Go Set a Watchman: A Novel for Southern Nationalists?

Go Set a Watchman: A Novel for Southern Nationalists?


The new novel by Nelle Harper Lee, Go Set a Watchman, has garnished a lot of attention from the modern media. Pre-release reviews were a-shock at the new way in which Atticus Finch, an old-time Southern lawyer, is presented. Not surprisingly, they call him a “racist,” for his views on the state, race, and issues of citizenship. Set in the 1950s, Jean Louise Finch (Scout) returns to Maycomb on an annual trip, but discovers the world (or her perceptions of it) changed. Maycomb is locked in a battle, attempting to forestall a coming revolution. Throughout the story (which will surely be a classic), Jean Louise interacts with her kin, from whom she feels increasingly distant. Her father, Atticus, and her uncle, Dr “Jack” Finch, are two pivotal characters.

The book centres around the issue of race- how the South is being affected by the recent Supreme Court decision, and how this is being handled by various persons in the book. Jean Louise, with her progressive sensibilities and sheltered life, struggles to come to grips with Maycomb’s reaction.

Possibly the greatest, most level-headed person in the book is Dr “Jack” Finch. He’s of the old-school line of Southern agrarians (remarking that “some pervert invented machinery”) and offers a Southern nationalist view. Consider his words when talking with Jean Louise:

“Has it never occurred to you—have you never, some where along the line, received vibrations to the effect—that this territory was a separate nation? No matter what its political bonds, a nation with its own people, existing within a nation?”

Jean Louise attempts to defer the issue as a matter solely of history, the defeat of 1865 closing the issue. Again, Dr Finch gets the better of her:

“The remnants of that army (of the Confederacy) had children…They were never destroyed. They were ground into the dirt and up they popped.” (pg. 196)

Atticus, who comes across as that most laudable epitome of Southern stoicism, himself defends the South and her ways. Here are a variety of excerpts dealing with various subjects.

On the SCOTUS: “You mean because the Court said it we must take it? No ,ma’am. I don’t see it that way. If you think that I, for one citizen am going to take it lying down, you’re quite wrong.” (pg. 241)

On race: “Have you ever considered that you can’t have a set of backward people living among people advanced in one kind of civilization and have a social Arcadia?”

On citizenship: “You realize that the vast majority of our Negro population is backward, don’t you? You realize that the vast majority of them here in the South are unable to share fully in the responsibility of citizenship, and why?…But you want them to have all its privileges? (pg. 242)

On Jefferson and citizenship: “A man couldn’t vote simply because he was a man, in Jefferson’s eyes. He had to be a responsible man. A vote was, to Jefferson, a precious privilege…” (pg. 244)

On government: “Yes, I’ll accept being called a snob when it comes to government. I’d like very much to be left alone to manage my own affairs…I’d like my state to be left alone to keep house without advice from the NAACP. (pg. 245)

On race relations: “[C]an you blame the South for resenting being told what to do about its own people who have no idea of its daily problems?” (pg. 247)

The themes or GSAW are certainly more mature, and caution is advised if the book is to be read by younger audiences. The book is almost Southern Gothic in style, with death, dismay, and the somewhat grotesque being presented in a matter-of-fact way. The writing style is easily palatable, but copious amounts of literary references in the book are enough to keep one busy well after the story has ended.

Perhaps this reviewer was just stunned to see the issues of the South laid out for the modern reader by so well a known writer as Nelle Harper Lee, but the book will certainly help spark discussion on the very same issues which continue to afflict the South today. While not perfect, it is certainly a novel that any Southerner could enjoy. And, with its condemnation of the SCOTUS and emphasis on Southern identity, it could come at no better a time.


Feds Rule Against Marriage


 Federals Marching Boldly Forward

Federals Marching Boldly Forward

Our black-robed handlers have now decreed that Sodomite “marriage” is a right that is to be enforced in the states. As LifeSiteNews reports,

In a 5-4 ruling handed down this morning in Obergefell v. Hodges, the justices ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment requires states to offer marriage licenses to homosexual couples. That overturns a ruling from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Ohio, which held that the univerally recognized right to marry applies only as marriage has historically been understood: the union of one man and one woman.

Looking at the decay around us, especially at the cultural genocide being inflicted on our people, it comes as no surprise as to the court’s decision. The steps to ensure this egalitarian ecstasy had been laid long before our own time. In fact, one could trace the move (as the article above relates) back to the anti-Southern 14th Amendment, which provided the legal foothold necessary for advancing such a decadent decision. How will the states react? It is clear, just as Roe v. Wade has shown, that the Federal government never backs down from policies they implement- Republican or Democrat making little difference. There are two steps left as recourse. Firstly, the states must nullify these overreaches, and then they must declare independence as a means of safeguarding the Sacred Institutions and the culture at large.

The Federals have waged war on every aspect of Alabamian life, from our Sacraments to our symbols. Now is the time to act; there is no room for complacency.

