SOUTHERN HERITAGE & LIBERTY ARTICLES

pickin

2011-08-22T17:52:00.001-04:00

2011-08-09T18:05:00.001-04:00

worldglory

2011-08-04T21:09:00.000-04:00

standard_bearer

2011-07-06T17:11:00.007-04:00

DO

2011-07-04T17:24:00.000-04:00

BIG

2011-06-21T23:40:00.001-04:00

smSWRforum

2011-06-15T19:19:00.000-04:00

A needful task

2011-06-06T16:47:00.002-04:00

The question has been raised as to why we should study the causes of the War of Secession. After all, aren’t most folks really only interested in the people and events of that War? Indeed, most of those interested in the subject know (or think they know) pretty much what the war was all about and certainly, who won. Can’t we just enjoy learning about the great heroes and awesome events and let the matters of blame and cause “rest in peace” so to speak? As has so often been said, can’t we just “get over it?” Ah ~ but can we realistically do that? Is it desirable? Is it even possible?

During World War II, there were two men – Field Marshal Erwin Rommel and Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto - who, taken as individuals, were of honorable and noble character as well as being possessed of great military genius. Both were extremely successful warriors—for a while. Both were eventually overcome by sheer strength and numbers rather than any strategic defects on their parts. Finally, both served on “the losing side”. But for the sake of the question posed at the beginning of this article, we must ask, who now celebrates them? Does there exist a General Erwin Rommel Society or an Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto Society either in America or elsewhere? Perhaps they do—somewhere—but I tend to doubt it. Why? Because the cause for which these personally noble and supremely gifted men fought is justly considered unworthy of celebration or commemoration. Their faultless service to that cause is seen as a blemish on their characters rather than actions to be praised and glorified. Their military achievements are considered actions intended to advance an inhuman tyranny and therefore, the more brilliant their military service, the more condemnation obtains for that very reason. For the soldier cannot be separated from the cause for which he fights no matter the nature of his own personal life or professional abilities. Certainly there is more sympathy and respect, historically, for Rommel and Yamamoto than for other Axis military figures because of who and what they were as men, but neither can escape the wicked nature of the cause for which they spilt their blood or the stain that cause cast upon their memories.

Ah, but one might ask, what has that to do with the great men of the Confederacy? Everything! Consider the present ongoing, relentless and all-pervading assault on Southern history and heritage. The cause for which men like Lee, Jackson, Stuart and Semmes fought and for which Jackson and Stuart died, is being implacably, irresistibly and irrevocably reduced to the same moral level as the cause for which Rommel and Yamamoto fought and died. Furthermore, this assault proceeds from every cultural and establishment institution and across political and ideological spectrums. Members of both political parties either condemn the cause of Southern independence or remain mute in the face of every calumny brought against it while this new war—every bit as violent, hateful and bitter as the first—only becomes more brutal and unforgiving with each passing year.

Gone are the days of “the Grand Bargain” in which the South was honored for its cause while admitting, however, that it was for the best that that cause was lost. Gone is respect for Southern heroes, Southern values and Southern culture. Gone is the acknowledged right of Southerners to display their symbols while others look on with respect or, at the very least, tolerance. Left unchallenged, very soon indeed the cause of Lee and his comrades in arms will be as hateful and despised as the cause of Rommel and Yamamoto! Indeed, the only way to prevent such a travesty of justice is to educate people to those facts and truths of history which are at present being denied them. For a perceived “noble cause” will ennoble atrocities committed in its name—Sherman’s March, Sheridan’s Desolation of the Shenandoah—while a perceived “wicked cause” will debase even the most noble men who supported and sustained it. But the cause of Lee and the rest, was the cause for which the Founders and those of their time fought: individual liberty and limited government deriving its power from the consent of the governed. This is a cause that deserves the respect of all true Americans whether or not it prevailed on the battlefield.

Terrorists And Socialists Caused Southern Secession

2010-12-17T15:14:00.000-05:00

The 150 year sesquicentennial begins on December 20, 2010 marking the secession of Southern states and the formation of a new nation-The Confederate States of America. On this date 150years ago delegates at South Carolina's secession convention voted to secede from the Union. The rapid secession of 10 more Southern states followed in the winter and spring of 1861 and the CSA was formed.

The states constitutionally, legally, and honorably withdrew from the Union (U.S.A.) and resumed their pre-Union sovereign status. Several states including New York and Virginia had specifically reserved the right to withdraw from the Union when they joined the Compact of 1787 which was ratified in 1789 as the Constitution of the United States of America. The historical precedent for secession was well established. Early attempts at secession were made by the Northern states of Massachusetts and Connecticut in 1803 and 1814 in opposition to the Louisiana Purchase and the War of 1812. All early U.S. presidents including George Washington and Thomas Jefferson recognized the right and stated "let them go in peace if they so desire".

Military cadets at West Point Military Academy were taught that secession was legal through a text book "Rawle's View of the Constitution". Up until 1861 most politicians and citizens in America considered secession legal. Prior to becoming U.S. president, Abraham Lincoln on the floor of Congress on Jan.12,1848 stated "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most sacred right — a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much territory as they inhabit". What caused Lincoln to reverse his opinion in 1861? When asked "Why not let the South go in peace" he replied "Let the South Go? I can't let them go. What would become of my tariff (taxes)".

Only the misinformed and uneducated believe that the North (Union) invaded the Confederate States of America for the express purpose of freeing slaves. All wars are fought over 4 things - money, resources, land, and power (empire). There was, however, a small group of New Englanders who wanted war for that purpose. It Was A Coalition Of New England economic interests (greed) With The New England radicals, fanatics, zealots and hypocrites that caused the Southern secession movement. These New England terrorists threatened and carried out terrorist activities in Kansas and Virginia through psychopath John Brown. The Civil War actually began in Kansas in 1854, not April 12,1861 at Ft. Sumter South Carolina. In 1857, terrorist Hinton Helper published a book "The Impending Crisis" demanding instant Abolition with the alternative being the mass murder of Southern men, women, and children. In the U.S. Congress 68 of 117 Republicans had signed a resolution supporting such terrorist activities against the South. Terrorism cased Southern secession.

Abraham Lincoln acted with deceit in setting up the Ft. Sumter incident in April 1861 with the express intent of starting a war. Original correspondence documents prove this fact. There was also much socialist involvement in creating the war. Lincoln's assistant secretary of war, Charles A. Dana was a socialist who had went to Europe and been instructed by the infamous socialist Karl Marx. The new book "Red Republicans And Lincoln Marxists" furnishes the details. The new Republican party formed in 1854 was socialist and worked to create war. Karl Marx coached Lincoln and Dana on how to start the war and blame the South. Many European socialists from the failed European socialist revolution of 1848 came to America and served as Union military officers.

Lincoln burned and shut down 200-300 Northern newspapers in 1861 because they supported the South's constitutional right to secede. It was the worst violation of 1st Amendment rights ever committed in America. He jailed about 200,000 Northern war protesters without warrant or trial - 38,000 for the duration of the war. An unconstitutional, illegal, immoral, and criminal war of aggression was carried out 1861-65 by the Union against the CSA. After the War Of Northern Aggression ended in 1865 the Native American Indians in the West received the same treatment.

James W. King
Commander Sons Of Confederate Veterans
Camp 141 Albany Georgia

“It Started With a Lie”

2010-11-06T18:54:00.002-04:00

“Everyone should do all in his power to collect and disseminate the truth, in the hope that it may find a place in history and descend to posterity. History is not the relation of campaigns and battles and generals or other individuals, but that which shows the principles for which the South contended and which justified her struggle for those principles.” ~ Gen. Robert E. Lee
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
“The principle for which we contend is bound to reassert itself, though it may be at another time and in another form.” ~ President Jefferson Davis, C.S.A.

Most people are familiar with that terrible and bloody conflict wherein a great deal more died than men and women, as “the Civil War”, but is that name accurate or even appropriate? The definition of a “civil war” is as follows:

~ a war between opposing groups within a nation for the control of that nation. ~

Some recent definitions omit the second phrase referring simply to a “war between opposing groups within a nation”, but that is misleading, even mendacious. The recognized meaning of a civil war has always been one in which differing factions strive for control of a single nation in order to rule. The war between King Charles I and Oliver Cromwell was truly a “civil war” in that both sides strove by war to rule England. The war between the Stuart kings and the line of Hanover was also a “civil war” for the same reason. On the other hand, the wars between the British and the Irish, Scots and Welsh were not “civil wars” because though the British sought to rule Ireland, Scotland and Wales, the peoples of those nations had no designs upon the British throne – they simply wished to be left alone in peace and freedom.

The war which took place on the North American continent between 1861 and 1865 (although that only encompasses four years of what was in fact a much longer struggle) was akin to the latter rather than the former situation. The States of the South did not wish to rule the Union, they merely wished to leave it and hence, the war cannot be truthfully designated a “civil war”. Yet, from the beginning, that was the term used and remains in use (at least in the North) to this day. How and why did that happen? Well, it would seem that President Abraham Lincoln defined it as such even before the actual war had begun. In his first inaugural address, Lincoln stated:

In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to preserve, protect, and defend it.

The entire address is a carefully contrived effort to justify whatever steps the new President considered necessary to, in his words, “preserve, protect and defend the Union” and he carefully notes that he bears no blame for what is to come though he initiates the actions leading to war. On the other hand, Lincoln does not claim that the states of the South desire to do anything but to secede and makes no reference to a threat by those states to forcibly wrest control of the Union from the remaining members for the purposes of ruling them. Lincoln expresses or implies nothing but that a group of states wishes to leave the old compact and form another more to their liking, an action already counted as a “divine right” of the People in the Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ~ That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Indeed, Mr. Lincoln himself acknowledged that right when, on January 12th, 1848 on the floor of the United States House of Representatives, he stated plainly:

“Any people any where, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, sacred right -- a right which, we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movements. Such minority was precisely the case of the Tories of our own Revolution. It is a quality of revolutions not to go by old lines, or old laws; but to break up both, and make new ones.”

It seems that somewhere between January of 1848 and January of 1861, Mr. Lincoln determined that this “sacred right” did not extend to or exist for the People of the South. Furthermore, while leaving the old Union and forming a new nation would obviously change the old Union, it would no more destroy either the Union or the federal government than had the addition of new states and territories done in the past. Yet, the newly elected President chose to make it known that he would not countenance secession despite the rights immortalized in the Declaration and the Constitution - and that the response of the Federal Government would be not “war”, but “civil war” though Lincoln was careful to make no claim that the States of the South desired to contest with the rest of the Union for hegemony or had threatened to wage war upon their sister states!

The question then must be this: did Lincoln not understand the difference between a “civil war” and the war he intended to wage if the States of the South continued on the path of separation? Given Mr. Lincoln’s obvious intelligence, that seems clearly an impossibility. Much more likely was the term was used deliberately in order to foist the appearance of legitimacy upon a conflict that otherwise would reek of unjust and unconstitutional aggression. After all, it is a “given” that both sides in a “civil war” initiate conflict since both must make war upon the other in order to rule. By purposefully mischaracterizing the war as a “civil war”, it can be reasonably argued that Lincoln sought to cast equal blame upon a people who wished only their constitutional right to peacefully leave the Union. Indeed, since a union by its very nature is voluntary, to maintain it at the point of a gun is not “union” but “conquest” and forcing men to accept the rule of an unwanted government is simply tyranny. This is not a matter of “politics” but of “history”. Unfortunately, while much of politics is a consequence of history, much of “history” – especially regarding the War of Secession - is a consequence of politics.

