The Great Southern League Race Debate

PART THREE

#41.

From Dennis Wheeler to Gary Waltrip:

August 10, 1996

In a message dated 8/8, you wrote: "Some of Dabney's ideas are dated. He lived in a different time. Some of my heroes (like Jefferson Davis) believed in slavery, and in the context of their times, I do not dispute them. However, this is the late 20th century. If we attempted to apply wholescale segregation to blacks or any other ethnic groups today, we would be laughed out of town in billows of incredulous laughter. We would also be the subjects of some rather intense and probably violent opposition. Politically, a return to such a goal is neither practical nor viable, except to give tremendous ammunition to our opposition."

Perhaps some of Dabney's ideas are dated, but I have never read one that is. The day for slavery is gone, and the day for "wholescale" segregation is gone. Both existed at one time and both are morally defensible and must be defended morally for a man to call himself an ideological Son of the Confederacy. Dabney himself stated: "As long as the hearts of the New South thrill with the generous though defeated endurance of the men of 1861; as long as they cherish these martyrs of constitutional liberty as the glory of Virginia and its history, you will be safe from any base decadence. But if the generation that is to come ever learns to be ashamed of these men because they were overpowered by fate, that will be the moral death of Virginia, a death on which there will wait no resurrection."

I think the same statement applies to the Southern defenders of 1961. Here's why:

Once the North imposed Reconstruction on the South, all was lost and the South was headed for what it has now become. But Dabney and others found a legal loophole in the new Constitution. They exploited it and saved the Southern people for nearly 100 years. Dabney wrote: "In endeavoring to remedy the dangers of the commonwealth, we must remember that we are a conquered people, and have to obey our masters. Otherwise, our straight road back to safety would be at once to repeal negro suffrage. But our masters will not hear of that! What is called impartial suffrage is, however, permitted by their new Constitution. We should at once avail ourselves of that permission and without attempting any discrimination on grounds of race, color, or previous condition of bondage, establish qualifications, both property and intelligence, for the privilege of voting. This would exclude the great multitude of negroes and a great many white men.... the mass of white men are now so impressed with the dishonor and mischiefs of negro suffrage, the majority of those white men with no property would, even joyfully, surrender their privilege, tarnished and worthless as it is, if thereby the negro could be excluded."

This is exactly what the people of the South did, in virtually every state; they protected their way of life through the poll tax and other restrictions on voting. It took Washington until 1965 to get wise to the ploy and once these laws were wiped off the books, the moral and social wellbeing of the South began to erode. In 30 short years, our society has become barely recognizable as what it had been for more than 200.

We are no longer free from base decadence, greatly because the blacks in the South have used their vote to elect the most base and corrupt politicians. In fact, in our society today, corruption and moral deviance are assets in a political campaign. At this point, we can't turn back the clock, the only tactic Southerners have used to protect themselves and their culture is "White flight."

So that's what I believe the Southern League should be trying to promote. We should come to the aid of Southerners under attack from blacks, both criminally and politically. There are a number of causes we could assist in and more spring up throughout the South every week. We should become known to the Southern people as an organization that stands for the Southerner in his attempt to promote himself.

As for violent opposition, the Southern perspective has continually caused violent opposition in America since 1861. The entire point of movies like Mississippi Burning is that white Southern Christians are so despicable, morally degenerate, unredeemable, and subhuman that to trample on their Constitutional rights is not only allowable, but a sign of moral superiority.

We can still express our opinion, however. But we can never move against the government until it has collapsed from its own corruption or has been so weakened by it that it can oppose us no longer. Solidarity is our strength. And time is on our side.

Dennis Wheeler

P.S. -- I'm getting so many responses, I can't answer them all. I's atryin', but am fallin' behind. Keep it coming. I'm just warmin' up.

#42.

From John Sigmon to Gary Waltrip.

August 9, 1996

John begins with a quote by Gary from a previous post:

In a message dated 960806 11:42:06 EDT, you write: "What about Jews, Asians, Hispanics and others not blessed with pastel pink epidermis? What will you do with them? How will you square this with the Constitution, or do you plan to do away with that, too? Come on, Dennis. If your views are right, then surely you aren't ashamed to tell us what they are.

Gary Waltrip

John's response:

`Fraid I have to agree with you, Gary. I respect the right to this person's opinion, but this is nothing less than a reversion to the Jim Crow Days of the past. Integration has been painful for this country, but I for one am glad, when it comes down to it, that it occurred. I cannot for the life of me see how a reversion to those black days would benefit our country, and for whatever problems and growing pains integration has presented, it is a step in the direction of fairness and human decency. Far better we attempt to grope with the problems than return to the "back of the bus" days.

just an opinion...

John Sigmon

[Editor's note: Our Southern forebears told us how bad things would be if we integrated with the blacks. Everything they said would happen has happened and far worse. We should be applauding them for their foresight. Instead, John calls our present way of life better than it was before integration began. He calls the integrated way of life a great step in the direction of fairness and human decency.

I guess when he made these statements he wasn't thinking about the tens of thousands of Southerners who have been murdered by the blacks, nor the tens of thousands of Southern women who have been raped by blacks, nor of the millions of Southern homes, businesses, or cars that have been burglarized by blacks. Otherwise, why would a man with these views be in a Southern organization when his views are so contrary to those of the South and the Southern people? -- Dennis Wheeler]

#42.

From Philip Underwood-Sheppard to Dennis Wheeler.

August 9, 1996

Philip begins with a quote by Dennis from a previous post:

At 08:17 PM 8/7/96 0400, you wrote: "Philip,

Thank you for the post about Northern Ireland. As I understand the situation there, sometime around the year 1600 AD, the six northernmost counties of Ireland were wiped out by a plague of some kind, King James of King James Bible fame sent Scots across the English Channel to repopulate the area. I think that this may be where the ScotchIrish come from.

Philip's response:

Dennis,

Actually, the act had a twofold purpose. One was to move the poor Scots off the land and the other was to build a supportive presence in Ireland. The Scottish Calvinists would hate the "Romans" enough to forgive James for the forced removal and support his policies in Ireland. The ScotchIrish are not Irish at all. The "Irish" part of the moniker that showed a geographical presence. It had nothing to do with intermarriage, which was almost nonexistent. My ScotchIrish blood is "Protestantly pure". In my mind, a good ScotchIrish has no business celebrating St. Patrick's Day the Irish way. Patrick was a Welsh Briton, not Irish at all.

Philip then gives a second quote by Dennis."

"Whether these are the correct historical facts or not, today Northern Ireland is a place, like many other places, where two peoples are vying for political supremacy. The Protestants cannot afford to allow the Irish to rule them as they know all too well from history that such a state of affairs will mean an unabidable tyranny."

Philip's response:

This is exactly right. Why, when Northern Ireland has continually voted to remain a part of Britain, should American politicians and bureaucrats stick their noses in and tell Britain to "settle" with the Irish on this matter?

Philip then gives a third quote by Dennis:

"It's like Atlanta in 1989 when five whites wanted to march in protest of the Martin Luther King Holiday. They were met by 20,000 hatefilled, murderous blacks who tried to kill them."

Philip's response:

I never heard about this. Was there a coverup?

Philip then gives a fourth quote by Dennis:

"The AfricanAmerican leadership never offered any apology for their followers. They merely attacked the law enforcement personnel for racism."

Philip's response:

Typical. Of course, it was "my fault" that they went on a rampage because I oppress them with my very existence.

Philip then gives a fifth quote by Dennis:

"Things are little different in Belfast. You have two separate peoples with two separate outlooks on life living in proximity to one another. This is a sure recipe for distress."

Philip's response:

As I recall my years growing up, it appeared to me that blacks and whites in my community had similar outlooks on life. It wasn't until black activism that changed. Without those who get their livelihood from promoting hate, things would have pretty much stayed the same. How much better off the South would have been without this promotion of hatred, a promotion of differences that didn't exist or were so beneath the surface that they wouldn't have made that much in a difference in our relations had they not been pushed to the top.

Philip then gives a sixth quote by Dennis:

The U.S. government is trying to impose a surrender on the part of the Protestants. This would put them at a tremendous security risk. Reunification with Ireland would allow Ireland the right to use federal troops to destroy the Protestants.

Philip's response:

I think Washington would relish such a turn of events. How is it that our government pushes this? It seems to me to be very similar to the Imperial Government's push to eradicate our culture, to assimilate us into their humanist outlook.

Dennis, I have enjoyed reading your posts on this thread. Though I haven't come to a conclusion yet, you have made me think. I admire your willingness to "stick to your guns" and keep the discussion going on very gentlemanly terms.

Kindest regards,

Philip

Philip UnderwoodSheppard

Salem Plantation

Port Royal Island

Occupied South Carolina

#43.

From Gary Waltrip to Steve Latiluppe.

