Lineage of Conservative Scholarship
Tweet
19th c. book: Geography for Dixie Children
A geography textbook for “Dixie Children,” printed in Raleigh, North Carolina in 1863. Here’s a snip from the accompanying lesson plan:
Q. Which race is most civilized.
A. The Caucasian.Q. Which are the most ferocious and savage?
A. The Indian, Mongolian, Maylay and African.Q. Is the African savage in this country?
A. No; they are docile and religious here.Q. How are they in Africa where they first come from?
A. They are very ignorant, cruel and wretched[.]
Modern day equivalent?
The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History
# Did the states have the right to secede from the Union? A frank examination of the evidence
# Was the war fought to free slaves? How the Civil War was more about other issues than about slavery
The conservative movement has the same hatred at its core, they’re just better at marketing it nowadays.
43 Responses to “Lineage of Conservative Scholarship”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
Yes, Jay, if the foundations of my movement were involved in whitewashing slavery I’d yawn too.
Yawwwwwwnn…
Are you trying to argue that
a) the South fought the war primarily to maintain slavery?
b) the North fought the war primarily to end slavery?
c) both a and b are true?
d) neither a nor b is true?
Because I’m not sure how you’re trying to link a racist textbook to a book arguing that the causes of the Civil War are complex.
Not buying the argument, Oliver. The South surely wanted to preserve slavery, because to do otherwise would have destroyed its economy (social issues left aside for the moment). But Lincoln did not go to war out of some pure altruistic need to free the slaves. Losing the south would have crippled the country, and he knew it.
Based on the blurb for the book, I see plenty of stupidity you could harp on. But trying to paint the authors as racist solely on the basis of the two questions you cite just isn’t working out for you.
It s old. It s tired. It s boring. Therefore, I yawned.
First you turned on your computer, started Firefox or Explorer, came to this site, read the post, logged in to the site, typed your comment (twice), and refreshed the page a couple of hundred times to see who responded to your witty prose.
Then you yawned.
It does seem to me that the point of Willis’ post stands: conservatives today are very afraid to articulate their ideas. It is cloaked in the language of liberals: compassionate conservatism, healthy forests, SS reform.
That’s why people like Derbyshire are appreciated. He proudly declares himself to be “mildly” anti-Semitic, but he does hate fags, niggers, and chinks (save the one he married), and he has a predeliction for young girls. A true conservative if ever there was one.
You know, I’ve heard this “It was states rights, not slavery” rubbish for a long time now. Would someone care to list the top five “states rights”, other than slavery, that the south wanted to preserve in the face of the north trying to stop them? Jay? JWG? Anyone? Surely there is a manifesto from the era somewhere if it was really about something else?
Also, would it be helpful if I provided racist textbooks from Northern scientists who used their “facts” to argue for social programs to help the “underdeveloped” races? Or are you only interested if the racism fits into your stereotype?
I yawned because of Oliver’s idiotic post. He finds some book that discusses the legality of secession and whether other issues aside from slavery were at the heart of the Civil War, moronically tries to equate them to some racist lesson plan from 100 years ago and then tries to label the whole thing as the heart of the conservative movement.
It’s old. It’s tired. It’s boring.
Therefore, I yawned.
…wow. Baby-steps:
And that injustice would be… holding them in slavery.
The statements of secession–especially the “Cornerstone Speech”–all mention slavery as the reason for breaking the union.
So are the folks you consider your political allies – like the dipshits who sell this book. As they say over there, “It’s by conservatives, for conservatives.” A fair number of you people also like to promote that Joe McCarthy was an American Hero (including this book), so I’m not surprised that you want to distance yourself as far away as you can and pretend this sort of mentality doesn’t exist.
Is it too obvious to say that comparing one book with another is hardly the way to indicate that the “conservative movement” has “hatred at its core.”
Oliver, you have never in the past indicated that you have any knowledge of the conservative movement. This is just further evidence of that lack of knowledge.
