The Debate that Shook the Southern Movement
Part 4
Dan Bennett vs. Dennis Wheeler
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Editor's note: In the last post of Part III, Mike Broadwell chided Dan Bennett
for quitting the debate. Well, Dan would indeed return two weeks later. But
while we're waiting for him, I thought I'd include a few exchanges between
Bennett, Broadwell, and Greg West that had taken place between the debate
between myself and Dan Bennett.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#17. Greg West to Dan Bennett -- January 8, 1998
Dan:
At the beginning of this debate you stated that Dennis had a "racial axe to
grind". Having generally followed the arguements thus far I think otherwise. You
are suffering from a self imposed delusion as to the reality of racial
distinctions. It should be patently obvious that race and culture are symbiotic
to one another not antithetical. It is the common blood line and ancestry of a
people which creates a shared history that forms distinct social traditions and
behavior that's passed on from one generation to another. If it were not for
intermarriage among people who share the same ancestry a culture would be
largely unable to transmit itself and thus disappear.
Also, it appears to me that you're defending a libertarian rather than a
Christian social order even though you pretend to be doing the later.
Gregory West
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#18. Mike Broadwell to the newsgroup -- January 5, 1998
Nathan Bedford Forrest and the Ku Klux Klan:
Several posts have made references to General N. B. Forrest's role with the
original Klan, as well as the purpose and membership of that organisation. In
order to clarify some of the facts of the case, I present the following summary
of Donald Davidson's history of the Klan in "The Tennessee" volume two, "The New
River: Civil War to TVA". This is taken from chapter VIII, "Parson Brownlow and
the Klan".
Donald Davidson was one of the original Agrarians who wrote "I'll Take My
Stand", who studied and wrote about the South his entire life. It is part of a
series edited by M. E. Bradford, with an introduction by Russell Kirk, the
pro-Confederate Northerner. Regrettably, all these men are now deceased. These
men have impeccable credentials, and the whole chapter and book are well worth
reading.
The state of Tennessee was the last to secede, and had a sizable Unionist
minority, many who actively worked for the Union during the WBTS, and some who
were imprisoned by the Confederates. (Most were from East Tennessee, a
mountainous area not amenable to large scale farming, and hence not favourable
to slavery). When Hood was driven from Nashville, there was no significant
Confederate military presence in the state. The Unionists seized power holding a
convention in January of 1865 at which the ordinance of secession was nullified,
slavery abolished, and provision made for elections to ratify these measures and
elect a slate of officers for the new government.
The election turnout was extremely light, but there was no opposition so the
government was recognized by Washington. Parson William G. Brownlow, a
"fanatical Whig" and Methodist preacher from Knoxville was elected governor.
Many of the less radical Unionists boycotted the vote, seeing it as illegal.
Davidson points out that Tennessee was the only state to avoid military rule
during Reconstruction. "The familiar ruling combination of carpetbagger and
scalawag plus Negro, sustained by Federal troops of occupation, became the
regular pattern for ten of the seceding states. But neither this pattern or the
Kentucky pattern prevailed in Tennessee." (p 120) Tennessee was "Reconstructed"
by native Unionists.
Brownlow was lionized in the North for preaching "vengeance and death" during
the war. In New York during a speech, Brownlow said, " This war must be pursued
with a vim and vengeance until the rebellion is put down, if it exterminates
from God's green earth every man, woman, and child south of Mason and Dixon's
line." (p 121)
This sort of fanaticism prevented reconciliation with the state's returning
Confederate soldiers who were ready to accept defeat and get on with their
lives. Brownlow's regime removed the franchise from ex-Confederates, and
controlled elections, although they had to enfranchise the Negro to maintain
this control. Brownlow established a virtual dictatorship, and forced
ratification of the 14th Amendment through the state legislature "through
violent and illegal measures", allowing Tennessee to be readmitted to the Union.
"He threw away all spirit of leniency and compromise, and declared that the
Confederates had >forfeited all rights to citizenship, and to life itself. > "
The Freedman's bureau and the Union League worked to turn the Negroes against
their former masters, and to look to the Radical party to guide and save them.
"The Union League, furthermore, was a secret society with an elaborate
initiation, impressive oaths of loyalty, and a carefully devised catechism.
Negro members of the league often went armed to meetings, drilled and marched in
formation, and practiced terrorist methods against both whites and hesitant
Negroes." (p 123)
Against this backdrop, the ex-Confederates offered no orgranised resistance, but
waited to see if the conservative Unionists could make any political impact.
