#1 From Dennis Wheeler to Dan Bennett — Dec. 29, 1997

Dear Dan,

I would be quite interested to hear you give your working definition of “an unreconstructed Southron.” Also, I would like to hear your ideas on what “an unreconstructed Southerner” are.

I have defined the dictum of Reconstruction to be this: “The South must allow the full social and political equality of all peoples living in the South or be racists, bigots, and hatemongers.” Our people have resisted and stood against this dictum for over 300 years, but during the last 35 years, a large percentage of them have accepted it.

To accept this dictum is to be reconstructed, IMO. Is this your understanding of the situation? From statements you have made in the past and from looking at the web page of your radio show, it seems to me that you have accepted at least a large part of the Reconstructionist dictum. Yet you still refer to yourself as “an unreconstructed Southron.” I would like to give you the opportunity to explain this seeming discrepancy.

Yours truly,

Dennis Wheeler

#2 Dan Bennett to Dennis Wheeler — Dec. 29, 1997

dennisw”mindspring.com allowed as how:

> “I would be quite interested to hear your working definition of “an unreconstructed Southron.” Also, I would like to hear your ideas on>what “an unreconstructed Southerner” is.

They would, of course, be the same.

> “I have defined the dictum of Reconstruction to be this: “The >South must allow the full social and political equality of all peoples >living in the South or be racists, bigots, and hatemongers.”

An interesting definition, but one that doesn’t have anything at all to do with the historical realities of reconstruction. If your definition had been true, then the north would have been in dire need of “reconstruction” themselves, don’t you think?

In reality, reconstruction was the systematic looting of the South by its Yankee conquerors, and the corresponding attempt to eliminate the South as a political and cultural entity. The only equality desired by reconstructionists was an equal share of the loot for the carpetbagging vermin who preyed on defeated Dixie.

> “Our people >have resisted and stood against this dictum for over 300 years, but >during the last 35 years, a large percentage of them have accepted it.”

At this point you’re obviously not talking about historical reconstruction, but have a racial axe to grind. Let me speak plainly, then. I have no racial agenda. I believe that a Southron (or a Southerner, if you prefer) is one who shares our Southern culture (and there is a Southern culture, make no mistake about it), our Southern traditions, and our love of the South. That person may be white, and then again, he may not. I’ve known good Southrons who were black, and I’ve known despicable scalawags who were white. (Come to think of it, I’ve seen posts from both on this very newsgroup.) To prefer the bad white to the good black seems to me simply stupid.

> “To accept this dictum is to be reconstructed, IMO. Is this your >understanding of the situation?”

Obviously not. The dictum you describe exists only in your imagination, and also, notably, of the imagination of our Yankee oppressors who wish to justify their barbarous treatment of the South and Southrons by claiming a noble end. I believe it to be a vile fabrication.

> “From statements you have made in the >past and from looking at the web page of your radio show, it seems to me >that you have accepted at least a large part of the Reconstructionist >dictum.”

Sorry, Dennis, but I won’t play. There was racial division in the old South just as there was in the north, and neither side was particularly remarkable for its racial tolerance. The Yankee found it unprofitable to keep slaves earlier than the Southern planter did, and he took the opportunity to sell his slaves south while he could, but he was hardly zealous for racial equality. No, the idea that the separation between north and South is strictly racial is a Yankee canard which I refuse to accept. Come to think of it, the refusal to allow the Yankees to define who we are is yet another example of being unreconstructed.

> “Yet you still refer to yourself as “an unreconstructed >Southron.”

Loud and long.

> “I would like to give you the opportunity to explain this >seeming discrepancy.”

Again, I don’t allow the Yankee to define the terms. The perseverance in the fight for preservation of Southern culture and Southern independence in the face of Yankee attempts at cultural genocide is, I believe, sufficient justification for my use of the term “unreconstructed”.

#3 Dennis Wheeler to Dan Bennett — Dec. 30, 1997

Dear Dan Bennett,

I’m certainly glad that you see the refusal to allow the Yankees to define who we are as an example of being unreconstructed. If you’ll notice, in my message, I did not mention the word Yankee. That is because what the Yankee was or is has no bearing on what the Southerner was and is.

You, on the other hand, have spent a great deal of time defining a Southerner in terms and in comparison to what a Yankee is or was. Still,

The fact that the Yankee was not what you call racially tolerant is irrelevant to what a Southerner is.

The fact that the Yankees were in dire need of “reconstruction” is irrelevant to the things commonly held and practiced among Southerners.

The fact that there was racial division in the north is irrelevant to the fact that there was racial division in the South.

The fact that the Yankee found slavery to be unbeneficial before the Southern planter did is irrelevant to the fact that in the South it was both found to be beneficial and practiced right up to the end of the War.

You have attributed to me “the idea that the separation between north and South is strictly racial” and you have called it “a Yankee canard which I refuse to accept.” But I have not posited that the separation between north and South is strictly racial. I have not defined anything in terms of what took place up north. I have only defined the South in terms of the historical record of the actions of my people.

By your own admission, the record is clear. 1) Negro slavery was practiced in the South. 2) The Southern people of the antebellum era were not what you call racially tolerant. 3) The South did not hold to the belief that we must allow the full social and political participation of all peoples living in the South. 4) There was racial division in the South.

So you have not demonstrated that I “have a racial axe to grind,” but rather have acknowledged that my beliefs are in line with those of my people of the antebellum era.

As for the Reconstruction period, my understanding is that you have divorced it from any philosophical pursuit; and hold that it was essentially the act of hooligans or something like that. You wrote: “reconstruction was the systematic looting of the South by its Yankee conquerors, and the corresponding attempt to eliminate the South as a political and cultural entity.”

Now my understanding of Reconstruction, and perhaps someone can correct this if it’s not correct, is that it was begun in earnest after 1868, when the Southern congressmen would not ratify the 14th amendment. The prevailing theory prior to that was that “states cannot secede, only evil rulers can.” Therefore, it was held that the Southern states had never left the union and Southern congressional delegations were reseated in Washington after the War.

Now it took a two-thirds majority to pass an amendment, and the South held a veto power in that regard. And when our men would not pass the 14th amendment, then they were removed from Congress, the troops moved into the South with a vengeance, our state legislatures were forcibly removed from office and replaced with Negroes and scalawags who would do Washington’s bidding.

At this time a systematic attempt was made to mold the Southerner into accepting the idea that he must accept the Negroes as political and social equals.

If someone has a better grasp of history than I do, then I hope you will join in this discussion.