Anyone with a serious interest in the thinking of the South must start by reading The Southern Tradition at Bay
For an understanding of Conservatism — true conservatism — read The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America by George H. Nash.
Until then, you’re just channelling Daily Kos.
Jay C. fights from the comfort of his LaZBoy. He is the Clausewitz of 101st Fightin’ Keyboardists.
Look, anybody who “doesn’t buy” the fact the Civil War was fought over slavery is a moron. Read the declarations of secession from the Confederate States. Read the proceedings of the Confederate States’ Congress when they were discussing secession.
Heed the words of the VP of CSA, Alexander Stevens who declared slavery was the “cornerstone” upon which the Confederacy was built.
And to provide evidence that demonstrates the war was more complex for both sides demonstrates racist hatred.
Frankly, JWG, there are a lot of erroneous histories of the Civil War. Even the late Shelby Foote was a proponent of the Lost Cause Myth.
yeah, the left…all that diversity shit goes right out the window if it ain’t the tune you wanna hear, eh O-Dub?
And to provide evidence that demonstrates the war was more complex for both sides demonstrates racist hatred. That means a whole lot of my history books are racist. Wow…I have to admit I never realized it…I’m glad the blinders have been lifted from my eyes.
Wrong or not…the point of the thread is that for people to challenge the notion that the Civil War was based on concepts beyond slavery is due to hatred of the “savage” races. Is it possible for historians to investigate the issue without being called racists?
Have you a point to your bloviating, LP?
Or are you seriously suggesting Repugs stand for diversity because of all the racists in the party?
how long till you yank these posts? clock is ticking….
If this is evidence of the lineage of conservative scholarship then it’s fair to say that Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Chomsky form the lineage of liberal scholarship.
I’m still waiting for the top five list JWG. If the civil war was indeed based on other concepts, let’s hear them. Supporters of the south should have no trouble rattling them off. What are they? Let’s air them out and address them one by one.
“The South” was identified by its being based on slavery. The states from Soth Carolina to Maryland were very unlike the states from Georgia to Louisiana. Texas was virtually unique.
It is natural to see slavery as the “main cause” of the “Civil War”, but this has nothing whatever to do with the Republican Party, which was formed out of anti – slavery political factions in 1856. And, it was Republicans who struggled until the First World War against Democratic attempts to impose Jim Crow laws in the South.
There are two places where Afro – Americans and America’s national parties cross paths: In 1876, Hayes won the election by promising to withdraw troops from the South, and Reconstruction was over.
In 1932, the Democrats convinced both the southern blacks, and those blacks who had migrated north, that it was the Republications who bore the blame for their plight.
Now, as the average black family’s income is rising at a faster rate than a white family’s, people like Oliver cling to the belief that it is Democrats who are responsible for their success.
Hi there. Long time reader, first time poster. Look, I’d like to think I’m a fairly liberal guy, but I am also an American history teacher. It’s not entirely accurate to say that the civil war was ONLY caused by slavery. There was a serious economic and technological disparity between north and south, the south feared the loss of their political power, the fact that new states were being entered into the Union etc. Yes, slavery was the most obvious one, and Lord knows I’m not defending the South, but to say that this was the only cause isn’t quite accurate. Besides, I’ve leafed through that book at B&N… there’s a lot worse stuff than saying the civil war was complex. Read the part where they talk about how the robber barons were actually the best friends the workers have ever had.
I’m wondering why you think I support the viewpoint that the war was not primarily about slavery. I don’t believe I said otherwise. In fact, I would argue that it was about slavery.
What I don’t understand is how OW links a racist textbook (though common for the time) to a modern day racist “conservative movement” based on a Civil War analysis from one author. That has been the basis for my comments, and I have yet to see anyone explain the connection.
I will add that one of my books, A Patriot’s History Of The United States, writes from a conservative bias and argues that the War was unquestionably about slavery.
It’s nice to see that Jadegold, rhys, and (presumably) others can agree with traditional conservatives concerning an historical analysis.