When Brownlow's regime consolidated their power in 1867, it became obvious that
the conservative Unionists were impotent.
"But by that time, the ex-Confederates were ready. They were ready to meet
organisation with organisation, secret society with secret society, terror with
terror, force with force; and to do so with a skill that showed the presence of
high directing genius. Their success gave new courage to the ruined and beaten
South. They had an answer to Brownlow--something that, in twentieth century
terminology, could rightly be classified as "an underground movement" or a
"resistance movement."
It was not directed at the Negro as Negro; it was not an anti-Negro movement. It
was aimed at the powers that corrupted and exploited the Negro--the Brownlow
regime and its hangers-on. But above all it was a movement in protection and
self-defense. It was the Ku Klux Klan." (pp. 123, 124)
The Klan was originally founded by six young Confederate veterans in Pulaski
Tennessee. They were all from prominent families in the county. The Klan was
started as a social club, and the names of the organisation as well as the
various offices were devised in the spirit of fun. It was a secret society, and
began to meet in a ruined house. They began wearing weird costumes, and posted a
guard out front, dressed in "ghostly apparel, "while within the dark ruins
lights flickered mysteriously and shrieks of unearthly laughter resounded." (p
125)
"Such activities, at first carried out for the sheer pleasure of mystery and
joke, had totally unexpected results. Negroes who saw the ghostly Lictor at the
gate or strangely garbed horsemen galloping by became less prone to leave home
at night. Rowdiness became suddenly less in the community. And the attendance at
Union League meetings fell off--especially at night meetings. The rumor spread,
somehow, that the strange horsemen were ghosts of the Confederate dead. The
young men noted these phenomena. So did other citizens who were interested in
the public welfare. And so, by processes not clearly known, the "social club"
was utilized for purposes not implied in its first origin. It enlarged its
numbers, broadened and tightened its organization, passed under the direction of
skillful leadership, and so became the historic Ku Klux Klan of the sixties."
(pp. 125, 126)
Davidson cites this as the record of the most authoritative sources on the Klan,
and adds that it is significant that the Klan originated in a strongly
pro-Confederate part of the Tennessee valley, one which suffered most harshly
during the war. He notes that the wiser heads in the organisation recognised its
dangers and possibilities, and organized a meeting in April of 1867 to
strengthen and control the organisation more tightly. "Whether or not General
Nathan Bedford Forrest was Grand Wizard---or chief executive of the Klan at this
time cannot be known; but there is little doubt that Forrest was the guiding
genius of the Klan during the period of its most effective work." (p 126)
The revised Constitution of the Klan, as issued in 1868, began with the
following statement of principles:
This is an institution of Chivalry, Humanity, Mercy, and Patriotism; embodying
in its genius and its principles all that is chivalric in conduct, noble in
sentiment, generous in manhood and patriotic in purpose; its peculiar objects
being
First: To protect the weak, the innocent, and the defenseless from the
indignities, wrongs and outrages of the lawless, the violent and the brutal; to
relieve the injured and oppressed; to succor the suffering and unfortunate, and
especially the widows and orphans of Confederate soldiers.
Second: To protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and all
laws passed in conformity thereto, and to protect the States and the people
thereof from all invasion from any source whatever.
Third: To aid and assist in the execution of all constitutional laws, and to
protect the people from unlawful seizure, and from trial except by their peers
in conformity with the laws of the land. (p 127)
Code words in lurid language were used to inform members and intimidate the
opposition through public notices. Medieval Christian and Classical mottoes were
used. They abandoned the "spookish garb" of the early days for most occasions,
using dark uniforms more effective for night operations.
"It should be noted that the reorganisation of the Klan, its rise to power in
Tennessee, and its vast growth elsewhere followed closely upon the passage by
Congress of the Military Reconstruction Act of 1867, the rise of the Union
Leagues, the rigged Tennessee election of 1867, and the Brownlow militia act
which made the parson a despot. During the second half of 1867 and the first
half of 1868 the Klan moved swiftly and skillfully into action." (p 128)
"Although the Klan did not hesitate to use force when force was needed, violent
action was the exception rather than the rule in Tennessee. The Klan preferred,
and consistently practiced, a war of nerves. The mysterious prospect of what the
Klan might do was an even greater weapon than the deeds it actually performed.
