Hatewatch Tweets
Hatewatch is managed by the staff of the Intelligence Report, an investigative magazine published by the Alabama-based civil rights group Southern Poverty Law Center.
Ron Paul Invites Neo-Confederate Witness to Testify in Congress
This morning, U.S. Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) hosted his first hearing as chairman of the House subcommittee that oversees the Federal Reserve, the nation’s central bank. Paul wants to look at the institution’s impact on job creation and the unemployment rate. Paul, a vicious opponent of the Fed, in the past has called for its abolition.
One of the witnesses invited to testify was Thomas DiLorenzo, a longtime activist in the neo-Confederate hate group, League of the South (LOS). The LOS advocates for a second Southern secession and a society dominated by “Anglo-Celts” – that is, white people. LOS leaders have called slavery “God-ordained” and described segregation as necessary to the racial “integrity” of black and white alike. DiLorenzo also is an economics professor at Baltimore’s Loyola College.
According to the Washington Post, “when Paul opened up the hearing to questions from committee members, Rep. Lacy Clay (D-Mo.) directly took on DiLorenzo for his membership in the League of the South,” pointing to the designation of the LOS as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Clay also cited DiLorenzo’s many revisionist works about the Civil War and Lincoln, including “More Lies about the Civil War,” “In Defense of Sedition,” and “The First Dictator-President,” which examines “how Lincoln’s myth has corrupted America.”
“After reviewing your work and the so-called methods you employ, I still cannot understand you being invited to testify today on the unemployment crisis, but I do know that I have no questions for you,” Clay concluded.
DiLorenzo has a long history with the LOS. His essays have appeared in the group’s publications, and he was identified as a member in a 2000 issue of its Southern Events. DiLorenzo spoke at the LOS’ 2002 conference and that year’s Southern Heritage Conference, hosted by longtime LOS leader Steve Wilkins. DiLorenzo was listed for years, up until at least late 2009, as an “affiliated scholar” at the League’s Institute for the Study of Southern Culture, dedicated to ending any furtherance of the idea “that the commercial value of slavery was the cause of the war.”
DiLorenzo has other extremist connections. He has spoken at events that included other hate group members, and has been published by neo-Confederate outfits. In 1995, he wrote an essay entitled “A Defense of the Confederate Cause” published in the Journal for Historical Review, a Holocaust denial publication. It argues that “slavery was not one of the rationales” for the Civil War. “Since the battle flag represents a fight against high taxes and centralized government, every freedom-loving American should honor it,” DiLorenzo’s essay concludes.
Though trained as an economist, DiLorenzo’s life work appears to be rewriting the history of the Civil War and Lincoln’s role in it. DiLorenzo argues Lincoln was a paragon of wickedness, whose secret intent was to destroy states’ rights and build a massive federal government. “It was not to end slavery that Lincoln initiated an invasion of the South,” DiLorenzo writes in his 2002 attack on the 16th president, entitled, The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War. “A war was not necessary to free the slaves, but it was necessary to destroy the most significant check on the powers of the central government: the right of secession.”
In addition to his position at Loyola, DiLorenzo is a senior faculty member of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, a hard-right libertarian foundation in Auburn, Ala. In 2003, LewRockwell.com, a Web site run by Von Mises Institute President Llewellyn Rockwell that at the time included a “King Lincoln” section, hosted a “Lincoln Reconsidered” conference in Richmond, Va., starring DiLorenzo. The conference became a bit of a road show, reappearing around the South and headlined by DiLorenzo.
Ron Paul has connections to von Mises as well. When several of Paul’s newsletters from the 1980s and 1990s were found to include bigoted rhetoric about African Americans and gays, Paul claimed not to know who wrote them. But in 2008, Reason Magazine fingered the culprit: Paul’s chief ghostwriter was none other than von Mises founder Rockwell, who had earlier served as Paul’s chief of staff. To this day, the institute runs Paul’s commentaries and, according to Reason, “Rockwell remains a friend and advisor to Paul.”