Why bother arguing .. It’s quite obvious that Oliver is cherry picking pseudo-racist topics to make his inner-self happy because he hates white people.
Hey Jay…
Remember that Yahoo group “DixieLand” that you used to belong to? The ones that advocaed for a modern day southern cessession?
JK
Oh these books are fun. A bunch of half-wit, poorly argued canards that make the exact mistakes they accuse their critics of doing – injecting their own biases and reading history backwards. Anyway, here’s some of the author’s fine insights on the Civil War era:
# Did the states have the right to secede from the Union? A frank
examination of the evidence
Well, since the only precedent to secession was the Hartford Convention in 1814, where New Englanders threatened secession over the War of 1812, and the South Carolina Nullification controversy of 1831-32, it’s hard to say if states really had the right to secede from the Union. It seems the war settled that “open question” for good, however.
# Was the war fought to free slaves? How the Civil War was more about other issues than about slavery
The first clause is accurate. Of course Lincoln led the Union cause to restore the Union. Only later did it become about emancipation, and largely because of the actions of slaves who ran to Union lines. But what the hell does the second clause mean? Preservation of the Union was more important than abolishing slavery for the North. But preserving slavery was the fundamental reason for secession. So what are the “other issues”? The tariff (which Jefferson Davis even denied as a justification for secession himself)?
# Reality check: Lincoln’s views on race
Lincoln’s views on race evolved during the Civil War, as did many white Americans. He was a typical Westerner before the war – he believed black people were inferior, though he thought they were human.
# Why the soldiers fought: the Civil War, in the soldiers’ own words
Let me guess: for Cause and Comrades? Sounds like a James McPherson book. Because some army threatened your home? Not that radical (it’s why many non-slaveholding white Southerners supported the Confederacy, though many wanted to do so as militiamen in their neighborhoods and not on some far-off battlefield in Virginia; it’s also why many Kentuckians supported the Union after CSA Gen’l Polk’s ill-fated invasion of KY in September 1861).
# The Fourteenth Amendment and states’ rights: the truth about this much-misunderstood Amendment
Not sure what the author is saying, but the 14th Amendment clearly applies “equality under the law” and other provisions directly to the states. Is the author trying to deny the 1925 Court ruling that applied the Bill of Rights to the states?
# How government promoted waste and corruption in railroad construction
No argument here. How do you think the Republican Party really took off after Reconstruction politics died down in the early 1870s?
Why bother arguing .. It s quite obvious that Oliver is cherry picking pseudo-racist topics to make his inner-self happy because he hates white people.
Ian, perhaps you’d like some help pulling that foot out of your mouth, because your comment makes you just as guilty of poor inference and false logic as Oliver is in this case.
Oh, wait. I’m sorry…I’m just trying to spoil a good troll, aren’t I?
As you were, then.
Jay C. fights from the comfort of his LaZBoy. He is the Clausewitz of 101st Fightin Keyboardists.
As is Oliver. Like I said (and which you in your intellectual cowardice refuse to address), he supports the war in Afghanistan and supports sending our troops into other countries, yet he hasn’t signed up. When you start calling him a chickenhawk, I’ll take your petty little comments perhaps a tiny bit more seriously. Until then, you’re full of shit.
Remember that Yahoo group DixieLand that you used to belong to? The ones that advocaed for a modern day southern cessession?
I never belonged to it jackass. Being from New York/New Jersey, that whole topic doesn’t interest me.
Big Gay Al,
“conservatives today are very afraid to articulate their ideas. It is cloaked in the language of liberals: compassionate conservatism, healthy forests, SS reform.”
Setting aside some of the gratuitous malarkey you associated with this, there is some truth in this core statement. But I would suggest in this era of polls and pervasive, diverse media, almost all politicians who want to get elected to some broad office, assume the language of the middle, of the MSM. IMO, we have had a true liberal or conservative running for President as such since McGovern and before that AUH2O. There are, however, many doctrinaire liberal and conservative (and liberal) magazines, blogs, etc. BTW, re your idiocy about “true conservative”, we have our bad apples, you have yours whether you believe it or not, but human history will record a much worse record of hate and true depravity on the part of the extremist left (count the corpses) than the extremist right. That at leeast should suggest a little less blinding arrogance.
