“SLAVERY was put down in America, not in consequence of any action on the part of the slaves, or even any express desire on their part that they should be free. It was put down entirely through the grossly illegal conduct of certain agitators in Boston and elsewhere, who were not slaves themselves, nor owners of slaves, nor had anything to do with the question really. It was, undoubtedly, the Abolitionists who set the torch alight, who began the whole thing. And it is curious to note that from the slaves themselves they received, not merely very little assistance, but hardly any sympathy even; and when at the close of the war the slaves found themselves free, found themselves indeed so absolutely free that they were free to starve, many of them bitterly regretted the new state of things.”
FREEDOM is all right, but de niggers was better off befo’ surrender, kaze den dey was looked after an’ dey didn’ get in no trouble fightin’ an’ killin’ like dey do dese days. If a nigger cut up an’ got sassy in slavery times, his Ole Marse give him a good whippin’ an’ he went way back an’ set down an’ ‘haved hese’f. If he was sick, Marse an’ Mistis looked after him, an’ if he needed store medicine, it was bought an’ give to him; he didn’ have to pay nothin’. Dey didn’ even have to think ’bout clothes nor nothin’ like dat, dey was wove an’ made an’ give to dem. Maybe everybody’s Marse and Mistis wuzn’ good as Marse George and Mis’ Betsy, but dey was de same as a mammy an’ pappy to us niggers.
AT In the Spirit of Chartres, I talked a bit today with Judith Sharpe about the history of slavery. I hope to have more on the subject in the future. We only scratched the surface.
The above photo is of Isaac Jefferson, a slave of Thomas Jefferson’s whom I mentioned today and who was born in 1775. Isaac shared his memories of his slave days at Monticello, Virginia with Charles Campbell in the 1840s. Campbell collected them in the book Memories of a Monticello Slave. Isaac’s account does not fit the popular narrative of slavery in America or the views conveyed to visitors to Monticello today, where more than $20 million was recently spent to diminish Thomas Jefferson’s legacy and reputation by making slavery the central fact of his life and presenting it in a harshly negative light, with a 60-foot-long, steel sculpture created to help visitors solemnly reflect on the suffering of slaves at Monticello. Isaac seemed to have only tender memories of his master. From the book:
Mr. Jefferson always singing when ridin or walkin: hardly see him anywhar out doors but what he was a-singin: had a fine clear voice, sung minnits (minuets) & sich: fiddled in the parlor. Old master very kind to servants.
And:
Mr. Jefferson bowed to everybody he meet: talked wid his arms folded. Gave the boys in the nail-factory a pound of meat a week, a dozen herrings, a quart of molasses & peck of meal. Give them that wukked the best a suit of red or blue: encouraged them mightily. Isaac calls him a mighty good master.
Thomas Jefferson deplored the institution of slavery but depended on slaves to run his estate and farmlands. He was the epitome of the paternalistic, benevolent master. The story of his fathering children by one of his slaves is nothing but that — a story maliciously spread by those ever jealous of kindness and success. It is likely that his brother, whom Isaac Jefferson mentions in his short memoir as enjoying partying with the slaves at Monticello through the night, was the father of the children in question of Sally Hemings.
It’s all par for the course. Slavery is used as a whip to distort and falsify, to create distraction and discord — and to make Americans, both black and white, despise their own country and those who sacrificed for it.
ST. GREGORY of Nyssa was arguably the world’s first abolitionist. In the fourth century, he condemned all trafficking of human beings and it is one of the great tragedies of history that his view was not heeded many centuries later when the transatlantic slave trade began:
“For what is such a gross example of arrogance (…) as for a human being to think himself the master of his own kind? ‘I got me slaves and slave-girls’, he says, ‘and homebred slaves were born for me’.
“Do you notice the enormity of the boast? This kind of language is raised up as a challenge to God. For we hear from prophecy that all things are the slaves of the power that transcends all (Ps 119/118,91). So, when someone turns the property of God into his own property and arrogates dominion to his own kind, so as to think himself the owner of men and women, what is he doing but overstepping his own nature through pride, regarding himself as something different from his subordinates?
