← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Faust
Thread ID: 8244 | Posts: 4 | Started: 2003-07-19
2003-07-19 04:24 | User Profile
Michael Andrew Grissom's site
Traditional Southern political commentary and historical fact which you won't find anywhere else. Grissom's books are where you will find the Old South, the surviving culture, and traditonal Southern positions on major issues confronting the South today.
**Can the South Survive?
This is the book which absolutely must be read if the South is ever to reclaim its lost place in the moral, cultural, and political landscape of America. Can the South survive as a part of the declining American republic, or must it secede and go its own way? Grissom takes a critical look at the South in this exhaustive analysis of current trends. Does the South have even a right to exist? If so, can it survive immigration, integration, and a consuming coarsening of its culture? If not, should it simply calm down and enjoy the ride? Grissom provides the facts, draws some conclusions, and asks the questions at which others only hint.
Click book for additional information and excerpt. Trade Paperback - 705 pages**
[url=http://www.michaelandrewgrissom.com/]http://www.michaelandrewgrissom.com/[/url]
related thread:
Where Do We Go From Here? (CofCC site) by Michael Andrew Grissom [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?showtopic=9464]http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php...?showtopic=9464[/url]
2003-08-01 09:30 | User Profile
The Black Confederate thing is so ridiculous and bogus it is hard to believe they actually ever took it seriously. The Confederacy was a hierarchial society in which the white man was the social and political superior of the Negro. Why not admit this great truth?
2003-08-01 13:37 | User Profile
** The Black Confederate thing is so ridiculous and bogus** Not at all. The existance of a hierarchical system does not in the least negate a support of the system by those at the "bottom."
** The Confederacy was a hierarchial society in which the white man was the social and political superior of the Negro. **
Try this: "The Navy was a hierarchial society in which the officer was the social and political superior of the enlisted man."
When I was in the Navy, one of my chiefs invited me over to meet his family. I was made quite uncomfortable by that invitation, because how did I mesh the social aspects of this (calling his wife by her first name, calling his kids by theirs) (I was QUITE the egalitarian at the time, for which I apologize to the country and my race!)? How could I be "social" with my senior chief when I was also quite conscious of the military rank aspect? I couldn't/wouldn't call him by his first name, and of course neither would he mine...
But, of course, there were decades of quite comfortable socializing in the Navy that did not in any way infringe on the hierachy. The "system" is well worked out. I called him Chief, and he called me LT. {shrug} We became "friends" within the hierarchy -- not the same as friendship among equals, but still friends.
So, the blacks who felt loyalty, and apparently many did, to the south, to their 'families' (their owners), to their plantations were quite willingly Confederates. And when they 'came to fight' they came to SERVE the CSA in the proper hierarchical position they filled 'socially' -- that means they were cooks and servants and message-runners! Just as Phillipinos were servitors (cooks, 'maids,' etc.) when THEY were first allowed into the military. A hierarchy is MORE comfortable for a lot of people BECAUSE it lays out precisely where one stands and what one can and cannot do, how one interacts with others!
Black servitors/slaves in the CSA were an important part of the functions of the CSA -- an army travels on its stomach, yes? SO you NEED cooks and servants/slaves!
2003-08-01 14:14 | User Profile
>>>Of course there were many 'blacks' who fought for & loved the Confederacy.
There were also many Yankees who fought for the Confederacy. This of course does not change the fact that white, Southern, and Confederate were essentially one in the same.
***>>>South has never been any more 'racist' than the North, contrary to myth. In fact, not a single slave ship ever flew the Confederate flag. Countless ones flew the Stars & Stripes. ***
I have never suggested otherwise.
***>>>The people who rant against 'slack-jawed rednecks' of the South are no better than any other class of bigot. This is a classic example of bigotry merely changing its targets. In this case, from 'blacks' & 'foreigners' to working class 'white' people. ***
LOL perhaps you are taking my post the wrong way. I am a Southerner. I just absolutely disagree this whole submissionist ââ¬ÅHeritage not Hateââ¬Â attitude held by the League of the South and other similar organizations who attempt to whitewash Southern history in their own form of political correctness. The Confederacy was a WHITE nation in which the white race was politically and socially superior to all other races. What is there to be ashamed of about this? The Confederacy was determined to maintain white supremacy in the South. Probably no other notion in the entire South filled white Southerners of that time with disgust and fear than the specter of racial amalgamation, of becoming an Africanized hellhole. That is simply the truth, no matter how one wants to cut it. It was self evident to the overwhelmingly majority of white Southerners that the Negro was the inferior of the white man. This did not mean the Southern white hated the Negro simply because he was a Negro.
>>>Not at all. The existance of a hierarchical system does not in the least negate a support of the system by those at the "bottom."
There were some blacks who supported the Confederacy, just as there were some Yankees who supported the Confederacy as well. This does not negate the fact that Southerners of that time were overwhelmingly of the opinion that Southern and white were one in the same, that the South would be a white manââ¬â¢s nation.
***>>>So, the blacks who felt loyalty, and apparently many did, to the south, to their 'families' (their owners), to their plantations were quite willingly Confederates. And when they 'came to fight' they came to SERVE the CSA in the proper hierarchical position they filled 'socially' -- that means they were cooks and servants and message-runners! Just as Phillipinos were servitors (cooks, 'maids,' etc.) when THEY were first allowed into the military. A hierarchy is MORE comfortable for a lot of people BECAUSE it lays out precisely where one stands and what one can and cannot do, how one interacts with others! Black servitors/slaves in the CSA were an important part of the functions of the CSA -- an army travels on its stomach, yes? SO you NEED cooks and servants/slaves! ***
The vast majority of what blacks that did serve in the Confederate lines in hostile action came at the very end of the war, when the Confederacy was disintegrating, beaten, and grasping at straws. Blacks were being drafted into the Union lines left and right and reinforcing the Union army. Allowing blacks to fight was also an issue that was bitterly disputed within the Confederacy, a decision which it was really forced into. It simply was not a course of action the Confederacy would have taken under more positive circumstances.