The Debate that Shook the Southern Movement

Part 2

Dan Bennett vs. Dennis Wheeler

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Dear Dan Bennett,

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

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

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

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

Did you get that? "a people of the same race...."

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

Were you able to follow that? An ethnos is "a race (as of the same habit)..."?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My take on the situation is that because the inequality of the races was so ingrained in the laws and the mores of the Southern people, and white political and social supremacy was unchallenged, the physical proximity of the races was possible. I'd like to hear your take on it.

Also, I would like to hear your definition of "racial discrimination."

Your story about Robert E. Lee praying beside a black man is nothing is almost humorous. I have quoted Lee, correctly, as saying we'd be better off without them -- a clear statement of separatist belief. Your reply is that Lee once sat next to a black in church -- which is simply an act of human decency that does absolutely noting to refute his broader belief in separatism, a belief he went to war to defend.

After I condemned your exposition and exegesis of St. Paul's teaching, you wrote: "Since I offered nothing more than St. Paul's own words, I'm at a loss to determine what deficiency there may have been, unless you take issue with the great apostle himself. If so, then that is of course your affair."

Touche,. Dan, you are quite right. I assumed I knew what point you were making when you actually hadn't made a point.

Would you please be so kind as to interpret those verses for me to show what relevance they hold for this discussion?

Sincerely,

Dennis Wheeler


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Dan gets into the habit of just requoting the last post and then answering it without making an effort to show who is speaking where. For that reason, I have inserted initials, DB and DW, to show which words the speaker came from.]

#11 From Dan Bennett to Dennis Wheeler -- January 6, 1998

On Wed, 31 Dec 1997 17:11:11 -0600, dennisw"mindspring.com wrote:: "Sorry. You're wrong again, sad to say. You are comparing and contrasting >instead of defining."

DB: "Southern" is easy to define as of, or pertaining to, the South. Now, I suspect that what we're after here is a little more specific than that, and has to do with what defines Southern culture. In my thinking, the Christian faith is the bedrock basis of Southern culture. I doubt that you'll care to argue that point; it appears to me to be self-evident.

Beyond that, Southern culture has been characterised by the desire for independence of any intrusive authority. We don't like kings, or lairds, or popes, or empires, or anyone who claims some intrinsic right to order our affairs. We desire, as President Davis said of the Confederacy, to be left alone. We're not, by and large, egalitarians, and are comfortable with the idea of some being better off than others; but we're not at all willing to admit anyone else's right to order our personal business. We're independent, sometimes to the extent of impracticality.

Rather a corallary to our independence is that we often feel no need to appeal to "higher authority" to resolve disputes or redress wrongs. If our persons are threatened, our property misappropriated, or our honour is offended (more about that in a moment), we're most likely to go after the person who's wronged us ourselves. Where a person brought up in another culture might be more likely to appeal to some authority figure or the other, we prefer direct action. One result of that is that we're more likely to resort to violence as a form of "conflict resolution" than members of some other cultures.

We also have an ingrained notion of personal honour. We believe, or at least give lip service to, the idea that a person's word should be their bond, and that promises made should be kept. Sadly that is a concept that is rapidly disappearing from actual practice, much to our hurt.

We are a clannish people. On the whole, we value family and kin more than anything else, except perhaps duty to God. We also tend to define ourselves by place: as Tennesseans, as Nashvillians, as "the Horseshoe Bend Bennetts"; we are, to a great extent, where we're from. These things are bound together by our sense of continuity with the past. We don't forget our past easily. We pass along our family stories from generation to generation, and things that happened to our great-great-grandfathers are as familiar to us, or more so, than what happened in the news last week.. We know who "we" are.

I think those are the most significant things that define "Southern-ness". Now let's drive on...

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

>Here is further prima facie evidence that you have accepted the >Reconstructionist moral philosophy and denounced the Christian position.

DB: Well, once again let me observe that I completely reject your definition of "Reconstruction" as a contrivance, having no particular meaning as you use it. As for having "denounced the Christian position", l have to ask you which Christian position it is to which you refer. I personally see nothing whatsoever in the Christian faith that leads me to believe that I should set greater store by one group of people than another, and much that would lead me to precisely the opposite conclusion.

DW: >"Racial prejudice" is one of the Reconstructionist's buzzwords designed >to overthrow the Christian moral order of the South. You have accepted >it as a valid moral concept. This demonstrates anew your Reconstructed >heart.

DB: <Laugh> Nice try, Dennis, but no cigar this time. "Racial prejudice" means just what it says; prejudging someone based on their race.

Personally, I think that is racial prejudice is, at best, unjust, and I'm formally against institutionalised injustice. The law, like the Lord, should be no respecter of persons.

DW: >Please define for us "racial prejudice."

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

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

>Thank you for that frank and sincere answer. I appreciate the fact you >have finally admitted that you argue against the moral beliefs and >practices of the Southern people and have compared our historic racial >policy to moral transgressions such as excessive drinking.

DB: Actually I was arguing against immoral beliefs which you are trying to present as moral. I see nothing moral in having two sets of laws, one for one group and another for another (that is what we're talking about, isn't it?) that grants privileges to one group that it denies to another. Invoking history is nothing to the purpose here; there is enough shabby behaviour in our history (or anyone else's, for that matter) to justify any enormity if you inclined to do so.

DW: > It took a >long time for me to get you to admit that you believe our ancestors were >essentially immoral in their social policies. Thank you.

DB: You're welcome. Insofar as they supported laws that treated people differently based on their race, they were immoral. And unless you're advocating ancestour worship, I see no particular reason to hold up anyone as a moral exemplar simply because they're dead.

DW: > However, >honesty compels me to add you have still not accepted that these were our >ancestors social policies.

DB: Social policies don't have the force of law. If you wish to shun blacks or associate with no one who isn't, that is your business. I'll simply invoke my Southern right to tell you to go to blazes if you try and legislate who *I* may associate with.

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

>The fact that Lincoln was inconsistent in his policies and practices, >that he didn't understand where his policies and activities would lead, >in no way impacts the beliefs of Southern leaders and the Southern people"

DB: In actual fact, Lincoln was quite consistent in his beliefs, as witness by many statements on race. He wished to have the blacks transported back to Africa. By your lights, then, we should revere (or perhaps worship?) him as a great Southerner. He was, after all, living by your definition of "Southern".

DW: >who understood very clearly where Lincoln's actions would lead. For you >to deny that Lincoln's actions have brought on the South exactly what the >men I quoted said it would, shows -- something, I'm not sure what.">

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

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

DB: You've repeatedly told us that the US was founded on the principle of racial separation, although you've offered us nothing to support that curious notion. I've never seen anything in any of the founding documents that indicated any such thing. In fact, it seemed to me that the Founding Fathers were above all else unhappy that they weren't being treated equally with other citizens of the British Crown.

(Perhaps they were equalitarians in disguise? Nah...) Something about their "rights as Englishmen" seemed to be their preoccupation.

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

>Davis obviously believed that the Yankee war effort was an attempt to >enforce equality of the races.

DB: "Obviously" is you've already decided that a priori.

DW:>I agree and you disagree. Thornwell saw >that the logical end of the Yankee philosophy would grind them to powder >as well as us. I believe that and you deny that any such philosophy was >being advanced.

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

DB: Sorry, obvious red herring. Dabney was speaking against "miscengenation", a subject about which I have no opinion one way or another. Again, my Southern nature tells me that it's none of anyone else's business who anyone else decided to marry, be they black, white, or striped. Dabney may have been completely correct, but it's none of the government's business in any case.

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

DB: Again, nice try, but nothing to the purpose. You're quite adept at trying to attribute your own opinions to others who aren't here to defend themselves. But once again, plainly, for the government to deal differently amongst its people based on their ancestry is unjust; if a thousand Dabney's proclaim it otherwise.

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

DB: The philosophy that sinful men desire power over other people, as they always have, and always will.

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

DB: Patent hogwash. You've just managed to reduce the Christian faith to a matter of where someone's great-grandaddy came from. I guess we can dispense with a Saviour now, eh?

Dan Bennett - Unreconstructed Southron


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

#12 Dan Bennett to Dennis Wheeler -- January 6, 1998

On Thu, 01 Jan 1998 23:51:34 -0600, dennisw"mindspring.com wrote: >"I thought you would understand that "race" and "blood relationship" held >enough common content to be considered synonyms for our purposes."

DB: Nope.

DW: >Evidently, I was wrong; you didn't understand it."

DB: I understood it quite well, I just reject it as specious.

DW: > Or, you were just being dishonest again?

DB: No, I honestly think it's specious. I won't play word games with you, and if you want to make up meanings as you go, you'll find that I continue to reject your meanings.

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

DB: Do whatever seems most natural too you. I wouldn't want to subject you to any undue strain.

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

>Did you get that? "a people of the same race...."

DB: Uh, yes, Dennis. In a 'B' definition. I take it you didn't get that part.

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

>Were you able to follow that? An ethnos is "a race (as of the same >habit)..."?

DB: Or a tribe, or specifically a non-Jewish usually by implication pagan one? Are you reading this stuff before you post it?

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

>Now that wasn't too difficult, was it? The English word nation is defined >a " ... a distinct race...."

DB: "as to form a distinct race OR people". And you were going to call me dishonest? At least do me the courtesy to read the stuff before you try and foist off your interpretation.

DW: >I hope you really did miss it the first time and weren't just being >dishonest again.

DB: You'll push that line a bit too far if you aren't careful, Mr. Wheeler.

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

DB: I'm sorry, but that's really too silly to merit a reply.

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

>You have two errors in this paragraph. But one is so important that it >dwarfs the other. Still, I will detail both of them. First, you have >given an exalted position to language in defining a people.

DB: In actual fact you're the one who led that card, and I was merely following your lead. If you'd wish to take it back then it suits me just as well.

DW: > You have >left out the racial aspect which I have shown that the Bible teaches to >be crucial. The fact that a person or a people learn a language that is >not natural to them, does not bestow nationality onto him or them. >

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

>My conclusion is easily demonstrable."

DB: You believe, then , that what distinguished the "Hebrew children" was their RACE? Here's a hint - it was not their ethnicity that saved them from the flames of the furnace. 'Nuff said.

No, we're getting nowhere here. Let's distill this down to simplest terms. You think blacks should be legally restricted in what they may do, where they may go, and with whom they may associate. I believe that the government has no right to tell anyone where they may go, what they may do (as long as it's within the letter of the law for everyone) and with whom they may associate.

You do as you please, and let others do as they please. To try and use the sword of the State with respect of persons is unjust. End of statement.

Dan Bennett - Unreconstructed Southron


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

#13 From Dennis Wheeler to Dan Bennett

Dear Dan,

Good to hear from you again. I'm glad you were able to put together such a long litany of ideals, mores, habits, etc that define the South and Southern culture. And I'm glad you listed Christianity as the bedrock.

Now I think you'll acknowledge that many items in your list are not peculiar to the South and you have seemingly abandoned the idea that to be a part of the definition of the South, a thing must be unique to it. (When you change your position on things it would be helpful if you would call our attention to it.)

Now, part of the Christian religion is being honest: "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." Wouldn't you now like to acknowledge that white social and political supremacy is also part of the Southern definition, at least as integral to it as many of the items you mentioned?

You wrote: "Well, once again let me observe that I completely reject your definition of "Reconstruction" as a contrivance, having no particular meaning as you use it."

Dan, you really should be honest in your speech. I have made it clear on a number of occasions what my definition of Reconstruction is: the concept that the South must allow the equal social and political participation of all ethnic groups within it or be racists, bigots, and hatemongers."

You also wrote: "As for having "denounced the Christian position," l have to ask you which Christian position it is to which you refer?"

There are three Christian principles involve here that you have rejected. First, the division of the nations which God instituted in Genesis 9-11, violation of which is a breaking of the sixth commandment: "Thou shalt not kill.". Second, the fifth commandment: "Honor thy father and thy mother" which demands the inferior be subject to the superior. And third, the eighth commandment: "Thou shalt not steal" which has been violated in taking away from the Southerner both his property and his right to self-determination unhindered by alien peoples.

You also wrote: "I personally see nothing whatsoever in the Christian faith that leads me to believe that I should set greater store by one group of people than another, and much that would lead me to precisely the opposite conclusion."

I would like to see the evidence that leads you to an opposite conclusion. Now by the phrase "set greater store by one group of people than another," I assume you are talking about the Southern policy of white political and social supremacy. On the one hand, you have said that Christianity has been the bedrock of the South, and on the other hand you reject its social and political system as unchristian. and then compound the fraud by denying any moral significance is to be attributed to our policy. (I think that last point is correct from what I've been able to gather from your statements.)

I don't see your position as tenable in holding that a Christian people held to such an immoral social and political theory and practice.

You also wrote: "Racial prejudice" means just what it says; prejudging someone based on their race. Personally, I think that is racial prejudice is, at best, unjust, and I'm formally against institutionalised injustice. The law, like the Lord, should be no respecter of persons."

In your definition of racial prejudice you don't include anything that would demand institutionalized injustice. So, I must extrapolate. Evidently, you mean that when persons who practice racial prejudice are able to enshrine their prejudices in law, this leads to or embodies institutionalized injustice.

Now I also take it that you use the phrase "respecter of persons" as an antithesis of "racial prejudice." As to what policies comprise institutionalized injustice, you have left unsaid as well. I would call to your attention Titus 1:12,13 "One of themselves, a prophet of their own, said, Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons. This testimony is true. For this cause reprove them severely that they may be sound in the faith."

In your view, does this qualify as "racial prejudice?"

Also, in the Old Testament, according to Greg West, "a caste distinction was also provided concerning the entrance of persons of foreign blood into the Hebrew state and church.(Ex 17:16 ; Duet 23:3-8) The descendants of Amalek were forever inhibited. The descendants of Amon and Moab were debarred to the tenth generation. The Egyptians and Edomites could be admitted at the third generation; the one, because their patriarch Esau was brother to Jacob, the other because the Israelites had once lived in Egypt. While the law of the stranger, (Lev. 24:22), gave the alien equal protection of life, limb and property before the law, it still did not give him the right of citizenship. He remained a stranger."

This can be viewed in its entirety at:

Http://www/mindspring.com/~dennisw/articles/jones.htm

I would like to know if you consider that God's activity here of making legal distinctions between persons on the basis of their ancestry constitutes "racial prejudice."

You also wrote: "I see nothing moral in having two sets of laws, one for one group and another for another (that is what we're talking about, isn't it?) that grants privileges to one group that it denies to another. Invoking history is nothing to the purpose here; there is enough shabby behavior in our history (or anyone else's, for that matter) to justify any enormity if you inclined to do so."

Above, I have not invoked history alone, I have invoked the Word of God.

I wrote: "It took a long time for me to get you to admit that you believe our ancestors were essentially immoral in their social policies. Thank you."

Then you wrote: "You're welcome. Insofar as they supported laws that treated people differently based on their race, they were immoral. And unless you're advocating ancestor worship, I see no particular reason to hold set up anyone as a moral exemplar simply because they're dead."

That's a good answer. And I agree with the principles in it. But I take issue with the moral perspective that the actions of our ancestors were immoral. The purpose of Reconstruction was to make Southerners believe the actions of their ancestors were immoral. There are still those of us who have resisted. I wish you would join us.

You also wrote: "Social policies don't have the force of law. If you wish to shun blacks or associate with no one who isn't [white], that is your business. I'll simply invoke my Southern right to tell you to go to blazes if you try and legislate who *I* may associate with."

I appreciate the candor with which you state your Libertarian position. Yet I will remind you that the historic Southern position has been anything but Libertarian. We have maintained group distinctiveness from day one.

You also wrote: "In actual fact, Lincoln was quite consistent in his beliefs, as witness by many statements on race. He wished to have the blacks transported back to Africa. By your lights, then, we should revere (or perhaps worship?) him as a great Southerner. He was, after all, living by your definition of "Southern".

The truth of the matter is that although Lincoln and many in the North, personally held to a theory of white social and political supremacy, the Equalitarian religion had made such inroads there, that not enough people possessed a theological counter to it to make a difference. Lincoln was in that camp. He didn't believe in Equalitarianism, but in the end, he ended up advancing its cause.

In the South, the great thinkers were still Christian in their thinking. And did not, like you, believe in Equalitarianism on racial matters. We had theological counters to it and still do. You have rejected the historic Southern perspective on this matter, moving into a rival philosophy of Libertarianism. This is becoming a new challenge to the advocates of the South. We will be able to meet it, I believe.

You also wrote: "You've repeatedly told us that the US was founded on the principle of racial separation, although you've offered us nothing to support that curious notion. I've never seen anything in any of the founding documents that indicated any such thing. In fact, it seemed to me that the Founding Fathers were above all else unhappy that they weren't being treated equally with other citizens of the British Crown."

Please forgive me for this oversight of not offering anything to support the "curious" notion that the U.S. was founded on the principle of racial separatism. I now offer the U.S. Constitution, which restricted citizenship to white people. I offer the Supreme Court decision in the Dred Scott case of 1857 which reiterated that blacks were not part of the body politic in the U.S. and were never intended to be part of the American body politic by the framers of the Constitution. I offer the constitutionality of the slave system and the clause in the Constitution whereby blacks were to be counted as three-fifths of a person for purposes of the national census.

I offer that Indians were not offered citizenship. I would offer that Asians were not granted citizenship until after WWII. And I offer the words of the first American immigration policy that the applicant "must be a free white person."

