Hello Raymond (Thank You for forwarding- sharing w/ALL Patriots
bcc herein w/permission to forward),
If the Good Northerner’s were to ever realize the
Screwing they ultimately got after Lincoln’s Civil War ended, and the ensuing
impact it had on them as well, Washington would be overcome by a Sea of Folks I
would describe as that of a Titanic Political Tsunami.
The Dumbing Down impact has taken a toll no doubt on
Everyone, as the revised History of Washington’s making has served to make many
Ignorant of the events on ‘both sides’ of the Mason-Dixon..
That is what Dr. Wilson speaks of & describes
herein & below.
Once again, I can only hope and pray that the good
folks of this country can remove the ‘emotion’ that has clouded & prevented
many from seeing the forest from the trees.
The Republic, as he points out, and to which We Confederates
have detailed in depth for decades now, clearly Reveals a Political Progeny
that was afoot from the very beginning of the nation’s founding & clearly
‘surfacing’ after the culmination of the American Revolution in Earnest.
It may have started and began with Hamilton and his
desire for a Total Central Government vs. Jefferson’s Republic of Sovereign
States, but it is abundantly clear that Hamilton’s desire would be ALTERED via
Deception by those Dr. Wilson describes herein allowing for a more heinous
Ideology associated with a Central Government to be bourne.
The Depths of THEIR Ideology and the parties &
peoples attached to it, were known to one and all at that time & on BOTH
sides of the Mason-Dixon.
It was festering and growing like a voracious
disease and it would ultimately consume a nation thanks to the War ‘Those
People’ CREATED & ORCHESTRATED behind the scenes ultimately pitting Brother
against Brother.
And Sadly, at its conclusion, the War they advanced to establish
THEIR IDEOLOGY, has cost Everyone Big Time!
Thus, the Few became the Master Overseer whose associated
Mandates would breathe life into their heinous Ideology that would re-create
this Country’s government in THEIR IMAGE allowing for the continued Transition
& Transformation everyone is seeing today.
At the expense of over 650,000 men, and counting ever
since, these Provocateur’s of Deception would walk between ‘BOTH
SIDES’… creating & building their Evil Babylon.
‘Played like a Fiddle & The Marxist-Yankees have always been
the Riddle’
Craig Maus,
President, The Confederate Society of America
PS- Good Northerner’s are NOT Yankees. Learn the difference and
you will have ‘Connected a Major Dot’.
______________________________________________________________________________________
From: Raymond Goodwin [mailto:goodwinr@suddenlink.net]
Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 11:49 AM
To: Craig Maus
Subject: FW: The Yankee Problem in America by Clyde Wilson
The Yankee Problem in
America

Since the
2000 presidential election, much attention has been paid to a map showing the
sharp geographical division between the two candidates' support. Gore prevailed
in the power- and plunder-seeking Deep North (Northeast, Upper Midwest, Pacific
Coast) and Bush in the regions inhabited by productive and decent Americans.
There is nothing new about this. Historically speaking, it is just one more
manifestation of the Yankee problem.
As indicated by these books (listed at the end),
scholars are at last starting to pay some attention to one of the most
important and most neglected subjects in United States history — the Yankee
problem.
By Yankee
I do not mean everybody from north of
the Potomac and Ohio.
Lots of them have always been good folks. The
firemen who died in the World Trade Center on September 11 were Americans.
The politicians and TV personalities who stood
around telling us what we are to think about it are Yankees.
I am using the term
historically to
designate that peculiar
ethnic group descended from New
Englanders, who can be easily recognized by their arrogance, hypocrisy,
greed, lack of congeniality, and penchant for ordering other people around.
Puritans long ago abandoned anything that might be
good in their religion but have
never given up the notion that they are the
chosen saints whose mission is to make America, and the world, into the perfection
of their own image.
