996

George,

I probably deserved that tonguelashing. But whether I deserved it or not, everybody needs a good one from time to time to keep them humble.

You again win a gold medal in rhetoric. But I don't see where you cover much substantive ground that hasn't been covered before but I'll get to your points in a moment. If I have failed to address a particular issue, it's because I haven't previously seen it carry as much relevance as the ones I have addressed. There are time constraints and I have been asked dozens of questions and addressed dozens of issues.

(1) You wrote: "Liberalism is not confined to the black race alone. There are plenty of liberal Southern whites who enjoy sucking on the Federal teats every bit as much as their black fellowloafers...."

George, you have stated the central issue is: "Should the Southern League become a white racialist movement advocating a white separatist Southern "nation" based on ethnicity?" But I have disagreed that this is the central issue. I believe the Southern League should become whatever it ought to become. And this will be determined in large part by the answer to a more fundamental question: "Who comprises the Southern nation?"

You have asked if the Southern "nation" should be based on ethnicity?" I have answered yes and argued both historically and Biblically that a nation can be based on nothing else. You have not accepted that argument as accurate. Others have and still others are weighing the evidence. So, the debate continues.

In light of this, my perspective is that your point about "liberalism is not confined to the black race alone" is not an important one. It's a given. Now if a nation can be structured along ideological lines, this would be a point of utmost importance. But since no compelling evidence has been presented that this is a possibility, IMO, then your point becomes moot. We must settle the more basic question first.

(2) You have also written: "By condemning an entire race of people for the sins of the underclass you will confirm every negative stereotype that exists about the South and Southerners."

This is a point that strays from the central issue. Besides that, it is patently untrue and is just setting up another straw man and knocking it down, which I have charged you with before. I haven't condemned the blacks and I only wish all the best for them. IMO, the central issue is: "Are the blacks and the Southerners the same people?" I have answered "no" to this and given evidence that the historical Southern position agrees with me. In fact, prior to 1865, the United States Supreme Court held this view. The Dred Scott decision in 1857 explicitly stated that according to the Constitution, the blacks did not comprise part of the body politic of the United States and were never intended to do so by the founding fathers.

This perspective has been borne out by those who have fought for the Southern cause since the Civil War and certain members of the SL, yourself included, are the first Southern advocates I have ever come across who argue against this point. I have written a great deal of evidence to support my contention that my perspective is the historic Southern position and yours is something novel, unknown to the South until now and therefore, unconnected to the ideals advanced by the Confederate battle flag and the Southern tradition.

I would say the negative stereotypes that exist about the South and Southerners are the result of people accepting the false premises of the North. One of the main tenants of that false premise is that all men are brothers, regardless of race, creed, or color, and should live together as one in a unified society. I reject that premise and hope you do too. And I would encourage you to use your masterful rhetorical talents and immense energy in fighting that error, not those who attempt to promote the historical "cause of the South."

(3) You have also written: "You have continuously failed to address the numerous references made here regarding the positions of men like Robert E. Lee and Patrick Cleburne whose views do not support your peculiar worldview. Was Jefferson Davis a fool to adopt Jim Limber? Was Stonewall Jackson an idiot to allow Southern blacks to serve in his ranks under arms?"

George, this is a case of your asking questions that do not serve to reveal truth, but to shroud it, or to cover it up. You aren't advancing an argument here, you are merely throwing out rhetorical questions. You have failed to make it clear which positions Robert E. Lee or Patrick Cleburne held that do not support my worldview. (And you throw in the melodramatic adjective "peculiar" for good measure.) I can't answer that question as asked because I don't know what you are referring to. I want to answer it, if you want an answer. But before I do, I need you to ask it in a manner that I can understand it. Specifically, what positions did these men hold that are in contrast to mine?

Also, I don't know who Jim Limber was. If you could make your assertive questions plainer, it would help the discussion a great deal.

As for Stonewall Jackson being an idiot for allowing Southern blacks to serve in his ranks under arms, I would have to answer "no," he would have been an idiot for not allowing it. Again, though, this is a rhetorical question, not designed to elicit information, but asked for some other and unknowable purpose.

I don't want to tell you how to argue your points, but for my money it would serve us all better if you would state your beliefs and give evidence for them. Then we could judge the merits of your arguments and not just sit here amazed at the forcefulness of your passion. I can assume the underlying assumptions of your question, but what purpose would that serve?

I suppose, and I can only suppose because you haven't expressed your point clearly, that you assume that since Jackson accepted blacks into the Confederate Army, that he saw them as equals and citizens of the Confederacy. For this to be true, then the South must have enacted a policy change of great importance concerning the blacks which is unknown to history. But I can't know what you are getting at until you state it. I'll be more than happy to tackle this question or any other if I can know what I'm being asked.

(4) Your final point was: "I firmly believe that if one removes government from the daytoday lives of the Southern people that they will be quite capable of rearranging their social, business and political relations in a satisfactory manner without the meddling of neosegregationists who would *compel* the separation of the races by force of law. I think that black and white cultural preferences are sufficiently different that most folks would separate voluntarily like oil and vinegar but that doesn't mean we can't exist under one government in peace."

I can't agree with this and would again ask you to distinguish this position from that of Martin Luther King. I can see that there are some distinctions between your position and his in style and emphasis, and I doubt that he would say that people would voluntarily separate like oil and vinegar, but he was against the segregationists compelling the separation of the races by force of law the historical Southern tradition and I would like you to spell out what the laws should be on matters of employment, commercial trade, housing, government entitle-ments, voting, etc, that would distinguish your position from his.

Perhaps you can come up with something that is workable. I'd like to see it. If you'd do this, then we'll have some grounds for civil discussion and debate. As it stands now, your rhetoric, sound bites, and invective do little except close discussion.

What I've seen in history is that wherever Northern European peoples go in the world Australia, South Africa, North America they build great societies that other peoples have not been able to build for one reason or another. So nonEuropeans in these places have made ceaseless attacks at sharing in the fruits of those civilizations, and the only way those civilizations could be protected has been by force of law. Our forefathers in the South knew this, so they erected legal barriers to protect themselves and us. Had they not done this we wouldn't be having this discussion because the Southern way of life would have been long dead and buried by now.

Dennis Wheeler

[Editor's note: This post sent George into an emotional frenzy. It took him a couple of days to answer, but when he did answer, he came out smoking. Those posts are quoted in full a little later in the text. In the meantime, there were some other developments going on. -- Dennis Wheeler]

#60.

From Gary Waltrip to Dennis Wheeler.

August 15, 1996

Gary begins with a quote by Dennis Wheeler in a post written to George Kalas:

In a message dated 960814 23:22:59 EDT, you write: "A few others have indicated they are listening to the debate and have not made up their minds one way or the other, yet. George, you'd be surprised if you knew who some of these people are. The one I liked best was the woman who told me: `Thank you for making the listserver more than just a Kalas

Waltrip backslapping exercise."

Gary's answer:

Why is this lady too afraid to express her sentiments publicly? Obviously, it is because she is ashamed of her own convictions, with good reason. Whoever you are, dearie, I am publicly calling you a coward.

I neither respect nor like bigots. They are a mean, small people with a need to look down on someone else. If they only resented the black underclass, I would have to cut them some slack, because I resent the black underclass, too. But such folks resent all blacks, and anyone else who isn't fishbelly white. Asians, Hispanics, Jews, Italians, Catholics are all fodder for their stupid and mindless hate.

I have heard socalled compatriots make fun of a black SCV member, in spite of his ardor for his heritage; I have read spurious denunciations of Judah Benjamin as either incompetent or traitorous to the Confederate cause (why? because he was Jewish). Like someone once said, "some people [will] have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 20th century."

There is no one here who vocally and volubly opposes the hypocrisies of the Civil Rights movement more than I do, or who is more free with their criticism of quotas and black racists. There is no one who is more willing to publicly discuss the deep pathologies within the black culture and no one more willing to call for the end of all liberal race schemes, including busing, race-norming, affirmative action, quotas, gerrymandering and welfare.

I oppose these things because they are counterproductive, unfair, and discriminate against ethnicities who do produce e.g., white and Asian. I do not believe for a moment that those positions make me a racist, which is someone who, by my definition, hates races other than his own simply because they look different, or talk different, or eat different foods, or wear strange clothes, which the racist views as a deliberate scheme to irritate him.

Whenever I encounter brazen racism within the movement, it is as repugnant to me as turning over a rock and finding squirming maggots. There is nothing that could cool my ardor faster for the Cause than to believe it was all just a front for Klanstyle bigotry.

Thank God for people like George Kalas (your back is going to get sore, George), Robert Stacy McCain, Dawn Heynes, Jason Russo, and Philip UnderwoodSheppard, to name a few; because of such folks, I am still here. If most felt like Dennis Wheeler and his band of secret admirers, I would have long concluded the Yankees were right, sheathed my sword, and gone home.

Either I am in the wrong movement, or they are. It's time for us to find out which is which.

Gary Waltrip

[Editor's note: When Gary learned that I was not alone, it really began to irritate him. You'll see later just how bad it hurt him when he came to realize there were an awful lot of people who supported my position.

The emotion that he expressed here was quite surprising. He had run out of arguments and now was finding that his name-calling wasn't working, either. So he was lashing out as best he knew how, I guess.

He did say one thing that sort of told it all: If most felt like Dennis Wheeler and his band of secret admirers, I would have long concluded the Yankees were right, sheathed my sword, and gone home." I had never offered any statement or belief other than those which Southerners have always believed. In truth, Gary hates the Confederate perspective. He has redefined it to make it a Libertarian pipedream and embraces that as reality. But in reality, my perspective is the true Southern perspective. And that evokes from him such passionate hatred that there's no telling what he's liable to do. -- Dennis Wheeler]

#61.

From Robert Stacy McCain to all.

August 15, 1996

I have seen spring up here on the listserver a thread of arguments over the issue of race in the South, further devolving into whether the Southern League (and I'm not sure what lunatic advocated this) should have as its policy some sort of white separatist homeland or some such thing.

Having been through this whole trip in the Jared Taylor argument of the spring, and having read a good bit, old and new, dealing with questions of race, let me offer some observations and opinions which might be instructive to those who worry about such matters:

1. The South would not be Southern if it were even close to allwhite. That would be Montana or Minnesota. It is the presence within the South of large numbers of black people (2035 percent of the region's population, the 13 states represented on the battle flag containing 50 percent of the nation's black population) which makes the white person quite conscious of his whiteness. And there is also an amount of crosscultural influence between black and white within the South which is seldom acknowledged by either race which is why rock 'n' roll was invented in Memphis, not Kennebunkport.

2. The South has often been charged with being especially prone to "racism." I would suggest that anyone wondering why this might be true (supposing that it were true) take a look at Chapter XVIII of Alexis De Toqueville's "Democracy in America" and read it through VERY carefully. In the 1830s, De Toqueville supposed that the future of race relations in America would be either:

a. The peaceful continuation of slavery;

b. Abolition and "intermingling" between black and white; or

c. Open armed conflict between the races, either prior to or subsequent to the abolition of slavery. One reason that the South seceded was the widespread belief that, by limiting

the black population to the South (forbidding expansion into the territories) and fomenting insurrection among the slaves (a la John Brown), the Republicans would eventually succeed in bringing about result "c." After the war, the South resisted Reconstruction in the belief that the Republicans were attempting, among other things, to bring about result "b." or "c." and later enforced segregation to prevent such an end.

3. We are now nearing a solution that De Toqueville never imagined: None of the above. The South has, through a long and bitter struggle with the rest of the nation over this issue, come to a situation where:

a. Blacks enjoy equal civil rights, economic and educational opportunities;

b. "Intermingling" still remains remarkably uncommon; and

c. Harmony, rather than antagonism, remains the prevailing spirit in race relations.

4. Yet this is a precarious balance, and one reason sensible Southerners should oppose external political and cultural influence is because such influences might tend to upset the balance. The primary dangers to the balance are these:

a. Those of both races who insist that the natural relationship between the races is, and should be, antagonistic.

b. Those of both races who insist upon governmentimposed "solutions" to the "historic oppression" of which blacks.

c. The inflammation of racial sensitivities in regard to interracial sexual relationships.

5. In some quarters, opposition to or disapproval of interracial relationships (whether such views are private or public) is equated with "racism," even though this is a logical non sequitur. After all, a white man who may not object to a black man one day becoming president of the United States, yet still may object to his daughter becoming First Lady in such an administration. Is he racist? Or is he simply acting on the very natural impulse of wanting his posterity to resemble him? It has been noted that there is less social stigma attached to relationships between whites and Asians, and between whites and Latinos, than between whites and blacks. The obvious reason for this is because of the tremendous physical (and to a lesser degree, cultural) distinction between those of European and African origin.

6. It should not be overlooked that many blacks object to interracial relationships. For instance, last spring a group of black coeds at Brown University created a "wall of shame" bearing the names of black men on campus who were dating white women. As the usual nature of interracial relationship is black male/white female, one obvious cause of the objection among young people (as opposed to objections from their parents) is that the desired mating pool is depleted. To the extent that such relationships are prevalent, white men who wish to date white women and black women who wish to date black men are both deprived of their choice in partners.

7. Beyond the objections of parents and of rejected suitors within their own race, the interracial couple then faces the question: With which race will their children be identified? Although children typically identify with their maternal culture (the children of any interfaith marriage are fairly certain of attending their mother's church), the fact that the white woman in an interracial relationship faces a social stigma tends to compel her toward an affiliation with "black" culture. This is a result which (if you think through it carefully) any sensible Southerner would NOT desire.

8. In discussing all this during the Jared Taylor debate and thinking it through since, it is apparent to me that the person who wishes to discourage interracial relationships or more grandly to "preserve the white race" can take measures to do so that are entirely private. (Having lots of kids, I would suggest, is the best way a young white person can help achieve the latter goal.) But if you think preaching racial hatred to your children is the answer, you are sadly mistaken. Many children will rebel against such teachings, and even if they do adopt your views, an outright bigot is seldom a desirable mate.

9. An end to affirmative action and an end to "welfare as we know it" will have a disproportionately greater effect on blacks than on any other race, as anyone can see. But the effect, as all sensible people must see, will not be entirely negative and will, if understood rightly, be tremendously positive. However, as the nation heads toward these goals of more sensible policies, racial sensitivities might become greater. While the Southern League has no racial policy as such, I would suggest that as individuals, we might help avoid conflict by:

a. Continuing our defense of Confederate heritage, since most attacks on the flag, et cetera, are actually the work of activists who seek to foment antiwhite racism among blacks;

b. Resisting the impulse to hurl racial insults while defending Confederate heritage, since our enemies would like nothing better;

c. Identifying and denouncing as hatemongers those who support antiConfederate initiatives, as well as advocates of all other measures revisionist education, et cetera which tend to exacerbate reverse racism;

d. Making certain that our private conduct toward ordinary black people is unfailingly friendly, courteous and kind, so that we may contradict the hate propaganda of their selfanointed "leaders"; and

e. Most especially, by seeking genuine, honest friendship with those blacks of our acquaintance who share our values of morality and culture.

That last one is the trick, because I know many fairly "racist" individuals (including some of my own kin) but do not know a single one who believes that ALL blacks are bad people. So if you're one of those who knows 100 black people and only likes one of them, make sure you're really nice to that one! Maybe you'll make the other 99 wonder what they're doing wrong.

Stepping down of my soapbox, now,

Robert Stacy McCain

[Editor's note: Reduced to its essence, this was another manifestation of the Libertarian argument of "get the government out of the issue." He hits all around the issue without ever touching it once: Do the Southern people have an inalienable right to self-determination in their own land?

I say we do. Stacy has never thought that one out and advances spurious argument after spurious argument to somehow justify the South without bringing him into a serious conflict the her opponents who demand total political and social equality for all people living in the South. -- Dennis Wheeler]

#61.

From Harris Ford to all.

At 06:49 PM 8/16/96 0400

I have refrained from comment on "The Theology of the Confederacy" by Dennis Wheeler and Gregory F. West until I had a chance to read it in it's entirety. I have read it, and cannot find one thing that is not factual. In fact, I highly recommend it to anyone who agrees that the AngloCeltic dominant traditional culture of the South is worthy of preservation and advancement. 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.

Harris Ford Jr.

#62.

From Ron Courtney to George Kalas.

August 16, 1996

George,

I suspect there are more SL members and subscribers than you might think who agree with most or all of what Dennis says but who are reluctant to say it publicly. You and Gary and a few others more or less set the tone of the discussions on the listserver, which is fine, but it can be intimidating to other subscribers who don't have the courage or the intellect that Dennis has.

I think Dennis is to be commended for making a very controversial case.

Ron Courtney

#63.

From Tom Atkinson to all.

August 17, 1996

I admit that I have not read every post involving Mr. Wheeler. Nor have I read every post on every topic. I do think I get a generally picture. One that troubles me.

I am very much for Southern independence. At the same time I think, in some respects, many people on this list (including Mr. Wheeler) have attempted to create an idealized picture of the

past. The country of the "past", picture perfect, one woman for

one man, Christian culture, etc. happy slaves, everybody getting

along, "little house on the prairie," "a man's home was his castle" picture of the past. Unfortunately, such presentations of the past do not reflect "the way we were."

This is what Stephanie Coonitz, calls "the Nostalgia Trap." She has authored an excellent book entitled "The Way We Never Were" challenging some of the myths about our past. Everyone would do well to read her work and peruse her research.

While an idealistic picture of the past may sound good, it is not realistic. That is the "way we never were." As for me, if a move for Southern independence means moving back to the days of segregation and denial of rights to various ethnic groups (simply because of their education, color of their skin, religion, whatever) then I want no part of it and would fight to the death to see that such never happened again. All people, regardless of background, are given their rights by the creator, not by government or some idealized notion of the past.

If you want segregation and insist of denying others their rights, simply because they are not "white" then, as far as I am concerned, you can find another country. I don't want it and would work to prevent it. A free south? Yes!!! A south with slavery, back seats on busses for people of color, separate water fountains and forced segregation? NO, NO, NO!!!! A thousand times NO!!!

Oh, by the way, us good "white folk" never got along all that great, either. Total peace and harmony does not exist among any ethnic groups. That also is a myth. These are just my thoughts, which I hold very strongly.

Tom Atkinson

tomvason@usit.net

[Editor's note: Tom broke new ground when he stated he would fight to the death to oppose my positions. It's always good to see someone willing to take a stand.

If you read what he says, however, you'll notice that there's not much reason or rationale given, it's pretty much a lot of emotional rhetoric, the kind of prose you'd most likely see in a letter to the editor. -- Dennis Wheeler]

#64.

From Tim Wyatt to Dennis Wheeler.

August 16, 1996

Dennis Wheeler,

I have been following the recent posts by Dennis Wheeler with interest. While I have found a lot about which to agree in his posts (as well as in the responses from Glenn Ferrell and George Kalas), I have to confess that I still am not sure what he is advocating. Is it forced separation of the races, or simply repeal of forced integration and a return to freedom of association, or something else entirely?

Dennis, if it is possible, could you post a short outline of the policies that you would propose? I like the exchange of lengthier treatises, but sometimes they can obscure the actual point you're trying to make. Please don't take this as a testy "Get to the point!" message, because I really want to know what your position is.

Also, as someone else said, I am no match for you in a debate, so I'm not asking for an argument in defense of your position (yet).

Tim Wyatt

#65.

From Dennis Wheeler to Tim Wyatt.

August 17, 1996

Tim,

Thanks for the question. I don't think there will ever be civil peace in the South until the Southern people have their own homeland and the blacks have their own homeland. I don't preclude the possibility of there being a structure whereby there can be peaceful coexistence within the same geographical area, but I don't know what it is and I haven't seen anyone else postulate one.

Over the past 300 years or so, we have structured two different systems whereby we lived together in a relative peace. The slavery system was pretty good, but I doubt that could be returned to or that anyone would want to return to it although with the government in Washington, the linchpin of the world economic system, being over $5 trillion in debt, the entire global economic picture could take a drastic turn for the worse in a hurry.

(An economic need for slavery could return as I imagine that in a world without welfare, affirmative action, government housing, government medical care, government education, and government jobs programs, most blacks in America would find themselves destitute and on the brink of starvation and in need of a master. The compassion of the Southern people runs deep and in a Christian society structured on the Bible, no government would have the right to prohibit slavery.)

Once the slave system was gone, the Southerners erected the Separate-but-Equal policy. That too worked pretty well, but was legally irrational as the blacks were considered full citizens of the U.S., but were not really allowed to act like it.

