Since 1865, the United States has tried desperately to impose a collective guilt upon the South for the “peculiar institution” of slavery. Like most Yankee mythologies, their arguments are grounded in partial truths and revisionist history. Recently, Southerners have been forced to make a choice: support their historic icons and monuments which are now equated to a support for slavery or reject them. I am here to definitively state that Southerners have nothing for which they should be ashamed. Slavery is an institution that predates European societies and is Biblical. Slavery was not wrong. Stop apologizing for slavery, Southern Man.
To begin, well before the South was created, humans have taken other humans and impressed them into service. This probably began when one strong caveman overpowered a weaker caveman. As societies and nations arose, entire peoples were impressed into slavery. The Hai’biru people (Israelites) were enslaved by the Egyptians. Later, they were enslaved by the Babylonians and when the Persians inherited an empire by means of conquest, they were enslaved by them, too. Later, the Jews of antiquity enjoyed slaves, as did every other society at that time – from Rome to Peking. Jesus Christ speaks of slaves in compassionate terms, but never argues for the elimination of the practice. So does the Apostle Paul. Later, as European societies flourish, slaves would find themselves in Norway, Germania, and Spain. St. Patrick was enslaved in Ireland.
Slavery in Europe frequently had the same origins as those in Africa. Most often, armies collided, and a victorious army would enslave the recently defeated. About 100,000 Irish troops defeated by Cromwell were sent into slavery throughout the British territories, primarily in the Caribbean. This was not uncommon.
That which made the African slave trade unique was its predatory fraternal nature. In Africa, a superior tribe would defeat an inferior tribe, enslave them, and eventually trade them to slave traders located at the coasts. Those coastal territories, dominated by lighter skinned, North African Muslims, would trade the Africans to Europeans. The origins of the American slave trade were born by means of an African practice that predated the discovery of North America by Europeans.
That which made African slaves so appealing were multifold. To begin, the climate of Dixie was unlike the Anglo-Celtic islands from which early Southerners derived. The fair skinned Anglos were not built to work in the overwhelming heat of Virginia or the Carolinas in the 1600s. Furthermore, the conditions of temporary voluntary impressment as indentured servants were not conducive to the agrarian economy of the South. Long term, continued impressment without post-service commitments – i.e., permanent enslavement – was preferential. Thus, when a black freeman brought the first blacks to the American South to be his slaves, a market for African slaves was born.
African slaves derived from areas that were geographically more similar to the South and especially Brazil (where most African slaves were sent) than Irish indentured servants. Their skin, hair, and eyes were better suited to the hot Dixie sun than Scotsmen. Finally, there seemed to be an abundance of Africans. Fellow Africans were willing to go get more Africans to sell to Europeans and meet demand. By the middle of the 1660s, when slavery became a condition of birth and race in Maryland and Virginia, African slaves were the favored choice of farm labor.
The fact that the United States, upon which all but Georgia enjoyed African slaves by 1750 (Georgia became a slave colony in 1751), was neither unique globally nor inconsistent with Christian norms. Slavery was a biblical institution. Of course, contrary to myths about the treatment of slaves, slaves were treated much like valuable livestock. They were fed, housed, and treated fairly well as long as they worked. They were certainly treated better than their captors treated them in Africa.
With the exception of a handful of slave owners in the United States who mistreated their slaves, Africans and later blacks enjoyed parallel societies that would eventually become the basis of self-imposed segregated communities in Dixie. For the most part, slave owners applied biblical principles toward the treatment of slaves, who were deemed intellectually and emotionally inferior beasts. No one would just whip their horse or cattle for fun. Those were expensive investments. Slaves were even more expensive, not only to purchase, but to maintain.
In fact, when slavery was made illegal by virtue of the Thirteenth Amendment, many slaves in the South stated that they did not even know they were slaves. They simply worked. They had jobs to do and went to their homes at night to enjoy community interaction – from music to religious activities. The slavery of modern Yankee mythology simply never existed. Being the slave of a Southern plantation owner was a much better life than being the slave of an African warlord. Need proof? Look at slavery that is still legal in parts of Africa today and how they are treated.
Did the South need slaves? Absolutely the South needed slaves. The United States needed slaves. Southerners have nothing for which to be ashamed. They enjoyed the benefits of a timeless institution, endorsed by God Himself, and built a powerful nation-state through the use of human labor. So-called distinctions between the laughable term “chattel” slavery and historical slavery are revisionist history on steroids. Africans captured other Africans, sold them to us, and for some reason, Whites became the only race that decided to free its slaves voluntarily. Asians did not do that. Africans did not do that. That was nice, but unnecessary.
