Juxtaposing every ill, both past and present, to the South is big business. It can earn you political capital, as well as high-value virtue-signaling points in other spheres of influence.
There are varied reasons to take this easy and lazy path, the most obvious being that some folks just hate Dixie and want to make extinct those they see as backwoods yahoos dwelling within its white-supremacist borders. Most of those cultural-Marxist maniacs are lost causes.
But what is concerning to me is when smart people malign the South in order to promote a worthy cause or make a well-meaning point. Their historical illiteracy not only promotes cultural genocide by propping up the progressive narrative and its horrible real-world consequences, but it also detracts specifically from the respective missions of each of these dupes.
Take Father Lawrence Farley, a learned and highly articulate Orthodox priest out of British Columbia. He recently wrote an article smashing the myth of “enlightened and tolerant Spain” while under Islamic rule during the Middle Ages.
I suppose Farley thought that by contrasting the Muslim conquerors of al-Andalus with those horrible racists of the “Old South” he’d give himself cover. After all, critiquing Islam – a group with extremely high status on the Victim Pyramid – can be a career-ending act for some folks.
But it is Farley who is “not telling the whole story.” “Tolerance” and “equality” are post-modern notions born of Northern conquest, perpetuated throughout the Progressive Era, promulgated by the Social Gospel and throughout the halls of government, and entrenched in every nook and cranny of today’s Western ethos.
In contrast, the South fought for self-determination and against being governed by an oppressive central authority. I bet the Christian dhimmis of Spain could relate to such “gallant” ideals as these.
It was the North who viewed the South as a “benighted, primitive, and ignorant lot” in need of reform and being “under the watchful eye of a tolerant” Union. Just like the rulers of al-Andalus, it was the Lincolnian nationalists who paved the way for the “multi-cultural, multi-religious” hell-hole called ‘Murica.
Because Farley uses such a predictable and historically inaccurate Dixie-bashing tactic, it discredits his overall point. But hey, Farley’s a Canadian, so I suppose one cannot expect him to know something that most Americans, even Southern-born preachers like Piper, don’t even understand. Or perhaps they just choose to ignore facts in order to meet their high-time-preference goals.
The slavery paradox is rather fashionable in the pro-life movement. In this Live Action video, the claim is that with the publication of the “Whipped Peter” photo, “nearly every American saw how cruel slavery was.”
The assumption, of course, is that all slave owners (who were only 5% of the Southern population, by the way) beat the tar out of their slaves, benevolent Yankees were outraged, and thus rallied behind the North. Obviously, the heathenish South had to be invaded and vanquished in order to be taught a lesson. Too bad none of this true.
Even leftist Kirkpatrick Sale knows this is an Orwellian strategy used by the “anti-racist” totalitarians in order to destroy true history and seize power. Such dogma shouldn’t be used by someone as savvy and educated as pro-life advocate and Live Action founder Lila Rose.
On one hand, if you think Lincoln waged a war against a sovereign government in order to “free the slaves,” you must believe that the deaths of 750,000 soldiers and 50,000 civilians (including women, children, and slaves) was worth it. You must think that it wasn’t catastrophic but necessary. Only total war could have solved this conundrum. Wow, talk about myth-making.
And even if every slave in the South and in the oft-forgotten border states (the latter of which, including Washington, D.C., still maintained the institution of slavery with federal marshals returning runaway slaves during the War) was whipped like Pete (which they weren’t), few slaves were murdered by their owners.
But somehow the coerced servitude of slaves under a typically paternalistic arrangement is akin to murder these days, while the actual methodical killing of Southerners and their planned “extermination” nary warrants a mention. Genocidal war? No biggie.
Yup, killing those racist crackers was the right choice back then, just as making them the barometer against which every modern woe is measured is the right choice now. I mean, Southerners were the only people on planet Earth throughout all recorded history to ever enslave other humans, right? And certainly Southerner extraordinaire Thomas Jefferson was evil incarnate and cheered on slavery to his dying day, right?