The system we have now is a travesty of justice. And black voting in elections and on juries are two of the main culprits. Black judges who have no tradition of AngloSaxon justice are also a big problem.

I think separate countries is the best policy and, as I've said, Southern leaders should be prepared to negotiate with legitimate black and Hispanic leaders as to who gets what land. (Of course, all this is assuming the day comes when the Southern people are able to act on their own initiative without interference from foreign governments.)

In the interim, we should work for justice as we are able:

(1) Repeal of the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act;

(2) Tighten immigration laws and deport the illegal aliens.

(3) The abolition of government schools and a reeducation of the populace.

You wanted something short. So here it is. If anyone can think of other workable ideas, I'm sure we'd all be glad to hear them.

Dennis Wheeler

[Editor's note: I had made a controversial statement much too strongly in that post, and it would come back to haunt me. When I wrote that " most blacks in America would find themselves destitute and on the brink of starvation and in need of a master," those were poorly chosen words. I would acknowledge that later and state what I should have stated in the first place. But my opponents would let me hear about it. -- Dennis Wheeler]

#66.From Philip Underwood-Sheppard to Ron Colson.

At 09:39 AM 8/17/96 0400, you wrote:

Ron,

Excellent post. Though I may agree with many folks, I have been dismayed at the tone of some responses.

"Never be a judge between thy friends in any matter where both set their hearts upon the victory. If strangers or enemies be litigants, whatever side thou favorest, thou gettest a friend, but when friends are the parties thou losest one." - Jeremy Taylor

I believe that it is of importance to hammer out some thoughts on this server before our independence; independence is still, nonetheless, our ultimate goal. And while not being the Congress of the Confederate States and not able to make policy, we notice it appears that most folks responding to the issue at hand oppose a return to a division of the races. If, therefore, we are a sampling of future leadership of an independent Southland, it shouldn't necessarily cause us to cook our responses just because we oppose one side of an issue. We can trust to the good judgement of the people of the South and her states to do what we believe is right. Again, if we are a representative group of people of the South, then we need to fear no return to race-based laws.

Most humbly,

Philip

Philip UnderwoodSheppard

Occupied South Carolina

#67.

From Jim Lancuster to Ron Courtney.

August 18, 1996

Jim begins with a quote by Ron from a previous post:

On Fri, 16 Aug 1996 DIXIEART@aol.com wrote: "Pat: You said in a message to Dennis Wheeler that the Southern breakaway from the Union had everything to do with state sovereignty and little to do with slavery."

Jim's response:

I'm not entirely comfortable with this premise. Sure, Calhoun et al placed great emphasis on preserving slavery. But what preoccupied Calhoun and the Old Republicans who preceded him (i.e., John Randolph and John Taylor of Caroline) was that Northern mercantilist policies in the form of protective tariffs and internal improvements ultimately would reduce the South to a state of economic vassalage.

One very instructive text is Jefferson's famous fire bell in the night letter written after the passage of the Missouri Compromise. (A complete text and explanation of this letter is included in "Union and Liberty: The Political Philosophy" of John C. Calhoun).

Of course, the politically enlightened classes now interpret this letter as reflecting Jefferson's true abolitionist colors i.e., his concerns that slavery ultimately would work to destroy the Union. But that's not entirely true. Jefferson favored the extension of slavery into the Western territories, believing that the diffusion of slavery through westward expansion eventually would contribute to its extinction.

In truth, the "fire bell in the night" was Jefferson's painful realization that slavery henceforth would be used as a battering ram against the South by Northern mercantilist interests who resented the South's uncompromising defense of open markets and states rights all of which threatened protective tariffs and internal improvements.

Jim Langcuster

[Editor's note: I don't know who Jim Lancuster is, nor what he does. But his words here sure put the lie to one of the main points you will read my opponents make in later pages; that of their unfaltering belief in Jeffersonian democracy. Obviously, if Jefferson believed in slavery, then his democratic beliefs had limits and qualifications that pertained to who exactly comprised the body politic. Keep this in mind as you go forward.

Once this post was finished, it was time for George Kalas to come into the arena and attempt to destroy me forever. The following several posts are his grandest attempts. -- Dennis Wheeler]

#68.

From: George Kalas to Dennis Wheeler.

August 18, 1996

George begins by quoting me quoting him and then answering:

Dennis Wheeler wrote: "You have also written: `By condemning an entire race of people for the sins of the underclass you will confirm every negative stereotype that exists about the South and Southerners.'

"This is a point that strays from the central issue. Besides that, it is patently untrue and is just setting up another straw man and knocking it down, which I have charged you with before."

Nonsense. This is not straw man. It is a valid and legitimate objection to a foolish and stupid position that would destroy the Southern nationalist movement. In fact, I'm beginning to wonder if you are not an agent provocateur who persists in this nonsensical debate solely for the express purpose of trying to see if you can flush racists out of our ranks and thus prove that the SL is a despicable organisation.

I wonder.... But, in any event, I must observe that only an ostrich who hasn't been paying any attention whatsoever to what the news media says about the Southern League would pretend that they are not seeking to portray us as racist, bigoted, elitist, ignorant, backwoods, peckerhead Rednecks who can't wait to "put the blacks back into their place."

Now pray tell, sir, how your position would not feed that line of propaganda?

Dennis also wrote: "I haven't condemned the blacks and I only wish all the best for them."

Please, Dennis. Don't strain my credulity. You've called for their outright disenfranchisement and have insinuated that it would be best if they were not living here in the South.

Dennis also wrote: "IMO, the central issue is: `Are the blacks and the Southerners the same people?'"

That is not the central issue. The issue we are arguing over is whether or not the SL should admit blacks and jews. My announcement of the admission of blacks and jews to our membership last month is what originally set you off and started this debate. You have a short memory, my friend, and a conveniently selective one at that. This other issue of whether or not whites and blacks in the South are "one people" is an excercise in misdirection of the attention of the readers to a new issue that is not the one that we started this debate over. In any event, I've noticed that the vast majority of those SL members who have posted on this matter have roundly rejected your view that blacks and Jews "are not Southrons."

Dennis also wrote: "I have answered `no' to this and given evidence that the historical Southern position agrees with me. In fact, prior to 1865, the United States Supreme Court held this view. The Dred Scott decision in 1857 explicitly stated that according to the Constitution, the blacks did not comprise part of the body politic of the United States and were never intended to do so by the founding fathers."

The Southern historical position held that "slaves were not citizens" but it did not hold that "blacks were not Southerners." There is no proclamation that blacks are not Southerners in the Dred Scott decision. While virtually all white Americans in the 19th century were raised in a culture that taught them that blacks were inferior humans who were best suited to bondage under the wise and benevolent tutelage of benevolent whites, many observers of the time plainly commented on the cultural familiarity between Southern whites and blacks that characterized the antebellum era.

Alexis De Toqueville was one such commentator and many Northern and British travellers in antebellum Dixie made similar observations. That tends to indicate that, like it or not, Southern whites and blacks created what we call Southern "culture" in concert by the fact of their very coexistance with one another at a time when Southern culture was being formed in the late 18th and early 19th centuries.

Sorry, Dennis but your theory just doesn't hold water.

Deo Vindice,

George Kalas

Dixienet

[Editor's note: George is just warming up. Notice that he doesn't want to debate the central issue of who comprises the Southern people, but again falls back on a spurious issue of: "Should the SL admit blacks and jews?" I had already answered that for him on two separate occasions. But obviously, he didn't want an answer.

Also, his denial that Southern policy, American policy, and even the Dred Scott decision that blacks were not citizens has any bearing on this discussion, shows he is missing the point. Our people, Southerners, all hold inalienable rights that every other Southerner is obliged to protect and acknowledge. Outsiders, who can expect justice and equity from us, don't enjoy all the rights and privileges of our people. The same is true for Americans.

The Dred Scott decision held that blacks weren't truly Americans and were not to be included among those who enjoyed the rights of citizens. The South overwhelmingly agreed with that premise. For George to delineate between citizen and Southerner is straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel. -- Dennis Wheeler]

#69.

From: George Kalas to Dennis Wheeler.

August 18, 1996

Dennis Wheeler wrote: "... You again win a gold medal in rhetoric.... George, you have stated the central issue is: `Should the Southern League become a white racialist movement advocating a white separatist Southern "nation" based on ethnicity?' But I have disagreed that this is the central issue. I believe the Southern League should become whatever it ought to become."

Dennis,

Sorry, but I can only claim a Bronze medal for rhetoric. I freely concede that your prose has been superior to my own in this exchange and that your rhetoric in the name of white separatism stands second to none here.

I still firmly contend that you took a stand for segregation and white separatism and urged SL members to lead this charge and anyone whose been closely following your posts knows that I have not misrepresented your position. You are, my friend, merely dodging the issue and seeking to retreat to a more defensible ground of preserving our Southern culture because you know that we'll all agree with you on *that.*

But, you may disagree with my concise and accurate definition of the main point of our disagreement all you want, Dennis, but the fact remains that you've stated as much in your posts and have argued vigorously for a white Southern nation citing Dabney and the Bible at great length to buttress your view that race is the defining attribute of any "nation."

If you are prepared to come out and plainly state that you have reconsidered that position and that you *positively* no longer advocate the establishment of laws by a new Southern nation that would reinstitute segregation and deprivation of the franchise from citizens solely on account of their race then I would have little arguement with you. But I haven't heard this from you yet though you most certainly have stated rather plainly your desire to disenfranchise and resegregate virtually all blacks.

If I am wrong on this point, please tell me this: If you had absolute power over the South for one year would you:

(1) Allow blacks to live in the CSA? (2) Allow blacks to vote in the CSA? (3) Allow Jews to live in the CSA? (4) Allow Jews to vote in the CSA? (5) Allow other minority ethinic groups to live and vote in the CSA?

If your answer is "no" to any of these questions please explain fully why you would expel nativeborn, nonwhite, or nonChristian Southrons from Dixie. Why are they less deserving of liberty and the right to live and vote here than you are? While I would not shed any tears over the Willie Horton clones of this world losing the franchise, (even thought the black underclass doesn't exercise it very vigorously anyway), I think they should only lose it through some act of grossly antisocial behaviour like committing felonies and being on terminal welfare. (Yes, I agree with William F. Buckley that being on the Federal dole should remove you from the voting rolls until you become a taxpayer again.) Now if, on the other hand, you have modified your view so that all you are saying is that if, when left to their own devices in a free society, blacks and whites will tend to voluntarily segregate themselves and that the government should not intervene to prevent this exercise of free will on the part of the citizenry, then I'd have no beef with you on that. I say live and let live. Personally, I do not think it is a crime for people of any race or culture to prefer their own kind and their own heritage over that of other people.

But where I strongly disagree with you is that any portion of the population has the right to disenfranchise another portion of the population from their right to have a say in their own government. Your position is an advocacy of tyranny in the modern age. Indeed, it was tyranny in the reconstruction era when vast numbers of Confederates were disenfranchised by the carpetbag governments because the Yanks, Scalawags, and freedmen didn't much care for the way exRebs wanted to run things. Whether one favours or disfavours restricting the franchise largely depends on the premise upon which the disenfranchisement is being justified and whose ox is being gored.

Deo Vindice,

George Kalas

Dixienet

[Editor's note: George was starting to lose it here. But he did say one thing that was quite instructive: "But where I strongly disagree with you is that any portion of the population has the right to disenfranchise another portion of the population from their right to have a say in their own government."

He was missing the point entirely. What I've been saying is that they are entitled to their own government and we are entitled to ours. That is the issue. George advanced his position in Libertarian terms -- "I say live and let live." The problem with this is, as I've said before, no one will let us just live and let live. Blacks and others will continue to use their vote to take away everything we have. A Libertarian arrangement is not sufficient because, for if no other reason, other peoples don't think or act in Libertarian terms. -- Dennis Wheeler]

#70.

From: George Kalas to Dennis Wheeler.

August 18, 1996

Dennis,

If I have to type much more to answer your interminable posts I'll develop carpel tunnel disease. Suffice it to say that most people on this listserver are very well aware of the fact that Lee and Cleburne advocated arming the slaves and enlisting blacks as Confederate soldiers in exchange for emancipation. The adoption of the black child, Jim Limber, by Mr. and Mrs. Jefferson Davis during the War for Southern Independence is a wellknown fact of history and is detailed at some length in "The South Was Right!" by the Kennedy brothers of Louisiana.

But, I highly suspect that you know this as well and I am convinced at this point that you are merely being hypocritical because you want to belabour the point and misdirect attention away from the fact that you are a racist and that you feel that history somehow justifies your racism.

My friend just because people thought it was O.K. to feed Christians to the lions in the Coliseum of ancient Rome doesn't mean that the Lega Nord of Italy should consider reinstituting this ancient form of Roman *sport.* Likewise, just because slavery and white convictions of racial superiority over blacks were the norm in the 19th century, does not mean that such a policy makes any sense at all for people today in the South and that the SL should lead the charge to kick all blacks out of Dixie or to disenfranchise them.

Deo Vindice,

George Kalas

[Editor's note: George was left with little to do except engage in name-calling at this point. Having taken his best shot and watched as I was still standing, he began to merely castigate me with high-volume rhetoric. It got much worse, as you'll see. But before I responded, George got a message he never expected. -- Dennis Wheeler.]

#71.

From Lynne Bailey to George Kalas.

August 19, 1996

Lynne begins with a quote by George written to Dennis Wheeler.

In a message dated 960818 14:37:14 EDT, you write: "If I have to type much more to answer your interminable posts I'll develop carpel tunnel disease."

Lynne's response:

"George, do youself and the rest of us a favor and save your wrist and this server. By attacking other SLer's, do you think it benefits the SL?

Mr. Ford's (I think she meant to say, Mr. Wheeler's) post was intelligent, well written and he has received multiLaurels for his opinions as well as his writings - but he would be the last to let you know this! There was no reason to insult to him. His research is impeccable! You may not agree, but when he states historical facts, he has documentation! Sarcasm and insults are foreign to the SL purpose. Debate is one thing, insults another.

Several members have stated that they "paid dearly" for the priviledge of e-mail due to their geographic location. I propose we consider them, also.

I speak for myself (and Mammy) only, but I ask, please, let's move forward with debate not "street fighting" and defamation of fellow Sler's."

Respectfully,

Lynne Bailey

#72.

From: George Kalas to Dennis Wheeler.

August 18, 1996

Dennis Wheeler writes: "I would say the negative stereotypes that exist about the South and Southerners are the result of people accepting the false premises of the North. One of the main tenents or that false premise is that all men are brothers, regardless of race, creed, or color, and should live together as one in a unified society. I reject that premise and hope you do too. And I would encourage you to use your masterful rhetorical talents and immense energy in fighting that error, not those who attempt to promote the historical `cause of the South.'"

And just what are those false premises, Dennis? Well let's see ... one of them is that Southern white culture is totally, and I mean totally, dominated by an overriding fixation on race and an irresistable desire to oppress blacks.

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 that was being called into question even by some of the founding fathers as far back as the late 18th century when the legitimacy of slavery was first disputed in the wake of the Revolutionary War.

As for the "brotherhood of man" that is not an invention of liberals, Dennis, but of God, who created us all in his own image. The concept of the "brotherhood of man" is largely a Christian ideal. Your argument is more properly with the Christian faith than with me on this point.

As for equalitarianism, while I do not believe that equalitarianism is a Christian or democratic virtue, I also do not believe in the opposite extreme which is the tyranny of an elite minority. Aristocracies, royalty, theocracies, dictators, communists, nazis I have no use for any of these groups that contend that *they* are uniquely better qualified to run my affairs than I am. Why should people of other races and faiths feel any differently?

While I would agree with you that peoples of vastly different cultures and faiths should be allowed to govern themselves independently if that is their expressed desire, (for obvious reasons one being that it helps keep the peace), I do not believe that it is presently feasible to attempt to separate Southern whites and blacks into their own nationstates by government fiat. I also do not think that you've built a sound enough case for such an action. Even Jared Taylor does not go to the extremes you do. While he rightly observes what is wrong with the black underclass, he does not call for their expulsion from the nation or for the reinstitution of Jim Crow. But then, I suppose you'll now tell us that Jared Taylor is a "squish like Kalas" on the race question.

Deo Vindice,

George Kalas

Dixienet

[Editor's note: Two statements in this post really stood out. First, "If your statements were typical of the thinking of the majority of Southrons the Yankees would be right." My statements may not be held by the majority of Southerners today, but they have been the historical position of my people. George is really saying that the Yankees are right, that the Northern perspective really was the most righteous of the two. I have realized he believed that all along. I was glad he came out and said it.

Second, "While I would agree with you that peoples of vastly different cultures and faiths should be allowed to govern themselves independently if that is their expressed desire...." His statement is patently untrue. He doesn't believe that. For this is what I've been advocating all along, that my people, who are vastly different from non-Southerners in the South be allowed to govern themselves. But George will have none of it and has denounced me repeatedly and blatantly for holding such a view.

He does go on to contradict himself if his principle is to be applied to the South. But he gives no evidence or support as to why it should be different in the South than anywhere else. -- Dennis Wheeler]

#73.

From: George Kalas to Dennis Wheeler.

August 18, 1996

George again begins by quoting me quoting him and then answering him:

Dennis Wheeler writes: "Your final point was: `I firmly believe that if one removes government from the daytoday lives of the Southern people that they will be quite capable of rearranging their social, business and political relations in a satisfactory manner without the meddling of neosegregationists who would *compel* the separation of the races by force of law. I think that black and white cultural preferences are sufficiently different that most folks would separate voluntarily like oil and vinegar but that doesn't mean we can't exist under one government in peace.'

"I can't agree with this and would again ask you to distinguish this position from that of Martin Luther King."

George's response:

So, what you are saying, Dennis, is that we should have government forcing people to segregate. How would you distinguish this position from that of Senator Bilbo of Mississippi?

George again quotes Dennis:

"I can see that there are some distinctions between your position and his in style and emphasis, and I doubt that he would say that people would voluntarily separate like oil and vinegar, but he was against the segregationists compelling the separation of the races by force of law the historical Southern tradition and I would like you to spell out what the laws should be on matters of employment, commercial trade, housing, government entitlements, voting, etc, that would distinguish your position from his."

George's response:

I disagree vehemently with King's idea that government

forced integration was a positive good. I also think that King was, in his personal life, a hypocrite, a philanderer, a socialist, and plagerist of questionable moral character. But he prevailed not because whites sympathised with these character traits, but because he did a masterful job of focusing attention on the injustice of denying citizens the right to vote and have a voice in their own government.

The only way one can deny this is to assert that blacks are not worthy of citizenship and the vote and that they should not have any sayso in the government that governs them. This cannot be asserted from anything other than a premise that holds that blacks are subhuman and undeserving of the same rights you and I have. If you endorse such a premise, you are, ipso facto, a bona fide racist. You have the right to be a racist and to argue for your beliefs but I don't have to agree with you.

George quotes Dennis again:

"Perhaps you can come up with something that is workable. I'd like to see it. If you'd do this, then we'll have some grounds for civil discussion and debate. As it stands now, your rhetoric, sound bites, and invective do little except close discussion."

George's response:

No, it's your avoidance of the topic, long misleading posts, and false and hypocritical stance of ignorance of historical facts that are regularly discussed on this listserver are the true barriers to discussion. Frankly, I'm not all that interested in having a long and extended discussion with you, Dennis. Your way of thinking is so far off the deep end as to be unworthy of serious consideration. If you want to terminate our exchange I will not be disappointed in the least.

George quotes Dennis again:

"What I've seen in history is that wherever Northern European peoples go in the world Australia, South Africa, North America they build great societies that other peoples have not been able to build for one reason or another."

George's response:

I have no disagreement with you there, but I it is also true that Europeans have built monstrosities like the Third Reich and Soviet Communism. When it comes to totalitarian regimes Europeans have excelled at building police states on a scale which other societies and peoples have not been able to build for one reason or another. My point is that having European blood is no guarantee that you are virtuous in your heart. Individual character is more important. Hitler and Stalin were no tributes to white civilisation unless you happen to admire police states.

George quotes Dennis a fifth time:

"So nonEuropeans in these places have made ceaseless attacks at sharing in the fruits of those civilizations, and the only way those civilizations could be protected has been by force of law."

George's response:

Again, you overgeneralise. As a percentage of their ethnic populations, I have no doubt that blacks and hispanics seek out the public dole in higher percentages than do whites. But it is still a fact that more sheer numbers of whites are on welfare than blacks and hispanics. This being the case, my gripe is with ALL the loafers and freeloaders and sorry, lazy noaccounts. It angers me just as much to see a white man draw welfare and sit on his lazy rear end drinking beer as it does to watch black teenage girls produces baby after baby so they can get AFDC and other federal welfare benefits. I would stand with you in oppossing the transfer of wealth from the producers in our society to the nonproductive class. But you see it only from a racial perspective. Again why?

George quotes Dennis a sixth time:

"Our forefathers in the South knew this, so they erected legal barriers to protect themselves and us."

George's response:

Segregation was a reaction to reconstruction and an understandable one. It should be noted, however, that Jim Crow was not restricted to the South. The system operated officially and unofficially in places like Los Angeles and Detroit as well. Jim Crow was not uniquely a Southern phenomenon. I would argue that racial prejudice 100 years ago was based more on habit than on a desire to prevent blacks from voting themselves welfare since there was no welfare state at the turn of the century.

George quotes Dennis a seventh time:

"Had they not done this we wouldn't be having this discussion because the Southern way of life would have been long dead and buried by now."

[Editor's note: Evidently, George didn't answer that last point. He stated two opposite items as true when he said segregation was a reaction to reconstruction and that it also operated in places like Los Angeles and Detroit. Those cities weren't under reconstruction. The Europeans of Australia, South Africa, and India were never under reconstruction, either. -- Dennis Wheeler]

#74.

From: George Kalas to Dennis Wheeler.

August 18, 1996

George began this post by quoting one of my statements with which he took immense umbrage.

Dennis Wheeler wrote: "The slavery system was pretty good, but I doubt that could be returned to or that anyone would want to return to it although with the government in Washington, the linchpin of the world economic system, being over $5 trillion in debt, the entire global economic picture could take a drastic turn for the worse in a hurry. ( An economic need for slavery could return as I imagine that in a world without welfare, affirmative action, government housing, government medical care, government education, and government jobs programs, most blacks in America would find themselves destitute and on the brink of starvation and in need of a master."

Man, if something like this were to make the rounds in the public as being representative of the thinking of a typical Southern League member just how rapidly would our movement selfdestruct? How many others here would like to stand in front of T.V. cameras and defend such a position?

Dennis, you are one sick puppy....

George Kalas

Dixienet

#75.

From: George Kalas to Lynne Bailey.

August 18, 1996

LBailey777@aol.com wrote: "Yes, we know the `Devil in the Whitehouse' as Mr. Kalas stated, but to deliberatly condone the copresidents presidency is to cut your own throat and that of the yet unborn. Those that come after us will inherit a national debt, next to none."

Lynne,

That debt that you speak of was built up with the mutual consent of BOTH Democrats, (who never saw a welfare program they didn't want to fund), and Republicans, (who never saw a corporate tax bread or defense program they didn't want to fund.) Remember, even Ronald Reagan never submitted a balanced budget to the Congress.

There's no difference worth mentioning between the Republicrats. They are in cahoots to stay in power and live off of your money and mine. The media is anti-Republican.

Lynne also wrote: "The media is anti Southern League and ALL THAT WE HOLD DEAR. That in itself should give any self respecting SLer reason to vote pro Republican."

No, it does not. The SL must stand for it's own values which are clearly at odds with much of the Republican agenda. Of all of the candidates who ran for the Repblican presidential nomination this year, Pat Buchanan was the candidate whose views most closely mirrored those of the SL and look how he was manhandled and mauled by the Republicans and their willing accomplices in the news media!

If you ask but one question, ask this: Which of the "winable" candidates values are closest to the SL? ANSWER: Neither one. That's why I'm a Southern nationalist and not a Republican.

Deo Vindice,

George Kalas

Dixienet

[Editor's note: George's last statement to Lynne stating that he is a Southern nationalist and not a Republican, is hard for me to get a handle on. In all of his posts, I haven't seen any ideals that I recognize as Southern nationalist.

From what I can gather, he is basically asserting that we need for the Southern states to secede from Washington with the present integrated system in tact. Then we need a Libertarian view on race relations where each group "lives and lets live." And in his mind, that is Southern nationalism.

Again, the problem with that is the blacks would never let us secede if it were in their power to hold us to Washington. And if they retained the vote after seccession was somehow miraculously achieved, then how would we extricate ourselves from the policies that Washington now employs that Libertarians find so distasteful; quotas, affirmative action, welfare, etc. Neither George or anyone else ever addressed this question. -- Dennis Wheeler]

#76.

From George Kalas to all.

August 18, 1996

Dear SL Listserver Members,

Ron Colson has rightly reminded us all that the focus of this listserver is to discuss topics that assist the League in it's mission to advance the cause of Southern independence. I must agree that the debate between Mr. Wheeler and his adherents and those of us who disagree with them has reached the point where comity is breaking down and other threads of discussion are being shoved aside. This is not good.

It should be sufficient to say that Mr. Wheeler's stand is at odds with the SL official policy and let it go at that. Mr. Wheeler is entitled to his opinion but since it has nothing to do with the SL's official goals and policies it would be best to move on back to discussions related to advancing official SL policies.

With this said, I shall cease my own postings on this matter. I've had my say and I think I've articulated my position in a manner that is clear and comprehensible to all. Likewise, I'm sure most would feel that Mr. Wheeler has had his say as well. However, I will freely concede to Mr. Wheeler the priviledge of having the last word, if he wishes to respond to my most recent posts, but I will post no more on this subject regardless of provocation.

For the record: The official position of the SL is that we admit to our membership any who support our cause. There is no racial litmus test for membership. Those who disagree with this policy are free to take this up with Michael Hill and the national board of directors or to resign their memberships.

Deo Vindice,

George Kalas

Southern League Internet

Communications Committee Chairman

[Editor's note: George said he was bowing out of the discussion, which was a relief to a lot of people. But he wasn't laying all his cards on the table. He had an ace up his sleeve that he would play later. It didn't work out too well, as you'll see.

Between the time of George's posts to me and my reply, two posts came that showed vastly different perspectives and levels of understanding. -- Dennis Wheeler]

#77.

From Judy Landry to Dennis Wheeler.

August 19, 1996

Dennis,

I think I am correct in my understanding that Southern League's premier goal is secession. I certainly believe and defend any state's RIGHT to seceed. But secession may not always be wise, and to seceed just to prove you have the right to do it could certainly turn out to be foolish.

My husband and I have thought for a long time that those who want immediate secession are not realistically looking at the current state of affairs. In order to actually accomplish secession, the people of any given state must vote for it. In Louisiana (and I'm sure this is true of other Southern states) you would need a substantial amount of black support because a substantial number of whites hold multicultural views. They would not even consider secession. The only way you would get blacks in Louisiana to vote for secession would be to promise them that they would get more goodies (affirmative action, onemanonevote, welfare, medicaid, etc., etc.) from the State than they are presently getting from Washington.

Then if you achieve secession, what next? You can keep your promises to the blacks in which case we would have exactly what we have now on a smaller scale - hardly worth the trouble of seceeding. Or you break your promises to the blacks in which case you become dishonorable and unChristian and a wholesale race war commences.

No, secession only looks appealing to those wearing rosecolored glasses or to the dishonorable who would attempt to "trick" blacks into supporting it. Some say that "much of what you hope for is just not achievable today....". That may be true, but the idea that SLers can achieve what they want by secession is no more achievable.

Judy

[Editor's note: And then there was this trenchant little classic from a man I've never heard of either before or since. I don't even know his last name. -- Dennis Wheeler]

#78.

From Buck to Dennis Wheeler.

August 19, 1996

Hey Dennis, what on God's earth are you talking about? Are you a nut? That is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. Why are you even in the SL?

Buck

[Editor's note: My response to him was simple. I wrote: "Buck, you're beautiful, baby. Don't ever change a thing."

After this it was my turn to answer George Kalas. I took a few days to compose my answers. -- Dennis Wheeler]

#79.

From Dennis Wheeler to George Kalas.

August 20, 1996

George,

Your near hysterical tirades demonstrate that you have a fear of what I am saying that does me an honor far beyond what I deserve. As to substance, I didn't see where you covered much that hadn't been covered before, but I would like to comment on two points.

You wrote: "That tends to indicate that, like it or not, Southern whites and blacks created what we call Southern "culture" in concert by the fact of their very coexistance with one another at a time when Southern culture was being formed in the late 18th and early 19th centuries."

I can't except this conclusion. On the one hand, the Southerners were descended from highly civilized and advanced cultures of Europe and the slaves were descended from base and backward cultures of Africa. The religion was different. The concepts of family and civic institutions were different. The intelligence quotient was different. The histories were different.

It is virtually a creed of anticulture to believe that such vastly different peoples could arrive at the same place through such very different circumstances and then form the same culture in concert, as though nothing in their respective pasts mattered. You said yourself that "virtually all white Americans in the 19th century were raised in a culture that taught them that blacks were inferior humans who were best suited to bondage under the wise and benevolent tutelage of benevolent whites." It seems implausible to me that these whites would then work to forge a common culture with people they considered "inferior humans."

You assert that De Toqueville and others made statements to this effect. I would like to examine some of those statements and see what they are. It is my perspective that we have no historical record of anyone ever declaring a program for the whites and the blacks of the South to develop a common Southern culture. And the actions of our people after TWBS demonstrates unmistakably that they rejected your view that the blacks and the whites shared a common culture. Defenders of the South since that time have to a man defended the existence of separate black and white cultures and peoples in the South.

Point number five in the 10point Southern League Manifesto states: "Maintain our link with the great civilisations of Europe from which the South has drawn its inspiration." It seems to me that the SL position is that Southern culture is a European culture. IMO, this contradicts what you have said.

Thomas Sowell has written: "Australians are Europeans, regardless of what geography may say. Not only their language and physical appearance, but also their fertility patterns, technology, philosophy, social customs, and institutions of government make them part of a culture that exists 10,000 miles away, and foreign to the culture of their neighbors in Papua New Guinea or Indonesia."

The reverse is also true. AfricanAmericans are Africans, regardless of what geography may say. At any rate, there are hardly two cultures that are more different today than the Southern culture and the culture of AfricanAmericans living in the South. And as recently as 1970, the Southerners did everything in their power to keep their distinctiveness from black culture. Your perspective, as I understand it, is unknown to the South in any historical sense and is indeed a novel idea not at all in keeping with the Southern tradition.

Another part of your argument is that my ideas would destoy the Southern movement because they would perpetuate the myths raised by the opponents of the South. The fact, however, that someone, even a great many people, disagree and hold disdain for a viewpoint, is no argument against that viewpoint. The Southern tradition is, as I have shown, consistent with my position and quite different from yours. When people make fun of the SL, it is because they understand that my position is the historic position of the South, not yours. They are attacking my position because it is the position that is the greatest threat to their system.

Evidently, once you explain to them that your position is not what they are attacking, the attacks subside. But this is only because they judge your position to be irrelevant and no threat to the status quo. Indeed, this is true. Some of your tirades sound little different from the nomination acceptance speech of Bob Dole. He said: "Let me be specific. A family from Mexico who arrived here this morning, legally, has as much right to the American dream as the direct descendants of the founding fathers. The Republican Party is broad and inclusive. It represents many streams of opinion and many points of view. But if there is anyone who has mistakenly attached himself to the party in the belief that we are not open to citizens of every race and religion, then let me remind you: Tonight this hall belongs to the party of Lincoln, and the exits, which are clearly marked, are for you to walk out of as I stand here and hold this ground without compromise.."

This seems to be your position as well concerning the SL. Anyone who doesn't view the South as a place where all peoples and religions are welcome regardless of race, creed, or national origin, has no place in the SL. But the official position of the SL calls for us to: "1. Defend the historic Christian faith of the South. 2. Advance the interests and independence of the Southern people.... 4. Protect the symbols and heritage of the traditional South."

It's the traditional South we are to be upholding and defending, not this "historically revised" South you advance, a South that is not the true South; a South that has no historical tie to the true South; a South that has no quarrel with the Party of Lincoln; a South that holds base hostility to the true Southern tradition.

I'll take my stand with the slaveholders of Virginia. I'll take my stand with the segregationists of Mississippi. I won't be ashamed of them and run for cover or try to distance myself from them just because there are those who oppose what they believed and did. You never have to wonder where I stand on the primary issues; it's with the Southern plantation owner defending his land and property against northern aggression, it's with Wade Hampton running on the Straight Out Ticket; it's with George Wallace "standing in the school house door"; it's with the millions of Southerners today leaving their cities and communities and moving to new locations where they can carry on their lives away from the physical threat of African aggression. The Southern people need their own land and their own country to carry on their culture without interference from outsiders. The fact that there are those who oppose this, even some in the SL, is no argument against it whatsoever. Dennis Wheeler.

[Editor's note: In between my two posts answering George, two notices came from Ron Colson. The first one warned that the listserver was soon to be shut down. The second one attempted to limit the debate by outlawing my perspective.

This was the ace up George's sleeve I mentioned. He had planned to give me the last word and then shut off the debate. But he didn't realize two things. First, I had answered him in two posts and had the second one ready to send 30 minutes after the first one. Second, the firestorm of protest that limiting the debate would cause. It was a thing of beauty. -- Dennis Wheeler]

#80.

Ron Colson to all.

August 21, 1996

Dear Friends,

Due to the recent heated debate, it appears the end is near for the official Southern League listserver. I have been advised that numerous complaints have resulted in the board considering asking me to shut it down. I will hear more shortly.

I understand their concern and I have stated that I will phase out the SouthernLeague Listserver within the next few weeks. Immediately, if necessary. However, I will replace it with an unsanctioned server. I have thoroughly enjoyed the ability to communicate with so many likeminded, wonderful people. Though it has hampered my business, I can't imagine my days without being able to run in and check my SL mail. It must continue!

I expect to call the new server something like SouthTalk, SLmail, CSAmail, or ProSouth. I'm open to suggestion. To prevent subscribing someone who would not want to participate, I ask that you please let me know (by email) if you wish to be subscribed to our successor listserver. If you want to receive in digest mode, let me know that also.

I believe that we should continue to remain restrictive to keep the likes of "crawfish" off the server. If y'all desire, I'll be happy to have a board of advisors (from existing participants) to help with policy and decisions. Otherwise I can continue to run it with the same Iron Fist you've come to know. (Obviously, you know I'm kidding.) Let me know.

An ever loyal League member, I remain

Ron Colson

#81.

From Ron Colson to all.

August 21, 1996

Members,

So that we are not asked to immediately shut down, but rather be allowed to make a transition, I must enact an amendment to the listserver rules. As of this time, messages pertaining to the justification (or advocation) of slavery or racial separatism are to end! All parties involved are (or should be) aware of the email addresses of those they would debate with. If you must, carry on your argument directly. This listserver, and its successor will be, for positive communications between members of the Southern League. Sponsored participants will continue to be allowed. Anything deemed detrimental to the forward movement of the Southern League should not be posted on the server. Such may, with or without warning, result in dismissal from the server.

The quantity of mail on this server shows the need, and desire, to have it. Selfdiscipline and use of common sense are necessary to insure its continuance.

As list server administrator, I must accept the greater portion of the blame for what transpired. Though no rules were blatantly violated, I should have intervened and ended this unhealthy (and counterproductive) exchange much earlier. In the future, I SHALL. This server, whether sanctioned or not, must work to our benefit and not our detriment.

Just as the Southern League continues to grow and mature, these unpleasant occurrences enable us to redefine the operating parameters of the server so that it can be a greater asset. In time I expect it can again be embraced by the leadership of the League. For the moment, it seems to have failed. Failure and death, however, are not the same. It's completely up to us.

Remember Romans 8:28 "And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are called according to his purpose."

For the League,

Ron Colson

[Editor's note: Neither Ron nor George knew that I had a second post coming. The first post announcing the listserver shut down came so soon after my first answer to George, I figured they had just been waiting until I answered to put it out. But I didn't see it until the next day, and out came my second answer to George. -- Dennis Wheeler]

#82.

From Dennis Wheeler to George Kalas.

August 20, 1996

George,

I'm glad you wrote these paragraphs because they lay bare your entire position. You wrote to me: "I still firmly contend that you took a stand for segregation and white separatism and urged SL members to lead this charge and anyone whose been closely following your posts knows that I have not misrepresented your position. You are, my friend, merely dodging the issue and seeking to retreat to a more defensible ground of preserving our Southern culture because you know that we'll all agree with you on that. But, you may disagree with my concise and accurate definition of the main point of our disagreement all you want, Dennis, but the fact remains that you've stated as much in your posts and have argued vigorously for a white Southern nation citing Dabney and the Bible at great length to buttress your view that race is the defining attribute of any `nation.'"

George, you and I can look at the same arguments and interpret them differently because we operate from different moral perspectives, different premises, and different first principles. That's what's happening here. It's like when a rapist watches a rape on the movie screen and sighs: "That man sure got him some good lovin' tonight." But if you're the woman's husband, you would view the event differently. They operate from different premises. So do you and I.

I have made the case over and over again that God has divided mankind into diverse and separate groups called nations. We of the Southern nation are mostly of European extraction. The Southern people do not include the blacks who live in the South. And I have documented this position using Dabney as the best source by which we can determine the Southern perspective. I have also shown how the actions of the Southern people demonstrate that my position is the historic Southern position. You can accurately see what I'm saying, but because of your moral premise, your starting point, your basic assumptions about right and wrong, you interpret these ideas differently than I do. I characterize my views as true to both the Bible and the historic Southern position. But your views are true to neither one. You have accepted the basic premise of the North as your starting point, that all men should be able to live together in the same geopolitical location regardless of race, creed, or color. This is the basic premise of the Civil Rights Act and in your anger you have chastized me with virtually the same words: "Why you would expel nativeborn, nonwhite, or nonChristian Southrons from Dixie? Why are they less deserving of liberty and the right to live and vote here than you are? Where I strongly disagree with you is that any portion of the population has the right to disenfranchise another portion of the population from their right to have a say in their own government. Your position is an advocacy of tyranny in the modern age."

You wrote this and in so doing you condemn the people of the Confederacy because they disenfranchised another portion of the population. You condemn Lee, Jackson, Dabney, Hampton, and all the people who supported them. You have been, in a word, Reconstructed. And when you hear an unreconstructed Southerner speak, it galls you. That's the essence of our disagreement, as I see it.

BTW, my position is not that the blacks should not have a say in their own government, rather that they shouldn't have a say in our government. I'm taking the position that the Southern nation is a part of the overall nationalist movement that will be the geopolitical megatrend of the 21st century. You seem to have no problem with the French Canadians separating from the English Canadians, or the Scotch and Welsh wanting to secede from the United Kingdom; or the Soviet Union splitting into its ethnic components; or the ethnic regions of Italy splitting up, after which our own SL is patterned. But when I attempt to concretely apply the abstract principles of nationalism and secession, and the incompatibility of multiracial societies to the South, you call me a degenerate, a racist, a bigot, a sick puppy, a hatemonger, an agent provocateur, just to name a few.

The SL can never move forward until it concretely applies the abstract principles of nationalism and secession, which are our official policy. And we must recognize that like the other nationalistic secession movements throughout the world, our strength lies in solidarity, not inclusivity.

Let's also consider your statement about MLK: "But he prevailed not because whites sympathised with these character traits, but because he did a masterful job of focusing attention on the injustice of denying citizens the right to vote and have a voice in their own government. The only way one can deny this is to assert that blacks are not worthy of citizenship and the vote and that they should not have any sayso in the government that governs them. This cannot be asserted from anything other than a premise that holds that blacks are subhuman and undeserving of the same rights you and I have. If you endorse such a premise, you are, ipso facto, a bona fide racist. You have the right to be a racist and to argue for your beliefs but I don't have to agree with you."

This premise, which you call racist, is exactly the foundation upon which Southern society rested until forced to surrender it when the Civil Rights Act of 1965 was passed. Here you spew out the vicious, hateful rhetoric of our enemies against your own people. The idea that Southerners believe blacks are subhuman is a vicious slander that has been thrown at us by our opponents for decades, and now you have adopted it as well and thrown it out as vehemently against the Southern tradition as any of the people you say you oppose.

Richard Weaver is as an authoritative interpreter of Southern culture as can be found. In his book, The Southern Tradition at Bay, he states: "A reading of the diaries and memoirs of the period [postWBTS] leaves one assured that the idea of enfranchising the negroes was exclusively a Northern notion. Not one person in a thousand, not even those most generously disposed, who wanted the see the blacks begin their new life with advantages, was willing to grant that the freedman were ready for participation in government. The Northern conception that the negro was merely a sunburned white man, "whose only crime was the color of his skin," found no converts at all among the people who had lived and worked with him. They viewed him as an African and a primitive, carrying with him a heavy weight of those impulses which it is the duty of civilization to remove or subdue."