Additionally, many like to make an argument regarding the economic needs of slaves as the reason to fight Lincoln’s invasion. The reality of the Southern economy is that slavery likely would have died off as a result of mechanization. Slavery was less cost effective than inexpensive immigrant labor and imposed higher barriers to entry for new businesses to thrive. If mechanization did not end slavery, modern economics would have killed the institution. Fiat currencies make commodities driven debt harder to manage. Either way, Lincoln’s invasion did not end slavery. Southern secession ended slavery by means of leaving Congress in the hands of radical Yankee Congressional Representatives and Senators.
When viewed in its totality, Southerners who are confronted with their slave owning history, should not engage disingenuous characters. They should confidently own the charge. Those who levy modern moral applications on enslavement as a means to demean, ridicule, and shame Southerners are not interested in the facts. They simply want you to surrender your heritage to their political and cultural objectives. You can point out that Union slave states (like Delaware) opposed ending slavery. They do not care. Nor, for that matter, do they care for alternative reasons regarding Southern secession. Southerners should respond, “So what?” Let them stew on your intransigence while you sip on a mint julep.
We chose to secede from a voluntary union. The reasons for secession were multifaceted. For some, the preservation of the peculiar institution was important. For others, it was cultural, economic, or political. Regardless as to the reason, slavery was taught as an enduring practice in churches from the tip of Maine to the Florida Keys. Was slavery wrong? No, it was not wrong. The only thing that was wrong was ending the institution without a viable plan to return them to Africa. And for those who believe that Lincoln planned to send them back to Africa before the evil John Wilkes Booth assassinated him, call me – I have a bridge to sell you.
The son of a recent Irish immigrant and another with roots to Virginia since 1670. I love both my Irish and Southern Nations with a passion. Florida will always be my country. Dissident support here: Padraig Martin is Dixie on the Rocks (buymeacoffee.com)
Cool schizopost bro
well if you believe a Jew or one of these guy’s (https://www.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/BritishIsraelism.jpg) is God, call me – I have a bridge to sell you.
Excellent!
That’s the way to approach this, no apologies for something our Heavenly Father has never condemned. Our ancestors were not evil, nope, not even a bit.
Another article on this subject is here: https://identitydixie.com/2021/08/26/the-great-lie-the-defamation-of-the-south-and-god/
to global messianic oligarchical collectivist “dominionist” communism
King James Bible
Put not your trust in princes, nor in the Son of Man, in whom there is no salvationism in them. Psalms 146:3
Isn’t the goal of cultural and economic communism to destroy family, kith and kinship?
New King James Version
“If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple. Luke 14:26
nor is there male and female… Galatians 3:28
sorry, I don’t worship trannies….
“Isn’t the goal of cultural and economic communism to destroy family, kith and kinship?” Yes indeed, but your biblical citations are completely taken out of context. Luke 14:26 is not calling for one to hate his kin, but simply not to love them MORE than or instead of God. Gal. 3:28 is not abolishing all distinctions, but simply downplaying their importance in the spiritual oneness that a person has who is in Christ. As for Ps. 146:3 ‘son of man’ might be rendered ‘mortal men’ for one who’s not seeing that it’s not referring to THE only begotten Son of Man.
Great post. Again I sure hope this is a sort of outline for a “course” that is to be mandatory for all academic curriculum, any whites applying for citizenship in CSA 2 and any man running for any office in CSA 2. There ‘seems to be’ some sort of sequential flow – though maybe it’s just my wishful thinking?
I would only toss 2 cents from the peanut gallery –
I wouldn’t necessarily say God “endorsed” slavery or that it’s not “in any way” wrong. Kidnapping someone from their place of habitat and selling them into bondage isn’t “loving your neighbor as yourself.” However, yes, it was normal back then – even we whites were snatched up and sold by Arabs – and yes it’s in the bible AND we weren’t told “not” to … just as we couldn’t have sex outside of marriage yet it was okay to take a handmaid here and there … we weren’t told “not to!?” And of course the black species of human IS inferior and it’s almost as if they were put there to be put to use … a little higher than cattle?
I have an odd theory on it. MAYBE slavery in America was Divinely inspired because AALLLL the blacks brought here AND all their future generations would’ve NEVER heard the gospel and never been saved. It’s a stretch. It’s out on a limb … but maybe Mr. Morris will offer some “critique” even though it’s not like him to do that?