Purposefully, the Klan avoided direct conflict with the militia or with United
States troops. There is no evidence whatever that it was, as the frightened
Radicals immediately vowed, a second rebellion against the United States. Its
members were sworn to uphold the Constitution and all constitutional laws." (p
129)
Through great parades with silent marches led only by whistles, held under
torchlight, or sudden appearances in broad daylight where trouble threatened,
the Klan played on the consciences of the Radicals. "When just retribution
threatens, men of uneasy conscience begin to quake. The Brownlow regime was full
of men of uneasy conscience, whose sense of guilt magnified their fears.
Northern agitators, troubled by ominous visitors and by forebodings of calamity,
kept loaded guns under their pillows, lost sleep at night, and also found the
Negroes less responsive to guidance. ...the woods were full of Ku Klux, and with
unerring accuracy those Ku Klux could call them by their first names and recite
their misdeeds, open or secret. The Ku Klux knew them, and the plausible
strangers of the bureau and the league did not--and were strangers. So it was
not necessary for the Klan to put violent pressure upon them. A few shots
ringing out here and there at night, the shrilling of distant whistles, the
remorseless clatter of hoofbeats up and down the lane--that was enough." (pp.
130,131)
"Very likely both the strategy and the tactics of the Klan owed much to
Forrest's direction. He was the great master of swift movement by mounted
forces. Above all others, he knew how to deliver a telling blow, then vanish
elusively. He was an artist at bluff and intimidation. He knew how to feed an
enemy's guilty mind with products of the imagination and trick him into
entangling himself. Forrest was also economical of means; he made a little go
far. Though Forrest could strike with utter fierceness if fierceness was called
for, it was his known principle to avoid unnecessary bloodshed. Above all, his
name and presence attracted a perfect loyalty that no other name and presence
could command. It was that indefinable loyalty and esprit, fused with a strong
sense of imperative need and common purpose, that bound the Klan in an
allegiance firmer than any oaths alone could establish." (pp. 131,132)
By June of 1868, the Klan had Brownlow in panic, demanding laws outlawing the
Klan and wanting Federal troops to intervene. The state didn't have the
resources to grant this immediately. Brownlow refused overtures of peace from
Forrest and other ex-Confederate leaders. In his last acts as Governor, he
declared martial law in nine counties where the Klan was most active, and hired
a private detective to infiltrate the Klan to find out the membership and set
them up for arrest. The Klan tried to warn off this detective but he persisted,
and didn't live to tell about it.
When Brownlow resigned and a new Governor took over, he moved for reconciliation
and ended martial law.
"The Klan itself, meanwhile, diminished its activities and presently, by order
of its leaders, ceased its demonstrations and disbanded. It had served its
purpose. Already its disguises were being used, for private violence or simple
crime, by unauthorized persons, including even Negroes. Such exploitation could
not be condoned and must be stopped." (p 135)
The paraphernalia and documents of the Klan were burned, and it ceased operation
in Tennessee and the Tennessee valley. Soon the conservatives took over the
legislature and the ex-Confederates regained the franchise, restoring the rule
of law in Tennessee.
This summary should help to clear up some of the questions posted earlier.
Please feel free to comment on anything written here.
Mike Broadwell
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#19. Mike Broadwell to Dan Bennett -- January 8, 1998
To Dan Bennett,
It does appear that Dennis has several valid points about your lack of
"forthrightness" in replying to his posts. Without reference to the facts
themselves, such "jukin' and jivin'" about does little to give the impression
that you have a bedrock ethical system by which to promote your case.
It is clear that you are providing a classical libertarian position, and not a
traditionally Southern one. While Jefferson was somewhat influenced by
Enlightenment thinking, the South for the most part was not oriented towards it.
First of all, everybody knows that the South has never been favorable to
interracial marriages. Dennis mentioned the laws on the books in all the
Southern states. When it came to displeasure at miscegenation, the "government"
had to get in line behind the family, neighbors, and everyone else to express
displeasure. Southerners didn't need laws to keep them from that practice. If
you are a real Southerner, then you know that. Maybe it wasn't right, but the
point is that's the way it was, and still is in the real South.
Most blacks don't favor miscengenation, according to polls and general
experience. God created the various ethnic peoples, and what He created was Very
Good. It seems to me that the abolitionist assumption that "loving one's own" is
somehow evil is a warped and sinful one. Perhaps the fact that the Tower of
Babel and the seperation of the nations came after the fall can lead to the
assumption that these divisions are inherently sinful, but I don't believe that.
