I would like to commend Scott McConnell on his insightful tribute of Sam Francis (April 11). But I must quarrel with his assertion that "Sam was not a white nationalist." Sam Francis was certainly more than just a white nationalist, but to deny the fact that he was a racial nationalist does a disservice to the man and to your magazine.

I appreciate the urge to resist lumping such a brilliant thinker in with your common beer-hall racialist, but let's not fool ourselves. I have read Sam Francis since the early 90's and there is simply no way that one can say that "white nationalist" is not an apt moniker for the man. Insufficient, maybe. Simplistic, certainly. But the label is most definitely apt.

This is not a value judgement. I'm just recognizing what is obvious. I loved and admired Dr. Francis' keen analysis, and he certainly offered the world more than a David Duke or a Bo Gritz but that is no reason to obfuscate reality.

I don't buy that Francis was somehow forced into the writings he published, either. From what I can gather through his writing, Sam Francis was not "forced" into anything. Sam wrote what he believed and his "principle subject" (race) was his choice. It may be uncomfortable for Mr. McConnell, but it was not uncomfortable for Dr. Francis.

A.C. KLEINHEIDER
Nashville, Tenn.

Originally published as a Letter to the Editor in the Forum section of the May 9th edition of The American Conservative.

Copyright 2005 A. C. Kleinheider