Update: This morning DiLorenzo posted an angry screed in which he described Congressman Clay as “sleazy” and claimed he had “lied about my non-existent working relationship with the League of the South.” DiLorenzo says that his last interaction with the League was 13 years ago. So it is somewhat ironic, or perhaps hypocritical, that the League has DiLorenzo listed as a speaker at a 2009 League of the South Summer Institute on what is a favored topic of DiLorenzo’s, “Lincoln Reconsidered.”
on February 9th, 2011 at 7:07 pm
What amazes me is that people like DiLorenzo can find a comfortable refuge in academia when so many well qualified educators are losing their jobs or teaching part-time as adjunct because tenure and full-time professorships are so difficult to secure.
on February 9th, 2011 at 8:27 pm
Wow. Apparently he’s never actually taken a history class, the south seceded from the Union following Lincoln’s victory in the 1860 election because they were worried that he would abolish slavery (though there was no indication that he was planning to do so). The Confederacy had been founded and started taking over Union forts months before Lincoln was EVEN IN OFFICE! These neo-confederates know about as much history as Holocaust deniers. I don’t find it terribly surprising that one was invited to anything by Ron Paul (of course he’s going to stick up for his pals).
on February 9th, 2011 at 9:44 pm
“DiLorenzo” doesn’t sound like much of an “Anglo-Celt” surname to me. How ironic, but then again there was a neo-Nazi arrested in Canada a while back whose name was “Alex Kulbashian”
Not to mention Marcus Epstein, who is half Korean, half Jewish and all white-supremacist. Why is it that so many of these white supremacists have awfully “ethnic” names? Some form of self-loathing perhaps….?
on February 9th, 2011 at 10:05 pm
Where to begin?
Confederacy = bad idea the first time + treason.
Maybe if this guy hates the USA so much the Congress (of the USA) shouldn’t be inviting him to speak? On dismantling the government of the USA?
on February 9th, 2011 at 10:42 pm
Did Di Lorenzo respond? I’m assuming he did. If so, where is his quote? Keep up the balanced reporting guys….
on February 10th, 2011 at 12:56 am
Yes Joe, if a guy in a news report doesn’t directly respond to an article about him, it’s not “balanced”. It’s the SPLC’s fault the guy hasn’t detected the presense of this article and defended himself.
on February 10th, 2011 at 7:51 am
Suggestion – Let the League of the South speak for itself; go to their web site (http://dixienet.org/rights/index.shtml). It is remarkable, to say the least. You’ll cry, you’ll laugh, you’ll want to get sick. You’ll find statements that you never imagined anyone would seriously write down. They really don’t like being part of the USA (so, are they “unamerican”?).
Then try reading a few DiLorenzo articles. Amazing.
We fall into their trap by calling them “racist” (even though they may well be) or just linking to the SPLC. I’ve found from experience that this sort of person loves to be called racist so that they can tell you why you are really more racist and point that they know a black person or they once were polite to an Asian. It’s enough to let their words speak for themselves.
Also, let
on February 10th, 2011 at 8:51 am
You are now reading words written by a man who could not be less suprised.
“Hatewatch” is lucky it isn’t 2008, or this site would be flooded with Paul supporters right now.
on February 10th, 2011 at 9:22 am
Mr. Schmo:
“Balanced” is no substitute for “factual.” If the SPLC, or anyone else, published a column that said child-molesting is bad, I suppose you’d want them to find someone who would claim it’s good, just for the sake of “balance.” It’s this kind of bogus search fo “balance” that gives a platform in the major media to fringe extremists who really ought to be consigned to cultural oblivion. I’ll take accuracy over “balance” every time.
on February 10th, 2011 at 12:50 pm
Looks like Ron Paul is just as racist as his son Rand, who advocated elimination of the Civil Rights Act protections on public accomodation.
You can be against the Fed without being a racist, btw.
on February 10th, 2011 at 12:53 pm
Saying slavery was okay and wasn’t the prime cause of the Civil War is historical revisionism on the level of the Holocaust deniers.
Slavery is bad, mmm-kay?
on February 10th, 2011 at 1:07 pm
If we are to take the Confederacy at its word, one need only to read the Confederate Constitution to see what it was they were seeking to preserve and defend…case closed.
on February 10th, 2011 at 1:14 pm
Archie McDonald, a history professor at Stephen F Austin University here in East Texas, puts it well and succinctly: “No slavery, no civil war.”
CM has it right. Refuting straw-man “facts” is a cheap rhetorical trick that apparently worked with–of all people–a congressman who should have known better.
on February 10th, 2011 at 1:39 pm
Di Lorenzo is not the problem, it is Ron Paul. He’s the one elected to Congress and who will now influence the path this country takes. As stated earlier, his invitation of Di Lorenzo tarnishes him with racist tendencies. But his right wing and libertarian stances on other issues may be even more dangerous to this country’s well being. He needs to be targeted, not his stooges.
on February 10th, 2011 at 2:00 pm
What a bunch of babbling fools over here.
on February 10th, 2011 at 2:03 pm
I don’t understand why anyone would expect splcenter (or Moveon, Fox or MSNBC for that matter) to be balanced, or even legitimate. SPLCenter has an ax to grind and like other extremist lefties like N. Klein, Ko’s (or those on the right like Beck) and they often use flawed logic (strawman, ad-hom, confirmation / composition bias) to promote their views. “Accuracy” is something that only exists in hard sciences, not in politics.
In another word, SLCenter is just another echo chamber for the lefties to promote their ideologies and enforce their group thinking. The SLCenter is a color-myopia who only sees everything in black & white ONLY (or either you are with us or against us).
What incentive is there for SLC to criticize the Fed that finances much of the lefties welfare / warfare utopia (or JFK who voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Act or LBJ who stripped it off then helped pass it for his own political sake)?
on February 10th, 2011 at 2:04 pm
Well actually “Anglo-Celts” doesn’t mean White People it means White People whose ancestry goes back to the British Isles, but way to generalize while demonizing those who generalize. I still like your guys’ work, but try to know what you’re talking about. Otherwise those of us who have college educations might think less of you.
on February 10th, 2011 at 2:17 pm
It’s actually kind of ironic because “Anglo-Celtic” is a term that would exclude DiLorenzo himself, given the fact he’s Italian, as well as all Cajuns and Germans (like the author of this article who obviously doesn’t know what the term means)
on February 10th, 2011 at 2:54 pm
The one thing this article neglects to mention is “What areas of DiLorenzo’s knowlege will he be asked to testify on? and Why did Ron Paul choose him to testify on unemployment and the economy?”
Agreed he’s a very smarmy guy, but I’m curious about the whys and wherefores behind Paul’s decision.
on February 10th, 2011 at 3:42 pm
In response to somehippie:
Re: “actually “Anglo-Celts” doesn’t mean White People it means White People whose ancestry goes back to the British Isles, but way to generalize while demonizing those who generalize.”
We are aware that “Anglo-Celts” is not synonymous with “white” in the racial sense. However, the League of the South clearly uses the term solely as a euphemism for white. Its sole purpose for using the term is to exclude all peoples of color. The LOS has never bothered to distinguish “Anglo-Celt” from any other white European heritage — indicating that any distinction between “Anglo-Celt” and other white European heritages, to the LOS, is irrelevant.
Robert Steinback
Deputy Editor, Hatewatch blog
on February 10th, 2011 at 3:42 pm
I must admit DiLorenzo is right in that the commercial value was not a rational for the civil war it is the only rational. If it had been then the North would have kept them as slaves not free them thereby making them have no commercial value. On the matter of accuracy science is not the only place for accuracy everything has accuracy the only place it falls into a gray area is human relationships especially the married ones.
on February 10th, 2011 at 4:43 pm
Thank you, SPLC, for shining the light on these bigoted knuckleheads, Lew Rockwell, Thomas DiLorenzo and (sadly) Ron Paul. In spirit, if not in fact, they are all comrade-in-arms with George Lincoln Rockwell (1918-1967), founder of the American Nazi Party, who I had the stomach-churning experience of witnessing spew his hate speech in 1966. We must continue to expose these sneaky bigots.
on February 10th, 2011 at 4:44 pm
shm224 said,
“‘Accuracy’ is something that only exists in hard sciences, not in politics.”
So you think there’s no need for accuracy in social sciences such as history and economics (or political science, for that matter)? In that case, I can see why you might agree with the ideas of a DiLorenzo or a Ron Paul. Fortunately, most people outside the lunatic fringe prefer facts to fantasies.
on February 10th, 2011 at 4:58 pm
I’d like to add that I certainly believe that in a discussion of a subject where the facts truly are in dispute, naturally both sides of the argument deserve to be aired. But that is not a license for extremists or revisionists to state falsehoods and then insist that “balance” requires the rest of us to listen to them.
on February 10th, 2011 at 5:33 pm
You people are the ignorant ones. If the war was over slavery why did lincoln issue his emancipation proclamation almost 18 months into the war? It was a military tactic that failed. Why did lincolns emancipation proclamation not free 1, not one negro slave in areas controlled by the union army? In fact lincoln ordered Gen’l Freemont, who freed the few slaves in Missouri, to put them back in bondage. Etc, Etc, Etc.
Next, who just recently spoke before a joint session of congress? bo, a member of a church, and I use that term loosely, that espoused racial hatred for over 20 years while he sat in the pews. You people are so righteous you can’t see the truth about anything.
on February 10th, 2011 at 6:04 pm
The reason why most the North freed their slaves was strictly good business. Instead of owning a slave who you had to feed, clothe, take care of when sick, provide a roof over their head and do the same for any children, you could hire a donkey, Irishman, for the day. You didn’t care what he ate, where he lived, and if he got sick, you hired someone else for the day. It was that simple. If you think most of the North freed their slaves for moral reasons, you should read the laws they put on the books to keep the negro out of their State. I believe it was Ma that had a law that stated that if a negro did not leave the State 10 days after entering, he was subject to a whipping, I am paraphrasing here.
on February 10th, 2011 at 6:18 pm
You may also want to look up the original 13th amendement, the “Crittendon”? amendment. This amendment would have allowed slavery to be forever allowed in the South, but not in any new States later down the road. The South said no. How can a people who are so against slavery, the North, allow to be put into the constitution (had the South agreed), an amendment that would have forever kept these people as slaves? Slavery was a dying institution, look at the records up until the war, the major problem was what to do with all of them. This was the question for decades for most people.
Did you know that more Northern Gen’l's owned slaves than Southern Gen’l's? Or that Grant owned slaves before, during and after the war? He finally freed them. And it was Grant who said of bringing Jeff Davis to trial, “we will lose in court what we have won on the battlefield.” All I am trying to do here is point out that the war and its’ causes were much more complicated than we were taught in school. Let us not forget that the victors write the history, and what better way to write it than to make your side the morally superior side.
on February 10th, 2011 at 6:58 pm
Classic revisionist BS by some on this comment board. Using the same bull augments like the North owned slaves and they freed their slaves for selfish reason. All of it is a attempt to to confuse and disorientate the fact that the South engaged in a treasonous war in order continue the practice of slavery which was financially beneficial to their region. The fact that a professor with known ties to racist organizations and can maintain his career at a mainstream university like Loyola goes to show that colleges are not bastions of liberal thought. Sad thing is I used to like Ron Paul but then you see stuff like this and it makes you feel like a fool for liking the guy.
on February 10th, 2011 at 7:09 pm
Hee hee and chuckle chuckle … that some here would suggest such bizarre revisions of the Civil War. Of course, the North wasn’t pure, but the north realized that a slave-economy was unwholesome to all concerned, and obviously for the slave, though it took a lot of time for America to face the African-American community and admit to their humanity. As well, the Christian witness, while mixed, gave a clear message to the North about the evils of slavery. No doubt, many factors, including states’ rights and the Federal Government were at play. No gov’t is purely idealistic. But Lincoln wasn’t evil, and he wasn’t intent on building a some kind of federal dictatorship – he was deeply committed to the vision of The Union, and for that we can give thanks. Those then, and those now, who long to dismantle all of this are delusional, wanting the impossible.
on February 10th, 2011 at 7:37 pm
I also would like to point out that I doubt the LoS would include someone whose ancestry was 75% British and 25% African as an “Anglo-Celt”, despite the fact that said person is clearly predominantly Anglo-Celtic by ancestry. I’m not sure if the LoS have said so publicly or not, but I think they are most likely “one-droppers” since most other neo-Confederate activists are one-droppers.
But that just goes to show you how utterly ludicrous the “one-drop rule” really is. There was a study done recently that showed that something like 33% of Americans who self-identify as white have enough recent African ancestry to show up on a DNA test*.
You’d think that these white supremacists would be the first group to call for getting _rid_ of the one-drop rule, since it would expand their base of potential recruits. But instead most white supremacists cling far more tightly to the one-drop rule than Halle Berry (http://abcnews.go.com/Health/h.....d=12869789) or anyone else does. Of course, white supremacists aren’t exactly known for acting or thinking logically.
*The study also showed that the longer your ancestors have been in the country and particularly in the South, the more likely you are to have had African ancestors. My ancestors (one of whom was Miles Standish) have been in North America since the 1600s, and many of them also lived in the South in the 1800s, so….
on February 10th, 2011 at 8:11 pm
What’s so interesting to me is those who speak of slavery in the abstract – as if people were commodities. The violence and brutality were real. Enslavement was absolute. Rape, physical violence and degradation were real.
This condition was a total negation and opposite of the ideals this country was founded on and to which so many today hold up as examples to follow BUT in theory only!
To all the defenders of slavery I would say this – try it out for a while AS AN ENSLAVED PERSON and let us know how it feels. Would you be so quick to characterize slavery as just an “economic exchange?” I think not.
People with names like DiLorenzo – there was a time Italians, especially those from the southern part of the country were not allowed into the US. They were subjected to prejudice and hate because of their nationality and their religion. Many came without papers (and the derisive term “WOP” came from that).
on February 11th, 2011 at 12:23 am
“You people are the ignorant ones.”
Uh oh, the South rises again! And when it does, you have to slap it down just like last time.
” If the war was over slavery why did lincoln issue his emancipation proclamation almost 18 months into the war? It was a military tactic that failed.”
Failed? Last time I checked the Confederacy was defeated, and as the North invaded many ex-slaves and even confederate soldiers deserted to the Union side.
“Next, who just recently spoke before a joint session of congress? bo, a member of a church, and I use that term loosely, that espoused racial hatred for over 20 years while he sat in the pews”
Oh please tell us!!!
on February 11th, 2011 at 7:28 am
It is a terrible shame that the libertarian ideal of limited government involvement in human lives is being co-opted by right wing fanatics for their own nefarious purposes. Much of libertarian thought concerns people’s right to privacy and to make decisions for themselves, without government interference. However, these neo-fascists are using the libertarian stance to further their agenda of hate and racism, rather than realizing that a true libertarian would respect all people, regardless of race, creed, sex, sexual orientation, and that those elements are part of the privacy libertarians should be seeking to protect. Extremism, unfortunately, is becoming more and more the norm.
on February 11th, 2011 at 10:57 am
Gene,
I think more people should be clear as to what they mean when they say “the Civil War started over slavery”. More specifically, they mean that the CSA seceeded because of slavery. I quite simply do not see how this is at all controversial. It’s in the declarations of secession make by the states, it was put in their constitution, and called the “cornerstone” of the CSA by no less than their vice-president. The goal of the Union, on the other hand, was not to end slavery, but to keep the United States together.
Simply put, Lincoln did not free slave in Union-controlled territory because he couldn’t. I find it strange that neo-Confederates portray Lincoln as this dictator who ran over the Constitution and yet criticize him for not breaking the Constitution. Where it was Constitutionally permissible, he fought against slavery, such as in Maryland’s vote on the issue.
Can I have a source for the idea that Grant owned slaves after the war?
on February 11th, 2011 at 11:19 am
So Sad that even after 150 years there are so many people who refuse to see or educate themselves on the true history of America and their governments actions.
The lincoln cult and owner of the Washington power brokers have never stopped trouting the saint lincolon lie and sheeple swallow it whole hog.
I am so proud of Ron Paul for having yhr guts and courage to bring the historian Dr. Thomas J. Dilorenzo to the table. Two of his books I would make it a point to reat are “Lincoln Unmasked” and “The Real Lincoln” both at amazon. You will also find a book by a black author there who is no fan of lincoln.
Most blacks in the South knew lincoln was a farce and did them no good; if you follow through to tyhr nitty gritty you know that is true. The slaves turning to the union side was a natural thing when you have no food and no home that was just destroyed by the might makes right all powerful bluecoats.
on February 11th, 2011 at 12:18 pm
Jo Southern DiLorenzo is an economist not an historian. Perhaps that is why his “historical research” leads to such ridiculous assertions. In case you are unaware of the fact the south lost the “war between the states.” Isn’t it time for you to get over it or do you prefer to remain a loser?
on February 11th, 2011 at 12:25 pm
Lincoln didn’t start the civil war and he certainly didn’t undertake military action just to free the slaves any more than the USA entered WWII to liberate concentration camps. Wars are seldom begun for the noble causes to which we later attribute them. Perhaps that is because truly noble people abhor the cost of war which is almost always many times greater than the cost of avoiding war.
on February 11th, 2011 at 12:51 pm
“I am so proud of Ron Paul for having yhr guts and courage to bring the historian Dr. Thomas J. Dilorenzo to the table.”
I can’t decide what Ron Paul is more ignorant about, economics, or history. Or maybe it’s just reality in general.
“You will also find a book by a black author there who is no fan of lincoln.”
Good lord, a BLACK author who DOESN’T LIKE LINCOLN?! UNCONSCIONABLE!!!!
Oh hey, you know what was funny? Appomattox.
on February 11th, 2011 at 1:33 pm
Thankyou for the thoughtful response Mr Steinback, that is much appreciated. And I still think you guys rock. Cheers.
on February 11th, 2011 at 1:51 pm
Josephine,
While we’re making reading lists…
http://www.amazon.com/Confeder.....1604732180
on February 11th, 2011 at 3:22 pm
JosephineSouthern said,
“The lincoln cult and owner of the Washington power brokers have never stopped trouting the saint lincolon lie and sheeple swallow it whole hog.”
Is that two animals or three or four? Three if you count “sheep” and “people” separately, four if you count “trout.”
But seriously, it took 150 years before enough people in the USA forgot the obvious reality of Lincoln and the causes of the Civil War sufficiently to allow DiLorenzo to publish his revisionist fantasies without being laughed off the continent.
on February 11th, 2011 at 4:02 pm
The constitution of the Confederate States of America reveals glaringly what the secession was all about: uncontenstable chattel slavery forever and political power for white males only, preferably white males with a good amount of property. An amazing act of hubris in an era when liberation from chattel slavery and serfdom was sweeping the industrializing world. Sam Houston refused to sign the Texas declaration of secession because he understood the folly of it. And Mr. DiLorenzo should explain why the West Virginians seceded from the secessionists!
on February 11th, 2011 at 6:11 pm
How does DeLorenzo explain his 2008 appearance on a racist radio program? http://www.thepoliticalcesspoo.....ed-nugent/
on February 12th, 2011 at 10:04 am
Ron Paul is wrong in this matter. But it is equally wrong for Obama to attend a “prayer breakfast” with “The Family”, an organization that supports the religious persecution and murder of gays in Uganda.
on February 12th, 2011 at 7:21 pm
What we all need to do is to keep all our eyes on Rep. Ron Paul-R-TX. He’s not to be trusted. He’s got some closet history locked away too. Why would he invite someone like this racist (DeLORENZO) to speak? Also maybe we need to keep a watch on Both of the Paul’s
on February 12th, 2011 at 9:54 pm
If Paul wins the GOP nomination for president in 2012 (which is starting to look more and more probable now that he has won two CPAC straw polls in a row), you can bet this DiLorenzo episode is going to get brought up again. DiLorenzo, in a weird way, might end up being the best thing that ever happened to Obama, if he ends up losing the election for Paul.
on February 12th, 2011 at 11:58 pm
Just from what I’ve read in the responses to this blog, I can certainly say that neo-confedarcy is alive and well in the United States. To reiterate: the south seceded from the Union following Lincoln’s victory in the 1860 election because they were worried that he would abolish slavery (though there was no indication that he was planning to do so). The Confederacy had been founded and started taking over Union forts months before Lincoln was EVEN IN OFFICE! No, there is no all good government and the North was as racist as the South, but the Union did not believe in owning human beings. This is similar to how the racist, anti-semetic United States was on the side of the good guys while the racist, anti-semetic Nazis were bad because the latter was in the process of committing genocide while the former was not. And would people quite it with the “(Me/My) ideas aren’t racist I (know/have heard of) a [insert person of different ethnicity here])”, there were real Jewish Nazis, gay homophobes, and my great-great-greatgrandfather was a black CONFEDERATE, it’s called self-hate.
on February 13th, 2011 at 12:36 am
Note to neo-confederates: “Texas Declaration of the Causes of Secession, for example, said plainly that the free states were “proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality for all men, irrespective of race or color,” and added that blacks were “rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race.” Alexander Stephens, vice president of the Confederacy, said as much in his infamous 1862 “Cornerstone” speech: “Our new Government is founded on exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery — subordination to the superior race — is his natural and moral condition.”
Please explain these, or are these FACTS “wrong”?
on February 17th, 2011 at 9:48 am
Foe the mental midget that thinks secession is treason, perhaps we should thank the treasonous founding fathers for their treason against the crown. Like them, our Confederate founding fathers did not wish to overthrow the existing government. They only wished to separate from it. They wished only to establish a government, with the consent of the governed. Self determination is a radical idea.
on February 17th, 2011 at 2:42 pm
The constitution of the United States defines treason very clearly.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them…
The adherents of the CSA levied war against the USA and therefore committed treason. Our founding fathers also were treasonous toward George III which he richly deserved. Fortunately, unlike the “Confederate founding fathers”, they weren’t a bunch of losers. Had they been I suspect George III would have executed many of them, a fate which far too many of the foundering fathers of the CSA escaped.
on February 18th, 2011 at 2:52 am
“Foe the mental midget that thinks secession is treason, perhaps we should thank the treasonous founding fathers for their treason against the crown.”
Yes, they committed treason against the crown. And the CSA committed treason against the USA. If you hate America, then go ahead and declare that treason against the US is fine by you. I’m not judging the idea, only the dishonesty of neo-confederates here.
on February 22nd, 2011 at 12:30 pm
@Lourie Salley ” They wished only to establish a government, with the consent of the governed.” Oh really? Did they seek the consent of their slaves? Liar!
on March 3rd, 2011 at 12:12 pm
freedom/rights/equality
I beleive everyone should have equal rights even if they are criminals or even terrorist. I also beleive that freedom is important and everyone should be treated equaly. One kid in my school was pulled over by the police. The police man took advantage of his rights since he did not know them and asked him if he could look in his car without a reason and he let him. do you feel like its a violation of the 4th amendment?
on March 6th, 2011 at 11:28 am
jordan,
No, the 4th Amendment protects people from forceful searches and seizures without a warrent, if one doesn’t take the time to learn their rights than that’s their own fault. If one voluntarily incriminates oneself than that is also their own fault, that is why education is important.
on March 9th, 2011 at 5:53 am
As I read the Paul article and the many responses to it, I was made aware of the level of denial and lack of knowledge of the intent of the alleged Founding Father’s of this nation.
The majority of people living today in the U.S. are doing so under the illusion that they have somehow become the posteity of The Founding Fathers, the authors of the Constitution and are required to defend and uphold it when this was never the intended goal of those authors. Unless this is understood, the illusion is self perpetuating.
The persons exploited by the group A/K/A We-The-People, the authors of the Constitution, did not include the persons relegated as Slaves, Convicts and Indentured as constituting the group WE-THE-PEOPLE that received Land Patents from the British Crown. The group used as human resources and transported to the British Colonies as Free Labor are listed in the work of Peter Wilson Coldham’s work “Emigrants In Chains”. When the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution is read from this perspective, the institution of slavery takes on a new meaning. The constituents of the CSA were the descendants of those transported persons fron the British Empire viewed as the dregs of that Elistist Society. None of the current historians has seen fit to explore the question of why the 5% of the the Colony’s population felt they had a chance in defeating the Army of the British Empire and the 95% of the resident Loyalists that supported the King’s policies, without the aid of that unincluded group of 3/5 types of human resources??
Coldham’s books answers these questions.
on March 9th, 2011 at 6:08 am
Also google the founder of the Penal colony of Georgia; Lord Oglethorp and why Ga. was established as a sanctuary for The Convicted Debtors of the British Empire, of whom none were African, and see Coldham’s listing of the contents of “Ol Bailey and the rest of London’s Gaols.
Thjis is the history neither Ron Paul or any of the others of his ilk wishes to be exposed, but Whites were enslaved under harsher conditions and for reasons that Blacks never were. See how Oliver Cromwell treated the Irish and Catholics during the establishment of the Ulster Plantation
on March 9th, 2011 at 11:10 pm
Ludwig von Mises Institute is nothing more than a “think tank” for the neo-confederate movement. They’re very clever and a good example of a wolf in sheep’s clothing. If you cut through all their talk about “freedom” it’s really nothing more than longing for the good old days before Govt forced the white people to share restrooms and dining facilities with blacks. Last week Ron Paul had no problem voting for oil subsidies. He has often said the Supreme Court has defined the word “liberty” too broadly in the 14th Amendment. It’s really hard to take him seriously as a libertarian. The “End the Fed” talk is his claim to fame and an attention getter. He doesn’t seem to understand monetary policy or simple things such as inflation. He’s fond of saying it takes 20 dollars to purchase what a dollar could purchase in 1913. I suppose people would rather get paid a $1/hour than $20/ hour. some how he forgets that inflation means it costs more for services, not only goods.
