Our very own Scott Terry has made a bit of a name for himself after daring to express pro-white, pro-Southern, and anti-abolitionist views (the horror!) at CPAC, a “conservative” political conference. It takes very little effort to find the leftist account of the story, as various links to the story are absolutely everywhere. Mr. Terry has himself provided a response on his blog to discharge some of the many leftist distortions and slanders, and we at Faith and Heritage would like to supplement his courage by offering similar support.
Some of the links to Scott’s words express abject incredulity that anyone today, in our age of extensive enlightenment and moral glory, could possibly favor segregation or defend any element of Southern slavery. The audience, along with the subsequent readers of the story, vented the full wrath of their ersatz moral indignation – replete with obligatory rebukes of “ignorance” – when Scott implied that Frederick Douglass’s slavemaster likely did not abuse him, but simply provided him food and shelter.
But we should really reflect on this more. In fact, it should be obvious to all: even if the old Confederates were the demons which filth like Django Unchained portrays them to be, they would not be so stupid and irrational as to damage their own property. Suppose the Southern slavemasters were motivated by a hedonistic and carnal selfishness; what good would it do them to provoke their own slaves to wrath and to mercilessly beat, whip, and rape them? Add to this that the Old South was filled with the grace of biblical Christianity, much more so than the unitarian North, and the intrinsic probability of maltreatment immediately abates to nearly nothing. So why the shock at Scott’s belief that Douglass’s slavemaster was probably not an abuser? Nothing more than a Pavlovian, thoughtless, unprincipled reaction of emotion.
Related to this is the inevitable objection that inexorably binds the wicked African slave trade with the institution of Confederate slavery. We at Faith and Heritage have already posted material from the pen of R.L. Dabney to explain the irrelevance of that trade to the moral issues at hand. To go even further, we will also link to Dabney’s A Defense of Virginia and the South, where he, as a contemporary of the events in question, explains the historical background to “that iniquitous traffick” known as the African slave trade while yet defending the institution of Confederate slavery. See chapter 2, “The African Slave Trade.”
Once one understands that slavery is as intrinsically morally permissible as families and other relations, the biggest moral objection to be raised at this point would usually be: If Dabney conceded the slave trade to be sinful, why would he not wish to free the slaves in America? The answer is: Due to the utter social chaos which would ensue. This fact is perhaps more difficult to accept for egalitarians than any other related to the Confederacy, but all statistics attest to it powerfully: race is real, and blacks are more criminal than whites. They do not produce the same civilization as we do. African-Americans create an Africa-America. The most reliable sign of crime and poverty in a city will be its racial demographics, and this fact cannot be broken by the egalitarians’ incessant appeals to socioeconomic oppression.
But suppose these facts were false; suppose that blacks and whites were exact equals in terms of civilizational and moral capacities. Or suppose the reverse, that whites were the civilizational and moral inferiors to blacks. Even then, there still is an independent moral basis to white nationalism, indeed, the true basis of all nationalisms: the moral order of God. We are designed to live among our own people, to experience political independence and self-sufficiency, to have a land and nation for ourselves. The races are designed to be “united like the hand, but separate like the fingers,” to borrow Scott’s (borrowed) phrase. This does not involve hatred for other races, any more than a family’s insistence on living in their own household is hatred for other families.
These are normal beliefs. The rapists of history, tradition, and morality are the egalitarians, the ones who glory in a borderless, “multicultural,” mocha-colored paradise, where every human being is a potential citizen of the deracinated American empire.
That is to say: Scott Terry is the normal one, and the rest of you are in the wrong. It is high time that you considered solemnly these important issues, these lofty subjects, and followed the evidence towards the pinnacle of Truth. It is high time that you abandoned your sinful, bestial reactions of pseudo-indignation, and that you instead accepted God at His Word.
Amen to you, Scott. God bless you and be with you. “Have not I commanded thee? Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee whithersoever thou goest” (Joshua 1:9).