Again, my views are consistent with the Southern tradition, your views on this matter are Northern aberrations.

To top it off, because you claim to be working for the Southern cause and Southern independence and must make some form of defense of the Southern position, you practice a form of "historical revisionism" on it. You say, "Being `Southern' is not a function of race, but a state of mind and cultural affinity."

Not only is this is a concept virtually unknown in the South until now, it was unknown to virtually all of America prior to 1965. In the bestselling 1995 book on immigration, Alien Nation, author Peter Brimelow writes: "What is a nationstate? It is the political expression of a nation. And what is a "nation"? It is an ethnocultural community an interlacing of ethnicity and culture. Invariably, it speaks one language. In recent years, in the United States, there has been a tendency to emphasize the cultural part of the equation. But this is to miss a critical point. The word "nation" is derived from the Latin "nescare," to be born. It intrinsically implies a link by blood. A nation in a real sense is an extended family. The merging process by which all nations are created is not merely cultural, but to a considerable extent biological, through inter-marraige.... American intellectuals are just unable to handle a plain historical fact: that the American nation has always had a specific ethnic core. And that core has been white."

Prior to 1965, all of America's immigration policies were specifically designed to maintain the European makeup of this country, which is one of the points the SL has declared it stands to uphold. The first naturalization law in 1790 stipulated that the applicant must be a "free white person." Blacks didn't become citizens until after the WBTS. Restrictions against Asians becoming citizens were dropped only after WWII.

John Jay, in the Federalist Papers, stated Americans were: "One united people a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs.... A band of brethren."

Theodore Roosevelt, in his book The Winning of the West stated: "It is of incalculable importance that America, Australia, and Siberia should pass out of the hands of their red, black, and Aboriginal owners, and become the heritage of the dominant world races."

As late as 1954, President Eisenhower successfully stopped Hispanic immigration to this country through a plan called Operation Wetback.

Through these quotes and incidences we can see that prior to 1965, being an American was not even "a state of mind and cultural affinity," but was very much a matter of ethnicity. This was more true of the South than any of the other regions because this is the Southern tradition.

Dennis Wheeler

#83.

From Gary Mills to all.

August 19, 1996

"Should the Southern League become a white racialist organisation that excludes nonwhites and nonChristians from it's ranks?" Of course not. I place my vote for George. Southern by the Grace of God!!!

The everpresent race question was discussed at the SL's organizational meeting. The decision was made that the SL was not a racist organization and would not become one. To attempt to make it such an organization would be the equivalent of what the yankees have done to the U. S. Constitution. If anyone wants such a group they should start their own, and not try to change ours.

Gary "Doc" Mills

[Editor's note: I wasn't at the SL organizational meeting but have heard three different versions of what took place there concerning the "race" issue. This shows that the matter has not been adequately dealt with by the SL leadership, as different people hold such widely divergent opinions as to what the organization's position is.]

#84.

From Ron Colson to Dennis Wheeler.

August 19, 1996

Dennis,

The new recruitment brochure will more fully explain the purpose of the League and nearly complete. It contains the following 10point manifesto.

The Southern League is pledged to:

1. Defend the historic Christian faith of the South.

2. Advance the interests and independence of the Southern people.

3. Reeducate Southerners (and nonSoutherners of good will) about our history and civilisation.

4. Protect the symbols and heritage of the traditional South.

5. Maintain our link with the great civilisations of Europe from which the South has drawn its inspiration.

6. Encourage the development of healthy local communities and institutions.

7. Restore the traditional rights reserved to the states under the Constitution.

8. Form friendships and alliances with sympathetic movements striving for devolution of government and the independence of authentic nations and regions, both within and outside of the United States.

9. Stimulate the economic vitality and selfsufficiency of the Southern people.

10. Devote blood, treasure, and sacred honour to the cause we have undertaken.

I hope I've been helpful, and I look forward to meeting you in the future. Sorry I missed you in Montgomery.

Ron Colson

Ron was responding to this private post I sent him:

At 23:28 8/18/96 0400, you wrote: "Ron, Thank you for the advice. I am curious to know what is the official position of the SL. That is one thing that's been elusive. I went to Montgomery and at the end of the conference I talked to someone, I don't remember who, but I asked him was there any written and definitive position by the SL on their goals and objectives. He pulled out a small blue piece of paper entitled Statement of Purpose.

It began: "The Southern League seeks to advance the cultural, social, economic, and political wellbeing and independence of the Southern people by all honorable means."

In this debate, I have continued to seek for a definition of the Southern people. As you can see, I say it's one thing, and George says it's something else. I have conceded that my definition is too narrow, but have maintained that his is too broad.

Is there any document, other than the Statement of Purpose, that spells out the SL's position? You said you embrace and support the purpose of the SL. Is that written down anywhere? Am I at crosspurposes with that purpose?

I don't know what position George Kalas holds in the SL. I wouldn't know him if I saw him. He has acted like a spokesman of some kind, but has never given his credentials as a spokesman. Today he said that you and he run the listserver. I didn't know that.

I try not to judge a man's motives, especially publicly. Nobody knows why another man does what he does except God. But from statements he's made, I gather he doesn't hate my ideas as much as he lets on, he's just terrified that outsiders will see them written and associate them with the SL. So, in a sense, he's been trying to save the SL's reputation.

It's much the same as when the Southern Baptist Convention passed its resolution on slavery. The leaders would not even allow debate or discussion for fear that outsiders would see them as dragging their feet. It resulted in a disastrous disservice to God and the people under the leader's care.

I have surmised the same type phobia in George.

This debate has been taken note of in other proSouthern organizations and may have a lot of repercussions. Several people have now played their hand and shown where they stand. It hasn't been pretty and I never foresaw this type of situation developing. But what's done is done.

I am a public person. My newsletter has over 8,000 subscribers. I travel all over the Western Hemisphere and give speeches on gold and gold stocks. I write an article for a monthly magazine, Investing on Wall Street, that is read by thousands of professional money managers each month. Nearly a million pieces of mail go out each year with my picture on the envelope. When I returned from South Africa in 1990, my church made the "mistake" of having me take part in a panel discussion on the situation there. I upheld apartheid Biblically, morally, philosophically, historically, and every other way I could think of.

What I do is done in public. There is no hiding it. When George talks of me being an agent provocateur, that is absurd. He is showing how much he doesn't know, not how much he does know.

I hope I haven't caused you any grief in this. And I would like to know if there is any written or stated official position of the SL in regards to the topics we have been discussing.

Thanks in advance.

Dennis Wheeler

#85.

From Freedom 1 to Dennis Wheeler.

August 19, 1996

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

On Sat, 17 Aug 1996 05:40:31 0400 dennisw@atl.

mindspring.com writes:

"Tim,

Over the past 300 years or so, we have structured two different systems whereby we lived together in a relative peace. The slavery system was pretty good, but I doubt that could be returned to or that anyone would want to return to it although with the government in Washington, the linchpin of the world economic system, being over $5 trillion in debt, the entire global economic picture could take a drastic turn for the worse in a hurry. ( An economic need for slavery could return as I imagine that in a world without welfare, affirmative action, government housing, government medical care, government education, and government jobs programs, most blacks in America would find themselves destitute and on the brink of starvation and in need of a master. The compassion of the Southern people runs deep and in a Christian society structured on the Bible, no government would have the right to prohibit slavery.)"

[Editor's note: I never found out the name of the fellow who went by the handle Freedom1. So I'm using that handle.]

Freedom's response:

I have been pretty much ignoring this thread but I must speak up now. I for one support southern secession primarily because I believe it offers the best hope for us to regain our individual liberties. By taxing away nearly 50% of the fruits of our labor, and trying to regulate all aspects of our economic AND personal lives, the U.S. government has become the modern slavemaster. I personally want to break free from that slavery in which all of us black, white, southern, northern now find ourselves. In doing so, I have absolutely no desire to turn around and enslave my neighbor black, white, southern, or northern.

I dispute the notion that blacks NEED slavery (or any kind of secondclass status imposed on them by others). I have done some informal study of the period between the end of the War for Southern Independence and the coming of Jim Crow. What I have learned (and I would like to delve into this further) is that a large number of blacks during this period were setting themselves up as independent artisans and becoming rather successful businessmen. Thanks to the skills they learned on the plantation (there maybe that's ONE good thing they gained from slavery), and their capacity for hard work, they were the people you just naturally went to when you had a wagon to be repaired, bricks to be baked, a horse to be shoed, etc.

Although I haven't studied it enough to say with certainty, I believe that it was the budding economic success of these black artisans that helped bring the Jim Crow laws down on the heads of all southerners. Except for a brief few years, blacks were never allowed to compete in an unregulated marketplace and thus never gained the firm foothold that earlier impoverished groups, such as the Irish, did. And by the time Jim Crow and legally imposed segregation were ended, the federal government was doing everything it could to put blacks onto its welfare plantation and keep them there.

Meanwhile, socalled black leaders have continued to spout the destructive nonsense that black salvation lies in political agitation for special government benefits, rather than in honest achievement in an open marketplace. That blacks have not become as economically selfsufficient as other groups in America is not due to racial inheritance, I believe, but rather to a century of legal barriers, welfare paternalism, and misdirection of energy to politics and away from the marketplace.

I know that one anecdote about an industrious black person doesn't prove anything, but I have to tell this story. Within the past two weeks, I underwent an emergency appendectomy and my wife had a baby. Fortunately, we have had a lot of support from friends and family in maintaining ourselves and keeping our household running in a moreorless orderly fashion. About a week ago, some friends arranged for a house cleaning crew to come and do a thorough cleaning for us. The crew was run by a black man of about 60 years old who has his own cleaning business servicing commercial accounts throughout the "Triangle" region of North Carolina (residential jobs such as ours are somewhat an exception to his main work, he told me). This man drove up in a latemodel Jaguar! and began scrubbing and mopping right alongside his workers. He took one break the whole time, and that was to call someone on his cell phone to try to beat his competitors in getting a contract to clean a new office complex that had just gone up. This was one saavy, hardworking businessman, and I felt downright lazy and underachieving in his presence (I'm certain his income is well above mine).

Freedom1

[Editor's note: The argument advanced by Freedom is a Libertarian one that has no historic tie to the Southern cause. He wants individual liberties and believes that secession from Washington is the best way it can be achieved.

His perspective is that the plight of the blacks is due to their being held back and repressed through tyrannical legislation for a century or so and now they have been enslaved by the Washington welfare system in cahoots with the Civil Rights leadership.

If this is true, then the South was definitely wrong for oppressing these people and what choice did the North ultimately have than to come save them from us? -- Dennis Wheeler]

#86.

From Dennis Wheeler to Freedom1.

August 20, 1996

Freedom1,

I don't know your name, so I'll use your handle. Thank you for the interesting response. Let me give you a few ideas to think about.

You wrote: " By taxing away nearly 50% of the fruits of our labor, and trying to regulate all aspects of our economic AND personal lives, the U.S. government has become the modern slavemaster. I personally want to break free from that slavery in which all of us black, white, southern, northern now find ourselves. In doing so, I have absolutely no desire to turn around and enslave my neighbor black, white, southern, or northern."

You are certainly right that Washington has become the modern slavemaster. And I too have no "desire to enslave my neighbor black, white, southern, or northern." The reason, IMO, that Washington has become the modern slavemaster is that this power is given to them by the peoples of the United States in each election. The winning coalition that the Democratic Party, the most egregious offender in the tax-and-spend sweepstakes, has fashioned has been one of liberal whites, 90% or so of the blacks, a large percentage of the Hispanics the Cubans excluded, possibly a large percentage of the Jews, and a large percentage of the homosexuals.

The Southern people, by and large, have rejected their program. (If I'm not mistaken, a majority of Southerners in Louisiana voted for David Duke in his last race, despite all his political baggage.) But nonetheless, the Republicans who have won the Presidency since Nixon, have fashioned a coalition that has centered around the Southerners, the Westerners, and the business community. George Bush departed from this and went around praising affirmative action. He lost, although he had won the first time by making Willie Horton a household name. Dole seems destined to repeat his mistake and could very well suffer the same fate.

On the other hand, the last time Jesse Helms ran for office 1990 he was behind in the polls until he made an overt pitch to the Southern people of North Carolina with his TV adds against affirmative action. That shot his standings up about 12% and I can still remember the anguished headline in the Atlanta Journal "Whites Heed Helms Wakeup Call."

My point is that I see no possibility of anything happening to us other than a continual downhill spiral until our present democratic system reduces us to secondworld and then thirdworld status. A separate Southern nation could undo much of the wrong that is now being perpetuated against us.

I don't think you'll ever hear black, Hispanic Cubans excepted, possibly , Jewish, or homosexual leaders of standing speaking against the present system which you say "taxes away 50% of the fruits of our labor." I hope I'm wrong about this, and if anyone has any evidence to that effect, I'd like to see it.

You also wrote: "I dispute the notion that blacks NEED slavery (or any kind of secondclass status imposed on them by others)."

Like I said: "I doubt that system could be returned to, or that anyone would want to return to it." That includes me. About the last thing I would like to see is a return to the slave system that existed prior to 1863. I see no benefit in it for the Southern people. Back then, the society was agriculturally based and unskilled labor was important. Today, in a techno-logically based economy, unskilled labor is not worth what it would cost to maintain slaves.

In my defense, I was talking about a hypothetical situation that could conceiveably develop in the future. And I did qualify my statement by saying "most blacks." But after thinking about it, that is probably incorrect. I should have said "some blacks." And even then I should have used the word "desire" instead of "need."

If the Washington slave system fails, there could conceiveably be some blacks who desire a master. I would refer you to Steve Wilkins tapes on the subject to see how much love and reverence some of the slaves exhibited toward their masters, even 70 years after slavery had been abolished. And David Rockett has stated more than once that the Old South was a happy place with its slave system. It need not be an unhappy experience, or a denigrating condition.

You also wrote: "I have done some informal study of the period between the end of the War for Southern Independence and the coming of Jim Crow. What I have learned (and I would like to delve into this further) is that a large number of blacks during this period were setting themselves up as independent artisans and becoming rather successful businessmen."

That is undoubtedly true, IMO. Even prior to Martin Luther King, at the height of segregation, there were a large number of successful black businessmen, even some millionaires, throughout America. In fact, a negative event that the end of segregation visited on black businessmen, was that once blacks with money were allowed to frequent white business establishments, a significant percentage of the customer base of black businesses was lost. This forced many of them out of business as they could not compete on a level playing field with their white competitors. (For example, once blacks could stay at the Marriott, the Ebony Hotel lost many of its customers.)

You also wrote: "Although I haven't studied it enough to say with certainty, I believe that it was the budding economic success of these black artisans that helped bring the Jim Crow laws down on the heads of all southerners."

Sorry, but I can't go along with this one. As I've argued previously, the Southerners of the late 1800s knew that politically the blacks could be "bought and sold like a herd of sheep." They realized that black sufferage meant for them exactly what it has brought to us, a government that taxes away 50% of the fruits of our labors. The advocates of Jim Crow laws knew that if they weren't erected, then what has happened since their repeal would happen in their day as sure as the sun rise. History has shown how right they were.

You also wrote: "Except for a brief few years, blacks were never allowed to compete in an unregulated marketplace and thus never gained the firm foothold that earlier impoverished groups, such as the Irish, did. And by the time Jim Crow and legally imposed segregation were ended, the federal government was doing everything it could to put blacks onto its welfare plantation and keep them there."

I think that the regulated market place worked to their advantage rather than their disadvantage. They have been able to compete in an unregulated market place for 30 years now and have been outcompeted by the Irish, the Germans, the Koreans, the Chinese, the Cubans, the Japanese, and about everybody else.

Perhaps you haven't thought about it, but this idea that the federal government has conspired to keep blacks down by putting them on the welfare plantation is very similar to what Louis Farrakhan is telling them. (And although nothing is untrue just because Farrakhan says it, I see no evidence that this is correct. One of the central themes of Jared Taylor's book, Paved With Good Intentions, is that the great benefits the civil rights laws intended to bring to the blacks and the American society have gone terribly awry.) This point is also similar to what the socalled black elite are being taught in some black universities, that the "white man is conspiring to keep down the black man."

I don't think it's true. In fact, I don't think any people have ever been so benevolent or bent so far over backwards to help other people, as European Americans have to help black Americans. We have helped them to our own detriment, a gesture virtually unknown to history. And it hasn't won us one bit of gratitude from the vast majority of them.

This is borne out by your next statement: "Meanwhile, socalled black leaders have continued to spout the destructive nonsense that black salvation lies in political agitation for special government benefits, rather than in honest achievement in an open marketplace." But leaders don't exist in a vacuum. They are leaders because their followers grant them that position by supporting them.

You also wrote: "That blacks have not become as economically selfsufficient as other groups in America is not due to racial inheritance, I believe, but rather to a century of legal barriers, welfare paternalism, and misdirection of energy to politics and away from the marketplace."

I don't know if it's due to racial inheritance or not. Gary Waltrip has shown us that they consistently score one standard deviation below Southerners on IQ tests. Also, the history of subSahara Africa shows no evidence that they have ever fared better than in America. But as I have argued, I think the century of legal barriers worked to their economic advantage rather than their disadvantage, the welfare system is of their own making and the result of their voting habits, and the misdirection of energy to politics and away from the marketplace is a result of them following Martin Luther King whose Marxist philosophy told him that politics holds the answer to all of man's problems.

By the way, on NW 2nd Avenue, in Miami, there is a large billboard with a picture of MLK on it that reads: "Martin Luther King: Prince of Peace." As long as he is their prince of peace, they will have no peace.

I don't want to argue with anyone who doesn't want to argue with me. But I can't go along with the idea that the white man is the cause of the black man's problems. I think they have caused their own problems despite all the help we have offered and given to them.

Dennis Wheeler

#87.

Robert Stacy McCain to Dennis Wheeler and all.

August 20, 1996

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

In a message dated 960819 20:46:56 EDT, you write: "I don't think there will ever be civil peace in the South until the Southern people have their own homeland and the blacks have their own homeland. I don't preclude the possibility of there being a

structure whereby there can be peaceful coexistence within the same geographical area, but I don't know what it is and I haven't seen anyone else postulate one."

Stacy's response:

Wow. I don't know where Dennis lives. Atlanta? Here in Rome, our coexistence is peaceful as could be. Oh, in the public schools they sometimes have a fight a redneck bully at Coosa Middle School got his neck broke last year when he attacked a black kid on the playground but that's just because the public school system (and parental discipline) has gone to hell.

If you'll read this month's Southern Patriot, you'll note Dr. Clyde Wilson's contention that after secession, the South's school system will be almost entirely private. Eighthgraders who study Latin and Greek don't typically cause trouble that way, and nobody's going to pick your kid's school for you.

So forget this unnecessary "racial homeland" crap. Land's sake, don't you want to eat good barbecue? This is the American South, not South Africa.

Robert Stacy McCain

Rome GA

#88.

From Robert Stacy McCain to Dennis Wheeler.

August 20, 1996

OK, Dennis, let's take it point by point. Here we go....

In a message dated 960820 15:52:14 EDT, you write: "I think the same principles of nationalism are at work here as in South Africa. We see these principles at work in Canada, Cyprus, Latvia, Burundi, Iraq, Yugoslavia, and scores of other places as well. To believe that somehow the South, or America is different is a mistake that I think will hold back progress for as long as it persists. I have shown in previous posts that the Southern position has always been to gain and hold a national existence apart from the blacks and the Yankees."

Stacy's response:

EH? EH? Separate from the Yankees, no doubt. But separate from the blacks? That traditional Southerners have long believed in separate socioeconomic roles for the two races, no one can dispute. An actual physical separation, however, was the farthest thing from a traditional Southern view. How many thousands of white children were nursed at black breasts in the Old South? We have the testimony of numerous witnesses including the testimony of Yankees who were HORRIFIED at such intimacy between black and white in Dixie.

Stacy gives a second quote by Dennis

"This is why people who believe in democracy have always hated the South."

Stacy's response:

Depends on what you call "democracy," Dennis. Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson ... Southerners and Democrats, all. If you refer to the modern overextension of suffrage and to governmentbyplebescite as advocated by the Tofflerites, certainly you would be correct in saying that the traditional South has always been hostile to such sentiments.