Hillary Rodham Clinton, raised a
Northern
Methodist in Chicago, is a museum-quality specimen of the Yankee —
self-righteous, ruthless, and self-aggrandizing. Northern Methodism and Chicago
were both, in their formative periods, hotbeds of abolitionist, high tariff
Black Republicanism. The Yankee temperament, it should be noted, makes a neat
fit with the
Stalinism that was brought into the Deep North by later
immigrants.
The ethnic division between Yankees and other
Americans goes back to earliest colonial times.
c
Up until the War for Southern Independence,
Southerners were considered to be the
American mainstream and Yankees were
considered to be the "peculiar" people.
Because of a long campaign of
cultural
imperialism and the successful military imperialism engineered by the Yankees,
the South, since the war, has been considered the problem, the deviation from
the true American norm.
Historians have made an industry of explaining why
the South is different (and evil, for that which defies the
"American" as now established, is by definition evil). Is the South
different because of slavery? white supremacy? the climate? pellagra?
illiteracy? poverty? guilt? defeat? Celtic wildness rather than Anglo-Saxon
sobriety?
Unnoticed in all this literature was
a
hidden assumption: the North is normal, the standard of all things
American and good. Anything that does not conform is a problem to be explained
and a
condition to be annihilated. What about that hidden
assumption? Should not historians be interested in understanding how the North
got to be the way it is? Indeed, is there any question in American history more
important?
According to standard accounts of American history
(i.e., Northern mythology), New Englanders fought the Revolution and founded
glorious American freedom as had been planned by the "Puritan
Fathers." Southerners, who had always been of questionable character,
because of their fanatic devotion to slavery, wickedly rebelled against
government of, by, and for the people, were put down by the armies of the Lord,
and should be ever grateful for not having been exterminated. (This is clearly
the view of the anonymous Union Leaguer from Portland, Maine, who recently sent
me a chamber pot labeled "Robert E. Lee's soup tureen.") And out of
their benevolence and devotion to the ideal of freedom, the North struck the
chains from the suffering black people. (They should be forever grateful, also.
Take a look at the Boston statue with happy blacks adoring the feet of Col.
Robert Gould Shaw.)
Aside from the fact that every generalization
in this standard history is false, an
obvious defect in it is that, for anyone familiar with American history before
the War, it is clear that
"Southern" was American and Yankees
were the problem. America was Washington and Jefferson, the Louisiana
Purchase and the Battle of New Orleans, John Randolph and Henry Clay, Daniel
Morgan, Daniel Boone, and Francis Marion.
Southerners had made the Constitution,
saved it
under Jefferson from the Yankees, fought the wars, acquired the territory,
and settled the West, including the Northwest. To most Americans, in
Pennsylvania and Indiana as well as Virginia and Georgia, this was a basic view
up until about 1850.
New England had been a threat, a nuisance, and a
negative force in the progress of America. Northerners, including some
patriotic New Englanders, believed this as much as Southerners.
When Washington Irving, whose family were among
the early Anglo-Dutch settlers of New York, wrote the story about the "Headless
Horseman," he was
ridiculing Yankees. The prig Ichabod Crane had
come over from Connecticut and made himself a nuisance. So a young man (New
York young men were then normal young men rather than Yankees) played a trick
on him and sent him fleeing back to Yankeeland where he belonged. James
Fenimore Cooper, of another early New York family, felt the same way about New
Englanders who appear unfavorably in his writings. Yet another New York writer,
James Kirke Paulding (among many others) wrote a book defending the South and
attacking abolitionists. It is not unreasonable to conclude that in
Moby Dick, the
New York Democrat Herman Melville modeled the fanatical Captain Ahab on the
Yankee abolitionist. In fact, the term "Yankee" appears to originate
in some mingling of Dutch and Indian words, to designate New Englanders.
Obviously, both the Dutch New Yorkers and the Native Americans recognized them
as "different."
Young Abe Lincoln amused his neighbors in southern
Indiana and Illinois, nearly all of whom, like his own family, had come from
the South, with "Yankee jokes," stories making fun of dishonest
peddlers from New England. They were the most popular stories in his repertoire,
except for the dirty ones.
Right into the war,
Northerners opposed to the conquest of
the South blamed the conflict on fanatical New Englanders out for
power and plunder, not on the good Americans in the South who had been provoked
beyond bearing.
Many people, and not only in the South, thought
that Southerners, according to their nature, had been loyal to the Union, had
served it, fought and sacrificed for it as long as they could. New Englanders,
according to their nature, had always been grasping for themselves while
proclaiming their righteousness and superiority.
The Yankees succeeded so well, by the long
cultural war described in these volumes, and by the North's military victory,
that there was no longer a Yankee problem. Now the Yankee was America and the
South was the problem. America, the Yankee version, was all that was normal and
right and good. Southerners understood who had won the war (not Northerners,
though they had shed a lot of blood, but the accursed Yankees.) With some
justification they began to regard all Northerners as Yankees, even the hordes
of foreigners who had been hired to wear the blue.
Here is something closer to a real history of the
United States: American freedom was not a legacy of the "Puritan
Fathers," but of Virginians who proclaimed and spread constitutional
rights. New England gets some credit for beginning the War of Independence.
After the first few years, however, Yankees played little part. The war was
fought and won in the South. Besides, New Englanders had good reasons for
independence — they did not fit into the British Empire economically, since one
of their main industries was smuggling, and the influential Puritan clergy
hated the Church of England. Southerners, in fighting for independence, were
actually going against their economic interests for the sake of principle.
Once Southerners had gone into the Union (which a
number of wise statesmen like Patrick Henry and George Mason warned them
against), the Yankees began to show how they regarded the new federal
government: as an instrument to be used for their own purposes. Southerners
long continued to view the Union as a vehicle for mutual cooperation, as they
often naively still do.
In the first Congress, Yankees demanded that the
federal government continue the British subsidies to their fishing fleets.
While Virginia and the other Southern states gave up their vast western lands
for future new states, New Englanders demanded a special preserve for
themselves (the "Western Reserve" in Ohio).
Under John Adams, the New England quest for power
grew into a frenzy. They passed the Sedition Law to punish anti-government
words (as long as they controlled the government) in clear violation of the
Constitution. During the election of 1800 the preachers in New England told
their congregations that Thomas Jefferson was a French Jacobin who would set up
the guillotine in their town squares and declare women common property. (What
else could be expected from a dissolute slaveholder?) In fact, Jefferson's
well-known distaste for mixing of church and state rested largely on his
dislike of the power of the New England self-appointed saints.
When Jeffersonians took power,
the New
Englanders fought them with all their diminishing strength. Their poet
William Cullen Bryant regarded the Louisiana Purchase as nothing but a large
swamp for Jefferson to pursue his atheistic penchant for science.
The War of 1812, the Second War of Independence,
was decisive for the seemingly permanent discrediting of New England.
The
Yankee ruling class opposed the war even though it was begun by Southerners
on behalf of
oppressed American seamen, most of whom were New Englanders.
Yankees did not care about their oppressed poorer citizens because they were
making big bucks smuggling into wartime Europe. One New England congressman
attacked young patriot
John C. Calhoun as a backwoodsman who had never
seen a sail and who was unqualified to deal with foreign policy.
During the war Yankees traded with the enemy and
talked openly of secession. (Southerners never spoke of secession in time of
war.) Massachusetts refused to have its militia called into constitutional
federal service even after invasion, and then, notoriously for years after,
demanded that the federal government pay its militia expenses.
Historians have endlessly repeated that the
"Era of Good Feelings" under President Monroe refers to the absence
of party strife. Actually, the term was first used to describe the state of
affairs in which New England traitorousness had declined to the point that a
Virginia president could visit Boston without being mobbed.
Yankee political arrogance was soulmate to Yankee
cultural arrogance. Throughout the antebellum period, New England literature
was characterized and promoted as the American literature, and non-Yankee
writers, in most cases much more talented and original, were ignored or
slandered. Edgar Allan Poe had great fun ridiculing the literary pretensions of
New Englanders, but they largely succeeded in dominating the idea of American
literature into the 20th century. Generations of Americans have been cured of
reading forever by being forced to digest dreary third-string New England poets
as "American literature."