Pax Christi

St. Andrews News

Yankee Stab in the Back

Even though the Supreme Court recently ruled in our favour, they have overturned Clinton’s DOMA. Though not scrapping it completely, they have invalidated the section defining marriage as between one man and one woman. Thus, the progressive floodgates are open, and the family is now under attack. The South, specifically Alabama, has long recognised the correct definition of marriage as being between the two sexes, rather than two of the same sexes.

Recently the Colombian Senate voted down a bill to change the legal definition of marriage. Traditionalist, Catholic Senators stated the obvious on “homosexual” unions. Senator Diario Salazar noted,

Heterosexual marriage is of public interest because it has to do with procreation and the conservation of the race.

The BNP of England is in agreement with Senator Salazar on the impact of Sodomite “marriage” on the culture. Senator Roberto Gerlein of Colombia also pointed out,

It’s empty sex, incapable of generating life, a form of sex that is practiced as if it were for recreational purposes…It’s bad for the country, for the Congress, for women and for everyone. This bill isn’t good for anyone.

Here in Alabama, our Governor came out against the measure, saying,

Marriage is defined as a union between a man and woman

While Bentley maintained it is a State issue, and the Supreme Court implied as much, how can one “Union” have so many separate States all maintaining different laws regarding something so fundamental? Simply, this was a mere first step to overturn the law here in Alabama as well, which Rep. Patricia Todd (D- Birm.) accedes:

You can’t have 50 different sets of laws about this issue…The court left open a way for those of us who have been left behind.

The very fact that SCOTUS overturned something called the DEFENSE of Marriage Act acknowledges that they are attacking marriage. But, as Senator Gerlein saw in his country, the fed isn’t legalising marriage for sodomites, just redefining recreational Sodomite fornication.

Don’t forget to vote in this poll and let your voice be heard.

Those shameful acts against nature, such as were committed in Sodom, ought everywhere and always to be detested and punished. If all nations were to do such things, they would be held guilty of the same crime by the law of God, which has not made men so that they should use one another in this way.                                    St  Augustine, Confessions

We are in the Right

While others utter anti-Alabamian inanity, calling the South “redeemed racists” (I’m looking at you, J.D. Crowe), it is important to remember that this is a victory. And in no way must we sully our forefathers to bask in it.


A Small Victory

The Voting Rights Act Section 4, long a tool to suppress the South, has been overturned (surprisingly) by the current Supreme Court. Section 4 declared that any changes made in regards to voting must gain Federal approval or be considered invalid. While it’s a step in the right direction, the entirety of the Voting Rights Act needs to be abolished.

Not Surprisingly, Our Glorious Leader has called out the SCOTUS, saying,

I am deeply disappointed with the Supreme Court’s decision today. For nearly 50 years, the Voting Rights Act – enacted and repeatedly renewed by wide bipartisan majorities in Congress – has helped secure the right to vote for millions of Americans. Today’s decision invalidating one of its core provisions upsets decades of well-established practices that help make sure voting is fair, especially in places where voting discrimination has been historically prevalent.

And then Obama called upon Congress to

pass legislation to ensure every American has equal access to the polls. My Administration will continue to do everything in its power to ensure a fair and equal voting process.

Alabamians, rather than having the ability to sort things out amongst ourselves, have carried the weight of this “Reconstruction” style act probably more than any other country within the United States. Reaction towards the move has been generally favourable, except for that liberal section of Alabama whose wishes are granted by playing the “racist” game.

State Representative Holmes (D-Montgomery) has already been playing the fool:

It’s very sad that the United States Supreme Court would make such a ruling in this day when they know that in most southern states that the Republicans have taken control, not only the governorship, but the state legislatures. And they’re trying to do everything they can to get it back like it used to be. And I’m mighty afraid if we’re not real careful it will get back like it used to be

Online reactions to Holmes and his liberal compatriots have been very pro-Dixie:

DSHornet: The “black political leaders in Alabama” seem not to notice something glaringly obvious in today’s ruling.
You wanted fairness in the voting process. As cited elsewhere, there is about 1% difference in the rates of Black and White rates of voter registration. Over the last fifty years you have enjoyed Federal Government supervision in the voting process so you could get the equality in the process you wanted and, frankly, deserved. In other words, you won. You reached the goal. What is your problem?

mike: You just know in your heart that the Supreme Court made the correct decision if this group of racist politicians are opposed to it.

keithinala: Give it up Rogers, it’s State’s rights, as the founding fathers intended. Enough of your Washington big brother endless control.

bamatexan4: Folks who make a career of being black like Jesse and Al ain’t gonna like this.

Skinnerton: After 50-years of failure, for ALL Southerners, it is time to move forward! Like George Corley Wallace, Lyndon B. Johnson bowed to the yankees, imposing detrimental act upon ALL Southern people.

Rep. Holmes has also previously called on a Confederate flag to be removed from I-65 even though it is on private property, saying that it is a distraction to drivers and a racist emblem. In addition, he came out against every Alabamian regardless of colour over the flag:

We are going to consider calling for a nationwide economic boycott against the state of Alabama


St. Andrew’s News is eagerly awaiting as more heavy-hitters, like Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan, and Tom Woods, weigh in on the recent SCOTUS ruling.

Until next time, may St. Andrew Bless Y’all heartily.