Stacy gives a third quote by Dennis

"This idea that a person can stand for and be true to the Southern cause without working for a separate national existence for our people is a very novel idea, previously unknown to Southern partisans."

Stacy's response:

EH? Until the John Brown raid of 1859 and the rise of the Republican Party in 1860, most Southerners believed that the South enjoyed greater protection within the Union than it would outside the Union, and even then, the greatest Southerner of them all Robert E. Lee was against secession.

If by "a separate national existence for our people" you mean "white people," you are so far off the mark that I cannot even begin to understand how you have so strayed. It was the Yankee "free soilers" who, by the exclusion of slavery, meant to create allwhite "lebensraum" in the Western territories. It was THE YANKEES, I repeat, who sought a separation of the races, not the South. Need I quote Lincoln to this effect? Or are his white separatist sentiments sufficiently wellknown among NeoConfederates that I may forgo the repetition?

Stacy gives a fourth quote by Dennis:

I have shown this from the writings of Dabney and it is evident from the actions of the Southern people until the passage of the Civil Rights Act."

Stacy's response:

Are you so ignorant of your own region's history as not to know that Jim Crow was a natural response to the racial antagonisms created by the Yankees under Reconstruction? And, I might add, that it was the aristocratic elements within the South who instituted social segregation in public accommodations:

1. In order to protect whites from insults by blacks who subscribed to Union League/Freedmen's Bureau ideas of what "freedom" was all about; and

2. IN ORDER TO PROTECT BLACKS from the hostility which such insults would naturally arouse. Had it not been for the Yankee/carpetbagger/scalawags who had preached racial hatred after the war, de jure segregation may have never been necessary.

Stacy gives a fifth quote by Dennis

"And even since that time, millions of Southerners have availed themselves of the only means of maintaining a separate existence, what is called `white flight.'"

Stacy's response:

Prompted, to a large extent, by greedy real estate agents who engaged in the fearmongering tactic of blockbusting in order to make the Yankee dollar.

Stacy gives a sixth quote by Dennis

"I didn't read Dr. Wilson's article, and I learned a long time ago in politics not to comment on what someone said someone else said. But evidently, and correct me if I'm wrong, you believe that in a seceded South the SL can muster sufficient political consensus to virtually do away with government schools."

Stacy's response:

The leading lights of the Foundation for Economic Education (Austrian school free market) have quite recently suggested that the elimination of public schools is the only solution to the multiple woes affecting our education system. A radical notion, indeed, but Dr. Wilson is not alone in this hope.

Stacy gives a seventh quote by Dennis:

"I am interested to learn how you believe such a condition could come about. It seems highly improbable to me that with the present system of a onemanonevote multiracial democratic society still in place, sufficient political consensus can be achieved to even gain independence from Washington."

Stacy's response:

Well, Dr. Wilson also said some nasty things about oneman, onevote in his speech. But sufffice it to say that dispair over the condition of modern public schools is not limited to white people. As I have noted before, my 7yearold redheaded daughter attends a private religious school 25 miles from here and our carpool partners are a black family (a teacher and a counselor) with a 12yearold daughter whom they did not wish to send to public school and who share our religion.

To digress: Our school's new principal, by the way, is a white guy who has an Asian wife and they have three children. Another of our daughter's friends at the school is also the offspring of a racial "odd couple," he Cuban and she Lebanese. Hey, I'm doing my part for racial purity (my wife's father is of "Aryan" German descent, no less), but these other folks just won't get with the program.

As for gaining independence from Washington, the continuing putrefaction of Imperial politics will go a long way toward that end, as the tyranny and corruption become increasingly obvious. But I don't think preaching racialism is going to help matters any.

Stacy gives an eighth quote by Dennis:

"I don't discount the possibility, as in politics, stranger things have happened. But the Southern people face the same problem the Quebecers face a large number of nonSoutherners who would be voting in the referendum or otherwise affecting the political process. The nonFrench in Quebec have so far thwarted the political will of the majority of Quebecers by voting to remain in union with the other Canadian provinces. I can't see anything other than that happening here if we proceed with the your plan as I understand it"

Stacy's response:

You're right that the Yankee carpetbaggers, socialists and radical egalitarians living in our midst might not be favorable to secession. But the benefits of secession, being so obvious to us, must be made obvious to them.

If you instead speak (as I suspect you do) of black Southerners, the burden is still on us: To demonstrate how secession would benefit them to as great an extent, or even a greater extent, as it would any other Southerner. This should not prove impossible. Governmentsubsidized poverty, after all, is a bane to the black community, and many of the most intelligent black conservatives (Thomas Sowell, for instance) have long since recognized affirmative action as nothing less than liberal racism in its condescending premise that blacks cannot adequately compete with whites in a raceneutral free market.

Historically, it is a snap to show that Yankees have always been the true enemies of the black race, and that 99 percent of Northern "humantarianism" in the matter of race was either myopic or selfserving.

Robert Stacy McCain

[Editor's note: Stacy has erected an elaborate system of "heritage defense" based on a near-total misunderstanding of the events that have taken place in history. For instance, he misses the point that the physical intimacy between blacks and whites in the antebellum South was made possible by white political and social supremacy. The blacks were no threat to our people because of this hierarchal structuring of society. Once that was removed, then our people moved to erect other barriers for their own defense and preservation. But Stacy would have us believe that great physical intimacy between blacks and whites could have continued even after black suffrage was granted had it not been for the destructive meddling of the Yankees.

Stacy believes that "Jim Crow was a natural response to the racial antagonisms created by the Yankees under Reconstruction," when actually it was a defensive posture undertaken by a defeated people to protect themselves from extinction.

Stacy also ignores the social ramifications of "white flight," failing to see that it is another defensive maneuver by our people to preserve their way of life now that Washington has removed Jim Crow. Stacy blames the phenomenon on greedy real estate agents who engaged in blockbusting. I believe that blockbusting here would mean that these real estate agents arranged for a black family to move into a white neighborhood which would in turn terrify the whites into moving away. The agents would then profit as the houses were bought and sold.

I'm sure that went on in many places, but it does not diminish the fact that Southerners know enough about blacks to realize that physical proximity to them in a context of political and social equality is indeed a dangerous situation.

Stacy's ideas about winning the blacks over to our side is just barking up the wrong tree. It ignores that they don't think or conceive of issues like we do. They are exactly like the Southerners of old said they were and "can be herded like sheep by the demagogue." And all of Stacy's efforts are not going to change that. It also denies our right of self-determination. -- Dennis Wheeler]

#89.

From Robert Stacy McCain to Dennis Wheeler.

August 21, 1996

Stacy begins with a quote from one of Dennis's previous post in which he quotes Richard Weaver.

In a message dated 960821 00:36:53 EDT, you write: "Richard Weaver is as an authoritative interpreter of Southern

culture as can be found. In his book, The Southern Tradition at Bay, he states: `A reading of the diaries and memoirs of the period [post WBTS] leaves one assured that the idea of enfranchising the negroes was exclusively a Northern notion.'"

Stacy's response:

And for a very good reason, Dennis: The Yankees meant to enfranchise the freedmen IN THE SOUTH, where they formed roughly 1/3 of the population (an actual majority in some states, notably S.C. and Miss.) while disenfranchising whites who had supported the Confederacy. Assuming that the Southern blacks would be perfectly tractable, the Republicans hoped to use them to maintain their party's dominance at the national level, while

preventing the Southern states from reasserting their sectional interests in Congress.

Ironically, at the time enfranchisement of freedmen was being bandied about by the Radical Congress, it was discovered that several NORTHERN states did not allow free blacks to vote. But still, such laws were largely irrelevant in the North, where blacks had formed scarcely more than 1 percent of the population in 1860. That was the entire point of Reconstruction: To keep

these newlyminted citizens in the South, to provoke them into hostility toward their white neighbors and to their region's true interests, and to get them to vote for the Republicans who wished to rule the South as a conquered province.

[Editor's note: If what Stacy says about Richard Weaver's motives for making his statement is true, it is curious that Weaver mentioned it. Also, the North has certainly suceeded in their aim, if it was, as Stacy says, "to provoke them into hostility toward their white neighbors."]

Stacy gives a second quote by Richard Weaver via Dennis's post:

"Not one person in a thousand, not even those most generously disposed, who wanted the see the blacks begin their new life with advantages, was willing to grant that the freedman were ready for participation in government."

Stacy's response:

And the overwhelming majority of freedmen in 1865 manifestly were not ready for such participation, but were merely the pawns of the carpetbaggers and scalawags who were manipulating them as an act of political retribution upon the exConfederates.

Stacy gives a third quote by Richard Weaver via Dennis's post:

"The Northern conception that the negro was merely a sunburned white man, "whose only crime was the color of his skin," found no converts at all among the people who had lived and worked with him."

Stacy's response:

This was NOT, for a majority of Yankees, "the Northern conception of the negro." Most of the soldiers who had served in the Union Army had become somewhat familiar with the slaves ("contrabands") and knew that they were not "sunburned white man." The average citizen of the border South (Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri) and the lower Northwest (southern Ohio, Illinois, Indiana) did not consider the black man his social or political equal, either. This "only crime was the color of his skin" ruse was a bit of lofty political rhetoric believed only by myopic idealists and a tiny sect of abolitionists, and meant only to justify the enfranchisement of freedmen and other race

oriented measures in the South.

As has been demonstrated from contemporary accounts, actual racial hatred was GREATER at the North than in the South before the war. Those "who had lived and worked with" slaves certainly had little evidence that blacks were capable of anything beyond their traditional role as "hewers of wood and drawers of water," since no one had ever really expected (or, really, allowed) them to be anything more. And anyone who had spent much time around slaves forbidden by law in many states from even attempting to learn to read could have concluded much differently. That a 30yearold field hand, without property, without education and without ever having managed his own affairs, should have suddenly been declared the political equal of the best Southern citizens: This was revolutionary and absurd!

Stacy gives a fourth quote by Richard Weaver:

"They viewed him as an African and a primitive, carrying with him a heavy weight of those impulses which it is the duty of civilization to remove or subdue."

Stacy's response:

If you would go read my current guest column in the Colour Guard at http://www.snider.net/home/color/color.htm, you would see where I quote a Confederate officer, Julius Caesar Mitchell, in a wartime letter home to his parents, vehemently protesting a false report that his personal servant had been caught stealing. Mitchell's family was according to his granddaughterinlaw, whom I interviewed the largest slaveholding family in Greene County, Ala. Mitchell had graduated from (if memory serves) the University of North Carolina and represented the creme de la creme of Southern Christian manhood. His attitude toward his slaves was as noble and kind as might be expected from such a gallant man.

After the war, we might presume, Mitchell did not eagerly expect to meet his former servant on the way to the polls, but this is wholly different than viewing that servant "as an African and a primitive" controlled only by "impulses."

And whatever views of Southern black people existed in the late 19thcentury, to the extent they were fair and honest, must have been based upon the conditions of that time, when the overwhelming majority of blacks were illiterate and landless former slaves whose primary source of income was manual labor. Such a black population could not be expected to inspire much admiration from their white neighbors, embittered as they were by defeat, poverty and the horror of Reconstruction.

Have things changed? Obviously, they have. Although a sizeable minority of blacks are, due to the misguided notions of LBJ's Great Society, trapped in a cycle of poverty, dependence and crime, most AfricanAmericans today are literate and employed. Our armed services include a disproportionately large number of black soldiers, sailors and airmen, some of whom have distinguished themselves in action against foreign enemies and who have risen to high rank. There are successful blacks in every profession and trade that I can name lawyers, doctors, scientists, bankers, educators, artists, writers and if someone would point out that there are few black nuclear physicists today, well, this is still a great leap forward in 130 years for the descendants of former bondsmen.

This is not to endorse a general view of racial matters which echoes the myopia of 19thcentury abolitionists, nor to endorse the multiculturalist idea which Georgia SL chairman Mark Bryant calls "diversity through homogenization." But if racial setasides and governmentissue poverty could be ended, and if we could advance arguments which would silence the "race merchants" like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan and Hosea Williams, and if we could demonstrate to the black middleclass that a conservative and independent South would serve their true interests, much of the friction would evaporate.

This represents a great challenge, but a challenge which cannot be overcome by preaching doctrines of racial separatism.

I grow weary of, on one hand, battling those Yankees and scalawags who assume that "states rights" is a codeword for racial hatred, and then turning around to find that some conservative Southerners seem to subscribe to the same notion. This attitude is a greater stumbling block to Southern

aspirations than all the Nation of Islam tracts ever published.

One wonders how people develop such an acute sense of racial anatgonism, a maladaptive and atavistic mindset which must be a terrible impediment in daytoday life. If this is the way we're going to think, maybe those guys stockpiling freezedried food and ammo in bunkers in Montana are onto something after all.

Robert Stacy McCain

Rome GA

[Editor's note: Stacy's argument here is that the Confederates were correct in their analysis of the blacks in their day, but they were only in that condition because they had never been allowed to aspire to anything greater. But now that they have been allowed to move up, they are much improved.

This is essentially the argument of the "race merchants" he decries. And it naturally follows that if the blacks 130 years ago were in their low condition because of slavery, but have improved as opportunity was afforded them, then alas the North was right after all to come down to the South and stop our forefathers from oppressing them.

One place Stacy really moves off-base is his notion that a separate national existence for the Southern people is contrary to Christian conduct and charity. In actuality, it is integration that causes hostility and is the source of manifold sins -- man against man. But Stacy wasn't finished with me yet. -- Dennis Wheeler]

#90.

From Robert Stacy McCain to Dennis Wheeler.

August 21, 1996

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

In a message dated 960821 00:36:54 EDT, Dennis writes: "On the one hand, the Southerners were descended from highly civilized and advanced cultures of Europe and the slaves were descended from base and backward cultures of Africa."

Stacy's answer:

Aw, crap. My ancestors mainly came to this country as indentured servants from Scotland, which as anyone who has read Adam Smith (a Scot himself) would know, was hardly the land of enlightened prosperity in the 17th and 18th centuries. My Celtic ancestors were the victims of European colonial imperialism long before the first Dutch ship brought Africans slaves to Jamestown.

The baseness and backwardness of African culture during the colonial period was chiefly a function of Islamic influence. Every elite feudal warrior class must rest upon a much larger servile class, and to support the Islamic warrior class, the Moorish and Arabic conquerors who were the scourge of the Mediterranean coasts during the Middle Ages relied upon the labor of captive slaves from subSaharan Africans.

Perhaps Mr. Wheeler has a more distinguished pedigree than mine and is thus inspired to justify his superiority by comparative geneaology. But my Confederate greatgrandfather signed his parole from Fort Delaware with an "X," and so it is my view that while race is hereditary, culture is not. Great

grandfather's illiteracy was a product of antebellum Southern culture (grammar and trigonometry weren't much use to a yeoman farmer who expected to spend his life plowing behind a mule) and not of any racial characteristic.

I naturally bridle at suggestions of genetic superiority, since the bluenose Brahmin Yankees once claimed (and some still do) to be of "better stock" than the average poor Southerner. Never met one yet who would say that to my face, though.

Robert Stacy McCain

[Editor's note: Stacy's argument here is that African culture was the equal of the Scotch-Irish culture. This is contrary to the SL position and a few days after he wrote this, Dr. Hill wrote a post saying he couldn't understand why anyone who didn't believe that Western civilization was the best one would want to be in the Southern League. -- Dennis Wheeler]

#91

From Dennis Wheeler to Robert Stacy McCain.

August 22, 1996

Stacy,

In this post, I see a different problem that should be discussed. Here you are working to show that European civilizations weren't all they were cracked up to be and that African civilizations weren't that bad, except for the influence of Islam. I can't see it that way. And if it is true, then I believe the burden is on you to show us what has taken place since then to change things so drastically.

I don't want to judge your motives, I just want to point out again how I think you are straining things a bit to show that you have accepted the concept of cultural equality you believe that the base African cultures are equal to the advanced European cultures.

I know thinking of this type didn't come from the Southern tradition. The South has always, until recently, set up intricate defenses to keep our culture from being influenced too greatly by other cultures we believed to be inferior to ours.

Neither did it come from the Bible. (the Apostle Paul wrote: "One of themselves, even 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." Titus 1: 1213)

And neither did it come from the Southern League. Just this afternoon, Dr. Hill posted these words: "I cannot understand how anyone in the SL could be afraid to say in public that Western Civilisation is the most advanced civilisation the world has ever produced. If you think this is a "racist" statement, then you perhaps need to reevaluate your reasons for joining the League. After all, the civilisation of the South is the highest expression of Western civilisation in the western hemisphere, and perhaps in all the world, during the last 200 years."

You say that you bridle at suggestions of genetic superiority. I can't say that I bridle at them but I don't know too much about genetics, so don't make many direct statements about it. I do believe in cultural superiority, however. I have the Bible as a guide to judge which one is better than another. I would hope you too would make a distinction between genetics and culture.

All the best.

Dennis Wheeler

#92.

From Mark Jones to Dennis Wheeler and all.

August 21, 1996

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I must agree with Mr. Stacy McCain with regard to his reply to Mr. Wheeler on 20 Aug. I am 48 yrs. young, and have lived in the South my whole life -- with the exeption of military/govt. service. I do not recognize the South Mr. Wheeler speaks of. To say that the black population of the South has had no part in the development of our society is "head in the sand" stuff. Does he not know that both Lee and Davis were antislavery? Does he believe that the 95% of the soldiers that fought for the South (and were not slave holders) were fighting to keep slavery?

Mr. Wheeler, do you pretend to believe that well-educated, decent, God-fearing Blacks should not have a vote in the very government that 'rules' them? I was rasied up playing with black kids just like white kids. My early home had a black lady that cooked, washed, etc. But she was like a nanny to me. She was treated like one of the family.

Do you believe that the close relaitonships that whites and blacks have had before the WBTS, and since has had no impact on the development of current Southern society and culture? Contrary to you statements that the SL position on this matter is pie in the sky, your statements as to the current nature of Southern culture, and how it came to be, seem to be right out of a KKK manual.

Although blacks only make up 12% +/ a point or two, of the US population, they are close to 1/3 or 1/2 of the population of some Southern states. How do you propose we go about taking away the vote from that many of our citizens? Do we buy them all a car, a road map, and a compass that points only north, and send them on their way?

The original Klan is dead and gone, the modern Klan was founded by yankees in Indiana and Illinois. Maybe you should move there, those chicken-shit sobs can teach you how to run around in a hood. Real Southrons don't wear them, don't need them, and don't want them. Gen. Forrest outlawed them for the orginal Klan, as he saw them as a coward's costume.

Mr. Wheeler, Southrons are Black, White, Red, etc. The very nature of the racial makeup of the South today mandates that we of the SL reach out to any citizen, no matter what color, and seek to bring all of us into the fold. It won't happen over night, it won't be easy, and not all by a long shot will join with us. But some will, and that will be enough.

Deo Vindice

Mark Jones

Colleyville, TX

[Editor's note: There were almost as many errors in this post as there were statements. Mark has redefined the South and the Southern cause as essentially the same type of society that America-at-large has become. In 1861, not even the North was like Mark's caricature of the South. And I think it's truly a sad day, indeed, when Texans who love the South have come to believe the things Mark has expressed here. -- Dennis Wheeler]

#94.Glenn Ferrell to Ron Colson.

August 22, 1996

Glenn begins by quoting Ron's message that told us the listserver was about to be closed down:

At 12:38 AM 8/21/96 0400, you wrote:

"Dear Friends,

Due to the recent heated debate, it appears the end is near for the official Southern League listserver. I have been advised that numerous complaints have resulted in the board considering asking me to shut it down. I will hear more shortly.

I understand their concern and I have stated that I will phase out the SouthernLeague Listserver within the next few weeks. Immediately, if necessary."

Glenn's response:

Ron:

I don't understand the concerns. What exactly are the concerns of the Board regarding what takes place here? Most of the debate and discussion here is very polite and respectful. There are diverse opinions expressed. Even Dennis Wheeler's "ethnocentrist" (not racist) opinions have been expressed in a rational and orderly manner. Even though I disagree with much of what he says, his opinions need to be aired and refuted. I see no problem with such freedom of expression happening on a sanctioned SL listserver. I am disturbed if the SL is an organization that is bothered by this free expression of opinion that has happened here. Are any of the Board on the server? If they were, they might appreciate the type of community which we share here.

J. Glenn Ferrell

#95

Glenn Ferrell to Marion Lambert.

August 22, 1996

Glenn begins with the text of a post Marion sent to Dennis Wheeler:

At 10:31 PM 8/20/96 0700, you wrote: "Well, THANKS A LOT DENNIS! If ever you wondered whether you could change the direction of the spirit of the Southern League, there is your answer below. Perhaps it is already too late, but maybe if you would just keep your flowering intellectualization internalized then the rest of us could explore the possibilities of moving ahead. The work of the SCV, POH, HPA and SL leave precious little time for families and work, not to mention the twisting of the brain stem your input requires. Your debate belongs in some other organization, not here! So again, thanks A LOT Dennis Weaver!

Marion Lambert"

Glenn's response:

I believe your frustration is misdirected. As much as I disagree with Dennis Wheeler's 'ethnocentist' positions, it is better that they be aired, debated and refuted. He has expressed his views in a rational and civil manner although sometimes evasive regarding the real effects of his beliefs. If people do not want to perpetuate discussion with Dennis on the server, I suggest that you either not respond to him or do it through private email.

Even though I disagree with much of what Dennis has had to say, he has maintained his cool and rationally responded to arguments better than most (but not all) of his critics. If I were a judge in a debating tournament, I'd have to give him quite a few points over his opposition. Why this fear of free discussion?

Is the SL trying to become as respectable as the SCV?

J. Glenn Ferrell

#96.

From Jason Russo to Glenn Ferrell.

August 21, 1996

[ From: Jason Russo * EMC.Ver #2.5.02 ]

Glenn,

I do not believe that anyone is suggesting that we squelch any form of discussion on the manner. However, it is not appropriate to discuss here on the listserve.

One primary reason; if you remember Crawfish was a lurker

#101.

From Kenny Carmichael to Ron Colson.

August 22, 1996

Dear Ron:

I don't know who "complained" but for my money, "they" are wrong. I thought that a listserve limited to the SL was a good idea, because we could compare notes, beliefs, etc., and not be harassed by outsiders. By limiting what we can debate we stifling the SL from proceeding in a forward direction.

Let me tell you before I proceed that I am a WHITE guy and I expect my 3 daughters to marry WHITE guys and all of my posterity to maintain their WHITENESS. So hang me. I can tell you that I would be the same way if I was Black or Asian or whatever. There is NOTHING wrong with being proud of what you are. This belief, which by the definition of some of the folks that do not like what Mr. Wheeler has to say, seems to qualify me as a RACIST, so be it. In 1861, folks that believed that States could secede were called REBELS and TRAITORS.

This is where my RACISM ends. When it comes to Southern Independence, I don't care what color or religion someone is or whom someone is married to. If they understand what true selfgovernment means and are willing to work for a continuation of the Cause, then Welcome. I will even go further to say that if we don't have the support of other races and religions, not only will we not succeed in an Independent South, but if we do succeed without other races and religions, then that success will not last. Besides, constitutional government is not rocket science or molecular genetics or biopharmaceutics. It is a very simple idea, because freedom is simple, so everyone is capable of understanding it (EVEN ME).

They may not like it, but they can understand it. The other side knows this , and because Freedom and Liberty are anti-thetical to collectivism, the other side must throw up barriers to keep themselves in power.

One way that they have been able to stifle the discussion over the years, is to bludgeon us with the slavery/racism bugaboo. In the past, just the mention of the Sword or the Rword has silenced the most stalwart Southern Patriot.

Well, History has caught up with the other side and I think that the time has come for a return to Constitutional Govt. This is why restricting the Listserve is a bad move. Wherever we go and whatever we do, as our successes mount, the other side's bankruptcy of ideas will show through and they will use the Slavery/Racism crap to buy time. We must therefore learn everything about the S/R bugaboo so, if anything, we can come to grips with it ourselves.

When we come to grips with it ourselves, then we will be able to communicate the S/R bugaboo for what it is crap. How can we expect to attract members of different races and religions when we are made to be afraid of things that might keep them away in the first place, and when understood for what they are crap, these things are nothing to be afraid of? If we can't discuss this among ourselves (as brothers and sisters and, I hope, comradesinarms), then where can we.

I have benefitted greatly from this discussion because I go regularly to schools and civic organisations and present, as best I can, the Southern side and this discussion has prepared me to deal better with those touchy questions that will undoubtedly come up, and have come up in the past. I did not join the SL and the Listserv to feel good about myself or for the newsletter or for recreational reading. I joined for one purpose and that is a return to constitutional govt/Southern Independence. If we truly believe in Freedom and Liberty then we should practice it within our Organisation.

Confederately yours

Kenny Carmichael

#102.

From Dr. Hill to all.

August 23, 1996

Dear Fellow Southern Leaguers:

The SL listserver is a valuable tool for our members to express themselves and exchange ideas in a rather informal manner. It is the hope of the SL leadership that the listserver will continue to serve this purpose.

It has come to attention of the SL Board of Directors that the listserver has been the vehicle for some rather vehement quarrels in recent days, particularly over the issue of race and ethnicity. Moreover, we have had phone calls and letters from some members who wonder which, if any, of these various points of view have been adopted by the SL. The purpose of this post is to begin clarifying this situation.

Let me begin by noting that nothing posted on the SL listserver, except that coming from the national Board of Directors, should be taken as an official policy or position of the League. Otherwise, you all should be free to discuss whatever you wish in a dignified and gentlemanly manner. It is not our intention to restrict anyone's freedom of speech. Having said that, however, let me remind you that we all have a responsibility to represent the SL in an honourable fashion. Name calling and personal recriminations between members are counterproductive, at least in a public forum that can be easily monitored by friend and foe alike.

As articulated in the recentlypublished 10point Southern League Manifesto, we are devoted to maintaining the link with the great civilisations of Europe from which the South has drawn its inspiration. We particularly recognise that the core culture and people of the South are, and always have been, AngloCeltic. We support and affirm our European roots in general and our Anglo

Celtic roots in specific. I cannot understand how anyone in the SL could be afraid to say in public that Western Civilisation is the most advanced civilisation the world has ever produced. If you think this is a "racist" statement, then you perhaps need to reevaluate your reasons for joining the League. After all, the civilisation of the South is the highest expression of Western civilisation in the western hemisphere, and perhaps in all the world, during the last 200 years.

We must not be afraid to speak well of our own people and their great civilisation. A man who does not think his own wife is the most beautiful woman in the world and his own children the smartest has a definite problem with his loyalty. If we're called racists and Eurocentric bigots because we dare defend the good things our people have done, then we just have to deal with it. Only dishonourable and dishonest men will call us such, however (which of course is most of the media).

We also recognise that the South is home to other groups as well. They should not be disparaged to make us "feel good" about ourselves. From the start, the SL has disavowed a spirit of malice against any group. While we believe in free association, free from government coercion, we are not in the business of hating others because they differ from us. At the same time, we understand that if the South is to remain a place we and our progeny will recognise as the South, the European people and their institutions will have to remain at the center of its civilisation. Everyone who understands and supports this position should be considered as a friend of The Southern League. The position outlined above is a very simple answer to a complex issue. At present, the national board is writing a pamphlet that will address this problem in some detail.

For Southern independence,

Michael Hill

President

[Editor's note: The tide was beginning to turn. Dr. Hill had injected some basic common sense into the debate. He basically said that the Southern League was a movement for the maintenance and advancement of European culture and people. That's all I had been saying, except that I was more explicit and was applying this abstract principle to the concrete situation of the present-day South. I took it as a vindication. -- Dennis Wheeler]

#103.

From Jason Russo to all.

[ From: Jason Russo * EMC.Ver #2.5.02 ]

Ron and All,

I am very disheartened to see these recent letters from Dr. Hill that appear to be written hastily and not very thought out. Within the past three days we have gone from, shutting the listserve down, limiting discussion, not limiting free speech and maybe shutting down the listserve, not shutting down the listserve just yet...need I go on.

Though Dr. Hill is a learned man, an excellent writer, and a renowned speaker on the topic of Southern nationalism, these recent off the cuff comments that flip flop in every which direction concerning the listserve are not the signs of a good and effective leader.

First Dr. Hill has failed to take into consideration how important the listserve is to many of us, and for some (such as myself in the remote South Pacific) it is our life blood. Second, any decisions made in an official capacity must be thought out thoroughly and presented intelligently. Finally, an effective leader never, ever teeters on their decision. As they teach us in the military, "Make a command decision and stick with it, right or wrong follow through with it you cannot afford to have subordinates question your authority in battle."

Now as far as the listserve, we are not a bunch of children (though at times some may act like it), we are adults fully capable of taking responsibility for our actions and fully capable of being reasoned with (well most of us). I resent the notion of punishing the whole for the actions of the few or the one.

As far as taking care of the topics that have gotten out of hand on the listerve, well gentlemen, I know many of you have children, and I know many have raised children to adulthood. Let me ask gentlemen, ladies and Southron's, how did you keep your children from discussing certain subjects at the Dinner Table? This is no different! Certain subjects just shouldn't be discussed in certain venues! That is not limiting free speech, it is making speech responsible.

Dr. Hill, make a command decision! You may make the decision to purge from the listserve, or the Southern League as a whole, the form of negative discussion constantly spewed from such individuals as Dennis Wheeler. Limiting counter productive discussion is not limiting free speech, it is creating responsible speech. Just as certain topics are not discussed at the family dinner table, certain subjects are not to be discussed on the listserve an official product of the Southern League where it's service is a privilege and not a right of membership.

Your Humble Servant,

Jason Clay Russo

[Editor's note: Jason wasn't happy at all with Dr. Hill allowing the debate to continue. But he went way too far in denouncing Dr. Hill. Even some of his buddies chastised him over it. -- Dennis Wheeler]

#104.

From Gary Waltrip to Jason Russo.

Gary begins with a quote by Jason from a post in which Jason excoriated Dr. Hill for changing his mind on whether or not to stifle the debate on the nature of the Southern people:

In a message dated 960822 12:21:36 EDT, you write: "First Dr. Hill has failed to take into consideration how important the listserve is to many of us, and for some (such as myself in the remote South Pacific) it is our life blood."

Jason, if the Southern League shuts down its listserve, I will ask the Confederate Society to put one up just like it to replace it. We need this avenue of discussion and debate, and even though I disagree strongly with Dennis Wheeler, I am hesitant to censor his speech.

There is a small segment of Southern people who feel as he does, and such issues should be explored and addressed. We are in the act of defining ourselves and our movement, of who we are and where we are going, and this listserve serves a very important function in allowing us to do that.

We as a group are never going to agree 100% on many things. There will always be debate and disagreement. We need to learn to manage that debate to keep it from becoming destructive. We learn as we go, just like driving a car.

This listserve keeps us all on the cutting edge of know-ledge, keeps us apprised of what is happening on the heritage front, what ideas are emerging, who is doing what to whom. We are much more fully informed because of it. The Amy Chow victory could not have occurred without this listserve and the wide dispersion of Southern forces that it unifies under its organizing umbrella.

We will keep our listserve, though it may change sponsors, if necessary to preserve it.

Gary Waltrip

#105.

From Jim Langcuster to Jason Russo.

Jason:

I happen to respect you and appreciate many of the posts you've made, but your characterization of Dr. Hill as an over-rated cipher is way out of line. I'm going to try and respond to your recent post without blowing my stack.

First of all, YOU OUGHT TO BE ASHAMED!!! Michael Hill, perhaps more than any other individual in the movement, has risked his personal reputation and safety to carry on this struggle a fact to which I can personally attest. Since this organization was founded two years ago, Michael has devoted almost all of his free time to Southern causes at considerable expense to himself, his wife, Sarah, and to his family. I wouldn't dream of divulging what I know personally, but rest assured you will never know the suffering to which this man has been subjected over the past couple of years.

One of the most selfless individuals I've ever met, Michael is involved in many different projects of which most of us are not even scarcely aware. He is on the road constantly and often works into the wee hours of the night contacting state and local leaders by telephone, writing letters, bucking up beleaguered activists, etc. Most of us aren't aware of this because Michael simply isn't in the habit of tooting his own horn a noble trait reminiscent of General Lee, wouldn't you say?

You say that most of the success of the Southern League is due to the work of individuals at the grassroots. That's partly true, of course, but none of this would be possible without Michael's oversight. Indeed, were it not for his vision, the listserve not to mention this conversation never would have taken place.

Furthermore, George Will never would have considered writing a column on the SL were it not for Michael having established an intellectual climate under which a legitimate discussion of neosecessionism could take place. I was particularly enraged by your describing Michael's comments as "overrated," since his writings more than any other have provided Southern nationalist thinking with the respectability it's sorely needed for years. Michael's strategy all along has been to bring together activists and intellectuals into a working coalition, thereby establishing a climate under which Southern rights no longer would be a taboo topic. Simply put, the George Will article is evidence Michael's strategy is working.

You say you "detest having Michael Hill presiding over the board and doling out punishment." Believe me, son, if the SL is going to survive, we simply can't have it any other way. As I've said before, the SL isn't a stamp collecting society. We're not dealing with kid stuff but with potentially incendiary material that threatens the very existence of Leviathan. A tightly run toptobottom command structure is the only hope we have of weathering the storm.

To put it bluntly, you damn well better hope Michael continues to exercise a firm hand over the Southern League; otherwise our enemies both within and without the organization will eat our lunch and relish every morsel.

Why is it that we on the right always manage to shoot ourselves in the foot? Why can't we put aside personal egos and trust our leadership just this once?

Michael has stated the listserv probably will be up and running in just a few days or weeks when a new policy is worked out. Why can't you trust him?

Sincerely,

Jim Langcuster

#106.

From Jason Russo to Jim Langcuster.

Subject: Rationale Behind the Dr. Hill Flame

Date: Wed, 04 Sep 96 00:54:18 0500

From: Jason Russo <jonyreb@aloha.net

Jim,

I too value and appreciate your many fine posts and opinions, and I appreciate your willingness to defend the name and honour of Dr. Hill. It is an admirable and respected trait among Southrons and I cannot fault you for it, nor can I bear my wrath upon you as well for rushing to the defence and aid to our Brother in the Cause.

Now for the all important "However," despite the hard work and accomplishments of our many members, no one individual is more important to the cause than any other. We equally share a bond in the efforts of our cause, and equally we must share the accomplishments.

As Christ admonished the old woman who gave a mere penny as having given more than anyone else, so too our brothers in the cause who have sacrificed what little they can to advance the cause, their small gifts are worth just as much if not more than the accomplishments of an individual who can afford to make more contributions, be they in the form of financial contributions, or time. I do not view the contributions of any one member to warrant certain actions.

In my wrath and anger I attempted to humble Dr. Hill and remind him of this fact. His contributions are very important, but not all important. His sacrifices are no more than Mark Thomey, myself, or anyone else who has put themselves, their families and their careers on the line in defence of the South. It is difficult to convey a message with it's intent when you are angry, but alas, without the anger a message loses its powerful effect.

I am still enraged at having Dr. Hill by himself make a decision that affects the entire of the listserve. You are correct, there needs to be action to censor certain topics and curtail certain individuals whose ideals are discriminatory in nature. The action necessary to curtail those individuals can come from Ron. The listserve is a generous act of Ron's and he may censure any individuals he so chooses, and may at his discretion remove an individual from the list. I have always disagreed with the policy of punishing the whole for the actions of the few or the one, that sort of punishment is unjust and unfair.

As far as Dr. Hill's letter to shut down the listserve, do you not think that in the spirit of the Independent South, having a centralized leader with the keys to all power and decision- making process a bit at odds with our goals, beliefs and ideals? The closure of the listserve is a subject that must be brought before the Board of Directors with Ron Colson concurring. Further, as the listserve comprises a large portion of active members spanning the globe, do you not believe it to be advisable to discuss the matter openly with the membership concerned before a conclusion is reached? If nothing else, the matter should be discussed with the Board of Directors and State Representations.

Jim, brother, and I hope still friend, this is the point I was attempting to make in all my wrath and anger. I am not comfortable with a centralized leader in the North, and I will not accept a totalitarian centralized leader in the South, either. I still believe that Dr. Hill was presumptuous with his attempt to utilize his version of an unconstitutional Executive Order upon the general membership of the Southern League.

Further, I have not been made aware of any passage in the Charter, Constitution or By Laws of the Southern League that gives the President of the Organization the express right to act in Paternal capacity to dole out punishments upon the general membership as a whole because of the actions of the few or the one.

Jim, as far away as I am, I believe that Dan Greeson and I will be affected the worst by this action. Though many reside in the South, many of us are disassociated from our Native South and rely on the listserve as a lifeline bond to our home and heartDixie. To enact Executive Orders with the pass of a Scepter that adversely affects members in good standing is unacceptable behavior for any Southron no matter what contributions they have made past, present or future, and is certainly no action deemed appropriate by a Southron placed in a leadership position that is expected to uphold the principles and standards of Jeffersonian Government and the leadership style of the CSA.

Must I remind you of the time in which Georgia threatened to Secede from the CSA? Would you assume that the individual States in the CSA looked upon the decisions of Jefferson Davis as all knowing and final? Not so, and neither am I going to blindly accept this action by Dr. Hill to punish the whole of the membership for the actions of the few.

Jim, as a brother and friend, I will respect your opinion and the opinions of those who disagree with me. Despite this respect that I have for you and those of like mind to you, I will stand behind my principles, though I may not be capable of hopping across the nation in the defense of the South, I will continue to press for Jeffersonian style leadership no matter what little weight I carry. After all, I am used to fighting for the lost cause.

In the Service and Defence of the South,

Jason Clay Russo

[Editor's note: My perspective had been banned since Ron's post about certain topics not being mentioned further. But now, with Dr. Hill's new clarification of the rules, I was back in business. -- Dennis Wheeler]

#106.From Dennis Wheeler to all.

August 24, 1996

To all,

I'm happy to be unbanned after 36 hours in exile. I'm also glad Dr. Hill has seen fit to comment on the European nature of Southern culture and society. I thought his comments were excellent and especially insightful in light of the discussion we've had.

Back in early 1993, I thought that the Southern tradition was about dead. I thought that our people had become so demoralized that hope was becoming lost that there would ever be a resurgence of Southern nationalism.

In 1989 I had written a manuscript on the rising tide of nationalism throughout the world in which I showed how that the world was beginning to break down into ethnic components. I studied and reported on dozens of peoples who were moving toward national independence. Since that time, many of them have achieved their goal and many others are still fighting the good fight.

But in 1989, I still considered myself an American and had not yet realized that I belonged to a subset of America, the Southern people. In 1992, I read Richard Weaver's "The Southern Tradition at Bay" and my life was forever changed. Because once I finished the book, I knew that I belonged to a people who had a right to its own national existence. But alas, I saw no one moving in that direction.

In 1993, Georgia Governor Zell Miller announced his intention to remove the Confederate battle flag from the Georgia state flag. I was saddened by the announcement and didn't believe that much opposition would emerge. But one man Lee Collins, of Marietta, Georgia stood up and challenged the governor. Collins was like a oneman wrecking crew marching through Georgia, organizing the people, and spurring them into action. Later that year, Governor Miller was forced to go before the cameras and admit he had been defeated and the fight hadn't even been close. My heart leaped in my chest and I said to myself: "There's life in the old land yet."

Southerners in Georgia and throughout Dixie are forever indebted to the victorious efforts of Lee Collins. Without him the battle flag would not fly over Georgia today. But as I listened to Lee argue for the flag, I saw that although his arguments were carrying the day on that particular skirmish, they were counterproductive to a movement of Southern nationalism. For he was appealing to the other side by using the Yankees' own concept of righteousness against them using phrases like "you're not being tolerant" and "you're being undemocratic." And although it was giving the opponents of the flag a public- relations problem, Lee was, in one sense, actually validating their perspective. In the end, even though we won, we had been positioned as what I would call "just one more subculture in the American salad bowl."

Let me explain: America had for decades been called the melting pot, the place where many peoples came and blended into a common culture and society. But over the past decade, the notion of the salad bowl has come into favor, where many ethnic minorities congregate and keep their cultural identity, but at the same time are bound to the larger whole of America by their beliefs in democracy and the equality of the other cultures and peoples around them.

I knew that the exclusivistic and particularistic nature of the Southern (and American) tradition was being compromised for the privilege of keeping our flag flying and monuments standing. I considered this to be giving up our core beliefs and saw it as selfdefeating; giving up the essence of the culture in order to save the monuments of the culture.

Once on this listserver I began reading positions and statements I thought totally incompatible with the Southern tradition. I believed that the indefensible position many in the Southern movement had taken to save the flag and wage other heritage battles had come home to roost. And I thought then that these ideas would hinder any movement toward Southern independence. So I picked my spot and started asking questions.

