The political structure in the United States is often portrayed by the media and its guests via a histrionic history of federalism. However, it seems, no historian or commentator can speak without referencing Southern (and only Southern) racism. And history is always linked, era to era, as Conservative vs Liberal vs Southern. It is often linked as Republican versus Democrats vs Southern Democrat and/or Southern Republicans. This is a philosophical catch-all. This “catch-all” wants Southern votes but not conservative philosophy. No Neo-Confederates allowed–whatever that is–according to Victor Davis Hanson.

Hanson’s is possibly the most vocal voice of histrionics hidden behind history in his affected ivory tower of Stanford lore.

Hanson cannot resist denigrating the South, particularly through his effete blustering about its racist attachment to the “Lost Cause.”  His is a superficial study of the Southern cause, and its belief in the original political structure of the Union of States i.e. the States, United, A.KA The United States.  This now seems to mean Democrats and Republicans.

Recently on Tucker Carlson’s program (4-14-20), Hanson used one of his favorite verbal shibboleths, “Neo-confederate.” He was referring, on Carlson’s program, to those mayors of cities in any state who acted outside federal direction. That is those mayors ordering people to stay at home. Most of these mayors happen to be Democrats. 

These same mayors, Hanson implies, are acting in the same light as the secessionist South did in 1861.

However, he harps on racism but ignores his own racism. No? His comments typically refer to Jim Crow (a Northern creation– see the strange case of Jim Crow-Pulitzer prize winner) while assigning it (Jim Crow) to the South during and post 1861-65. In other words, racism to Hanson is a continuous stream from the past to the present with never a break in Southern thought about race. And, certainly, it is a Southern intrinsic characteristic to be a racist if the Southerner supports secession. 

In other words, the South was both before and after the war, racist. Therefore, it is not conservative; at least not among decent Southerners. Conservatives need Southerners only for their votes it seems.

When Hanson says Neo-Confederate he means racist. And, he could never support racism, unless of course, the racist is Leland Stanford.

Hanson thrives upon his promoted position as being, “The Martin and Illie Anderson Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.”  So, though Leland Stanford died in 1893 he still must retain the stain of racism, just as the Southern people must. And, of course, Hanson’s devotees must as well, as per Hanson’s standards.

“To my mind, it is clear, that the settlement among us of an inferior race is to be discouraged by every legitimate means. Asia, with her numberless millions, sends to our shores the dregs of her population. Large numbers of this class are already here; and, unless we do something early to check their immigration, the question, which of the two tides of immigration, meeting upon the shores of the Pacific, shall be turned back, will be forced upon our consideration, when far more difficult than now of disposal. There can be no doubt but that the presence among us of numbers of degraded and distinct people must exercise a deleterious influence upon the superior race, and to a certain extent, repel desirable immigration. “ Leland Standford speaking of Chinese people. 

Hanson has aligned, as he often does, Southern secession with both an unconstitutional act and a racist one. Therefore, the South was traitorous and such treason was due to a racist society. They could not both keep and beat their slaves by leaving the union.

And this mischief has carried into the 21st century. That is, the South is and will always be racist. Such is inherent to the Southern people, be they Democrats or Republicans.

And non-racists conservatives like Hanson could never entertain secession today as did racists slave owners in the past like John Hancock. Hancock, of course, would be the big signature on the SECESSION document, The Declaration of Independence.

But then Hancock was not Southern. Therefore, he is guiltless and stainless in Hanson’s eyes, just as good old boy Leland is racism-spot-free. And Stanford was, and Hanson is, from California, the land of love, love, love.

And Hanson doesn’t seem to be bothered by Calexit. Go figure. Just a clever little “California Dreaming.”

If Hanson knows as little of the creation of the Constitution as he does of the Declaration of Independence, it is little wonder he doesn’t understand federalism.

If Hanson understood federalism, he would recognize that municipalities (mayoral authority) have no federal connection apart from state action upon that municipality. But Hanson’s animus toward the South and its racist folks possibly leads him blindly into history.

After all, the Constitution and the federal government were creations of those states—not the other way around. But the histrionics of Southern racism are more worshipful than accurate history. So, federalism must be disposed of because it is (down South) racist.

And, seemingly just as important, what does Hanson not understand about racism and the “Woke” monument mobsters?

Should Hanson not lead a protest march to remove such racists monuments as are structured at Stanford?

It shouldn’t be much trouble to round up some protest animals from Antifa, or The Southern Poverty Law Center, or the San Diego Zoo to tear down and remove the hideous racist monument: The Leland Stanford Mausoleum.

Have a nice day, Victor, you neo-federalist, racist, rascal you.

Paul H. Yarbrough

I was born and reared in Mississippi, lived in both Louisiana and Texas (past 40 years). My wonderful wife of 43 years who recently passed away was from Louisiana. I have spent most of my business career in the oil business. I took up writing as a hobby 7 or 8 years ago and love to write about the South. I have just finished a third novel. I also believe in the South and its true beliefs.


  • A Texas Libertarian says:

    As a life long Southerner and lover of liberty, I cringe every time I read Hanson, not because his arguments are forceful, or make me question my understanding of history, but because they are so incredibly bad that I wonder how anyone could be so historically inaccurate, culturally tone-def, and emotionally biased and still be so accepted in political discourse. Here’s his latest attack on the South.

    (I thought it was funny that he is so opposed to secession, yet he is on the board of advisors for the Independent Institute.)

  • William Quinton Platt III says:

    The Southern States were rich prior to the War. After the War, the southern States were impoverished. Generally, people flee poverty.
    There was no genocide. Disease wiped out the vast majority of the native North and South Americans.
    Current northerners are weary of dealing with crime. Crime must be dealt with. Have you ever watched the magnificent series, Lonesome Dove? There is a hanging of murderers and horse thieves…interesting the plot killed off the negro murderer and horse thief prior to the hanging. Coincidence? I doubt it.

    When criticizing an article, one must have a place to start. Hanson leaves me bewildered…I don’t know which brush fire to stomp on first. But since this is my first encounter with his writings to my knowledge, I will be better prepared in the future if I forget his name and get caught up in one of his mind snarls.

    To effectively communicate, one must have a message that can be transmitted and received precisely. For example…There were ZERO slave uprisings during the War between the Southern States and the northern States. Of course, the proponent of slavery as evil could ALWAYS point to the New York City draft riots to counter my assertion.

Leave a Reply