After our state governments were overthrown and replaced by Negroes and scalawags, the former Confederate soldiers “and their younger brothers,” under the leadership of General Nathan Bedford Forrest, formed the Ku Klux Klan to surrepititiously drive the Reconstructionist troops from our land. It took them nine years to succeed and the last of the Yankee troops left South Carolina in 1877.

At that point, General Wade Hampton was asked by the Democrats to run for governor of South Carolina. He said he would under the condition that he would run on a pro-white Straight Out Ticket. He did. He won. And this started the process of implementing the Jim Crow laws to minimize black voting strength and to erect social barriers to the integration of the two peoples.

No less a man than Robert L. Dabney had counseled the people to do this. He told them that the new constitution forbid voting exclusion by race, but had left open loopholes such as property ownership. He said most Southern men who didn’t own land would gladly give up their right to vote if it would mean that the vast majority of blacks couldn’t vote, either. This practice was initiated throughout the South and held sway in Dixie until the Civil Rights War of the 1950s and 1960s. (BTW, Jim Crow saved America from the implementation of the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act for nearly 90 years.)

The Civil Rights campaign has aptly been called “the Second Reconstruction.” For at that time, a renewed attempt was begun to make the Southerner bow to the dictum that “we must allow full social and political participation to all peoples in the South or be racists, bigots, and hatemongers.”

This time, sadly, they have succeeded in great measure. And again, I think it is unfair to say that I have a “racial agenda” and that you don’t. I think it is more fair to say that my ideas are in line with those our people have always held to. I think the record is clear on that point.

While it’s true that the overwhelming majority of Yankee soldiers were not fighting the War to impose equalitarianism on the South, nonetheless, it remains true that the result of their collective efforts did just that. It’s like the German defendants at Nuremburg saying they weren’t fighting to spread National-Socialism but were just following orders. Well, that’s probably true for many of them. But the result of their collective efforts was spreading National-Socialism whether or not it was the purpose of the individual soldiers to do so.

So it was in the War of Northern Aggression. Most Yankee soldiers were not consciously spreading equalitarianism. But that was the result of their efforts. Dr. Thornwell of South Carolina could see this as early as 1862: “They who join the unhallowed crusade against the institutions of the South will have reason to repent, that they have set an engine in motion which cannot be arrested, until it has crushed and ground to powder the safeguards of life and property among themselves.”

Jefferson Davis understood it as early as 1861. In his resignation speech before the U.S. Senate, he began: “[Mississippi] has heard proclaimed the theory that all men are created free and equal, and this made the basis of an attack upon her social institutions; and the sacred Declaration of Independence has been invoked to maintain the position of the equality of the races.”

So the fact that the Yankee soldiers were not crusading for a belief system that would ultimately crush their descendants as well, is no evidence that they were not spreading equalitarianism with their fighting. And whereas you have said the “dictum you describe exists only in your imagination,” the record shows it was well understood by the South even before the War began.

While denying an ideological element in the War, you have introduced an ideological element into the peoplehood of the Southerner. Between 1725 and 1775, 225,000 Scotch-Irish migrated to the Carolinas. And prior to that 40,000 Cavaliers had come to the Tidewater, Virginia area. Basically all Southerners can trace their ethnic lineage back to these two immigrant groups, although there have certain additions, such as the Cajuns, through political necessity.

You have defined the Southern people essentially as “anyone who loves the South and shares our Southern culture,” if I understand you correctly. This is a very subjective criterion. In fact, it is a definition of the concept “people” unknown to human history. The closest parallel concept I can think of happens to be the current idea in the United States that “an American is anyone who comes here and shares our democratic values.”

It seems to me that you have simply taken the current American definition and “Southronized” it, but that is a judgement of your motives and I can’t be sure of them until you declare them.

From a Christian and Biblical standpoint, a “people” is a large group of families and clans that have a distinct history and ethnic lineage. If you dispute that, I’ll be glad to back it up.

And historically, the Southern people have held the same concept. We are an ethnic people, like the Japanese, the Germans, the Norwegians, the Kurds, the Palestinians, the Russians, etc. And far from this being an idea that exists only in my mind, the historical record is clear. We have held one racial policy from George Washington to George Wallace.

Again to quote Dabney: “The black race is an alien one on our soil; and nothing except his amalgamation with ours, or his subordination to ours, can prevent the rise of that instinctive antipathy of race, which, history shows, always arises between opposite races in proximity.”

And we shouldn’t leave out Robert E. Lee: “The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially and physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their instruction as a race, and I hope will prepare and lead them to better things.”

And Lee later stated: “I think it would be better for Virginia if she could get rid of them…I have always thought so!”

These are just two quotes out of thousands from which I could choose. But I think you would be hardpressed to come up with any evidence whatsoever to lend credence to your perspective that the Southern people are not an ethnic people but an ideological construct of individuals who share our culture, which you have left undefined.

Let me hear from you,

Dennis Wheeler

#4 From Dan Bennett to Dennis Wheeler –Dec. 30, 1997

dennisw”mindspring.com allowed as how:

> “I said: “1) Negro slavery was practiced in the South.” You said: “as it was in the north. I said: “2) The Southern people of the antebellum era were not what you call racially tolerant.” You said:”Nor were the Yankees.” I said: “3) The South did not hold to the belief that we must allow thefull social and political participation of all peoples living in the South.”

And neither did the Yankees hold to the belief that they must allow full social and political participation of all peoples living in the north.

>” 4) There was racial division in the South. “

As there was in the north.

> “So you have not >demonstrated that I “have a racial axe to grind,” but rather have >acknowledged that my beliefs are in line with those of my people of the >antebellum era.”

But not particularly of antebellum SOUTHERNERS. The racial positions you’re talking about were those of Yankees as well as Southrons, and can therefore hardly be considered Southern positions.

> “As for the Reconstruction period, my understanding is that you have >divorced it from any philosophical pursuit; and hold that it was > essentially the act of hooligans or something like that.”

Something like hooligans, yes, but something more. The point wasn’t simply to loot the South, although that was a powerful incentive, but also to eliminate the South as a cultural and political entity. The overt looting has by and large stopped, the effort to eradicate the South has not.

>”After our state governments were overthrown and replaced by Negroes and >scalawags, the former Confederate soldiers “and their younger brothers,” >under the leadership of General Nathan Bedford Forrest, formed the Ku >Klux Klan to surreptitiously drive the Reconstructionist troops from our > land.”