I had no idea the debate would move in the direction it did nor have the wideranging ramifications it has. But boy did I learn a lot?

The main problem as I see it is that, as a whole, we of the Southern movement have accepted Washington's interpretation of the civil rights movement. And that is the key. Here's what I mean:

They have given us a moral choice: "Either grant full social and political participation to all peoples living in the South or be racists, bigots, hatemongers, etc." They don't qualify that point; they don't mitigate it, and they don't compromise it. That is our choice. They have been so ruthless and thorough in maintaining and enforcing that premise, that a generation after its inception, many of us have never challenged it, but have moved forward defending the South in the context of this Northern view of righteousness.

(This is manifest in two ways, IMO: (1) showing that we do a better job of living up to the Northern view of righteousness than they do, and (2) exposing the logical fallacies of the other side's position.)

By deciding that we can seek the independence of the Southern states, but not necessarily the independence of the Southern people, we have found a way to oppose Washington but not confront them over their interpretation of the civil rights movement. This has been like a security blanket to many.

I have stepped into this debate and ripped that security blanket off, forcing those under it to either attack me and get the blanket back or stand up and fight Washington's inter-pretation of the civil rights movement. And in so doing I have unleashed the fighting spirit among the Southern men for which our forefathers were renown. Now, we need to redirect that fighting spirit and turn it on our enemies.

Here is what I propose should be our perspective, as it best reflects the reality of the situation: "The segregation movement of the 1950s and 1960s was not a movement of hatred, bigotry, racial superiority, or intolerance. It was the legitimate effort of a conquered nation to control its internal affairs." I call this position the Southern Sword. Here's why:

The end of the WBTS left the Southern nation defeated and at the mercy of its conquerors. It lost control of both its external and internal affairs. During the 30 years after the war, the South worked hard to regain control of its internal affairs. This was completed in 1896 through the Supreme Court decision Plessy v. Ferguson. For the next 58 years, the South was allowed to control its internal affairs, while Washington controlled its external affairs, much like the relationship between Russia and Finland since WWII. But with the Supreme Court decision Brown v. Board of Education, Topeka, KS, in 1954, Washington began to strip away from the South control of its internal affairs.

The Southern people, knowing this would radically alter their culture and way of life for the worse, rose to defend themselves. They had no troops this time, but Southern men took to the streets in numbers so great that U.S. Presidents had to call in troops or the national guard on at least two occasions.

In 1964, with the signing of the Civil Rights Act, the South was again defeated and control of our internal affairs was lost. Washington then set up a procedure to monitor all Southern attempts to regain control of these internal affairs through the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which only applies to the Southern states.

Since this time, the culture of the South, which had changed very little since 1865, has been radically altered through scorn, ridicule, insult, and slander. To save the South, we must consolidate and present our point of view, not theirs. Their are 30 to 40 million Southerners in the U.S. Solidarity is our strength.

We have a Godgiven right to our own land and our own country. A lot of details will have to be worked out between here and there, but the principle endures forever. We have a right to control our internal affairs and choose our own leaders without interference from nonSoutherners. We also have a right to control our external affairs and take our place at the table of nations; to send and receive ambassadors; to be consulted concerning affairs of the world. Whether or not we have the power to accomplish this is another matter, but our right to try is undeniable.

If we'll disavow the Northern view of righteousness in its definition of the civil rights movement, take hold of the Southern Sword, talk the vocabulary of nationalism, and begin attacking them where they are the most vulnerable, we'll have more than an organisation, we'll have a "movement of the people." Dennis Wheeler

PS I have understood throughout this debate the logic behind the people saying that my position would wreck the Southern movement. They were operating from the perspective that we must fight the battle within the context of the Northern view of righteousness. They believe that any attempt to attack this view will result in more insult, ridicule, and scorn. On the other hand, my perspective is that the present attempts to fight Washington on its terms, while winning some important battles in the interim, must ultimately lose the war.

If I'm not clearly enunciating these two divergent perspectives, I hope they will become clear in the ensuing discussion.

#107.

From Gary Waltrip to Dennis Wheeler.

August 25, 1996

Gary begins with a quote by Dennis.

In a message dated 960824 11:21:06 EDT, you write: "PS I have understood throughout this debate the logic behind the people saying that my position would wreck the Southern movement. They were operating from the perspective that we must fight the battle within the context of the Northern view of righteousness."

Gary's answer:

I am saying we must fight our battles within the context of righteousness, period, not Northern or Southern righteousness. Northerners generally believe that murder is evil, and I agree; that does not mean I am assuming a "Northern righteousness." Northerners also generally believe that hating people of other races, religions, cultures, etc, only because they are different, is evil, ignorant and ugly, and I agree. There are some notions

of "righteousness" that are not limited by section, gender or ethnicity. Some notions are almost universal, e.g., murder, incest, robbery, etc.

Dennis, why don't you come out and say what you really mean? Whose Constitutional rights do you wish to suspend this time? Why don't you give us a laundry list of those you wish to expel, disenfranchise, segregate, marginalize, etc, etc, and let's get to the point, without all the voluminous preparatory oratory? Before we even start on the "Why" of your philosophy, I would like to know the "Who" first.

Gary Waltrip

#108.

From Steve Latiluppe to Dennis Wheeler.

August 25, 1996

Dennis,

I have, unfortunately, not been on this list for the past 24 hours, so I do not know whether you replied to my previous posts. If you have, would you please repost your response. (with regards to my definition of a southerner)?

I have several differences with you over philosophy, which are very important in the larger scheme of Southern nationalism. First, as I have mentioned before, I deny the existence OF ANY BIOLOGICAL BASIS FOR "THE SOUTHERN PEOPLE". This basis does not exist in fact, and even if it did, I do not believe that such a biological existence would have any relevance to our life as a nation.

Secondly, you cleverly confuse the South's right to control its internal affairs with past misuses of that right. I believe that segregation was wrong. I believe that it was an immoral exercise of selfgovernment. This fact, however, does not in any way influence my belief in the South's right of selfgovernance. This is a very important distinction. Every nation has "a right to be wrong". Chile elected a communist president many years ago (Allende), for example. While I vigorously reject communist ideology, I nevertheless respect the right of the Chilean people to elect whomever they like.

But, my belief in this right would NOT imply an agreement with any immoral practices that Allende's government may have pursued. Likewise, in the past, the yankees have been wrong to interfere with the 10th amendment right of the Southern states to govern themselves. Unfortunately, many state governments have engaged in policies that I consider to be immoral, thus leaving open the door for yankee intervention.

Personally, I would have marched against the use of federal troops in Little Rock. But, I also would have spoken out vigorously against the practice of legal segregation (were I a citizen of the great state of Arkansas). This is not a contra-diction. (I believe, by the way, in freedom of association. I do NOT believe in forced integration or affirmative action.)

In your most recent post, you state: "They have given us a moral choice: `Either grant full social and political parti-cipation to all peoples living in the South or be racists, bigots, hatemongers, etc.'"

Let me respond with a simple question: How could you DENY full political participation to certain peoples in the South and NOT be a racist? By definition, you are excluding certain people from the political process on the basis of their biology. In my opinion, this is the very definition of racism. Any attempt to create a political movement based on the idea that the South should say to an individual "You cannot vote or serve on juries because of your ethnic background" is so doomed to failure. In fact, it would receive worldwide condemnation and make us a laughingstock.

Not only would such ideas be morally offensive (would my Jewish wife be allowed to vote in Dennis Wheeler's Dixie?), but they would destroy any attempt to create a genuine Southern nationalism based on the shared values and culture of the people of the South.

Steve Latiluppe

[Editor's note: I would answer this post in due time. But the Great Debate was about to take an ominous and vicious turn. The next post is the one that started the ball rolling toward the whole listserver being shut down. -- Dennis Wheeler]

#109.

From Dana Greenblatt to all.

August 23, 1996

Fellow Southern Leaguers,

I purposely waited until the whole furor died down completely for the time for me to write this. This is a letter directed to any out there who feel that blacks and Jews, hispanics, and any other ethnic, racial, religious groups have no place in the Southern League. This is not intended to be a new opening for debate and any attempts to engage me in such will be ignored. If any would like to reply to this post, DO NOT POST IT TO THE LIST as this is a closed topic.

As many of the members of this list know, I am the female, Jewish (JewishChristian), Italian, and Russian chairman of the Tampa chapter of the Southern League. The recent debates over who should be welcomed into the Southern League upset me greatly, as it did many others. This organization was not formed to exclude ANYONE from joining us in the pursuit of Jeffersonian government. Statements by certain misinformed people have revealed that there is still a great misunderstanding about who the Southern League welcomes.

While it is true that one of the things we uphold is the celtic, anglosaxon heritage which most Southerners can proudly lay claim to, one cannot ignore that there are many other groups who have lived in the South since the inception of the original 13 colonies. One of the oldest (if not THE oldest) synagogues in America is in Charleston. It dates from the late 1600s. Religious tolerance was (and is) one of the hallmarks of our region. Not to neglect others, numerous free black Southerners fought in Washington's army. Not to be ignored, native Americans and hispanics also served our region and country.

What sticks in my craw is supposedly educated people who use big words and fancy catch phrases to propagate their hate-filled beliefs. I'll name just a few people who are members of "undesirable" groups who served the South proudly right alongside the celtic anglo saxons: Judah P. Benjamin (only Jew to serve in such a high office in American history and trusted friend of President Davis), Stand Watie (native American served the Confederacy, led many of his tribesmen, and was one of the last to surrender), Louis Napoleon Winbush (black soldier and grandfather of SCV member Nelson Winbushalso black), and William Taliaferro (italian Confederate general). To say that these men are lesser people than General Robert E. Lee or Stonewall Jackson quite frankly disgusts me as it should any Southerner who holds the cause of the South near to his/her heart and recognizes the sacrifices that its sons and daughters of all racial and ethnic groups made to preserve it.

Two thousand years ago, our Lord said, "Judge not, lest you be judged. For you will judged by the standards you yourself shall apply." He didn't use these words as a conversation piece. He meant them. Each man will one day be judged by the standards he set. Woe to any of us if we didn't live up to them ourselves. Southern League welcomes anyone who adheres to the Jeffersonian principle and wants to see it become a reality once again. We (members and officers) do not discriminate on the basis of religion or race and many of my anglo friends would resign their membership if we did so.

If any white supremacist doesn't agree with this, go join a group that embraces that view you are not welcome among us. Southern League and its members do not. As a member of 3 minorities (female, Jewish, and foreign), I can say, without a doubt, that I am a Southerner and I'm here to stay. It is people who spout hate and hide it under the guise of intellectualism that have no place within our ranks.

Those of you on the list know me from my postings and know that I do not partake in kneejerk reactions but I had to say my peace. I realize that this post may lack cohesiveness but it is a very heated topic (which is why I refrained from taking part in the debate on the list). This post was written at the behest of a good friend (on the list) who correctly pointed out that I had kept quiet when I should have spoken out and is directed at the recent rash of hatemongers who have been posting, not at those who are decent Christians, Jews and others who love the South and welcome all in brotherhood.

DEO VINDICE, Shalom, Sister in Christ,

Dana Greenblatt

Southern LeagueTampa

Preserving Our Heritage

[Editor's note: Dana has redefined the Southern cause in a number of ways. She equates the Southern League with the advancement of Jeffersonian democracy, which I have found to be a buzzword for Libertarianism. Also, she views the old South as a multicultural experiment in which all peoples shared equally.

The other point she made that I found interesting was her affection for minority-status. She let it be known in no uncertain terms that she is a member of three government-approved minority groups, as though she is now deserving of some privileged status. To top it all off, this post, in which she commits name-calling three or four times, came very shortly after Dr. Hill's post saying there should be no more name-calling was published.

Dana's sanctimonious reference to Christ and His judgement shows her mindset; she doesn't just want the SL to pose as an equalitarian, mainstream organization, she truly in her heart of hearts is an equalitarian. -- Dennis Wheeler]

#110.

From Dennis Wheeler Ron Colson.

August 24, 1996

Ron,

Dana Greenblatt has just posted to the listserver and broken the new ground rules, as I understand them. I request that she be reprimanded.

Dana referred to people she disagrees with on this list, and it's even conceivable she meant me, as "hatemongers." She scoffed at "supposedly educated people who use big words and fancy catch phrases to propagate their hate-filled beliefs." (Again, possibly alluding to me.)

Just yesterday, Dr. Hill made this statement: "... you all should be free to discuss whatever you wish in a dignified and gentlemanly manner. It is not our intention to restrict anyone's freedom of speech. Having said that, however, let me remind you that we all have a responsibility to represent the SL in an honourable fashion. Name calling and personal recriminations between members are counterproductive, at least in a public forum that can be easily monitored by friend and foe alike."

I believe Dana has violated this policy and it's unfair to those of us who play by the rules to be set upon by those who don't.

I would like to ask you to reprimand Dana for this behavior. Dennis Wheeler

#111.

From Gary Waltrip to Dennis Wheeler.

Gary begins with a quote by Dennis.

In a message dated 960823 21:24:31 EDT, you write: "I believe Dana has violated this policy and it's unfair to those of us who play by the rules to be set upon by those who don't. I would like to ask you to reprimand Dana for this behavior."

Gary's answer:

I would like to personally reprimand Dana Greenblatt, too. Dana, you should have said it earlier and louder!!

I note that Dana did not mention anyone specifically; why does Mr. Wheeler feel he was being singled out? Hmmmm?

Gary Waltrip

[Editor's note: I think Gary's behavior speaks for itself here. It's hard for me to grasp how a professional man could act in such a childish and immature manner. But you haven't seen anything yet like what he's capable of. -- Dennis Wheeler]

#112.

From Gary Waltrip to Mike Broadwell.

August 24, 1996

Gary begins with a quote by Mike Broadwell from a post he sent to Dana Greenblatt.

In a message dated 960823 23:07:50 EDT, you write: "Many of us have lost a lot of this civility, as the recent debate on the listserver has made obvious. You have done so yourself in your description of the debate. I must assume that you are referring to Mr. Wheeler, because you have spoken against his views, without calling him by name. I see nothing said to refute his views from history or logic, and as he has staked out the traditional viewpoint in a polite and thoughtful way, by implication you are indicting Lee, Davis, Jackson, Dabney, et al. Were they `haters'?"

Gary's response:

No, they were men of another time with different social mores and sensibilities, many of which cannot be justified or supported in the late 20th century.

Gary Waltrip

[Editor's note:: Here Gary makes an assertion but offers no facts or evidence to support it. In other words, he has no argument upon which to base his opinion, it's just something that he believes for an unspecified reason or reasons.

The truth is, there is no evidence to support his perspective. He just believes it. -- Dennis Wheeler]

#113.

From Ron Colson to all.

August 25, 1996

Once again we've resorted to name calling. Is this really necessary? Folks whose comments are completely unknown by their accusers are called cowards? Has anyone considered that [maybe] they agree with much of what Dennis has stated but, recognising that it is not consistent with the goals and purpose of the Southern League, choose not to articulate their opinions on the listserver? Are those who would use discretion to be looked down upon?

Within the membership of the League, we range from liberal to whitesupremacists. (I personally know of one of the latter and would prefer that HE not be with us.) But, while it is clearly indicated that such is not welcome, it is most unfortunately not addressed in our application. However we need to change this, let's do so. Meanwhile, let's recognise that people with differing views have come together to restore a constitutional republic of republics. If is not the differing views that define the League, it is the common goal!

In any event, Dennis Wheeler has been "lauded, congratulated, and supported". By definition, that would be "praised, expressed sympathetic pleasure to, and bore & tolerated". Nowhere have we heard "wholeheartedly embraced". Nowhere have we heard suggestion that his philosophy should be endorsed by the League. Nor have we heard that others among us seek to restore segregation. I will stand up, though I may stand alone, and say that I would like to see Freedom of Association restored. I feel it only right that any group, be it men, women, Catholics, Muslims, blacks, whites, English or Pakistanis, should be able to have a restrictive organisation (or business) so long as they are legal citizens and not using taxpayers funds. I suppose for this I would be called a separatist. Well, I sometimes have no meat with my meal. That doesn't make me a vegetarian. Nor does this view make me a segregationist.

Again, we need to refocus. Fighting should be kept outside the camp, and then only with the enemy. If someone posts a message that you vehemently disagree with, take time to think before you respond publicly. What can you truly hope to accomplish? Are you willing to risk creating opposing factions? Have some of y'all not learned that public challenges too often result in parties taking extreme actions to the detriment of the cause? Often, you will find that an ignored stand ends the soonest.

Throughout these volleys, the language has remained clean and thus the listserver rules have not been violated. Robert E. Lee's rules on Southern etiquette, on the other hand, are being trampled.

Truce, anyone?

For Southern Independence,

Ron Colson

#114.

From Robert Stacy McCain to all.

August 23, 1996

The somewhat discordant discussion of race relations which has broken out here in the past couple of weeks may be entirely unnecessary. In fact, it might be nothing less than the product of Communist subversion. (I'll wait until the laughter stops.)

OK, now that we've got that over with ... I live in Northwest Georgia, former home turf of Larry McDonald, a place where one still sees lots of "Get US out of UN" signs on the roadsides and stickers on the bumpers of cars. The local John Birch chapter is quite active they pitched in and bought me a subscription to New American which, unfortunately, recently lapsed. And, in the local used bookstore, one can find plenty of old hardright paperbacks tucked in among the history and political science sections. They're cheap and interesting, and so I buy some of them from time to time.

I recently bought "The Bondage of the Free," a 1966 analysis of the civil rights movement by Kent H. Steffgen, published by Vanguard Books. Steffgen's analysis sought to explain to Northerners why the South reacted so passionately against federal intervention in civil rights: The South had seen this act before, during Reconstruction, they knew what it was all about and they hadn't forgotten. Federal meddling had brought disastrous results during Reconstruction including increased racial animosity and Southerners, with their distinct history, knew that a renewal of such interference would cause further estrangement and demoralization on both sides of the color line. But the average Northerner, living in virtually allwhite communities, perhaps with only some token "integration," could not understand what the South was so angry about, Steffgen explained. The South had this lesson from its past, while for the North the consequences of federal intervention were unknown. And he points out that hypocritical Yankees are unaware even of their own racial attitudes:

"Years of sustained pressure, tea leaves and glory road propaganda have not brought integration to New York City or to any other large city but instead, Harlem, the largest segregated Negro community in the world. As one spokesman has paraphrased it, the result of all the egalitarian outpouring ... is that no white man or woman will live in Harlem under any circumstances.

"A dormant and contained Harlem gave liberal college professors at Columbia and New York University a onemile twilight zone from which to demand that New Yorkers abandon their "inverted" thought patterns and learn to accept the integration requirements of 20th Century society. But as soon as Harlem's bulging population began to spill over in a downtown direction, out of the way fled these same professors to restricted neighborhoods where their children could be enrolled in allwhite schools."

And, what is more, Steffgen predicts, agitation by the civil rights leaders and the consequences will lead to a GROWTH of racialist doctrines in America. This was especially true in light of Lyndon B. Johnson's 1965 statement of the "next phase" goals: "We see not equality as a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and a result." (Note, this was AFTER the landmark legislation of 1964.)

Affirmative action, preferences, quotas and setasides were the obvious implication federal intervention to bring about economic equality between the races. If the black race were now actually to be the FAVORED race in the eyes of the government, Steffgen pondered, how would whites react? Survival is the first law, and as if possessing prophetic powers, Steffgen foresaw the rise of "14 words" racialist doctrine:

"President Johnson's 'Great Society' ... is an interracial society.... If this is what Americans wanted, they will have their chance to buy it now. A Negro will appear in every advertisement and televised audience scene. The cast of characters in major Hollywood productions will conform to the 'racial balance' requirement of the Federal government.... [Am I the only one thinking of 'Montel' here?]

"Americans will be told, in effect, that they must make a choice between their own heritage and prejudice toward Negroes. That is the way the Communists have it rigged. Ten thousand interracial themes will not beat a path to brotherhood but into the moral sewers which, in turn, will open up a market for the advocation of pure race doctrines from coast to coast and border to border for the first time in U.S. history. The cry will go up that subversive elements are trying to turn the United States into a nation of mulattoes and aboriginal gatherers. Having been partially submerged and withdrawn from the academic halls with the rise of progressive education during the thirties, physical anthropology, eugenics and the biological sciences will reappear and begin a renewed defence of the United States as a Europeanstyle civilization (which, of course, it is). After first *creating* the race issue, the Communists will now capitalize on their creation thus provoking a more or less logical reaction from Americans everywhere....

