By the late Dennis Wheeler

Introduction

The Great Southern League Race Debate took place during the summer of 1996. I think it will prove to be a debate that impacts the Southern movement for decades to come as virtually all of the issues and arguments that affect the South were aired.

What the debate showed more than anything else is that the true and historic Southern perspective on race and ethnicity has become so unpopular in today’s America that even most Southern advocates are terrified that they will be linked to it. This has led to a spurious and counterfeit perspective of the South being adopted by many so that they can still stand up for the South but not be forced to confront its enemies on the same grounds and in the same manner our forefathers did.

Another malady has also driven its way into the South. The true and historic Southern position has been neglected for so long that a new generation of Southern activists have arisen that don’t even know what it is. Even many who love the South have been so swept away with the current of history that they no longer realize what it was their ancestors fought for.

These things will become manifest as you read this debate.

You will see this issue demonstrated as several people adopt a Libertarian view on race, as though if Washington will just leave things alone, matters will turn out all right. In truth, although things would be better if Washington were not actively pressing racial integration on the South, the matter wouldn’t be righted by a Libertarian policy alone. No, it will take the concerted political and social action by the South to protect herself from the Africans and other non-Southerners who live within the bounds of Dixie if the South is ever to become a viable nation again.

The Great Southern League Race Debate begins in the context of a serious political and social organization that has a stated goal of secession from Washington. That’s why I joined it. And when I found out what was being stated as standard operating procedure on the listserver, I knew immediately that some change of direction must occur or the movement and the organization was doomed to failure.

The debate was at times comical and at times surreal, but through it all ran the immensely serious matter that we were debating; what the South truly is and who the Southern people truly are. To the true and historical Southern advocate, very little in the world is more important than that.

– Dennis Wheeler

Preface

I waited until after the debate was over to put this together as I didn’t realize the importance of what was taking place as it occurred. Because of that, a few of the names of the people participating got lost. When reading an e-mail post which is an answer to a former post which may be an answer to an even more former post, it is sometimes difficult to tell who’s saying what or exactly what they’re talking about if you haven’t kept up with the posts as they were being delivered.

I have gone through them all and edited them with this in mind. I have touched very little of the content, but have inserted guideposts so that you can now come into the discussion and tell who was speaking at each point along with what things or previous statements they were referring to.

I have numbered the posts, so whenever you see a `#’ sign followed by a numeral, you will know that a new message is beginning.

I have also placed my own comments throughout the document to highlight the items that I thought were the most important and to provide you with some perspective as to what the significance of a current or upcoming event was or would be.

I hope this project proves to be a big help to the Southern movement and the South itself. With that said, read on of the Great Southern League Race Debate.

#1.Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 17:40:50 0500

To: MBerglin@aol.com

From: George Kalas

Subject: Re: CSA

Dear Mr. Berglin,

Thanks for your kind and enjoyable message. My wife and I both have Jewish ancestry within the past 4 generations of our respective family trees and though we are both Christians we share your abhorrence of groups like the KKK that practice bigotry and violence against those of the Jewish faith and blacks as well. One of the reasons I joined the SL is because I knew that the vast majority of Southerners are above such nonsense and that we have a wonderful culture that is not deserving of the sort of stereotyping and blanket condemnations that we’ve all had to endure.

Incidentally, it is funny that you hail from Minneapolis. A black gentleman from Minneapolis contacted me this week and advised me today that he is going to join the SL. So, I know of at least one soon-to-be SL member living in your fair city!

I’ve attached a copy of our membership application form and I hope you will use it very soon. We have several Jewish members that I know of from email conversations and I know you’ll be right at home here in the Southern League. Let me be the first to extend my welcome to your sir!

Cordially,

George Kalas

DixieNet

#2.

From George Kalas to Michael ???.

Michael,

I have held a discussion for a couple of days with a conservative, traditionalist, black gentleman from Minneapolis, MN of all places. He agrees with our stands and accepted my invitation to join the SL. This is a great stride for us we’ve now recruited what may be our first black member (I suppose we might have others I am not aware of) and he’s a Yank to boot!

Looks like the BOD may need to accelerate it’s efforts to publish a tract explaining why the SL’s agenda would benefit black Americans as well as white Americans.

Cordially,

George Kalas

DixieNet

The above post followed an exchange between George and Larry Davis, our first black member of the Southern League. Below is a post from George to Larry.

Dear Larry,

Thank you for your wonderful letter. I have to say that you and I are on the same wavelength and I agree with your observations about the North. It brings to mind an incident that my mother related to me about three years ago. She and her (now) ex-husband flew to Boston, Mass. on a house-hunting trip. While being driven about the city and the suburbs by a local Yankee friend of her “ex,” my mother was surprised that she saw few if any blacks. When she inquired as to why this was, Mr. Yankee replied that all of Boston’s blacks lived in just a few segregated areas of the greater Boston area.

My mother was incredulous and exclaimed that “I’ll be darned, y’all are segregated here!” and noted that Houston neighborhoods were far more integrated than Boston’s. This observation earned her a rather embarrassed silence from Mr. Yankee.

Don’t worry too much about the Southern Independence stand of the League our position has always been that while we would prefer complete independence, we are prepared to work within the present system to attempt to reform our federal government and to restore the Republic to what it once was and should be again. Many, many SL members are what we call “paleoconservatives” who support all of the League’s goals, but prefer to remain in the Union if possible.

There is also a very large contingent of true Southern nationalists, like myself, who believe reform to be a doomed effort and who advocate a complete break with Washington and a fresh start for the people of Dixie. The PaleoCons and the Southern Nats agree on 99.9% of the issues and philosophy and only differ on when it is appropriate to secede.

The PaleoCons, like Jefferson Davis, believe secession should be the last resort, but they staunchly protect the right to secede. The Southern Nats believe that Southern independence holds sufficient benefits for the South that it should be pursued as a goal and Southern secession should be pushed forward on that basis alone. I’m sure that political events over the next few years will determine which course is the best one to be followed. Let me be the first to welcome you into the Southern League.

I am so very pleased and happy to have made your acquaintance and it is good to see Americans from all backgrounds and regions coming into our movement as you now have. I do hope that we might meet at a Southern League event at some time in the near future. We have just recently completed our annual national conference in Montgomery, Alabama this past June so it might be at next year’s conference.

Please tell others about us and let me know how you think the SL can continue to reach out to members of the black community who might be interested in our movement as we work to build a coalition of Americans who will work to restore true liberty to our people.

Cordially,

George Kalas

DixieNet

The above post was written by George Kalas as an answer to this post from Larry Davis.

At 09:45 AM 7/16/96 CDT, you wrote: “Hello again, George. I agree almost totally with your viewpoint, the one exception being perhaps the most important with respect to your organization: Complete Southern Independence from the United States. I can certainly see your reasons for wanting it from a morals standpoint as well as one of states rights; the term, “United States”, is fast becoming a contradiction in terms. Rather than see the country split again, I’d settle for the South whipping the “anything goes” North in a political “Cold War” whose outcome would restore the true Constitution as well as make the United States an honorable and morally decent country (for perhaps the first time in its history).

I don’t mean to dwell on the race thing, but I thought you may like to know (if you didn’t already) that a VERY common opinion which blacks have regarding the difference between whites of the North and whites of the South is that the Southern white lets you know where you stand, good or bad. This is not the case in the North where a lot of things happen behind your back. And it’s not just racial things.

In the North, dishonest politics is the rule, in both the political and corporate arenas. The North likes to portray the image of being honorable (freeing the slaves, pro-welfare, etc.), and in some ways it is. However, the North consistently fails to live up to the principles that they “supposedly” hold so dear. The powers of the day never really cared about slavery; General George McClellan was quoted as saying that he’d throw down his command if he thought the war was about freeing the slaves. It is said that Abraham Lincoln, though against slavery, wanted nothing to do with blacks.

In contrast, both Robert E. Lee and James Longstreet were against slavery. It was very observant of your organization to point out that the North was conducting genocide of the Native American at the same time it was portraying itself as “the good guys”.

As for welfare, it has been used as a tool of demotivation, demoralization, and containment; containment, since most welfare recipients can only afford to live in pre-designated housing – the projects where crime and low self-esteem run rampant.

Please excuse my babbling, I will join your organization if you’ll still have me. Though being born and raised in ultra-liberal Minneapolis, I spent over a year in Montgomery, Alabama and almost another year in Atlanta, Georgia. I have the South to thank for the many role models, both black and white, that have already led me to be a witness of the capability and integrity of the Southern people.

I will fill out the application and send it along with the appropriate fee to the address listed on the application.

Respectfully,

Larry Davis

#3.

From Stacy McCain to George Kalas.

July 17, 1996

Stacy McCain begins with a quote by George Kalas:

In a message dated 960716 14:02:37 EDT, you write: “Looks like the BOD may need to accelerate it’s efforts to publish a tract explaining why the SL’s agenda would benefit black Americans as well as white Americans.”

Certainly, you must point out the centrality of religion to the well-being of AfricanAmerican families, and that many blacks share with Southern whites a common culture of church-centered life. Of course, we also share many other cultural ties music, speech and cuisine, to name a few. And the economic and political benefit to black Americans of breaking away from the twin evils of welfare dependence and racially-oriented activism would be inestimable.

I have never understood those black or white who say that the South should necessarily be riven by racial antagonisms.

Robert Stacy McCain

#4.

From Dennis Wheeler to all.

July 17, 1996

Gentlemen,

I can’t say I share your enthusiasm over recruiting black and Jewish members into the Southern League. But before I criticize, let me ask you to clarify your thinking. George Kalas wrote: “This is a great stride for us we’ve now recruited what may be our first black member.”

What is it that makes recruiting a black member a great stride? At first blush, it seems you are turning him into a privileged character, somehow better than non-black members of the Southern League, for no other reason than the color of his skin. I don’t doubt he’s a fine fellow, it just strikes me that you are doing exactly what the system that has made Southern whites foreigners in their own land is doing. Please explain.

I would also appreciate an explanation of why it’s remarkable to recruit Jewish members into the SL. How is this a benefit that deserves a special announcement? I am curious about this.

Robert Stacy McCain wrote: “…. many blacks share with Southern whites a common culture of church-centered life. Of course, we also share many other cultural ties music, speech and cuisine, to name a few.”

While it’s true that many blacks attend church, by and large these are not churches that worship the true God in the manner He has commanded men to worship Him. Instead, these churches are mostly dispensers of an irrelevant emotionalism at best, and hotbeds of Marxist revolution at worst. While it’s also true that many white churches in the South have departed from the faith once delivered to the saints, many black churches are so characterized by spiritual ignorance and blindness to the point they are now embracing Louis Farakhan and the Nation of Islam. Also, a black man had comments printed on the listserver a few days ago saying how the churches were the instrument used by the NAACP to control the blacks and make them tow the party line.

You also say our music and speech are shared cultural ties, but I can’t for the life of me make heads or tails of that. If there’s any two places where the blacks and the whites of the South are diverse, it seems to me it’s in our speech and our music. I have a difficult time understanding most of what they say, as they speak a different dialect that is foreign to me. And black music, whether it be their peculiar brand of gospel, Michael Jackson rap, or gangster rap is quite different from anything that I or any of my friends spend our time listening to. I would appreciate a little explanation of how you believe we share these things as cultural ties.

Dennis Wheeler

#5.

From Ron Colson to Dennis Wheeler.

July 18, 1996

Dennis,

A racially exclusive movement is no more than an oxymoron. If we are not inclusive, we have no hope. This is not an evidence of being all things to all people. It is evidence that there are people from all races, creeds, and religions who share our values and love for liberty. It is going to take this diverse representation to open some eyes and ears among the general population.

I am about as un-politically correct as you are going to find, but I do not share your apparent conclusions on hard and fast differences between races and religious beliefs. I was thrilled to hear of Larry Davis’ interest in joining. I believe a great share of our problems have resulted from lowering standards to bring everyone together. Success will only come when all are encouraged (and allowed) to achieve their utmost so that we can come together at a higher level.

Would you have us exclude folks who share our values and desires for liberty because their skin is not the same as ours? Listen, if all blacks become educated, share a love for the Lord, and work toward restoring our “Republic of Republics”, I’ll gladly don a bright orange outfit, perfect my pronunciation of “Moan Back” (and even put my picture on a billboard sign with the message “COMING SOON TO YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD”).

Obviously I am not insinuating that all whites are educated & motivated any more than I would suggest that all blacks are the opposite.

And music. I see (and hear) about as many whites, as I do blacks, driving around with that rap crap turned up so loud that my Bronco rattles. And I was quite a fan of Charlie Pride.

Dennis, my work takes me into the homes of lots of black, and whites. I smell their food cooking and my mouth waters. We talk about a risen Savior, and I feel the presence of the Lord. We talk about the moral decay of this land and are equally sad. Our values are the same! We are the same! The outward appearance of such differences is the direct result of reconstruction. The solution has to include showing them the cause of our strife and bringing us together

The attitude that you seem to display here is not likely to bridge any gaps or accomplish the stated goals of this League. There’s nothing wrong with recognizing (and respecting) our differences. God, in his infinite wisdom, created us differently. I don’t know why, and I don’t care why. I (personally) believe it immoral to tamper with what God has created and therefore do not believe mixed marriages to be appropriate.

But, I don’t believe that different necessarily means better or inferior. I believe that we can, and must, work together if we are to have any hope of resurrecting the constitutional liberties our forefathers intended.

I’d say more but I get uncomfortable standing on a soapbox.

Ron Colson

#6.

From Dennis Wheeler to Ron Colson.

July 19, 1996

Ron,

I wish I could agree with more of what you said. You start off with this: “A racially exclusive movement is no more than an oxymoron. If we are not inclusive, we have no hope.”

I can’t agree with that and would point out to you this is (1) exactly the opposite of the ethnic principle the Confederates fought for, and (2) it is exactly the same principle that Martin Luther King, John, Bobby, and Ted Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton fought and still fight for.

Exclusivity is what distinguishes a people. This is the principle of nationalism, which I thought was the ideal being carried forward by the Southern League. I went to the meeting in Montgomery and received a little blue piece of paper entitled Statement of Purpose. It begins: “The Southern League seeks to advance the cultural, social, economic and political well-being of the Southern people by all honorable means.” That’s what I try to do.

It now seems to me you are saying the Southern people have no hope unless they include other peoples. In fact, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that even the possibility of us existing without others is an absurdity. That certainly wasn’t the understanding of the Southern people in 1861. They were willing to go it alone. When Robert E. Lee prayed openly for independence and the day the South took up its rightful place at the table of nations, do you think he was asking God to institute a multiracial, one-man-one-vote democracy in the South where blacks and whites lived as equals in harmony and peace? I don’t think so. Also, instead of being a defender of Southern values and culture, you would have me to believe that ours is no better or different than the culture of the blacks. If that’s so, what is the point of advancing Southern culture? If our culture is no better than black culture, then why don’t we just join them? Then after using an exclamation point to say we (blacks and whites) are the same, you state: “There’s nothing wrong with recognizing (and respecting) our differences. God, in his infinite wisdom, created us differently. I don’t know why, and I don’t care why. I (personally) believe it immoral to tamper with what God has created and therefore do not believe mixed marriages to be appropriate.”

If we are the same, then how is it that God created us differently? And if we need to be inclusive, then why have you excluded mixed marriages? Where is the line to be drawn? You say my attitude won’t bridge any gaps, but here you are building a moat. I only say that to show you it must always be so. There is no other way for the world to work.

Let me hear from you.

Dennis Wheeler

#7.

From Charles (Pat) Upshaw to Dennis Wheeler.

July 18, 1996

Dear Dennis,

The most striking similarity to me between Southerners and blacks is the rape their respective cultures have suffered at the hands of the damn yankees.

There was a time, I believe, that black churches generally preached a true Gospel. Likewise, there was a time that white southern churches preached the same truth. Modernism, alas, has taken its toll on all of us.

While recruitment of a black may not deserve the kudos we’re heaping upon it, we must remember that a black man has had to endure much more of an assault upon his Southern heritage than any white man has. To have survived this assault, from church, government, (black) society, and quite possibly family deserves our respect. In other words, were I on the front lines, particularly in a defensive position, as we are, I would want this man in my foxhole.

I would also think that he has the intelligence and courage to voice our principles in places in which we could never receive a hearing.

I say, welcome.

Charles P. (Pat) Upshaw

#8.

From George Kalas to Dennis Wheeler.

July 19, 1996

Thanks for your inquiry. They are fair questions. First and foremost, we are not running an affirmative action plan here nor are we trying to recruit nonwhites and non-Christians who do not share our values solely for the sake of having some “tokens” on board. I have had many discussions with Michael Hill on this subject and there is a consensus that if a totally pro-South black or Jew or whatever wants to join the Southern League and they adhere totally to our principles, then there is no reason in the world for us to deny them membership.

The reason I think this is a great stride is because everything in our society tells folks like this to hate us. Both of these gentlemen have expressed nothing but support for our cause and I think it is remarkable, given the hateful propaganda out there, that there are still open-minded blacks and Jews in our society who will consider a SL membership even though we make no apologies for the Confederacy and our flags. Such people are an asset to our cause, as has been proven by the work of Jason Clay Russo and Mr. Nelson Winbush (a black SCV member) who both work tirelessly to defuse the old stereotypes that all whites in the South live to oppress negroes and Jews.

I realize that we may have some individual members of the SL who have, how shall I gently put it, *firm* views on race, and while those individuals are entitled to their personal opinions they must understand that the SL is a social/cultural/political movement that is seeking to advance our principles and issues with as many folks as we can. One does not have to be a Christian Anglo/Celtic Southerner to embrace our culture and our values. I welcome any man or woman who will.

Cordially,

George Kalas

DixieNet

#9.

From Gary Waltrip to all.

July 19, 1996

He begins with a quote by Dana Greenblatt in a post that she sent to Dennis Wheeler:

In a message dated 960718 18:13:16 EDT, you write: “If it’s the former, I hope that you realize how many blacks and Jews fought/served the Confederacy. I was raised in a Jewish home and recently became Christian. I cannot speak for all Jews, but when a Jewish person who did not have a Confederate ancestor joins our cause, it’s a pretty noteworthy occasion.”

I agree with Dana. There is no rule that says we should not welcome as brothers those members of black or Jewish background who support our Cause. Since most of the members of these ethnic groups tend to be hostile or openly antagonistic, it is easy to broad-brush them all as “the enemy.” That, however, would be a mistake.

Anyone who sincerely supports the South and the goals of the Southern League is my brother or sister and my friend. I do not hate anyone because of their ethnicity and I believe that such feelings are a waste of energy that could be put to better use on the service of our cause.

With that said, I would like to personally and sincerely welcome Larry Davis into our group and pledge to him the loyalty and friendship that is due by one brother to another and to offer my help and assistance to him at any time it may be needed.

Gary Waltrip

#10.

From Marion Lambert to Dennis Wheeler.

July 19, 1996

Dennis Marshall,

It is not my pleasure to question you, but sir, your historical premises, your applied logic, and your conclusions are sinisterly wrong.

You seem to operate under the understanding that the Southern nationalistic experience of 186165 was something other than a highly moral struggle to continue the concepts of the original founding fathers. Pure and simple that is what is was. And the economic tariff issue, the slavery in the territories issue, the states’ rights issue, all were small issues in contrast to the “cultural” differences between the traditionalist conservative agrarian South and the progressive modern Yankee empire-builders of the North. And the struggle and War which resulted from this immense cultural societal divide was played out on the ‘gameboard’ of Constitutional issues. Issues understood well by Lee, Davis, and the Southern mind of that time.

You suggest by implication that R. E. Lee was not fighting for a “multiracial” society and you suggest by like implication that he must have been fighting for “Exclusivity”, that is by your logical implication, racial. Apparently you have no knowledge of the motivations for Lee. You place him into your ‘box’ of moral smallness. Far greater is Lee, and by analogy the Cause of South, than your insight as displayed via this list.

And what is the South in your viewpoint? White people and white culture exclusive of others? That is not now nor has it been the reality of the South during the last 300 or so years. Particularly, during the period of Confederate nationalism of 186165. If you don’t understand the role of Blacks, Jews, American Indians, Mexicans, etc. in the mix of being Southern, then I am at a loss to educate you on such short notice.

That black groups have been at odds with our struggle to preserve our heritage and symbols is understandable, however wrong, when we view their postbellum treatment socially. That social treatment was the result of the Yankee destruction of Southern society, the Yankee intervention into the political and social fabric of the post-War South, and of the Yankee destruction of the evolutionary expiration of slavery.

Sir, if you want to be “exclusive” in this matter of Southern Nationalism, then exclude the Yankee mentality not the people of the South. Your enemy is Yankee, not someone of a simple racial or ethnic difference. Northerners can make good Southern League material but the Yankee can never.

We as White Southerners have much more in common with Southern Blacks than with the Yankee. Jews, Blacks, etc. have a place in this organization based upon their ideology. Our job as individuals and as politically astute Southrons is to educate and teach the common ground with fellow Southerners.

Just as with our Southern forefathers the fight we have today is highly moral and based on the same constitutional issues which the Yankee mind thought were settled at Appomattox.

Mr. Wheeler, I wonder at your understanding and I question your motives.

Marion Lambert

Southern League of Florida

[Editor's note: Marion sees the antebellum South as a place of multi-ethnic diversity. He sees today's problems as the result of Yankee actions that destroyed the diverse South. He argues that I am fighting the wrong enemy and proposing the wrong solution. And he works for a future that is politically and ethnically no different than it is today.

What he fails to realize or stir into the mix is that the antebellum South was based on the political and social supremacy of the Southerners, who were a European people.

Besides this, Southern society still stands today because after the War, the Southern people were able to erect legal and social safeguards that protected their supremacy to the point that Southern society could be continued.]

#11.

From Dennis Wheeler to Marion Lambert.

July 23, 1996

Dear Marion,

Thank you for the post. My great-grandfather fought in the Third Florida Regiment. He was from the Live Oak area. My great-grandmother received a confederate widow’s pension from the State of Florida into the 1900s. I have just returned to Atlanta from Sarasota, Florida where my parents celebrated their 50th wedding anniversary. Of the nearly 50 relatives in attendance, every one was a native Floridian.

My grandfather was a school principle for 52 years in Dade County and my father was a Baptist minister in Florida for nearly 40 years before retiring. I live in Georgia and write a newsletter on investing in precious metals and stocks of companies that mine gold, silver, and platinum. (The newsletter is called Precious Metals Digest and you can get a free sample copy by dialing 800-728-2288 and asking for one.)

I understand a lot more about the South, the Confederacy, and today’s struggle from a Floridian point of view than you give me credit for. Let me take a few of your points and scrutinize them. We may both learn something:

(1) You state the Civil War was “a highly moral struggle to continue the concepts of the original founding fathers. Pure and simple that is what is was.”

Accepting what you say as true, I would like to point out that this moral struggle contained an ethnic element. Robert E. Lee himself addressed it. He reduced the problem down to two views of the African, “Is he just a sunburned white man, or does he possess substantive differences that run far deeper?” [a loose paraphrase, I can get the actual quote if necessary]

The founding fathers had addressed it by allowing the states to deny the vote to the Africans. This ethnic principle was part of the conceptual ideal fought for by the Virginia militia in both the Revolutionary and Civil wars. It was also fought for by patriotic Southerners in the Civil Rights War of the 1960s. And to be legitimate Southerners with legitimate roots to our Confederate forbears, we too must take up this struggle.

(2) You further state: “You suggest by implication that R. E. Lee was not fighting for a “multiracial” society and you suggest by like implication that he must have been fighting for “Exclusivity”, that is by your logical implication, racial. Apparently you have no knowledge of the motivations for Lee.”

I spell it out this way: R.E. Lee was fighting for the system and way of life employed by Virginia at both the founding of the country and in 1861. And what was that system in regards to ethnic exclusivity concerning the political franchise? I’ll let you answer. In 1861, did the Africans in Virginia have the right to vote or did they not have the right to vote? In that sense, and others, Lee’s efforts were aimed at preserving the same exclusivity I am proposing.

(3) You are correct when you say that I “don’t understand the role of Blacks, Jews, American Indians, Mexicans, etc. in the mix of Southern culture.” I would like for you to tell me how and why they have been important.

(4) Next you state: “…. if you want to be exclusive in this matter of Southern Nationalism, then exclude the Yankee mentality, not the people of the South. Your enemy is Yankee not someone of a simple racial or ethnic difference. Northerners can make good Southern League material but the Yankee can never.”

You brandish the phrase “Yankee mentality” around like a gun. But what do you mean by it? If you mean “equalitarian ethnic integration” then I would of course agree with you. This was always the cornerstone of Yankee attempts at Southern destruction. It took them 100 years after the Civil War to accomplish this goal. And the South has lost more in the last 31 years than it did in all time from 18611964. And one of the biggest losses is our loss of national identity. Our ability to stand up as a people and declare our peoplehood. Someday you will not cower before the Yankees you hate, but will stand like a lion and proclaim that you are a Southerner, a blood descendant of the Confederate and Segregationist warriors.

Until then, if you are in no position to do so, then I would appreciate it if you at least not take pot shots at those of us who are.

Dennis Wheeler

#12.

From: George Kalas to Dennis Wheeler.

July 19, 1996

Dennis,

I have read your commentaries and I’ll tell you straight out that you are way out of line here. While no one will deny that there are significant, and in many cases, broad chasms of cultural differences between whites and blacks in contemporary America, that has nothing to do with the issues you have raised which can be specifically defined as follows: (1) Is the Southern League a white supremacist organisation? The answer clearly is no.

Though I was not here at the formation of the SL, I have been a member since February of 1995 and I have never heard nor seen anything in the literature of the SL that plainly and unequivocally states that we are a “whites only” organisation. In fact, I have received specific permission from our national leadership to post permanent notices on DixieNet denouncing racial hate groups and reaffirming that the SL is an organisation that welcomes anyone as a member who embraces *our* culture and *our* values. You don’t have to be a Celtic pureblood to apply you just have to agree that the Anglo-Celtic dominant traditional culture of the South is worthy of preservation and advancement.