General Forrest did not participate in the formation of the Klan, but joined after it was fully established.

> It took them nine years to succeed and the last of the Yankee >troops left South Carolina in 1877. At that point, General Wade Hampton >was asked by the Democrats to run for governor of South Cairina. He >said he would under the condition that he would run on a pro-white >Straight Out Ticket. He did. He won. And this started the process of >implementing the Jim Crow laws to minimize black voting strength and to >erect social barriers to the integration of the two peoples.:

The political barriers against black suffrage were certainly there. The blacks were the tools of the Yankees, after all, and held in scant regard by anyone, Southron or Yankee. The social barriers went much, much further back, and once again, were hardly unique to the South

> “While denying an ideological element in the War, you have introduced an >ideological element into the peoplehood of the Southerner.”

Not ideological, cultural. It is our culture which makes us unique. By your standards, there is nothing at all to distinguish us from the Yankees who’ve ground our country into the earth. Strangely enough, you seem to have no quarrel at all with the Yankees, and use a definition of “Southern” that would include white Yankees as easily as it would white Southrons. You direct your annoyance toward the blacks, who were simply the cat’s paws of our Yankee oppressors. It’s rather like blaming the gun for having shot you rather than the man who pulled the trigger.

> “Between 1725 >and 1775, 225,000 Scotch-Irish migrated to the Carolinas. And prior to >that 40,000 Cavaliers had come to the Tidewater, Virginia area. >Basically all Southerners can trace their ethnic lineage back to these >two immigrant groups, although there have certain additions, such as the >Cajuns, through political necessity. You have defined the Southern people >essentially as “anyone who loves the South and shares our Southern >culture,” if I understand you correctly. This is a very subjective >criterion.”

It is indeed. If we change it to your criterion, which seems to be “anyone who believes in separation of the races” then you have to include everyone of any background who happens to hold a grudge against black people.

> “In fact, it is a definition of the concept “people” unknown >to human history.”

Hardly! “Peoples” are typically those who share a language, a territory, and a cultural background. Otherwise, how would you identify then at all? How could you tell a Ukranian from a Russian, or a Magyar from a Frenchman?

> “The closest parallel concept I can think of happens to >be the current idea in the United States that “an American is anyone who >comes here and shares our democratic values.” It seems to me that you >have simply taken the current American definition and “Southronized” it, >but that is a judgement of your motives and I can’t be sure of them until >you declare them.”

I thought I’d declared them quite clearly. If not, then let me clarify them now – a Southron is one who adheres to Southern culture, who lives in the South or at least considers it home, who speaks our language, who understands our ways, and who considers himself one of us. Now that’s pretty exclusive stuff, isn’t it? It excludes the Russian and the Yankee (of whatever color or ideology), it excludes the Mexican and the Nigerian and yes, even the Korean. It only includes – us.”

> “From a Christian and Biblical standpoint, a “people” is >a large group of families interesting. St. Paul tells us that there is neither Jew nor Greek, neither bond, nor free, neither male nor female, but all are one in Christ Jesus. But I don’t suppose Paul’s “ideology” figures much in this discussion, does it?

>” and clans that have a distinct history and >ethnic lineage.”

If that be the case, what clan did Jesus come from? His ancestors, as I recall, included Chaldeans (Abraham), Moabites, (Ruth) and probably other non-Jewish forebears that we don’t know about. It seems that the people who gave us the Bible weren’t nearly as strict about racial purity as you are.

> “If you dispute that, I’ll be glad to back it up.”

> “And >historically, the Southern people have held the same concept. We are an >ethnic people, like the Japanese, the Germans, the Norwegians, the Kurds, >the Palestinians, the Russians, etc. And far from this being an idea >that exists only in my mind, the historical record is clear. We have >held one racial policy from George Washington to George Wallace.”

And again, you use a racial policy that would dissolve any distinction between us and any other culture that happens to exist in North America. Sorry, Dennis, but I personally don’t have anything in common with the Yankees.

> “Again to >quote Dabney: “The black race is an alien one on our soil; and nothing >except his amalgamation with ours, or his subordination to ours, can >prevent the rise of that instinctive antipathy of race, which, history >shows, always arises between opposite races in proximity.”

Dr. Dabney was a great man, but I don’t happen to accept his every word as holy writ. The interesting thing is that he was writing in defense of slavery, which institution is the reason blacks were here in the first place. More than a little strange, eh?

> “And we >shouldn’t leave out Robert E. Lee: “The blacks are immeasurably better >off here than in Africa, morally, socially and physically. The painful >discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their instruction as a >race, and I hope will prepare and lead them to better things.” And Lee >later stated: “I think it would be better for Virginia if she could get >rid of them…I have always thought so!” These are just two quotes out of >thousands from which I could choose. But I think you would be hard >pressed to come up with any evidence whatsoever to lend credence to your >perspective that the Southern people are not an ethnic people but an >ideological construct of individuals who share our culture, which you >have left undefined.”

Again, if we are simply an “ethnic people”, then there is nothing to distinguish us from any one else on this continent, and we might as well sit down, shut up, and become little Yankees.

Dan Bennett, Unreconstructed Southron DIXIE RISING, Tuesdays at half-past-noon, WNAH 1360 AM in Nashville Saturdays at 20:30 Central (Sunday 02:30 UTC) WWCR, 5.070 MHZ http://members.tripod.com/~secesh/index.html

#5 From Dennis Wheeler to Dan Bennett –Dec. 30, 1997

Dear Dan Bennett,

Thank you for the fine reply. I’m afraid I have to say you began by continuing to define the Southerner in terms of the Northerer. I said: “1) Negro slavery was practiced in the South.” You said: “as it was in the north.

I said: “2) The Southern people of the antebellum era were not what you call racially tolerant.” You said:”Nor were the Yankees.” I said: “3) The South did not hold to the belief that we must allow the full social and political participation of all peoples living in the South.” You said: “And neither did the Yankees hold to the belief that they must allow full social and political participation of all peoples living in the north.” I said: ” 4) There was racial division in the South.” And you said: “As there was in the north.”

My point was that I am defining the Southern people’s beliefs by their actions and practices, not by the actions and practices of the Yankees, as what the Yankees did was irrelevant to what our people did. Yet you have ignored this and continued to define our beliefs in terms of Yankee beliefs, as though one was predicated on the other.

If the Japanese practice hari-kari and our people do too, you can’t defend our people’s actions by saying: “The Japanese did, too.” One is irrelevant to the other.