Libertarianism is not a Christian system, although many Christians hold many
ideas in common with Libertarians. Thomas Fleming has written elegantly against
liberalism in all forms, pointing out that all systems which consider the
individual the basic unit of society are flawed. The family is the basic unit.
of society. This is certainly the biblical view:
Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his
wife; 8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but
one flesh. 9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created
he him; male and female created he them.
Genesis 5:2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their
name Adam, in the day when they were created.
General Robert E. Lee called duty "The most sublime word in the English
language". Duty is the heart of the Christian system. Duty to whom? To God,
fulfilled through our actions towards others. Libertarianism is not a duty based
system. It is an "anything goes" as long as the "freedom" of others is not
diminished set of values. There are no "Thou Shalts" in Libertarianism, so it
can't be a duty based system.
It should be no suprise that the Libertarian party has become the home of NAMBLA
members, drug users, pornographers, etc. Not all Libertarians fit this mold, in
fact there are many fine folks who are Libertarian in their beliefs. But there
is nothing inherent in Libertarianism to prevent the
freaks from being involved.
Equalitarianism is a patent lie as well. The liberals first wrecked the Southern
social system because Blacks were getting the short end of the stick because of
slavery. Now the same argument is used to justify opening our borders up to the
third world. "These people were exploited by the West, so we have to let them
in". The same arguments used against the Southerner in pushing integration,
busing, Voting Right's Act, etc., are now being used against all white Europeans
Then comes homosexual equality, and even "animal rights". Why not? Equality is
not a standard. It can float downward (rarely upward) because the point is not
any goal or standard, just "equality". The Gay Rights argument is "Regardless of
our behaviour, we deserve equality". That was the same argument used for "Civil
Rights". No duty to any fixed standard, and especially not to the Ten
Commandments, just "equality".
How is equality achieved? Well, results must bear out equality. If some group is
not visibly "equal" then it is because they are still being treated "unequally".
Visible standards must be material, so they can be counted and measured. Hence,
redistribution of wealth, quotas, AA, etc.
The biblical notion is "Equality before God", which is where the idea of
"equality before the law" is derived. God is no respecter of persons, because we
are all as nothing before Him, equally as nothing as every finite thing is in
comparison with the infinite. God's grace is such that we are nothing, yet He
makes us something through the Lord Jesus Christ.
The Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard had a keen insight into the nature of
"equality". He lived through the Jacobin revolutions in Europe in 1848, and had
pointed out before that time the anti-Christian nature of the concept of
equality, when it is divorced from the understanding of "Equality before God".
When "equality" is the goal, we remove our eyes from God's standards and focus
on comparison with other men. Kierkegaard saw this as the condition in paganism
(which he defined as living without God in the world), and that it was returning
to Europe. He said that since all distinctions are worldly by nature, it is
impossible to end inequality through worldly means. God has given us earthly
distinctions which will be shed in the next life. When one lives by faith in
Christ, he understands that worldly distinctions are unimportant in the light of
eternity, but they do carry duties here in this life. When the goal is to end
worldly distinctions through worldly means, one is not following the commands of
the bible. When these commands are not followed, evil grows. Reconstruction,
abolition, civil rights,etc., etc., all fall in this catagory. Many well
intentioned people may have been involved, but we all know with what the road to
hell is paved....
Individualism and equality are ultimately cruel systems. The gifted and well
endowed may be fine, but what about those with problems or lacking intelligence
or other gifts. In the South, if they were part of the family, well, they were
important, and were taken care of. As that system has been broken down, look at
the abortion, abandonment, divorce, etc., that we are seeing. The left glorifies
the weak, the downtrodden, the perverse. The Southerner does not. The
unfortunate is seen as a human being, but not glorified or used to beat down
those better off. Strict family discipline kept deviance down, and minimized the
generations of wickedness that have been allowed to grow. Perhaps it was too
severe in places, but look at the alternative.
An equalitarian system is incompatible with a free society, because at its heart
it is antinomian and can only be maintained by force. Some must be beaten down
to keep things level, and since "the poor will alway's be with you", the beating
can never stop. Equalitarianism can only be justified by lies, threats, and
intimidation, never by reasoning and truth. Why are Bill Clinton and Newt
Gingrich perfect leaders for such a system? It should be obvious.
Dan, when you use evasive and disingenuous logic to defend your position, you
are using the same tactics as the government in Washington. The ideal of freedom
of speech assumes a fixed standard of truth and right, not a floating standard
of "Vox populi, vox deo". It seems that a Christian Southerner should make every
attempt to answer opponents with calm logic, and a spirit of wanting to get to
the truth, no matter how unpopular.