In 1789, a Connecticut Puritan preacher named
Jedidiah Morse published the first book of
American Geography. The trouble was, it was not an American geography but a Yankee
geography. Most of the book was taken up with describing the virtues of New
England. Once you got west of the Hudson River, as Morse saw it and conveyed to
the world's reading public, the U.S. was a benighted land inhabited by lazy,
dirty Scotch-Irish and Germans in the Middle States and lazy, morally depraved
Southerners, corrupted and enervated by slavery. New Englanders were pure
Anglo-Saxons with all virtues. The rest of the Americans were questionable
people of lower or mongrel ancestry. The theme of New Englanders as pure
Anglo-Saxons continued right down through the 20th century. The alleged saints
of American equality operated on a theory of their racial superiority. While
Catholics and Jews were, in the South, accepted and loyal Southerners, Yankees
burned down convents and banished Jews from the Union Army lines.
A few years after Morse, Noah Webster, also from
Connecticut, published his American Dictionary and American spelling book. The
trouble was, it was not an American dictionary but a New England dictionary. As
Webster declared in his preface, New Englanders spoke and spelled the purest
and best form of English of any people in the world. Southerners and others
ignored Webster and spelled and pronounced real English until after the War of
Southern Independence.
As the books show, Yankees after the War of 1812
were acutely aware of their minority status. And here is the important point:
they launched a deliberate campaign to take over control of the idea of
"America."
The campaign was multi-faceted. Politically, they
gained profits from the protective tariff and federal expenditures, both of
which drained money from the South for the benefit of the North, and New
England especially. Seeking economic advantage from legislation is nothing new
in human history. But the New England greed was marked by its peculiar
assumptions of moral superiority. New Englanders, who were selling their
products in a market from which competition had been excluded by the tariff,
proclaimed that the low price of cotton was due to the fact that Southerners
lacked the drive and enterprise of virtuous Yankees! (When the South was
actually the productive part of the U.S. economy.)
This transfer of wealth built the strength of the
North. It was even more profitable than the slave trade (which New England
shippers carried on from Africa to Brazil and Cuba right up to the War Between
the States) and the Chinese opium trade (which they were also to break into).
Another phase of the Yankee campaign for what they
considered their rightful dominance was the capture of the history of the
American Revolution. At a time when decent Americans celebrated the Revolution
as the common glory of all, New Englanders were publishing a literature
claiming the whole credit for themselves. A scribbler from Maine named Lorenzo
Sabine, for one example among many, published a book in which he claimed that
the Revolution in the South had been won by New England soldiers because
Southerners were traitorous and enervated by slavery. As William Gilmore Simms
pointed out, it was all lies. When Daniel Webster was received hospitably in
Charleston, he made a speech in which he commemorated the graves of the many
heroic Revolutionary soldiers from New England which were to be found in the
South. The trouble was, those graves did not exist. Many Southern volunteers
had fought in the North, but no soldier from north of Pennsylvania (except a
few generals) had ever fought in the South!
George Washington was a bit of a problem here, so
the honor-driven, foxhunting Virginia gentleman was transformed by phony
folklore into a prim New Englander in character, a false image that has misled
and repulsed countless Americans since.
It should be clear, this was not merely misplaced
pride. It was a deliberate, systematic effort by the Massachusetts elite to
take control of American symbols and disparage all competing claims. Do not be
put off by Professor Sheidley's use of "Conservative Leaders" in his
title. He means merely the Yankee ruling elite who were never conservatives
then or now. Conservatives do not work for "the transformation of America."
