Interview with Drake Shelton on Slavery

                             Interview with Drake Shelton
                                                  by James Reber


 1. Why did the southern states secede from the union?
 
Ans.  To preserve slavery and white supremacy without which competition with the Northern Industrial factories would be impossible. Essentially, they seceded in order to survive. 
Alexander H. Stephens states in his  “Corner Stone” Speech, Savannah, Georgia, March 21, 1861,
“Seven States have within the last three months thrown off an old government and formed a new. This revolution has been signally marked, up to this time, by the fact of its having been accomplished without the loss of a single drop of blood…But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the “storm came and the wind blew.”
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.”
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/cornerstone-speech/
 
2. Why was the slave trade forced onto the south?
 
Ans. The slave trade was forced onto the South pursuant to the Jesuit counter-reformation.  If you notice it was precisely during the years of the Jesuit suppression, dispersion and then their re-establishment in 1814 that the largest influx of slaves occurred.

[Image: Robert Fogel, Time on the Cross, page 25.]
Consider the years 1658-1688 A.D.  Protestants in England were persecuted after the death of Oliver Cromwell and many of them left England and came to America. Jean Henri Merle d’Aubigné says in his The Protector, pages 84-85,
“The liberties and Protestantism of England were on the verge of shipwreck, when Cromwell intervened; and all his life he upheld in Great Britain religious liberty and the national prosperity.
And what became of the country after his death?—The Stuarts returned; and
“when the rejoicings were over, the illuminations extinct, then punishments followed.”
One hundred corpses were exhumed, among which were the great Oliver, his old and venerable mother, his dearly beloved daughter Bridget Pym, and the famous admiral Blake. Their mouldering bodies were hung on the three corners of the gallows at Tyburn, and the cavaliers found a subject of merriment and pleasantry in this revolting exhibition.
Ears were cut off, noses were slit, and numbers lost their heads on the scaffold. The sentence pronounced against them all was conceived in the following terms:—”You shall be drawn on a hurdle to the place of execution, and there you shall be hanged by the neck; and being alive, you shall be cut down and mutilated; your entrails shall be taken out of your body, and (you living) the same to be burnt before your eyes; and your head to be cut off, and your body to be divided into four quarters.” The Stuarts, as if this were not enough, filled the country with immorality; and an illustrious Royalist of the present day can find no other excuse for Charles II. than by saying that, in propagating this corruption of morals,” it is probable that this prince merely followed the course of his own inclinations and the fickleness of his character.”! Two thousand ministers were driven from their benefices; the churches were oppressed; the noblest hearts of the country were forced to seek a refuge in distant lands; vast colonies in America were peopled by them; and England would have become like Spain, and worse than Spain, had not William III. resumed the task so energetically begun by Cromwell. If, so long after the war, and after a pacific recall to their native land, the Stuarts committed such atrocities, what would they not have dared when men’s passions and animosities were in full vigor?”
Consider also 1685 A.D. and the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes. In 1688, the Jesuit Pere La Chaise, wrote a letter to Jesuit Sir Edward Petre (Catalogue of the Stowe Manuscripts in the British Museum: Index, 1896, pg. 274) suggesting that Petre exterminate English Protestants as he had exterminated French Protestants. La Chaise used blackmail to convince Louis XIV to revoke the Edict of Nantes. Louis XIV had committed fornication with his daughter-in-law and La Chaise refused to give him absolution unless he revoke the Edict of Nantes. Do we then see the Political and Social evil of the Roman Catholic soteriological system? If Louis XIV had believed in Calvinism La Chaise would have had no power over him. The French Catholics murdered about 500, 000 (Ridpath’s Universal History, John Clark Ridpath, [New York: Merrill & Baker, 1901] Vol. XIV, p. 454) Protestants in France. The French Protestants then fled to North America.
This idea that we were running for our lives from the Roman Catholic Inquisition and its influences in Europe and the British Isles, is not only Protestant perception. Thomas Paine mentions this exact thing in his Common Sense, page 25,
“The reformation was preceded by the discovery of America, as if the Almighty graciously meant to open a sanctuary to the persecuted in future years, when home should afford neither friendship nor safety.”
(link)
This coming from the same man who said,
“All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.” (The Age of Reason, page 6)
(link)
In 1772, American colonies beseeched King George to let them outlaw African Slavery. He refused and in so doing showed that he was plotting a race war against the Protestant Colonies to stall any attempt of an Independent Protestant Nation. His new league with the Romanists can be seen in his “Intolerable Acts” of 1774 as described by the Colonialists. The most aggravated offense came with his Quebec Act of 1774. This was an Act of the Parliament of Great Britain (citation 14 Geo. III c. 83) for the province of Quebec. It established Catholicism in Quebec and made Catholics equals in the British Colonies in America and repealed Protestant legislation in the English Protestant Oath of Allegiance. Blake, The History of Slavery and the Slave Trade, page 177 says,
“In the year 1772, a disposition favorable to the oppressed Africans became very generally manifest in some of the American Provinces. The house of burgesses of Virginia even presented a petition to the king, beseeching his majesty to remove all those restraints on his governors of that colony, which inhibited their assent to such laws as might check that inhuman and impolitic commerce, the slave-trade: and it is remarkable that the refusal of the British government to permit the colonists to exclude slaves from among them bylaw, was enumerated afterwards among the public reasons for separating from the mother country distinguished dye, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them, thus paying off former crimes, committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.” (See the fac-simile of this draft in Jefferson’s Correspondence.) But this passage was struck out when the Declaration of Independence was adopted.”
 