“’I got me slaves and slave-girls’. What do you mean? You condemn man to slavery, when his nature is free and possesses free will, and you legislate in competition with God, overturning his law for the human species. The one made on the specific terms that he should be the owner of the earth, and appointed to government by the Creator – him you bring under the yoke of slavery, as though defying and fighting against the divine decree. Read More »
“BY supporting NAZI-ism and Hitler worship as the solution to the malaise of Masonic-Bolshevikism [sic], these greenspammers undermine the foundations of our Christian and Anglo society. They do so by replacing: the free-market with socialism, European Christian society with racial purity and occultism, and law and order with might makes right and violence, along with the idolization of a morally evil, highly stigmatized man. ….
“World War Two is a tragic event in history and it is this author’s opinion that both World Wars were organized by Satan and his minion to destroy Christianity, yet we should be glad that Hitler did not win for his victory would have achieved our great enemy’s goal far more than his defeat did which allowed for half of Europe to exist as a free society for some time.”
“JEWS sometimes showed empathy for their slaves. For instance in Mexico City at the end of the 16th century, in a family of Jewish slave hunters/traders – the Carvajals.
“A Mr. Diaz (an employee) was ordered to whip a black man.
“He complies, the negro starts screaming, and now the women of the house come running and ask Diaz to stop immediately. Read More »
KAMALA Harris delivered the above statement yesterday in “honor” of “Indigenous People’s Day.” Of course, we’ve long known what it would mean when the name of this day was changed from Columbus Day and given this mouthful of a name. Communists love to change holidays and to eradicate the roots of the people they conquer — while maintaining their own. Still Kamala’s openly Marxist comments and undisguised contempt (notice her facial expressions) for America’s origins — on a day once devoted to patriotism — are shocking even for her. These are the words of a dangerous revolutionary. Furthermore, they are false, or at the very least highly slanted.
Columbus Day used to be a day to love America. Now it’s a day to hate it. Again, look at the anger. She has all but said, “Get Whitey.”
“We must not shy away” from the truth, Harris says.
The truth is, no people have been more interested in the crimes of their ancestors than European-Americans. No people have written and read more books or watched more movies about the dark deeds of their forebears or explored more honestly their history. They do not “shy away” from admitting wrongs. Read More »
I have been contemplating your October 2 post about Hurricane Hazel and other natural disasters.
I agree with many of your points about fear mongering and what (in my opinion) is quite frankly a global warming hoax. I do believe that the issue is a bit more nuanced when it comes to weather warfare; that is to say that it appears that we have the capacity to steer hurricanes, at least to some extent. In reference to the most recent hurricane (Helene) perhaps you have seen this short video.
Apparently the capacity to steer hurricanes has been available for at least 70 years. (That is not to say every hurricane is steered.) I leave you with a video on that history. While I do not endorse everything this man says or does, I am simply leaving the video here to consider his points on the ability to steer hurricanes. It’s up to us to dig deeper and not buy into everything we hear in the media. Read More »
Her detractors claimed that Anita Bryant “hated” homosexuals, “terrorized” them and sought to take away what they claimed were their “rights”. That was Big Lie #1. The truth is that she made a point of leaving them alone, so long as they minded their own business — until they began militant agitation aimed at the law, which involved other people’s business.
ALAN writes:
Anita Bryant has been mentioned only twice at The Thinking Housewife. I believe that is too little remembrance of a woman who spoke most courageously in the face of militant Leftist agitation, and I would like to supplement that with the following.
In 1977-’78, I paid little attention when Anita Bryant was vilified by agitators for “homosexual rights”. Had I paid more attention, I would have concluded that Americans were living on borrowed time in a fool’s paradise–not because of her, but because of her enemies and her friends.
I remembered Anita Bryant from years earlier when she was a beacon of sunshine in American entertainment. I remember her appearances on TV variety shows in the early 1960s (i.e., before The Revolution got fully under way later in that decade). She was part of an era when Americans could enjoy entertainment for families on TV programs like those of Perry Como, Andy Williams, Kate Smith, Ernie Ford, and John Gary, among others. I bought her Christmas LP Do You Hear What I Hear? I knew that she was one of the entertainers who accompanied Bob Hope on his tours to entertain American servicemen in Vietnam in the 1960s, for which they were extremely grateful. ” Anita Bryant is the greatest thing that ever happened to our annual Christmas tours for the USO,” he said in 1966.
