Astronomers have discovered that the universe is expanding at an ever-faster rate. Galaxies are retreating from one another while it appears that the great nebulas or “star nurseries” that brought into existence those glittering lights that adorn the night sky are becoming fewer and fewer in number, albeit, that number is still greater than our limited minds can conceive. Yet whenever something is becoming fewer without the appearance of replacements, the natural conclusion is that eventually—however long it may take!—that thing will cease to exist!
Meanwhile, stars also die. Admittedly some do so quite spectacularly and spread their remains that perhaps—but only perhaps—results in the formation of new stars, while black holes, those monstrous cannibals, consume whatever gets close enough to them—including stars. Even smaller stars such as our sun, though they have a fate far more prosaic than their giant siblings, eventually shrink into white dwarfs ultimately ceasing to exist—at least as stars.
Astronomers have ruefully concluded that the end of the universe as we know it will consist of nothing more than myriad black holes. And even these monsters will eventually just disappear for apparently they are not eternal but slowly over time, lose their substance. And, so, at the end, darkness will be the fate of what used to be the glories of our cosmos. It is a sad and depressing story, but apparently, barring the interposition of Almighty God, we are headed for eternal entropy—that is, the end of all things.
What is entropy? It is defined as a “measure of disorder,” but it also means “the progression from something into nothing.” Entropy is a slow disintegration from the “formed” into the “unformed.” Astronomy predicts that our cosmos’ formless remnant will be utterly dark. Even The Bible mentions this, albeit in the reverse. In Genesis, Chapter One, verse Two, it is written: “And the earth was without form and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.” Being “without form and void” is the very essence of entropy.
But nature is not alone in producing entropy. Human civilizations rise and flourish and then decay, eventually ending in a formless chaos, void of all that made it a civilization in the first place. We are seeing this happening today in the West and nowhere is it moving with greater speed than in the American South, a region whose history, heritage and heroes are under relentless attack from people “void” of both reason and knowledge. These vandals are fueled by a lack of intellect and morality that prevents any “light”—especially the “light of reason and knowledge”—from reaching them. They are as a black hole in the center of what was once a great civilization and thereby represent a sure sign of cultural entropy.
One of the first and most prominent societal areas that reveal cultural entropy is found in the arts. In every successive civilization as entropy set in, man’s art and literature were clear signs that the process of cultural decay was underway. Western art and music clearly demonstrate this ongoing malady, indicating how we, the people of our culture, are turning away from what was once acknowledged as beautiful and worthwhile—whether in literature, art or music—and embracing that which is ugly, profane and worthless. Often this is clearly exhibited in the semantics of the art involved—for instance, the term “rap music” is an obvious oxymoron. And, of course, this applies to other forms of art as well. Sometimes there is just enough value retained to create something not altogether worthless, but even then, the subject matter is frequently of a type that a prior generation would have discarded as a waste of time, energy and materials.
Recently, we were unfortunate enough to be the victims of a very real example of this decline as it appears in the art form of sculpture. The object involved is a large bronze “monument” entitled “Rumors of War.” Here, the “artist” copied from a true masterpiece portraying one of those Southern heroes presently condemned by most of society. In doing so, he replaces the greater with the significantly lesser, though, of course, his subject is embraced by today’s culture as “worthy.” It is interesting to note that the sculptor does not attempt to make his subject heroic as that word is still understood. Rather, he clads it in the wretched trappings of the inner-city ghetto—high-topped sneakers, ripped jeans, a “hoodie” and that personal grooming catastrophe, dreadlocks! The only thing “heroic” in the work is a reasonably good rendering of the horse copied directly from the original!
Even the rider’s posture is odd. His head is thrown back and he appears to be anxiously looking about as if in fear of exposure; it is, in fact, a rather flawless depiction of that most popular of inner-city pastimes, looting. Indeed, one wag has already entitled the work, The Horsethief! Taken altogether objectively, it would seem that the sculptor put whatever talent he possesses into the horse, perhaps because the horse has a natural nobility that even he was able to depict. On the other hand, attempting to ennoble a black “gang-banger” is beyond even the talents of a Michelangelo!
Another abuse in this particular pairing of “monuments” is the artist’s contrast between the two subjects being memorialized. He chooses the original not based upon any artistic criteria but in order to nullify the tribute being paid to the man thus originally honored. That monument was raised to Confederate General James Ewell Brown (JEB) Stuart. Of course, Stuart is rejected out of hand, first and foremost because he is white and secondly because he fought for the South. The present orthodoxy insists that the South fought to maintain black slavery while the North fought to “free the slaves.” Of course, that narrative will also eventually fall because whites also fought for the Union and they cannot be seen as heroes either! Right now, however, the script cannot be abandoned without confusing the acceptable interpretation. This is especially important given the lack of wisdom and rationality among those whom the artist is attempting to reach with his “message.”
The sculptor, Kehinde Wiley—also black—uses the Stuart monument as a foundation for his concept, in effect, replacing the original hero Stuart with his “champion!” But Wiley’s subject represents not a man, but an archetype of the assertion that American blacks have been robbed of their superior place by evil whites! Of course, this sort of “artistic interpretation” is both intellectually and morally bankrupt. To begin with, one cannot equate an idea or concept with a human being. A concept may be excellent, but it is the product of a human mind, it is not itself human. The artist’s “heroic image” is no more genuine than a statue of Zeus and cannot be regarded in the same way as a monument to any man whose life was such that his fellow men saw fit to glorify him for posterity.
So this regressive—or entropic—“art,” replaces a true hero with a symbol representing a type of man that in better days would have been rejected by a rational society. The “ghetto horseman” embodies nothing positive or worthy of being immortalized—and this is not just a matter of race. He wears the uniform of a certain class of blacks in today’s society that are distinctly unworthy of anything but censure for their brutish and criminal behaviors. In effect, this “art” selects the worse over the better, the lesser over the greater and the degenerate over the true man. If there is a stronger example of cultural entropy, I, for one, cannot imagine it. In the end, this whole effort is admittedly designed to inaugurate the removal of the great heroes of Western Civilization, replacing them with big statues of small people having no worth or purpose other than to warn of the coming darkness.
On August 24th, 1864, President Abraham Lincoln wrote to politician and editor Henry J. Raymond that Raymond might seek a conference with Jefferson Davis and to tell him that hostility would cease “upon the restoration of the Union and the national authority.” In other words, three plus years of hideous bloodshed and war crimes would simply be ended on the above mentioned conditions.
But there is so much more in those ten words than might be seen by the casual observer. Of course, Jefferson Davis was hardly “a casual observer!” He understood the conditions under which his nation and his people would be spared further torture and destruction but he chose not to follow the path of abject slavery. It is interesting to note that a war many people declare solemnly was fought “to abolish slavery” among blacks was in fact fought to institute slavery among all Americans.
As for the first of Lincoln’s demands; that is, the “restoration of the Union:” the simple fact is that for many years participation in that “Union” had been a kind of economic and cultural slavery for the States of the South. Despised and attacked by fellow members of the “glorious Union,” they found that their wealth was not despised but, indeed, desired and as a result, year by year found its way into the coffers of those who could not be considered anything but their implacable enemies.
But this was not the foremost reason that Lincoln wanted the eleven Confederate States back under the thumb of the North. It is the second demand that makes clear why Lincoln launched his war against the States of the South in the first place; that is, they had refused to observe “the national authority.” To what “national authority” does Lincoln refer? Again, it is simple. Lincoln was going—and indeed already had—nullified the Constitution and the Union of the Founders by replacing the sovereignty of the States and the People with a now national rather than federal government. Of course, this was not just Lincoln’s desire. Many in the North and in the South of both parties no longer wished to maintain the limited federal government as created by the Constitution. Both before and during the War, Lincoln spoke endlessly of “saving” not the nation or the Union but the government! The “national authority” which he wished to “restore”—although it had not existed at least openly before the War—was an all-powerful central government with himself at its head.
To this very day, those who seek what Lincoln desired infest the Constitution with “amendments” and “legal interpretations” assuring that both of his demands would be institutionalized in perpetuity and that is why we have what we have today: an all powerful “national authority.” At least the People of the South can take some comfort in knowing that their ancestors did not willingly or even grudgingly accept Lincoln’s slavery while they could still lift their swords to resist it. That they failed in that effort does not detract from the effort.
Anyone addicted to picture puzzles knows how frustrating it is to assemble one almost to completion only to find out that a piece is missing. The more complicated and difficult the puzzle, the more maddening it is to come near to completion only to realize that you will never accomplish your desired end for the information required is absent. And puzzles are not the only circumstance in which missing pieces can be catastrophic. Try assembling a model or making a garment when there are parts lost. A great many human endeavors as well as man-hours are brought to naught because, when all is said and done, essential components are simply not there.
But missing pieces do more damage than simply aggravating those involved. When the puzzle cannot be finished or the garment assembled, the aggrieved laborer can assuage himself with a stiff drink or some other pleasantry. But what about the "missing piece" scenario when it occurs in such disciplines as the study of history? While the former examples of the consequences involved are obvious, for the historian what most often happens is that the "puzzle" is "completed" absent the missing pieces and this may often result in a faulty conclusion. The picture puzzle's missing piece is obvious; the historian's missing piece may be overlooked or, worse, ignored.
Of course, the more important the historic subject, the more essential the missing piece and no subject today seems to carry with it a greater weight in the general culture than that of slavery as it existed in the antebellum South. It is not necessary to repeat yet again the general view of black slavery in the South but that view is minus a good many pieces and hence it cannot be accepted as valid. Yes, it does contain a great deal of information, but absent the rest, the conclusion invariably reached by the historian (or anyone else) is palpably false.
And while it is easy enough to talk of "missing pieces," if we are attempting to invalidate the conclusions reached without them, we must find those pieces and place them into the puzzle. This is a very lengthy process so I will only make mention of two such, concentrating on one that seems to have been not so much "lost" as "ignored!" A "lost" piece can be unintentionally overlooked because the historian does not see the connection of the piece with his particular puzzle or, in the alternative, he is unaware of it in the first place. An "ignored" piece indicates an attempt to reach a conclusion that said "piece" might invalidate and that is how "history" is manufactured!
The first piece of the puzzle of black slavery in the South is the role played by the slave trade and especially the involvement in that trade of the Africans themselves. Many people have this "vision" of (especially Western) slavers sailing to Africa, fitting out expeditions into the bush and "capturing" innocent natives going about their daily business. These captives were then brought back to the coast, and loaded onto sailing ships for the hideous "Middle Passage" to Europe or the New World. But this is nonsense! Now certainly, Arabs from the Middle East might have obtained slaves that way, but the easiest, cheapest and safest way to obtain an African slave was from another African! The economic system of Africa was based upon slavery. African chieftains and kings did not till the land or even mine for the great wealth of that Continent. They used the captives of eternal tribal wars as capital, keeping some and selling the rest. The fate of a captive who was not kept or sold was death. So, the ease and relative cheapness with which slaves were procured through tribal warfare and the wealth that their sale obtained from the slave traders encouraged African potentates to use slavery as their source of wealth. The idea that black slavery was a white European or American invention is ludicrous and certainly not validated by history.
Because slavery is such an emotional topic, people don't bother to understand it other than all those hideous tableaus eternally presented to the gullible and naive. Furthermore, today slavery is seen only as involving blacks, but especially in colonial America, most slaves were white. Only later did that change with the African slave trade run from New England. But, most important to understand is that the reason for slavery had nothing to do with "lording it" over another human being but rather to maintain a stable labor force. In other words, without slavery, the planter would be constantly in danger of losing all that he possessed if that labor force simply wasn't available to sow and to reap. Agriculture is a livelihood in which there are periods of intense labor followed by periods of, if not rest, than certainly far less work than is required during planting and harvest. That is why school children in rural areas used to be excused from class during those periods! These were activities that could not be "put off" until a more convenient time.
