Jane DeNeefe
My buddy Bobby called me today to complain about a woman he saw on the news Friday night. I did a little research and found the lady to be Jane DeNeefe who was born and raised in Mobile, Alabama. She moved to Huntsville and has begun a petition to have the Confederate monument removed from the Madison County Courthouse lawn. As Bobby suggested, she is probably just attempting to get her fifteen minutes of fame because I received a message from Alabama Division Commander Jimmy Hill that stated Governor Ivey has signed the Monuments bill. Therefore, no matter how many sign her petition, it will be illegal to remove the Confederate monument.
I found what I could about this DeNeefe. She is Huntsville's co-director of African American History Project. The thing that she said that upset my buddy Bobby so much was her statement about people who support the monument have never cracked a book. Trust me, she hasn't cracked a book, or has chosen to ignore the truth if she has. But, her own comments are what surprised me. She said, "To me, this monument represents a whitewash of the historical facts." Now that is funny. We should remove a monument because of what it represents to her. In other words it offends her, therefore it should be removed. I find something offensive each and every day. Who cares? I'm an adult and an adult is capable of ignoring something offensive. These crying liberal types obviously have never matured. They think the world should totally change so they won't be offended.
That is another thing that is extremely frustrating to me. These people are the ones rewriting history. Their latest sentence that is meant to discredit the real historians is one that has been popping up quite often lately. That sentence says, "It represents the glorified myths of the "Lost Cause" that dominated twentieth century thought in Alabama, ideas that have been debunked by serious scholars." What serious scholars? Let's read what a serious Civil War Historian named Bevin Alexander said the war was fought over. "Northern industrialists wanted to create a closed American economy in which only their products would be available. And these products would cost more than British products because American industry was newer and less efficient than British industry. The South was being asked to pay to strengthen Northern industry...and this conflict played an important role in the division of North and South." Now these liberals are waging a war by spreading lies, understanding that if its repeated enough, people will start to believe it.
So why did the North love the black man so much if that is indeed what the war was over? Let's just review what they said about black people themselves. W.C. Fowler author of The Sectional Controversy wrote about meeting a member of congress. The congressman was leaving a meeting on abolition and other issues dividing the North from the South. Fowler asked the congressman why they were so intent on freeing the slaves. The congressman replied that the North doesn't care at all for the negro, the real reason is that the South will not allow us to have a high tariff, so we touch them where they feel it, in their pocket books.
Now, having discovered the above, it's time to find out who made the most money off the slave trade. Was it the South? Absolutely not. The French and British made a ton of money, but so did the North. When did the North start crying that the slaves should be freed? When did they get this sudden feeling of humanity? It came about after the slave trade was outlawed. Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Philadelphia even owned ships that traveled back and forth between Africa and the United States bringing slaves. While they were making money, slavery was a very fine thing. Once there was no profit for them, they were ready to make changes.
I get so sick of the Holy North versus the Evil South that is being taught today. Let's look at a few of those evil Southern slave owners.
Richard De Reef of Charleston, S.C. was a black slave owner.
Nicolas Augustin Metoyer of Louisiana owned 13 slaves, his family owned 215 slaves, he was black.
So who actually began the idea of slavery in this country? Let's take a realistic look and see what we find. Who is called the "Father of American Slavery"? His name was Anthony Johnson and I will talk about him in detail in my next blog. To be continued.....
Racist redneck idiot. 😂
ReplyDeleteThat's the best you have?
DeleteO.K. Elastic your argument with your sources have convinced me. you are right, and I'm wrong. Wait where were your sources?
ReplyDeleteYes, that is all they have. If you can't back up your side with facts, just call names...
ReplyDeleteMaybe you should take Mrs. DeNeefe's advice and crack open a book. You say she's rewriting history but have you ever bothered to look at it from an objective angle? Why would anyone support a system based on the subjegation of a race of people? Maybe it's because they themselves benifited socially from a heirarchy with plantation owners at the top and slaves on the bottom. King Cotton told poor whites their position on the heirarchy and proclaimed the abolition of slavery would threaten their place. Propaganda or not, those who signed up for the slave owner's cause signed to protect slavery. They are traitors, and villains. They should never have been memorialized. They shall never be honored. Black slave owners got slaves because that was the only way they could be recognized as a man in the South, and at the end of the day they are still just as deplorable as any slave owner. Finally you say that people run this narrative that the North is treated as morally superior, but that isn't justification for a racist statue to remain in my hometown in the year 2020. For a "historian" who is ready to point out Northern racism, you don't seem that eager to denounce the South's slavery. Maybe it's that you're a forgetful fellow, or maybe it's because you want to justify slavery through a half-assed strawman. I mean this in the most sincere way possible Tim Kent, you are no academic, and it shows. Deceitful arguments may work on the uneducated, but in scholarly debate you would get torn to shreds.
ReplyDelete