August 9, 1996

Gary begins with a long quote from Steve in a post written to Dennis Wheeler:

In a message dated 960809 23:28:04 EDT, you write: "I think that you are addressing a very important issue ... one that has no easy answer. In fact, this issue is one of the most difficult yet crucial issues of our time: What is the place of `ethnicity' in the definition of a given nationstate? What defines `a people'? [Is it] Religion? Ideology? Culture? Language? Biology?

"I once saw a definition of `a people' as: A group living in a certain geographical area who BELIEVE themselves to be related biologically, and who share SIMILAR religious, linguistic, and cultural characteristics.

"I like this definition because it makes two important points: first, few peoples are actually as closely related as they think they are. 1) a person who BELIEVES himself to be related to the people of the South. (regardless of biological reality) 2) a person who follows the JudeoChristian philosophy/religion 3) a person who speaks English 4) a person who admires and participates in the literary/musical/poetic culture of the South 5) a person who believes in the political philosophy of Jefferson, Washington, and Madison. 6) a person who admires the heroism of the CSA 7) a person who admires and/or lives an agrarian/rural lifestyle.

"In my book, if someone landed from Mars tomorrow (after having been flown here with a NASA grant) and adhered to these principles, he/she/it would be a Southerner."

Gary's answer:

Steve, a wonderful discussion of a complex issue! My congratulations. On this listserve we do not come up with all of the answers, but we are coming up with the questions, and they become more intelligent day by day. DEFINING OURSELVES AS A PEOPLE is most important. I like your definition, as it resonates well with my own instincts and feelings. To my mind, Hong Min Zou is a Confederate while Zell Miller is not.

I print a newsletter under the auspices of the Confederate Society of America (they pay for all the printing and mailing costs) called "The Confederate Sentry," and one of the major issues I want to address is the one you and Dennis have been discussing. George has already given permission to print one of his reasoned dissertations on the matter, and I would like your permission to print the message quoted above, in full, as a related article.

I suppose technically the Confederate Society is a competing organization to the Southern League, but I don't see it that way. As the newly elected President of the CSA, I intend to recommend to all CSA members that they join the Southern League, too.

If I may use your discussion as an article, please supply me with some background on yourself.

Gary Waltrip

[Editor's note: This post began some trouble for Mr. Waltrip. Some of the board members of the CSA didn't want him to use their publication to air his Libertarian views. There was a move to oust him as president of the organization. At present, the outcome of that move is still up in the air. -- Dennis Wheeler]

#44.From Gary Waltrip to Dennis Wheeler.

August 11, 1996

Gary begins with a quote from Dennis.

In a message dated 960810 18:37:50 EDT, you write: "Both existed at one time and both are morally defensible and must be defended morally for a man to call himself an ideological Son of the Confederacy."

Gary's answer:

Tsk, tsk, Dennis. I doubt that the Southern population has appointed you to be the arbiter of what is and is not Southern. In any case, however defensible either slavery or segregation may be within the context of their times, neither is morally or politically acceptable in today's world.

Frankly, I think you just do not like people who are not white, and that your long dissertations are really an attempt to rationalize those positions. If most of the people in the Southern heritage movement agreed with you, we would lose our battles for selfdetermination and cultural regeneration.

Do you think that, by taking an official stance to segregate and disenfranchise a significant part of the Southern population based on race that we would enhance our credibility or destroy it? Do you think the Washington Post would entertain published articles by Dr. Michael Hill and Dr. Thomas Fleming? Do you believe that George Will would write columns complimentary to us? By assuming the stances that you support, we would tell the world loud and clear that all of the Northern propaganda against us was right all along. We would reinforce the need for a strong, centralized interventionist federal government rather than underscore the need to get rid of it. We would, in a word, be shooting ourselves in the foot, and perhaps the head as well. Your ideas are not only politically inviable, they would be selfdestructive and selfdefeating.

Gary gives a second quote from Dennis

"As for violent opposition, the Southern perspective has continually caused violent opposition in America since 1861. The entire point of movies like Mississippi Burning is that white Southern Christians are so despicable, morally degenerate, unredeemable, and subhuman that to trample on their Constitutional rights is not only allowable, but a sign of moral superiority."

Gary's answer:

All the more reason not to live up to old stereotypes. Why prove that they are correct by acting exactly as they claim we are?

Gary Waltrip

[Editor's note: Gary was beginning to come unglued at this point. He had lost the argument as to who the Southern people are and had begun to bring in extraneous issues such as how unpopular my ideas are. His throwaway line about me just not liking people who are non-white was a classic. He offered no evidence to support his assertion, he was just trying to win an argument here, despite the fact that he had no further support of his position. From this point on, you'll see him becoming more and more irrational and combative. -- Dennis Wheeler]

#45.From Dennis Wheeler to Gary Waltrip.

August 12, 1996

Gary,

In a message dated 8/11, you wrote: "In any case, however defensible either slavery or segregation may be within the context of their times, neither is morally or politically acceptable in today's world."

I think this is the clearest pronouncement you've made yet concerning your position and beliefs. As I see it, you have accepted the basic assumption of the Northern perspective that the South's position is not morally defensible or acceptable. Let me remind you that this was the goal of Reconstruction to get the Southerners to believe their position was immoral and the North's position was moral.

The North believed in a unitarian, equalitarian democracy. And the South held to a particularistic, exclusivistic, republican society. It is not our view that has failed and is no longer morally acceptable, it is their view that has failed and is morally indefensible.

The unitarian, equalitarian democracy is what has bankrupted the national treasury, perverted justice, unleashed a torrent of crime in the streets, along with a host of other evils.

The Southern position is the only one that can make things right. We have nothing to be ashamed of; they have everything to be ashamed of.

You continued: "Frankly, I think you just do not like people who are not white, and that your long dissertations are really an attempt to rationalize those positions."

This statement reminded me of the preacher who wrote in the margin of his sermon notes: "Weak point, yell loud!"

You also wrote: "If most of the people in the Southern heritage movement agreed with you, we would lose our battles for self-determination and cultural regeneration."

I don't agree with that and believe that the arguments I have framed give us the only chance we have. The separatist movements that have succeeded are the ones that have stressed their differences with other peoples, not their similarities (Latvia, Lithuania, Tigrea, Serbia, Estonia, Slovenia, etc.)

Also, I can't for the life of me see that your position is one of selfdetermination or cultural regeneration. As I understand what you've said, the South you envision would be exactly like the United States is now, only smaller. We would have a multiethnic, onemanonevote democracy. We could not assert that the Southern people are a distinct and separate people. Where would that leave us?

If I'm misinterpreting you, then I sincerely want you to correct me. But as I see what you're saying, if your plan were to win, then the Southern states would secede from Washington. But after that I'm a little fuzzy. Would the Southern League then impose its will on the rest of society but be pledged to never discriminate on the basis of race or skin color? Or would the Southern League be just one political party among many that would fight it out in democratic elections? Or is there another scenario that I have missed? I hope there is because neither one of those seem too attractive.

I think the best way for us to proceed, and the only argument that carries a moral weight that can bring success, is to declare that the Southern nation is a separate nation and people that has a Godgiven right to selfdetermination. We can negotiate with responsible black and Hispanic leaders as to who will control what land, but we must always demand our own homeland, our own borders, and our own liberty to rule ourselves unimpeded by nonSoutherners.

This is my belief. And this is why it's so crucial to hammer out the answer to the question, "Who is a Southerner?"

You advance many pragmatic reasons that show your plan to be the best one. And if you argued that my goal of a separate homeland for the Southern people was the moral and final goal, but we need to take it in slow steps to fake our enemy out before hitting him with the cold truth, then I could go along with you. But this is not what you've argued. You have argued that the historic Southern position is today morally and politically unacceptable. I can't go along with that and I think you'll find a tough row to hoe in getting many Southerners to go along with that, either.

Now there's no problem getting the mainstream U.S. media to go along with it. They've always believed it. You are no threat to them as long as you believe the basic tenant of Yankeeism. But I hope the Southern people won't fall for that, even though they presently bow down to it out of necessity. I would hope that 10 minutes after they find out they can't be bound by Washington any more, and they don't have to put up with the Civil Rights injustice anymore, they will rise as one man and throw off their chains.

Dennis Wheeler

#46.

From Jay Moshlak to all.

August 11, 1996

Gentlemen [& Ladies]

I saw something on PBS that I am still in a state of shock. They talked about Los Angeles through the 40's and the Jim Crow Laws that were in effect. THAT'S RIGHT, Jim Crow Laws.

There was a strip of Los Angeles known as the "Crenshaw Corridor" where Blacks settled. Get a load of this; THE BEACHES WERE SEGREGATED!!!

The next time you here Californian's being holier than thou, give them something to think about.