What I’m interested in defining is the historic beliefs and practices of the Southern people. For the moment, I have no interest in what the Yankees did. And as I look at the record, the four activities described above are a fair characterization of the activities of the Southern people.

Your points about these not being typical or representative of the Southern people because the Yankees did them too is both moot and irrelevant. These activities define in large measure the beliefs and actions of the Southern people. This is our history.

Now you can argue against the morality of our beliefs and practices if you so desire. You can take sides against our people, their beliefs, their actions, and their struggle. But I have a difficult time in seeing how you do that and continue to call yourself “unreconstructed,” when it was these very beliefs and actions that Reconstruction was meant to destroy.

Now it is obvious from the quotes I gave yesterday from Jeff Davis and Dr. Thornwell that the South generally understood this philosophical aim of the War and the Reconstruction. You have offered no evidence against this point, yet you still deny it vehemently.

The crux of your position relies on your statement: “The racial positions you’re talking about were those of Yankees as well as Southrons, and can therefore hardly be considered Southern positions.” But that’s like saying Iraq is not a Moslem country because Iran is a Moslem country so being Moslem is not unique to Iraq.

The truth is that both North and South, the United States at large, were founded on these principles, beliefs, and actions. A radical philosophy had sprung up in the North that demanded these principles be overthrown. Southern Negro slavery was the first flashpoint in the battle. T he battle continues to this day. After slavery was abolished; then Negro suffrage; then civil rights, affirmative action, quotas, etc.; now the abolition of all Southern symbols, monuments, etc.; and as Dean Fowler pointed out today in message #689, once that battle is won, then it will be a direct attack on whites.

Jefferson Davis understood this very plainly. Dabney understood this very plainly. Thornwell understood this very plainly. I understand it very plainly. But for some reason, you don’t seem to understand it.

You later wrote: ” The overt looting [of Reconstruction] has by and large stopped, the effort to eradicate the South has not.” My understanding of this is that the overt looting was merely a byproduct of fallen men (Yankee soldiers) being in the position of stealing things with both ease and no retribution to follow. That has now ended. Yet the effort to eradicate the South continues because we have always stood against the dictum of Reconstruction: Allow equal political and social participation of all peoples in the South or be racists, bigots, and hatemongers.”

The Equalitarian religion demands our eradication because it cannot accomplish its ends with us in the way. But obviously, your understanding is quite different. I would be interested to hear you put forth a position as to why the eradication of the South continues today.

I’ll comment on the issue of the identity of the Southern people in my next post.

Sincerely,

Dennis Wheeler

#6 Dan Bennett to Dennis Wheeler — Dec. 31, 1997

On Tue, 30 Dec 1997 17:21:34 -0600, dennisw”mindspring.com wrote:

>My point was that I am defining the Southern people’s beliefs by their >actions and practices, not by the actions and practices of the Yankees,”

And my point was that you fail to make any appreciable distinction between us and the Yankees, since the things you note as significant about the South were also things we have in common with the north. It’s like saying that the difference between the north and South is that we both eat bread; it doesn’t tell you anything.

>”as what the Yankees did was irrelevant to what our people did.”

Once again, if what you’re defining as “Southern” was also common to the Yankees, how is it Southern?

>”Yet you >have ignored this and continued to define our beliefs in terms of Yankee >beliefs”

I have contrasted “Southern” with “non-Southern”. I can’t work with a definition of “Southern” which includes Yankees as well, and I don’t see how you can either, at least not and make any sense.

>”, as though one was predicated on the other. If the Japanese >practice hari-kari and our people do too, you can’t defend our people’s >actions by saying: “The Japanese did, too.”

Nope, bad analogy. If hara-kiri was practised by many non-Japanese cultures, then it wouldn’t be particularly Japanese, would it? If racial discrimination is practised by the Yankees (and it is, with great enthusiasm) then it isn’t particularly Southern, is it?

> ” One is irrelevant to the >other. What I’m interested in defining is the historic beliefs and >practices of the Southern people.

We hold a number of beliefs and customs that are uniquely ours. Racial prejudice, I’m happy to say, isn’t one of them. That occurs wherever fallen humans behave like fallen humans.

> ” For the moment, I have no interest in >what the Yankees did. And as I look at the record, the four activities >described above are a fair characterization of the activities of the >Southern people.”

But again, in no way unique. Sorry, Dennis, you can’t say that we’re identified by the red hat we wear if everyone else wears a red hat as well.

> “Your points about these not being typical or >representative of the Southern people because the Yankees did them too is >both moot and irrelevant.”

So what you’re saying is that racial separation is uniquely Southern even though the Yankees do it too, right? Hoooookey dokey, whatever you say…

> “These activities define in large measure the >beliefs and actions of the Southern people. This is our history. Now you >can argue against the morality of our beliefs and practices if you so >desire.”

Indeed I do. You could make the case that many Southerners have traditionally drunk to excess and behaved badly in other ways, and that doesn’t make that behaviour acceptable.

> “You can take sides against our people, their beliefs, their >actions, and their struggle.”

OUR people? Again, you’re try to make something that is NOT in any way uniquely Southern and make the the basis for our culture. That is utterly nonsensical.

> “But I have a difficult time in seeing how >you do that and continue to call yourself “unreconstructed,” when it was >these very beliefs and actions that Reconstruction was meant to destroy.

Once again, that contention is utter and complete hogwash, however oft repeated.

> “Now it is obvious from the quotes I gave yesterday from Jeff Davis and >Dr. Thornwell that the South generally understood this philosophical aim >of the War and the Reconstruction. You have offered no evidence against >this point, yet you still deny this vehemently.”

You could have offered similar quotes from Gorilla Abe Lincoln, and I suppose have used them to support the notion that he really supported the Confederacy. That is if you were really that keen on swallowing camels.

> “The crux of your position >relies on your statement: “The racial positions you’re talking about were >those of Yankees as well as Southrons, and can therefore hardly be >considered Southern positions.”

Bingo! Give the man a cigar!

> “But that’s like saying Iraq is not a >Moslem country because Iran is a Moslem country so being Moslem is not >unique to Iraq.”

If you were trying to say that the difference between Iraq and Iran is that Iraq is a Muslim country, you’d be making precisely the strange sort of argument that you’re presenting here. If you’re going to claim that something is peculiarly Iraqi, you’re going to have to come up with something besides Islam, because is has that in common with most of the Middle Eastern states. In the same sense, if you;’re going to come up with something uniquely Southern, then it’s going to have to be something other than racial prejudice, since that is as common to the rest of humanity as it is to Southrons.

