Tuesday, January 20, 2015

Couldn't Have Said It Better Myself

Posted on Facebook; shared here with the permission of the author:
Saw American Sniper with some friends tonight. Allow me to vent for a moment. The movie drove home to me the enduring value of Anglo-Celtic culture to to American civilization. 

People who shared the same ethnicity with and embodied the same martial qualities as Chris Kyle drove the British out of much of North America, stood tall against a vastly superior Mexican army at the Alamo, fought the world's most powerful military force at the time - the Union Army - to a virtual standoff during the American Civil War, and, since the Spanish-American War, have carried a disproportionate share of this nation's military obligation on their backs. 

Instead of dismissing these people as hillbillies, rednecks and crackers, the elites had damn well better appreciate how this global empire's fortunes are intimately bound up with the martial qualities of Kyle and other Americans of that highly denigrated, woefully under-appreciated and wantonly ignored ethnic group. Thank you for your indulgence.
Amen, sir. Amen.


  1. A far cry from Mark Walberg's film(s) where the (fictional, fictionalized) characters all speak with New England accents. The simple fact is, the North put more effort into invading and conquering Dixie, than it ever did into any other war, before or since. Does any Non Northerner really believe that these "Union" men would have put this much, or even any, effort into repelling a foreign invasion of the Gulf Coast, if that had occurred in 1861? Given the history of the North's participation and performance in America's wars, I doubt it. Which just goes to show that those people have different national interests, as befits what is literally a different nation. Instead of scolding Yankees about the Indian wars, they should be called out on their efforts in 61-65, vis-à-vis the wars up to that time.

    1. The Yankees didn't fight the war by themselves, they had the help of the Germans.

      “The Confederate Veteran (long published in Nashville, Tenn.) states: “In the Confederate Army and Navy in 4 years there were 605,000 men. In the Union Army and Navy in 4 years there were 2,778,000 men. When we entered the World War in 1917 our Government was sending across to Germany $83,000 a year in pensions. Of this sum $67,000 was for Civil War pensions paid to aliens hired to subjugate the South. If this sum was still being sent 52 years after Appomattox, how much more must have been sent to these hirelings 10 or 15 years after the struggle ended?

      One of my former students was placed in charge of teaching the illiterates at Camp Lee in World War I. At their first meeting a crowded room was asked “who is this Camp named for? And then, what did General Lee do?”

      [T]hen a lanky mountaineer rose and said: “He’s the chap that licked the Huns the other time.”

      When you consider the facts listed above you realize that there was more truth than error in that ignorant reply. With 75,000 more mercenaries, and many of them Germans, in the opposing force than the total enlistments in all the army and the navy of the South, “Lee was the chap that so often licked the Huns the other time.”

      (Some Things For Which the South Did Not Fight, Henry Tucker Graham, Bowman Printing, 1946, pp. 10-11)

    2. Somewhat related to this is the fact that they took regiments from Ohio and Pennsylvania and designated them as "West Virginian". Took Indiana Regiments and designated them as "Kentucky" regiments. Recruited regiments in Chicago and designated them as "Missouri" and "Kansas" regiments. Then there was the feeding of men into the meat grinders at Vicksburg and other battles. Throw in the radical New England ideology behind it, and you've got something that presages the Red Army. But as I've said before: Does anyone really believe that they would have put this much effort into repelling a foreign invasion of the Gulf States? Because they sure didn't in the Mexican American War, The War of 1812, or even the War of Independence. If their behaviour during those wars is anything to go by, I'd guess they'd sacrifice the South, by making a separate peace with the enemy, in order to save the North. If I understand it correctly, Washington had little good to say about the reliability or loyalty of their troops. The only explanation for any of this is that they're simply a different nation, with wholly different national interests.

    3. I didn't know about these "named" units that is news to me. Now you have got to thinking f these Irish brigades formed from men right off the boats. Do you have any numbers in that respect???


    4. I really don't know much about the Irish regiments. Being from Texas, I've naturally focused on the war in the Trans Mississippi. Especially in Missouri, Oklahoma Territory, Arkansas and along the Red River. I found out about the West Virginia regiments from a site. https://sites.google.com/site/wvotherhistory/home. The others in bits and pieces from other sources. I know the "Union" forces formed ad hoc units composed of criminals, deserters and assorted criminals on the spot, so to speak. Renaming these units and creating the ad hoc units was an obvious propaganda move.

    5. If you stumble across any sort of info, please give me a shout out.

      Can I help you in any way? I have a Fold3 subscription.



Comments are welcome, but monitored.