PS : I hope one of your “lessons” will be on the brainwashing done through all forms of media. How many times must we turn on the stupid box only to be insulted with some series or another with blacks browns and feminists artificially “injected in” so as to rewrite history in sheeples subconscious? Period pieces wherein at a fancy 17th century ( or whenever ), ball sure enough there’s 3 or 4 blacks spinning around with white girls on the dance floor 🙂
A recent series on HULU : The Old Man, not only injects the usual BS in but has an Afghani tribal leader let his wife run the show AND hires an uppity black female attorney to represent him in important matters!!! Anyone who’s been around people like this ( which I have ), knows he would be disrespected and kicked out if he did such things. If you enter their home as a guest and there’s no chair for you they will make their own mother sit on the floor so you – a man – can have the chair! When you say no all the men loudly insist yes … you take the chair, even the mom insists! Their women walk 10 feet behind and keep their mouths shut … yet the possessed Jews who produce this social engineering history rewriting poison can’t stop. The brainwashing goes on and on …
Keep up the good “curriculum” Mr. Martin.
Josey wrote:
You mean a critique of your thesis? Nah, I don’t have one. Indeed, I think it was Booker T. Washington who made the same argument, but I could be wrong about that. Anyway, you’re right that it was the transatlantic *slave trade* that was evil, not slavery itself. A trade, btw, that no Southerner ever engaged in. I’ve personally written about this any number of times, here and elsewhere, as I’m sure you know.
In a normal society your neighbor is your compatriot. There is no obligation to give equal status to aliens. They can be taken as slaves, the women can be Biblically raped and they can be loaned money at usery. Every one of these things is Biblically endorsed and I don’t mean in some kind of semi plausible esoteric interpretation.
There is nothing in the bible that sanctions rape. It is a capital offense under the Law of Moses.
Lincoln up until the end of his life waffled on the subject of blacks in the U.S., alternately telling people that that black union veterans might vote or that they might be sent to help assist the Panama Canal(of course that’s relying on testimony of General “Beast” Butler, hardly an honorable man).
What Lincoln would’ve done regarding anything is specious given he was a solely political animal. I’ve had this same conversation with people who believe John Wilkes Booth “killed our best friend”- implying that Lincoln wouldn’t have allowed Reconstruction as vengeful as it turned out to be.
Perhaps, but then again we see what the Radicals, many of whom already disliked Lincoln, did to his successor Johnson who tried to implement Lincoln’s ostensible restoration policy. Again, Lincoln was a political animal.
Southerners need to stop explaining and apologizing for slavery. The yankee does not care about truth. They are the self-righteous power. Why do we not begin each conversation with that phrase. And then demand by what authority they judge us. Put them on the defense! Never back down never. I am told there was a period of good feelings between north and south. That must have been long ago. Well that time is over. Military bases were named after Confederates, statues stood in congress and around the South, They are gone! Who did this? Damm yankees and Damm africans. When is enough enough??
What most of you fail to realize is the first reformed Churches vehemently opposed slavery, until the state prompted by the shipping company lobby took over the reformed Churches, it was inculcated into the Church Service at that time that it was the White mans burden and duty to bring the primitive African heathen to Christ and the higher arts of civilization.
It’s really no different than the Christian Churches today bowing to State and corporate pressure with globo homo.
I got that information from the book called. “The Dutch seaborne empire” by CR Boxer. (1960?) Chapter on religion.
In the Book mentioned above the Dutch even had an African Predikant making his rounds to all the reformed churches in Holland pleading his case for shipping the Africans to the new world and having them brought to Christ.
Portugal founded Brazil, Fought off the Dutch in Bahia, burnt the Synagogue down and ran the Merchant pirates off to Barbados and NY. The second assault on Brazil by the Dutch was thwarted off by a Traitor King of Portugal John4 who sued for Peace with the Dutch, against the will of the Portuguese people and more importantly the Spanish Inquisition, which became powerless In Portugal due to him. Aside from King John4 giving India to England in his daughters dowry to an English Prince is a story for another day. King John4 allowed Jewish investment into Portugal without inquisition oversight and the use of all Portuguese ports for the Dutch east India company and also founded his own Brazil trading company. Outlawed Native Brazilian labor to be used. (1648) The Slave trade was starting to heat up for Brazil.
I believe in the innocence of the South and the promise of America that the South fought for in the Second revolutionary war. I know that slaves were mostly working on Big operational plantations, by the 100s, and that most Southerners didn’t own any slaves.
It really bothers me when people think the Portuguese ran the Slave trade, it beguiles the facts.
