Comments on: Stephen Hale: Why wait to secede?

By: Michael

Michael — Sat, 22 Sep 2012 00:16:42 +0000

Irondutch, you’re probably right that many view his book as a smoking gun. A few years back I would have dismissed it. This is a problem in the Southern movement in general, I would say. Many in the movement dismiss quotes by Confederates that are very plainly stated and often passionately argued. There is a ton of speeches, articles, books, pamphlets, etc. by Southern nationalists and Confederates – far too much to ignore. We have a tremendous tradition that should be embraced and built upon. But it first has to be re-discovered by even many in the Southern movement. Let me also say that this tradition can not be divorced from the efforts of the Confederate fighting man. Many Rainbows try to do this. They ignore the Southern tradition or basically re-write history to make it more egalitarian, democratic and universalist.

As far as an autographed copy of any book I may write… lol… sure. No problem. I’m looking forward to the project but still have some more research to do. I ordered 3 more books this part week – all of which will help with the project and make for many good future articles on SNN, I believe. You say that you are coming from a position of ‘informed ignorance.’ In my view, that’s starting from an infinitely better position than even many in the Southern movement. It shows the right attitude, I would say. That is the attitude I try to keep as well.

By: irondutch

irondutch — Fri, 21 Sep 2012 23:53:37 +0000

When youre manuscript is published, I expect an autographed copy! Your reply was as helpful as it was timely. It is plain that I need to spend more time perusing SNN material and less time in front of the idiot box. (T.V.) I feel that your ability to consider and appreciate the merits of such a book manifests an intellectual honesty in which enhancement of the authoritative weight of all your work is its corrolary. Regarding Southern Nationalism and the richness & depth of Southern history, philosophy,statesmanship and culture, what I possess at this stage,at very best, is an “informed ignorance” that is not developed enough to enable me to be conscious of the distinction you mention in your last paragraph. What bothers me,and what I think stands to reason, is that what the book reveals is seen by the uninformed (and promoted by the antagonistic)as the “smoking gun” that exposes some sort of nefarious purpose or egregious guilt though the North was no more egalitarian than they were. In football, I believe they call it “offseting penalties”.

By: Michael

Michael — Fri, 21 Sep 2012 21:32:13 +0000

Irondutch, the book was written by a self-hating Southerner (loaded with White guilt) with the intention of proving that secession was a racially motivated movement based around the defense of secession. Despite this, it’s a good book. Let me explain why. A lot of people, especially online, who claim to be pro-South are actually what we derisively Rainbow Confederates. And sadly, the mainstream ‘conservative’ movement in the South is very much in line with the Rainbows, just without the Confederate symbolism. At any rate, if such a book were written today by a ‘conservative’ Southerner it would probably be extremely defensive, trying to ‘prove’ throughout that Confederates were not ‘racists.’ Dew’s book mostly just quotes real Confederates. He makes it clear from their words that Southern conservatives in 1860-61 were convinced the White South and its social order could not survive Northern Republican rule. They believed that one of two things would happen: either a Republican-instigated racial war in the South (on the model of what had happened in Haiti that resulted in White genocide and the subsequent total collapse of civilisation in Haiti after the French were killed off by the Africans there). What had been perhaps the wealthiest society in the world became a Third World society in a matter of a few years. Southerners saw that as one possible outcome of Republican government. The other possibility they saw was gradual emancipation (beginning in the border States, then moving to the Upper South and eventually the Lower South). This, they believed, would lead to political and social equality which would result in an amalgamation of the races – meaning the destruction of the White South. The Secession Commissioners all pretty much repeated these points. And Dew simply quotes them. This is why I like the book. It’s better, I think, that it was written by someone trying to ‘expose’ the radical nature of the secessionists. I’ve got no desire to read another apologetic, defensive book about how egalitarian and democratic Confederates were.

I have plans at some point to write a book myself about the Southern nationalist tradition, which is not exactly the same thing as what is called ‘Confederate heritage’ (because the Confederacy was largely led by Southern conservatives, not Southern nationalists like Yancey and Rhett). Anyhow, this is something I have been developing on SNN over the last year. HW at OD has been doing basically the same thing. He’s in the process of writing a book about the rise of abolition, equality and democracy in Dixie and the Golden Circle region and the subsequent collapse of prosperity and civilisation. I think his book will definitely help to further establish the Southern nationalist tradition.

By: irondutch

irondutch — Fri, 21 Sep 2012 20:26:46 +0000

Your mention of Charles Drew’s book “Apostles of Disunion” caught my attention. I heard some time last year that a rebuttle to Dew’s book, by non other than Dr. Clyde Wilson, was in the works. However, as of today’s date, I have been unable to find evidence that such a rubuttle has yet materialised. Does anyone know anything about this? I have not read the book but it is my understanding that it is anti-southern in that its intended purpose is to impugn the motivations of the secession commissions and the cotton States in general.

By: Michael

Michael — Thu, 20 Sep 2012 14:24:41 +0000

Cinaed57, Hale was only born in 1816 so he was much too young to be one of the early secessionist leaders. Robert Barnwell Rhett was calling for secession by 1828. He’s the earliest elected Southern leader I know of, but as I dig more I imagine I’ll find that he wasn’t the first.

http://southernnationalist.com/blog/2012/03/26/the-birth-of-southern-nationalism-rhett-emerges-from-the-lowcountry/

By: cinaed57

cinaed57 — Thu, 20 Sep 2012 13:46:50 +0000

I read somewhere that some Southern leaders began advising secession earlier in the first quarter of the 19th century (e.g., prior to 1825), and also counseled that to postpone it would be to court disaster. Perhaps that article was citing Mr. Hale, or perhaps citing a general tone of Southern writers and legislators from the time period without listing individuals. At any rate, disaster is what happened. The South finally realized, too late, that the predictions warning of a sectional party gaining control and what that would mean for the South had come true with the formation of the Republican party prior to 1856, then even more with Lincoln’s election in 1860. The South relied on the democratic process to educate the southern public and to rally men around the cause of Southern survival, which came to be secession from the union. Overcoming the inertia the union held in the minds of most southerners was a monumental task, as most southerners were then and are now descended from people who fought in the Revolutionary War of 1776. Contrast that failed effort, which realized before the Missouri Compromise of 1820 that the writing was on the wall for the South, with the efforts of Charles Martel of France understanding the nature of the muslim threat that had subdued Visigothic Spain. He did not rely on the democratic process to educate and motivate – he used the power of his position to raise an army to meet the crisis. I think Jean Francois Revel has commented on this inherent flaw in _Why Democracies Perish_.