(Regarding one such tour in Vietnam, an evangelist objected to Bob Hope including young women like Joey Heatherton and Carroll Baker in his troupe of entertainers because they might “stir up” the soldiers. That suggestion prompted Miss Baker to say, “He would have a point, except that our Army doesn’t take men who don’t like girls.” (AP, “Evangelist Stirs Debate Over Starlets Stirring Up G.I.s,” St. Louis Post-Dispatch, March 24, 1966, p. 20A)
(Oh, for those glorious days of a Free Press and a masculine military and women who made pithy remarks like that — and thank you, Carroll Baker. Were “the other kind” of men offended and “hurt” by her remark? I can only hope. Imagine the howling and shrieking that would follow such a remark today after Americans have allowed their military to be weakened by all kinds of agitators. Observe how easily American men allow themselves to be brainwashed and emasculated: Whereas American soldiers cheered Miss Baker’s remark sixty years ago, today they would apologize for it. And observe the difference in the Press between 1966, when it did not append any note of disapproval to her remark, and 1977, when it took delight in smearing Anita Bryant for her remarks, and today, when it takes even greater delight in repeating the Big Lies that I will cite below.)
It would be hard to say which was worse: What political agitators and some “journalists” did to Anita Bryant, or what American men in general and those around her in particular did not do in her defense. It proved to me that a cultural revolution had taken place in less than two decades. The mere existence of a “debate” about the alleged “rights” of homosexuals showed how morally and philosophically bankrupt Americans had allowed themselves to become by the 1970s. Read More »
JAYANT Bhandari, who emigrated from India to Canada, where he is a writer and business investor, discusses the Indian mentality:
Concepts like fairness, justice, trust, empathy and impartiality are completely alien concepts to the Indian mind. They cannot differentiate between right and wrong. They simply can’t differentiate between what is right and wrong. They do not have the concepts, the Western value concepts that you think are a part of the natural existence — they aren’t. Indians are indifferent even when there is no cost involved in doing the right thing, in delivering fairness or justice.
I would go as far as saying that … if they could deliver fairness and justice without any personal cost they would still prefer not to do it because they see doing the right thing as a sign of weakness.
I guess anyone who has been to India on a budget of less than $50 a day would recognize what I’m saying here. If you spend $500 a day you will never understand.
[…]
Indians cannot maintain the institutions established by the British. These institutions have been completely hollowed out and corrupted. They have become predatory — the Constitutions and laws hold no value in that country. The only forces driving these institutions are bribes and connections. You go in front of a judge and you bribe the policemen and the bureaucrats … right in front of the judge. That’s how openly bribe is conducted in that country.
Bhandari has elsewhere said that Justin Trudeau should be charged with treason for flooding Canada with Indians:
India cannot be civilized. It can only be contained, but the West is too politically correct and now mostly naive to contain it. I am mostly worried about the Indianization, and the [Third] world-ization of the West. (Source)
I’ve been going through old posts and found this one.
Feminism and the female vote was the precursor to what we have now. I understand this.
And I agree about women boxing. I would almost take it a step further and say, all women’s sports masculinize them, but there is almost no one I could express this to now! There is no emphasis on homemaking skills anymore — just sports and assertiveness. Women aren’t sweet anymore, and don’t need to be “nice” to men; they think they don’t need them. It’s sad.
“WE frequently hear it said, referring to the duty of removing slavery, that we must break every yoke. Many who say this reckon that in the United States there are three million two hundred and four thousand three hundred and thirteen ‘yokes,’ this being the number of slaves.
“Now, you can not pass through the south and not see that a very large number may at once be struck from this reckoning of yokes; that there are very many slaves who, if you should propose to break a ‘yoke’ for them, would not understand you. The question is not as to enslaving a new people; nor does it relate to the Antilles, nor to Guiana, nor to Mexico; it relates to these people who are here; and the proper question is not an abstract one with regard to slavery, but what is best for this people in their circumstances. The troubles which we impute to their condition are many of them like the most of our own, viz., ‘borrowed troubles;’ we make them in our thoughts bear the burdens of all the possible evils which theoretically belong to the system of slavery. Even if we take all these into view, the amount of happiness among them compares favorably with that among the same number of people elsewhere. If there are some evils to which they are exposed, there are others from which they are exempt. The feeling involuntarily arose within me at the south, and especially in the religious meetings of the slaves, Would that all Africa were here! Could villages and tribes of Africans be by any means induced to emigrate to this land, and be placed under the influences which the slaves enjoy, Ethiopia would stretch out her hands to God sooner than the most sanguine interpreters of prophecy now dare to hope. It is deeply affecting to hear the slaves give thanks in their prayers that they have not been left like the heathen who know not God, but are raised, as it were, to heaven in their Christian privileges.’