I wrote: "Davis obviously believed that the Yankee war effort was an attempt to enforce equality of the races."

And you answered: "Obviously" is you've already decided that a priori."

I don't see how you can say that honestly. Perhaps you forgot, but I offered the words of Davis' resignation speech from the U.S. Senate to buttress my point. JD stated: "[Mississippi] has heard proclaimed the theory that all men are created free and equal, and this made the basis of an attack upon her social institutions; and the sacred Declaration of Independence has been invoked to maintain the position of the equality of the races."

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

And you answered: "Sorry, obvious red herring. Dabney was speaking against "miscegenation", a subject about which I have no opinion one way or another. Again, my Southern nature tells me that it's none of anyone else's business who anyone else decided to marry, be they black, white, or striped. Dabney may have been completely correct, but it's none of the government's business in any case."

Again, your answer is not honest. Dabney was using "miscegenation" as you call it, to demonstrate the logical end of granting to the blacks social and political equality. Your Libertarian philosophy is yet again shown to be contrary to that of the South.

May I remind you that virtually every Southern state followed Dabney's advice and passed laws against miscegenation. And Southern legislatures passed various formulas to distinguish between blacks and whites. The most amount of black blood a person in the Jim Crow South could have and be considered white was 1/32. And the least amount of black blood a person could have and be considered white was in Louisiana, 1/128.

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

And you answered: "<Laugh> Again, nice try, but nothing to the purpose. You're quite adept at trying to attribute your own opinions to others who aren't here to defend themselves. But once again, plainly, for the government to deal differently amongst its people based on their ancestry is unjust; if a thousand Dabney's proclaim it otherwise."

This is yet another dishonest answer on your part. You know that Thomas Jefferson, Dabney, and Jefferson Davis did not desire to grant suffrage to blacks. You know they did not favor granting citizenship to them.

To make your feeble attempts to drive a wedge between what I say and what Southern spokesmen have said and what the South has historically practiced is quite dishonest on your part.

I wrote: "The Equalitarian religion, which has operated since Nimrod, desires the unity of mankind. God has divided the peoples into ethnic units called peoples or nations to keep the Equalitarians from success. Breaking down the ethnic and racial barriers in the South, which was just one manifestation of our Christian underpinning, was essential to their victory."

And you answered: "Patent hogwash. You've just managed to reduce the Christian faith to a matter of where someone's great-granddaddy came from. I guess we can dispense with a Saviour now, eh?"

Your answer, sir, is an outright lie. You knew that when you wrote it. You have made no attempt to deal with the passages in Genesis wherein God divided mankind into nations. You have instead attempted to slander me and attribute a position to me on a totally distinct matter. A lie, indeed.

The truth is the fact that God divided mankind into ethnic groups called nations, does not impact directly on the need of all men for a Savior. There is, though, an indirect relationship in that the purpose of mankind's division is to hold down the increase of sin and rebellion against God and His kingdom. This, of course, has the effect, humanly speaking, of making the peoples of the earth more open to the gospel.

I wrote: "I hope you really did miss it the first time and weren't just being dishonest again."

And you replied: "You'll push that line a bit too far if you aren't careful, Mr. Wheeler."

I'll make you a deal, brother Dan. If you'll quite being dishonest and "denying the sky is blue," and will deal with the issues in a fair and honest manner, I'll quit accusing you of being dishonest. But as things stand now, every time you bear false witness, I'm going to call you on it.

You wrote: "You believe, then , that what distinguished the "Hebrew children" was their RACE? Here's a hint - it was not their ethnicity that saved them from the flames of the furnace. 'Nuff said."

This is one of your most dishonest answers to date. You have made a linkage between the ethnicity of Daniel and his friends and the work of God saving them from the fire without providing any evidence that such linkage exists. What gives?

You wrote: "No, we're getting nowhere here. Let's distill this down to simplest terms. You think blacks should be legally restricted in what they may do, where they may go, and with whom they may associate. I believe that the government has no right to tell anyone where they may go, what they may do (as long as it's within the letter of the law for everyone) and with whom they may associate."

This is not all wrong, but not all right, either. But it is enough to demonstrate that you have rejected the policies and practices of our ancestors and have given over to the Yankee demands that we provide social and political equality to the blacks in the South. In other words, your Libertarianism is a demonstration of your Reconstruction.

Sincerely,

Dennis Wheeler


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Back to Part 1    To Part 3    Back to Bennett vs. Wheeler Debate Index