Steven Jay Moshlak

http://members.tripod.com/~century/

Jay's message was in response to this post from Stacy McCain to George Kalas:

On Thu, 8 Aug 1996, RStacy2229@aol.com wrote: "George, I would like to point out that the rise of Jim Crow in the late 1800s involved several factors, among them:

1. Republican racial agitation dating to Reconstruction had caused former slaves to view Southern whites with contempt, and thus led to antiwhite behavior by blacks which in turn promoted a violent white backlash. The period 18801910 was the height of whiteonblack terror.

2. Those who promoted and participated in racial attacks upon blacks during that period almost universally came from the lowest caste of Southern white society: The sons of men who had deserted or betrayed the Confederacy, and descendants of the worthless, nocount carpetbaggers themselves.

3. Partly to protect blacks from white terrorism, partly to prevent interracial contact which could lead to incidents that might provoke such terrorism, CONSERVATIVE Southerners that is, the most eminent and most revered men in Dixie adopted the convenience of separate public accommodations for blacks and whites. Over the years, of course, the artificial estrangement which Jim Crow produced between the Southern races led to fear and suspicion, so that by the postWWII era, many poor whites were as ignorant of blacks as any Yankee.

4. The worst element of the Jim Crow era was undoubtedly the widespread disenfranchisement of blacks. Booker T. Washington, in his famed Atlanta speech, which brought white Southerners to their feet in applause, had asked only that such devices as literacy tests be applied equally to the races. Yet under Jim Crow, illiterate whites were allowed to vote, while many literate blacks were not. (Yes, I realize that respected blacks in many parts of the South continued to enjoy their right to vote.)

Whatever one thinks of voluntary social segregation and the right of a private business to refuse service to unwelcome customers, the denial of voting rights was unjustified. If a man is a slave by law, he is a slave; if he is a citizen, he is a citizen; and a citizen in a representative republic has the right to the franchise. In some ways, then, it has always seemed to me that Jim Crow was a greater evil than slavery, since it placed black people into a curious limbo where they were neither slaves, nor fully citizens, nor anything else but a vulnerable political cipher. That actual conditions under such an absurd system were not much worse than they were is a credit to Southerners, both white and black.

Finally, there is what has been termed "rational discrimination" actions and attitudes which are properly based on knowledge of actual group attributes. [All discrimination is based on all the knowledge available.] When the high school track coach who sees that only white kids have come out for the team this year and laments that it might be a long year, he his exercising rational discrimination. But if the same coach begins randomly grabbing black kids in the hallway and dragging them to practice, assuming that one of them will be Carl Lewis or Jesse Owens, he is thereby exercising irrational discrimination, otherwise known as prejudice.

Prejudice may be either positive or negative. But if the coach without good evidence leaps to the assumption that his young black proteges are stupid, lazy, criminal and/or lacking in selfesteem, he has entered the realm of bigotry, which is irrational and negative prejudice. And then if the experiment with black track team members doesn't for whatever reason work out, and the coach begins to spew venomous invectives about "all niggers this" and "all niggers that" based upon this single incident, he has clearly steeped into the world of racism.

If, from his racist views, the track coach goes on to advocate punitive, restrictive or retaliatory actions against blacks, he has transcended all these categories to become a hatemonger.

Oddly enough, just as racism among whites is beginning to fade away, we see that black racism (Afrocentrism, separatism, Nation of Islam) is appearing upon the horizon. Hating white folks is IN, with the approval of the "multicultural" mediapolitical elites, and is egged on daily by the race merchants and poverty pimps of "the Klan with a tan," a/k/a The NAACP, loyally assisted by the "civil rights establishment" of the federal Justice and Education departments.

This goes to show why we should not stomach the promulgation of odious and hateful doctrines among our friends, because soon or later, our enemies are liable to coopt those same doctrines and use them against us. Even the ridiculous absurdities of the Afrocentrists are scarcely more idiotic than what is taught by Christian Identity, Aryan Nations and the Odinists, who sometimes sound just like Afrocentrists in their pretzel logic and dubious standards of proof.

We must reject all such doctrines. The truth is not in them.

[Editor's note: In one sense, Stacy's argument is sound; it is irrational to not allow citizens to vote. But what he's missing is that the blacks were not citizens by the South's choosing; their citizenship had been tyrannically forced on us by a hostile army that had enforced a policy that was both illegal and immoral. Our people merely rallied when the time was right and took back possession of what rights Washington had left them. He says the South's action was unjustified. But in a fight for survival, I don't think it was unjustified at all.

When he starts talking about "rational discrimination," he uses the phrase "discrimination is based on all the knowledge available." The problem with his position here is that he's assuming the discrimination the South exercised in regard to the blacks was irrational and not based on any available knowledge. But here he shows his own lack of knowledge, not theirs. The Southerners understood the blacks far better than Stacy does. That's why they knew that it was of paramount importance to keep as many of them from voting as possible if they were to preserve their society and national existence. -- Dennis Wheeler]

Stacy's message was a response to this message written from George Kalas to Dennis Wheeler:

In a message dated 960808 12:55:38 EDT, you write: "...very broad complaints regarding the genuine evils of forced integration and the Civil Rights laws and then offer as a solution the opposite extreme by proposing the reinstitution of forced, state sponsored segregation. If the races tend to segregate themselves in the absence of government intervention, (and I agree with you that they do), then we should just remove government entirely from the picture of race relations. That's what we mean around here when we talk about establishing a colourblind society. Such a society would vastly ameliorate the evils of liberal racial social engineering.

[Editor's note: George offered this Libertarian argument, but from other statements he made, he could not have been sincere or consistent. Because any talk or attempt about the Southerners segregating themselves was attacked by him as racist and bigoted behavior. Besides that, you can never remove government from the picture entirely. The government will always have one position or another on the subject. Also, the Southern people need the safeguard of the government to keep them from being overwhelmed by the blacks, as the blacks have found it to their advantage to sponge off the whites in the South. And when given the choice, they have always chosen to use their governmental powers to take from us what is rightfully ours. -- Dennis Wheeler]

#47.

From Steve Latiluppe to Dennis Wheeler.

August 11, 1996

Dennis,

I think that you are addressing a very important issue ... one that has no easy answer. In fact, this issue is one of the most difficult yet crucial issues of our time: What is the place of "ethnicity" in the definition of a given nation state? What defines "a people"? Religion? Ideology? Culture? Language? Biology?

You state that Southerners are "ScotchIrish and Cavaliers". This creates several problems. First, the Cavaliers were Englishmen who fought against Cromwell. What is an Englishman? They are a mixture of Celtic Britons, German Angles and Saxons, Romans, Norman French, and others. If the Englishmen themselves are an amalgamation of various ethnic groups, their ancestors in the New World (who have mixed with an even more extensive list of various peoples) are an even more derived group.

Secondly, there are many groups in the South who do not fit neatly into this dual population but who must be considered "Southern" by any stretch of the imagination. The Louisiana French are certainly Southern (Gen. Beauregard would be very upset if you denied his "Southerness"), yet he is clearly not a direct descendent of the groups you mention in your definition. Is a second generation ScottishAmerican living in Georgia somehow more "Southern" than a Cajun whose ancestors have lived in Louisiana for 250 years?

The Blacks also do not fall under this definition, yet they are undeniably Southern. For better or worse, they are a defining element of Southern civilization and culture. Imagine how utterly different the South would be without the historic interaction between blacks and whites.

I once saw a definition of "a people" as: A group living in a certain geographical area who BELIEVE themselves to be related biologically, and who share SIMILAR religious, linguistic, and cultural characteristics.

I like this definition because it makes two important points: first, few peoples are actually as closely related as they think they are. Studies of "Germans", "French", and other "peoples" reveal that these terms are more a product of consciousness than actual biology. Migrations of peoples have always occurred and this creates constant mixing of groups. But, if the population believes themselves to be related, then in a sense, they are.

Second, this definition emphasizes "similar" rather than "identical". Almost every group of people has a level of religious/linguistic/cultural variation (ie: Bavarians are mostly Catholic, while Prussians are historically Protestant, yet they are both certainly "German").

Once this definition is accepted (for argument's sake), then the only issue is the level of variation which people generally accept as "similar". At any rate, I think that this issue will be an endless source of bickering between us (and every other nation in the world), for some time to come. Any definition which creates an "us" will immediately create a "they". And anyone who falls in the "they" category, will be upset at their exclusion.

Unfortunately, if you spread the definition of "us" too broadly, the term loses its meaning altogether (and you end up being a universalistic liberal). For my two cents, I would begin the definition of "a Southerner" with the following broad categories:

1) a person who BELIEVES himself to be related to the people of the South. (regardless of biological reality)

2) a person who follows the JudeoChristian philosophy/religion

3) a person who speaks English

4) a person who admires and participates in the literary/musical/ poetic culture of the South

5) a person who believes in the political philosophy of Jefferson, Washington, and Madison.

6) a person who admires the heroism of the CSA

7) a person who admires and/or lives an agrarian/rural lifestyle.

In my book, if someone landed from Mars tomorrow (after having been flown here with a NASA grant) and adhered to these principles, he/she/it would be a Southerner.