3. Was the Civil War really about slavery?
 
Ans. If you are asking me if the North invaded the South to free the slaves because they cared about them, then no. The Yankees viewed the black man as being just as racially inferior as any Southern man did and the Yankee view of black people was and still is far more malicious.
https://eternalpropositions.wordpress.com/2013/02/23/the-yankee-attitude-towards-the-black-man/
The North invaded the South to eliminate their economic competition, the Southern plantation.
If you are asking me if the South seceded to defend slavery, the answer is two-fold. First, most Southerners did not even own slaves. Even a liberal publication like PBS’s Africans in America admits,
“The standard image of Southern slavery is that of a large plantation with hundreds of slaves. In fact, such situations were rare. Fully 3/4 of Southern whites did not even own slaves; of those who did, 88% owned twenty or fewer.”
Second, it is undeniable that Southern statesmen in defense of the Southern Economy seceded to defend slavery as I have already spoken to.
 
4. Was the papacy involved with the slave trade?
 
Ans. Involved is an understatement. Created is more accurate. Pope Nicholas V issued the papal bull Dum Diversas in 1452. This Bull granted Afonso V of Portugal the right to enslave “Saracens, pagans and any other unbelievers” to hereditary slavery. The Roman Church’s approval of the slave trade was reaffirmed and supplemented by Nicholas V’s Bull, Romanus Pontifex of 1455. These bulls served the justification for the subsequent centuries of slave trade and colonialism.
The two countries who first had their hands into the African slave trade were the Roman Catholic Portugal and Spain. Roman Catholic Portugal was the first to start stealing the Negroes with Antonio Gonzalez in 1434 A.D. Gonzalez sold these slaves to Muslims (Prolific African slave traders) in southern Spain. Roman Catholic Spain was the first to become party with the Portuguese in this trade. At the beginning of the 16th century this trade became so large that thousands were taken from Africa annually. When America was discovered in 1492 the Spaniards were the first to colonize it and began to enslave the Native Americans. But they proved too weak to bear up under slave labor. It got so bad that even Roman Catholic clergymen protested it! A stronger slave was needed, and thus the Negro was looked upon as prey. Thus, in 1503 A.D. and 1510 A.D.  the Spaniards began the Negro slave trade to the Americas.
The History of Slavery and the Slave Trade, by William O. Blake, 94-96.
 