All of us at one time or another have known people who’ve are attracted to cultures other than their own and I see no reason not to embrace any person who wants to carry forward our banner. I might further add that as DixieNet’s rebmaster I can vouch for the fact that our rapid growth in the past year has been directly attributable to the fact that we are not a hate group. Time and time again I receive email from new members telling me that this attribute of our corporate character is what tipped the scales for them and convinced them that we were an organisation that had a future and was worthy of support. We would be foolish to ever abandon the high road we have taken thus far.

(2) Are we being true to the ideals of our Confederate forefathers? I think so. Stonewall Jackson certainly had no problem with using Southern blacks to further the cause of our independence as is evidenced by the fact that large numbers of black Southerners served in his ranks during the War. General Patrick Cleburn, who was about as Celtic as they come, strongly urged the enlistment of Southern blacks as early as 1863. Likewise, Robert E. Lee strongly encouraged Jefferson Davis to raise black regiments for the defense of Dixie a request that was finally granted and a law was passed by the CS Congress making it possible but, alas, it was too late to do Dixie much good.

There are many more examples of loyal black support for Dixie and there were black members of the UCV in the years after the war.

While it is true that most, if not all 19th century white Americans believed themselves culturally and socially superior to blacks, that does not mean they all hated blacks and refused to work with them in common causes. Heck, the typical Southern farm in the South saw blacks and whites toiling side by side year in and year out in the struggle to make a living off the land. The familiarity between the races in the antebellum South was well-known and much remarked upon by Yankees who were disgusted by the easygoing Southerners.

Why should we wish to emulate Yankees and hate people and refuse their support solely because they are the *wrong* color. Seems pretty shortsighted to me. In my personal opinion, Dennis, you are simply allowing your own personal prejudices on the issue of race cloud your thinking. You are entitled to your opinion, but just be aware that the historical record does not support your simplistic and over-generalised view that the Southern cause was exclusively a racial one.

(3) Do we deny membership in the League solely on the basis of race? Again, the answer is no. Nowhere on our membership application do we ask what race an applicant is. If we were an exclusively white organisation then I think we’d make it clear on the application.

(4) Do we deny membership in the League on the basis of religious affiliation? Here again, the answer is no. While I may find the religious practices of others to be theologically offensive or incorrect, I again have no problem with accepting the aid and support of Southern sympathizers who are not of my faith. This is particularly true in the case of Jewish applicants since Christianity shares a common heritage with Jewry.

Ultimately, Dennis, you will have to come to the realisation that the SL is not a vehicle for waging a campaign to erect a racially pure homeland in the South for Anglo-Celts, but it is a vehicle for insuring that hostile elements of other cultural groups do not succeed in eradicating Anglo-Celtic Southern culture from the Southland. I am for my culture first, but I can do so in a manner that will be worthy of General Lee without malice and without hatred. Since we stand against these hatemongers of the Left the last thing in the world we should want to do is to *emulate* their ignoble example.

For the Cause,

George Kalas

DixieNet

#13.

From: Gary Waltrip to Dennis Wheeler.

July 20, 1996

He begins with a quote by Dennis from a post written to Ron Colson.

In a message dated 960719 16:57:25 EDT, you write: “Also, instead of being a defender of Southern values and culture, you would have me to believe that ours is no better or different than the culture of the blacks. If that’s so, what is the point of advancing Southern culture? If our culture is no better than black culture, then why don’t we just join them?”

Southern culture has always included black people. They are Southerners too, at least the great majority of them who live in the South.

Gary Waltrip

#14.

From Robert Stacy McCain to all.

July 20, 1996

Stacy begins with a quote from a previous post from Marion Lambert:

In a message dated 960719 19:07:17 EDT, you write: “Northerners can make good Southern League material but the Yankee can never.”

Stacy’s answer:

Something I’m having a hard time explaining to my Ohio-born wife, even though she went to school at Mount Vernon Academy in Ohio the same town where Vallandigham gave his famous speech in defense of the South!

Stacy gives a second quote from the same post: “We as White Southerners have much more in common with Southern Blacks than with the Yankee. The truth! Especially, this is true of hard

working churchgoing blacks in rural areas and small towns, who see how modern urban culture is deadly to their young people.” Jews, Blacks, etc. have a place in this organization based upon their ideology.”

Stacy’s response:

Dang straight. If the Martians landed tomorrow, that would be OK with me, so long as they believed in states rights, limited government, Western civilization and the Judeo-Christian ethic. But our luck, we’d get a bunch of Yankeefied Martian imperialists, just like in the horror movies.

By the way, has anybody here read the latest issue of New American. Some Yankee journalists showed up to cover a church fire in a little Texas town, went to the local newspaper office and said: “Take us to your racists.”

WOW!!!!

Robert Stacy McCain

#15.

From Dennis Wheeler to George Kalas.

July 23, 1996

George,

Thank you for your complete response. I’m having a very difficult time, though, matching large portions of your response to anything I have written. In fact, it seems your response was not addressed to me at all, but was addressed to someone else, using my posts as a pretext.

I’d say you built two straw men from my words and then mowed them down.

STRAW MAN #1: The SL is to be a “whites only,” “white supremacist” organization.

There’s nothing in anything I said that could lead you to this conclusion, although whether or not there are nonwhites is of little importance to us as a nation in the long run. It seems to me you raised this bogus issue so you could knock it down. Well, it doesn’t hurt me. I’ll agree with you: The Southern League is not a white supremacist organization, nor is it a “whites only” organization.

You made another statement that I can live with: “You don’t have to be a Celtic pureblood to apply you just have to agree that the Anglo-Celtic dominant traditional culture of the South is worthy of preservation and advancement.”

I’m not sure exactly what the term Celtic means. I see the Southern people as composed of the ScotchIrish and the Cavaliers. The fact that those of other nations joined our ancestors in the Civil War effort is not of critical import in my way of thinking. What is crucial is that the Scotch-Irish and the Cavaliers have been forged in the fires of blood, faith, and war. We are now one people and one nation. Any blacks, Jews, Hispanics, Indians, and others who want to join us, must do just that, join us. We are the dominant group that defines Southern culture and the Southern people. Others may join us, but we remain what we are with or without them.

I think this is consistent with every other word I’ve written. So to construe my words to say I have advocated the SL to be a “whites only” organization is an unfair low blow.

STRAW MAN #2: We do not deny membership to people on the basis of race or religion.

Your position sounds like something out of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 rather than a noble ideal befitting the Southern people. Remember, it is God who separated mankind into different peoples, not me. I can’t do anything to undo the divisions that God has made within mankind. Neither can you. We both can either except them and live as though they are valid or we can deny them and act as though they are not valid.