Dugger
Re: The Concordian
I’m not a troll .. I am making an observation. Please search for the terms “racist” and “racism” on the sidebar or you can easily find these posts by going to the category titled “racism”. Oliver refuses to understand that Robert KKK Byrd said “nigger” on television and was a former member of the KKK.
>>I never belonged to it jackass. Being from New York/New Jersey, that whole topic doesn t interest me.
Well, Jay…I remember clear as day seeing your JayC_28 (or whatever it was in those days) on the membership roster of that group, and questioning you about it. I have absolutely no reason to lie.
Look, t doesn’t make you a horrible person that you were curious about them, but later found them nuts, so you left. I don’t believe you think the way those people do. It’s just that I find a bit of irony in you jumping all over Oliver. That’s all.
JK
I don’t know what’s sillier… this book, or some of the statements – and the ultimately circular argument represented by this thread.
Well, Jay& I remember clear as day seeing your JayC_28 (or whatever it was in those days) on the membership roster of that group, and questioning you about it. I have absolutely no reason to lie.
Well, you have no reason to, but either you are or you’re just way off and mistaken. Let me correct you on several fronts:
1. I was one of the co-founders of that Yahoo group. It was members of THEIR group that started posting at ours. I remember because you could list your where you lived under your profile and I remember it being funny that some of them had ‘Occupied Georgia’ under their names.
2. Yahoo Clubs required you to join to post something for any reason. I quickly joined to try and quell a major pissing match between various factions of both clubs which was accomplishing nothing other than being disruptive. My ‘joining’ such a club was only done in the sense that I was being a mediator.
So you didn’t just stroll in there one day, look at the membership and see my name and then call me on it.
And Phinky, it has nothing to do with choosing a deployment you nimrod. The challenge has been, “If you support the war, enlist! Or shut up!”
People don’t get to pick and choose which conflicts are the ones that are legit to call people chickenhawks and vice versa.
I was one of the co-founders of that Yahoo group.
This is a mistake. It should read, “I was one of the co-founders of the Yahoo club Politically Incorrect Cafe”, PIC being “that Yahoo group” (which were called clubs at the time and structured much better than the group format).
Jay C,
When are you going to learn that soldiers can’t pick the deployments they want to go on? When you volunteer to join the Army, that is the last thing you volunteer for. Soldiers take an oath to obey the president and the officers appointed over him. If a unit is going to Iraq, the unit’s soldiers can’t say, “But we want to go to Afghanistan”, they go to Iraq whether they want to or not. But you would know that if you were a veteran, which apparently you are not.
Ian:
Please explain to me how Robert Byrd, or in fact the content of the original post, has anything to do with your assertion that Oliver “hates white people.” See, that’s called a troll. It’s probably also factually incorrect, since Oliver works for and with a bunch of white people.
JWG, Ian, JC, etc.
Oh… just to throw a little more fuel on the fire. Let’s say that Oliver instead of using the “Dixe” book example had used something more recent… say the teachings of the Cary Christian School in NC
http://ibiblio.org/pjones/wordpress/?p=145
Would that have appeased your affront at the arguement?
The Concordian:
Whenever Oliver discusses “racism” it is always a tinted look at white v. black, usually white Republicans v. black Democrats.
rainlion,
I don’t care what racist source you choose to compare to the Politically Incorrect Guide (which I’ve never read). No one has explained why the book’s teaser is racist.
Based on the little bit of your writing I can stand to read, Ian, your own view of racism is “tinted” too. It’s called subjective observation. You know, having a point of view. Everyone’s view of something conceptual like that is pretty much tinted.
Now, that said, please continue with your explanation of how that justifies or supports your claim that Oliver hates white people.
Or was that, as I said, just a cheap troll?
Well, rainlion? How is the Politically Incorrect book racist?