5. Was the slave trade prevalent in the northern states?
 
Ans. As far as America’s role in the slave trade goes it was exclusively a northern affair. Notes on the History of Slavery in Massachusetts (1866) by George Henry Moore pages 5-6 says,
“A subsequent entry in Winthrop’s Journal gives us another glimpse of the subject, Feb. 26, 1638.
“Mr. Peirce, in the Salem ship, the Desire, returned from the West Indies after seven months. He had been at Providence, and brought some cotton, and tobacco, and negroes, etc., from thence, and salt from Tertugos;” Winthrop, 1., 254. He adds to this account that “Dry fish and strong liquors are the only commodities for those parts. He met there two men-of-war, set forth by the lords, etc., of Providence with letters of mart, who had taken divers prizes from the Spaniard and many negroes.” Long afterwards Dr. Belknap said of the slave-trade, that the rum distilled in Massachusetts was “the mainspring of this traffick.” M. H. S. Coll., i., iv., 197.”
So here we see that it was the New England Colonies who first began the American slave trade, not the Southern Colonies. Not only so, they even passed a law, legalizing it in 1641.  Blake states on page 370 of his work that the 1641 Massachusetts law did not provide an absolute condoning of the slave trade but,
“there shall never be any bond slavery, villeinage, nor captivity  among us, unless it be for lawful captives, taken in just wars, and such strangers as willingly sell themselves or are sold unto us, and these shall have all the liberties and Christian usages which the law of God established in Israel; requires. This exempts none from servitude who shall be judged thereto by authority.”
I think my Southern brethren in their zeal to expose the crimes of the North, step on their own feet just a bit. The New England Puritans, at least the first generation, were our brethren in religion and race. We need not unjustly smear them in our indignation, however justified that indignation may be. However good the intentions of the Puritans may have been, the Yankee industrialists, adamant to make a profit from the slave trade, pushed on with their production of rum to be traded for slaves and goods.
Records of the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations in New England, Vol. 6 (1861), pages 380-381 Ed. John Russell Bartlett states,
“This little colony, only, for more than thirty years past, have annually sent about eighteen sail of vessels to the coast, which have carried about eighteen hundred hogsheads of rum, together with a small quantity of provisions and some other articles, which have been sold for slaves, gold dust, elephants’ teeth, camwood…The slaves have been sold in the English islands, in Carolina and Virginia, for bills of exchange, and the other articles have been sent to Europe; and by this trade alone, remittances have been made from this colony to Great Britain, to the value of about £40,000, yearly; and this rum, carried to the coast, is so far from prejudicing the British trade thither, that it may be said rather to promote it; for as soon as our rum vessels arrive, they exchange away some of the rum with the traders from Britain, for a quantity of dry goods, with which each of them sort their cargoes to their mutual advantage… This distillery is the main hinge upon which the trade of the colony turns, and many hundreds of persons depend immediately upon it for a subsistence.”
The United States and Africa: A History pages 68-69 by Peter Duignan states,
“Soon the Yankee trader was a familiar sight from the Cape of Good Hope to Cape Guardafui and at Madagascar and the offshore islands. Nathaniel Isaacs, an enterprising Anglo-Jewish trader, explorer, adventurer, and inadvertent empire builder, said in commenting upon a visit to an obscure port in 1831:
The post of Lamoo [Lamy Kenya] is free to all nations, but few have visited it, except the enterprising Americans, whose star-spangled banner may be seen streaming in the wind, where other nations, not even my own country, would not deign to traffic. America is the forerunner of commerce in new countries, and she enjoys the sweets which they afford.”
The American Slave-Trade by John Randolph Spears states,
“This story, sworn to before United States Consul George William Gordon, was repeated by Consul Henry A. Wise (of Virginia) in an official communication to Secretary of State James Buchanan, under date of May 1, 1845. James K. Polk was then President of the United States, and this story and other stories of like character were sent to the Congress of the United States in House Ex. Doc. 61, 30th Congress second session, and Senate Ex. Doc. 28 of the same session.
Said Consul Wise in an official letter dated February 18, 1845:
“I beseech, I implore, the President of the United States to take a decided stand on this subject. You have no conception of the bold effrontery and the flagrant outrages of the African slave-trade, and of the shameless manner in which its worst crimes are licensed here. And every patriot in our land would blush for our country did he know and see, as I do, how our own citizens sail and sell our flag to the uses and abuses of that accursed traffic. We are a ‘by-word among nations’—the only people who can now fetch and carry any and everything for the slave-trade . . . and, because we are the only people who can, are we to allow our proudest privilege to be perverted, and to pervert our own glorious flag into the pirate’s flag?”
Even after the slave trade had been formally abolished Yankees still wanted to profit from it.
House Documents, Thirty-First Congress, First Session, Ex. Doc. No. 5. by the United States Congress, Message from the President of the United States [Zachary Taylor] Dec. 24, 1849, read Dec. 27, 1849 states,
“Your attention is earnestly invited to an amendment of our existing laws relating to the African slave-trade, with a view to the effectual suppression of that barbarous traffic. It is not to be denied that this trade is still, in part, carried on by means of vessels built in the United States and owned or navigated by some of our citizens.”
Here we see then that the North American participation with the Slave Trade was a Yankee affair, performed by Yankee vessels flying the Stars and Stripes not the Confederate flag.
 
6. Who was the first province to abolish the slave trade?
 
Ans. On Oct. 5, 1778, Patrick Henry, Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, passed An Act for the Preventing the Farther Importation of Slaves, thus  preventing of the African slave trade. Virginia was then the first province on earth to abolish the African slave trade and make it a penal offence.
William Waller Hening (editor), The Statutes at Large: A Collection of All the Laws of Virginia From the First Session of the Legislature in the Year 1619 , Volume IX (New York: W.G. Bartow, 1823), 471
R.L. Dabney, Defence of Virginia, 49
 
7. Is it true that the southern states were only a small player in the slave trade?
 
Ans. I have only come across one vessel from the South, a Louisiana vessel, that picked up slaves from Africa. It never made it back to America though because it sunk shortly after leaving Africa.
 