On the other hand, the mill, factory or mine owner needed only to have available to him a labor pool from which to draw workers because one day at the mill, factory or mine was much the same as any other. Most of the jobs in the manufacturing North did not require any great skill or training but they did require bodies in which the manufacturer need not invest anything but a small wage in exchange for hard labor. So the North, with its endless supply of immigrants pouring into its cities, did not need to maintain chattel slavery which was far more expensive as a source of labor than the cheap and easily replaced "wage slave." However, the agricultural South which had no such multitudes fleeing the wars and famines of Europe, found itself wed to a system that had gotten out of control simply because no one no, not even Thomas Jefferson, could determine what would happen, and, more importantly, how to avoid what would happen if the system were simply "ended" and the newly freed slaves released into the general population to fend for themselves. This situation was summed up in Jefferson's agonized response to the call for emancipation: "But what shall we do with the Negro?"
This is one of those "pieces" that is most frequently left out of the puzzle of antebellum slavery though it is certainly no secret to historians. The problem is this: they cannot delve deeply into what happened and why it happened and still maintain the claim that the War for Southern Independence was solely a desperate effort to maintain chattel slavery. In addition, they cannot lay the "blame" for chattel slavery entirely at the door of the people and the States of the South. And this is where we find the second "lost piece" of the puzzle; that is, what was happening in the North during this period of time?
And to this most important question, I refer the reader to an article written by African-American journalist, Francie Latour. Ms. Latour's work appeared in the September 26th, 2010 edition of the Boston Globe*, hardly a Southern paper. The title of her article is New England's hidden history: More than we like to think, the North was built on slavery. The best thing that could be done would be to post Ms. Latour's article here, but for that we need her permission and having tried to gain such in the past and failing it was determined to try to entice folks to read the piece for themselves through the auspices of this article.
Ms. Latour begins with the execution of a black slave who had murdered his master in colonial times. She gives the particulars but does not say where this event occurred until the account is complete. She then goes on to write:
Ms. Latour proceeds to briefly document the history of slavery in New England and the North, something she says has gone too long unrevealed. She also states that, ". . . historians say it is time to radically rewrite America's slavery story to include its buried history in New England." Perhaps that is so, but if it is, I have not seen any effort other than that by Ms. Latour for any such revelations though she solemnly states that all sorts of Northern historians are hot on the trail of Northern slave involvement. As her article was written four years ago and blessed little has come forth on this subject, it would appear that our Northern historians seem less anxious for these revelations than is Ms. Latour.
The lady then refers to another extremely interesting book written by three Hartford (Connecticut) Courant journalists, one of whom was Ann Farrow. The book is entitled, Complicity: How the North Promoted, Prolonged, and Profited From Slavery. This is another work that has received "crickets" from the historical and academic communities. Of course, some effort has been made such as the rather stupid "apology" given by Connecticut for its involvement in black slavery which makes that state, in Ms. Latour's words, ". . . the first New England state to formally apologize for slavery." And while this may assuage the perennially "deeply offended" among us, frankly it is useless until Africa also apologizes and both that Continent and much of Asia and the Middle East end present day slavery!
Ms. Latour goes on to quote Stephen Bressler, director of the Brookline (Massachusetts) Human Relations-Youth Resources Commission who said:
Ah, yes, the infamous Triangle Trademolasses to rum to slavesa strictly New England enterprise!