"It can be said with fair accuracy that while Americans don't regard themselves as 'racists in the sense the Communists and their allies are exploiting the term today, the vast majority .. [are] 'race conscious' to the extent that they practice selective association and seek out members of their own race and culture to marry; ... and are conscious of their Caucasian and AngloSaxon ancestry.... To take pride in one's heritage is not to entertain a hatred for someone else's, other than by the twisted jargon of Communism. Nonetheless, it is this centurieslong code of traditional values and beliefs which will now be assailed and downgraded in order to bring the 'social revolution' of the Great Society into conformity with the laws an invertebrate Congress has already enacted."

Fairly prescient, I would say, for something written in 1966. And we must beware, I believe, of reacting to the programme of our adversaries in ways which help them attain their goals. Their central goal, don't forget, is to wield tyrannical worldwide power. Steffgen here calls our adversaries "Communists," which tends to provoke laughter as evidence of paranoid McCarthyism, until we remember that communism is not a party or an agency, but an ideological doctrine. And anyone with a clear mind can see that this ideology is very prevalent in elite America today. Communists RULE America's universities and communication media.

To say that one wishes better racial relations in a real sense is not to endorse the prevailing view of "diversity through homogenization." I recently saw a young black woman that I had once knew when I was a smalltown sportswriter and she was a high school track star. She is originally from New York and had just gotten out of the Air Force a few months earlier and returned to Georgia. After some friendly banter, I asked her if she thought race relations were better or worse in the South than elsewhere in the country. About the same, she said, but then she immediately began a discussion of interracial relationships and how these are less accepted in the South.

This struck me as odd: Why should attitudes toward dating/

marriage between the races be considered a litmus test of racial harmony? After all, as she later made clear, many blacks are extremely disapproving of such relationships. And yet an acceptance of "Jungle Fever" (Spike Lee movie about blackwhite dating, for those who've missed their multicultural sensitivity training sessions) is held out to us as the ultimate test of whether or not we're "racists."

As Steffgen predicted, the media now force interracial images into the public mind and a number of perfectly rational people react to these images with an altogether natural revulsion. The white person who does not mind transacting business with a black bank clerk may yet be averse to accepting the clerk as his sisterinlaw, and THIS IS NOT RACISM, no matter what Madison Avenue, Hollywood and Washington tell us.

And so when we see an overreaction to this programme, with people urging a return to Jim Crow or even advocating the formation of separate racial nations, the first thing we must understand is that we're looking at a reaction that is not entirely illogical. What is necessary is to realize what is causing the reaction and to realize how emotionalism may prevent us from properly combatting the programme. WE MUST BE RATIONAL AND PRAGMATIC, for our adversaries are extremely rational and pragmatic in pursuing our destruction.

One final note: I majored in theatre in college. After reading Steffgen, I conceived of a oneact play dealing with this problem a play I'll probably never write, of course. But the opening scene is of two high school students, a black male and white female. The black teen asks the white girl for a date. When she refuses, the boy answers: "Oh, so you're a racist?" If this is the test, then, she can refute the accusation in only one way, correct? And, as you probably know, our modern education system is very laudatory of those who "combat racism." Think about it.

Robert Stacy McCain

P.S.: My imagined play, by the way, would have what even Mr. Wheeler would consider a happy ending.

[Editor's note: Stacy again misses the obvious so he can squeeze the facts into a pre-arranged paradigm. Instead of realizing that the Civil Rights Movement was a communistic attack on the South that is winning, he concentrates on the psychological attack, as though if we just ignore it, it will go away. -- Dennis Wheeler]

#116.

From Steve Latiluppe to Dennis Wheeler.

August 22, 1996

Dennis,

I keep trying to flush you out, but you keep avoiding me. In my prior notes, I gave you my specific definition of "Who is a Southerner". That definition was not based on race, but rather culture.

Let me apply that definition to an example, just to see how you would evaluate the situation: Let us take a Cherokee Indian, for example. Let's say that this gentleman has the following practices and beliefs:

1) BELIEVES himself to be related to the people of "the South".

2) speaks English

3) he is a believing Southern Baptist

4) he loves Southern music (lets say he plays the banjo in a bluegrass band)

5) he is firm believer in the political philosophy of Jefferson,

Washington, and Madison (lets say he is an activist in Jesse

Helms' reelection campaign) 6) he loves the history and heroism of the CSA (lets say he is a reenactor)

7) he lives a rural lifestyle and spends a lot of his time fishing, hunting, and working on his small farm.

Now, my question to you is this: would you deny this man the status of "Southerner" because of his race? Do you think that this man should have every right and protection that whites have? On what basis would you consider this man an "outsider"?

I, for one, would welcome him with open arms. In my opinion, this man would be as much deserving of the title "Southerner" as a direct descendant of RE Lee. What say you?

Steve L

#117.

From Mark Bryant to Steve Latulippe.

Steve,

By the same logic, an African immigrant in England could say that he is an Englishman. Let's go through it step by step. Let us say he:

1) BELIEVES himself to be related (by what we're not sure) to the English people.

2) speaks English

3) he is a believing Anglican.

4) he loves English music (let's say he plays the whatever the English play)

5) he is firm believer in the political philosophy of Burke, Locke, and [Lord] Acton (let's say he is an activist in preserving the English monarchy)

6) he loves the history and heroism of England (let's say he gives tours at Buckingham Palace)

7) he lives an English lifestyle and spends a lot of his time sipping tea, bowing to the Queen, and working wherever the English work.

Steve, would you say that this man was an Englishman or a man residing in England of African descent? Just curious.

Mark Bryant

#118.

From Steve Latiluppe to Mark Bryant.

August 25, 1995

Mark,

Yes, I would consider this man an Englishman.

Steve Latiluppe

#119.

From Gary Waltrip to Mark Bryant.

Gary begins with a quote by Mark from a previous post.

In a message dated 960825 00:22:25 EDT, you write: "For instance, when we say that we are Southern we are, in essence, also saying that we are not Russian, Chinese, etc. And other peoples do the same. Believe me, the lady of Chinese descent at my office would laugh me out of the building if I tried to tell her I was Chinese because I met all of Steve's requirements."

Gary's answer:

Mark, you may not be Chinese, but the lady at your office is a Southerner: she lives in the South. I do not know why it is so important to establish THE ethnic group that is the pedigreed version of "Southern," unless we are going to base our new Confederate society on a racial caste system.

If we do establish a new Confederacy, is our Southern nation going to restrict citizenship to only specific ethnicities? Will there be a mass exile of those who can't prove their genealogy? If not, why is it so important to specify who our "people" are? I am not looking for an argument, I am just trying to understand what you mean and what you intend.

Gary Waltrip

#120.

From Mark Bryant to Gary Waltrip.

Mark begins with a quote by Gary from a previous post in which Gary is quoting Mark from an even earlier post:

At 01:17 AM 8/25/96 0400, you wrote:

"In a message dated 960825 00:22:25 EDT, you write: `For instance, when we say that we are Southern we are, in essence, also saying that we are not Russian, Chinese, etc. And other peoples do the same. Believe me, the lady of Chinese descent at my office would laugh me out of the building if I tried to tell her I was Chinese because I met all of Steve's requirements.'

"Mark, you may not be Chinese, but the lady at your office is a Southerner: she lives in the South."

Mark's answer:

We have had discussions about my involvement in the SL (she knows where I stand) and she would have absolutely none of that. No, her allegiance is to the people of Chinese descent, not to us Southerners.

If being a Southerner is merely a function of living in our region then the many economic units that we call "Atlantans" would be considered Southern. This would, of course, be in direct contradiction with the standards some have set up for being called a Southerner (ie Atlantans don't seem too concerned with preserving Southern culture, they do not believe in the right of secession, etc.)

I have had plenty of discussions with her explaining that America was not the mythical "melting pot" that the government schools now teach. And I have also talked with her about differences in ethnicities, immigration, etc. Some of these discussions have been rather heated but we have an excellent rapport with one another. The Chinese do have an excellent understanding of the concept of "people" and they know that "blood" has something to do with it.

Every time she calls me a "racist" she does so in jest (because I have explained that I glory in the fact that God has created the different peoples of the earth). I do the same with her because she knows that I know that she is looking out for the best interests of her people, as I do with mine. She also knows that I do not accept this word as being a valid criticism of anyone. There may be hatred between one person and another. But racism, well, I've never heard of the word. It is unfortunate that some on this list have chosen to use this term with much invective.

Mark then gives a second quote by Gary.

"I do not know why it is so important to establish THE ethnic group that is the pedigreed version of "Southern," unless we are going to base our new Confederate society on a racial caste system."

Mark's response:

I didn't either until this recent debate began. When I saw Dennis Wheeler being attacked personally for positing a well

reasoned defense of the Old South's view of "peoplehood," I couldn't help but recognize that what some are terming "Southern" are what many liberals in Washington are defining as "American." Basically what I have seen is people calling for a "multicultural" South that would meet with great applause from Morris Dees. As far as I'm concerned, the South is multicultural enough as it is. We have 11 (or 13, if you prefer) states all containing separate cultures and peoples of their own and it is this fact that makes the 10th amendment so important.

It is from the 10th amendment that our founders recognized the right of "peoples" to determine their own course. With this in mind, it is very important to establish who our people are. Otherwise, we are wasting our time. We will be fighting for the selfdetermination of a faceless, cultureless mass.

Mark then gives a third quote by Gary:

"If we do establish a new Confederacy, is our Southern nation going to restrict citizenship to only specific ethnicities?"

Mark's response:

I don't know and, in my opinion, it is not relevant to this discussion. We are talking about determining who the Southern people are, not to which peoples the Southern people will grant citizenship.

However, if you are asking me whether I think the Southern people should restrict citizenship to the Southern people, I can only answer that I am not sure whether I do or not. There would be reasons for doing so (which currently do not appear to be politically expedient) and there are reasons for not doing so. Let's just say that I believe that people of European (AngloCelt) descent built this nation for themselves and were not particularly inclusive. Now one could say that they were just victims of history; which precluded them from fighting for a multicultural, one manone-vote democracy. However, let's not deceive ourselves by stating that to fight for such a society is to fight for what Jefferson, Washington, and Lee were fighting for.

Mark then gives a fourth quote by Gary:

"Will there be a mass exile of those who can't prove their genealogy?

Mark's response:

Unfortunately, I can't determine beforehand what other groups will do and I haven't been talking about proving genealogy. However, this wholesale discounting of genealogy is foolhardy. Again, it would seem selfevident that the dominant group in the Old South was of European descent, specifically AngloCelt (Mark Jones' list of the various ethnic groups that made up these two groups does not diminish the fact that the English and Celts were and are distinct peoples). And to set up a society even remotely modeled after the original republic we must take this into account....

Mark Bryant

[Editor's note: Mark had kept quiet through the debate. But now he came out smoking. He is the Georgia Chairman of the Southern League, so his words carried some weight in the debate. -- Dennis Wheeler]

#121.

From Gary Waltrip to Mark Bryant.

August 25, 1996

Gary begins with a quote by Mark:

In a message dated 960825 15:48:12 EDT, you write: "Basically what I have seen is people calling for a `multi-cultural' South that would meet with great applause from Morris Dees."

Gary's answer:

I think you overstate your case. I have seen NO ONE advocate a "multicultural" South, I have only seen those (I am proud to be one of them) advocate that one's race should not be a determining factor in whether one is considered "Southern." Race and culture are not one and the same thing, and being of Chinese or Jewish or Afghan descent does not preclude one from embracing and supporting Jeffersonian Democracy and Western culture and civilization.

Gary gives a second quote by Mark Bryant:

"It is from the 10th amendment that our founders recognized the right of `peoples' to determine their own course. With this in mind, it is very important to establish who our people are. Otherwise, we are wasting our time. We will be fighting for the selfdetermination of a faceless, cultureless mass."

Gary's answer:

I must disagree on your interpretation of the 10th amendment. It recognized the right of the people of each state to act in matters not specifically delegated to the federal government; it makes no mention of the race of the people living in the states. It is the citizenship of the states that gives the right to vote, not the race of the citizens thereof.

Gary gives a third quote by Mark Bryant and this time Mark's quote begins with a question asked to him by Gary in a previous post:

"`If we do establish a new Confederacy, is our Southern nation going to restrict citizenship to only specific ethnicities?' I don't know and, in my opinion, it is not relevant to this discussion. We are talking about determining who the Southern people are, not to which peoples the Southern people will grant citizenship."

Gary's answer:

It is entirely relevant. The unspoken premises on which your whole argument is based is that some people may not be "real" Southerners and therefore undeserving of equal rights or citizenship.

Gary gives a fourth quote by Mark Bryant:

"However, if you are asking me whether I think the Southern people should restrict citizenship to the Southern people, I can only answer that I am not sure whether I do or not. There would be reasons for doing so (which currently do not appear to be politically expedient) and there are reasons for not doing so. Let's just say that I believe that people of European (Anglo

Celt) descent built this nation for themselves and were not particularly inclusive. Now one could say that they were just victims of history; which precluded them from fighting for a multicultural, one manone vote democracy. However, let's not deceive ourselves by stating that to fight for such a society is to fight for what Jefferson, Washington, and Lee were fighting for."

Gary's answer:

I think you just answered my question. I will point out, however, that in the times in which Jefferson, Washington and Lee lived, the world was a much bigger place, great distances could only be traversed with great difficulty and various nations and cultures were far more isolated from one another by distance and the inability to communicate easily (no TVs, long distance telephones, microwave satellite dishes, etc).

Dealing with lots of peoples of different racial backgrounds was simply not a problem they were required to deal with, and your comparison is invalid.

Gary gives a fifth quote by Mark Bryant and, again, Mark is repeating a previous question posed to him by Gary:

"`Will there be a mass exile of those who can't prove their genealogy?'

"Unfortunately, I can't determine beforehand what other groups will do and I haven't been talking about proving genealogy. However, this wholesale discounting of genealogy is foolhardy. Again, it would seem selfevident that the dominant group in the Old South was of European descent, specifically AngloCelt (Mark Jones' list of the various ethnic groups that made up these two groups does not diminish the fact that the English and Celts were and are distinct peoples). And to set up a society even remotely modeled after the original republic we must take this into account."

Gary's answer:

I disagree that the original ethnic mix of the original republic is at all important. You may as well argue that, in order to model our new society after the original, we must also go back to wearing tights, powdered wigs, buckle shoes and writing with quill pens. You are dealing in superficialities, in my opinion. It is the human soul that is important, and the values and beliefs of that soul, not the packaging it comes in. Mark, I will be very honest and say that some of the Yankee criticisms of the South are entirely valid. Yes, Yankees may denounce racial prejudice, but the prejudice is not legitimized merely because it is Yankees who denounce it.

As someone who was raised in California, I have had very different cultural experiences than you have, and we are both products of our environments. But I have to be honest, in saying that the widespread obsession with race that permeates the South is frightening and appalling to me. However, I am not going to cut and run, I am going to stay and fight for the soul of the South and the directions I think it should go.

Gary Waltrip

#122.

From Mark Bryant to Gary Waltrip.

August 26, 1996

Mark begins with a quote from Gary Waltrip's post in which Gary quotes Mark and then answers him:

At 05:09 PM 8/25/96 0400, Gary Waltrip wrote:

"In a message dated 960825 15:48:12 EDT, you write: `Basically what I have seen is people calling for a multicult-ural South that would meet with great applause from Morris Dees.'

"I think you overstate your case. I have seen NO ONE advocate a multicultural South, I have only seen those (I am proud to be one of them) advocate that one's race should not be a determining factor in whether one is considered Southern. Race and culture are not one and the same thing, and being of Chinese or Jewish or Afghan descent does not preclude one from embracing and supporting Jeffersonian Democracy and Western culture and civilization."

Mark's response:

You're right. The desire for a multicultural South hasn't been stated in so many words. Basically, what I have heard is that people want to be "inclusive." Some have stated that a person of whatever (ethnic, cultural, etc) background can become a part of the Southern "people" merely by matter of choice. There are no other "peoples," save for the current multicultural American "people," that define themselves in such a way.

It seems obvious that race and culture are not the same thing. Taken as separate terms, you would be correct. However, the two concepts are not so easily removed from one another. I believe that culture does not exist in a vacuum. That is to say that particular cultures are connected to particular peoples. I have not been able to find two peoples that have produced the same culture nor the same political system. I would be very interested if you could find such an occurrence.

Tom Fleming, in an essay entitled "It's Stupid, The Economy" asked the following question (I paraphrase): "If you removed the residents of the United States and replaced them with Germans or Chinese, would you still have what we know as America?"

The answer is obvious. One cannot remove a particular culture from a people because it is that peculiar habit of different peoples to create their own cultures and political systems.

Basically, I know that Southern culture could not be reproduced by any other people because no two groups have the same history, religion, geography, etc. These influences cannot and are not duplicated among various cultures.

I agree with you when you say that being of another ethnic group does not preclude one from embracing our political ideas or culture. And I have no problem with people who wish and are able to assimilate. Unfortunately, it (being a member of one ethnic group) does preclude membership into other ethnic groups.

Mark gives a second quote from Gary's post and, again, it begins with Gary quoting Mark from an even earlier post:

"`It is from the 10th amendment that our founders recognized the right of peoples to determine their own course. With this in mind, it is very important to establish who our people are. Otherwise, we are wasting our time. We will be fighting for the selfdetermination of a faceless, cultureless mass.'

"I must disagree with your interpretation of the 10th amendment. It recognized the right of the people of each state to act in matters not specifically delegated to the federal government; it makes no mention of the race of the people living in the states. It is the citizenship of the states that gives the right to vote, not the race of the citizens thereof."

Mark's response:

Actually, I'm not sure exactly why you disagree with me on my interpretation of the 10th amendment. Is not the 10th amendment a provision ensuring the right of a people of a particular state to determine its own course? It seems like you restated what I said.

The difficulty, it seems, is that where I would define a "people" by ethnicity and common history, you would tend to define them by political rights. In my opinion, this is analogous to the current definition offered for the "American" people.

Mark then gives a third quote by Gary in which Gary first quotes Mark and then answers:

Gary speaking: "If we do establish a new Confederacy, is our Southern nation going to restrict citizenship to only specific ethnicities?"

Mark speaking: "I don't know and, in my opinion, it is not relevant to this discussion. We are talking about determining who the Southern people are, not to which peoples the Southern people will grant citizenship."

Gary speaking: "It is entirely relevant. The unspoken premises on which your whole argument is based is that some people may not be "real" Southerners and therefore undeserving of equal rights or citizenship."

Mark's response:

Actually, Gary, this whole thread has been devoted to coming up with a definition of who the Southern people are. Somehow, the separate issues of ethnicity and political rights have become confused in this discussion. This is why I said your question was irrelevant to the current discussion. Given the difficulty in attempting to define who the Southern people are, we are not yet at a point to discuss who shall have citizenship rights and who shall not.

With regard to my "unspoken premise," I think this is much more a case of you inferring that I have some dubious motive behind what I have said. I have stated that there is such a thing as someone who is not a "real" Southerner (I suppose you are speaking of what might be called an "ethnic" Southerner as opposed to the abstract Southerner that has been talked about here). Therefore, you believe I think that folks that are not of AngloCeltic descent are undeserving of citizenship. I never said this and actually stated quite forthrightly that I have not made up my mind on this issue. I am not sure why you have difficulty with this.

Mark then gives fourth quote from a previous post:

Mark speaking: "However, if you are asking me whether I think the Southern people should restrict citizenship to the Southern people, I can only answer that I am not sure whether I do or not. There would be reasons for doing so (which currently do not appear to be politically expedient) and there are reasons for not doing so. Let's just say that I believe that people of European (AngloCelt) descent built this nation for themselves and were not particularly inclusive. Now one could say that they were just victims of history; which precluded them from fighting for a multicultural, one manone-vote democracy. However, let's not deceive ourselves by stating that to fight for such a society is to fight for what Jefferson, Washington, and Lee were fighting for."

Gary speaking: "I think you just answered my question."

Mark speaking: "Please clarify what you meant by this comment."

Gary speaking: "I will point out, however, that in the times in which Jefferson, Washington and Lee lived, the world was a much bigger place; great distances could only be traversed with great difficulty and various nations and cultures were far more isolated from one another by distance and the inability to communicate easily (no TVs, long distance telephones, microwave satellite dishes, etc). Dealing with lots of peoples of different racial backgrounds was simply not a problem they were required to deal with, and your comparison is invalid."

Mark's response: