Key Takeaways
1. The "Yankee Myth" Distorts Southern History and Justifies Conquest.
What passes as standard American history is really Yankee history written by New Englanders or their puppets to glorify Yankee heroes and ideals.
Propaganda's purpose. The prevailing narrative of American history, particularly concerning the "Civil War," is a "Yankee myth" designed to justify Northern aggression, conquest, and ongoing oppression of the South. This myth portrays the North as virtuous liberators and the South as villains, brainwashing successive generations of Southerners to accept their defeat and feel "better off" for having lost. This historical distortion serves to maintain Northern political and economic dominance.
Fabricated heroism. The "Yankee myth" deifies figures like Abraham Lincoln as an emancipator and humanitarian, despite historical evidence to the contrary. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was a war measure, freeing slaves only in rebellious states where he had no control, while preserving slavery in Union-controlled areas. His white supremacist views and support for geographical separation, along with his suspension of habeas corpus and mass executions, reveal a dictatorial side often ignored by the myth-makers.
Economic motives. The claim that the North fought to "save the Union" or free slaves is a smokescreen for economic imperialism. Northern industrialists feared losing revenue and commercial advantages if the South, with its lower tariffs, became an independent nation. This economic self-interest, rather than high moral principles, drove the North's decision to invade, conquer, and exploit the South, transforming it into a colonial province.
2. Slavery: A Shared Burden, Not Solely Southern Guilt.
The South does not deserve the burden of guilt for African slavery in America.
Northern origins of slavery. The institution of African slavery in America did not originate in the South, nor was it solely a Southern practice. Massachusetts was the first colony to legalize slavery in 1641, and New England merchants, particularly from Rhode Island, built immense fortunes from the transatlantic slave trade, using rum and fish to acquire slaves in Africa. This commerce provided significant capital for Northern industrial development.
Hypocrisy of abolition. While the North eventually abolished slavery, it was often a gradual process driven by economic unprofitability and racial prejudice, not pure humanitarianism. Northern states allowed slave owners to sell their slaves to the South before emancipation, profiting from the trade. Furthermore, free blacks in the North faced severe discrimination, exclusion laws, and often lived in worse conditions than many Southern slaves, as evidenced by census records showing higher disability rates among free Northern blacks.
Southern attempts to end the trade. Virginia, a Southern state, was the first in the civilized world to outlaw the slave trade in 1778, a move repeatedly thwarted by the British Crown and later by Northern commercial interests who insisted on constitutional protections for the trade. The Confederate States Constitution, unlike the U.S. Constitution, included an unequivocal prohibition on the importation of African slaves, and President Jefferson Davis's first veto was against a bill he felt violated this principle.
3. Old South Race Relations: Complex Loyalty Beyond Abolitionist Narratives.
The people of the slave-holding South co-existed with their black families in relationships ranging from the few cruel masters to the very paternalistic and loving masters.
Beyond stereotypes. Contrary to the "Simon Legree" stereotype propagated by abolitionist literature, race relations in the Old South were complex and often characterized by mutual respect and affection between black and white individuals. Many Northern observers noted the social intimacy between masters and slaves, a closeness that would have "astonished and displeased most Northerners" who maintained stricter racial segregation.
Black Confederate contributions. Black Southerners, both enslaved and free, made significant contributions to the Confederate war effort, both on the home front and in military support. They maintained agricultural production, worked in vital industries like the Tredegar Iron Works, and many served as body servants, teamsters, and even soldiers alongside their white comrades, often displaying fierce loyalty to the Southern cause. Northern officers and British observers documented armed black Confederates fighting against Union forces.
Post-war loyalty. After the war, many former slaves maintained strong ties with their "white folks," often providing aid during Reconstruction and even defending their former masters. Figures like Levy Carnine, a black Confederate veteran buried in a white cemetery, and black Mississippi Representative John F. Harris, who eloquently voted for a Confederate monument, demonstrate a loyalty that defies the "Yankee myth" of universal black antagonism towards the South.
4. The Moral Imperative: Southern Self-Determination Rooted in Ancient Principles.
The people possess an inherent right to dispose of any government that does not rule with the unfettered consent of those governed.
Consent of the governed. Southern political philosophy, deeply influenced by thinkers like John Milton, John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, and John C. Calhoun, asserts that legitimate government derives its "just powers from the consent of the governed." Without this free and unfettered consent, any government lacks moral legitimacy and becomes a tyranny, which the people have a right to alter or abolish.
Right to resist tyranny. Milton's revolutionary ideas, predating Locke, established the right to overthrow a tyrannical ruler, viewing it as an act of popular self-defense. Jefferson echoed this in the Declaration of Independence, asserting the people's right to dispose of a government that violates their inalienable, God-given rights. This principle formed the bedrock of the Southern claim to self-determination.
Might does not make right. The North's military victory did not bestow moral validity upon its subsequent government over the South. As Locke argued, an aggressor gains no rights by successful military conquest, and the conquered people retain their inherent right to liberty and property. The imposition of a government by force, rather than consent, voids its moral authority and necessitates a struggle for legitimate self-governance.
5. Secession: A Legal Right Affirmed by Founding Fathers and Northern Precedent.
To deny this right would be inconsistent with the principle of which all our political systems are founded, which is, that the people have in all cases, a right to determine how they will be governed.
States as sovereign entities. The American colonies, and later the states, acted as independent, sovereign entities before and after the Declaration of Independence. They possessed attributes of states, such as making laws, taxing, raising military forces, and conducting foreign relations. The Declaration itself was a joint act of sovereign states, not a creation of a single national entity.
Constitutional compact. The U.S. Constitution was a compact among sovereign states, not a creation of "the people" en masse. Many states, including Massachusetts and Virginia, explicitly reserved the right to recall delegated powers if the federal government became oppressive. This right of secession was even taught at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point through William Rawle's textbook, which stated that "the secession of a state from the Union depends on the will of the people of such state."
Northern hypocrisy on secession. Northern states themselves had a history of threatening secession, notably at the Hartford Convention in 1814 over the War of 1812, and earlier when Josiah Quincy of Massachusetts threatened secession if Louisiana was admitted to the Union. The transition from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution was itself a secession of nine states from a "perpetual union." The North's later denial of this right to the South, while supporting secession for Texas and Panama, reveals a profound hypocrisy.
6. State Sovereignty: The Constitutional Bulwark Against Centralized Tyranny.
State Sovereignty died at Appomattox.
Monarchist origins of federalism. From the nation's inception, a faction of American monarchists and Federalists, led by figures like Alexander Hamilton and John Adams, sought to establish a strong, centralized national government, mirroring the British system. This vision directly conflicted with the Southern commitment to state sovereignty, which was seen as the primary defense against federal overreach and the protection of individual liberties.
Early federal encroachments. The struggle between state sovereignty and federal power began almost immediately. The Supreme Court's attempt to assert jurisdiction over states (Chisholm v. Georgia) was swiftly rebuffed by the Eleventh Amendment, reaffirming state immunity. Congress's Alien and Sedition Acts, which stifled political dissent, demonstrated the federal government's early willingness to violate civil liberties, with the Supreme Court's complicity.
The "higher law" doctrine. Consolidationists like Justice Joseph Story and Senator William H. Seward developed theories of "higher law" and a national government formed by "the people" to circumvent constitutional limits and justify federal supremacy over the states. This ideological shift, which Lincoln later embraced, transformed the Union from a voluntary compact into a consolidated national democracy, where the federal government became the sole judge of its own powers, effectively ending state sovereignty.
7. The Death of the Republic: How War and Reconstruction Forged a New, Illegitimate Government.
The current all-powerful behemoth in Washington is void of the letter and spirit of our Original Constitutional Republic.
Revolution by conquest. The War for Southern Independence and subsequent Reconstruction fundamentally altered the nature of American government, transforming it from a Constitutional Federal Republic of sovereign states into a centralized national government controlled by the Northern majority. This change was not achieved through legal means or consent, but through military force, fraud, and political coercion.
Illegal ratification of the 14th Amendment. The Reconstruction Act of 1867 abolished civil governments in the South, imposed military rule, and disfranchised white Southerners, all in violation of existing constitutional principles. The 14th Amendment, designed to shift power from states to the federal government, was then "ratified" by these illegally constituted Southern legislatures, despite prior rejections by legitimate state governments and rescissions by Northern states like New Jersey and Ohio.
A fraudulent foundation. This process, described by a Northern congressman as "plunder of eleven states" and by legal scholars as "unconstitutional, revolutionary and void," established the current federal government on a foundation of illegitimacy. The original spirit of limited government and state sovereignty was destroyed, replaced by a system where federal power is supreme and unchecked, dictating to the Southern people without their consent.
8. Equality: Southern Pursuit of Opportunity vs. Liberal Demand for Results.
Equality of outcome is in clear conflict with liberty.
Equality before God and law. The Southern tradition, rooted in Thomas Jefferson's declaration, understood "all men are created equal" to mean equality before God and the law, and equality of opportunity. This encouraged free competition and individual liberty, recognizing that people possess diverse talents and skills, and that outcomes would naturally vary.
Liberal perversion of equality. Modern liberalism, driven by a sense of guilt, has perverted this concept into a demand for "equality of results," leading to policies like racial quotas, affirmative action, and forced busing. These policies, often imposed on the South more heavily than the North, are seen as governmental interference that undermines individual liberty and creates resentment by arbitrarily favoring certain groups.
Legitimate voting qualifications. The book advocates for legitimate voting qualifications, drawing on John Stuart Mill's arguments that voting is a privilege, not an inherent right. Mill proposed requirements such as literacy, basic knowledge of history and mathematics, taxpayer status, and self-sufficiency (not receiving welfare or having declared bankruptcy). Such qualifications, determined by sovereign states, would ensure a more responsible and informed electorate, rather than the "organized mob rule" of universal franchise.
9. Life, Liberty, and Happiness: Denied to the South by Federal Overreach.
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?
Government's sacred duty. The Declaration of Independence asserts that government's duty is to protect the God-given rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." A just government must not arbitrarily take lives or endanger its citizens, and it must rule with their consent. The book argues that the post-Civil War federal government has consistently failed in these duties towards Southerners.
Sacrifice in "no-win" wars. The federal government is accused of violating the "right to life" by sending American youth, particularly Southerners, to fight and die in "no-win" wars like Korea and Vietnam, benefiting only Northern commercial interests. This deliberate sacrifice of soldiers' lives, without a clear objective of victory, is deemed an illegal act by a government that has lost respect for human life.
Colonial exploitation and denial of happiness. The South, as a "colonial province" of the Yankee empire, has been denied the right to be the "author of its own advancement." Its economy remains depressed, its natural resources exploited for Northern benefit, and its people subjected to policies like forced busing that violate their liberty and parental rights. This economic and cultural subjugation prevents Southerners from pursuing happiness according to their own values, trapping them in a cycle of poverty and external control.
10. Cultural Genocide: The Ongoing Campaign to Erase Southern Identity.
The avowed purpose [of Northern policy] was the destruction of Southern civilization.
Re-education and cultural destruction. Following the war, the United States government initiated a deliberate campaign of cultural genocide against the South, aiming to "mold the character of the American people" into a Northern image. This involved replacing Southern educational systems with Northern models, purging textbooks, and re-educating Southerners to "respect national authority" and be ashamed of their heritage.
Wartime atrocities as prelude. The widespread atrocities committed by Union forces during the war—including deliberate destruction of civilian property, food supplies, and infrastructure, as well as the displacement and murder of non-combatants—were not isolated incidents but part of a "vigorous war policy" approved by leaders like Sherman, Grant, and Lincoln. Sherman explicitly called for the "utter destruction of its roads, houses, and people" to "cripple their military resources" and "repopulate Georgia."
Post-war suppression. This campaign continued after the war with the suppression of Confederate symbols, the banning of military insignias, and the vilification of Southern heroes. Today, this cultural genocide is perpetuated by the liberal media and education establishments, which promote politically correct narratives, deify left-wing figures, and systematically ignore or falsify Southern history to maintain Northern liberal political and economic domination.
Last updated:
Similar Books