Ms. Latour quotes Joanne Pope Melish, a teacher of history at the University of Kentucky and author of the book Disowning Slavery: Gradual Emancipation and faced in New England, 1780-1860. Ms. Melish expounds on New England "racism" thusly:
Of course, Ms. Latour could not resist blowing New England's abolitionist horn and brought forth as her hero "The Liberator" William Lloyd Garrison. And, as well, she determines that the whole Civil War (sic) was fought on the issue of slavery. Still, she is honest enough to point out:
The Latour article goes on to remove the romantic notion of a loving, caring culture where whites sympathized and helped the free blacks among them. She quotes historian Elise Lemire who pointed out that, "Slaves [in Concord] were split up in the same way (as slave families in the South). You didn't have any rights over your children. Slave children were given away all the time, sometimes when they were very young." But as interesting as Concord was, historians, according to Latour, say that "Connecticut was a slave state!" Going back to Ann Farrow, the Connecticut journalist, Latour quotes her thusly:
Latour also quotes author C. S. Manegold author of the book, Ten Hills Farm: The Forgotten History of Slavery in the North which garnered the same critical "crickets" from academia as did Farrow's Complicity. Manegold argues that New England's "amnesia has not only been pervasive, but willful." In his book, Manegold points to "slavery's markers" that weren't hidden or buried:
Of course, there are many more interesting anecdotes, quotes and revelations in this rather long article and I highly recommend that one not only read the article but the books herein mentioned by Ms. Latour. Far too many Southerners bow beneath the guilt of slavery when they have no reason to do so. Slavery in the South was hardly the horror that we have been told over the years. The proof of that is the fact that by 1861, the black population in the South had reached three million people in the clutches of a genocidal movement tend to lose not gain in numbers. Was slavery a good thing? After the war, when the freedmen were thrown onto their own resources in a desolated South, many was the especially old slave who would have dearly loved to return to his or her cabin and the safety and peace of what had been his or her home. Certainly, the treatment of slaves and free blacks in the North was far worse than in the deepest of the deep South. Ms Latour makes that obvious. Indeed, New York gained the title of a "black graveyard" because of the death rate among that State's black slaves.
Slavery is a very complex issue and especially as it existed in the 19th Century. The idea that an historical situation is being used as a tool for cultural genocide against the People of the South is not only unjust, but mendacious. Those who seek the destruction of all things Southern know perfectly well that they are creating a straw man with which to further their agenda. Neither does it matter whether they pursue that agenda out of ignorance or hatred or the desire for personal gain. A lie must be exposed and confounded or we will all become slaves.
When one grows old one tends to resent wasting time and there is nothing that wastes time quite so much as efforts to counter the claims and assertions surrounding the American “Civil War” Of course, the first of these is that the conflict was not a “civil war!” But those who insist upon that label continue to do so despite all demonstrable facts to the contrary. Alas, it is impossible to have reasoned debate when so few are prepared to be reasonable. Indeed, all arguments involving the causes for that war and the subsequent praise and blame devolving upon its participants inevitably lead to the same tiresome claims against the South even when inescapable and acknowledged facts disprove them.
In the past the motives and rationale of the Southern States in their efforts to leave the Union were treated with respect—but no more. Now, no good report is ever permitted regarding the efforts by thirteen sovereign States to secede from the compact to which they had voluntarily acceded. The whole thing has deteriorated into the use of the race card. I do not doubt that cultural Marxism in using the issue of race to sow discord in American society has directly led to the present war on the history, heroes and memorials of the South even though Lincoln himself stated unequivocally that slavery was not the reason for his treasonous (Article III, Section 3—United States Constitution) war.
But it is useless to counter—however correctly—the current historical orthodoxy simply because apparently no amount of demonstrable “proof” will overcome that deeply desired—and false—narrative. Instead, I call upon an individual whose viewpoint cannot be disparaged because he was a Southerner and owned slaves—because he wasn’t a Southerner, neither did he own slaves! He wasn’t even an American and therefore had “no dog in the fight” as they say. Rather, he was an intellectual giant who dealt with the great matters of the day unhampered by petty political, social or economic opinions. That man was John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton [1834-1902] more familiar to us today as Lord Acton whose comment, “power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely,” is the supreme coherent warning against unbridled power.
Described as “the magistrate of history,” Lord Acton was one of the greatest minds of the nineteenth century and is universally considered one of the most learned Englishmen of his time. He made the history of liberty his life's work; indeed, he considered political liberty the essential condition and guardian of religious liberty. After the American war, Acton kept up a correspondence with Robert Edward Lee and it is in one of his letters to Lee that Acton sums up his view of the conflict putting to rest forever all of the petty social, political and economic issues that continue to be used to glorify the federal war and denigrate the South in its efforts to break free from what had become intolerable. In a letter dated November 4th, 1866, Action wrote:
“. . . I saw in State Rights the only availing check upon the absolutism of the sovereign will, and secession filled me with hope, not as the destruction but as the redemption of Democracy. . . . I believed that the example of that great Reform would have blessed all the races of mankind by establishing true freedom purged of the native dangers and disorders of Republics. Therefore I deemed that you were fighting the battles of our liberty, our progress, and our civilization; and I mourn for the stake which was lost at Richmond more deeply than I rejoice over that which was saved at Waterloo.”