> “The truth is that both North and South, the United States >at large, were founded on these principles, beliefs, and actions.”

You’re telling me that the US was founded on the principle of keeping the blacks down? That’s quite a stretch, isn’t it?

> “A >radical philosophy had sprung up in the North that demanded these >principles be overthrown. Southern Negro slavery was the first >flashpoint in the battle. The battle continues to this day. After >slavery was abolished; then Negro suffrage; then civil rights, >affirmative action, quotas, etc.; now the abolition of all Southern >symbols, monuments, etc.; and as Dean Fowler pointed out today in >message #689, once that battle is won, then it will be a direct attack on >whites. Jefferson Davis understood this very plainly. Dabney understood >this very plainly. Thornwell understood this very plainly. I understand >it very plainly. But for some reason, you don’t seem to understand it.”

Perhaps because you’ve rolled it into so many other essentially unrelated areas that it no longer makes any sense. I don’t believe, for instance, that Dabney, Thornwell, or Davis believed what you;re saying at all. They believed the the institution of slavery was defensible, that much is obvious, but there is no indication whatsoever that they believed it to be the sine qua non of Southern culture. No more do I believe that denial of civil rights to anyone based on their ancestry is the basis of Southern culture. I personally find the idea ludicrous.

>”You later wrote: ” The overt looting [of Reconstruction] has by and >large stopped, the effort to eradicate the South has not.” My >understanding of this is that the overt looting was merely a byproduct of >fallen men (Yankee soldiers) being in the position of stealing things >with both ease and no retribution to follow. That has now ended. Yet the >effort to eradicate the South continues because we have always stood >against the dictum of Reconstruction: Allow equal political and social >participation of all peoples in the South or be racists, bigots, and > hatemongers.”

Again, a definition of “reconstruction” which I not only reject out of hand, but find absurd. It presupposes that the War of Yankee Agression was precisely to free the slaves, and the reconstruction simply an effort to enfranchise the blacks, which is precisely what the Yankee myth presents as their justification for attacking the South and for carrying on reconstruction.

>”The Equalitarian religion demands our eradication because >it cannot accomplish its ends with us in the way. But obviously, your >understanding is quite different. I would be interested to hear you put >forth a position as to why the eradication of the South continues today.”

Simply because Southerners are too independent, too Christian, too recalcitrant, and simply too different to be easily digested by the Empire. The Empire demands that everyone be the same, and all completely subservient to imperial authority. Southerners a are continual hair in that soup, and will remain so as long as they remain Southerners.

> “I’ll comment on the issue of the identity of the Southern people in my >next post.”

It appears that will be simple – white folks. Just out of curiousity, do you feel that Jews can be Southerners, or are they somehow not white enough?

#7 Dennis Wheeler to Dan Bennett; Dec. 31, 1997

Dear Dan Bennett,

Now I think we’re getting somewhere. You wrote: “And my point was that you fail to make any appreciable distinction between us and the Yankees, since the things you note as significant about the South were also things we have in common with the north.”

You are putting the cart before the horse. You define a thing first, then compare it. It seems you have the words “define” and “distinguish” confused. Simply, to define a thing is to “state the meaning of; determine the essence of.” To distinguish a thing is to “identify as different.”

You are demanding that the definition of the South identify it as different from the North. So you are using the wrong word and the wrong concept. Honesty compels us to define the South first, then compare it to the North; then describe the distinguishing characteristics.

You also wrote: ” I have contrasted “Southern” with “non-Southern”. I can’t work with a definition of “Southern” which includes Yankees as well, and I don’t see how you can either, at least not and make any sense.”

Here you are proving my point. You are not defining the South, you are contrasting it to the North. These are different concepts. Your presupposition that you can’t work with a definition of Southern which includes Yankees is dishonest on two counts. First, I have not given a definition which includes Yankees and so you are misrepresenting my perspective again. Second, it puts you in the position of determining what truth is before an investigation has been undertaken. This puts you in a moral dilemma.

You need to do the honorable thing, Brother Dan, and investigate the truth, then let it tell you where to go next, rather than imposing restraints on the truth and holding the truth must fit certain parameters or be rejected.

You also wrote: “If racial discrimination is practiced by the Yankees (and it is, with great enthusiasm) then it isn’t particularly Southern, is it?”

Sorry. You’re wrong again, sad to say. You are comparing and contrasting instead of defining.

You also wrote: “We hold a number of beliefs and customs that are uniquely ours. Racial prejudice, I’m happy to say, isn’t one of them. That occurs wherever fallen humans behave like fallen humans.”

Here is further prima facie evidence that you have accepted the Reconstructionist moral philosophy and denounced the Christian position. “Racial prejudice” is one of the Reconstructionist’s buzzwords designed to overthrow the Christian moral order of the South. You have accepted it as a valid moral concept. This demonstrates anew your Reconstructed heart.

Please define for us “racial prejudice.”

In a previous post, I wrote: “These activities define in large measure the beliefs and actions of the Southern people. This is our history. Now you can argue against the morality of our beliefs and practices if you so desire.”

And you responded: “Indeed I do. You could make the case that many Southerners have traditionally drunk to excess and behaved badly in other ways, and that doesn’t make that behavior acceptable.”

Thank you for that frank and sincere answer. I appreciate the fact you have finally admitted that you argue against the moral beliefs and practices of the Southern people and have compared our historic racial policy to moral transgressions such as excessive drinking. It took a long time for me to get you to admit that you believe our ancestors were essentially immoral in their social policies. Thank you. However, honesty compels me to add you have still not accepted that these were our ancestors’ social policies.

You also wrote: “You could have offered similar quotes from Gorilla Abe Lincoln, and I suppose have used them to support the notion that he really supported the Confederacy.”

The fact that Lincoln was inconsistent in his policies and practices, that he didn’t understand where his policies and activities would lead, in no way impacts the beliefs of Southern leaders and the Southern people who understood very clearly where Lincoln’s actions would lead. For you to deny that Lincoln’s actions have brought on the South exactly what the men I quoted said it would, shows — something, I’m not sure what.

You also wrote: You’re telling me that the US was founded on the principle of keeping the blacks down? That’s quite a stretch, isn’t it?”

I’m not clear on what you mean here. If you would be so kind as to enlarge or explain, I would appreciate it.

