Saturday, August 19, 2017

Confederate leaders are betrayed by their descendants

Via Billy

  This statue of Confederate Gen. Stonewall Jackson is on Monument Avenue in Richmond, Va. photo
Unbelievable.  They should disavow relationship to their ancestors.

The year is 2017, and as the president of the United States vehemently defends monuments to the Confederacy, some descendants of Confederate leaders are calling for them to be taken down.

On Saturday, an attacker drove a car into a crowd of counterprotesters at a rally of white nationalists and neo-Nazis in Charlottesville, Virginia, renewing a long-standing conflict over whether Confederate monuments — like the statue of Robert E. Lee whose preservation in Charlottesville’s Emancipation Park became a rallying point for white nationalists — belong in public spaces.

President Donald Trump, after several days of angry remarks, tweeted on Thursday that he was “sad to see the history and culture of our great country being ripped apart.”

But the great-great-grandchildren of Jefferson Davis, Stonewall Jackson and Robert E. Lee, three of the Confederacy’s top military and political leaders, feel differently.

More @ AJC


  1. Listening to Rense radio, a speaker said that these
    people who had some slaves did nothing wrong - slavery
    was legal and not frowned upon. Go to North Africa,
    Saudi Arabia, they still use slaves. The thinking of old
    was different from today. The people of old had a brutal,
    hard existence. Today's existence is all about their
    ivory towers.

    1. The people of old had a brutal,hard existence. Today's existence is all about their ivory towers.


  2. I believe my history is accurate that Lee and Jackson were not slave owners. Jackson, in fact, taught black people the Bible and to read and write. Contrarily, Union Gen Grant (on the $50 bill) was a slave-owner and kept his slaves until after the War because, as he is quoted, "good help is hard to find". He was forced to free his slaves when the enactment of the 13th and 14th Amendments overturned the U.S. Supreme Court's Scott vs. Sanford ruling of 1857. The 1863 Emancipation Proclamation was an admitted tactic by both Lincoln and his Sec of St, William Seward since Grant, like slaveowners in Kentucky, Missouri, Delaware and Maryland kept their slaves. Historical ignorance and its attendant bigotry abounds! --Ron W

    1. Lee inherited slaves from his wife's side and gave them freedom when the will stated, 1862 as I remember. I believe Grant had one and didn't give freedom until after the War.

  3. Brock, if you persist in backing the wrong horse, ...Your quality of life will diminish. Unless, you're an elite. Are you an elitist, Brock? Be honest. Are you an elitist?

    1. Lol. "Quality of life".

      We're headed for a return to slavery, with gated communities, strong affirmative action, and antiwhite gangs.

      Look at South Africa.

      This society is "uniting" against white people. It's extreme racial prejudice. And any sort of bulwarks to abuse from power above are being removed in the name of "fighting fascism". So, it's not as if blacks or Latinos etc. are going to have a pleasant life here either.

      Look at South Africa and Brazil. Most everyone's miserable there.

      A society of crime, corruption, and angry mobs demanding more handouts is not a pleasant place. It's not a productive society economically or morally. And it's not a society where truth thrives.

    2. I'm cognizant of SA, but not Brazil...?

    3. You like Brazil for the Confederates, haha.

      They have gated communities in Brazil (as in many third world states, to protect the rich from the poor). And much of the economy is from resource production. A successful state would move up from resources to manufacturing, but I don't expect Brazil will.

      They have a great deal of corruption there lately. Or, maybe I should say that as their economy declined (due to resource prices), the corruption came out in the open. (When things are good, maybe no one cares.)


      In the US we keep importing unskilled workers. The mass immigration (which many owners of capital and managers of businesses want) is pulling our society down. We ideally want a high capital, high skill, high productivity society like Japan (which has no natural resources).

      Though we call free trade "free", in truth trade creates a sort of hierarchy. And generally a state wishes to be at the top of that hierarchy.


      Anyway, race is not some harmonious thing in Brazil as we tend to think. My understanding of Brazil is it varies from place to place, but here's an article from VDARE on the shades of skin affecting identity. Pat Buchanan's point about how we have nothing like this in our history is important, because I don't believe such diverse societies are "free" in the sense either of us would understand. You might could find an historical example of a diverse trading state with high freedom, but regardless my view is that we're unprepared for this.

      It's akin to how Amerindians had no defences for Eur-Asian diseases. Our political traditions are not set up for the level of conflict diverse areas face.

      However, there are two different meanings in the word, "diverse". Brazil seems to be largely a melting pot. So, in Brazil you have weak ties among members of society, leading to corruption and weak ties to past traditions (opening one to influence from the media, schools, so forth).

      A fear of some is how high IQ Asians could rise to the top in the US, though I doubt they'd be more anti-white than are Jews (who are currently mostly left-wing, but some are moving Right).

      However, in the US, we're still very separate. So, I'd expect greater conflict among groups here. This is why people say nationalism leads to violence, because multiple groups in the same area can lead to such. "Good borders make good neighbors" tends to be how nationalism can be peaceful. If borders are recognised, and if there's no famine creating a need to invade one's neighbor, then presumably it's more profitable to trade than to invade. Israel for example is ethnically cleansing its neighbors away, and its neighbors want to do the same to it. Israel is small and vulnerable, so it's waging a war to establish itself as a secure state, a secure home for Jews. And that expansion requires taking others' land and resources.

      And it's not simply that different groups compete (and even war) but that elites can "divide and conquer", encouraging groups to conflict to prevent their uniting against their true opponents, the elite. Brits used this in Iraq. So, if we're in very different camps (based on ideology, race, religion, or whatever) but in the same state, we can be pitted against one another. The leader of a group could even be on an elite's payroll.

      Note: I'm not suggesting Israel is entirely "wrong" as anti-nationalists like to assert. Because they want their homeland back, want a place for their people. But I would hate to see that sort of conflict here in the US. We have plenty of land here still, so my hope continues to be that we can just split up somewhat.


    4. We have plenty of land here still, so my hope continues to be that we can just split up somewhat.

      Yes indeed


      And when did we vote for this future?

      Really. Thanks.

  4. Ha! No one looks at South Africa or Brazil unless it's out of fear and recrimination. Are you skewered, armchair warriors?

    1. Brazil has many Confederadoes and remembers their history each year on July 4th with a large party.