Another successful effort was a New England claim
on the West. When New Englanders referred to "the West" in antebellum
times, they meant the parts of Ohio and adjacent states settled by New
Englanders. The rest of the great American West did not count. In fact, the great
drama of danger and adventure and achievement that was the American West, from
the Appalachians to the Pacific, was predominantly the work of Southerners and
not of New Englanders at all. In the Midwest, the New Englanders came after
Southerners had tamed the wilderness, and they looked down upon the early
settlers. But in Western movies we still have the inevitable family from Boston
moving west by covered wagon. Such a thing never existed! The people moving
west in covered wagons were from the upper South and were despised by Boston.
So our West is reduced, in literature, to The
Oregon Trail, a silly book written by a Boston tourist, and the phony
cavortings of the Eastern sissy Teddy Roosevelt in the cattle country opened by
Southerners. And the great American outdoors is now symbolized by Henry David
Thoreau and a little frog pond at Walden, in sight of the Boston smokestacks.
The Pennsylvanian Owen Wister knew better when he entitled his Wyoming novel,
The Virginian.
To fully understand what the Yankee is today —
builder of the all-powerful "multicultural" therapeutic state (with
himself giving the orders and collecting the rewards) which is the perfection
of history and which is to be exported to all peoples, by guided missiles on
women and children if necessary — we need a bit more real history.
That history is philosophical, or rather
theological, and demographic. New Englanders lived in a barren land. Some of
their surplus sons went to sea. Many others moved west when it was safe to do
so. By 1830, half the people in the state of New York were New England-born. By
1850, New Englanders had tipped the political balance in the Midwest, with the
help of German revolutionaries and authoritarians who had flooded in after the
1848 revolutions.
The leading editors in New York City, Horace
Greeley and William Cullen Bryant, and the big money men, were New
England-born. Thaddeus Stevens, the Pennsylvania steel tycoon and Radical Republican,
was from Vermont. (Thanks to the tariff, he made $6,000 extra profit on every
mile of railroad rails he sold.)
The North had been Yankeeized, for the most part
quietly, by control of churches, schools, and other cultural institutions, and
by whipping up a frenzy of paranoia about the alleged plot of the South to
spread slavery to the North, which was as imaginary as Jefferson's guillotine.
The people that Cooper and Irving had despised as
interlopers now controlled New York! The Yankees could now carry a majority in
the North and in 1860 elect the first sectional president in U.S. history — a
threat to the South to knuckle under or else. In time, even the despised Irish
Catholics began to think like Yankees.
We must also take note of the intellectual
revolution amongst the Yankees which created the modern version of
self-righteous authoritarian "Liberalism" so well exemplified by Mrs.
Clinton. In the 1830s, Ralph Waldo Emerson went to Germany to study. There he
learned from philosophers that the world was advancing by dialectical process
to an ever-higher state. He returned to Boston, and after marrying the dying
daughter of a banker, resigned from the clergy, declared the sacraments to be a
remnant of barbarism, and proclaimed The American as the "New Man"
who was leaving behind the garbage of the past and blazing the way into the
future state of perfection for humanity. Emerson has ever since in many
quarters been regarded as the American philosopher, the true interpreter of the
meaning of America.
From the point of view of Christianity, this
"American" doctrine is heresy. From the point of view of history it
is nonsense. But it is powerful enough for Ronald Reagan, who should have known
better, to proclaim America as the shining City upon a Hill that was to redeem
mankind. And powerful enough that the United States has long pursued a
bipartisan foreign policy, one of the guiding assumptions of which is that
America is the model of perfection to which all the world should want to
conform.
There is no reason for readers of Southern
Partisan to rush out and buy these books, which are expensive and dense
academic treatises. If you are really interested, get your library to acquire
them. They are well-documented studies, responsibly restrained in their drawing
of larger conclusions. But they indicate what is hopefully a trend of
exploration of the neglected field of Yankee history.
The highflying Yankee rhetoric of Emerson and
Hillary Rodham Clinton has a nether side, which has its historical origins in
the "Burnt Over District." The "Burnt Over District" was
well known to antebellum Americans. Emersonian notions bore strange fruit in
the central regions of New York State settled by the overflow of poorer Yankees
from New England. It was "Burnt Over" because it (along with a
similar area in northern Ohio) was swept over time and again by post-millennial
revivalism. Here preachers like Charles G. Finney began to confuse Emerson's
future state of perfection with Christianity, and God's plan for humanity with
American chosenness.