And all the people who are anti-slavery today (oooooh, so brave!) would certainly have been the ones in the 19th century promoting peaceful ways to end the entrenched legal institution, right? They surely would not have supported the reckless disregard for human life and revolutionary upheaval that paved the way for the purposeful poverty, imperial tyranny, and unnecessarily amplified social and racial tensions which have resulted, right?
This leads me to my “On the other hand.” If you think that Lincoln had to put those insurrectionist states back in line in order to “preserve the Union,” you cannot bemoan the centralized leviathan under which we’re currently toiling.
Simply put, you cannot be happy about the most recent pro-life wins in Alabama, Georgia, Missouri and a few other states if you don’t believe in federalism. In other words, states’ rights. You cannot truly believe that Roe v. Wade is a scourge that has been foisted upon all of America through judicial fiat if you don’t believe in the sovereignty of the states and the 10th Amendment.
You cannot cheer on these anti-abortion measures if you don’t give credit where credit is due: that it was precisely such decentralization that the Confederacy fought for. Not slavery. Just look up the Corwin Amendment or the Hampton Roads Conference for goodness sake.
It was precisely the God of the Bible who authors all life and creates each unique human in his image which the CSA battled to defend against the humanist, transcendental, and unitarian blasphemers. Not slavery.
It was home and kin that lit a fire under rebels, who were resisting the rootless, industrial, and materialist invasion of Dixie. Not slavery.
The South wanted to be left alone, with each self-determined state in this new confederation to do as she saw fit. Some like Virginia and North Carolina most likely would have abolished slavery sooner rather than later, a peaceful act that states in New England were allowed to do on their own accord without federal coercion. That’s how federalism is supposed to work.
Forcing people to bend to a central authority is what tyrants do. It’s what has given us Roe and all the other horrible nationalized “reforms,” like the CIA, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, the Department of Education, the FDA, the EPA, the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Civil Rights Act, the ADA, Homeland Security, and the pending Equality Act.
Just like Obergefell v. Hodges in making homosexual “marriage” legal from sea to shining sea, even though that is clearly the opposite of what “the people” had voted for via various state referendums. The overlords in D.C. must force people to bend to their will. This kind of oppression causes unrest, for there is no such thing as political universalism, especially among 325 million people who share little in common.
In our secular-global mass democracy, the South has become a caricature for meanness and injustice, when in fact it was her people, our ancestors who peacefully abandoned the “great American experiment” for it was already dying in 1861. The final nail in the Jeffersonian coffin came in April 1865.
And it is precisely because of the outcome of the War Between the States that we even have something called Roe v. Wade. This is why we even have something laughingly referred to as the “law of the land.” They’re both products of those invaders, thieves, and killers known as the “indivisible” Union.
Some on the right say these pro-life victories are a distraction from the larger threats of the empire. But to me, sticking even one tiny dagger into the heart of the parasitic nation-state bodes well for freedom. Sure, lower courts will challenge these state laws and SCOTUS may refuse to hear the cases, but at least informed people will know then why states’ rights matter so much.
So, if you think Roe is horrible law and that courts don’t invent rights, you might be a neo-Confederate. If you think that murder is and always has been the purview of state law, you might be a neo-Confederate.
If you think that legislators make laws, not judges, you might be a neo-Confederate. If think that laws should be more localized and less “national,” you might he a neo-Confederate. If you think that radical egalitarianism and feminism were part and parcel of the progressive remaking of the America, you might be a neo-Confederate.
If you find it utterly unacceptable that you’re propping up Planned Parenthood with your blood-drenched federal taxes, you might be a neo-Confederate. Hell, if you think that the real slavery going on is that a third or more of your labor is confiscated by Washington for foreign wars and killing abroad, and for propping up the the Deep State and promoting godlessness and degeneracy here at home, you might be a neo-Confederate.
If you support the staunchly pro-life, pro-woman, and pro-family laws being passed by individual states, you might be a neo-Confederate. If you plan on never visiting and spending one dollar in the cesspool known as New York because of its late-term abortion laws, you might be a neo-Confederate. If you want to save babies in the most effective political way possible, you are a neo-Confederate. Deal with it.
Source: Dissident Mama – If you want to save babies, you might be a neo-Confederate