Dr Michael Hill, President of the League of the South:
Southerners! In the name of God and of the dead generations from which she receives her old tradition of nationhood, the South, through us summons her children to her flag and strikes for her freedom. We declare the right of the people of the South to the ownership of the South and to the unfettered control of Southern destinies to be sovereign and indefeasible. The long usurpation of that right by a foreign people and government has not extinguished the right, nor can it ever be extinguished except by the destruction of the Southern people themselves. In every generation the Southern people have asserted their right to national freedom and sovereignty. Standing on that fundamental right and again asserting it in the face of the world, we hereby proclaim the Southern republic as a sovereign, independent state and we pledge our lives and the lives of our comrades in arms to the cause of its freedom, to its welfare and of its exaltation among the nations.
Could you support something like this? Does it send chills up and down your spine to think of saying this to our captors, saying it directly to their face? I hope so, because, ladies and gentlemen, that day is coming.
Click here for the audio (duration: 2:30)
God save the South!
Yes, indeed, VS. God save the Southern people!
Tiocfaidh ár lá! ~ “Our day will come”
I’m doing what I can to get the word out there. For example, debating with liberal pundits who comment angrily on pro-Southron videos on youtube. Granted, the pundits themselves will never be swayed, but there are many who read these discussions. I’ve had a couple of people already approach me and say they like the things I say about the South in these discussions. Anything to get the word out, right?
VS, you have the right approach. We are not going to persuade the anti-Southerners and the anti-Whites. But there are those watching the conversation, many of whom can be persuaded.
The South is starting to rise up and shake off the dust of tyranny, despotism and oppression from our captors. Deo Vindice.
As much as I wish the South to be free again, I have mixed feelings when I think about it. Let’s just assume that tomorrow the US of A will face a total breakdown from which a new “Confederate States of America” would emerge. Let’s not talk about how realistic that would be. Just assume it! Now, what kind of place would that be? Would it turn into the good old South that the souls of so many proud Southerners long for? Or would it rather be a much smaller copy of the Yankee empire? Minus state health care and minus gay marriage!? What I’m talking about is the construct of ideas of an independent South! Who tells us the New South won’t be the next New England in a short period of time ? Once revolutionary enthusiasm fades, what will the average Joe name as differences between him and the people living north of the Potomac river? Is he actually any different? If “yes” (you’re likely to answer that when you stick around here), where does this “difference” originate from? …
I’ve read Michael’s posting about Reenactments. A few people were displeased. But he is right – it is a hobby that in itself has nothing to do with the South or its people today. A New York Yankee could slip into a grey uniform and play “Johnny Reb” for a weekend. Heck, even I as a native Bavarian could do it and imitate a Southern drawl. Would that make me “Southern” ? … Reenactment, apart from being an entertaining hobby, does not help to find answers to “what the South is, where it comes from and where it goes to”. I’ve made the experience that when you talk to US citizens about the the “where from” part, all your hear is the same old story about a man-made constitution, George Washington and so forth. I’ve heard the SAME PHRASES both in the North AND the South. Atheists and Christians. That might be the real tragedy of our days. For both 1776 marks the beginning of their intellectual journey. Michael here at SNN does a wonderful coverage of European ancestry of Southerners, but I’m not yet convinced if it will lead the “1776-ers” to think about what it means for them…
So as long as there is no unexpressed understanding among today’s Southerners about their fundament, there won’t be anything different with an independent South in 2012..2013…2014. ** Hint: It does NOT originate in 1776. No matter what they tell you. Nor could another 1776 ever bring it back.
This is a good question you have posed, Sebastian. And I agree with you. If an independent South were just a Republican version of the USA it would not be what I and other Southern nationalists want. If, on the other hand, it were based on the being, identity and traditional values of the Southern people it could be great. At this point, even if we didn’t have a national revival I would still support independent because it would weaken the US Empire (which I see as a major force for evil in the world) and perhaps allow us (and others) the opportunity for a national revival.
Sebastian, I, too, share some of these concerns. This is why I do not want an independent South to become another modern republic. Then she will be just another child of the Enlightenment, the very thing against which she stands. No, the South was built upon the classical cultures of Rome, Greece, and Egypt, and thus it is to pre-Enlightenment ideology and government theory that we must return. If the South insists upon republican government, then let it be more akin to the Roman Republic than to the American or French republics. But it is my personal belief that monarchy shall be the salvation of the South. For what is it that the South loves and upon which she is built? Tradition and Classical Values, including the fundamental principle that no two men are created equal. These are also the foundations upon which the monarchial principle is established. Monarchy is by its very nature traditional, classical, conservative, and an opponent of the lie of equality. What better government could there be to symbolise and protect those virtues than a government which is inherently built upon those virtues?