If this were true, then anything that stood in the
way of American perfection must be eradicated. The threatening evil at various
times was liquor, tobacco, the Catholic Church, the Masonic order, meat-eating,
marriage. Within the small area of the Burnt Over District and within the space
of a few decades was generated what historians have misnamed the
"Jacksonian reform movement:" Joseph Smith received the Book of
Mormon from the Angel Moroni; William Miller began the Seventh Day Adventists
by predicting, inaccurately, the end of the world; the free love colony of John
Humphrey Noyes flourished at Oneida; the first feminist convention was held at
Seneca Falls; and John Brown, who was born in Connecticut, collected accomplices
and financial backers for his mass murder expeditions.
It was in this milieu that abolitionism, as
opposed to the antislavery sentiment shared by many Americans, including
Southerners, had its origins. Abolitionism, despite what has been said later,
was not based on sympathy for the black people nor on an ideal of natural
rights. It was based on the hysterical conviction that Southern slaveholders
were evil sinners who stood in the way of fulfillment of America's divine
mission to establish Heaven on Earth. It was not the Union that our Southern
forefathers seceded from, but the deadly combination of Yankee greed and
righteousness.
Most abolitionists had little knowledge of or
interest in black people or knowledge of life in the South. Slavery promoted
sin and thus must end. No thought was given to what would happen to the
African-Americans. In fact, many abolitionists expected that evil Southern
whites and blacks would disappear and the land be repopulated by virtuous
Yankees.
The darker side of the Yankee mind has had its
expression in American history as well as the side of high ideals. Timothy
McVeigh from New York and the Unabomber from Harvard are, like John Brown,
examples of this side of the Yankee problem. (Even though distinguished Yankee
intellectuals have declared that their violence was a product of the evil
"Southern gun culture.")
General Richard Taylor, in one of the best
Confederate memoirs,
Destruction
and Reconstruction, related what happened
as he surrendered the last Confederate troops east of the Mississippi in 1865.
A German, wearing the uniform of a Yankee general and speaking in heavily
accented English, lectured him that now that the war was over, Southerners
would be taught "the true American principles." Taylor replied,
sardonically, that he regretted that his grandfather, an officer in the
Revolution, and his father, President of the United States, had not passed on
to him true American principles. Yankeeism was triumphant.
Since the Confederate surrender, the Yankee has
always been a strong and often dominant force in American society, though
occasionally tempered by Southerners and other representatives of Western
civilization in America. In the 1960s the Yankee had one of his periodic
eruptions of mania such as he had in the 1850s. Since then, he has managed to
destroy a good part of the liberty and morals of the American peoples. It
remains to be seen whether his conquest is permanent or whether in the future
we may be, at least to some degree, emancipated from it.
- Sheidley, Harlow W. Sectional
Nationalism: Massachusetts Conservatives and the Transformation of
America, 1815—1834. Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1998.
- Grant, Susan-Mary. North
Over South: Northern Nationalism and American Identity in the Antebellum
Era. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2000.
- Bensel, Richard F. Yankee
Leviathan: The Origins of Central State Authority in America. New
York: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
- Tuveson, Ernest L. Redeemer
Nation: The Idea of America's Millennial Role. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1968.
- Norton, Anne. Alternative
Americas: A Reading of Antebellum Political Culture. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1986.

April 24,
2003
Copyright 2002, Southern Partisan magazine. Used
by permission. Originally published in the January/February 2002 edition. For
more information contact Southern Partisan, P.O. Box 11708, Columbia, SC 29211;
803-254-3660;
SouthernPartisan@rqasc.com.
Dr. Wilson [send
him mail] is professor of history at the University of South Carolina and
editor of The Papers
of John C. Calhoun.