Steve Latiluppe

#48.

From Dennis Wheeler to Steve Latiluppe.

August 11, 1996

Steve,

I really liked the definition you came up with for a "people." If I have one fault with it it's that it is very heavy on the subjective side of peoplehood, but very light on the objective side. A "people" has an objective existence. It has a subjective existence, too, but its objective existence is also a reality. For instance, the Japanese people exist. They exist objectively. They may not exist if they don't subjectively believe themselves to exist, but since they do subjectively believe themselves to exist, they have an objective existence. (I think I got that right.)

You state: "The Blacks also do not fall under this definition [meaning my definition which you reasonably consider as too narrow], yet they are undeniably Southern. For better or worse, they are a defining element of Southern civilization and culture. Imagine how utterly different the South would be without the historic interaction between blacks and whites."

But in this I think you stray from your definition and add elements that aren't part of that definition. To illustrate, the Tibetans have spent most of the past several hundred years under the domination of the Chinese. Still, Tibetans and Chinese are two distinct peoples. Also, there were nearly as many Russians living in Latvia in 1990 as there were Latvians. This condition had existed for decades. Still, the Latvians and the Russians are distinct peoples. Further, the Hutu and the Tutsi of Burundi and Rwanda have lived much of the past 500 years in a slave/master relationship. Still, the two peoples can easily tell one another apart, and over the past 25 years, since the United Nations has tried to make them live as equals in two unified countries, they have taken several opportunities to butcher one another mercilessly.

Also, it's hard for me to imagine two peoples who consider themselves more distinct and separated than the Southern people and the blacks who live in the South. The blacks refer to themselves as "Bro," which is a slang term for brother. This distinguishes them from us. And the efforts of Southerners to distance themselves from the blacks who live in the South is well documented.

The definition you began with included a biological relationship, or at least a belief that a biological relationship existed. But the definition you ended with went out of its way to exclude a biological relationship. Vine's Expository Dictionary defines the Hebrew word "laos," which is interpreted "peoples," as "persons related by race and language." Obviously, the blacks who live in the South don't relate to us that way. Dennis Wheeler

[Editor's note: Steve was right about my definition of a Southerner being too narrow. Of course, the Louisiana French are included and there are smatterings of other groups throughout our land who are to be counted among the Southern people but do not fit into the Anglo-Saxon category. It's mostly the Africans, Asians, and Hispanics that constitute the largest threat to our existence as a separate people. Any attempt to include them as Southerners must be repudiated. -- Dennis Wheeler]

#49.

From Steve Latiluppe to Dennis Wheeler.

August 11, 1996

Dennis,

I do not doubt that "peoples" , defined biologically, exist. The Australian aborigines, for instance, are very biologically distinct, and have not mixed with other peoples for tens of thousands of years. Three million French Canadians are all descendants of perhaps 10,000 original French settlers (and are thus each related to each other many times over).

On the other hand, there are many "peoples" who think themselves to be a homogenous entity, who really are not. The Prussians, for instance, are actually not even German. They are descendants of a Slavic tribe which adopted the German language and culture. Yet, they came to be seen as the most German of Germans. Given this example, how important can biology be? The Prussians came to believe themselves to be Germans (even though they were not biologically German), and that is what they became Germans.

I admit that I have a bias in this issue. I strongly believe in the power of the human mind -- much more so than the power of biology. I am less concerned with a person's actual family tree than I am with what that person's beliefs, convictions, and cultural practices are. Given this bias, I still favor a "cultural" rather than "genetic" definition of "a people". In my view, the ChineseConfederate artist is much more of a Southerner than someone like Bill Clinton.

Steve Latiluppe

PS: My father's side of the family is from Quebec. My wife is from a family of crazy, liberal Jewish folks from New York City (which creates a lot of fun debates at family events).

#50.

From David Rockett to all.

Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 14:50:31 0500

From: David Rockett <steward@mail.bayou.com

Subject: Re: Creation, Nationhood & Racism

Dennis & All,

Though we're focusing on disputed areas note that I've cut most places where Dennis, as I clearly said is "partly right" & we obviously agree.

David then quotes Dennis from a previous post:

"I can't agree that Dabney was `only stating a current historic reality.' He used the word `always.' And I see no reason to believe he meant anything else. To hold that Dabney is to be interpreted `within the Yankee, secularist framework of the late 1800s' is to forego passing judgement on the merits of his argument and excuse him as a victim of his times. I say that Dabney was right and that Southern society from that time until the Civil Rights War of the 1960s was ordered to show an agreement with the rightness of his statement. In fact, the awful condition the South finds itself in today, with murder, theft, adultery, and blasphemy abounding, is a result of those policies the North intended to push onto the South after the Civil War. Dabney discovered a way to defeat their scheme and thus postponed the destruction of Southern society and the Southern people for almost 100 years. The man is to be applauded, not relegated to some file of irrelevancy; not revised and watereddown to show him a victim of his times."

David's response:

I never argued the point of Dabney's wisdom in 'salvaging' the Southern State's right to limit the franchise to 'property, intelligence, etc', I only contended that you distort and misapply Dabney's wisdom by assuming Dabney thought race alone the source of 'hostility.' Dabney was likely taking Federal intrusion as an occasion to argue for a more Biblical limitation of voting rights for WHITES and Negroes. But the SOURCE of the hostility was/IS Secular, manipulating policies of the Egalitarian SuperState to coerce an unnatural integration. Creation is the source of natural/peaceful segregation and yet Dabney argued that the old South's racially INTEGRATED society WAS PEACEFUL and happy. You can't have it both ways. Race itself is NOT the source of domestic hostility FORCED INTEGRATION and the power of political usurpation IS. This I believe you confuse and wrongly try to enlist Dabney in your error. Now, this FAR from relegates Dabney to some 'file of irrelevancy' or 'victim of his times.' This stupid characterisation is beneath you Dennis.

(2) Dennis also assumes falsely that race or ethnicity is the Only or Primary division among men thus ignoring Language and FAITH. Common Faith, language and cultural heritage can largely ameliorate racial differences."

David gives a second quote by Dennis:

"FAITH is never spoken of in Scripture as a societal organizer, in the primary sense. It is at most a secondary organizer. And even this is debatable. For instance, in Old Testament Israel, different peoples could come into, and become a part of, the nation on the basis of faith. But it took from three to ten generations before their descendants were incorporated as "full" citizens, depending on the debauchery of the nation they came from."

David's response:

It is true that a pagan convert who embraced the gospel in Old Covenant Israel, was circumcised and allowed to take passover, did NOT immediately obtain all citizenship rights. But Dennis misses the point the ENTRANCE into the culture and community life is FAITH. After conversion and seven years of loyal disciplingservitude in the FAITH, there then be increasingly responsible citizenship.

Now, I believe there would be a natural desire for missions and reassimilation with their own racial kind & State rule over voting. But the point of contention here is the source of hostility and that's the coercive Federal Leviathan forcing many matters which cause hostility beyond ethnicity.

David gives a third quote by Dennis:

"I say this because the English language and AngloCeltic culture are not products of the Christian religion; they are products of the AngloCeltic people or peoples. Inclusion of too many outsiders effectively destroys what we are. Culture must by definition be exclusive, otherwise it isn't culture, it's anticulture."

David's response:

This is false because anyone who has studied language a little knows you can't separate language from the underlying religious faith. The Christian Faith has over the past 1500 years DRASTICALLY changed the English language. The south especially was dominated MOST by the Faith & Language of the Reformation its doctrine of man as sinful in need of salvation and redemption in Christ and its doctrine of God. Thus, the theology of the Christian FAITH was THE most fundamental unifier in the Old South family, customs, property, land growing out of it.

Even the Celtic Chilvary grew out of the Christian Ideal of the Knighthood of what a Christian Gentlemen was. I hope Dennis isn't about to argue for a 'culture' without a 'cult' under-lying FAITH????

David gives a fourth quote by Dennis:

"Perhaps it is true that `faith and responsible fidelity to cultural heritage must not be swallowed up by a convoluted racial hairsplitting,' but what we must hammer out is an answer to the question, `What is convoluted racial hairsplitting and what is legitimate definition and protection of Southern culture?' In conclusion, I'll have to disagree with you that I have misapplied any of Dabney's teachings and will assert that you have revised Dabney and thus rendered him irrelevant for today on this point. I'll also have to disagree with you that I have implied a hostility between kinds. I have agreed with Dabney and the consensus of Southerners up to the present that it is the integration of peoples that God has segregated that causes the hostility."

David's response:

Your nexttolast sentence IS what I originally disputed and objected to your use of Dabney ie. that Creational distinctions (race/ethnicity) imply hostility! Now, your last sentence seems to concede my point except that it is the coercive Leviathan superstate that is the real antagonists, not race. I have hope for you Dennis! You must either argue for a divinely ordained racial 'hostility' or you're actually backing RACE as the cause for hostility, and coming around to mine (and Dabney's I think) view that 1) segregation is the natural result and order of Creation, and does NOT imply interRacial hostility, and 2) that it is the coercive force of Statist power which breeds hostility.