All that aside, you never see me advancing any argument on the basis of race. Go back and review my posts, you’ll see that I don’t use the word. This is because I don’t believe in the concept. Race is a Darwinian word, never found in the Bible in any form.

The concept I advance is nation (ethnos, as discussed in the post on SL: A Blessing to the Nations). This is the reality because this is how God has divided mankind and interpreted His acts for us.

My point is that it is not a very important event to draft those of other nations into a Southern nationalist movement, which is how the Southern League has been explained to me.

At any rate, I don’t see my views as “way out of line.” They may be contrary to yours, they may be wrong, but they certainly represent a large percentage of the Southern League membership and I see no reason for the vituperative rebukes I have received for stating them.

I don’t make it my practice to question or judge the motives of others. I simply interpret their words and actions and judge them on their own merits. I accept that you are working for the benefit of the South, the Southern people, and Southern culture to the best of your understanding. And so I would ask you where you see Southern society heading? What kind of system do you see us developing if the Southern League is successful? Will it be a one-man-one-vote multiracial democracy like we have now differentiated only by different policies? Or do you see the necessity of the Southern people erecting a political color bar so that we alone will decide issues of political and cultural importance to us?

As I see it, the fact that not all 19th century Southern whites hated blacks as you say, nor the fact that Lee encouraged Jackson to raise black regiments, nor the fact that Southern whites were seen to toil side by side with Southern blacks goes to the heart of the matter. None of these shed light on the crucial issue. And that crucial issue is: Who will exercise political power for the Southern people? Will we alone determine our course, or will others participate in it with us?

In my view, the only correct answer, the only patriotic answer is that we will govern ourselves as a free people without the interference of others. While operating under the old Constitution, especially as it had been interpreted in the Dred Scott decision of 1857, it is absurd to believe that the Confederates ever entertained any idea of extending the voting franchise to the Africans that lived in the South. I don’t think so. After all, the Constitution counted the African slaves as 3/5 of a person, insofar as congressional district populations were concerned, and the Supreme Court had just unanimously agreed that the Africans were not part of the American body politic and were not intended to be partakers of the legal guarantees embedded in that document.

I will be very interested to hear your response to this point.

One last thing: George, you seem to be forgetting that there was a Southern war in between the Civil War and today; the Civil Rights War. After 1877, the Southern people erected a body of law to protect themselves from being unduly influenced by the Africans in political matters of their internal affairs. This body of law is historically referred to as Jim Crow. This was an attempt by the Southern people to preserve their nationhood and national identity.

This tactic won the approval of the United States Supreme Court in 1896 in Plessy v. Ferguson. The Southern people remained in control of their internal affairs until 1954 and the Brown v. Board of Topeka, Kansas decision began to strip control of our internal destiny away from us. The Civil Rights War was under way and the Southern people fought with every honorable means at their disposal to stop the Civil Rights movement.

These Southern heroes, known to history as segregationists, are just as much Southern patriots as any Confederate soldier. In fact, they were the direct blood and ideological descendants of our Civil War heroes.

You, George, are advancing a Southern nationalism that either ignores or condemns the actions of these Southern patriots. (At least, that’s the way I see it.) They fought to keep Atlanta, Montgomery, Raleigh, and other Southern cities under the control of Southerners. Lester Maddox and George Wallace were advancing the same ideals as Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson. To deny this is a gross error in my view.

George Wallace took a bullet in the defense of Southern culture. Lester Maddox received the rebuke and ridicule of much of Atlanta’s press and much of the national press. Jimmy Carter sold out all of the great principles and was a wanton traitor to his people. For this he became President of the United States and an honored place in humanist history.

The questions now are: “What will we do? Which side will we take? Will we forsake the sacrifice of Southerners who stood for our national exclusiveness or will we go along to get along?” I don’t see your ideas as anything unique which would mandate the existence of a Southern League. Your ideas seem like the conservative wing of the Republican Party to me.

I guess that’s enough for now. I look forward to your response.

Dennis Wheeler

P.S. I can email to anyone who wants it a copy of an exiting treatise written by myself and Gregory F. West. It is titled “The Theology of the Confederacy.” It was written in 1993 and would be well worth reading.

Just email me: dennisw@mindspring.com and ask for it.

#16.

From: George Kalas to Dennis Wheeler.

July 24, 1996

Dennis,

Hold on let me make sure I understand you correctly. You’ve just made a long and impassioned defense of segregation in the past and a plea for the reinstitution of segregation in the present and yet you are offended that I’ve interpreted your previous posts questioning the value of enlisting black and Jewish Southerons into the SL as a segregationist and white supremacist policy? I think thou doth protesteth too much.

In any case, I do understand the point you are making regarding a “nation” based on ethnicity, but I’ve always viewed the Southern League as an organisation that was advancing the idea of a “nation” based” upon a definable “culture” and as you know, cultures can be formed through the contributions of multiple ethnic groups as, indeed, was the case with Southern culture.

Frankly, my mind is divided on this question at present. On the one hand, I look at what passes for black “culture” today and am repelled by what I see because it is alien to my value system which is, in turn, a product of being raised within a traditional white Christian culture that stresses obedience to God, moral behaviour, honesty, hard work, thrift, respect for the rights of others, etc. and I see nothing but contempt for these values from the liberal black elites and their welfare followers. However, I recognise that not all blacks embrace the “hip-hop” culture and the liberal welfare culture that is pushed by Jesse Jackson and his ilk and I’m not prepared to write off modern black Confederates like the late Dr. Leonard Haynes and black SCV member Nelson Winbush solely because they happen to be of African descent.

I welcome any person of any ethnicity who can appreciate and embrace Southern culture and defend it from those who would seek it’s eradication. I guess you could say I’m more concerned with the preservation of the South’s culture than in herding black folks to the back of the bus again. I will agree with you that the Civil Rights revolution was anti-Southern and went way overboard in terms of infringing upon our rights of free association, property rights, etc. but it also must be admitted that many Jim Crow laws were petty and offensive to the sensibilities of any free man and that’s why the South lost that fight in the court of public opinion.

I don’t know about yourself, but I want to find a better rallying cry for Dixie than “let’s bring back segregation boys!” That dog won’t hunt and I can guarantee you that you won’t be able to build any mass movement in the South for Southern independence on a platform of reinstituting Jim Crow.

What would be the next step reinstituting slavery? What you propose would be a public relations nightmare and it would permanently marginalise this movement as a cultured, better educated and polite KKK without the bedsheets.

Thanks, but no thanks.

Cordially,

George Kalas

DixieNet

#17.

From David S. Reif to George Kalas.