8. Why has the white man been taught to be ashamed of his own race?
 
Ans. It is a Psyop invented by the Jesuit order, originally invented to fight against their Portuguese and Spanish rivals in the 18th century.  It is a way to manipulate white Protestants into feeling guilty for spreading the Reformation and the high civilization produced by it. Instead of being praised for giving absolute savage nations civilization we are made to feel guilty for the alleged cruelties of white supremacy and the genocides of Colonialism. 
In essence, the Jesuits lost the counter-reformation to the white Protestants and seeing they could not win the theological, military or cultural battle against the Protestants, they turned to racial Psyops to masquerade the counter-reformation in a garb of racial pity. 
 The Footprints of the Jesuits by R.W. Thompson, 186
 
9. Is racial integration a communist maxim?
 
Ans. Absolutely. It is an application of their view of property.  Engels states in his The Principles of Communism 1847,
“— 22 —What will be the attitude of communism to existing nationalities?
The nationalities of the peoples associating themselves in accordance with the principle of community will be compelled to mingle with each other as a result of this association and thereby to dissolve themselves, just as the various estate and class distinctions must disappear through the abolition of their basis, private property.”
http://www.marxists.org/…/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm
 
10. Is racial separation unto nationhood a biblical maxim?
 
Ans. Absolutely. It was ordained when the Bible says that after the flood, yet before the Tower of Babel (Gen. 10:1), the creator divided the earth in the days of Peleg.(Gen.10:25) Thus, the creator’s intention for man to be separate was not a result of the sins at Babel. It was El’s intention all along, just like distinct races were intended by El all along. The dispersion in Gen. 9-11 is an enforcement of commands previously given to disperse throughout the earth.
Yah originally created 70 nations with the dispersion. Jasher Chapter 48,
“44 And it was their custom throughout the land of Egypt, that every man who came to speak to the king, if he was a prince or one that was estimable in the sight of the king, he ascended to the king’s throne as far as the thirty-first step, and the king would descend to the thirty-sixth step, and speak with him.
45 If he was one of the common people, he ascended to the third step, and the king would descend to the fourth and speak to him, and their custom was, moreover, that any man who understood to speak in all the seventy languages, he ascended the seventy steps, and went up and spoke till he reached the king.
46 And any man who could not complete the seventy, he ascended as many steps as the languages which he knew to speak in.
47 And it was customary in those days in Egypt that no one should reign over them, but who understood to speak in the seventy languages.”
These seventy are listed in Genesis 10 and 11.
See also the Jewish Encyclopedia on this issue: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/1
The racial differences were probably the result of a spontaneous and special act of the creator.
As a general principle, Israel served as an example of nationhood that the rest of the nations were supposed to emulate.(Deut. 4:5-7) In Deut. 17 rulers were to be chosen among the ethnicity of Israel.  In Deut. 23 we are faced with heavy racial prioritization in Israel’s assemblies.  Non-Israelites were called strangers or sojourners and were to be treated with courtesy and fairness.(Ex. 12:48-49, 22:21, 23:9, Lev 19:10, 19:33-34, Lev 23:22, 24:22, Num 9:14, 15:15-16, 15:29-30)  However, so far from proclaiming the merits of diversity, Yah proclaimed that he would send foreigners to sap the wealth of Israel if they disobeyed him. (Deut. 28:32-36; Is this not exactly what is happening to America?)
The Greek word for nation in both the Tanach and the Renewed Covenant is ethnos. This is at the root of our word ethnicity.  Ethnicity has been the foundational principle upon which all human nationhood has been understood. How else do you define a nation without an ethnic group of people living upon a specific geographical location?
 In Romans 9:3 the apostle Paul proclaims his abiding racialism stating, “For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh”. And again at 16:7 “Greet Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners, who are outstanding among the apostles, who also were in Messiah before me.” And again at 16: 21 “Timothy my fellow worker greets you, and so do Lucius and Jason and Sosipater, my kinsmen.
We read in Rev. 21:24 “the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it (heavenly Jerusalem): and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.” Here we have the existence of distinct nations, thus distinct ethnicities in the time of the news heavens and the new earth! Messiah did not come to heal these supposed fractures in humankind. These distinctions are indicative of a Utopia, not of decline. Moreover, if Yah intended for the Renewed Covenant to abrogate the principles of Gen. 9-11, and the people at Pentecost to amalgamate into one body politic, then he would have caused them to start speaking one language, as in the days of  the Tower of Babel. BUT HE DIDN’T!