Obviously, Dabney is wise and relevant even if I reject and oppose your trying to draft him to support your views.

In Him,

David Rockett

#51.

From Dennis Wheeler to David Rockett.

August 15, 1996

David,

I think this quote contains the majority of our disagreement, so I'll restrict my comments to this:

(1) "I only contended that you distort and misapply Dabney's wisdom by assuming Dabney thought race alone the source of 'hostility.' Dabney was likely taking Federal intrusion as an occasion to argue for a more Biblical limitation of voting rights for WHITES and Negroes. But the SOURCE of the hostility was/IS Secular, manipulating policies of the Egalitarian SuperState to coerce an unnatural integration. Creation is the source of natural/peaceful segregation and yet Dabney argued that the old South's racially INTEGRATED society WAS PEACEFUL and happy. You can't have it both ways. Race itself is NOT the source of domestic hostility FORCED INTEGRATION and the power of political usurpation IS. This I believe you confuse and wrongly try to enlist Dabney in your error."

Dennis's response:

Dabney and Wheeler argue that a natural antipathy develops whenever two races were in close proximity. (I gave Dabney's direct quote in a previous post.) I agree with him. What you have said, if I understand correctly, is that it's not the close proximity of the races that brings the hostility for that would make race the source of the hostility and since God's creation is natural and peaceful, it is not the source of hostility between men but forced integration and the power of political usurpation bring hostility. "It is the coercive force of Statist power which breeds hostility."

The Southern tradition has always held that God divided mankind into separate peoples and intended them to remain separate. In the English language that I am familiar with and perhaps I'm ignorant here this state of affairs has always been referred to as segregation or a segregated society. As I understand it, this segregation is what caused Washington, DC to be so hostile to the South in the 1960s. And to this day I continue to hear people rail against segregation in the South.

Now it seems to me that you have stood this concept on its head and have proclaimed that the South was the most integrated section in America. You have only referred to this state of affairs existing in the antebellum South. I am curious to know if you consider the precivil rights South of the 1950s an integrated society. I'm not going to criticize you on this until I understand what you're saying. Would you please explain your understanding of the words segregation and integration?

Now as for "coercive force of Statist power" breeding hostility, that is sometimes true and sometimes false. The civil government is designed to be a minister of God and to use its coercive power for righteousness and peace. When a government does what it is supposed to, its coercive power is not being used to bring hostility, but peaceful relations among men. For instance, once the Civil War ended, the U.S. government used its coercive power to breed hostility by placing former slaves in positions of political office to lord the North's victory over the defeated Southerners. Dabney and others found a legal loophole and laws were passed which protected the Southerner from the ravages of the blacks. These laws gained the sanction of the U.S. Supreme Court in Plessy vs. Ferguson in 1896 and the coercive power of the state was once again being used to promote peace and harmony. In 1965, with the signing of the Civil Rights Act, the coercive power of the state once again began to be used to promote injustice and hostility. This continues today.

The point I'm making is that the hostility is not resident within the coercive power of the state, it is resident within evil acts of the state and shows itself when the state uses its coercive power for evil. And what is the evil the state has coerced upon us that has resulted in a host of other evils? It is the form of integration which the state now coerces and compels us to practice. (Maybe it's not integration, per se, as you will define for us, but the peculiar form of integration the state has placed on us is the cause of the hostility.)

The main fault line of the hostility lies in political power. We have two peoples in the South with different histories, different traditions, different ways of looking at things, different mores, and different agendas. IMO, the two peoples were able to live harmoniously and peaceably only because they were no political threat to us. Once the coercive power of the state was no longer used to prevent them from being a political threat to us, then they became a physical and fiscal threat, and hostility began to develop.

I again think you have revised Dabney by writing: "Dabney was likely taking Federal intrusion as an occasion to argue for a more Biblical limitation of voting rights for WHITES and Negroes." If you could show some evidence for this assertion, it would be most appreciated. In my view, it goes against every thing he says. I don't know your motive for making this statement, but I suspect that this reflects your view that Christians and only Christians should be given the right to vote regardless of ethnic distinction and you want to believe, and for us to believe, that Dabney agreed with you. But in the post I sent George Kalas this morning, as well as other places, I have given direct quotes from Dabney that contradict this position. If you could show some evidence that in other places he said things which uphold it, then I would rethink my position and see if I'm being too hasty. But until you can present something that shows Dabney's view to be anything other than what I have stated it to be, I'll have to maintain that you are revising him to say what you wish he had said.

I could go on about the other topics you raised like language and culture and religion, but I don't see much point in debating every point.

Dennis Wheeler

#52.

From Robert Stacy McCain to all.

August 11, 1996

Stacy begins with a quote by De Toqueville:

ALEXIS DE TOQUEVILLE, writing in Chapter XVIII of his 1835 classic, "Democracy in America" Vol. I (Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1960), pp. 359360:

"Whoever has inhabited the United States must have perceived that in those parts of the Union in which the Negroes are no longer slaves they have in no wise drawn nearer to the whites. On the contrary, the prejudice of race appears to be stronger in the states that have abolished slavery than in those where it still exists; and nowhere is it so intolerant as in those states where servitude has never been known....

"In the South, where slavery still exists, the Negroes are less carefully kept apart; they sometimes share the labors and the recreations of the whites; the whites consent to intermix with them to a certain extent, and although legislation treats them more harshly, the habits of the people are more tolerant and compassionate....

"Thus it is in the United States that the prejudice which repels the Negroes seems to increase in proportion as they are emancipated, and inequality is sanctioned by the manners while it is effaced from the laws of the country. But if the relative position of the two races that inhabit the United States is such as I have described, why have the Americans abolished slavery in the North of the Union, why do they maintain it in the South, and

why do they aggravate its hardships? The answer is easily given. It is not for the good of the Negroes, but for that of the whites, that measures are taken to abolish slavery in the United States...."

****************************************

Just some racist French aristocrat talking here? Don't think so, folks, as witness....

"Prejudice against color is stronger North than South."

Frederick Douglas, cited in

William S. McFeely, "Frederick Douglass,"

W.W. Norton, New York, 1991, p. 94

****************************************************************

Stacy's comments:

And a big DEO VINDICE to Mssrs. De Toqueville and Douglass for taking care to document these great truths I have always instinctively believed, but never before seen stated so clearly by an impartial eyewitness source. I am posting these quotes to both "Civil War" newsgroups and to "soc.cult.african.american" for the consternation of our enemies, and urge y'all to forward this to all defenders of Dixie, to save it to your hard drive, and to quote it with glee next time some damned Yankee (or Klansman, Nazi, Christian Identity fool, or scalawag apostate) starts in on his "racism is a Southern thing" rap. WHOMP him between the eyes with THIS!

I assert that whatever one's political or social opinions in regard to race may be, whatever one thinks of any particular black person the Yankee sentiment of blind, fearful, ignorant racial HATRED is beneath the dignity of any Godfearing man who truly wishes to honor the Confederate cause.

Robert Stacy McCain

Rome, GA

[Editor's note: Stacy draws the wrong conclusion from the right facts. His argument is that the South has done a better job of integrating with the blacks than the North has, hence it is morally superior. He groups together disparate factions like the Nazis and the Yankees because of his belief that they hold in common the ideal of racism.

The thinking behind this conclusion is that (1) the South had no racial axe to grind but was somewhat of an experiment in multiculturalism where blacks and whites got along together well. (2) He can find statements in history that show there was racism in the North, so he charges the North with the racist tag. (3) This, in his mind, puts them in league with the Nazis who were also racists.

As difficult as this may be for you to believe, this is actually the logical thread that he is taking. And he's not alone. These guys are becoming victims of their own propaganda.

The correct conclusion he should have been drawn from De Toqueville's statements is that when whites hold political and social superiority over the blacks, then they have the luxury of dealing with them in a kind and genteel manner because they are not in competition with them. Stacy should have seen that even in the North, where they didn't understand our black problem until many blacks from the South migrated there, they came to realize that when put on equal terms with the blacks, they were forced to deal with them in a rough and tumble manner or be overrun by them. -- Dennis Wheeler]

#53.

From George Kalas to Dennis Wheeler

August 13, 1996

Dennis Wheeler wrote: "...At this point, we can't turn back the clock, the only tactic Southerners have used to protect themselves and their culture is "White flight." So that's what I believe the Southern League should be trying to promote. We should come to the aid of Southerners under attack from blacks, both criminally and politically. There are a number of causes we could assist in and more spring up throughout the South every week. We should become known to the Southern people as an organization that stands for the Southerner in his attempt to promote himself."