In this letter, Acton makes nothing of all the contentions and assertions as to why what was supposed to be a limited “federal” government had the right to wage war against thirteen sovereign States exercising their constitutional and God given right to leave a compact that had become onerous to them and their citizens. Everything else—every claim, every supposition, every accusation becomes irrelevant in the face of this brilliant man’s clear and concise judgment upon the matter. And for those who demand proof of Action’s conclusion, I suggest that they look at what our “limited” government is today. It is unlimited, corrupt and tyrannous, rejecting the will of the people and embracing “the absolutism of the sovereign will” spoken of by Acton. It is not an accident that the Lincoln Memorial is patterned on the great temples to Zeus erected by the ancient Greeks. Yes, we are still “paying for the Confederacy” but not in the way your article suggests! Because the Confederacy was defeated, today slavery once limited to a relative few in the hands of individual citizens—white and black!—now includes us all in the hands of the Deep State.
Many people today—especially those in my age group (I’m 77!)—wonder what has happened to simple commonsense and rationality in the behavior of mankind, especially in the United States and the West. We see what should be regarded as insanity becoming the norm, not just among those whose limited intellect predisposes them to such madness, but even supposedly “enlightened” and “intellectual” folk! Of course, the majority of this lunacy is found on the left, but the middle and the right are not immune either! For ordinary people who retain their sanity, none of this makes any sense. Daily (hourly!) we see behavior that in a better time would have resulted in incarceration for adults and a good hiding for children. Today, it is considered the epitome of civic activism!
Some of this can be attributed to the “low-IQ” population but their participation in the current madness cannot explain why it has gone so far beyond that segment of society. Ignorance is, of course, one reason but ignorance can be cured! However, the very segments of society intended to educate and illuminate have become darker in some cases than the “low-IQ” group—and that makes no sense . . . unless you add into the equation, the leftist concept of “utopianism.” This concept has been put forward by the left from its inception, that is, that it is possible for the State to create a utopia on earth, a place where everything is “fair,” and no one is “deprived” and that everyone has everything he or she needs to live a full and happy life. This concept works well in children’s books, but in “real life,” not so much.
In the past, the vast majority of the people were intelligent enough to reject the fairy tale but not so today. In the face of indisputable evidence of the failure of socialism and its tenets, people—especially the young—seem to believe that it can be done. All that is required is enough desire and sufficient courage to destroy those who oppose you, and voila’, Paradise Regained! For those who simply cannot understand—or accept—the present situation, there is a cautionary tale that should make all those who deny the truth rethink their faulty conclusions. This is a true story, by the way, though it has all the appearances of a joke! Sad to say, it is not:
There was once a minor functionary in the intelligence community (an oxymoron to begin with!) whose only duty consisted of sitting at his desk all day long reading papers that came across it and initialing those papers before sending them on to his superiors. One day, a document arrived at his desk that he knew immediately was far above his pay-grade as they say. However, he followed his instructions, reading and initialing the document and sending it on. Several hours later, his immediate superior arrived at his desk at a dead run exclaiming, “You should NOT have read this document!” He then went on to instruct his subordinate to “erase your signature”—but the instructions did not end there! Instead, his superior (in rank, if not intellect) went on to instruct the man to “signature your erasure!”
Now neither individual here was retarded but victims of a mental process ingrained in today’s people (and not just in the US) where there is a rejection of critical thinking! Obviously, the signature had to be erased to prevent “higher-ups” from learning that an ineligible person had read the document! However, when someone did something in the system, that “something” had to be “signed for!” As a result, action two invalidated action one—and neither man seemed to comprehend that point. This represents a sort of “mental constipation” that simply nullifies ordinary common sense! Furthermore, neither is this situation limited to the “low-IQ” population but is most prevalent among those with more elevated intellects! And this lack of simple, basic commonsense is why we are stumbling forward into the 21st century with little hope that our tomorrows will be better than our yesterdays.