The hearing itself was quite humorous. Clay’s beat down on Delorenzo was wonderful. Check it out if you have an hour to spare. It’s on the financial services website. I have it and will probably put the highlights on youtube this week.
on May 13th, 2011 at 7:12 pm
Greetings! I have read with interest all of the letters people have written on the causes of the Civil War. There is so much anger in most of these letters and even name calling, very upsetting. I have written many letters on the subject that can be found by typing in “Thomas Jantz, Confederacy”. When people join organizations they seem to lose their identity as an individual and all the people in that organization are lumped together as if they are one person believing exactly the same thing. This applies to political organizations, religions and so forth. It is important to note that most or all of the people writing on this site are not condoning slavery but rather are talking of the particulars of it and who is to blame. The truth is that there is a lot of blame to go around not only in this country but around the world. It seems as though the ”stain” of slavery has been transferred onto the confederate flag [battle flag] from the American flag. Some people do not want to say that there was slavery under the American flag or for that matter say that all the slave ships had American flags flying over them and that American ships continued in the slave trade even after the practice was outlawed. These northern slave trader brought the slaves to northern ports and then sold them to southern plantation owners for the most part. On our currency [Federal reserve notes in reality] are pictures of American presidents who owned hundreds of slaves, should we condemn them and take their pictures off our currency?no really, I am asking! Slavery was wrong, wrong, wrong and still is, that is what we all need to agree on instead of pointing fingers at people in our history who just happened to live in areas that slavery flourished but had nothing to do with it. A close look at the economic policies enacted before the war will enlighten anybody on a big cause of the war. Many people point to the fact that some southern states stated in their constitutions that ending slavery would ruin their economies and defended the practice and that is why they had to leave the Union. I would be the last person on earth to defend those words but I do not think the answer to ending slavery was an invasion by Northern States where there were also slaves [not as many] and slave owners who owned many plantations in the southern states. Many Northern newspapers knew this and about 300 newspapers were shut down for saying so. Upwards of 40,000 northern people were jailed for speaking out againsed the war and the illegal invasion of the southern states. It is interesting to note that former Pres. Harry S Truman, the man who desegregated the armed forces, was a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans as is actor Clint Eastwood. Former Pres. Eisenhower always had a picture of Robert E. Lee in his office as President and during world war 2 and refused to take it down. Lets all remember that patriotism should be directed to our fellow Americans, not the Government. The South left the Union with great sadness and regret and adopted a constitution much the same and a flag that was/is so much like the American flag that they had to adopt another flag for the battlefield so as not to confuse the troops fighting . I do not mean to confuse anyone about the flags, please type in Confederate flags for some pictures. I welcome and respect anyone who would like to reply to this letter. We are all Americans. A person can love his or her country and still be a defender of the Confederacy. It is very healthy and patriotic for people to vent their views on this matter, no matter what their opinion is. Hope all is well with everyone in these troubled times. Tom Jantz in Michigan.
on December 30th, 2011 at 5:26 pm
I attended college with Tom (Westminster College, New Wilmington, PA). Back then he was our fraternity president (Theta Chi) and our fraternity was the only one on campus to have “minorities” as members (in the mid-seventies). Not sure what has happened between then and now.
on January 16th, 2012 at 10:12 am
>He needs to be targeted, not his stooges.
Obama would be so upset with you for using the word target. WHat happened to civility.
on January 16th, 2012 at 10:13 am
ON FEBRUARY 10TH, 2011 AT 4:43 PM
Thank you, SPLC, for shining the light on these bigoted knuckleheads, Lew Rockwell, Thomas DiLorenzo and (sadly) Ron Paul. In spirit, if not in fact, they are all comrade-in-arms with George Lincoln Rockwell (1918-1967), founder of the American Nazi Party, who I had the stomach-churning experience of witnessing spew his hate speech in 1966. We must continue to expose these sneaky bigots.
Yet, Dick couldn’t prove what he said with a shred of evidence.
Color me shocked!