July 25, 1996

George,

I have had conversations with Dr. Hill regarding the points you raise. I have also talked about the extremely thorny nature of race/ethnicity in building a movement. One must tread very carefully here. There is great power in these issues; but equally great danger.

The materialists (liberals) have set a whole trotline of booby traps for anyone who appeals to racial, gender, or ethnic sensibilities in the service of traditional values. Yet, does not do the same in the service of modernity (remember Ginsburg’s opinion in the VMI case). They have possession of the playing field, you might say, so they are setting the rules.

The conversation with Dennis shows that this is a very frustrating area to be grappling with but it is the landscape we find ourselves in. The appeal of race or ethnicity is very strong. It all looks so easy. Just get all the whites or all the Celts together and one has an instant movement. The trouble with this approach is that it works. But not very well. Especially in the mixed environment with in which we exist. Again we find ourselves on someone else’s playing field. Modernity has given us a racial/ethnic jumble. With no “pure” ethnic base to draw upon, what’s a girl to do?

Because Multi-culturalism is an imposed system pushed by the Central government it is the embodiment evil. Yet if one looks around the South today, it doesn’t take too long to figure out that it ain’t all crackers an’ hillbillies. However, we do have a culture. And we do have political principles. And we do have art, lit, music, food, speech … all products of earlier forms but now transformed by time and place into a ethnicity in the present. That’s a lot of “stuff” to draw upon.

We are Southrons or Southerners because we hold those positions; today. Building an ethnic identity on that rather than racial or historic stereotypes seems to be a place to start.

I got ta go to bed. This old hillbilly gets tired. What do you think?

Deo Vindice,

David S. Reif

#18.

From Mike Broadwell to all.

July 26, 1996

The recent series of posts regarding the question of ethnicity and the SL have been revealing. What is interesting to note is the reaction to the letters of Dennis Wheeler, as well as the response of the Clemson student. Notwithstanding the latter’s justifiable anger at being misrepresented by his former girlfriend, the whole situation makes the point quite clearly.

Why should Mr. Wheeler be called “way out of line” and have his motives questioned for merely expressing ideas? The very constitution that our great Southern forebears fought and died for considered as foundational the right to free expression. Any sensible person knows they intended by this the free expression of political ideas. (Not table dancing, as our modern supreme court has ruled.)

I am not saying that Mr. Wheeler is being denied this right, but the general tone seems to be that he is on the edge of acceptability. If his ideas were addressed thoughtfully and clearly shown to be mistaken, this might be understandable. But the concern seems to be only how they will be perceived, not whether they are true or false.

The Clemson situation is even more telling. It is sad that this young man should be so fearful of repercussions from what would only be a practical joke in a healthy society. This sounds like a situation in the former Soviet Union more than in the “land of the free and home of the brave”.

The Olympics have shown what the approach to make everyone “just get along” will result in. That is the suppression of the real heritage and virtues of the South. The attempt to make different peoples fit one mold can only be accomplished through suppression. Is this not the legacy of the Northern conquest of the South, in the 1860′s and in the 1960′s as well?

If “diversity is our strength”, then why are there so many cops and soldiers guarding the Olympics? If this situation is acceptable, we really are fighting “the lost cause”. This is exactly why Dennis has said that the SL should be a movement of the Southern (i.e. Scots-Irish and Cavalier descended) people. We are not hostile to other peoples, unless they are hostile to our aspirations. But we are not beholden to them in any way, other than to treat them in accord with Christian forbearance. We love the South, first because it is ours, and second because we believe in the principles represented by it. These principles may be adopted by others. That should be a sufficient blessing. Why should we seek other’s validation of our principles, much less our life as a distinct people?

Our people and principles were shaped over centuries in Britain and the South. They can be lost in much less time. Can the principles be maintained when the people that forged them is gone, in body and in spirit? I for one do not want to find out. We must be free, and that means free from worrying about what favored minorities, or the press, or Bob Costa or any other self proclaimed do-gooder thinks about us. We must return to the source of that confidence displayed by the courageous men of the South. If they were wrong, we don’t need a Southern League.

Mike Broadwell

#19.

From: George Kalas to Mike Broadwell.

Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 01:15:26 0400

Mike,

I find it easy to agree with your post because it is wholly in line with my thinking and that of the national office i.e. Southern culture was predominantly molded and shaped by our Anglo-Celtic/Cavalier forbearers and this is the culture that is under attack and that we are seeking to preserve. I think because we have taken this stand we quite naturally attract well over 98% of our members from that ethnic group alone.

However, we do have some members who fall into the other 2% and their membership in our organisation is welcomed because they adhere to our culture and help us advance our cause in a political realm that is inherently hostile to us and which enjoys the privilege of defining the playing field upon which we must compete for influence and power.

My whole objection over the course of this thread is to the attitude that says we should somehow erect barriers to membership for Jewish Southrons or black Southrons simply because they are not 100% like the rest of our members. I suppose you could do this and feel very smug about your ideological purity of thought and policy but you will never, ever achieve a mass movement for independence for Dixie if you blithely play into the hands of the liberals who are baiting “racism” traps for you all along the road to freedom. A little pragmatism is a healthy thing.

Cordially,

George Kalas

DixieNet

#20.

From Daniel Bennett to Dennis Wheeler.

Date: Thu, 25 Jul 96 15:58:20 UT

From: “Dan Bennett”

To: southernleague@polaris.net

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

“Remember, it is God who separated mankind into different peoples, not me. I can’t do anything to undo the divisions that God has made within mankind. Neither can you. We both can either except them and live as though they are valid or we can deny them and act as though they are not valid.”

Daniel’s response:

Could you be so good as to define “valid” as you’ve used it here? It sounds as though you’re espousing the sort of “racialist” position that one commonly sees in alt.politics. nationalism.white. Are you saying that the races should be separated? If so, why?

Daniel then gives a second quote by Dennis:

“My point is that it is not a very important event to draft those of other nations into a Southern nationalist movement, which is how the Southern League has been explained to me.”

Daniel’s response:

It appears that you’re using the term “nation” to describe ethnicity. If that is the case, I’ll have to ask you why we should NOT draft Southrons of various ethnic backgrounds into the League. What sorts of ancestry would make a person unimportant to win to our side?

Daniel gives a third quote by Dennis:

“At any rate, I don’t see my views as “way out of line.” They may be contrary to yours, they may be wrong, but they certainly represent a large percentage of the Southern League membership.”

Daniel’s response:

I’d be interested in knowing how you arrived at that conclusion, since it certainly hasn’t been reflected in the discussions here.

Daniel gives a fourth quote by Dennis:

“What kind of system do you see us developing if the Southern League is successful? Will it be a one-man-one-vote multiracial democracy like we have now differentiated only by different policies? Or do you see the necessity of the Southern people erecting a political color bar so that we alone will decide issues of political and cultural importance to us?”