Dennis,

You argue powerfully and articulately for your point of view and your comity in this exchange is commendable. But, with that having been said, the facts remain: (1) The Southern League is not organised around the principle of "whites only" Southern nationalism that you have espoused. (2) You have continuously grouped all blacks together and sought to paint every black as a member of the black underclass.

My experience in life has taught me that this is a falsehood. One of the most gracious, Southern ladies I know is a black Houstonian who was very openminded and interested in hearing the Southern perspective on our history, culture and heritage. She is middleclass in her outlook on politics and economics and does not fit within the stereotype you have painted. Yet you would ignore the existence of such people. (And there are quite a few middleclass, conservative blacks in America they just don't get much media attention.)

That won't work, my friend. The Southern League will not prevail if we tarbrush others in this manner. Who are we to object to antiSouthern bigotry and stereotyping if we start engaging in exactly the same type of behaviour towards blacks? This is not a morally or ethically defensible position and the only way you have been able to make a case for your position is by adopting a defacto racist view that stipulates that *ALL* blacks are hopeless and *ALL* blacks are enemies of progress and freedom in this country.

While I'd agree with you that a darn big segment, (i.e. the black underclass) are a national problem, I still have to disagree with you that the solution is to adopt a wholesale policy of rejection of people solely on account of their race without any consideration for their character and political and moral views.

(3) Your call for the Southern League to become a movement to lead whites against blacks is incendiary and I again ask you, why do you not join an avowedly racist organisation like the KKK or the Aryan Nations they are much closer to your beliefs system than the SL is and the SL will never become what you wish for it to be.

I'm sorry if you might find this offensive, but I calls 'em as I sees 'em...

For Dixie,

George Kalas

DixieNet

[Editor's note: With this post you can see that George was beginning to get nervous by the forcefulness of my arguments. He predicated his view on his contention that I was painting all blacks as part of the black underclass. But note that he did not give any evidence to support that contention. He just pulled it out of the air.

Also, his point about being bigots will destroy our credibility of claiming our opponents are engaging in anti-Southern bigotry is quite instructive. Much of the Southern "heritage defense" that has taken place the past several years has employed a logic goes something like this: "You Yankees say you're against bigotry. We are too. But you are practicing bigotry against us by not allowing us to fly our flag and display our symbols. The South is not a place of bigotry. Never was."

The big problem with this line of argument is that it legitimizes the Abolitionist perspective on bigotry while attempting to show that the Abolitionist perspective is operating inconsistently and hypocritically when it persecutes the South.

What is needed instead is to attack the Abolitionist perspective, not agree with it and then rewrite history to show that they are right in principle, but the South wasn't really what they thought was. We need to attack the Abolitionist view of bigotry and contend that the Southern perspective of what would happen if the blacks got the vote was correct and that any sane person and/or people should see its wisdom and support it.

George declares himself on this point. He believes it is immoral to limit the vote -- "the wholesale rejection of people" -- based on their ethnicity. So in this, he agrees with the Abolitionists and together they hold me and all those who believe in the traditional Southern perspective as mutual enemies. -- Dennis Wheeler]

#54.

From Charles Upshaw to Dennis Wheeler.

August 13, 1996

Dear Dennis,

I have followed your posts on this subject with great interest. You are obviously very intelligent and have just as obviously done your homework. I think, however, that we must remember that the Southern position with respect to secession had everything to do with state sovereignty and little to do with slavery (race). That was the yankee position.

The South purportedly wanted the freedom to arrange its affairs as it saw fit, without the approval of a far-off master.

The "unitarian, equalitarian democracy" you mentioned in your post did not destroy this country. It was the centralized power which wielded these foolish notions that has done such violence to our culture. Were it not for these notions, there would be others, perhaps just as destructive.

Where the power exists, guard against mischief.

The racial/cultural arguments you advance are well put. There is no doubt much literature supports your views. While Dabney may have offered an admirable defense of slavery, remember that Robert E. Lee called the institution an evil.

There are other elements of our culture which I would like to see returned to the ways of the nineteenth century, especially with respect to industrialization vs agrarianism. But we must face the fact that the modernism genie is out of the bottle. We are not going to return to the days where farming is the primary vocation of Southerners. The computer is here to stay; the internet, the automobile, the interstate highway, air

conditioning, etc.

Likewise, we will need to begin building with what we have. And that is a multiracial society. Let's just hope that we are able to impart virtue and wisdom to our countrymen.

One more thing, I am a strong believer in freedom of association - in business as well as personally. The races will naturally segregate. That's the way it has always been. I don't think we need a government agent to tell us who we must associate with.

Please don't attempt to engage me in an ongoing debate - I'm no match for you. I simply felt that the discussion was going astray. I respect your views and greatly admire your scholarship.

Your brother for the cause,

Pat Upshaw

[Editor's note: I don't want to be mean-spirited, but there is a slave mentality setting in among Southerners. They are coming to believe that there is no better life to be hoped for among our people than the one we presently have. Pat says: "Let's just hope that we are able to impart virtue and wisdom to our countrymen." But what if we are not able to do it? Or worse, what if the lack of virtue of the African-American continues to be imparted to our people?

We must fight tyranny. We must fight slavery. We cannot lay down and accept defeat. That is not the Southern tradition. There is only one reason our forefathers were able to throw off the tyranny of Reconstruction after the Civil War and preserve Southern society for another 100 years. And that one reason is "Southern resistance." We must resist. We must never surrender. -- Dennis Wheeler]

#55.

From Ron Courtney to Pat Upshaw.

August 16, 1996

Pat:

You said in a message to Dennis Wheeler that "the Southern breakaway from the Union had everything to do with state sovereignty and little to do with slavery."

I am as proSouth as anyone in the SL, but I believe the War For Southern Independence had a great deal to do with slavery. Sometimes I think that we, in our enthusiasm to defend our Southern heritage, are not being realistic in understanding the reasons for the War. I believe the Southern leaders supported secession to preserve their way of life, which depended greatly on slavery, and they often voiced this support in terms of defending state sovereignty. I also believe the ordinary soldiers cared little for either slavery or state sovereignty; they fought because their homes and families were threatened by the Yankee invasion.

Ron Courtney

#56.

From: George Kalas to Ron Courtney.

August 17, 1996

"From: DIXIEART@aol.com

Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1996 21:46:57 0400

Subject: Re: Why won't they slap YOUR back in public? Hmmmm....?

Ron Courtney wrote: "George, I suspect there are more SL members and subscribers than you might think who agree with most or all of what Dennis says but who are reluctant to say it publicly."

Dear Ron,

Why should we have to "suspect" that there are many SL'ers here who support Dennis. If there are hordes of bonafide racists on this listserver then let them stand and be counted. Why should they lack the courage to state their convictions plainly and articulately as Mr. Wheeler has? Despite my disagreement with Mr. Wheeler that blacks and other minorities have no place in the SL or the South, I can at least say that I admire his tenacity and his ability to present his views in a forthright manner.

Ron also wrote: "You and Gary and a few others more or less set the tone of the discussions on the listserver, which is fine, but it can be intimidating to other subscribers who don't have the courage or the intellect that Dennis has. I think Dennis is to be commended for making a very controversial case."

This is a free and open listserver to any SL member who wants to sound off. So long as one abides by the rules of the listserver you'll find that Ron Colson and I do not censor people here. The only reason for anyone to be intimidated is if they know, deep down in their hearts and their consciences, that the position advocated by Mr. Wheeler is unChristian, unSouthern and at odds with the officially articulated policy of the national SL leadership.

This entire thread of discussion boils down to a single question: "Should the Southern League become a white racialist organisation that excludes nonwhites and nonChristians from it's ranks?" Those of us who oppose letting the SL degenerate into a racist organisation have made it plain that such a policy would be foolish for two major reasons: (1) It would destroy this movement by marginalising us as just a cleanedup version of the Ku Klux Klan with business suits and PhD's. (2) It flies in the face of our history as a people.

Being "Southern" is not a function of race, but a state of mind and cultural affinity. What more needs to be said?

Just out of curiosity, Ron, do you support the idea that the SL should exclude nonwhites and nonChristians who embrace our cause, our culture and our values 100%? If so on what basis would you justify turning these friends of Dixie away? In fact, why don't we go one step further let's restrict membership solely to people of 100% Irish or Scottish blood only Celts need apply.

Ooops! I forgot, the Irish and Scots have been overrun and intermarried with Normons, Saxons, Scandinavians, etc. over the centuries. Guess we'll have to do a 1,000-year genealogical search of every applicant's family tree to see if their blood is pure enough to rate membership in our wonderful little organisation. Of course, that would exclude a mongrel like me whose family tree includes Choctaw Indians, Greeks, Moors, Irishmen, Scotsmen, Germans, Englishmen, Cajuns and, <GASP!>, even a few Jews!

I guess the Confederate service of my four great grandfathers at places like Vicksburg and Port Hudson during the War for Southern Independence are insufficient to establish my pedigree as a Southron. No, my bloodlines and genes are the only relevant factor I guess.

Give me a break! One thing is for sure. If we start tracin' everyone's family tree around here and restricting membership to only those of the most high and pure Celtic blood, I can assure you that the SL would have to dissolve itself overnight.

Deo Vindice,

George Kalas

Dixienet

[Editor's note: George was starting to get a little incoherent. It seemed that when anyone showed disagreement with his perspective, he got at once very defensive and vindictive. It was only going to degenerate from here. -- Dennis Wheeler]

#57.

From Dennis Wheeler to George Kalas.

August 14, 1996

George,

It's obvious that you and I still aren't on the same page. We do seem to see things differently, vastly differently. I think you are twisting language when you say I "group all blacks together and paint them as a member [sic] of the black underclass." When Jesus called the Jews in Jerusalem a "wicked and perverse generation," obviously he didn't mean every single one of them were wicked and perverse. And when we say "the Japanese bought an awful lot of gold last year," obviously we don't mean every Japanese purchased gold.

I can't recall writing about the black underclass except for a passing reference or two. But at this point, what good would it do to defend myself against your charges of my falsehood? The blacks in the South do vote in a block, about 90% Democrat. They do swing elections in favor of the worst available candidates. Their religious, social, and political leaders have virtually all spoken with one voice the past 50 years. And that voice has been the voice of civil rights, using the engines of the state to steal the "white man's" money and freedom.

Today, a new leadership is emerging among the blacks. But this one, although contemptuous of the civil rights leadership, advocates something even worse. (To my knowledge, there are no black leaders who command a black following of any significant percentage that advocate any policies that I would consider Biblical and that you would consider "middle class.") Islam is making its pitch among African-America and we'll have to see how far it goes, but so far has made great inroads among that people.

This shouldn't surprise us. It was R.L Dabney who stated: "The tenor of the argument concedes, what every man, not a fool, knows to be true: that the negroes, as a body, are now glaringly unfit for voting. What makes them unfit? Such things as these: ... an almost universal lack of that share in the property of the country, which alone can give responsibility, patriotic interest, and independence to the voter; a general moral grade so deplorably low as to permit their being driven or bought like a herd of sheep by the demagogue ... and last, an obstinate set of false traditions, which bind him as a mere serf to a party, which is the born enemy of every righteous interest of our State."

Now obviously, these things don't apply to each and every black. But they are nonetheless true and are a part of the Southern tradition.

On another topic, I have been encouraged lately by the support I've been given by members of the SL. Three people have come on this listserver and agreed with me and I've received laudatory and congratulatory posts from five other members privately. A few others have indicated they are listening to the debate and have not made up their minds one way or the other, yet. George, you'd be surprised if you knew who some of these people are.

The one I liked best was the woman who told me: "Thank you for making the listserver more than just a KalasWaltrip backslapping exercise."

Dennis Wheeler

[Editor's note: I carefully robbed George of one his main points here by showing that a group generalization did not necessarily include every member of the group. That was just a red herring he was throwing out to hide the fundamental weakness of his argument. As you'll see in his next message, he wouldn't concede the point. Actually, I think it would be better to say he couldn't concede the point. -- Dennis Wheeler]

#58.

From George Kalas to Dennis Wheeler.

From: jessej <dennisw@atl.mindspring.com>

Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 15:03:54 0400

Subject: Re: You are still offbase

Dennis,

Try to wriggle out of it as you might, the fact remains that you advocate treating all blacks the same, regardless of personal merit. You have not denied this you simply continue trying to justify it by citing the deficiencies of blacks as a group.

While I have no gripe with you when you observe that 90% of American blacks support Democrat causes and candidates to the harm of us all, I must part company with you when you argue that the solution is to form a white separatist Southern nation and here is why:

(1) Liberalism is not confined to the black race alone. There are plenty of liberal Southern whites who enjoy sucking on the Federal teats every bit as much as their black fellowloafers. Since these folks look like you and I are they somehow exempt from your master plan?

(2) By condemning an entire race of people for the sins of the underclass you will confirm every negative stereotype that exists about the South and Southerners. In doing so, you will do more to ACCELERATE the continued prostration and eradication of Southern culture, heritage and prospects of independence than a new invasion by the federal army. A policy like the one you are advancing would provide our enemies with the rope to hang us with.

(3) You have continuously failed to address the numerous references made here regarding the positions of men like Robert E. Lee and Patrick Cleburne whose views do not support your peculiar worldview. Was Jefferson Davis a fool to adopt Jim Limber. Was Stonewall Jackson an idiot to allow Southern blacks to serve in his ranks under arms? While none of these men were equalitarians, (nor are we), they were not deterred from cooperating with their fellow Southerons for the cause of independence just because their ancestors hailed from Africa.

(4) I firmly believe that if one removes government from the daytoday lives of the Southern people that they will be quite capable of rearranging their social, business and political relations in a satisfactory manner without the meddling of neosegregationists who would *compel* the separation of the races by force of law. I think that black and white cultural preferences are sufficiently different that most folks would separate voluntarily like oil and vinegar but that doesn't mean we can't exist under one government in peace.

Oh yes, one last thing you wrote: "On another topic, I have been encouraged lately by the support I've been given by members of the SL. Three people have come on this listserver and agreed with me and I've received laudatory and congratulatory posts from five other members privately. A few others have indicated they are listening to the debate and have not made up their minds one way or the other, yet. George, you'd be surprised if you knew who some of these people are. The one I liked best was the woman who told me: "Thank you for making the listserver more than just a KalasWaltrip backslapping exercise."

Well then surprise me.

Who are these anonymous SL members, Dennis? If they truly are proud of your racialist stance why won't they communicate their agreements publicly? I've yet to see one single member of this listserver post a message that wholeheartedly agrees with the most contentious and controversial stances you've advanced. Heck, even I've agreed with many of the things you post since most of what you post has nothing to do with the central point of this thread: i.e. Should the Southern League become a white racialist movement advocating a white separatist Southern "nation" based on ethnicity.

If you were intellectually honest, Dennis, you'd stick to the theme you defined instead of trying to misguide us with your long dissertations on Dabney, the Bible, black liberal voting trends, etc. Your efforts at misdirection in this debate would make any master magician envious.

It's sort of like advocating wife beating, but then defending that position by extolling the sins of Molly Yard and the National Organisation for Women at length and quoting the Bible about the proper role of women in society...

Oh yes, and lest I forget to mention, I have received plenty of agreement PUBLICLY from SL members on this listserver, including from Gary Waltrip, who I am proud to call my friend and a fine Southern Leaguer. (And I might mention that Gary was the first to kick my rear end on this listserver a few months ago when he felt that I was too harsh in my opinion of the militia movement in this country. He is no sycophant as you seek to imply.) At least Gary and the others who oppose your position are man enough to sign their names to their opinions and post them to this listserver for all to read and consider.

If SL members who support you can't muster the courage to stand together boldly before their fellow SL'ers, then how, pray tell, do you think you and your merry band will manage to find brave souls to promote your "vision" to the general public? You're barkin' up the wrong tree and you know it.

Deo Vindice,

George Kalas

Dixienet

[Editor's note: George was growing angrier and more vehement with each post. He and I hold mutually exclusive ideals. We can agree on many sub-points, but on the essentials, we can never agree. He holds the Abolitionist view on the essentials and I hold the Southern view. There can be no compromise, there can only be total war.

At this point, he couldn't deal with the issue of Southern Nationalism, or what the traditional view of the South was, so he tried to narrow the scope of the argument to who should be allowed to join the Southern League. He found this island more defensible and you'll read how he kept going back to this issue every time the real issue got too hot for him. -- Dennis Wheeler]

#59.

From Dennis Wheeler to George Kalas.

August 16, 1996

George,

I probably deserved that tonguelashing. But whether I deserved it or not, everybody needs a good one from time to time to keep them humble.

You again win a gold medal in rhetoric. But I don't see where you cover much substantive ground that hasn't been covered before but I'll get to your points in a moment. If I have failed to address a particular issue, it's because I haven't previously seen it carry as much relevance as the ones I have addressed. There are time constraints and I have been asked dozens of questions and addressed dozens of issues.

(1) You wrote: "Liberalism is not confined to the black race alone. There are plenty of liberal Southern whites who enjoy sucking on the Federal teats every bit as much as their black fellowloafers...."

George, you have stated the central issue is: "Should the Southern League become a white racialist movement advocating a white separatist Southern "nation" based on ethnicity?" But I have disagreed that this is the central issue. I believe the Southern League should become whatever it ought to become. And this will be determined in large part by the answer to a more fundamental question: "Who comprises the Southern nation?"

You have asked if the Southern "nation" should be based on ethnicity?" I have answered yes and argued both historically and Biblically that a nation can be based on nothing else. You have not accepted that argument as accurate. Others have and still others are weighing the evidence. So, the debate continues.

In light of this, my perspective is that your point about "liberalism is not confined to the black race alone" is not an important one. It's a given. Now if a nation can be structured along ideological lines, this would be a point of utmost importance. But since no compelling evidence has been presented that this is a possibility, IMO, then your point becomes moot. We must settle the more basic question first.

(2) You have also written: "By condemning an entire race of people for the sins of the underclass you will confirm every negative stereotype that exists about the South and Southerners."

This is a point that strays from the central issue. Besides that, it is patently untrue and is just setting up another straw man and knocking it down, which I have charged you with before. I haven't condemned the blacks and I only wish all the best for them. IMO, the central issue is: "Are the blacks and the Southerners the same people?" I have answered "no" to this and given evidence that the historical Southern position agrees with me. In fact, prior to 1865, the United States Supreme Court held this view. The Dred Scott decision in 1857 explicitly stated that according to the Constitution, the blacks did not comprise part of the body politic of the United States and were never intended to do so by the founding fathers.

This perspective has been borne out by those who have fought for the Southern cause since the Civil War and certain members of the SL, yourself included, are the first Southern advocates I have ever come across who argue against this point. I have written a great deal of evidence to support my contention that my perspective is the historic Southern position and yours is something novel, unknown to the South until now and therefore, unconnected to the ideals advanced by the Confederate battle flag and the Southern tradition.

I would say the negative stereotypes that exist about the South and Southerners are the result of people accepting the false premises of the North. One of the main tenants of that false premise is that all men are brothers, regardless of race, creed, or color, and should live together as one in a unified society. I reject that premise and hope you do too. And I would encourage you to use your masterful rhetorical talents and immense energy in fighting that error, not those who attempt to promote the historical "cause of the South."

(3) You have also written: "You have continuously failed to address the numerous references made here regarding the positions of men like Robert E. Lee and Patrick Cleburne whose views do not support your peculiar worldview. Was Jefferson Davis a fool to adopt Jim Limber? Was Stonewall Jackson an idiot to allow Southern blacks to serve in his ranks under arms?"

George, this is a case of your asking questions that do not serve to reveal truth, but to shroud it, or to cover it up. You aren't advancing an argument here, you are merely throwing out rhetorical questions. You have failed to make it clear which positions Robert E. Lee or Patrick Cleburne held that do not support my worldview. (And you throw in the melodramatic adjective "peculiar" for good measure.) I can't answer that question as asked because I don't know what you are referring to. I want to answer it, if you want an answer. But before I do, I need you to ask it in a manner that I can understand it. Specifically, what positions did these men hold that are in contrast to mine?

Also, I don't know who Jim Limber was. If you could make your assertive questions plainer, it would help the discussion a great deal.

As for Stonewall Jackson being an idiot for allowing Southern blacks to serve in his ranks under arms, I would have to answer "no," he would have been an idiot for not allowing it. Again, though, this is a rhetorical question, not designed to elicit information, but asked for some other and unknowable purpose.

I don't want to tell you how to argue your points, but for my money it would serve us all better if you would state your beliefs and give evidence for them. Then we could judge the merits of your arguments and not just sit here amazed at the forcefulness of your passion. I can assume the underlying assumptions of your question, but what purpose would that serve?

I suppose, and I can only suppose because you haven't expressed your point clearly, that you assume that since Jackson accepted blacks into the Confederate Army, that he saw them as equals and citizens of the Confederacy. For this to be true, then the South must have enacted a policy change of great importance concerning the blacks which is unknown to history. But I can't know what you are getting at until you state it. I'll be more than happy to tackle this question or any other if I can know what I'm being asked.

(4) Your final point was: "I firmly believe that if one removes government from the daytoday lives of the Southern people that they will be quite capable of rearranging their social, business and political relations in a satisfactory manner without the meddling of neosegregationists who would *compel* the separation of the races by force of law. I think that black and white cultural preferences are sufficiently different that most folks would separate voluntarily like oil and vinegar but that doesn't mean we can't exist under one government in peace."

I can't agree with this and would again ask you to distinguish this position from that of Martin Luther King. I can see that there are some distinctions between your position and his in style and emphasis, and I doubt that he would say that people would voluntarily separate like oil and vinegar, but he was against the segregationists compelling the separation of the races by force of law the historical Southern tradition and I would like you to spell out what the laws should be on matters of employment, commercial trade, housing, government entitle-ments, voting, etc, that would distinguish your position from his.

Perhaps you can come up with something that is workable. I'd like to see it. If you'd do this, then we'll have some grounds for civil discussion and debate. As it stands now, your rhetoric, sound bites, and invective do little except close discussion.

What I've seen in history is that wherever Northern European peoples go in the world Australia, South Africa, North America they build great societies that other peoples have not been able to build for one reason or another. So nonEuropeans in these places have made ceaseless attacks at sharing in the fruits of those civilizations, and the only way those civilizations could be protected has been by force of law. Our forefathers in the South knew this, so they erected legal barriers to protect themselves and us. Had they not done this we wouldn't be having this discussion because the Southern way of life would have been long dead and buried by now.

Dennis Wheeler

[Editor's note: This post sent George into an emotional frenzy. It took him a couple of days to answer, but when he did answer, he came out smoking. Those posts are quoted in full a little later in the text. In the meantime, there were some other developments going on. -- Dennis Wheeler]

#60.

From Gary Waltrip to Dennis Wheeler.

August 15, 1996

Gary begins with a quote by Dennis Wheeler in a post written to George Kalas:

In a message dated 960814 23:22:59 EDT, you write: "A few others have indicated they are listening to the debate and have not made up their minds one way or the other, yet. George, you'd be surprised if you knew who some of these people are. The one I liked best was the woman who told me: `Thank you for making the listserver more than just a Kalas Waltrip backslapping exercise."

Gary's answer:

Why is this lady too afraid to express her sentiments publicly? Obviously, it is because she is ashamed of her own convictions, with good reason. Whoever you are, dearie, I am publicly calling you a coward.

I neither respect nor like bigots. They are a mean, small people with a need to look down on someone else. If they only resented the black underclass, I would have to cut them some slack, because I resent the black underclass, too. But such folks resent all blacks, and anyone else who isn't fishbelly white. Asians, Hispanics, Jews, Italians, Catholics are all fodder for their stupid and mindless hate.

I have heard socalled compatriots make fun of a black SCV member, in spite of his ardor for his heritage; I have read spurious denunciations of Judah Benjamin as either incompetent or traitorous to the Confederate cause (why? because he was Jewish). Like someone once said, "some people [will] have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 20th century."

There is no one here who vocally and volubly opposes the hypocrisies of the Civil Rights movement more than I do, or who is more free with their criticism of quotas and black racists. There is no one who is more willing to publicly discuss the deep pathologies within the black culture and no one more willing to call for the end of all liberal race schemes, including busing, race-norming, affirmative action, quotas, gerrymandering and welfare.

I oppose these things because they are counterproductive, unfair, and discriminate against ethnicities who do produce e.g., white and Asian. I do not believe for a moment that those positions make me a racist, which is someone who, by my definition, hates races other than his own simply because they look different, or talk different, or eat different foods, or wear strange clothes, which the racist views as a deliberate scheme to irritate him.

Whenever I encounter brazen racism within the movement, it is as repugnant to me as turning over a rock and finding squirming maggots. There is nothing that could cool my ardor faster for the Cause than to believe it was all just a front for Klanstyle bigotry.

Thank God for people like George Kalas (your back is going to get sore, George), Robert Stacy McCain, Dawn Heynes, Jason Russo, and Philip UnderwoodSheppard, to name a few; because of such folks, I am still here. If most felt like Dennis Wheeler and his band of secret admirers, I would have long concluded the Yankees were right, sheathed my sword, and gone home.

Either I am in the wrong movement, or they are. It's time for us to find out which is which.

Gary Waltrip

[Editor's note: When Gary learned that I was not alone, it really began to irritate him. You'll see later just how bad it hurt him when he came to realize there were an awful lot of people who supported my position.

The emotion that he expressed here was quite surprising. He had run out of arguments and now was finding that his name-calling wasn't working, either. So he was lashing out as best he knew how, I guess.

He did say one thing that sort of told it all: "If most felt like Dennis Wheeler and his band of secret admirers, I would have long concluded the Yankees were right, sheathed my sword, and gone home." I had never offered any statement or belief other than those which Southerners have always believed. In truth, Gary hates the Confederate perspective. He has redefined it to make it a Libertarian pipedream and embraces that as reality. But in reality, my perspective is the true Southern perspective. And that evokes from him such passionate hatred that there's no telling what he's liable to do. -- Dennis Wheeler]

Back to Index

Part 1

Back to Previous

Go to Next

Part 5    Part 6    Part 7    Part 8

Return to Dennis Wheeler's Home Page:

Reclaiming The South

Nordic Neo-Confederates

KELTICKLANKIRK.COM