You also wrote: “I don’t believe, for instance, that Dabney, Thornwell, or Davis believed what you’re saying at all. They believed the the institution of slavery was defensible, that much is obvious, but there is no indication whatsoever that they believed it to be the sine qua non of Southern culture. No more do I believe that denial of civil rights to anyone based on their ancestry is the basis of Southern culture. I personally find the idea ludicrous.”

Davis obviously believed that the Yankee war effort was an attempt to enforce equality of the races. I agree and you disagree. Thornwell saw that the logical end of the Yankee philosophy would grind them to powder as well as us. I believe that and you deny that any such philosophy was being advanced.

Dabney said that if ever the blood of the heroes of Mannassas was mixed “with the vile stream of African blood,” it would produce a race of men before whom no tyrant would ever tremble. I believe that. But you do not.

Also, I would be interested to hear what civil rights you believe that I would deny to “anyone based on their ancestry” that is different from the beliefs of these three men and the Southern people generally.

You also wrote: “[The eradication of the South continues today] simply because Southerners are too independent, too Christian, too recalcitrant, and simply too different to be easily digested by the Empire. The Empire demands that everyone be the same, and all completely subservient to imperial authority. Southerners a are continual hair in that soup, and will remain so as long as they remain Southerners.”

That’s a pretty good answer as far as it goes. As you know, I write a newsletter for a living. It’s my job to analyze the precious metals markets and the companies that mine or want to mine gold and silver. Sometimes I’ll get a letter from a subscriber saying what I said was true but wasn’t penetrating enough to warrant them paying for a newsletter.

In your perspective on why the South remains under attack, you have stated the truth, but not the whole truth, not the penetrating truth. Why is it that an empire demands everyone be the same and all completely subservient to imperial authority? What is the philosophy and religion behind such a policy?

The French Revolution in the early 1800s, the Abolitionists War Against the South in the mid 1800s, and the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia in the early 1900s, were three theaters of the same war. The War of Equalitarian Conquest. The Equalitarian religion, which has operated since Nimrod, desires the unity of mankind. God has divided the peoples into ethnic units called peoples or nations to keep the Equalitarians from success. Breaking down the ethnic and racial barriers in the South, which was just one manifestation of our Christian underpinning, was essential to their victory.

We have been too Christian, too recalcitrant, and too independent, as you say. But one of the cornerstones of these three traits, is the one you argue so vehemently against. And it happens to be the one which was under the most virulent attack and remains so to this day.

Happy New Year,

Dennis Wheeler

#8 From Dennis Wheeler to Dan Bennett — Dec. 31, 1997

Dear Dan Bennett,

I think you’ve given a definition of the Southerner that is not all bad. In some ways, it’s pretty good actually. Here are just a few points I’d like to comment on:

First, you have defined a “people” as those who share a language, a territory, and a culture. And that’s pretty good. But you left out “bood relationship.”

The Greek word translated as “people” in the New Testament is “laos.” In Vine’s Expository Dictionary of the Bible, laos is defined ad “(a) the people at large, especially of people assembled, [Matt. 27:25] …, (b) a people of the same race and language, [Rom.15:11, Rev.5:9] …” (Page 844)

The word “nation” in the New Testament is the Greek word “ethnos.” It should not be difficult to see the ethnic connotation of that word. In Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance this word is defined as “a race (as of the same habit), i.e., a tribe; specifically a foreign (non-Jewish) one (usually by implication pagan):”

The Oxford English Dictionary defines “nation” as, “An extensive aggregate of persons, so closely associated with each other by common descent, language or history, as to form a distinct race or people, usually organized as a separate political state and occupying a definite territory. In earlier examples the racial idea is usually stronger than the political; in recent use the nation of political unity and independence is more prominent.”

I’m not denigrating the items you listed as important to the concept of “people” or “nation.” It’s just that I believe you left out one very important item — blood relationship.

Even God’s division of the languages at the Tower of Babel must be viewed through the prism of ethnic distinction if it’s to be understood. And so Keil and Delitzcsh: “The differences to which this event [Babel] gave rise, consisted not merely in variations of sound, such as might be attributed to differences in the formation in the organs of speech (the lip or tongue), but had a much deeper foundation on the human mind. If language is the audible expression of emotions, conceptions, and thoughts of the mind, the cause of the confusion or division of the one human language into different national dialects must be sought in an effect produced upon the human mind, by which the original unity of emotion, conception, thought, and will was broken up.”

The purpose of God’s acts at the Tower of Babel was to confuse the languages of mankind and thereby divide mankind into separate peoples, who would naturally form families and perpetuate themselves. It was not only a difference in the lips and the way words were formed, but also of the conceptual mindset. The fact that a human can learn a different language than the one he/she was born to speak. and can move to another location and speak the local language, does not give mankindvthe right to arbitrarily decide which culture and people it wants to belong to.

So ethnicity and blood relationship remains a large part of peoplehood from a Biblical and Christian perspective. And the South, being a Christian nstion, has followed these principles.

Second, you wrote: “If we change it to your criterion, which seems to be “anyone who believes in separation of the races” then you have to include everyone of any background who happens to hold a grudge against black people.”

This is untrue and you should not falsely characterize my position. That shows a moral flaw in your character. But the point I want to focus on is your perception that I believe a Southerner is “anyone who believes in separation of the races” The truth is, this is such a large part of our culture, you cannot separate the Southerner from it.

This is why the first point of this discussion, the perspective of our forefathers, covered in my previous post, is so vitally important. You cannot separate the Southerner or the Southern culture from a belief in the separation of the races and have it still be called anything resembling Southern culture, let alone “unreconstructed.”. Up to the time of the Civil Rights Movement, the Second Reconstruction, the time when millions of the Southern people began to become Reconstructed, this separation of the races was practiced in all or our institutions, including the churches where it was both taught and practiced. Like I said before, we’ve held one racial policy from George Washington to George Wallace.

This has been our perspective as far back as Thomas Jefferson at least: “Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people (Negroes) are to be free. Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government Nature, habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between them. It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation and deportation peaceably and in such slow degree that the evil will wear off insensibly, and their place be filled up by free White laborers. If on the contrary it is left to force itself on, human nature must shudder at the prospect held up.”

It now remains for you to show that this belief in the separation of the races is not an integral part of Southern culture. I’m looking forward to see what you come up with.

BTW, I think your exposition and exegesis of St. Paul’s teaching was quite deficient. I think we should have a complete thread on “The Ethnic and Racial Teaching of St. Paul.” Maybe I’ll do something on that subject soon.