You have stated that the South cannot be defined except in its differences with
the North and other areas. Why does the South have to be defended by Northern
standards of right and wrong, i.e. equalitarianism?
Mike Broadwell
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#20. Dennis Wheeler to Mike Broadwell -- January 9, 1998
Dear Mike,
I thought you put out a pretty good post. I especially liked the part about the
Christian system being a "duty-based" system whereas the Libertarian system is a
"rights-based" system.
Dabney wrote an essay on the Jacobin (French Revolution murderers) theory of
rights. He showed how it was the same theory being advanced by the
Abolitionists. Today it is also advanced by these Libertarians, who are
Abolitionists in everything that matters except money. They're pretty good on
that score because they believe in private property and thus uphold the eighth
commandment.
You could see Dan Bennett's Libertarianism shining through in his answer about
him not seeing where God has denied anyone the right to choose which culture
they want to belong to. The Southerner and the Christian should be looking at
the situation asking: "What is my duty to God's creation ordinance?" He
shouldn't be asking: "What are my rights in this situation?"
And our duty is to work to keep the peoples that God has divided mankind into,
separate and distinct. Dan has made the point that even the Southerners are
descended from many groups of peoples. True enough and men have not always
worked to keep God's creation ordinance of separate peoples and separate
nations. Still, our duty is to work to keep this ordinance, not abuse it.
I hope you'll post more often.
Dennis Wheeler
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#21. Dan Bennett to Dennis Wheeler -- January 9, 1998
DW.On Fri, 09 Jan 1998 01:11:07 -0600, dennisw"mindspring.com wrote: >I thought
you put out a pretty good post. I especially liked the part >about the Christian
system being a "duty-based" system whereas the >Libertarian system is a
"rights-based" system.
DB The difference being that Christianity isn't a "system", but a relationship
with God. And of course, our relationship to God is defined by His grace toward
us, and our corresponding duty to Him.
DW >You could see Dan Bennett's Libertarianism shining through in his answer
>about him not seeing where God has denied anyone the right to choose >which
culture they want to belong to.
DB I never said that at all before, but I will now. God hasn't denied anyone the
right to choose their culture. Now from a practical standpoint you can't simply
pick and choose the culture that you'll live by because so much of it is
inculcated by your what goes on around you. In other words, if you grow up in
Germany, you're probbaly going to act like a German, like it or not.
I see that a lot amongst Koreans who come here to go to school. I know of on
couple in particular that spent 10 years here while the husband got his PhD. Onc
child was an infant when they came over, and another was born in Nashville.
They moved back to Korea a little over a year ago, the kids were completely
lost. They'd been around Koreans, and they spoke the language after a fashion,
but their cultural programming was all straight Middle Tennessee stuff. From
what I gather they're getting a little more comfortable there now, but they
still miss their "home" in Tennessee.
DW > The Southerner and the Christian >should be looking at the situation
asking: "What is my duty to God's >creation ordinance?" He shouldn't be asking:
"What are my rights in this >situation?" >And our duty is to work to keep the
peoples that God has divided mankind >into, separate and distinct.
DB Funny, Jesus didn't mention that at all. As I pointed out before, He
summarised all the Law and the prophets as loving God and loving our neighbour,
and He pointedly ilustrated love of neighbour by telling of the interaction of
two different peoples.
DW > Dan has made the point that even the >Southerners are descended from many
groups of peoples. True enough and >men have not always worked to keep God's
creation ordinance of separate >peoples and separate nations. Still, our duty is
to work to keep this >ordinance, not abuse it.
DB It's the duty of Christians to be righteous before the Lord, not to propound
obscure doctrines and then try and impose them on other people.
Dan Bennett - Unreconstructed Southron
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#22. Dan Bennett to Mike Broadwell -- January 10, 1998
MB On Thu, 08 Jan 1998 01:01:28 -0600, libertee"mindspring.com wrote: >It does
appear that Dennis has several valid points about your lack of >"forthrightness"
in replying to his posts. Without reference to the >facts themselves, such "jukin'
and jivin'" about does little to give the >impression that you have a bedrock
ethical system by which to promote >your case.
DB My bedrock ethical system requires that I treat everyone as my neighbour,
whether Jew or Samaritan. If yours does not, then I reject it out of hand.