Daniel’s response:

The question I have to ask here is: Who’s “us”? If “us” means white Southrons only, then not only am I out, but I’ll become a vehement opponent. You see, my wife is from Korea, and therefore, my children’s ancestry is half Asian. Part of the reason for my participation in the League is to try and provide a better place for my kids. But if you’d exclude them from participation because you don’t like where their grandparents came from, then we’re at cross purposes, aren’t we?

Racialism is a stupid idea at best. Carried to its logical extreme, it would require the government to maintain genealogies of all its citizens in order to determine who rated where in the racial pecking order. That is hardly the proper goal of the state, is it?

The proper purpose of government, IMO, is the defense of the God-given liberties of its citizenry. But unfortunately, many people see government as a means of enforcing whatever axe it is that they have to grind. That is, of course, the very thing that has brought the US gov’t to the sorry state it’s in today.

Daniel Bennett

[Editor's note: Here was one of the first blatant instances of "argument by rhetoric." You will see this over and over again as you read further. Unable or unwilling to argue the abstract point of what a Southerner is, Daniel personalized the matter and made disagreement with him an attack on his wife and children.

#21.

From: George Kalas to Daniel Bennett.

Date: Fri, 26 Jul 96 17:35:26 UT

Dan,

Well stated and I fully agree with what you've said. The Southern League is not a white racialist, white separatist or really a "white-anything" organisation. We are a SOUTHERN organisation and I'll welcome *any* man or woman who adheres to our cause. Those whose passion lies strictly within the realm of setting up a whites-only state somewhere in America might want to migrate to one of those whacko groups up in Idaho or Montana I would think.

For Dixie,

George (The enemy of my enemy is my friend) Kalas

#22.

Philip Underwood-Sheppard to Daniel Bennett.

Philip begins with a quote by Daniel:

At 03:58 PM 7/25/96 UT, you wrote: "The question I have to ask here is: Who's `us'? If `us' means white Southrons only, then not only am I out, but I'll become a vehement opponent."

Philip's response:

Me, too. Racialism =elitism, in my most humble opinion, a class based society. That sounds like I'm a communist, doesn't it?

Do the "us" control everything, and all others simply do what we tell them to? It is one thing to say we believe in Christian principles as a guide to the governing of our nation; it is another to say "white" principles need to be the guide. I know many white folk I would trust to govern me by their principles. And white culture doesn't necessarily mean Southern culture.

Philip then gives a second quote by Daniel:

Racialism is a stupid idea at best. Carried to its logical extreme, it would require the government to maintain genealogies of all its citizens in order to determine who rated where in the racial pecking order. That is hardly the proper goal of the state, is it?"

Philip's response:

In South Africa, it only required one to have 1/32 black descent to be removed from one's place of employment and sent to a camp for the racially impure. Sufficiently cleansed, the government could then govern the racially impure with benevolent laws that would maintain their own racial superiority. Is that what we are to become? Ignorant folk have racial attitudes I despise, but less so the racial attitudes of intelligent folk.

We have talked about genetics, environment, differences between blacks we like and blacks we can't stand, but if the Southern League is not big enough for blacks who agree with us, then count me out.

Most humbly,

Philip

Philip Underwood-Sheppard

Port Royal Island

Occupied South Carolina

#23.

From Gary Waltrip to Robert ???.

July 27, 1996

Gary begins with a quote by Robert ??? from a previous post. The post to which he is referring in the body of his message is unknown:

In a message dated 960726 05:39:56 EDT, you write: "That is, the danger of "miscegenation" leading to "mongrelization" is a false danger. I am a Caucasian married to a Caucasian, we have 3 Caucasian children and hope to have more some day. Now, unless all 3 of my children (and any future children) should choose non-caucasian mates, the continuance of the Caucasian race is a given for many decades to come."

Gary's response:

Robert, thanks for some intelligent thought on this matter. Personally, I am getting a bit tired of some of the blatant bigotry that I hear coming out of some factions of the movement, and probably will not be too gentle with them in the future. As one who is "guilty" of mongrelizing the race by marrying an Asian and having an Amerasian son, I can only say "screw you" (sorry ladies) to the idiots who believe this tripe.

Maybe they can stir up a few more insulting stereotypes of Southerners by wearing sheets to wienie roasts, learning to play "dueling banjos" on their guitars, marrying their cousins, and making moonshine in their backyards. Maybe they can even have some of their front teeth pulled so they can smile just like a good ole boy.

My son is very handsome, has a 3.83 grade point average at an exclusive Catholic high school where you have to be the cream of the academic crop to get in (he is the CREAM of the cream of the crop); he is also a great baseball player, having been pulled up from Little League Senior Minors to Senior Majors, where he then made the All-star team. What a terrible result of his mongrelization! But because he has such a high IQ, I will have to ask Mr. Bilbo and his supporters to, the next time they get on a bus with my family, to please sit in the back, which is reserved for the cognitively deficient.

Sorry for getting hot, but I am sick of BIGOTS trying to take over this movement. You folks must have wandered into the wrong listserve. The Klan meeting is down the hall.

Gary Waltrip

#24.

From Charles Upshaw to Philip Underwood-Sheppard.

July 27, 1996

Dear Philip,

I agree with you 100%. It is the holier/smarter/better than thou attitude which sent the hoary beasts against us in 1861.

For good or evil, there is a certain laid back, live and let live tolerance within Southron culture. Not agreement or acceptance or approval but tolerance. Those elements of society of which we disapprove we try to change through prayer and proclamation and example, not at the point of a gun. Discriminating, concerned tolerance.

I think that most on this listserver and within the Southern League look upon what passes for black culture and shudder for the South. If we want a nobler, more refined South, we must use whatever means God's providence places at our disposal. That means that those blacks who feel as we do should be encouraged to join us and carry our message back to the Southern black community.

I love my land and want to see her restored to health.

We MUST discriminate - on the basis of sentiments and aspirations - not race.

Sorry, I seem to be rambling.

Humbly,

Pat Upshaw

[Editor's note: After Daniel had received these three congratulatory posts, it was time for me to answer him. -- Dennis Wheeler]

#25.

From Dennis Wheeler to Daniel Bennett.

July 27, 1996

Dear Dan’l,

Before I answer your questions let me state that I appreciate them and the cordial manner they were written. You are in disagreement with some of my positions; that was hard to hide. Still you are so far carrying on discourse in a gentlemanly manner and I appreciate that.

(1) I use the term “valid” in connection with the ethnic divisions God has made among mankind as meaning “still in effect and binding on men.”

My positi {lost at this point – someone remind me to fix later}