Let me hear from you,

Dennis Wheeler

#9 Dan Bennett to Dennis Wheeler

Dec. 31,1997

On Tue, 30 Dec 1997 23:11:15 -0600, dennisw”mindspring.com wrote:

>”I think you’ve given a definition of the Southerner that is not all bad. >In some ways, it’s pretty good actually. Here are just a few points I’d >like to comment on: First, you have defined a “people” as those who share >a language, a territory, and a culture. And that’s pretty good. But you >left out “blood relationship.”

I don’t believe that it obtains when talking about Southerners unless you’re inclined to “de-Southernise” anyhone who isn’t of Anglo-Celtic ancestry. You can sure reduce the numbers that way, but saw off a lot of people who are staunchly Southern, including most of the people in Louisiana.

Beyond that, are we conveniently tossing together those whose ancestours are Scots and those whose ancestours were Sassenachs? That’s rather a stretch in itself, isn’t it? We talk as though they were all one people, but they are not, and never have been. Same with the Irish; don’t roll them in with the Brits unless you’re looking for a fight. Ditto the Welsh, albeit to a lesser degree. They may look homogeneous from here, but don’t let that fool you. By and large, they traditionally don’t even like each other.

> “The Greek word translated as “people” in >the New Testament is “laos.” In Vine’s Expository Dictionary of the >Bible, laos is defined as “(a) the people at large, especially of people >assembled, [Matt. 27:25] …, (b) a people of the same race and language, >[Rom.15:11, Rev.5:9] …” (Page 844) > >The word “nation” in the New Testament is the Greek word “ethnos.” It >should not be difficult to see the ethnic connotation of that word. In >Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance this word is defined as “a race (as of >the same habit), i.e., a tribe; specifically a foreign (non-Jewish) one >(usually by implication pagan):”

>>The Oxford English Dictionary defines “nation” as, “An extensive >aggregate of persons, so closely associated with each other by common >descent, language or history, as to form a distinct race or people, >usually organized as a separate political state and occupying a definite >territory. In earlier examples the racial idea is usually stronger than >the political; in recent use the nation of political unity and >independence is more prominent.”

> >I’m not denigrating the items you listed as important to the concept of >”people” or “nation.” It’s just that I believe you left out one very >important item, blood relationship.”

It appears that most of the sources you’ve cited above also left that out, so I appear to be in good company there. And again, the reason for that is simple – it’s almost impossible to keep track of “blood relation” without making up arbitrary rules about who is “kin” to whom. Thus you find the Scot suddenly kin to the Englishman who’s brother to the Irishman who’s cousin to everyone else who happens to have the same colour of hide. Silly.

> “Even God’s division of the languages at the Tower of Babel must be >viewed through the prism of ethnic distinction if it’s to be understood. >And so Keil and Delitzcsh: “The differences to which this event [Babel] >gave rise, consisted not merely in variations of sound, such as might be >attributed to differences in the formation in the organs of speech (the >lip or tongue), but had a much deeper foundation on the human mind. If >language is the audible expression of emotions, conceptions, and thoughts >of the mind, the cause of the confusion or division of the one human >language into different national dialects must be sought in an effect >produced upon the human mind, by which the original unity of emotion, >conception, thought, and will was broken up.”

I.E., people’s thought patterns, and hence their culture, is effected by the language they speak. Sociology 101. And that, of course, argues for the kinship of all those who speak the same language, which isn’t a direction in which I expect you want to travel.

> “The purpose of God’s acts at the Tower of Babel was to confuse the >languages of mankind and thereby divide mankind into separate peoples, >who would naturally form families and perpetuate themselves. It was not >only a difference in the lips and the way words were formed, but also of >the conceptual mindset. The fact that a human can learn a different >language than the one he/she was born to speak. and can move to another >location and speak the local language, does not give the individuals of >mankind the right to arbitrarily decide which culture and people it wants >to belong to.”

I don’t see anything forbidding that “right” to anyone, but in any case, race has nothing whatsoever to do with language. The language you are “born to speak” is the one taught you by your parents, your “mother tongue”, as it were. In the case of almost everyone born in the US, that language is English, and that much we have in common. The English that we speak in the South is distinct from that spoken in the rest of the US, but it is common to all here, whatever their race.

So again, I can’t see that this is advancing your position at all, quite the contrary.

> “So ethnicity and blood relationship remains a large part of peoplehood >from a Biblical and Christian perspective. And the South, being a >Christian nstion, has followed these principles.

> >Second, you wrote: “If we change it to your criterion, which seems to be >”anyone who believes in separation of the races” then you have to include >everyone of any background who happens to hold a grudge against black >people.”

> >This is untrue and you should not falsely characterize my position. That >shows a moral flaw in your character.”

Spare me comments on my character; I don’t believe you qualified to offer them. As for mischaracterising your statements, I don’t believe that I have done any such thing, I simply believe that you;’re trying to avoid the logical end of your arguments. That appears to me somewhat less than honest.

>”But the point I want to focus on >is your perception that I believe a Southerner is “anyone who believes in >separation of the races” The truth is, this is such a large part of our >culture, you cannot separate the Southerner from it.”

Hogwash, pure and simple. You have thus far said that a great many times, and offered no evidence for it except to note that a good many Southerners believed in racial separation. A good many surely did, but you have not demonstrated that such a view was or is uniquely

Southern, or that it was the basis for Southern culture. In fact, I would make so bold as to say that it was far les a factor in Southern culture than in Yankee. Blacks and whites have always been in closer proximity in the South than in the north, and the black influence on the culture (especially in food and language) in the South is quite marked. As a black activist once noted “Up north, they don’t care how big you get as long as you don’t get too close. Down South, they don’t care how close you get as long as you don’t get too big.

> “This is why the first point of this discussion, the perspective of our >forefathers, covered in my previous post, is so vitally important. You >cannot separate the Southerner or the Southern culture from a belief in >the separation of the races and have it still be called anything >resembling Southern culture, let alone “unreconstructed.”.

That is simply untrue. While many Southerners have believed in inequality of the races, almost none have called for separation of the races. That is primarily a Yankee phenomenon. That was Lincoln’s philosophy, not Davis’s.

> “Up to the >time of the Civil Rights Movement, the Second Reconstruction, the time > when millions of the Southern people began to become Reconstructed, this >separation of the races was practiced in all or our institutions, >including the churches where it was both taught and practiced.”

Funny, I seem to remember something about Robert E. Lee, the greatest Southerner (and the greatest American) of them all, praying beside a black man at the altar at the Anglican church he attended in Richmond. Perhaps he wasn’t Southern enough for your standards, eh?