God Bless and Protect us all with His Victory over darkness.
Dabney warned of this as well, but I like what John Murray wrote:
“There is evidence that we are heading at a disquieting pace for reversal of what we must call the biblical economy. Our complacency, our lack of vigilance, our failure to prize the simple yet exacting principles of Scripture regarding the relation of master and servant, of employer and employee, our readiness to dismiss these guiding principles as obsolete, have put us on the way to this other kind of slavery. And if we get to the terminus of that road, the slavery of the first century will be tame in comparison. p. 105.
John Murray, ‘Principles of Conduct’
Or, as John Weaver once said: “Slavery has not been done away with. All the Federal government’s done is enlarge the plantation. We’re all slaves now!”
If the South had won the war there is no doubt in my mind that the Africans would of had a beautiful Christian future.
Evil John Wilkes Booth? Not hardly….Booth eliminated a war criminal…one of my heroes…Sic semper tyrannis!
“Since 1865, the United States has tried desperately to impose a collective guilt upon the South for the “peculiar institution” of slavery.”
Not the “United States.” Sixteen Northern States, who think that they are the United States, to the exclusion of all else.
This can’t be stressed enough. In every argument and statement that they make, lies the hidden assumption that the North has ruling authority over the rest of the Union, outside of what we derisively call Yankeedom. And that Southerners and Westerners are mere subordinate subjects, who owe the Northern People obedience and allegiance. This assumption is always present, whether they’re talking about 19th Century Slavery, or current issues.
When Yankees start babbling about slavery, simply say; “Show me the amendment to the Constitution that grants the Northern People, specifically, ruling authority over the other states in the Union.”
Or; “Would it make you feel better if they had seceded over whiskey barrels or wagon wheels?”
“Morality doesn’t apply to legal and political questions,” always silences their “moral arguments about slavery and secession.
When they say: “States rights to do what?” say; “Anything not prohibited to them by Article 1. Section 10. of the U.S. Constitution. That’s what.”
Also; keep reminding them that they’re not the United States of America. (Which they think that they are.) They’re just sixteen out of fifty states. And that they’re not entitled to rule over us, or to any special rights, privileges and exemptions over other Americans in the Union. It aggravates them to no end, to hear it again and again.
Ask them this;
“Why should Southerners have had to defend themselves politically, legally, and finally, militarily, against their “fellow Americans” in the Northern States?”
I’ve only ever gotten one response. It was from a gentleman from Wisconsin. “They shouldn’t have,” he said. But then he went on to qualify his answer with a long winded excuse for the North’s illegal, unconstitutional and downright bad behaviour.
Once you disarm their slavery weapon, however, they start making excuses for the North that sound an awful lot like the excuses that criminals make in a court of law, to justify their crimes. In other words, if the victim hadn’t said or done x or y, they wouldn’t have felt the need to rob, rape and murder that person.
Say to them; “I don’t care about slavery, and you don’t care about Black folks. Quit changing the subject.” ( The subject, of course, being whether we have a federal republic, or the dictatorship of one section, or another, over the whole of the Union.)
Furthermore;
When they say ‘America,” ask them if they mean all fifty states, or just the North.
When the say “We should just give Texas back to Mexico,” ask them who “we” is. Do they mean all Americans, or just the ones north of the Ohio River/Mason-Dixon? Then remind them again, that the Constitution doesn’t grant the Northern States and People ruling authority over Texas, or any other states, save their own. And that they don’t have the authority to grant or deny anything to any other states, much less the power to “give them away” to another country.
When they keep harping on race, ask them what they have done personally, to alleviate the sufferings of Blacks in their particular Northern State. Then ask them if they’ve ever performed voluntary community service in a Black neighbourhood. Or given money, time, labour or materials to charitable organisations that directly help Black folks. You’ll be amazed at the silence.
Go for the jugular and say flat out; “I’d bet that there are no Black faces within ten or twenty miles of where you live.” You’ll be met with silence on this, too.
“You can point out that Union slave states (like Delaware) opposed ending slavery. They do not care. Nor, for that matter, do they care for alternative reasons regarding Southern secession.”
The only thing that they care about is the North, its near total dominance of the federal government, and the supposed special rights and privileges that they think that they’re entitled to. Chief among them being their assumed right to rule over us and our states.
They’d become South Nationalists if they thought that it would ensure that they’d keep riding the gravy train with biscuit wheels that they think that they’re on.
Be relentless and ruthless with them. Don’t allow them any respite. Or to change the subject to race and slavery.
End Reconstruction. End the War.