The biggest mistake made in the 1860′s was letting the moderates control the destiny of the Confederacy…whenever this occurs, the modern day Fire Eaters should prevail.
Even though 1950′s America was a much better place to live (low crime, abundant jobs, etc) it is not what Confederates wanted, nor envisioned. Thirteen individual States that were sovereign, banded together for a common cause, preservation of their livelihoods against a tyrranical empire, but each State had it’s own distinction. Georgia and South Carolina, while sharing a border, had different needs, each State should deal with those separately as opposed to DC’s “one size fits all or we tax, jail or kill you” solutions. That is what we need to attain today!!
Very good points, Confederate Papist. This is why I think a reformed feudal hierarchy would be good for us. I say “reformed” because, granted, not everything about feudalism was wonderful. I don’t want to see the majority of Southrons become serfs, for instance. But the beauty of the feudal structure is that it is decentralised when it comes to administration, but can still become centralised enough militarily to protect itself. The basic feudal structure is King > Dukes > Counts > Minor Landowners > Commoners. If we adopted a similar structure it might look something like this:
—1. The King
Just as there are some cultural factors that unite all Southrons in a common bond, so, too, would we have a king to unite us. He would be a leader above all petty politics, a man who stands for our uniting principles as Southrons. And his government would be responsible only for those policies which affect the South as a whole.
—2. The Dukes
Whether we actually call them “Dukes” or not isn’t what is important. What matters is this is the ducal level of government. These would be the administrators at the State level. As you pointed out, “Georgia and South Carolina, while sharing a border, had different needs, each State should deal with those separately.” This is what the Duke-level government is for. The Duke of Georgia, for instance, would oversee matters relevant to Georgia, but which might not be relevant or good for South Carolina. This way Georgia can take care of her needs without harming South Carolina, who would have her own Duke to see to her own needs.
—3. The Counts
At the next level down we have the counts. There really are three tiers of unity/needs. There are the overarching factors that affect the whole South. For that we have the king. There are state-wide factors, and for those we have the dukes. But even within a state like Georgia, not every county will need all of the same things. The count-level government would see to things that their specific county would need.
—4. Minor landowners
This class we might adjust as necessitated by our society’s needs. But in effect, this would be the electorate, the class of people with enough wealth and/or status to participate in the government.
—5. Commoners
This would be the rest of the populace. While they should not have full participation in government, they also should not be left without a voice.
Now how would men fill the positions of count, duke, and king? I have many ideas, but here is the one I think might be most palatable to the majority of Southrons:
At the county level, the base electorate would elect their counts. This is at a small enough level that people can know the men for whom they are voting. They can truly know if he is a man of integrity, worthy of a position of power and influence. This should hopefully help weed out tried-and-true politicians who do not deserve any authority or respect.
At the ducal level, each state’s counts would convene and elect from among their number the most qualified leader. He would then be elevated to duke (and count either continue functioning as his county’s count, or we could have a new count elected and leave the duke to administer only at the state-level).
At the royal level, it could be an elective monarchy of a similar nature to the old Anglosaxon monarchy (albeit not quite the same). As with the election of the duke, so would it be with the king. The dukes would convene to elect from among their number the best candidate to lead the nation. He would then be king.
The advantage of this system is that it still does not deprive people of a say in government. They still can choose their leaders. But the people only directly influence the local level. From there it is in the hands of those already chosen to choose the best among them. This forces them to cooperate, rather than to divide as the American system does.
I like it…Counts = Counties…etymology solved!
I believe we can still call the “Duke” position “Governor” as that term was used during the colonial period…and prior.
Would the king be a heir based monarchy? If so, would governors (or Dukes) have the authority to over-ride the succession if they deem that kid #1 is a complete dunder-head and kid #2 would be better?
Just some thoughts..
In the specific system I mentioned here, it would be an elective monarchy, where each Governor/Duke would be eligible for the position as well as an elector. But there could of course be alternatives. The beauty of a dynastic monarchy is the sense of stability and tradition that it brings. And while primogeniture has been the traditional (and most common) system for determining an heir, it is not the only possibility. If we chose to have a dynastic monarchy, it could still maintain an aspect of elective monarchy in that the monarch could choose from among his heirs which one he felt would be best to succeed him, and as king he would have two votes to back his chosen successor. Each Governor would then vote to either uphold the king’s choice or to support a different heir.