> “Like I >said before, we’ve held one racial policy from George Washington to >George Wallace. > >This has been our perspective as far back as Thomas Jefferson at least: >”Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these >people (Negroes) are to be free. Nor is it less certain that the two >races, equally free, cannot live in the same government Nature, habit, >opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between them. It is >still in our power to direct the process of emancipation and deportation >peaceably and in such slow degree that the evil will wear off insensibly, >and their place be filled up by free White laborers. If on the contrary > it is left to force itself on, human nature must shudder at the prospect > held up.”

>>It now remains for you to show that this belief in the separation of the >races is not an integral part of Southern culture. I’m looking forward >to see what you come up with.”

I consider the fact self-evident. You, for your part, have yet to establish that there is anything particularly Southern in racial discrimination, except that you say so. Sorry, that isn’t enough.

> “BTW, I think your exposition and exegesis of St. Paul’s teaching was >quite deficient.

Since I offered nothing more than St. Paul’s own words, I’m at a loss to determine what deficiency there may have been, unless you take issue with the great apostle himself. If so, then that is of course your affair.

Dan Bennett – Unreconstructed Southron

#10 From Dennis Wheeler to Dan Bennett — Jan. 1, 1998

Dear Dan Bennett,

In a previous post I gave the definition of three words showing from the Bible and the Oxford Dictionary how that “blood relationship” is part of a nation and a people. Your response began: “It appears that most of the sources you’ve cited above also left [blood relationship] out, so I appear to be in good company there.”

I thought you would understand that “race” and “blood relationship” held enough common content to be considered synonyms for our purposes. Evidently, I was wrong; you didn’t understand it. Or, you were just being dishonest again?

I was trying to be polite. All things considered, I should have said that the point you left out in your original definition of a people was “race” and then given the three definitions. Maybe I should not be so polite in the future.

At any rate, all three of the definitions include the word “race” in them and prove conclusively that “race” is an integral part of a people or a nation. Let me give them again so you won’t miss the truth this time now that you have more understanding of the topic at hand. The New Testament defines a people with the Greek word laos, which is defined as “(a) the people at large, especially of people assembled, [Matt. 27:25] …, (b) a people of the same race and language, [Rom.15:11, Rev.5:9] …”

Did you get that? “a people of the same race….”

The word nation used in the New Testament is the word ethnos which is defined as “”a race (as of the same habit), i.e., a tribe; specifically a foreign (non-Jewish) one (usually by implication pagan):”

Were you able to follow that? An ethnos is “a race (as of the same habit)…”?

And the Oxford English Dictionary defines the English word nation as “An extensive aggregate of persons, so closely associated with each other by common descent, language or history, as to form a distinct race or people….”

Now that wasn’t too difficult, was it? The English word nation is defined a ” … a distinct race….”

I hope you really did miss it the first time and weren’t just being dishonest again.

You also wrote: “People’s thought patterns, and hence their culture, is effected by the language they speak. Sociology 101. And that, of course, argues for the kinship of all those who speak the same language, which isn’t a direction in which I expect you want to travel.”

I would have to ask on what basis you make the assertion that people’s thought patterns, and hence their culture, is affected by the language they speak? What support do you have to offer on this point? I can easily see how the reverse is true; that language is the product of a people’s thought patterns. This is the proper interpretation of the Bible passage detailing the division of languages. But although I’m not disputing your point that a person’s thought patterns are affected by the language they speak, I am aware of no evidence supporting this.

You also wrote: “The language you are “born to speak” is the one taught you by your parents, your “mother tongue”, as it were. In the case of almost everyone born in the US, that language is English, and that much we have in common. The English that we speak in the South is distinct from that spoken in the rest of the US, but it is common to all here, whatever their race. So again, I can’t see that this is advancing your position at all, quite the contrary.”

You have two errors in this paragraph. But one is so important that it dwarfs the other. Still, I will detail both of them. First, you have given an exalted position to language in defining a people. You have left out the racial aspect which I have shown that the Bible teaches to be crucial. The fact that a person or a people learn a language that is not natural to them, does not bestow nationality onto him or them.

The story of the prophet Daniel, along with Shadrak, Meshak, and Abednigo, comes to mind. They were among the Jews deported to Babylon. They were taught the Babylonian language and given Babylonian names. Still, they remained Jews, not Babylonians. You might read that story; My conclusion is easily demonstrable.

Another story is that of Abraham, who moved from Ur to Canaan. Undoubtedly he learned to speak the language of Canaan. Yet when it came time to get a wife for his son Isaac, he sent his servant back to Ur to get a woman from his own people.

So your point that a common language bestows a common nationality is in error.

Your second error is not so serious, but nonetheless real. To hold that the English of the blacks in the South is more similar to the language of the Southern people than is the English of European peoples in other parts of America is erroneous. Now, there are some parts of the U.S. in which the European’s language is quite dissimilar to ours. But your sweeping statement that we speak a common and distinct form of English in the South remains erroneous.

You also wrote: “Blacks and whites have always been in closer proximity in the South than in the north, and the black influence on the culture (especially in food and language) in the South is quite marked.”

You have made a true statement here. But it is not the whole truth. The close proximity of blacks and whites in the South was made possible by the political and social system of white supremacy we had here. Under the slave system and the Jim Crow, blacks were no threat to white political and social supremacy. The two did not marry and form families. They did not socialize as equals. They did not worship in churches as equals. The children didn’t attend schools as equals.

And as long as this system of white social and political supremacy remained in place, close physical proximity was possible with a minimum of problems.

After the War, the North imposed racial equality between the two peoples. Nine years later the Southerners wriggled off that hook and then set up Jim Crow, again a system of white political and social supremacy.

It remained the job of the Civil Rights Act, the Second Reconstruction, to force us together as equals. Those who have been reconstructed in heart and mind, like yourself, accept this new system as valid, good, and a positive development in the South. Those, like myself, who remain unreconstructed, see it as the disastrous policy that Thomas Jefferson warned it would be nearly two centuries ago.

You also wrote:”While many Southerners have believed in inequality of the races, almost none have called for separation of the races. That is primarily a Yankee phenomenon. That was Lincoln’s philosophy, not Davis’s.”

I see here for the first time you are representing the terms “inequality of the races” and “separation of the races” as different concepts. Perhaps that is valid. I don’t consider this as a substantial difference and would like to hear from you why it is of importance.

My take on the situation is that because the inequality of the races was so ingrained in the laws and the mores of the Southern people, and w {cut off – restore later}