Yankee Abolitionist Red-Republican Chickens Coming Home to Roost with Gay Rights Friday, Feb 28 2014 

The Yankee Abolitionists forced Abolition on us, forced Racial Integration on us, and now Yahowah is forcing homosexuality on them. Yankees getting exactly what they deserve. Oh how I love it!

Justified Genocide; Chronicles of Southern Reconstruction Monday, Jan 20 2014 

Ripping STEVEN JONAS MD”s Article “Abominable Horror: Slavery Lingers On in Neo-Confederate Hate for Non-Whites” to shreds Saturday, Nov 9 2013 





Thomas Sowell admits Race War is Coming Thursday, Oct 24 2013 


The Rape of White Women by Black Men in the Ante-Bellum South Friday, Oct 11 2013 

Diane Sommerville , in her, Rape and Race in the Nineteenth-Century South (The University of North Carolina Press, 2004) states,

“In 1918 the historian Ulrich B. Phillips, citing 105 cases of slaves accused of  raping white women, challenged the ‘oft-asserted Southern tradition that Negroes never violated white women before slavery was abolished.” (pg. 1)


Is Our Present Government a Military Coup D’état? Monday, Sep 23 2013 

Growing up in America can be one strange experience. If you are the kind of person who actually cares to know things, the lies we are told in childhood grow darker and darker in our perception as the years pass by.  As we see our Country growing more ignorant and more chaotic and our Government growing more tyrannical, these childhood lies seem more monstrous and malicious than we ever imagined. We are told in childhood that 150 years ago, Northerners loved Black Americans and Southerners hated them and persecuted them, and so our Country fought for the freedom of Black Americans. Not to divert from the topic of this tract, having written a couple books on these issues, I can assure you that this is a total lie. The Northern states were the ones who brought Africans here in the first place. Our original Colony of Virginia did everything they could to legally prevent slave traders from coming to our shores and King George forced it upon us. Jefferson catalogs this in our original Constitution of Virginia. This is a piece of History that our State Schools systematically suppress.  However, this only scratches the surface. The intention of our invasion 150 years ago was not to work for the benefit of Black Americans, but to subject all Americans to Monarchial powers and to create an American Empire totally unrecognizable from the original Government created by the Founding Fathers. This new creation is heralded as the glowing gem of human Civilization and freedom when it is anything but. Americans are starting to wake up to this fact in the recent egregious violations of our 4th Amendment Rights.  Let me be clear, the present Government of the United States of America is not a development of the original Government of 1789. The present Government of the United States of America is an utter rejection of the original Government of 1789. Why do I say this?

1. George H. Pendleton, who was a Democrat and a Representative and a Senator from Ohio, himself a Yankee, said,

“Now the veil is drawn and the revolutionary purpose of the party is revealed. That purpose is to destroy the government, to change its form and spirit, to make a new Union, to ingraft upon it new principles, new theories, new powers. It is rebellion against the Constitution, differing in nothing from its armed enemies except in the weapons of its warfare.”[1]

2. 14th Amendment Citizenship abolished State Sovereignty. James Gillespie Blaine (1830 – 1893), U.S. Representative and Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, said in his Political Discussions (1887) pg. 63-64,

“We intend to make citizenship National. Heretofore, a man has been a citizen of the United States because he was a citizen of some one of the States: Now, we propose to reverse that, and make him a citizen of any State where he chooses to reside, by defining in advance his National citizenship — and our Amendment declares that ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.’ ”

This overturned the Dred Scott decision as explained in Slaughterhouse Cases – 83 U.S. 36 (1872).[2]

3. 14th Amendment Citizenship does not include Privileges and Immunities of the Bill of Rights.

Maxwell v. Dow – 176 U.S. 581 (1900) says,

“The privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States do not necessarily include all the rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal Constitution against the powers of the Federal Government…”

Twining v. State – 211 U.S. 78 (1908) says,

“The right of trial by jury in civil cases, guaranteed by the Seventh Amendment (Walker v. Sauvinet,  92 U.S. 90), and the right to bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment (Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252), have been distinctly held not to be privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment against abridgment by the State…”[3]

4. Our present Government is a De Facto Military Government ruling the States as conquered territories treating the Citizens as belligerent enemy combatants. Downes v. Bidwell – 182 U.S. 244 (1901) says,

“What the Chief Justice said was:

“These courts, then, are not constitutional courts in which the judicial power conferred by the Constitution on the general government can be deposited. They are incapable of receiving it. They are legislative courts, created in virtue of the general right of sovereignty which exists in the government…The jurisdiction with which they are invested is not a part of that judicial power which is defined in the third article of the Constitution, but is conferred by Congress in the execution of those general powers which that body possesses over the territories of the United States.”

Justice Harlan referred to this as “an era of legislative absolutism”. He continues in his dissent saying,

“The idea prevails with some — indeed, it found expression in arguments at the bar — that we have in this country substantially or practically two national governments — one to be maintained under the Constitution, with all its restrictions, the other to be maintained by Congress outside and independently of that instrument, by exercising such powers as other nations of the earth are accustomed to exercise.”

Ex parte Milligan – 71 U.S. 2 (1866) says, 

“There are under the Constitution three kinds of military jurisdiction: one to be exercised both in peace and war, another to be exercised in time of foreign war without the boundaries of the United States, or in time of rebellion and civil war within states or districts occupied by rebels treated as belligerents…”

Notice how our beloved Government changed the wording of this case in Constitutional Sources of the Laws of War, 65th Congress, 1st Session, Document No. 86, Senate Resolution No. 100 (1917),

“And whenever our Army or Navy may go beyond our territorial limits, neither can go beyond the authority of the President or the legislation of Congress. There are under the Constitution three kinds of military jurisdiction: One to be exercised both in peace and war; another to be exercised in time of foreign war within the boundaries of the United States, or in time of rebellion and civil war within States or districts occupied by rebels treated as belligerents…”[4]

What the Supreme Court ruled to be a prerogative of the Military outside of the United States, Congress made to apply inside the boundaries of the United States.

5. The Gold-Fringed-Flag that stands behind the Judges in American courts prove we are under Military rule, not civilian rule. Army Regulation 840–10; Heraldic Activities Flags, Guidons, Streamers, Tabards, and Automobile and Aircraft Plates, states,

“b. National flags listed below are for indoor display and for use in ceremonies and parades. For these purposes, the flag of the United States will be of rayon banner cloth or heavyweight nylon, trimmed on three sides with golden yellow fringe…c. Authorization for indoor display. The flag of the United States is authorized for indoor display for each… (4) Military courtroom…”[5]

6. Daylight Savings Time is Considered War Time (The War Time Act-56 Stat. 9, ch. 7).  In 1942 Congress passed The War Time Act establishing DST to conserve energy resources during WW2. DST is still with us today.

7. We are in a perpetual state of National Emergency and a State of National Emergency is a State of War. Our state of National Emergency began with FDR’s The Emergency Banking Act, March 9, 1933.  Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition (1979), page 90 states,

National emergency. A state of national crises…Congress has made little or no distinction between a ‘state of national emergency’ and a ‘state of war’.

Thus, pursuant to the meaning of a National Emergency, FDR, in fact, enacted a state of war. What evidence is there that this state of war extended into the future? In Emergency Powers Statutes, 93d Congress, 1st Session, Report No. 93-549 (1973), we read,

“Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency.”

Moreover, Order Code 98-505 GOV, National Emergency Powers, Updated September 18, 2001, by Harold C. Relyea, CRS-13 Table 1 demonstrates that our government has declared a National Emergency almost every year from 1979 to the year of this publication in 2001. The report states,

“The special committee also found that no process existed for automatically terminating the four outstanding national emergency proclamations. [CRS 9-10] …The development, exercise, and regulation of emergency powers, from the days of the Continental Congress to the present, reflect at least one highly discernable trend: those authorities available to the executive in time of national crisis or exigency have, since the time of the Lincoln Administration, come to be increasingly rooted in statutory law. The discretion available to a Civil War President in his exercise of emergency power has been harnessed, to a considerable extent, in the contemporary period.” [CRS-18]

8. The United States Government advertises itself openly as a Fascist Military Government by the traditional Fascist Symbol in the House of Representatives.  The title image of this tract bears this out.

[1] Woodburn, James Albert, The Life of Thaddeus Stevens: A Study in American Political History, 313-314

[2] See also Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404 (1935)

[3] See also Justice Harlan’s dissent.

[4] Pg. 12

Ralph Borodi’s Condemnation of the Industrial Revolution Thursday, Aug 1 2013 



The Lies of the University of Louisville Concerning the Antebellum South Tuesday, May 28 2013 

 My dear readers please forgive the extended attention given to the issue of the South and slavery over the past 6 months. I wanted to make sure I dealt with the Yankee criticisms of the South fairly and exhaustively. This will be the last installment on this issue for quite a while. Thank you for the few of you who have remained through this. These issues have cost me hundreds of readers but I could not be silent.


 “The negroes, so far as I have yet seen them, whether in domestic service or on the farms, appear very cheerful and free from care, better fed than a large part of the labouring class of Europe; and, though meanly dressed, and often in patched garments, never scantily clothed for the climate.”

Lyell’s Travels in North America by Charles Lyell[1]

Pursuant to the syllabus HIST 211: AMERICAN HISTORY I of Daniel Krebs, Ph.D., Department of History at the University of Louisville, the assigned textbook for this course was Understanding the American Promise: A Brief History of the  United States, Vol. 1: To 1877 by James L. Roark (Bedford-St. Martin’s: Boston and New York, 2011).


I have purchased this book and will now present a review of it.

According to Chapter 3 Section titled, When and why did the southern colonies move toward a slave labor system? the text states,

“Slaves had another important advantage over servants: They could be controlled politically. Bacon’s Rebellion had demonstrated how disruptive former servants could be when their expectations were not met. A slave labor system promised to avoid the political problems caused by the servants labor system.”[2]

The text is clearly trying to show that Virginia moved toward slavery to protect and consolidate their political power while supplanting and exploiting the black slaves in their move toward escalating the slavery institution in Virginia. History tells the exact opposite story. The men of Bacon’s Rebellion wanted to create the international trade from Virginia, not supplant it. Cassell’s History of the United States by Edmund Ollier records Bacon’s group,

“Now we can build ships,’ said they, ‘and trade, like New England, to any part of the world.”[3]

Virginia was not involved with the trade at this time and if Bacon’s group had succeeded our history would be stained with the blood of the slave trade. Virginia would continue to resist the slave trade through the next century.



The text admits as much on page 125 stating,

“About 85 percent of the slaves brought into the Southern colonies came directly from Africa, and almost all the ships that brought them (roughly 90 percent) belonged to British merchants.”

The rest were Yankees.

The Southerners were not the slave traders and kidnappers.


The text continues,

“poor white farmers enjoyed the privileges of free status. They could own property, get married, have families, and bequeath their property and their freedom to their descendants; they could move when and where they wanted; they could associate freely with other people; they could serve on juries, vote, and hold political office; and they could work, loaf, and sleep as they chose. These privileges of freedom-none of them possessed by slaves-made lesser white folk feel they had a genuine stake in the existence of slavery, even if they did not own a single slave.”[4]

This is curious. So let me get this straight: The South possessed over 200, 000 free blacks (260, 000 in 1860 according to the text, page 354), many of whom owned their own slaves, yet only the white free laborers had a stake in Plantation slavery due to their free status, though many blacks enjoyed free status, and could own property,  etc. though the institution of Plantation slavery constituted 3% of the Southern population? Curious.

Regarding the issue of property: The Plantation was a commune. To complain that slaves could  not own their own property is like calling a double dribbling foul on an offensive lineman in a football game. The ref is confused.

As to the issue of marriage, family and voting:

First, the text even admits on page 351,

“plantation records show that slave marriage laws were often long-lasting.”

Dabney states,

“Next, our laws did not, as many seem to represent, prohibit, or delegalize the marriage of slaves; but were simply silent about them. The meaning of this silence was, to leave the whole matter to the control of the master. It appears almost impossible for anti-slavery men to be made to apprehend the nature of the institution, as described in the words, ‘domestic slavery.’ Their minds, perverted with vain dreams of the powers and perfectibility of the State, cannot be made to apprehend that God has made other parties than the commonwealth and the civil magistrate, depositories of ruling power; [Metternich’s  Council of Vienna and Treaty of Verona is behind this no doubt.-DS] and that this arrangement is right and benevolent. Now, it is the genius of slavery, to make the family the slave’s commonwealth. The family is his State. The master is his magistrate and legislator, in all save certain of the graver ‘criminal relations, in which the commonwealth deals directly and personally with him. He is a member of municipal society only through his master, who represents him. The commonwealth knows him as only a life-long minor under the master’s tutelage. The integers of which the commonwealth aggregate is made up, are not single human beings, but single families, authoritatively represented in the father and master. And this is the fundamental difference between the theory of the Bible, and that of radical democracy. [That takes care of the voting issue. DS] The silence of our laws, then, concerning the marriage of slaves, means precisely this: that the whole subject is remitted to the master, the chief magistrate of the little integral commonwealth, the family. Obviously, therefore, the question whether our laws were defective therein, is in no sense a question between the living of the slaves in marriage or in beastly license; it is only a question whether, in the distribution’ of ruling functions, those of the master were not made too large and responsible, herein. And if error be admitted in this respect, it cannot be one which makes the relation of servitude sinful; for then the same crime must be fixed on all the patriarchs, notwithstanding their care in rightly ordering and preserving, as family heads, the marital relations of their children and slaves, because, forsooth, there happened to be no’ commonwealth law above them, as patriarchs, regulative of these marriages. This is nonsense.  Where the modern patriarch, the Southern master, rightly ordered and protected the marriage relations of his slaves, the silence of the commonwealth no more made their connexions concubinage, than were those of Isaac, and of Abraham’s steward, Eliezer of Damascus. What magistrate or legislature, other than Abraham, issued their marriage license? Who else enforced their marriage law or defined its rights? What civic agent solemnized the ceremonial for them? And this leads to another remark: that that ceremonial is wholly unessential to the validity of marriage. Of course, where the laws enjoin it for any class, every good citizen will observe it. But the absence of such ordained ceremonial does not make lawful marriage impossible. In this sense, consensus facit nuptias. It was thus that the holiest wedlock ever seen on earth was instituted, that of Adam and Eve; thus Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebekah, were united. The fact that our laws pronounce the unions of Quakers and of Jews, legitimate marriage, although announced with different forms, and indeed almost without form, evinces this truth.

Now, then, for the facts. These facts are, that marriage in its substance was as much recognized among our servants as among any other peasantry; that the union was uniformly instituted upon a formal written license of the two masters; that it was almost always sanctioned by a religious ceremonial conducted by a minister; that the regularity of the connexion was uniformly recognized by the master’s assigning the husband and wife their own dwelling; that the moral opinion of both whites and blacks made precisely the same distinction between this connexion and the illicit ones, and between the fruits of it as legitimate, and the fruits of concubinage as illegitimate, which publick opinion establishes for white persons: and that even the criminal law recognized it as a regular connexion, by extending to the black man who slew the violator of his bed in heat of blood, the same forbearance which it extends to the outraged husband. How can it be said, in the face of these facts, that marriage did not exist among them?

But, it is asked, did not the master possess power to separate this union at his will; and was not this power often exercised? They did. The power, relatively, was not often exercised; and when the separation was not justified by the crimes of the parties, it met the steady and increasing reprobation of publick opinion. The instances of tyrannical separation were, at most, far fewer than the harsh tyranny of destitution imposes on poor whites in all other countries; and the pretended philanthropy of the Yankees has, in five years, torn asunder more families than all the slave dealers of the South did in a hundred.

But the power of separating was sometimes abused by masters; and the room for this abuse was just the defect in our laws, which nearly all Southern Christians deplored, and which they desired to repair. Justice requires the testimony, on the other hand, that the relaxed morals which prevailed among the Africans was not the result of their marital relations, as arranged among us, but the heritage of their paganism; that under our, system the evil was decreasing; and that since their emancipation and nominal subjection to the marriage law of the whites, a flood of licentiousness, vagrant concubinage, and infanticide, has broken out again among them. Clear proof this, that our abused system was better adapted to their character than the present.”[5]

Not only was marriage and family not prohibited, adultery and notions of divorce were punished by whipping.[6]

As for loafing and sleeping, I have always been struck by the record of Mississippi slavery from John A. Quitman, who was born in New York, and was raised and educated in the Yankee establishment. He then moved to Mississippi in 1820. In 1823 he wrote to Col. Brush, (And remember, this was written in 1823)

“…On public holidays they have dinners equal to an Ohio barbecue, and Christmas, for a week or ten days, is a protracted festival for the blacks…They are strongly attached to ‘old massa’ and ‘old missus,’ but their devotion to ‘young massa’ and ‘young missus’ amounts to enthusiasm…In short, these ‘niggers,’ as you call them, are the happiest people I have ever seen, and some of them, in form, features, and movement, are real sultanas.

So far from being fed on ‘salted cotton-seed,’ as we used to believe in Ohio, they are oily, sleek, bountifully fed, well clothed, well taken care of, and one hears them at all times whistling and singing cheerily at their work. They have an extraordinary facility for sleeping. A negro is a great night-walker. He will, after laboring all day in the burning sun, walk ten miles to a frolic, or to see his ‘Dinah,’ and be at home and at his work by daylight next morning. This would knock up a white man or an Indian. But a negro will sleep during the day—sleep at his work, sleep on the carriagebox, sleep standing up; and I have often seen them sitting bareheaded in the sun on a high rail-fence, sleeping as securely as though lying in bed. They never lose their equipoise, and will carry their cotton-baskets or their water-vessels, filled to the brim, poised on their heads, walking carelessly and at a rapid rate, without spilling a drop. The very weight of such burdens would crush a white man’s brains into apoplexy. Compared with the ague-smitten and suffering settlers that you and I have seen in Ohio, or the sickly and starved operators -we read of in factories and in mines, these Southern slaves are indeed to be envied. They are treated with great humanity and kindness. I have only heard of one or two exceptions. And the only drawback to their happiness is that their owners, sometimes, from extravagance or other bad management, die insolvent, and then they must be sold to the highest bidder, must leave the old homestead and the old family, and pass into the hands of strangers.”[7]

The ignorance of the Abolitionists concerning Plantation life is admitted by the text on page 372,

“Harriet Beecher Stowe…never stepped foot on a plantation”.

The text continues,

“Masters preferred black slaves to white indentured servants, not just because slaves served for life but also because colonial laws did not limit the force masters could use against slaves.”[8]

This is a total lie which I catalogued in my article against Django:


and later in the present article.

In Chapter 7 of our text we are met with the question: Why Did the Americans Declare Their Independence?  This is an important question to us Southerners who are privy to the issues involved with slavery and King George as already cited:



The text gives only a sliver of light stating,

“Jefferson had included an impassioned statement blaming the king for slavery, which delegates from Georgia and South Carolina struck out. They had no intention of denouncing their labor system as an evil practice.”[9]

This is laughable. Jefferson was not criticizing the institution of slavery but the forced slave trade that not only Jefferson but Virginian statesmen had been publicly protesting and attempting to criminalize for decades only to be overruled by England as I have documented above. But does this wicked deceitful textbook mention any of it? No.

In Chapter 13, Understanding The Slave South, we are introduced with more butchering of History by the text. The text leads the reader into believing that Slavery was the only issue that made the Southern people so different than the Northern; this was the only thing that separated their philosophies of government and society. This is laughable.

The Jesuit order was re-establishment in 1814. Immediately, Counter-Reformation conferences were held by that Papal Knight of the Holy Roman Empire,  Klemens von Metternich and his Congress of Vienna.

In 1818 the Duke of Richmond warned of the Roman Catholic plot,

“The Duke of Richmond.–The following language of the Duke of Richmond, while Governor of the Canadas, is reported by Mr. H. G. Gates, of Montreal, who was present when it was uttered:

“The Duke, a short time prior to his death, in speaking of the Government of the United States, said: ‘It was weak, inconsistent, and bad, and could not long exist. It will be destroyed; it ought not, and will not, be permitted to exist; for many and great are the evils that have originated from the existence of that Government. The curse of the French revolution, and subsequent wars and commotions in Europe, are to be attributed to its example ; and, so long as it exists, no prince will be safe upon his throne; and the sovereigns of Europe are aware of it, and they have been determined upon its destruction, and have come to an understanding upon this subject, and have decided on the means to accomplish it; and they will eventually succeed, by subversion rather than conquest.’ ‘All the low and surplus population of the different nations of Europe will be carried into that country; it is, and will be, a receptacle for the bad and disaffected population of Europe, when they are not wanted for soldiers, or to supply the navies; and the European governments will favor such a course. This will create a surplus and a majority of low population, who are so very easily excited; and they will bring with them their principles, and, in nine cases out of ten, adhere to their ancient and former governments, laws, manners, customs, and religion, and will transmit them to their posterity and in many cases propagate them among the natives. These men will become citizens, and, by the constitution and laws, will be invested with the right of suffrage. The different grades -of society will then be created by the elevation of a few, and by degrading many, and thus a heterogeneous population will be formed, speaking different languages, and of different religions and sentiments; and to make them act, think, and feel alike in political affairs, will be like mixing oil and water; hence discord, dissension, anarchy, and civil war, will ensue, and some popular individual will assume the Government and restore order, and the sovereigns of Europe, the emigrants, and many of the natives, will sustain him.’ ‘The Church of Rome has a design upon that country, and it will, in time, be the established religion, and will aid in the destruction of that Republic’ ‘I have conversed with many of the sovereigns and princes of Europe, and they have unanimously expressed these opinions relative to the Government of the United States, and their determination to subvert it.” [10]

In 1822, the Treaty of Verona was produced, to regain powers that European Monarchs had lost in the centuries preceding the Treaty with the fall of The Divine Right of Kings. In the US, this movement was countered by the Monroe Doctrine of 1823.[11] In 1825 the Treaty of Verona was furthered by a Jesuit session in Chieri located in Italy.[12] With this plot in place, the Jesuits began to infiltrate Protestant Universities in America through Freemasonry and the Skull and Bones organization.[13]  Luigi Desanctis said,

“The Jesuits exist in all Protestant countries under the name of missionaries, with the habit of priest, and . . . they exist there under other names. . . . Take England for example, there they do not legally exist [since 1829 until re-admitted in 1902 by King Edward VII]; nevertheless, they have not given up that country, and I assure you that they are more numerous in England than in Italy, and this because all the English, Scotch and Irish priests are pupils of the Jesuits [as was the assassin of President John F. Kennedy, Francis Cardinal Spellman], . . . There are Jesuits in Parliament, amongst the Anglican clergy, amongst the Bishops, and perhaps also in still higher circles [advisors of Queen Victoria] . . .”[14]

This is when we see the rise of Jesuit Arminianism which laid the foundation for the “Second Great Awakening”. Arminianism (Pelagianism) was essential for the North’s rejection of the South’s views of white supremacy and Negro subordination via their view of nature and grace.  The Pelagian system sees nature as arbitrary while the Calvinist sees nature as constituted. Thus Pelagianism gave the North a way to escape the South’s Calvinistic affirmation that the servitude of blacks reflected a law of nature pursuant to Gen.9-11.

Thus, with the massive Jesuit-inspired Luciferian infiltration of the Protestant Universities (Skull and Bones, etc.), the Jesuits construction of DECONSTRUCTION, was underway, paving the way for the reconstruction of the bHoly Roman Empire. The destruction of our social order was under way with the primary targets being our limited government and the idea that a government must have the consent of the governed in order to be de jure. Thus it was a revival of Monarchial powers.

Proceedings of the Nob Mountain Meeting, Held in Columbia County, PA. on the Last Three Days of August, 1865 by the Democratic Party (Columbia County, Pa.) states,


I will now read to you a very brief extract from Mr. Forney’s[15] paper in Philadelphia, about three years ago. You have heard of Mr. Forney in Pennsylvania, I believe. (Laughter.) You know he has been of the Cabinet at Washington, the kitchen member; he occupied all sorts of positions under the Lincoln administration, and is trying the same way to get into Mr. Johnson’s kitchen. Forney said in his paper, three years ago:

“Another principle must certainly be embodied in our re-organized form of government. The men who shape the legislation of this country when the war is passed, must remember that what we want is power and strength. The problem will be to combine the forms of a republican government with the powers of a monarchical government.”

There is an admission that they were about to “re-organize” the government. They, Forney, Lincoln & Co., were going to kindly give you the forms of a republican government, but to put you really under the hammer of a monarchical government. There were Republicans in Pennsylvania who read Forney’s paper and took that as a sweet morsel, and rolled it under their tongues, the traitors and scoundrels! and you, gentlemen of Pennsylvania, who believed right, made the great mistake that you did not take the thing by the throat, then and there, and strangle it and them on the very spot when they first dared enunciate such sentiments as these! How is it that the men who boldly proclaimed that they would strip you of all the principles of republican government, and would leave you only its forms, while they put you under the hammer of a monarchical government, have escaped hanging so long? How is it that they have been allowed to stain the soil of this country, that their very existence has been allowed here as a stench and a shame to a once free and brave people?

The North American, a very respectable organ of the Republican party in this State, at the same time that Mr. Forney was preaching about revolutionizing the Government, said:

“This war has already shown the absurdity of a Government of limited powers.”

Here is one of the most conservative and respectable organs of the party—a very different sheet from John W. Forney’s unscrupulous affair—saying, that the war has demonstrated the fact that a Government of limited powers is an absurdity. And it said further:—

“It has shown that the power of our Government ought to be, and must be, unlimited.”[16]

Now can we find a connection between Yankee Abolitionism and the Papal Knight Prince Klemens von Metternich and his Congress of Vienna? Yes we can. In Memoir and Letters of Charles Sumner, Volume 2 (1893) by Edward L. Pierce, we read of Sumner’s letter to George Hillard,


Berlin, Dec. 25,1839.

Dear Hillard, — A happy Christmas to you, and all my friends! If this sheet is fortunate in reaching the steamship, you will receive it before my arrival; otherwise, it may be doubtful which will first see Boston. Your last is of Oct. 14, and gives me the afflicting intelligence of the death of Alvord.

“Dead ere his prime,

Young Lycidas, and hath not left his peer.”

The loss is great for all; but greater for us, his friends. I can hardly realize that my circle of friends is to be drawn closer by this departure; and yet this is the course of life: one by one we shall be summoned, till this circle entirely disappears. I shall break away from Berlin soon, — though, I confess, -with great reluctance. I fain would rest here all the winter, pursuing my studies, and mingling in this learned and gay world. I know everybody, and am engaged every day. All the distinguished professors I have seen familiarly, or received them at my own room. Raumer, and Ranke, the historians; of these two, Ranke pleases me the most: he has the most vivacity, humor, and, I should think, genius, and is placed before Raumer here. You doubtless know his “History of the Popes;” Mrs. Austin is translating it in England. Humboldt is very kind to me. He is placed at the head of the conversers of Germany. So far as I can compare conversation in different languages, his reminds me of Judge Story’s: it is rapid, continuous, unflagging, lively, various. He has spoken to me in the highest terms of Prescott’s book, — which I saw on his table, — as has Ranke also. In a note to me, he spoke of “l’excellent et spirituel Gouverneur Everett.” Savigny  I know well, and have had the great pleasure of discussing with him the question of codification. I was told in Paris that he had modified his views on this subject of late years; but I was sorry to find that my informants are mistaken. He is as firm as ever in his opposition to codes. He listened very kindly to my views on the subject, but seemed unshakable in his own. He is placed, by common consent, at the head of jurisprudence in Germany, and, you may say, upon the whole Continent. He had read Judge Story’s “Conflict of Laws” with admiration, and wished to know why he was not on our committee for codifying the Criminal Law. Savigny, in personal appearance and manner, resembles Webster more than any person I have ever seen. He is taller, not quite so stout; has the same dark face, hair, and eyes; and as be has been sitting by my side, when I have first caught his voice, I have thought it was our Senator’s. Savigny and Humboldt both are in what is called the society of Berlin; that is, with la haute vole’e, the court, and the diplomatic circle, — though I have not seen either there. The other professors do not enter that circle. Most of the corps diplomatique and the Ministers I know already; and I have been well received by the Crown Prince, and the Prince William, and their princesses. The Crown Prince, who seems bon garcon, inquired about our summers: he thought they must be magnificent. I told him I thought so, till I had been in Italy. He asked me if Boston were not an old city (une ville ancienne), three hundred years old. “Two hundred,” I said; “but that is antiquity with us.” I regret much that Mr. Wheaton  is not here. He is passing the winter in Paris. He is at the head of our diplomacy in Europe, and does us great honor: the Princess William spoke of him to me in the most flattering terms. This society is pleasant to enter, as I do, for a few times, and with the excitement of novelty; but I think I could not endure it a whole season. The presence of the Royal Princess is too genante; and then, all is formality and etiquette. I have seen here some very pretty women, — some of the prettiest I have ever met; two of them young princesses, the nieces of Puckler-Muskau. Bad, however, as the society is, I should prefer it before Vienna, where aristocracy has its most select home. Personally, I can bear very slight testimony on this subject, as I left Vienna the week the season commenced. I was, however, at Prince Metternich’s, where I saw the highest and proudest. Princess Metternich is thought very beautiful. I do not think so. She tosses a slight nod, if a proud prince or ambassador bends his body before her. The Austrian nobility only await the death of the Prince, her husband, to take their revanche. On my entering the salon, the Prince covered me with all those pleasant terms of French salutation: “Je suis bien enchante” de faire votre connaissance,” &c. He spoke of our country, for which he professed the greatest regard; said we were young, and Europe old: “Mais laissons nous jouir de notre vieillesse.” I disclaimed for myself and the better portion of my countrymen any vulgar propagandism. He spoke of Washington with great respect, and inquired about Sparks’s “Life and Writings,” and this new labor of Guizot. He requested me, on my return to America, to make the acquaintance of the Austrian Minister. After this reception from the Prince, I should probably have found the way easy to extending my acquaintance. But I left Vienna immediately, rode a night and a day and night over a dismal country to Prague: there passed a day; saw its bridge, its ancient towers, and the palace of the Bohemian kings…

As ever, affectionately yours,             C.S.”[17]

Sumner was the leader of the antislavery forces in Massachusetts. He was a leader of the Radical Republicans in the United States Senate during the American Civil War. He devoted his work to destroy the Confederacy. And yet, The University of Louisville would lead you to believe that only Slavery separated the North from the South. Give me a break.

This view of the North and its infiltration can also be seen in what the Jesuits did to Germany.[18] And just like the North, Germany was also to revive the Holy Roman Empire with the Third Reich; the Holy Roman Empire being the First Reich. Folks, this is all about Catholicism. Rome, Rome, Rome. When you ignore Rome you ignore History. So we have the 19th century attempt to revive the Holy Roman Empire with Metternich and the 20th century attempt with Hitler, and if you don’t think they are trying it again right now you are a fool!

The text states,

“Northern whites believe din racial superiority, too, but their dedication to white supremacy lacked the intensity and urgency increasingly felt by white Southerners who lived among millions of blacks who had every reason to hate them and to strike back.”[19]

This piece of mythology was exposed in my dealing with the Slave Narratives:


Reading through liberal attempts to discredit these Narratives only reinforce the Southern argument.

The text states,

“Proslavery spokesmen played on the fears of Northerners and Southerners alike by charging that by giving blacks equal rights would lead to the sexual mixing of the races, or miscegenation.”[20]

Which it has, and I must say that my Atheist and Communist Father, revealed the hypocrisy of the Abolitionist position when he showed his outrage at the fact that my younger sister began to date black men in college. He was humiliated and infuriated as he should have been, but seeing he is a Communist he got exactly what he deserved.

The text states,

“John C. Calhoun, an influential southern politician, declared that in the states where slavery had been abolished, ‘the condition of the African, instead of Being improved, has become worse,’ while in the slave states, the Africans ‘have improved greatly in every respect.”[21]

The shocking thing is, the text never attempts to refute Calhoun!

On page 344, the text points out that the South produced few cities and did not produce a public school. This is a great admission. This shows that the South rejected Babylonian views of society. Cities are Towers of Babel ripe for judgment and class warfare. Cities are dominated by industry and industry requires that the common man work for a handful of wealthy men instead of for themselves. The South protected themselves from this.[22]

The text complains that the Southern idea of paternalism, did not

“require that planters put aside their whips.”[23]

First, the Mosaic law did not require that planters put aside their whips. Do police guards put down their weapons when they are in the Penitentiary? No. Slavery was designed to civilize a race of people under a curse for their racially prone evils pursuant to Gen. 9-11. The text acts like this doesn’t exist, as do many American pseudo-Christians,  but the crime statistics of the United States Department of Justice tell the truth of the Bible’s tale.[24]   Secondly, the United States’ Police State has committed many more crimes against humanity than all accusations against the South as has the Yankee’s Military Industrial Complex. The Federal Government does not have a moral leg to stand on.

The text continues,

“The master’s absolute dominion sometimes led to miscegenation. As long as slavery gave white men extraordinary power, slave women were forced to submit to the sexual appetite of the men who owned them.”[25]

The rape of a woman was condemned in the Code of Virginia 1849, Chapter 191, Section 15.  R.L. Dabney says,

“…while many indictments are found against black men for rape of white women, none exist, in the history of jurisprudence, against white men for rape of black women. And this, not because there would have been any difficulty in making the indictment lie: but because, as the most experienced lawyers testify, the crime is unheard of on the part of white men amongst us.”[26]

If one wishes to investigate the men who perpetrated the most rape in the South, it was the Yankee invading Army. One such mass rape was under the 18th Ohio, Union army brigadier general, Ivan Turchaninov in Athens Alabama, April, 1862.

I have cataloged many more instances here:


Thirdly, the fact that white plantation owners had black mistresses who bore mulatto babies does not mean that a rape occurred. Men with great wealth and power rarely need to rape a woman for sex. Long-term monetary compensation usually wins over a beautiful woman of loose morals.

The text mentions on page 348,

“No feature of plantation life generated more anguish among mistresses than miscegenation.”

O really? That is fascinating because Yankee States like Ohio contained more Mulattos than blacks in the 1850 Census. The text continues,

“Mary Boykin Chestnut of Camden, South Carolina, confided in her diary, ‘Ours is a monstrous system, a wrong and iniquity. Like the patriarchs of old, our men live all in one house with their wives and their concubines; and the mulattos one sees in every family partly resemble the white children.”[27]

First, in South Carolina, only 1 in 30 black slaves was mulatto according to the 1850 Census.   Second, her assertion that there was a Mulatto in every family also does not match the data in the 1850 Census. Third, as has already been documented, the Plantation represented 3% of the Southern Population. Even if her accusation was correct, her assertion that it was a SYSTEM is refuted by the fact that it made up only 3%  of the South’s population.

The text complains again,

“The backbreaking labor and the monotonous routines caused one ex-slave to observe that the ‘history of one day is the history of every day.”[28]

We have already seen this testimony is not generally true from the testimony of Quitman and Lyell. I added many more statements from the mouth of slaves themselves here:


But to add a bit more:

In slavery’s  modes and circumstances in the South, we see according to Robert Fogel’s Time on the Cross, “Data in the 1850 census suggest that the economic condition of the average free northern Negro may have been worse than that of the average free negro in the South.”[29] And again, “The material (not psychological) conditions of the lives of slaves compared favorably with those of free industrial workers.”[30] And again, “U.S. Slaves had much longer life expectations than free urban industrial workers in both the United States and Europe.”[31]

I already addressed the issue of slave rebellions here:


However, the text continues,

“Despite the rarity of slave revolts, whites believed that they were surrounded by conspiracies to rebel.”[32]

This is an error. They were not afraid of slaves rebelling against their alleged cruel treatment. They were concerned about the invasion of Jesuit Abolitionist propaganda. See Code of Virginia 1849, Chapter 198, Sec. 28-33.[33]

The text complains again,

“Like slaves, they were liable to whipping. Free blacks were forbidden to strike whites, even to defend themselves.”[34]

They were forbidden to defend themselves against the whipping, not absolutely! In the Code of Virginia 1849, Chapter 191, Section 9 and Chapter 208, Section 30, criminalizes acts of violence committed by either a white man or a black man against a person. Pursuant to Chapple’s Case, 1 Va. Cases, 184 as cited in, Citations to the Code of Virginia by Abram C. Eby, page 965, Section 3671,

“decided by the General Court, it was held: This section applies to the stabbing of a slave as well as to a free person.”[35]

Moreover, pursuant to Commonwealth v. Carver. June T. 1827. 5 Rand’s Rep. 660, as recorded in A Practical Treatise on the Law of Slavery by Jacob D. Wheeler[36], this law was judged to be applicable to the victim: a black slave.

This concludes my exposure of abolition propaganda. I will not doubt be posting this in audio on my radio station sometime soon. I hope to see you there.

[1] Pg. 169

[2] Pg. 77

[4] Pg. 78

[5] Defence, 228-232

[6] Fogel, Time on the Cross, 128

[8] Pg. 126

[9] Pg. 174

[10] Footnote page 12, of Speech of Mr. L.C. Levin, of Penn., on the Proposed Mission to Rome Delivered in the House of Representatives of the United States, March 2, 1848 [http://www.familytales.org/dbDisplay.php?id=ltr_jed7470&person=jed]

[11] See Samuel Morse, Foreign Conspiracy Against the Liberties of the United States; Thanks Eric Jon Phelps (EJP)

[12] Abate Leone, The Jesuit Conspiracy

[13] James D. Shaw & Tom C. McKenney , The Deadly Deception (Lafayette, Louisiana: Huntington House, Inc., 1988) p. 104. ; Alexandra Robbins, Secrets of the Tomb: Skull and Bones, the Ivy League and the Hidden Paths of Power, (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 2002) p. 119-121; Thanks EJP

[14] Maria Betts, Luigi Desanctis, Popery, Puseyism, and Jesuitism, (London: D. Catt, 1905; translated from the original Italian edition published as Roma Papale in 1865) p. 135.” Taken from EJP’s VA, 2001, pg. 118

[19] Pg. 341

[20] Pg. 342

[21] Pg. 342

[23] Pg. 346

[24] http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf Pages 11-15; http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/hc0309.pdf Quotation from page 7,

“From 2003 to 2009, the greatest percentage of hate crime victimizations were against white, non-Hispanic individuals”

See also Black mobs rioting all over the country http://urban1on1.com/2013/02/over-30…ty-mall-video/; http://whitegirlbleedalot.com/black-…ry-at-wnd-com/

See also this expansive catalog: http://blackracismandracehatred.blogspot.com/

[25] Pg. 347

[26] Defence, 233)

[27] Pg. 348

[28] Pg. 350

[29] Pg. 244

[30] Pg. 5

[31] Pg. 126

[32] Pg. 353

[34] Pg. 355

[36] Pg. 254

The Failure of American Religion Friday, May 24 2013 


Southern Slavery as it Wasn’t By Sean M. Quinlan, Ph.D., and William L. Ramsey, Ph.D. Reviewed Wednesday, May 15 2013 

Some professors at the University of Idaho wrote a response to Steve Wilkins and Doug Wilson’s Southern Slavery as it Was, which was a defense of the South. They begin with the fatal flaw,

“Against an overwhelming mainstream, conservative historical consensus that has documented the abuses and evils occasioned by southern slavery ”

Evil? What is evil? Most people in the History of Western Civilization and today base their theory of good and evil on the Bible. But wait! The Bible condones the institution of slavery as you know. It condones owning another man as property and using the lash against him for discipline. (Exo. 21:20-21) The Secular philosophy has no way to determine good and evil, which I demonstrated here:


The world is a dark place full of wicked, ignorant and stubborn men who only understand violence. The lash and the chain, that they understand. God’s law meets that reality face to face and in the proportion required for real justice and order.


Now that is not the norm, and is not necessary for most men. But for the proportion that do, to back away from God’s prescription in a hypocritical Disneyland type of mindset, where we try to envision a world full of talking birds and singing trees,  who blissfully honor us with a crown of benevolence, is social suicide. We are living in that nightmare right now.

And lets just get real here; after examining the Communist regimes of the 20th Century and the War Crimes against the South led by Communist Generals in the Yankee Army, you men don’t have a leg to stand on and when it comes to the humane treatment of human beings, you Communists need to keep your God Damn mouths shut.




“If the authors of Southern Slavery, As It Was are not interested in responsible scholarship, why engage them on a scholarly level? First, they have attempted to cloak their agenda in the mantle of academic legitimacy, and, second, the booklet has circulated in that guise unopposed for seven years. It has clearly found an audience outside of academia that is unfamiliar with serious scholarship but still admires the scholarly mystique. ”

This is entertaining. Sean Quinlan, Ph.D. has written (published for public examination) one whole book and about a dozen articles. William L. Ramsey has also written one book and not even a dozen articles. Scholarly? I am a layman and I have written eleven books and over 500 articles. Neither of these men have written anything on the History of Philosophy, Metaphysics or Ethics and yet they think they are qualified to even start talking about this issue. The first quotation above shows how sloppy and clueless these men are. Even John Loftus knows enough to stay away from the paradigm of good and evil.

“Wilkins and Wilson are clearly unaware, however, that in many cases the interviews that depict slavery negatively and those that speak positively about slavery are the products of separate interview sessions with the same individual. ”

And to prove this statement they give one example; 17 Volumes of work, thousands of slaves interviewed and they give one counter-example to sweep it all away. What a joke.

“When speaking to a white interviewer, Susan Hamil of Charleston, South Carolina, remembered her former master as a good, Christian man who always treated her kindly. “He sure was a good man,” she emphasized. Yet when speaking to a black interviewer, Susan described the horrors of fatal whippings that “all de other slaves was made to watch.” The same woman who told a white interviewer that her former owner “just git his slaves so he could be good to dem,” nevertheless told a black interviewer that her fellow slaves “hated and detest both of them [master and his wife] and all de fambly.” “People was always dyin,” she explained, “from a broken heart.” The existence of such contradictory testimony is common knowledge to most introductory history majors. In fact, Susan Hamil’s interviews are frequently published in freshman historical methods textbooks. ”

Beating a slave and having the company watch is not contradictory to being a good Christian man. I have already shown from Exo 2 1 that this practice is perfectly in keeping with God”s law. As for the appeal to slaves hating and detesting him, why are these not then recorded in the narrative? Were they lying to the white interviewers too? You see, the abolitionist apologist merely hopes that these things happened.

“The reasons behind this discrepancy are complicated, stemming from a lifetime of white intimidation, the ever-present reality of Jim Crow segregation in the South in the 1930s ”

You’re kidding right? You do know that Jim Crow was Yankee legislation not Southern.


You men are totally incompetent aren’t you? Your Army invades us in the name of righteousness, and the benefit of blacks. Then comes down here and rapes the white women and the black women (having a particular taste for raping the black women), utterly annihilates our civilian industries and then has the God Damn nerve to blame us for having a chaotic civilization thereafter. What? Were they supposed to be happy go lucky after seeing their sisters and their mother gang raped by Yankee soldiers in the name of black interests and then be so supportive of the place that black men then took thereafter? They had every right to be furious about their station and I don’t blame them for a single act of violence committed during “Reconstruction”. Read the book of Judges, primarily Chapter 15 and you will find a man of faith named Samson reeking absolute havoc and committing mass acts of terrorism against  an occupying Philistine regime and getting nothing less than praise for it by God.  (Heb 11:32-38)

“Wilson and Wilkins rely on the simple business logic that “happy, contented workers are good workers” and upon a twenty-five year old study of slavery entitled Time On the Cross that was thoroughly discredited within two years of its publication. ”

Giving us a footnote does not make it true guys. From your list of publications I think it safe to assume neither one of you have done any serious work cataloging just how Time on the Cross was thoroughly discredited. Moreover, if you had even opened the book you would know that his work is mostly based on the Federal Census records. To discredit Time on the Cross is to discredit the entire practice of History.

“For respectable evidence that slave families were not disrupted by the sale of family members, Wilson and Wilkins might again have turned to their favorite document series: the WPA narratives. ”

When did either of them state “that slave families were not disrupted by the sale of family members”? Are you creating statements to refute now? Are you that desperate? Dabney deals with this on page 231,

“But, it is asked, did not the master possess power to separate this union at his will; and was not this power often exercised? They did. The power, relatively, was not often exercised; and when the separation was not justified by the crimes of the parties, it met the steady and increasing reprobation of publick opinion. The instances of tyrannical separation were, at most, far fewer than the harsh tyranny of destitution imposes on poor whites in all other countries; and the pretended philanthropy of the Yankees has, in five years, torn asunder more families than all the slave dealers of the South did in a hundred.”

And has this not continued today? How many thousands of black families have been destroyed by the United States’ policies on non-violent crimes and its War on Drugs? How many husbands and fathers remain locked up for non-violent crime so that the same Government who allowed the importation of drugs in the Country and started the Crack epidemic among blacks, could profit from their despair? Dabney continues,

“But the power of separating was sometimes abused by masters; and the room for this abuse was just the defect in our laws, which nearly all Southern Christians deplored, and which they desired to repair. Justice requires the testimony, on the other hand, that the relaxed morals which prevailed among the Africans was not the result of their marital relations, as arranged among us, but the heritage of their paganism; that under our, system the evil was decreasing; and that since their emancipation and nominal subjection to the marriage law of the whites, a flood of licentiousness, vagrant concubinage, and infanticide, has broken out again among them. Clear proof this, that our abused system was better adapted to their character than the present.”

So we see that the splitting up of families was not always the cruelty of a Southern Profiteer but sometimes the penalty for crimes committed. Moreover, those separations which were not justified were condemned by the Southern people and Dabney admitted that there was a deficiency in their laws in this respect. He admitted the imperfection. And this just underlines the fact that abolitionists strain out the gnat and swallow the camel.

“When speaking to a white interviewer, Susan Hamil of Charleston recalled that her master, Edward Fuller, “didn’t sell none of us, we stay wid our ma’s till we grown.” When speaking to a black interviewer, she confirmed again that Fuller “aint nebber want to sell his slaves.” One of his slaves, however, a mixed race woman named Clory, who had long “beautiful hair she could sit on,” apparently wanted very much for Fuller to sell her away. In fact, Clory “begged to be sold.” Fuller refused and angrily proceeded to “whip ‘er until dere wasn’t a white spot left on her body.” Seventy years later, Susan stilled remembered Clory’s ordeal as “de worst I ebber see a human bein’ got such a beatin’.” Fuller never sold her.”

There is no argument. You are just filling up space on the paper to deceive the reader into thinking he is reading something significant and meaningful.

“Perhaps Susan’s recollections of life outside the happy, stable Fuller household could lend additional support for the Wilson/Wilkins thesis. When speaking to a white interviewer, she recalled that sometimes chillen was sold away from dey parents. De Mausa would come and say “where Jennie,” tell um to put clothes on dat baby, I want um. He sell de baby and de ma scream and holler, you know how dey carry on. Generally, dey sold it when de ma wasn’t dere.”

Actually all you did there was give me an example of slaves contradicting themselves while they are criticizing southern slave holders. Thanks!

“Maybe Wilson and Wilkins could have done something with the tearful mother of the bride who stood inconsolably in the middle of Charleston’s main street screaming over and over “dat damn white, pale-faced bastard sell my daughter who jus’ married las night.”

I don’t know of any defender of the South who does not admit that this was going on and that it was a big problem. You are again arguing against your own illusory opponent.

“They claim that Southerners opposed the slave trade “fervently and zealously” and “repeatedly and consistently tried to stop slave traders” after the federal abolition of slave trading in 1808 — totally ignoring the persistence of the internal slave trade in the U.S. South. ”

Ok, lets look at the two statements quoted from page 8 of Southern Slavery As it Was,

“Here, the answer is clearly in the affirmative. R.L. Dabney, in his Defense of Virginia and the South, begins his chapter on the slave trade with these words: “This iniquitous traffick . . .The duty of southern Christians was clear — they had to oppose the slave trade. They did so, fervently and zealously. Dabney’s vehement attack on the slave trade was representative of many others…but where the civil leaders had repeatedly and consistently tried to stop the slave traders. One of those places, Virginia, had attempted on no less than twenty-eight occasions to arrest the slave trade, but was stopped by higher (non-Southern) authorities.”

So where in fact are you getting the idea of this happening “after the federal abolition of slave trading in 1808”? They are clearly pointing to Dabney’s treatment of this resistance which I have documented in great detail in these two articles:


This is all before 1808. You men are either totally incompetent or you are purposefully using stealth. Either way, you need to get out of education. You are not fit for the office.

As for the internal affairs, that is a different issue altogether. We had not kidnapped those people or willfully participated in a trade directly with the kidnappers. That was the Yankees:


And now having bought them the contract changed. Dabney dealt with the details of this here:


What were we supposed to do with them? These people were brought to our shores, starving and desperate to get out of the hands of the slave merchants. They begged us to buy them. What were we supposed to do? Let them go? They had no property, no weapons, and the Indians would have slaughtered them in the wilderness. We couldn’t send them all back to Africa. For one that would have cost a fortune and secondly, Africa was full of armies who would round up these people and put them right back into the slave trade. (The History of Slavery and the Slave Trade by William O. Blake, 102) If you are not satisfied with this answer please give me then your secular philosophy of epistemology and metaphysics SO THAT you can now create an Ethical theory that has yet to be refuted that can condemn our actions. It does not exist.

“They disingenuously note that African slavery originated first in Africa, totally overlooking how slavery in West African and Islamic communities was a malleable and temporary condition. ”

First, on what basis are you making an Ethical value judgment on the moral supremacy of temporary slavery over hereditary?

Secondly, your history is arbitrarily chosen. The History of Slavery and the Slave Trade, by William O. Blake, points out on page 94 that Ethiopia did practice hereditary slavery. Second Muslims used armies to hunt and capture the Africans. (Ibid. 103) The South did not even send vessels to Africa to buy slaves. Secondly, Muslim slavery was still involuntary. Now it is true that the South practiced hereditary slavery, but 1. It was not absolute and we had hundreds of thousands of free blacks in the South. 2. You can show no Ethical justification for your condemnation of it.

“They claim, contrary to all empirical evidence, that abolitionism wasn’t a major social force in the U.S., and they astonishingly overlook how abolitionism was a unique evangelical movement. ”

On the contrary. They state on page 5,

“By the time of the War, the intellectual leadership of the South was conservative, orthodox, and Christian. In contrast, the leadership of the North was radical and Unitarian. This is not to say there were no Christians in the North, or that no believers fought for the North. It is simply the recognition that the drums of war were being beaten by the abolitionists, who were in turn driven by a zealous hatred of the Word of God.”

You are  confusing an apostate with an Evangelical. The Second Great Awakening was considered apostate being Arminian. Arminianism was created by the Jesuits. Toplady cataloged all this.

“They even have the temerity to suggest that African-Americans sympathized with the Confederate war effort, overemphasizing black participation in the southern cause and entirely dismissing the enormous groundswell of African-American support for the North.”

Talk about ignoring evidence:


“Infant and child mortality were extraordinarily high for African American slaves in the South, as much as three times the mortality rate for white southerners, and life expectancy for slaves was much lower than for the average white.”

You are making way too much of this. Time on the Cross page 126,

“For many, statistics on life expectancy are the ultimate measure of physical well-being…Although the life expectation of slaves in 1850 was 12 percent below the average of white Americans, it was well within the range experienced by free men during the nineteenth century. It was, for example, nearly identical with the life expectation of countries as advanced as France and Holland. Moreover, U.S. Slaves had much longer life expectations than free urban industrial workers in both the United States and Europe.”


“Wilson and Wilkins flippantly assure themselves, however, that “[n]early every slave in the South enjoyed a higher standard of living than the poor whites of the South — and had a much easier existence.” This type of “reverse discrimination” fantasy, it should be noted, is recurrent rhetoric in current-day hate literature. ”

Would you rather I point this out to you: Time on the Cross,

“Data in the 1850 census suggest that the economic condition of the average free northern Negro may have been worse than that of the average free negro in the South.”(pg. 244)

And again,

“The material (not psychological) conditions of the lives of slaves compared favorably with those of free industrial workers.” (pg. 5)

That is devastating to your case.

“Even if their knowledge of southern history (and motives) could be trusted, their assumption that the lack of successful resistance was a sign of voluntary, happy compliance defies both common sense and human pity.  ”

You are a snake. Their argument was not the circumstances of revolt (win or lose) but to the substance.

“They might as well argue that the absence of recorded rebellions in Stalinist Russia shows that the majority of the population enjoyed rule by Communist terror, or that the paucity of recorded concentration camp revolts shows that Jews preferred being gassed to enjoying life and liberty. ”

This is so ignorant of how the South operated it is amazing. There was no wall keeping the slaves of the South in this country. So the Jews helped the Nazi’s against the Russians, the Americans and the British under the supervision of women and children? Interesting….

“the Stono Rebellion, Gabriel’s Revolt, Denmark Vesey, Nat Turner, and a hundred smaller instances of attempted insurrection that never outran the overseers’ bullets ”

First, three considerations.

  1. Would you seriously like for me to catalog the labor rebellions of Yankee Industrial free labor? We call that the history of Communism. Would you like a full exposure of the Blood stained Apocalyptic Hegelian Dialectic you God Damn devils unleashed on the world? Would you?
  2. The group of men most historically responsible for rebellions and riots in the world is the Jesuits. This is why they have been kicked out of 83 countries at different times in History. Let’s see if we can find a connection.
  3. Can the abolitionists show us slave rebellions not led by present or historical white enemies of the peoples of the South?


1. The Stono Rebellion was religiously and politically motivated. It was not the alleged abuses of Southern Slavery. First, as James Oglethorpe states,

“Sometime since there was a Proclamation published at Augustine, in which the King of Spain (then at Peace with Great Britain) promised Protection and Freedom to all Negroes Slaves that would resort thither. Certain Negroes belonging to Captain Davis escaped to Augustine, and were received there. They were demanded by General Oglethorpe who sent Lieutenant Demere to Augustine, and the Governour assured the General of his sincere Friendship, but at the same time showed his Orders from the Court of Spain, by which he was to receive all Run away Negroes. Of this other Negroes having notice, as it is believed, from the Spanish Emissaries, four or five who were Cattel-Hunters, and knew the Woods, some of whom belonged to Captain Macpherson, ran away with His Horses, wounded his Son and killed another Man. These marched f [sic] for Georgia, and were pursued, but the Rangers being then newly reduced [sic] the Countrey people could not overtake them, though they were discovered by the Saltzburghers, as they passed by Ebenezer. They reached Augustine, one only being killed and another wounded by the Indians in their flight. They were received there with great honours, one of them had a Commission given to him, and a Coat faced with Velvet. Amongst the Negroe Salves there are a people brought from the Kingdom of Angola in Africa, many of these speak Portugueze [which Language is as near Spanish as Scotch is to English,] by reason that the Portugueze have considerable Settlement, and the Jesuits have a Mission and School in that Kingdom and many Thousands of the Negroes there profess the Roman Catholic Religion. Several Spaniards upon diverse Pretences have for some time past been strolling about Carolina, two of them, who will give no account of themselves have been taken up and committed to Jayl in Georgia. The good reception of the Negroes at Augustine was spread about, Several attempted to escape to the Spaniards, & were taken, one of them was hanged at Charles Town. In the latter end of July last Don Pedro, Colonel of the Spanish Horse, went in a Launch to Charles Town under pretence of a message to General Oglethorpe and the Lieutenant Governour. ”


So here we see the clear political and religious motivations of this rebellion. England and Scotland are Historical enemies which was highlighted by the invasion of the Spanish Armada. Yet behind this civil strife is religion. Here we have the Protestant-Catholic dialectic. Here we have Jesuit trained blacks performing the very task the Jesuits have perfected in history and were formally suppressed for in 1773. Thus, this rebellion gives our opponents no ground against the South.

2. Gabriel’s Rebellion looks to have been Jesuit motivated as well. The Wikipedia article states,

“Egerton believed that Gabriel had two whiteco-conspirators, at least one of whom was identified as a French national. He found reports that documentary evidence of their identity or involvement was sent to Governor Monroe but never produced in court, and suggests that it was to protect the Republican Party.[citation needed]The internal dynamics of Jefferson’s and Monroe’s party in the 1800 elections were complex. A significant part of the Republican base were major planters, colleagues of Jefferson and Madison. Egerton believes that any sign that white radicals, and particularly Frenchmen, had supported Gabriel’s plan could have cost Jefferson the presidential election of 1800. Slaveholders feared such violent excesses as those related to the French Revolution after 1789 and the rebellion of slaves in Saint-Domingue.”


I have shown that the French Revolution was created by the Jesuits:


I will consult Egerton further.

3. Denmark Vesey’s Rebellion was a product of the French Revolution. He was influenced by the Haitian Revolution which was based on the Jesuit French Revolution, so obviously we again have too many political and philosophical elements here to blame Southern Slavery for their eruptions. Their eruption was fomented by a white Jesuit movement. Blake speaks to this beginning in page 256.

4. The Nat Turner rebellion is actually the strongest proof of my interpretation of these rebellions. In The Confessions of Nat Turner, page 11, Nat states,

“And on the 12th of May, 1828, I heard a loud noise in the heavens, and the Spirit instantly appeared to me and said the Serpent was loosened, and Christ had laid down the yoke he had borne for the sins of men, and that I should take it on and fight against the Serpent, for the time was fast approaching when the first should be last and the last should be first. Ques. Do you not find yourself mistaken now?Ans.Was not Christ crucified. And by signs in the heavens that it would make known to me when I should commence the great work–and until the first sign appeared, I should conceal it from the knowledge of men–And on the appearance of the sign, (the eclipse of the sun last February) I should arise and prepare myself, and slay my enemies with their own weapons. And immediately on the sign appearing in the heavens, the seal was removed from my lips, and I communicated the great work laid out for me to do, to four in whom I had the greatest confidence, (Henry, Hark, Nelson, and Sam)–It was intended by us to have begun the work of death on the 4th July last–Many were the plans formed and rejected by us, and it affected my mind to such a degree, that I fell sick, and the time passed without our coming to any determination how to commence–Still forming new schemes and rejecting them, when the sign appeared again, which determined me not to wait longer.

Since the commencement of 1830, I had been living with Mr. Joseph Travis, who was to me a kind master, and placed the greatest confidence in me; in fact, I had no cause to complain of his treatment to me. On Saturday evening, the 20th of August, it was agreed between Henry, Hark and myself, to prepare a dinner the next day for the men we expected, and then to concert a plan, as we had not yet determined on any.”


This is devastating to the abolitionist cause.

Here we see clearly, that Nat’s rebellion was not caused by the cruelties of a Southern Master but arose from an obscure interpretation of the Bible and fanaticism only found within Liberation Theology. And who created Liberation Theology? The Jesuits.


One can even see today that the dominant Liberation Theology taught in Liberal seminaries comes from Gustavo Gutiérrez, a Jesuit trained Domincan monk. His Jesuit instructor was a Frenchman named Henri de Lubac.


Turner was doubtless under the influence of W.L. Garrison’s The Liberator.

To the runaway slave issue: Paul clearly forbids it in Philemon. What about Moses? Dabney speaks to this in his Defence of Virginia, page 128-129,

“Fourth. It is said that Moses himself commanded that a runaway slave should not be surrendered to his master; thereby plainly teaching that slaves had a right to their liberty, if they could escape. This, it is urged, proves that there must be some mistake in our conclusions. Of course, this passage is quoted triumphantly as settling the question against the fugitive slave-law, required by the late Constitution of the United States. It is found in Deuteronomy xxiii. 15, 16: “Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee: he shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best; thou shalt not oppress him.”

We need no better answer to this citation, than that given by a Northern divine already named, who is no friend to slavery, Rev. Moses Stuart. He says: “The first ‘inquiry of course is: Where does his master live? Among the Hebrews or among foreigners? The language of the passage fully developes this, and answers the question. He has ‘escaped from his master unto the Hebrews.’ (The text says, unto thee, i. e., Israel.) ‘He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in one of thy gates.’ Of course then, he is an immigrant, and did not dwell among them before his flight. If he had been a Hebrew servant, belonging to a Hebrew, the whole face of the thing would be changed. Restoration or restitution, if we may judge by the tenour of other property laws among the Hebrews, would have surely been enjoined. But, be that as it may, the language of the text puts it beyond a doubt, that the servant is a foreigner and has fled from a heathen master.” Mr. Stuart then proceeds to assign obvious reasons why a foreign servant escaping from a heathen master was not to be restored: that the bondage from which he escaped was inordinately cruel, including the power of murder for any caprice; and that to force him back was to remand him to the darkness of heathenism, and to rob him of the light of true religion, which shone in the land of the Hebrews alone. He adds: “But if we put now the other case, viz.: that of escape from a Hebrew master, who claimed and enjoyed Hebrew rights, is not the case greatly changed? Who could take from him the property which the Mosaic law gave him a right to hold? Neither the bondsman himself, nor the neighbours of the master to whom the fugitive might come. Reclamation of him could be lawfully made, and therefore must be enforced.” This explanation forces itself upon our common sense. To suppose that Moses could so formally authorize and define slavery among the Hebrews, and then enact that every slave might gain his liberty by merely stepping over the brook or imaginary line which separated the little cantons of the tribes from each other, or even by going to the next house of his master’s neighbours, and claiming protection, whenever petulance, or caprice, or laziness should move him thereto; this is absurd; it is trivial child’s play. It takes away with one hand what it professed to give with the other. The fact that slavery continued to exist from age to age, is proof enough that the Hebrews did not put the Abolitionist construction on the law. To this agree the respectable Hebrew antiquarians, as Home, etc.”

Dr. Edward C. Smith, Professor at American University says in his Blacks in Blue and Gray, 

“Throughout the war in Virginia, contrary to what many northerners thought and hoped would happen, there were only a few examples of black efforts to sabotage the confederate cause, yet they had it in their power to wreak wholesale havoc throughout the South. Black uprisings would certainly have forced the confederate government to pull badly needed troops from the lines to provide police protection for farms and families under threat of destruction. Furthermore, at any time during the war, especially after the Emancipation Proclamation went into effect, blacks could, with attendant risks, have escaped to nearby Union lines but few chose to do so and instead remained at home and became the most essential element in the southern infrastructure of resistance to northern invasion. Over the years I have read the letters of many southern deserters and I have yet to discover a single one from a soldier who said that the reason he left his unit in the field was because he feared that rampaging blacks on the homefront would exploit the chaos and do harm to his farm or family.”


Thus it is clear; these slave rebellions were Counter Reformation.

“Let us not mince words. Wilson and Wilkins want us to believe that racial slavery was okay”

You are misrepresenting the issue by confusing the substance of an action with its modes and circumstances. The party line against the South here in America is that it is immoral to own another person as property as all men are created equal. Whether the race of those slaves is Hamite or Japhethite, etc. is circumstantial. Now to the accusation that black racial slavery is racist or white supremacist: If the South used white supremacy to determine who would be slaves why did they not enslave the Indians?

Dabney, Defence of Virginia,

“In pleasing contrast with these enormities, stands the contemporaneous legislation of the Colony of Virginia touching its Indian neighbours. By three acts, 1655 to 1657, the colonists were strictly forbidden to trespass upon the lands of the Indians, or to dispossess them of their homes even by purchase. Slaying an Indian for his trespass was prohibited. The Indians, provided they were not armed, were authorized to pass freely through the several settlements, for trading, fishing, and gathering wild fruits. It was forbidden to enslave or deport any Indian, no matter under what circumstances he was captured; and Indian apprentices or servants for a term of years could only be held as such by authority of their parents, or if they had none, of the magistrates.* Their careful training in Christianity was enjoined, and at the end of their terms, their discharge, with wages, was secured by law.” (pg. 36)

These laws can be read in Hening’s Statutes at Large, Being a Collection of all the Laws of Virginia from the first session of the Legislature, in the Year 1619.


http://vagenweb.org/hening/vol01-16.htm, pages 393-396

This can also be read in the Code of Virginia, 1849, Title 30, Chapter CIII, page 456, footnote.

A few more considerations: 1. It was not absolute. We had hundreds of thousands of free blacks in the South. 2. There were millions of black slaves down here which flooded the market. There would be little need for white slavery. For hundreds of years, blacks were proved to be the best slaves as they are generally stronger and a more physically durable race. 3. It was obvious to the white peoples of our original colonies that Christianity had raised their culture and peoples far above the other races before them: The Indians, the Blacks and the occasional Moor. They had every reason to see these other peoples as inferior and subject to servitude. They were and in general, they still are. Slavery was meant to civilize them in time, which it did until the abolitionists unleashed the thug life emancipated black man onto American soil.

“and they even want us to believe that slaves themselves supported that evil system ”

We would have to lie order to deny it. Slavery and Abolitionism, as Viewed by a Georgia Slave by Harrison Berry documents this as do the works of Jon Jasper along with many others, some of which I have cataloged here:


In their Conclusion Quinlan and Ramsey accuse our position of racism, which is nothing short of admitting that they are Communists.


They go on to categorize the pro-Confederate position as opposition to Secular thinkers since the time of the late Middle-Ages. For myself, I do not fall into any of the categorizations of these men. The Enlightenment was a reaction to the unbiblical and chaotic nature of Roman Catholic Civilization. Monarchy and Roman Hierarchy spawned absolute chaos and moral anarchy during this time and justified the rise of an atheistic movement still very much in debt to the Roman Catholic institution and its thinking and doctrine.






My readers are most likely sick of this topic but I must press on to refute one more work and then I will proceed to another subject. I do apologize to my readers.

Next Page »

%d bloggers like this: