The Confederate States of America? Why?

[Ediruc]

This is a question, that I actually feel I really need to ask, since it has been swimming around in my head for months now. I'm not sure if this is a stupid question to ask or not, but what is up with generally White Nationalists, Preservationists, ect... and their fascination and affiliation with the old Confederate States of America?

I just notice a trend in that some WNs typically associate themselves with the former Confederacy? Why? Don't they know that it was originally the Confederacy that wanted the black slaves, because the White slave owners were greedy and wanted to keep their income on the top and were after their own selfish wants, instead of considering what should be best for their race and descendants? Don't they know that the original plans the Union had was to actually GET RID of all the black slaves, and maintain a homogeneous Nordic nation? It had always been the intention of our Founding Fathers (just read their letters) up until Lincoln, but was never fully addressed and taken action on until the former.

Early American leaders, such as Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln, tried to solve the problem by proposing total racial separation, either by returning the Congoid population to Africa or by giving them a fully independent and separate country of their own carved out of the territory of the United States. After the terrible carnage and suffering of the Nordish-American Civil War (1861-1865), caused primarily by the Congoid presence, they were given citizenship and their permanent position in the country was no longer questioned, but promoted, by the leadership establishment.

8th Paragraph down.

http://www.racialcompact.com/pathofdestruction.html

Yeah, excuse me for using White Nationalist, but I can't think of another term to use ATM.

[Ediruc]

Okay, well, since there is no discussion, I will just make the assumption that our common White Nationalist (wince) is uneducated and idiotic as to associate themselves with the people who put money before their own folk. Shame on them.

[VictorTennyson]

The Confederacy was about local autonomy vs. large, multicultural empire.

I am not sure whether you are asking why Confederates thought they had a right to live separately from New York culture, or whether you acknowledge that right and are simply asking why they wanted to live separately from New York culture.

It is important to remember that in the age of the Confederacy, there was still racial segregation, and so it was not as though they were fighting to have a multiracial utopia. Instead, they unfortunately viewed their slaves as property, of which the abolition of slavery would deprive them.

That said, slavery itself was never a primary cause for the War on either side. The South seceded for political and cultural autonomy, and the North fought in order to prevent the loss of valuable territory.

All in all, it was a tragic historical event.

[rainman]

The ideal of the Confederacy is actually based on the articles of confederacy originally drafted by the founding fathers. It since has been replaced with the constitution and such. There was a question when the United States first won its fight against Britain and they sent an ambasador to Europe. He was asked "do you represent 13 individual nations or one?" This was hotly debated at first and it was decided one. Though over the years the federal government has assumed more and more power that the founding fathers did not give them. Originally the federal government was supposed to be modeled after Greece- a series of independent states (sparta, athens etc.) that were united by a common culture and working together in a common confederacy for trade and such, but also standing united against outside forces.

The confederacy was about letting each state stand on its own. It was about regional culture rather than empire. It was also about a nation founded by whites for whites. Confederate thought is that only whites can be citizens (just like Hitler had a racial standard for citizenship) the slaves were subjects of the states but not citizens of it. Some could be freed and live in their own seperate communities. The whole basis of the union fighting its war was not slavery but rather the concept that the state should be submitted to the federal government. It was about individual freedom as well. If 6 million people vote for one thing and 5 million vote another way the 5 million must submit to the majority in this one size fits all culture. When the confederacy lost the war it paved the way for globalism and American imperialism.

I would wear the rebel flag myself knowing the true ideas behind it but I don't like the symbol because it is associated with a lot of uneducated low class people who have no idea behind the true meaning.

[Vindefense]

The Confederacy was about local autonomy vs. large, multicultural empire.

That is funny because it was mainly the aristocratic planters who conspired to abolish the Articles of Confederation and thus establish a 'Federal Government' and their 'Supreme LAW of the land', the Constitution.

The true local autonomy was originally in the Northern Commonwealth, who had no interest in establishing yet another man made Mono-State.

I find it both unfortunate and ironic, that the very law that the Southern Aristocracy used to bind the Free and prosperous North, would be used to completely ruin the South. No wonder the bread today is bitter being won by the toil of other men.

That said, slavery itself was never a primary cause for the War on either side. The South seceded for political and cultural autonomy, and the North fought in order to prevent the loss of valuable territory.

All in all, it was a tragic historical event.

Tragic is an understatement, we are still bearing the consequences of the hellish pact.

[Crazyhorse]

...The confederacy was about letting each state stand on its own.

I agree with all that Rainman asserts. I also would add that the expansion of the United States West under Manifest Destiny accelerated the inevitable conflict of culture, politics, economics, and general desires. The South proper (South Carolina, Virginia, Georgia, Mississippi, and Alabama) was, in it's essence, fuedal and agrarian, while the Northern regions were gravitating towards industrialization. It was America's "Peloponessian War" in principle. The desire for resources and land and it's associated expansion Westward led to a conflict for how it would be governed. State's rights had been a debate since the 1840s; the Confederate States of America was a reaction to the growing nature of a maturing Federal Government - not the only time it has happened in history. What is interesting is the nature of the involvement of the Western States - Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Missouri - and the nature of the Appalachian Mountain regions as well; all of whose reasons for being aligned with the Confederacy or, in some instances, against the Confederacy were much different from that of the Aristocratic Southeast or the industrializing Northeast.

[rainman]

It's written somewhere that every state has a right to leave the union. When the south exercised that right (I guess in the constitution or somewhere) the union broke their own law and invaded them. The "civil war" is know as the "war for southern independence" in the south. They saw it as the same basic thing as the colonies breaking away from England.

Slavery still exists. It is only a debate as to what kind of slavery we will have. All civilization is built upon a distribution of labor and resources. Some people clean toilettes while others lead. Some have lots of rights and a lot of say in governance- others do not. Paying people wages was actually cheaper than slavery which is one reason that many opposed slavery. If you hire someone at a job and you no longer need them you can toss them aside- fire them and leave them to starve. A slave had a symbiotic relationship- you had a duty to feed, clothe etc. the slave at all times and he had a duty to obey you and work for you.

The only big difference between the old system of slavery is that in our modern system genetics is less involved. You can rise or fall in rank potentially. But when I live in miserable conditions and produce $10,000 worth of labor a day and I'm thrown $40 to live on and I must obey every humiliating order of my boss I don't see a big difference other than I can leave if I can possibly find something better. But even in the past slaves could buy freedom. Before they had slaves cleaning their house and raising their kid. Now they pay someone $2 an hour to do the same thing and the person lives in the exact same conditions the only difference is they are free to leave and the owner is free to cut them loose as well. I think the abolishment of slavery thing is all propaganda. It has been replaced with wage slavery.

Having inferiors to do manual labor is not the problem. The problem is mixing with people below you, social policies that reward the lower criminal element of society, lack of standards, and all that other stuff that comes with liberalism along with the marxist brainwashing of TV and such.

I do think that the American South, Rome, Greece etc. had a big slave problem when the slaves were making up 90% of the population. Obviously long term that threatens your own species survival.

[Ediruc]

Thank you guys for the info and thanks for the move too. I guess I wasn't thinking right when I posted it in the wrong forum. I hope more topics to come will grow in my head and we can discuss this more.

[KYAnglo]

This is a question, that I actually feel I really need to ask, since it has been swimming around in my head for months now. I'm not sure if this is a stupid question to ask or not, but what is up with generally White Nationalists, Preservationists, ect... and their fascination and affiliation with the old Confederate States of America?

I just notice a trend in that some WNs typically associate themselves with the former Confederacy? Why? Don't they know that it was originally the Confederacy that wanted the black slaves, because the White slave owners were greedy and wanted to keep their income on the top and were after their own selfish wants, instead of considering what should be best for their race and descendants? Don't they know that the original plans the Union had was to actually GET RID of all the black slaves, and maintain a homogeneous Nordic nation? It had always been the intention of our Founding Fathers (just read their letters) up until Lincoln, but was never fully addressed and taken action on until the former.

8th Paragraph down.

http://www.racialcompact.com/pathofdestruction.html

Yeah, excuse me for using White Nationalist, but I can't think of another term to use ATM.

Why the C.S.A.?
For me it's in my blood my as a descendant of several Confederate veterans, and a proud native son of Kentucky and the South.
I am not a "White Nationalist", though I do recognize the importance of race and the Folkish concept from a traditional Southern "conservative" point of view.
Dixie is my country, my native soil.
Most importantly,the Confederacy stood for the American Founders' principles of liberty, states rights, a limited constitutional republic vs. an overbearing centralized federal State as embodied by Lincoln and his "Black Republican" party.
Slavery was an unfortunate fact of life and culture from well before American independence, guaranteed by the constitution. Some of my own ancestors owned negroes, for which I bear no guilt whatsoever.
Southerners of note like Jefferson, Washington, Randolph, R.E. Lee, had serious misgivings about slavery but realistically recognized the great difficulties involved in emancipation for their communities and the economy.
The U.S. government and yankee abolitionists had no right whatsoever to interfere with the institution in states that permitted it, as with any other property rights and internal domestic affairs of the states. Slavery was a point of conflict, but not the sole reason for the War of Secession.
Antagonism between the North and South dated back to the time of the Revolution and before, a question of cultural, economic, political, geographically determined differences, the Puritan vs. the Planter, so to speak.
Southerners and Yankees squabbled well before the North gave a fig about negro slavery, indeed, when Northern shippers were deeply involved in, and profiting from the slave trade.
George Washington himself disliked and had difficulty dealing with the yankee soldiers under his command.
Slavery would have died a natural death without the meddling of Yankee fanatics and imposition of the U.S. government under the Lincoln regime, without the waste of over 600,000 American lives and illegal invasion and devastation of thirteen Southern states.
I recommend "The South Was Right!" for a concise and well-documented defense of the Confederate position.
Life, liberty, government by consent of the People.
The once and future Confederate States of America.

[Vindefense]

Most importantly,the Confederacy stood for the American Founders' principles of liberty, states rights, a limited constitutional republic vs. an overbearing centralized federal State as embodied by Lincoln and his "Black Republican" party.

First, the states had no right to succeed. They voluntarily entered into a contract to centralize and stabilize the Union and doing so, were party to all benefits incurred. So, they did not then and they do not now have the support of any constitutional allowance for succession. Those who claim so, are dreaming. Yet, other than the word 'perpetual', there is also nothing binding States forever to the Union either.

Also, the establishment of the US Constitution did away with weak, limited government in favor of a strong central government. A central government can not be at the same time strong and limited. Those attempting such a thing were either entertaining a fantasy or pulling a fast one.

The U.S. government and yankee abolitionists had no right whatsoever to interfere with the institution in states that permitted it, as with any other property rights and internal domestic affairs of the states.

There was no outward demand that slavery was to become outlawed in the the South, quite the contrary, it was simply prohibited in the North and in any new state that joined the Union. So how were the Yankees interfering?

Antagonism between the North and South dated back to the time of the Revolution and before, a question of cultural, economic, political, geographically determined differences, the Puritan vs. the Planter, so to speak

Puritan vs. Planter is a nice neat and tidy way of glossing over the truth. That these Planters were both the instigators and financers of the Revolution. That they conspired to overthrow the Articles of Confederation under the guise of amending it. That they were illegally in debt to French, Scottish, and English tobacco merchants. That such debt threatened the political integrity and the sovereignty of the Confederation. That they advocated establishing a US central bank that would become collateral for such a debt.... Yes, Puritan vs. Planter.

Slavery would have died a natural death without the meddling of Yankee fanatics and imposition of the U.S. government under the Lincoln regime, without the waste of over 600,000 American lives and illegal invasion and devastation of thirteen Southern states.

How so? The Southern aristocracy showed no intention of abandoning their status, which was dependent upon slavery. Also, since the Southern states became part of the Union when they signed the contract, willingly and in good faith, they bound themselves to it. Lincoln even went out of his way whenever he could to appease them and avoid conflict, to no avail.

I recommend "The South Was Right!" for a concise and well-documented defense of the Confederate position.

I have read books on both side, I have ancestors who fought on both sides of the war as well. Both of these extremes only portray a biased view, one charged with emotional propaganda.