MB >First of all, everybody knows that the South has never been favorable to
>interracial marriages. Dennis mentioned the laws on the books in all the
>Southern states. When it came to displeasure at miscegenation, the
>"government" had to get in line behind the family, neighbors, and >everyone
else to express displeasure. Southerners didn't need laws to >keep them from
that practice. If you are a real Southerner, then you >know that. Maybe it
wasn't right, but the point is that's the way it >was, and still is in the real
South.
DBAnd it that is the beginning and end of your definition of "Southern", as it
is Mr. Wheeler's then "Southern" easily interchanges with any other culture
where racial intermixture is frowned upon. Let's face it, if the South is simply
about keeping the blacks down (I fully expect a spluttering sophistry in reply
to that, so feel free), then it ain't about a helluva lot. If all out history
and traditions and faith and culture can be equated to apartheid, then we aren't
anybody in particular at all.
MB >Most blacks don't favor miscengenation, according to polls and general
>experience. God created the various ethnic peoples, and what He created >was
Very Good. It seems to me that the abolitionist assumption that >"loving one's
own" is somehow evil is a warped and sinful one. Perhaps >the fact that the
Tower of Babel and the seperation of the nations came >after the fall can lead
to the assumption that these divisions are >inherently sinful, but I don't
believe that.
DB Love who you like, associate with who you like, live like you want to live,
just don't batter those whose ancestors came from somewhere other than yours did
with the sword of the state. That is simply unjust, and God isn't all that keen
on injustice, is he?
MB >Libertarianism is not a Christian system I submit that there is no Christian
political system. If you know of one, please tell us about it. >Equalitarianism
is a patent lie as well.
DB I'm not at all sure what "equalitarianism" is. If it means the belief
everyone is equal, then it's simply absurd; as no one is equal to anyone else.
MB > The liberals first wrecked the >Southern social system because Blacks were
getting the short end of the >stick because of slavery. Now the same argument is
used to justify >opening our borders up to the third world. "These people were
exploited >by the West, so we have to let them in". The same arguments used
against >the Southerner in pushing integration, busing, Voting Right's Act,
etc., >are now being used against all white Europeans.
DB You cast quite a wide loop there in going from the idea of equality before
the law to the notion of letting Who-Shot-John into the country.
MB >Then comes homosexual equality, and even "animal rights". Why not? >Equality
is not a standard. It can float downward (rarely upward) >because the point is
not any goal or standard, just "equality". The Gay >Rights argument is
"Regardless of our behaviour, we deserve equality". >That was the same argument
used for "Civil Rights".
DB Nope, that was NOT the argument in favour of civil rights. The idea of civil
rights was that everyone be judged by their behaviour rather than the colour of
their hide.
MB >The biblical notion is "Equality before God", which is where the idea of
>"equality before the law" is derived. God is no respecter of persons, >because
we are all as nothing before Him, equally as nothing as every >finite thing is
in comparison with the infinite. God's grace is such that >we are nothing, yet
He makes us something through the Lord Jesus Christ. > >The Danish philosopher
Soren Kierkegaard had a keen insight into the >nature of "equality". He lived
through the Jacobin revolutions in Europe >in 1848, and had pointed out before
that time the anti-Christian nature >of the concept of equality, when it is
divorced from the understanding of >"Equality before God".
DB I couldn't agree more with those last two paragraphs.
BTW, have you read "Purity of Heart" by Kierkegaard? I've just started it.
MB >An equalitarian system is incompatible with a free society, because at >its
heart it is antinomian and can only be maintained by force.
DB No, sir, I submit that everyone *must* have equality before the law, just as
they are equal before God. If God is no respecter of persons, how can we be and
claim to be just? We cannot.
MB > Some >must be beaten down to keep things level
DB That is NOT equality before the law, that is simply institutionalised
injustice of another form.
MB >Dan, when you use evasive and disingenuous logic to defend your position,
>you are using the same tactics as the government in Washington.
DB I have done neither. I have stated my position in the plainest possible
speech. I have done so again.
MB >You have stated that the South cannot be defined except in its >differences
with the North and other areas. Why does the South have to >be defended by
Northern standards of right and wrong, i.e. >equalitarianism?
DB If the South is no different than the North, then what the devil are we
talking about? Let us be Yankees and have done with it. They're white, we're
white, what's the problem?
DB As for defining us by Yankee standards of right and wrong, good grief, sir, I
have gone to wearisome length to show how very DIFFERENT we are from the
Yankees. I hardly see how that can be called "judging us by their standards".
Dan Bennett - Unreconstructed Southron
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Back to Part 3
To Part 5
Back to Bennett vs. Wheeler
Index
|