SWR's Lady Val

Driving Liberty Boys to the Devil

2010-10-25T05:13:00.001-04:00

New England was no stranger to the fear of slave insurrection, New York City had experienced the “Negro Plot of 1741” with many conspirators hanged, burned and corpses left to rot in the open air. The British also knew well the incubus planted in the American colonies should residents contemplate revolt – Virginia’s Royal Governor Lord Dunmore in 1775 emancipated all slaves who would repair to His Majesty’s banner and bear arms to fight against American independence.

Bernhard Thuersam, Director
Cape Fear Historical Institute
www.cfhi.net

Driving Liberty Boys to the Devil:

“[The] terror of [slave] insurrection, so often and aptly illustrated in the common phrase of “sleeping over a volcano,” that continuous and awful dread which conscious tyranny feels, but hates to acknowledge, we have already said, was not unknown even in Massachusetts, where the servile class was always a comparatively small element of the population. In times of civil commotion and popular excitement, the danger was more imminent, and the fear was more freely expressed.

During the difficulties between the people of the town of Boston and the British soldiers in 1768, John Wilson, a captain in the 59th Regiment, was accused of exciting the slaves against their masters, assuring them that the soldiers had come to procure their freedom; and that, “with their assistance, they should be able to drive the Liberty Boys to the devil.” He was arrested on the complaint of the selectmen, and was bound over for trial; “but, owing to the maneuvers of the Attorney-General, the indictment was quashed, and Wilson left the Province about the same time.” Drake’s Boston, 754.

There was a similar alarm in September, 1774. It is noticed in one of the letters of Mrs. John Adams to her husband, dated at Boston Garrison, 22 September, 1774. “There has been in town a conspiracy of the Negroes. At present it is kept pretty private, and was discovered by one who endeavored to dissuade them from it. He being threatened with his life, applied to Justice Quincy for protection. They conducted in this way, got an Irishman to draw up a petition to the Governor [Gage], telling him they would fight for him provided he would arm them, and engage to liberate them if he conquered. Adams letters, I., 24.

(Notes on the History of Slavery in Massachusetts, George Henry Moore, D. Appleton & Company, 1866, pp. 129-130)

Britain Populating its American Colony:

2010-09-27T01:52:00.000-04:00

The need for labor in its American colony stimulated not only the indentured servitude detailed below, but also slave trading by England’s Royal African Company. This was formed in 1662 with the king’s brother, the Duke of York, as president. It would have an outright monopoly on bringing enslaved Africans to the New World until 1697, when the British Crown permitted private traders to carry slaves to British colonies and paying a 10 percent duty.

Bernhard Thuersam, Director
Cape Fear Historical Institute
www.cfhi.net

Britain Populating its American Colony:

“A principal source of labor for the [American] plantations during the seventeenth century were the white indentured servants brought from England. In the mother country the farm hands and laboring classes received miserably low wages….[and] found it almost impossible to save [6 pounds], the average cost of passage to America. The only method by which they could transfer their labor from a cheap market in England to a dear market in America was the indenture system, really a credit, or installment system to pay the passage money of crossing the Atlantic. The servant signed a contract by which he sold his labor to a master for a period usually of four or five years.

Immigration into the colonies was vastly stimulated by the profitable business of securing servants for the American market. John Harrower, an indentured servant in Virginia, described in his diary which he kept from 1773-1776, a class of merchants called Soul Drivers, who met immigrant and convict ships at the docks to buy servants, whom they would drive through the colonies “like a parcel of Sheep” to sell to the highest bidder. Such servants were sold for prices ranging from [20 pounds] for the highest type, Scottish soldiers captured after the Jacobite revolt, to [4 pounds] for Irish vagrants.

Most of the indentured servants were young men and women under twenty-five years of age. Under some masters the indentured servitude approximated the conditions of slavery. The master had the right to punish his white servant by whipping, and the servant could not leave the plantation without permission. If a servant married without consent or if a maidservant had an illegitimate baby, the term of service was extended for one year. If a servant ran away and was arrested, he or she was punished by extending the term of service two days extra in Virginia and ten days in Maryland for every day of absence.

The labor shortage in America was so great that it led to the dark crime of kidnapping. There were professional agents in England known a “spirits” who kidnapped “drunks” in taverns and young persons on the streets to ship them to America for sale as servants. The British government used the Southern colonies as well as the islands of Jamaica and Barbados as a dumping ground for convicts.

(A History of the Old South, The Emergence of a Reluctant Nation, Clement Eaton, MacMillan Publishing, 1975, pp. 23-31)

Was it worth it?

2010-09-20T17:17:00.001-04:00

By David Ware

The Yankee takes delight in celebrating the War to Prevent Southern Independence as the time when the slaves were set free, yet his defense of freedom takes a dive when it comes to extending freedom to Southerners to establish their own country and to the establishment of martial law in the South during reconstruction..

In this month’s (Sept-Oct 2010) Confederate Veteran magazine, there is a wonderful article about slavery by Don Livingstone. Hopefully, all of you will read it. Also, Compatriot Bill Vallante has written a rather compelling article much about the same situation available here:
http://www.petersburgexpress.com/myth.html

It seems to me that there is another less explored aspect of the idea that this war was all about slavery. As this time period is discussed in the coming months and years, as we commemorate the sesquicentennial, we will not be given equal time to state our case. Instead, we will be shouted over and shouted down in the style of a Fox news or CNN debate. For the ten or so seconds we might get, our response might well be: “Then, was it worth it?”

An affirmative reply to the question would imply, at least the idea that the killing, burning, looting and destruction of our region was necessary and just. That all those that died and were wounded, on both sides, had to endure this ordeal to resolve the issue of slavery. That the issuance of statehood to West Virginia, the period of Reconstruction which followed, including the unconstitutional adoption of the 14th Amendment was all necessary and “worth it.”

At a deeper level, the idea that it was “worth it” would imply that the “ends justify the means.” The is one of the most vile and corrupt principles fostered on the civilized world. If the cause can be marketed as just, then any means to achieve it, is also just. Just causes include: making the world safe for democracy, weapons of mass destruction, possession of nuclear weapons, getting rid of unfavorable rulers (others, not those of the United States unfortunately), diversity, health, education, defense, old age, retirement, the environment, energy, oil rights, human rights, civil rights, woman’s rights, general welfare, wealth redistribution , good nutrition, East Germany, the Soviet Union, Viet Nam, Korea, Iran, Iraq, Cuba, Haiti, Grenada, Philippines, war on drugs and so on.

A negative response would require that further examination be done to discern other possible remedies for what this war and all wars since, “accomplished.” It was also challenge the doctrine of the ends justify the means.

Sometimes the best questions are the shortest.

White Slavery

2010-09-10T19:56:00.000-04:00

For more than one hundred years or longer, before the first black slave was sent to America, there was white slavery. This is a subject our United States history books will not touch with a 10 foot pole. If they covered it in its fullest scope black`s having been slaves could no longer be used as political leverage & undeserved gain today.

At best our government school books only briefly touch on the subject of " indentured servants." What they do not tell you is that to many whites there was no such thing, they were lifetime slaves. Those who did sign themselves into bondage & servitude through the system of indentured servitude were subjected to rules which if broken extended their slave status for years up to & including permanent slavery. Of course, charges were usually trumped - up to see that most of them did remain slaves indefinitely as their production was needed by the commerce of the colonies. Which proves slavery was an economical institute & not one based on the hatred of a persons race.

From my research & contacts with numerous people in the United Kingdom outright white slavery was the preferred manner in which people were sent to the colonies, not as indentured servants. Poor destitute families sold children into slavery with the promise to the parents that a better life awaited them in America, this was a lie. People were drugged or hit over the head in local pubs to only find that when they awakened that they were aboard a wooden sailing ship on their way to a life of permanent slavery in America. The jails & prisons were emptied of many into slavery because their only crimes was that they were so poor that they could not pay their debts & were sentenced to prison terms in " Debtors Prisons."

I had a friend I worked with who told of his German ancestors having been captured in battle by the English & shipped to New York City before it was a city, to harvest pitch tar from white pine trees for the Royal Navy. They were put ashore during the winter & were given a 20 ft. x 20 ft. piece of land to build a cabin on for protection from the elements.

Later it was discovered that yellow pine trees in the Southern United States produced much more pitch tar than white pines did which brought on even more white slavery.

So the next time you are researching your ancestry & hit a dead-end remember some of your family & mine could have been & probably were white slaves. There is no shame or embarrassment in it because it only confirms that the United States government hasn`t had the common courtesy or decency to tell us about this sorry episode of its history. I demand reparations! LOL

Billy E. Price
Ashville Alabama

“The Myth of the Myth of the Lost Cause”

2010-08-28T18:54:00.000-04:00

Myth? What Myth?

By Bill Vallante
wildbill4dixie@yahoo.com

If you like “Civil War” history but haven’t been paying attention these last 20 years or so, the “Lost Cause”, has now become a “Myth” – at least according to most contemporary historians and self-proclaimed experts. Ever since Alan Nolan’s 1991 book, “The Myth of the Lost Cause” the historical literary field has witnessed an avalanche of similar books, each desperately trying to be unique in its own way, and each seeking to prove that the cause for which the South claimed to have fought and indeed, the heroic struggle itself that most people, until the last 20 years, believed that the South put up, are nothing more than myths.

Wikipedia, not known to be the best and most reliable of sources, nonetheless defines accurately what I am getting at and what is the target of this paper:

“The Lost Cause is the name commonly given to a literary and intellectual movement that sought to reconcile the traditional white society of the Southern United States to the defeat of the Confederate States of America in the Civil War of 1861–1865.[1] Those who contributed to the movement tended to portray the Confederacy's cause as noble and most of the Confederacy's leaders as exemplars of old-fashioned chivalry, defeated by the Union armies not through superior military skill, but by overwhelming force. They also tended to condemn Reconstruction.”

So then, the “Lost Cause” has become a myth – so sayeth the “Myth of the Lost Cause Mythologists.” Why do I refer to them as such? Because in destroying one myth or what they claim is a myth they haven’t done much more than replace it with another myth, and a particularly bad myth at that!

A more detailed look at what the “Myth of the Lost Cause Mythologists” contend:

- They contend that: Slavery was the real cause of the war. The South fought for the right to keep others in bondage and anything else is a lie or distortion perpetrated in the post war period by former Confederates who were ashamed of their actions and who were trying to make themselves look good, or, by neo-Confederates today seeking to whitewash the Confederate cause and who themselves are most probably racists.

-They contend that: After the war Southern writers wrote the history of the war and brainwashed Americans, north and south into believing that the South really fought for states rights and not slavery, and that it lost its heroic fight only because it was overwhelmed by superior numbers.

-They contend that: After the war, Southern writers convinced America that before the Yankee attack everything was moonlight and magnolias in the South and that all the slaves were happy.

-They contend that: Southern generals weren’t really as good or as noble as everyone says they were. This myth was invented by Southern writers to steal the glory from Yankee generals, who, led by Massa Linkhorn and company, gave us “a new nation,” for which we should all be eternally thankful. (even though the cost of creating that “new nation” was nearly 700000 dead and nearly half a million maimed),

- Most mythologists contend that the Southern soldier was one or more of the following: overrated, ignorant, misled, apathetic, a frequent deserter, a poor soldier, and that his heart was not really in the fight. If he did, at times, show enthusiasm for his cause, it was only because he hoped one day to hit the lottery and be able to afford to buy a gaggle of slaves – thus, even if he did not own slaves, he was fighting for the hope that one day he would.

-They contend that: 50000 Southerners fought bravely for the North…err, well, they used to say 50000 but a few years ago they upped the figure to 100,000, and more recently, that figure has climbed to 300,000. (soon the numbers will reach a point where it will appear that there were more Southerners in the Union army than there were males in the entire South.)

-They contend that: Southern writers wrote out the black man’s participation in the war on the Union side in order to promote “white supremacy.” To correct this injustice, “Myth of the Lost Cause Mythologists” now inform us that the black man was actually instrumental in winning the war for the Union, that slaves ran away in vast hordes to the Union lines, that “the slaves freed themselves”, and that those who could not make it to the Union lines worked feverishly to subvert the Southern war effort. (There is no mention of any black participation on the Southern side as “Myth of the Lost Cause Mythologists” do not believe in such things any more than they believe in little green men. Well, actually, a lot of them do believe in little green men but not in black men supporting the South.)

-They contend that: The Planters, who were slave owners and werry werry bad men, dragged the rest of the South into seceding and into a war that it really did not want. This resulted in a lack of enthusiasm for the war that was reflected in the attitude of the Southern civilian population, whose women begged their men to desert and who frequently rioted because they were sick of the war and sick of not having any food.

-They contend that: Reconstruction was a wonderful time of social progress and of wonderful “interracial democracies,” snuffed out by those evil Southern white supremacists and that Reconstruction was a great idea, but it did not go far enough. (stick the word “interracial in front of anything these days and it is automatically a good thing. I wonder if an “interracial” case of cholera is a good thing?).

But it’s all ok now, because the “Myth of the Lost Cause Mythologists” are going to make it all better and fix America’s collective memory. Like the Union army before them, they will go “trampling through the vintage” to stomp out the “grapes of wrath.” The Republican-led Union army gave America a new nation, whether America wanted it or not, and the “Myth of the Lost Cause Mythologist” will give America a new “memory” - whether it wants it or not.

Glory, Glory Halleluiah.

About those Post War Southern Writers

There was no subversive plot on the part of Southern post-war writers to steal America’s historical “memory.” In 1865 the South recognized that its bid for independence had failed. It laid down its arms, and its citizens agreed to return to the Union and be good citizens of that political entity. They and their descendents have been faithful to their word, as evidenced by the fact that ever since 1865, whenever America has needed volunteers to go off and get killed in some far off hellhole, it is always Southerners who are the first to volunteer. Anne Coulter referred to them as “America’s Warrior Class.”

Nowhere in the terms of surrender however, did it specify that Southerners had to grovel and to humbly beg for forgiveness. Nowhere did it say that they had to admit to wrongdoing and then accept slander or insults. Nowhere was it written that they could not defend themselves. Self-defense, whether against physical or verbal attack, was and still is everyone’s right. In the post war period Northern writers took it upon themselves to cast the South as the proverbial villain in some kind of demented passion play. Southern writers responded and that’s all there is to it. And if they wrote better and presented a better argument than their northern counterparts, well, maybe, just maybe, it’s possible that they indeed had the better argument, and that in a day and age that had yet to see mass brainwashing in either the public schools or the national parks or, had yet to encounter the most nauseating of popular terms, “the teachable moment,” maybe, just maybe, an American public that was still able to think independently, logically and critically, actually bought those arguments - because those arguments actually had something to offer!

About Slavery as some kind of sin or high crime

Yes, the South had slavery. So what? It was in America for 240 years before Sumter was fired upon, it had been practiced worldwide since the dawn of recorded history by nearly every people on the planet, it was legal and protected by the Constitution, and the Yankees had no problem with it until they stopped making a profit from it and, until they began a determined campaign to secure a majority in Congress in order to be able to pass legislation favorable to their states – legislation I might add that also happened to be detrimental to the Southern states. Further, I don’t see anyone making demands for apologies or expressions of regret on other countries that have practiced slavery. The only one I see getting hit with demands is America, specifically white America and specifically the American South. And I do not see those today who whine about slavery of the past doing anything about it where it exists in the present (in Africa, and in a manner far more brutal than any 19th century white planter could have conceived of). I can’t say exactly what the reason for this might be except to postulate, as someone else did, that slavery of the past is remunerable for reparations in the present, while slavery of the present is not.

Whatever the reasons, I will not jump on the insanity bandwagon and start apologizing on behalf of past peoples for doing what was common and quite the norm in their time. As I’ve said before, more and more I grow convinced that for the past 20 or 30 years, someone has been putting “stupid pills” in America’s water supply. When I majored in history as an undergraduate 40 years ago, such moralizing, sermonizing, and apologizing were not to be found, and judging past peoples by using contemporary standards was considered to be the province of the fool. A student majoring in history who displayed such behavior would have been told by his professors to find another major. Today, the professors do it!

Newsflash – those who demand such apologies and expressions of regret are the demagogues, the race baiters and those who have something to gain by issuing such demands. Those who comply with such demands are the cowards, the fools, the idiots, those who are afflicted with self-loathing and those who have something to gain by demonstrating abasement. I refuse to play in this game. Charley Reese, former journalist for the Orlando Sentinel, once said that “the people of the past don’t owe anyone an apology. They, like us, fell out of the womb into a society that, like all societies, had pre-existing customs and mores. They played the cards that God dealt them the best way they knew how and that’s all that you can expect of them. It’s our play now, and the pot is the future.” I stand with Mr. Reese on this one. And I will not budge for anyone. I don’t do apologies, I don’t do sorry, I don’t do “reconciliation” (another word that has been battered to death in recent times), and I don’t do “stupid pills” either.

About Slavery as the “Cause” of the War

The war itself was not caused by slavery. The war was caused by the invasion of 11 states who sought the same right as their forefathers sought – the right to be governed by something which had the consent of those that it governed. Those states, not counting 2 others, Maryland and Missouri, who were prevented by military force from even discussing secession, had determined that they were not safe in the Union and therefore had decided to pursue their own course independent of their northern neighbors. Those northern neighbors, governed as they were by a relatively new political party bent on consolidation of the American system, could not find it in their hearts to part with those states, and so, launched an invasion of them. That’s your cause of the war in a nutshell.

I would say that the South had plenty of reason not to feel safe. Some Northern idealists had cheered 30 years earlier when Nat Turner mutilated and murdered 61 white men, women and children. Even greater numbers of sanctimonious reformers proclaimed John Brown, whose plans, if successful, would have made Turner’s exploits look like a church picnic, to be a saint. Brown’s expedition was financed by 6 well-heeled and wealthy northerners, all belonging to a party that, in the words of one prominent Republican, Wendell Phillips, was a “party of the North pledged against the South.” [1]

If anyone wanted war, it wasn’t the South. “All we ask is to be left alone.” It was a cry echoed by numerous Southerners throughout Dixie between 1861 and 1865, from the highest official and general, to the lowest private and civilian. It was heard coming from the mouths of Jefferson Davis, Alexander Stephens, Patrick Cleburne, Mary Chestnut, Judah Benjamin and countless others. Had the North left the south alone to go its own way, there would have been no war, no nearly 700000 dead and no nearly half a million maimed.

To you “Myth of the Lost Cause Mythologists”, I say flat out – if you want to know what the cause of the war was, look into the mirror and you’ll see it staring back at you. It was caused by the invasion of sovereign states by a bunch of boobs like you who just couldn’t leave well enough alone. The desperate fight that the South put up was a noble one and a courageous one, and until recently that fact was acknowledged by anyone with a modicum of common sense and a passing amount of literacy. And though it failed, I have no doubt that those who conducted the defense against that invasion would say that despite its failure, it was well worth the effort to try and rid themselves of meddling, petty tyrants like yourselves.

(to be continued)
----------------
[1] “The “Secession, State and Liberty,” David Gordon, Editor, Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, (U.S.A. and London (U.K.), Copyright, 1999, 4th Paperback Printing, 2009, page 27

The Misery Profiteer

2010-08-25T18:31:00.001-04:00

Dr. A. H. Krieg

Of all the bad people in the world, the worst are those who profit from the misery of other through exploitation and extorting funds from them by fabricating fear. The largest and most profitable organization in this endeavourer is the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) located in Montgomery Alabama.

SPLC has as of October 2009 a bank balance of $199,951,946.00; say that’s just under $200 million. And all that money is required to fight evil Americas and to bring about equality for all, foolish me, I thought the Constitution and Bill of Rights served that purpose. One would think that if SPLC were really interested in poverty and the plight of the oppressed that they would distribute all those funds to poor people. But I digress, that money is sorely needed to keep SPLC directors and lawyers living in the gratuitous lifestyle they have become accustomed to. Morris Dee’s first law partner Millard Fuller made all that abundantly clear when he said; “Morris Dees and I from the first day of our partnership shared an overriding purpose; to make a pile of money” It’s not about the poor, or the law, its about making money using the poor and minorities as the stick for profit from their misery.

If you are really interested in finding out exactly what sort of dirt bag Dees is, look him up on Goggle, Civil Case CIV 2114 Alabama, Maureen Bass Dees Appellant, Morris Dees Appellee. The string of extramarital engagements is endless even his own stepdaughter at 16 was not spared his arduous attention and including also males.

Morris Dees who is listed as chief trial council had a 2009 anual income of $ 303,936.00, plus $44,484.00 for a grand total of $438,420.00, Richard Cohen President and CEO, $299,588.00 plus $44,892.00 for a grand total of $344,480.00 In fact the payroll of working management employees of which there are 11 total out at $2,026,482.00 which means an average income of just over $ 186,000.00 per working board member about 5.5 times the national average income. All this just to fight hate! But again I find myself in a conundrum after all these people are trying to do good, aren’t they? Well I guess that I just did not know that doing good is that profitable, had I realized that at an earlier age I would have joined in at SPLC and would now also be earning six times the average American income. Does Julian Bond who is paid nothing and is prominently listed as first on the board of directors realize all this? But then poor Julian is not a member of the chosen, like Cohen, Levick, Levine, Dees, Brownstein, Potok, Bauer and Holiday, so that probably accounts for it.

The invention of SPLC list of whom they consider potential terrorist is extensive including such scary people as Congressmen Dr. Ron Paul, and Paul Brown, World Net Daily publisher Farah, columnist Michelle Bachmann. Radio and TV hosts Glen Beck, Judge Andrew Napolitano, in fact almost anyone who opposes Morris Dees’ warped ideas of America and Americans is found on his site, listed as a danger to America. A telling issue is an award granted in 1984 to the Montgomery Advertiser (AL) for journalism for an article exposing unethical fund raising by SPLC.

How does this fund razing scam work? In 1987 SPLC sent out a letter implying that they had forced the United Klan’s of America to pay $7 million to the mother of lynch victim Michael Donald, the facts are that SPLC paid her $51,874.70, kept the balance of collected funds as well as the funds from the solicitation letter. Naturally the fact that the United Klan’s of America never had $ 7 million is not mentioned anyplace.

Pamela Summers another disgruntled former employee of SPLC as reported in the Montgomery Advertiser said, “What they are doing in the legal department is not done for the best interest of everybody [but] is done for the sole, overriding goal to make money. [Many] associate the SPLC with going to court. And that’s why they get money. And they don’t go to court” The amount of litigation by SPLC is minute when compared with their purse, additionally most cases litigated remain unresolved only a small number have ended in a profitable outcome for SPLC.

The next question is, is SPLC racist? Since it’s founding in 1971, 39 years ago SPLC has hired a total of two black staff lawyers both quit stating that they were unhappy working there. Of 13 former black employees the Montgomery Advertiser interviewed 12, all of them complained about racial problems during their employment. In an article in Harpers Magazine entitled “The Church of Morris Dees”, November 2000, it sited that the entire legal staff of SPLC resigned over Dees’s refusal to address such issue as poverty, homelessness, voter registration and other issues.

Why should you even care? In 1986 four staff lawyers resigned from SPLC. Randall Williams who had started Klanwatch ® in 1981 was one of them. He stated, “We are sharing information with the FBI, the police, undercover agents. Instead of defending victims we are more of a snoop outfit, an arm of law enforcement.” The problem here of course is that SPLC has an ulterior profit motive to invent as many as possible hate mongers in order to inflate their coffers by the mostly Jewish fools who send them money. I do not think it unrealistic to say that 30% of the organizations listed by SPLC have less than ten members and of the individuals listed 80% are benign.

Such cases are SCV, (Sons of Confederate Veterans) and LOS, (League of the South). To claim either of these organizations as a potential threat to society and America as SPLC does can only be considerd stupid. LOS members have run in the last three presidential races, many are professors and doctors, and none have ever advocated any violence to anyone. SCV are a historic organization that tries to preserve Southern Heritage, they are non-political and both organizations have Jewish, as well as black members. Just because Dees and his troop of psychopaths disagrees with them does not make them bad.

One of the major problems with SPLC is the fact that the FBI as well as numerous police department avail themselves, for fees, of politically and socially tainted information from SPLC that with a broad brush paints anyone and everyone not PC and in concurrence with Dees and co. as potential terrorists. In fact a large part of SPLC budget is paid for by such services contracted for by government employees trying to maintain their Cultural Marxist political status.

Stephan Bright another former SPLC official told USA Today, ”Dees is a fraud who has milked a lot of very wonderful, well intentioned people.”

You surely all remember the black church burning issue that was so hotly contested in the lamestream media, all the false information was propagated by SPLC as announced in Washington by Dees in April of 1996 when he stated, “Those [Black] churches that have been burned in the South were certainly burned by racists” The lie was picked up by the FBI and after a long investigation of over 900 church burnings in Southern states the FBI and BATF concluded that the almost all were destroyed by their own parishioners in effort to collect on fire insurance policies, the lamestream media that had prominently featured the church burning issue all failed to report that it was a hoax from SPLC, that they all continue to quote as a paragon of virtue.

Dr. Krieg is an author, columnist, and inventor and member of LOS.

A Response to a Yankee

2010-08-17T19:23:00.001-04:00

Bellow, a recent response of mine to a Yankee. The other side of the conversation is self evident:

"A rational man when faced with situations that have gone terribly wrong, as we in this country unquestionably have, seeks to find out where the mistake that led to the wrong occurred; firstly to try and understand how to fix it; secondly to learn from that mistake so that it can be avoided again.

History, true history and not some myth made up to justify ignoble actions or support some currently peddled ideology, is the primary source of identifying a nation's mistakes as well as it's laudable actions. The purpose is not to "hate" or to accuse the descendants of those who made the mistake of wrong doing.

The term "Yankee" refers to a historical foe of the Southern United States, the Confederacy, and those descendants of the historical Yankees who still feel the action against the Confederacy was appropriate, justified, and led to a better situation for all the people of the once "United" States. (We call Southerners who feel the North's action in the Civil War was appropriate or justified, "scalawags".) Neither term is one of endearment, and in some people, does rise to the level of "hatred".

I, myself, cannot respect the judgment of anyone who feels denying the right of secession to the Southern States was appropriate or laudable, when the very act that formed the "United States" a mere 90 years earlier was secession from Great Britain and claimed as the right of all and any people in the Declaration of Independence:

"— That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government."

Nothing of which I am aware could be more hypocritical than the armed invasion of the South to prevent secession from standing. The facts are that the very reason we are where we are today is because of this grievous mistake: the abandonment of the rights of the states to limit the power of their central government and the act of enforcing that denial of rights by force. This also resulted in the murder of 350,000 southern soldiers who were only trying to defend the right or their states to secede, and 50,000 Southern civilians who were "collateral damage" at the hands of people like Sherman and Sheridan (if this latter fact is not too irrelevant for your consideration). The only tools of the states in controlling the central government are 1) secession, 2) threat of secession, and 3) nullification.

You may feel that dwelling on these issues from the past is pointless and you consistently refer to your desire to "live in the present" and deal with the future. But what you fail to realize is that the present as well as the future are the products of the past and its results in the present; and that if the future is to be made a better place, we must understand and correct the path that led us to today's unacceptable governmental situation.

As to your contention that Southerners are not belittled or looked down upon by the Northern United States and the West Coast, are you so accustomed to the belittlement and disparaging characterizations of Southerners that you don't even notice them (particularly since they are not directed at you)? Do you go to movies, do you listen to the news, do you read novels? Tell me the last time in any of these venues have you seen a Southerner, other than a scalawag like Jimmy Carter, portrayed in a positive light? Why are Southerners always portrayed as stupid, racist, red necks, and white trash?

But don't just accept my observations; listen to what a Harvard scholar, Professor Eugene Genovese had to say in the recent Massey Lectures at Harvard:

"Eugene Genovese, a distinguished historian of the South--a northerner and a man of the left--has been a rare voice in criticizing this purge of the Southern tradition from the academy (Academia). In the Massey Lectures given at Harvard, he had this to say: 'Rarely these days, even on southern campuses, is it possible to acknowledge the achievements of the white people of the South...To speak positively about any part of this southern tradition is to invite charges of being a racist and an apologist for slavery and segregation. We are witnessing a cultural and political atrocity--an increasingly successful campaign by the media and an academic elite to strip young white southerners, and arguably black southerners as well, of their heritage, and, therefore, their identity. They are being taught to forget their forebears or to remember them with shame.'

"This condition is not going to change overnight. Those who created it are tenured, and will dominate in higher education for at least a generation-- and even longer since they are disposed to hire and tenure only their own. Even so, there are many scholars in America and abroad who take inspiration from the Southern tradition, and many others who are open to what it has to teach. Students too are open. Many feel they are somehow encountering on campus a profound intellectual and spiritual disorder, but they do not know how to think about it." -- Professor Donald Livingston, Abbeyville Institute, Tenured Professor of Philosophy, Emory University

This process is better known around the world as "cultural genocide" and if you are unaware of its presence in the United States, you are either ill informed, uncaring, or not listening."

SWR's Roy Norris
Deo Vindice
Conquered but Never Defeated
http://www.southernwarroom.info/

Community and Heritage

2010-08-17T01:47:00.000-04:00

By David Ware

“The South was always proud and independent and believed with the Founding Fathers, that centralized and powerful government invariably slides into tyranny. But the North, less proud, less conscious of national tradition, less independent, less manly in many ways, craves the dictator’s hand, the tyrants force, for many of its people have come from nations whose people were subjected to and dependent on government. It may be, in the future, that it will be the South who will prevent, for many long decades, the collapse of American Freedom into Caesarism.” Taylor Caldwell, from “Captains and the Kings”

It has been said that the Southerner is the last of America’s people to know who they are and where they come from. This is because the people of the South have a deep and devout attachment to their heritage and community. They are able to trace their ancestry back to the War to Prevent Southern Independence, the Revolutionary War and beyond. Their parents, grandparents, great grandparents, great-great grandparents and great-great-great grandparents knew one another. They loved their land and home place. Names were given to the homes of Southerners: My family had Windsor, Sunnyside, Hard Bargain, Plumsite, Lombardy, Pinewoods, Bellevue and others. These were the places where our ancestors raised their families with other like minded people to be self responsible, productive members of a cohesive community.

This relationship is a complex connection between people, their land and nature. All neighbors are included in an intense personal bond to ancestors, the self, family, the land and its inhabitants. Arts to the Southern people more to do with hospitality, hunting, fishing, conversation and vegetable gardening than with rock concerts and the signing bonuses of professional athletes . Their definition of “mind your own business” is forged by a mutual respect for the rights and property of the individual.

Tied to the love of the dollar, the Yankees are Nomads wandering to advance “careers” and to always position themselves to make as much and spend as little money as possible. They typically have no heritage that they know of, bluster on about forgetting the past and “planning” for the future. They are self proclaimed soothsayers who predict their future based on government programs, laws and bailouts. To them, a community is complete because they are in it. They believe that the tyrannical forces of planning, zoning, building regulations, taxes and laws perpetuate true community. They prefer to live in a subdivision with a guard at the gate craving the “dictators hand” of homeowners associations , their idea of connection to nature has to do with lawn care and walking the dog. Freedom, to the Yankee mentality, is the elimination of self responsibility and worry and a plethora of fast food choices, Costcos and WalMarts.

Their mindset wants cell phones with no cell towers, electricity with no generating plants, gasoline with no oil refineries, airplanes with no airports and less taxes with more government spending. This makes perfect sense to their culture that teaches that you spend to save, borrow to get out of debt and kill for peace.

We Southern people must cure ourselves of Republican and Democrat Part thinking. We have no friends in either major party. We do our ancestors a disservice to pay homage to these people as they and their policies run counter to everything our ancestors stood for. We need to pay more attention to our complete heritage starting with the hospitality of Pocahontas, the brilliance of Jefferson, the example of Washington, the perseverance of Calhoun, the chivalry of Lee, the determination and valor of Jackson and most of all to the idea that we are descended from the heirs of limited government, individual freedom and personal responsibility.

We should cease supporting wars of foreign aggression. Our ancestors fought to be left alone and we, of all people, should respect that desire when it unfolds against our military and political presence. We are descended from people that knew the pain and dismay of having our homes and families devastated by an unprincipled aggressor. How can we support efforts to bend foreign countries under the heavy foot of the U. S. might while lamenting the same thing when it was done by the same mentality against our people?

The Demise of The Southern Woman

2010-06-15T07:20:00.002-04:00

In Southern Lady,
By Lydia McGaughey Sherman.

In the past, Southern ladies were always looked to as an example of propriety, hospitality, and femininity. It is sad to see them losing their culture. It was a culture that led the way in manners and religion. In the years that the South was referred to as “The Bible Belt,” Southern women led in the teaching of modesty in clothing and behavior to Christian women. It was disappointing to hear Paula Deen speak. On one of her shows, she announced: ” I’m Paula Deen. Y’all want some fried chicken and beer?” On another, she related that she had divorced her first husband, followed by a huge laugh. Perhaps she does not know the enormity of what she represents to the rest of the country. In time of war, it was the Southern women who saved their homes by offering their gentle hospitality to soldiers who might have otherwise burned their property. It was those quiet, gentle, southern women that faithfully taught their children Bible lessons while the men were away. Southern women have always had a strength and determination, and when they use it to preserve the family, and adhere to the principles of the Scriptures, they reach their true glory. The south will never “rise again” until that sweetness and modesty is restored in its women. We recently had a visitor from Louisiana, an elderly man, who said, “You need to stop saying that the western states are a mission field. It is that way in the South, now.”

THE STRUGGLE FOR MEMORY

2010-06-14T12:28:00.000-04:00

Excerpts from Remarks Celebrating Confederate Memorial Day
Old Warrenton Cemetery Confederate Gravesite
Sponsored by Black Horse Camp #780
Sons of Confederate Veterans
May 30, 2010
by Thomas Moore

The hallmark of a healthy, vibrant People is their stories, traditions, folklore, tales, and legends, both the true and the mythic. In rich, viable cultures, it’s not just the rulers or politicians or captains of industry who are celebrated, but also the historians, the bards, the storytellers. These individuals are the repository of the collective memory of a People. Without it they have no i dentity. And with no identity, with no “individuation” as a worthy and distinct People, their society has no sense of purpose or direction. A People with no knowledge of their history, with no collective memory, have literally become senile. Collectively, they are just as dysfunctional as an individual with acute Alzheimer’s disease.

I believe we Southerners are a distinct People, with our own particular folkways, traditions, customs, music, speech, and a common history lived out in a shared space. In essence, we are an authentic nation. In fact, I believe we are the last authentic Western civilization in the historic sense of the word “civilization,” especially in contrast to today’s America, with its militant secularism, tawdry commercialism, and infantile celebrity worship that pass for civilization. One thing that distinguishes us in today’s America is that we Southerners understand the truth that we a re what we remember. We are a people rich in memory.

You can see this in our continued reverence for our heroes – especially the distinguished Southerners who were the main figures in founding America as a great constitutional republic, a confederated union of sovereign states, as created by the Founders in 1787. And we honor equally those who fought to keep it so from 1861 to 1865. They sacrificed much to prevent it from degenerating into a unitary state, a virtually unlimited, authoritarian, centralized national polity, which is what the USA is today, thanks to the Northern victory in 1865.

For many decades after the War ended, the Southern people followed the admonition of General Lee and other Confederate leaders to obey the law and conduct themselves as loyal Americans. When Federal occupation ended in 1877, the South found itself being ac cepted, slowly, grudgingly, because America’s expanding commercial and political ambitions needed our proven valor and military aptitude. And of course, our vast natural resources and our tax revenues.

In the 1890’s a kind of social truce emerged between North and South, sometimes called the “Grand Bargain.” Under this truce the North agreed to stop demonizing the South. They acknowledged the South had been sincere and honorable in The War, although misguided in trying to break up the Union. They agreed that the courage and dedication of the Southern armies were worthy of praise, even in a wrong cause. Confederate heroes like Lee and Stonewall Jackson were honored as American heroes. Southerners were allowed back in the fold as citizens, though never quite on an equal footing with the rest of Americans.

In exchange for being allowed to erect our Confederate monuments, fly our flags, display our revered symbols, and pay tribute to our heroes, the South conceded it was best for the Union not to have broken up. We became loyal, patriotic Americans, giving our full energies to building the country. We paid our taxes and sent our sons to fight America’s wars – and today even our daughters. We went along with the burgeoning American empire because that is what the powers decreed.

The South has kept this bargain many times over. No part of the country has been more loyal and more patriotic than the South. The Stars and Stripes fly more ubiquitously in the South than in any other region. In every war from 1865 to the present, Southern men have served bravely, representing a disproportionate share of the enlisted ranks and officer corps -- and of the dead and wounded. Nearly half today’s casualties in Afghanistan are from the 14 Southern States.

But sadly, the Grand Bargain has been broken, even while we Southerners are expected to continue living up to it. As Dr. Clyde Wilson, one of the South’s most distinguished historians, has said, “Our Confederate heritage is being banished to a dark little corner of American life labeled ‘Slavery and Treason.’ The people who seek to destroy our heritage are not folks we can win over by presenting historical evidence and assuring them we are good, loyal Americans free of hate. They could not care less about truth or heritage. We are not in an argument over the interpretation of the past. Our very identity as Southerners -- today and tomorrow, as well as yesterday -- is at stake.”

And the people cited by Dr. Wilson are not just Liberal Democrats and the perfervid ranks of the radical Left. They include so-called conservative Republicans as well. I know from exp erience, up close and personal and from the inside: the Republican Establishment to which so many Southerners have given their loyalty secretly despises us as much as the Democrats. In fact, the more loyal we are, the more the GOP Insiders and Neo-Cons despise us.

Today our ruling elites and their media lapdogs equate this Flag with the Nazi swastika, and the men who fought under it with Hitler’s legions. General Lee, a leading voice after the War for racial as well as political reconciliation, is dismissed with contempt as leader of an army of slave-drivers

Need I remind anyone here what happened when Governor Bob McDonnell recently tried to revive Virginia’s time-honored practice of honoring her Confederate history? The might of the establishment fell on him in full fury. The clamoring voices of moral sanctimoniousness insisted the Confederacy c ould only be cited if it was characterized as an exercise in treason, and that its soldiers fought only to enslave others. The Governor of course back-pedaled. He tried to apologize. He clearly hadn’t yet learned that you can never apologize enough or abase yourself abjectly enough before the altar of Political Correctness. I guess he knows it now.

The latest assault of the Marxist attempt to re-write history is by Roland Martin of CNN. In an April broadcast he attacked Governor McDonnell’s Confederate History proclamation, claiming -- his words – that “celebrating the Confederates is akin to honoring Nazi soldiers for killing of Jews during the Holocaust,” and that Confederate soldiers should be considered "domestic terrorists."

Do you feel insulted, or worse, assaulted? If not, you should. This is a gross insult – to you and to me a nd to the truth. But it’s more than an insult, as bad as that is. It’s more than a malicious lie borne of Political Correctness.

This kind of expunging of memory has profound and troubling political implications. Such acts have been the trademark of totalitarian regimes throughout the ages. The Communist dictator Stalin understood this principle. He said, “Who controls the past controls the present.” If despots can make you believe a false story about the past, they can control and manipulate your actions in the present for their selfish purposes. If they can label you as an enemy of the state, then you’re fair game and defenseless.

Stalin went to extraordinary lengths to expunge the names and images of his one-time colleagues and later rivals like Kirov and Trotsky from the pages of books and newspapers. Hitler had the ancestral village of his natural grandfather razed and tried to eliminate its very memory (from a fear the man was Jewish). The Jacobins of the French Terror, Mao Tse-Dong and the Red Chinese, and the Khmer Rouge all engaged in this most common behaviour of despots: warring against history and erasing memory. It recalls to us the words of Czech writer Milan Kundera: “The struggle of man against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting.”

These are the ominous parallels with the campaign against Southern history and identity. This attempt to expunge memory and re-write history is a form of aggression. It’s a key strategy in the “cold civil war” raging in our country. It’s part of a new political paradigm that supersedes the old Left-Right paradigm. It supersedes the false dichotomy of Republicans versus Democrats, who are really just two wings of the same bird of prey, simply two gangs fighting over the spoils.

The real conflict today is between those who still cling to an older tradition of human dignity and liberty versus those who seek to control, exploit, and plunder their fellow man. It’s between those who still worship and serve God and those who worship and serve the state.

The relentless campaign of hatred, vilification, and elimination of all things distinctly Southern from the public sphere is not an inconsequential matter. It tells us our culture is marked for extinction. And why do the power elites want to destroy it?

Because the old Jeffersonian idea of personal responsibility, individual liberty, and limited government is the Southern political ideal. And that ideal is precisely the target. To eliminate it, Southern history and memory which have nurtured it, must be destroyed. And if the culture which shelters these ancient ideals is destroyed, then the liberty which sprouted and flourished in its soil, the personal freedoms which it sustains, will not be far behind.
Seen in this light, the cause of the South and the preservation of its memory, its traditions, and its symbols is the cause of decent men and women everywhere who love liberty and seek to live in dignity.

Thomas Moore is Chairman of the Southern National Congress.

TWO INSPIRING SIGHTS

2010-05-24T18:49:00.000-04:00

By Bob Hurst

There was once a time in America when all across the Southland the melodious and uplifting strains of "Dixie" were heard during athletic contests, parades and many other social gatherings and occasions.

There was a time when Southern schools taught of the nobility and character of Robert E. Lee, the military genius and absolute goodness of Stonewall Jackson, the boldness and flair of Jeb Stuart, the audacity and brilliance of Nathan Bedford Forrest and the courage and honor of Jefferson Davis.

There was a time when monuments and statues were regularly raised on courthouse lawns to honor the deeds, the devotion and the spirit of our Confederate ancestors and heroes plus celebrations were held at these iconic sites to remember the heroism of the remarkable Confederates who had fought so hard for the independence of the Southland.

But times change.

About five decades ago this country went through a paradigm shift and began a transformation to a place many of us were, and still are, uncomfortable with. The putrid wind of political correctness began blowing its foul fragrance across this land with especially severe impact on our beloved South. It became verboten to play or sing the wonderful "Dixie" at any of those venues where it had been so common before. Why, the student senate of my undergraduate alma mater, one of the most conservative universities in the country, even voted to have the school band stop playing that wondrous melody at home football games. I never imagined that even a handful of students at Auburn would have voted that way much less the entire student senate.

Another great Southern university, Ole Miss, was every Southerner's "other" favorite school because they were the "Rebels" and their fans waved the Confederate Battle Flag at athletic events. That, too, changed a few years back when a liberal administration banned the waving of the CBF in the stands at athletic contests. They even changed the school mascot from a well-recognized Southern gentleman figure to something absolutely indescribable.

Many other things of this nature have happened throughout our Southland as political correctness has come to dominate so many aspects of our lives and one of the primary targets for extinction by the PC crowd has been anything having to do with the Confederacy. That is why I found two recent events here in our hard-to-recognize-as-still-Southern state of Florida to be so gratifying and inspiring.

The first occurred on April 24 in Trenton, the county seat of Gilchrist County. On that date a brand new monument was dedicated to the Confederate soldiers who hailed from that part of the state. The key point about the dedication of this monument is that the memorial is located on the grounds of the county courthouse - a public place.

Now, there was a time when it was not unusual at all for Southern groups, primarily the United Daughters of the Confederacy, to have Confederate monuments erected on public property with the full cooperation of elected officials. This, sadly, has become a thing of the past. Too many city, county and state officials are now so afraid that someone might claim to be "offended" by any display of pride in the Confederacy that they meekly give in to the complaints of the Always Complaining People.

This is why it was so inspiring to me to watch two members of John Hance O'Steen Camp of the Sons of Confederate Veterans remove the covering from the monument and reveal to the large crowd in attendance the most recent memorial to our ancestors. I could also detect the pride felt by Camp Commander Clement Lindsey and camp member John Aulick, Jr. as they did the honors.

I know from previous conversations with Commander Lindsey that this was a project several years in the making and I can only say," Job well done, gentlemen, you did us all proud." Kudos to everyone involved in this remarkable project.

By the way, making this accomplishment even more gratifying is the fact that just a couple of years ago the officials in a nearby county had had a Confederate monument moved from the spot at the courthouse in that county where it had sat for decades.

Also remarkable was the good (and fair) coverage that the event received in the very liberal Gainesville SUN newspaper. The article even contained a picture and was located on the front page of the "Local and State" section. Good job, SUN!

Only two days later (April 26) and not far from Trenton, another wonderful event took place. In Cross City, the county seat of Dixie County, a Confederate Memorial Day celebration hosted by Dixie Defenders Camp,SCV, was held on the steps of the courthouse in that fine town. Not only was there a good-sized crowd in attendance but both the city commission and the county commission presented proclamations to the camp declaring that day as Confederate Memorial Day in the city and county. Among those in attendance in front of the courthouse were many people who worked inside the building and a number of elected officials.

As nice as all this was, the most electrifying moment of the day came when (by permission of the county manager and county commission) the Third National Flag of the Confederacy (the current governmental flag of the Confederacy) was run up the sole flagpole at the courthouse and remained there throughout the ceremony. The Third National did not fly alone, however, as just beneath it was hoisted a new Confederate POW flag that was designed by a member of the Dixie Defenders Camp.

I know how hard Camp Commander Joe Sparacino has worked over the past several years to develop a good rapport with the government officials in the city and county. It all paid off with this wonderful and inspiring event which I understand Commander Sparacino hopes to make an annual affair.

I had the privilege of being one of the two speakers for the event (Tampa radio personality Al McCray was the other) and I can say, without reservation, that I will always be proud of my participation in this great occasion and will always look back upon it with fondness.

Since I'm writing about fine events, let me conclude with a heads-up for everyone in this area about an upcoming event that you should fine interesting.

My very first CONFEDERATE JOURNAL article for this magazine, written almost five years ago, was about the terrible damage done by Hurricane Katrina to magnificent Beauvoir, the retirement home in Biloxi of President Jefferson Davis. The huge wave surge and winds did extensive damage to the house itself but simply destroyed the other structures on the property including the museum/library.

The Mississippi Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, owns and operates Beauvoir and has overseen the complete restoration of the wonderful old house which has been re-opened to the public. Now it is time to rebuild the museum/library and this, of course, will require financial support.

On June 19, 2010, Col. David Lang Camp, SCV, in Tallahassee will host a Jefferson Davis Banquet to help raise money for this rebuilding program. While the Mississippi Division holds title to the presidential shrine, this wonderful place is the responsibility of all true Southerners and especially those in the SCV, OCR, UDC, CoC and other Southern heritage organizations. I invite those of you living in this area to contact me about tickets to the banquet and if anyone reading this article would like to contribute to this worthwhile cause (any donation is appreciated) then please feel free to contact me about this. My contact information is at the end of this article.

Richard Flowers, the curator at Beauvoir, will be the keynote speaker for the evening and will also bring many items from the Beauvoir store (books, collectibles, etc.) which will be available for purchase by those in attendance at the banquet.

I plan for our camp to continue hosting this banquet annually at least until such time as the library/museum is completely rebuilt and again open to the public. I encourage you to help us make this first event a real success.

For the Cause.

DEO VINDICE

Bob Hurst is a Southern Patriot who belongs to a number of heritage, historical and ideological organizations. He has a special interest in Confederate history and the antebellum architecture of the Old South. He is Commander of Col. David Lang Camp, Sons of Confederate Veterans, in Tallahassee and is 2nd Lt. Commander of the Florida Division, SCV.

Slavery and Marketing the Sesquicentennial – or Insanity in Old Virginia

2010-05-12T07:09:00.001-04:00

By Bill Vallante

Friends of mine in Virginia recently alerted me to a colorfully entitled article, “Breaking the Chains,” which was featured in the online “Style Weekly” magazine.

READ IT HERE

The article praised and touted the more modern-day presentations of the “civil war,” i.e., those which focus on slaves (no mention of pro-southern slaves of course), women, southerners who fought for the union, and other irrelevant niceties. No mention in the article however, about these presentations drawing crowds that are a lot smaller than what “peecee” sesquicentennial organizers would like. One poster on a twitter page described the popularity of such celebrations thusly: “Ed Ayers & his 'Future of Richmond's Past' is having the same effect on heritage tourism in Richmond as would a good outbreak of cholera." (Couldn’t have said it better myself!)

The article especially highlighted the interaction and cooperation between Richmond Delegate Dolores McGuinn, a black woman who frequently pontificates and whose favorite words seem to be “reconciliation” and “emancipation”, and her sidekick Waite Rawls, noted (or “infamous”, depending on how you feel about him) Museum of the Confederacy director. The two have become fast friends it seems. Two other curators were mentioned, Maureen Elgersmann Lee, director of the Black History museum and Christy Coleman, director of the Tredegar Museum (the same museum that has the gift shop which sells those hideous Harriet Tubman bobblehead dolls).

I learned many things from this article –

I learned that Virginia Governor McDonnell’s “Confederate History Month” proclamation was “infamous.” And I learned that slavery is “America’s greatest trauma.”

I learned that we should rejoice now that “civil war” celebrations focus on slavery rather than on the men who fought in the war. I learned that modern day “Confederate sympathizers” have the wrong view of history but there are efforts afoot to fix this view. I learned that the war was all about slavery and that there appears to be no discussion to the contrary, at least not in

“hack-ademia,”

I learned that some people are still living in poverty because of slavery and that others are wealthy because of it, and that something needs to be done about that. They say we need something called “reconciliation”, which I guess means that someone needs to say they are sorry. (I just hope they are not expecting that someone to be me ‘cause there’ll be snowball fights in hell before that happens!)

I learned that black children can be “emancipated” by showing them presentations which tell them that the war was ALL about them, and by implication I suppose, that the world revolves around them. And I learned that when Christy Coleman was a character (slave) interpreter at Williamsburg, one tourist’s child kicked one of the other interpreters (I’m guessing the child was black and the interpreter was white. I’m also guessing, from what I read in the article, that no one had a problem with it).

I learned that Richmond needs to learn how to better “market” this “new” (or bastardized, if you prefer) version of history (because so far, this new version seems to be going over like a lead balloon in a snowstorm). And I learned that some people are dismayed and confused about the failure of Doug Wilder’s National Slavery Museum in Fredericksburg (which in recent times seems to be doing its best imitation of the “Titanic”.)

And finally, I learned what I knew years ago before I resigned my membership to the Museum of the Confederacy – that Waite Rawls’ head is buried so far up so many peoples’ collective posteriors that it would take a global positioning satellite to locate it and a heavy duty tow truck to pry it out.

So then, do I have any thoughts on this “Style Weekly” article? Gee, I thought you’d never ask!

MEMO TO: the folks at “Style Weekly,” and, to all those who complained that Virginia’s governor FORGOT to REMIND you of the “PAINFUL REMINDER (of slavery)”, and, to all those who seem to feel that the people of the past owe you an apology and that their descendents need to grovel at your feet, and, to all those who plan to turn the Sesquicentennial into a diversity dog and pony show and actually think they can make money marketing such insanity:

Who voted slavery "the greatest trauma in American history?" Coleman? Rawls? McGuinn? Elgersman? “Style Weekly”? Was there an election? Why wasn't I told? I would have like to have voted. I’m not sure what I would have voted for, but I know what I would not have voted for. I wonder how the Native American would vote if he were asked what was the greatest trauma in American history? I wonder how the families of those killed in the Twin Towers would have voted? In any case, it seems to me that the question, at the very least, is open to interpretation, and is a matter of opinion.

And speaking of opinion, I had no idea that the cause of the war, a subject which has sparked DEBATE since the war ended (ya'll remember what a DEBATE is, don't you?), had been resolved and is now written in stone? (I'm being sarcastic in case anyone hasn't caught on). But what do I know? I'm just a "Confederate sympathizer."

And what is it with this "infamous proclamation" stuff? The governor's proclamation to declare April "Confederate History Month" was not a governmental mandate. No one was compelled to run out into the street and sing "Dixie", wave a flag or scream that "the South will Rise Again!" It was a proclamation which addressed the history of a rather large group of Virginians whose ancestors participated in the event which resulted in America becoming a "nation" in the truest sense of the word. This is what we today call "infamous"? If you didn’t like it you were under no obligation to celebrate it. You could have left in peace your fellow citizens, who have repeatedly told you that they simply want to celebrate their “heritage” and that they don’t “hate” you, to do that which is important to them. But you didn’t. You whined, cried, and stamped your feet and threatened to break your toys. You made life miserable for not only everyone else but yourselves as well.

Allowing children to "kick interpreters"? If I had kicked a museum interpreter when I was a kid, my dad would have hit me so hard he would have knocked me into the following week. Moaning about why other people have more stuff than you do? And you should do exactly what, about this? Take some of their stuff away from them to even things out? In civilized societies, we call this type of thing “STEALING!”

Oh yes, and then there’s Doug Wilder's Slavery Museum, which claimed, on its website, that slavery as practiced by non-whites or in the ancient world was “different” from European or American slavery because slaves in non-white or ancient cultures weren't used as laborers. Instead it claimed that slaves in non-white or ancient societies were "status symbols." Examples given of "status symbols" were, "eunuchs" and "concubines". Ok, let’s have a show of hands….how many of y’all want to be eunuchs? What? No one wants to be a “status symbol?” And you folks can’t figure out why the National Slavery Museum has never even been able to even taxi away from the terminal, much less get off the ground?

All this angst and all this wondering about whether or not Richmond can ever make a financial go of promoting this new and enlightened version of history and whether or not such things will ever be a tourist draw? I submit the answer is right in front of your noses and in the article itself - in the annual visitor figures of the highly touted but nearly deserted Tredegar Museum. 21000 visitors per year? That’s an average of 60 people per day. I’ve seen more activity than that in a morgue! And at an average cost of $5pp. entry fee, how much money is this place taking in? $100,000/year? That doesn’t even pay the phone bill! Maybe “Style Weekly” should do a story on how much taxpayer money is being siphoned off to keep the sinking Tredegar ship afloat?

And I submit, that if Ms. McGuinn wants to “emancipate future generations of African American children,” that there are more practical things she could do – addressing a 70% rate of illegitimate births for one thing. Development of a cultural tradition stressing education as a means to success in this world and which rewards the child who does well in school, for another. Blaming people who lived in the past for doing what was common to their time and expecting their descendents to feel sorry and fall down on their knees groveling isn’t going to improve matters any. It won’t bring “reconciliation” and it certainly won’t bring in the tourist dollars, which leads me to my last point…

Living in and being from, the North, I can tell you with great certainty that there is no shortage of Northerners who are very interested in “the civil war.” Some are quite steeped in their knowledge of it and some are not. Some, like yours truly, cheer for the South. Others, as you might expect, root for the North. Still others, most in fact, don’t really give much thought at all to taking sides. Under normal circumstances, all 3 types would be inclined to travel to the South and in doing so, release their Yankee dollars into the Southern economy.

However, the last thing they want is to travel hundreds of miles to experience a "diversity" dog and pony show. Even those who go in for that sort of thing won’t do it. They can stay home, save the money and get the same crap right where they live. Exhibitions that focus on slaves, women, and southerners who fought for the north aren’t going to cut it. If y’all decide to go that marketing route, then get used to the stillness and deafening silence of the types found at the Tredegar Museum. Yes, there is a place for such things to be sure. But such things are not the “main course” when it comes to “the civil war.” No sane Northerner is going to travel hundreds of miles and spend a tons of money just to dine on the appetizer and leave without having the main course.

Northerners want to see where the battles were fought and learn about the brave men on both sides who fought in them. They want to learn about what these men did, see where they did it, and marvel that they had the courage to do it. And they want to pause and reflect - if they were in the same position, how would they behave, would they be as brave, and why? And they want to do that without a “peecee” interpreter telling them what they should be feeling and thinking.

Go ahead, ignore my advice. According to y’all, I’m just one of those “Confederate Sympathizers” so what do I know? Just make sure you prepare yourself for that “outbreak of cholera.”

Bill Vallante, wildbill4dixie@yahoo.com, is an associate member of the Jeb Stuart Camp 1506, a reenactor in the 9th Va. Inf., Co. C, and is living "behind enemy lines" in Commack, N.Y.

HONOR AND TRAGEDY

2010-04-20T13:01:00.001-04:00

By Bob Hurst

During the War for Southern Independence there were 425 individuals in Confederate service who officially held the rank of general officer ( brigadier general, major general, lieutenant general or (full) general). By the end of the War the South had lost 126 of these general officers. The majority of these losses, of course, consisted of generals who were either killed in action or later died of their wounds. Others resigned for various reasons and some died of natural causes among the varying reasons for this attrition.

To me, the most tragic losses are those that occurred that didn't have to happen. The greatest loss to the Confederacy in this category was that of General Stonewall Jackson who was mistakenly shot by Southern troops from North Carolina in the aftermath of the great victory at Chancellorsville. In the darkness of evening, Gen. Jackson and members of his staff, while riding through the woods, were misidentified by the North Carolinians as Federals and the Tar Heels opened fire on them. Death by "friendly fire" occurs in all wars but seldom with the devastating impact of this particular incident. The death of Gen. Jackson changed the entire outlook for the War.

While not as devastating to the Confederacy as the death of Gen. Jackson, the death of another Southern general has always saddened me because of the circumstances of the event.

The great Confederate warrior, General Nathan Bedford Forrest, was quoted as saying, " War is about fightin' and fightin' is about killin' ". Forrest was speaking of killing the guys on the other side - your enemies. War. of course, is about killing people and breaking things. As tragic as this is, it is sometimes necessary.

What is not necessary is for two warriors on the same side to take up arms against each other and this is what makes the confrontation between Confederate generals Lucius Marshall Walker and John Sappington Marmaduke both sad and tragic.

Both men were from outstanding families as were so many of the general officers of the Confederate Army. General Marsh Walker was from Columbia, Tennessee and was a nephew of the greatest citizen to ever reside in that fair city, President James Knox Polk. ( For those of you who might not be aware, the national headquarters of the Sons of Confederate Veterans is located in Columbia ). He was a West Point graduate and a successful businessman in Memphis when war broke out in 1861.

General John Marmaduke was the son of a former governor of Missouri and had studied at both Yale and Harvard ( when that meant something ) before he graduated from West Point.

By summer of 1863, both Walker and Marmaduke had been promoted to the rank of brigadier general and were commanding a cavalry division in the District of Arkansas. The trouble between the two began during the Confederate attack on Helena ( Arkansas ).

In his post-engagement report of this encounter, Gen. Marmaduke questioned the competency of Gen. Walker and accused him of not pressing the attack which left Marmaduke's flank vulnerable. Marmaduke was so angry about this failure to act by Walker that he failed to inform Walker of a retreat order which subsequently left Walker and his men in great danger.

As the Confederates fell back from Helena and advanced toward Little Rock, General Sterling Price ordered Walker and Marmaduke to combine forces. This enlarged force was under the command of Gen. Walker since he held seniority over Marmaduke. This entire situation was akin to a keg of dynamite being pushed closer and closer to an open fire.

The purpose of this combined force was to guard the approach to Little Rock. Once again ill feelings were stirred as Marmaduke believed that Walker again failed to pursue the enemy at a critical point and Marmaduke's troops were left in a dangerous predicament. Even worse, Marmaduke twice requested assistance from Walker and on neither occasion was the help forthcoming. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, Walker even failed to respond to the requests from Marmaduke.

When Marmaduke's troops finally reached safety in Little Rock, he quickly requested that his division be taken out of Walker's command and this was immediately approved by Gen. Sterling Price. It was related to Gen. Walker that Gen. Marmaduke had characterized his actions as "cowardly".

On September 2, 1863, Walker sent to Marmaduke a letter requesting a confirmation from Marmaduke of this characterization.This began a series of letters that went back and forth between the two camps and eventually the task of correspondence was passed by each general to a close friend. Walker chose Colonel Robert Crockett, a nephew of Davy Crockett, and Marmaduke chose Captain John Moore. By September 4, nothing had been settled through the exchange of letters so Col. Crockett, on behalf of Gen. Walker, demanded "the satisfaction due to a gentleman". On September 5, Capt.Moore, on behalf of Gen. Marmaduke, accepted the challenge to a duel.

Dueling had been outlawed in Southern states by this time but that made no difference. ( As a side note, those of you living in upper Florida or south Georgia may remember hearing or reading of the establishment of a " no man's land " between the two states where duels could be fought without occurring within the boundary of either state.) As the challenged party, Marmaduke's camp established the terms of the duel which included time, place and distance ( fifteen paces ) among others.

The duel took place at 6 A.M. on the morning of September 6, 1863. The second shot fired by Gen. Marmaduke struck Gen. Walker in the side passing through his kidney and lodging in his spine causing immediate paralysis in his lower body. As he was being taken into Little Rock for medical treatment, Walker asked his friend Crockett if he had hit Marmaduke with a shot. When told that he had not, he responded that he was happy he had missed since now Gen. Marmaduke could continue to provide service to his country.

Col. Crockett told Gen. Walker to not speak of death but Walker knew with certainty he would soon die and told Crockett that he desired to see his wife after he died so he could affirm to her that the defense of his honor necessitated the action that he took. He also asked Col. Crockett to tell Gen. Marmaduke that Marsh Walker forgave him and did not want him to be either prosecuted or persecuted for the duel. ( Charges of murder for dueling were soon dropped against Marmaduke.) General Walker died shortly after making this request - an honorable man to the end.

General John Marmaduke lived for more than 30 years after the War ended and accomplished much during these years culminating in his election as governor in Missouri where he died in office after serving for more than a dozen years.

It was written that John Marmaduke always regretted the fact and the circumstances of the duel. To my knowledge this was the only instance of a duel being fought during the War involving two Confederate generals. I'm sure that, considering the volatility of the relationships between many of the generals ( Forrest and Bragg, for instance ), the thought crossed many minds.Thankfully, in those other disagreements the contending parties determined that it was best to not war against your compatriots.

As tragic as the end result of this disagreement was, I cannot speak against the concept of honor. It seems to me that in this world in which we now find ourselves that honor is a trait that is in short supply. Would that it not be so.

DEO VINDICE

Bob Hurst is a Southern Patriot who belongs to a number of heritage, historical and ideological organizations. He has special interests in Confederate and Southern history and the Antebellum architecture of the South. He is Commander of Col. David Lang Camp, Sons of Confederate Veterans, in Tallahassee and also 2nd Lt. Commander of the Florida Division, SCV. Contact him at confederatedad1@yahoo.com

What the South Feared From Union With the North

2010-04-19T02:36:00.000-04:00

After the barbaric Nat Turner massacres occurred in August 1831, no one in the American South could sleep peacefully and without wondering if they would be alive in the morning. The over-population of the South with African labor first for Britain’s colonial empire, and later by New England slavers bringing more slaves to produce raw cotton for profitable Massachusetts mills, left what Jefferson referred to as “having the wolf by the ears.”

The Santo Domingue-Haiti butchery in the mid-1790’s alerted white Southerners of what a large population of Africans could do once armed and seized with rage, and by 1830 fanatic Northern abolitionists were agitating for a bloody race war in the South. And by the time of John Brown’s treason in 1859, the American South was no longer interested in a Union with those who fomented and financed the butchery of old men, women and children. What Nat Turner engaged in below was in no way “insurrection,” it was premeditated and heinous murder of defenseless Americans.

The following is a bit graphic and long, but an excellent reminder of what drove the lower South to secession. A question to ask today is why were the Northern abolitionists silent on practical and peaceful solutions for the eradication of African slavery, and why was it only bloody race war that they advocated?

By Bernhard Thuersam, Director
Well known researcher and historian
Cape Fear Historical Institute

What the South Feared From Union With the North:
With no large plantations, there were no large slaveholders, and the county typified older communities where slavery was passing by personal manumission; the slaves and freed Negroes outnumbered the whites to make a potentially dangerous problem. To 6500 whites, there were 7700 slaves and 1500 freed Negroes. Slave and free, all Negroes lived in intimate proximity to the whites, a situation which did not exist on large plantations where overseers came between the masters and field hands. Field hands in that sense scarcely existed in Southampton County.

The most successful plantations were operated avocationally by professional men, doctors and lawyers, since the plantation represented the aspiration of everyone. In the same way, many of the plantation-conscious farmers supplemented their agricultural incomes by working as artisans in small enterprises. Such a man was Joseph Travis, the honest coachmaker.

He had apprenticed to him a sixteen-year-old boy, who shared the bedroom of Mr. Travis’ foster son, Putnam Moore. Mrs. Travis, whose first husband had died, had a baby by Joseph Travis. This small family had no house servants as such. The few colored families of slaves lived in a single cluster of buildings around the farmyard and there was no distinction between house people and field hands. There the whites and blacks, working together and virtually living together, shared an hourly and constant companionship, and knew one another with the casual intimacy of members of the same family. Though everybody worked hard, the slaves were held to a fairly rigid schedule.

Working five days a week from roughly sunup until sundown, they had Saturday afternoons and Sundays off. They were encouraged to grow garden crops for themselves on allotted plots of ground, either to fill out their diets according to personal tastes or for use in trade or barter. Skills were taught them and, as in other families like the Travises, who could not afford to free their lifetime investment, sometimes a Negro worked out his freedom at a trade.

Great attention was given to their religious education. They went to the whites’ churches, where the Methodist and Baptist preachers of the peoples’ religion evoked fiery and wondrous images, and they developed their own preachers, who supplanted the whites’. Such a Negro preacher acted as Joseph Travis’ “overseer.”

The overseer of this little family plantation, bearing not even unintentional similarity to Simon Legree, merely acted for the owner with the few Negroes who worked on the farm. With Joseph Travis busy at his coachmaking, somebody had to be in charge of the work, though The Preacher extended his leadership over the total lives of the three families in the Travis farmyard, and exerted considerable influence over other Negroes in the scattered community.

He always said that Mr. Travis was a very kind man, maybe even too indulgent with his people, and Mr. Travis regarded The Preacher as something of a privileged character. He had been born in the county of an African mother and a slave father, who ran away when The Preacher was a child. He had been raised by his grandmother, who worked on his religious education, and by his mother, who was deeply impressed with the child’s gift of second sight.

When the owners’ attention was called to his precociousness, they encouraged him to read and gave him a Bible. He culled the Bible for predictions and prophesies which he used to impose his visions on his fellow slaves. He found portents in the sun and moon, portentous hieroglyphics in leaves and suchlike, and in general created of himself a mysterious figure of supernatural gifts.

The Preacher did not regard himself as a humbug in imposing on his fellows. He actually believed he could read signs in the sky. “Behold me in the heavens,” the Holy Spirit said to him, and he beheld and he knew. He knew the signs were directing him toward a holy mission. In the spring of 1828, he heard a loud noise in the heavens and, he said, “The spirit instantly appeared to me and said the Serpent was loosened, and Christ had laid down the yoke he had borne for the sins of men, and that I should take it in and fight against the Serpent, for the time was fast approaching when the first should be the last and the last should be free.”

The twenty-first of August was a Sunday, in the season when the white people spent the day away at camp meetings. In The Preacher’s cabin, his wife was fixing Sunday dinner for their child. In the woods below the fields, six of The Preacher’s disciples were gathered in the glen, where to a Sunday feast they added some of the apple brandy which was always handy to acquire. Only one of them belonged to Mr. Travis – Hark Travis, a magnificently and powerfully built black man. Two others, Sam and the ferocious Will Francis, belonged to one of Mrs. Travis’ brothers. As farms were relatively few in the sparsely settled and wooded country, all the Negroes were intimately acquainted.

The Preacher, after his custom of keeping himself aloof, joined the frolic in the middle of the afternoon, when several hours of feasting and drinking had his followers in receptive humor. From then until full night he coached them in the details of his predestined mission in which they were to be allowed to participate.

At ten o’clock they left the woods and silently approached the dark farmyard of the Travis house. All lights were out in the house where the family, tired from their trip to the camp-meeting, were asleep. In the farmyard stood a Negro named Austin, who joined them, and brought The Preacher’s band to eight.

The seven followers went to the unlocked cider press while The Preacher studied the situation. When the silent man returned, The Preacher directed Hark, the Apollo, to set a tall ladder against an upper story window sill. The Preacher climbed the ladder, stepped through the open window, and tiptoed through the familiar house down to the front door. When he opened it, his disciples crept in. The fearsome Will Francis held a broadax and one of the men gave The Preacher a hatchet. Without any other weapons, the eight men crept into the master bedroom, where Mr. & Mrs. Travis were asleep.

When The Preacher stood over them, he paused, looking on the face of the kindly man who had given him so many privileges. The other Negroes told him the leader must strike the first blow. After another pause, The Preacher struck suddenly and awkwardly down at the sleeping man.

The hatchet glanced off, giving a blow to the side of the head. Mr. Travis, startled into wakefulness, struggled out of bed, sleepily calling for his wife. When his bare feet touched the floor, Will Francis, with no confusion of purpose, brought the broadax down on his head in a single long stroke. Without another sound, Mr. Travis fell dead to the floor. Whirling, Will came down with the broadax again, and Mrs. Travis died in her bed without ever coming fully awake.

The sounds had not aroused the two sixteen-year-old boys – Mrs. Travis’ son, Putnam Moore, and the apprentice, Joel Westbrook – asleep in the same bed in a room in another part of the house. They were killed before they were awakened.

Last, The Preacher went into the baby’s room. He had often played with the child and fondled it, and the baby smiled at him when he woke up. The Preacher backed out, unable to touch the child, and sent in Will and another follower to knock the baby’s brains out against the brick fireplace.

With the house theirs, they took four shotguns, several muskets, powder and shot, and exchanged their clothes for garments of the dead men. To give a dash to their new costumes, they got some of the red cloth with which the top of the gig was lined and tore that into sashes to go around their waists and shoulders. The material gave out and they made other strips from sheets, which they dyed in the freely flowing blood. The Preacher felt that this unit was now ready to serve as the nucleus around which all the slaves of the county would rally.

With some of the force mounted on Travis’ horses, they went to the small farm owned by Mrs. Travis’ brother, who was also the brother of the owner of Sam and Will. This younger Mr. Francis, a bachelor who lived with his one slave in a single-room house, came to the door when Will and Sam called to him that they had a message from his brother.

When he opened the door they grabbed him. He was a strong man and he fought, calling to his loyal slave for his gun. One of The Preacher’s men shot Mr. Francis’s slave, Nelson, who managed to stagger to the back door and escape in the darkness to the woods. He started out to give the alarm to his master’s brother, the owner of Will and Sam, but he didn’t make it that far. Mr. Francis was finished off before Nelson had reached the woods, going down under repeated blows from the hatchet.

From there The Preacher’s band walked on through the night to the home of Mrs. Harris, a widow with several children and grandchildren. Unbeknownst to themselves as they slept, this family was spared through the agency of their slave, Joe, who joined The Preacher on the condition that his people be spared.

With their first recruit, the band descended on the home of the widow Reese, whose front door was unlocked. They killed her in her sleep, her son as he awakened, caught the white farm manager who tried to escape in the darkness. He got off with his life by feigning death, though he was forever after crippled.

By then other slaves, too frightened to defend the whites but unwilling to join the insurgents, had fled before the band, and nearby plantations were warned. Not willing to risk losing any of his eight followers, The Preacher changed his course.

At sunrise on Monday morning they reached the substantial home of the widow Turner…Mrs. Turner’s manager was already at work at the distillery beside the lane to the house. He was shot and stripped, his clothes going to the last recruit, the Joe who had saved his own people. Mrs. Turner and a kinswoman were awakened by the shot and came downstairs to bolt the door. The fearsome will battered the door down with several strokes of his ax, and the two women were grabbed in the hallway.

While they pleaded for their lives, Will went about his skillful work of execution on Mrs. Turner, and The Preacher pulled Mrs. Newsom, trembling violently, out of the door. He kept striking her over the head with a sword he had acquired. The edge was too blunt to kill the screaming woman and Will, turning from the corpse of Mrs. Turner, methodically finished off The Preacher’s victim with his ax.

They got silver there and more decoration for their costumes, and when they left the silent plantation at full daylight their number had spread to fifteen. They divided, those on foot under The Preacher swinging by the Bryants’, where they paused to kill the couple, their child, and Mrs. Bryant’s mother, before joining the mounted force at the pleasant establishment of Mrs. Whitehead.

When The Preacher’s force got there, Mrs. Whitehead’s grown son had already been hacked to death in a cotton patch while his own slaves looked on. Inside the house three daughters and a child, being bathed by his grandmother were dead. Will was dragging the mother of the family out into the yard, where he decapitated her, and a young girl who had hidden was running for the woods. The Preacher caught her and, his sword failing him again, beat her to death with a fence rail. Another daughter, the only member of the family to survive, had made it to the woods where she was hidden by a house slave.

When they left the seven dead and mutilated bodies at the Whiteheads’, The Preacher’s band had grown and acquired more weapons and horses. They had also drunk more cider and brandy, and they moved boldly ahead to continue the massacre although they knew that the alarm was out by then. Several of the next small plantations in their line of march were deserted. The band divided again, with Will the executioner leading the mounted force toward the house of his own master, Nathaniel Francis, the brother of The Preacher’s Mrs. Travis and of the bachelor whose slave, Nelson, had been among the first to give the warning.

Though the warning had not reached the Francis plantation, a Negro boy had told Mr. Francis a wild tale of the slaughter of his sister’s family. Having heard nothing of The Preacher’s band, Mr. Francis and his mother were on their way to investigate the grisly scene awaiting them at the Travis household.

Two of Mr. Francis’ nephews, eight- and three year-old boys, were playing in the lane as the Negroes rode silently toward them. The three-year-old, seeing the familiar Will, asked for a ride as he had many times before. Will picked him up on the horse, cut off his head, and dropped the body in the lane. The other boy screamed and tried to hide, but they were too fast for him.

Henry Doyle, the overseer, seeing this, ran to warn Mrs. Francis. He was shot dead in the doorway of the house, but not before he had warned Mrs. Francis. A house slave hid her between the plastering and the roof in one of the “jump” rooms, and kept The Preacher’s band away from her hiding place by pretending to hunt for her. When the Negroes had gone on, the house slave of necessity among them, Mrs. Francis came down to find the other house women dividing her clothes, including her wedding dress. One attacked her with a dirk and another defended her. She escaped to join her husband and be taken to safety.

When the band left the Francis plantation, the alarm by then was general and the Negroes were beginning to get drunk. They headed for the road to the county seat. They found more deserted houses, where faithful slaves had left to hide their masters, and met other slaves who had waited to join the insurrectionists. At young Captain Barrow’s the warning had been received and the overseer had escaped, but Mrs. Barrow, a woman of beauty, had delayed to arrange her toilet before appearing abroad. She tarried so long that the Negroes reached the house before she left. Her husband called to her to run out the back door while he fought from the front.

In leaving, Mrs. Barrow had the same experience with her house slaves as had Mrs. Francis. A younger one tried to hold her for the mob, while an older one freed her and held the young Negro woman while her mistress escaped. In front, Captain Barrow emptied a pistol, a single-shot rifle, and a shotgun, and fought with the butt of the gun across the porch, through the hall, and into the front room. He was holding them off when a Negro on the outside reached through the window sill and, from behind, sliced his throat with a razor.

The Preacher’s men had great respect for Captain Barrow’s bravery. They drank his blood and spared his corpse mutilation. Instead, they laid him out in a bedquilt and placed a plug of tobacco on his breast.

It was ten o’clock Monday morning when they left there, and the two bands soon converged. They then numbered about fifty. The Preacher’s vision of a mass insurrection was coming true. White men were trying to form a force ahead of the band but some of the men, on seeing the bleeding and mutilated bodies of women, hurried back to their farms to hide their own wives and children. Hundreds of women and children were gathering in the county seat at Jerusalem, unaware that the band’s winding course was directed there.

On the way The Preacher’s formidable force passed more deserted places, but got its biggest haul at Walker’s country corner. A children’s boarding school was there and a large distillery, a blacksmith shop, and the wheelwright, and it had taken some time to gather all the people in the neighborhood. Before they could start for Jerusalem, the Negroes were on them. Some escaped to the screams of those being chased and butchered. More than ten were killed there, mostly children.

From the Walker massacre, the band headed directly for Jerusalem. By then eighteen white men had gathered with arms at some distance from the town, where four hundred unarmed people had collected. The Preacher’s band of sixty would have reached the town first except that his lieutenants overruled him when they passed the famous brandy cellar at Parker’s deserted plantation, three miles from town. They tarried there to quench their thirsts.

The eighteen white men came on them in Parker’s field and opened fire. In a short, pitched battle the boldest Negroes, leading a charge, fell, and most of the insurrectionists fled. The Preacher escaped with twenty of his most faithful followers, and headed for the Carolina border.

He was seeking new recruits then. They were slow coming in and victims were getting scarce. Late in the afternoon The Preacher, still supported by the Apollo-like Hark and Will with his broadax, allowed a single armed planter to hold off his band from a lady with two children. That planter’s family had already escaped to safety.

[After camping that night]…at dawn, The Preacher started for the large and handsome home of Dr. Blunt, one of the county’s few plantations of the legend, and on the edge of the district of yesterday’s triumph. Not seeking victims then, The Preacher wanted fresh supplies and recruits to put heart and strength back into the insurrection.

He reached the Blunts’ yard fence just before daylight. A precautionary shot was fired to see if the darkened house was deserted, as expected. Then the powerful Hark broke down the gate, and the group advanced toward the house, looking for salves to join them. The band was within twenty yards of the house when firing broke out from the front porch. Hark Travis, one of the original conspirators…fell wounded in the first volley. When The Preacher, shaken but grown desperate, tried to rally his force for an attack, another volley dropped two more. His men broke. At that moment, Dr. Blunt’s slaves came swarming out of hiding places, armed with grub hoes, and rushed the insurrectionists. The Preacher fled with his men, Dr. Blunt’s slaves rounded up several prisoners, including the wounded Hark, crawling toward a cotton patch.

Dr. Blunt, his fifteen-year-old son, and his manager had done the firing, while the women loaded single-shot rifles and shotguns. Before The Preacher’s men arrived, Dr. Blunt had given his own slaves the choice of fighting with his family or leaving. They chose unanimously to fight.

More in desperation than purpose [The Preacher] led the dozen remaining followers to retrace their triumphant steps of the day before. At the first plantation the Greenville County cavalry militia rode them down. They killed will, the ax-executioner, and killed or captured all except The Preacher and two others. The insurrection was over then, though the alarmed neighbors did not know it.

Following the Greenville cavalry, other militia units poured into the county during the next two days, and US Marines from Norfolk. The two men who had escaped with The Preacher were captured. Many who had followed the leader during the successful stages of Monday had returned to their homes. They were hunted down, some killed and others taken to jail. But The Preacher eluded them until the beginning of October.

While changing hiding places on another Sunday, he encountered a poor farmer in some woods. Like his neighbors, this Mr. Phipps was carrying a gun when he came upon the ragged, emaciated, and wretched-looking Preacher, who immediately surrendered.

No demonstration was made against The Preacher when he was brought to jail or when he and fifty-two others were brought to trial. Of these, seventeen were hanged and twelve transported. Of five free Negroes among them, one was acquitted, the others went to Superior Court, where one more was acquitted and three convicted. The Preacher confessed fully to his leadership and to the details of the murder of more than fifty white people.

With The Preacher’s execution, the case was closed and entered the record books as Nat Turner’s Rebellion.

In history, the unelaborated reference to “Nat Turner’s Rebellion” has been made so casually for so long that the tag has no association with the terror and horror of mass murder. Also, to the population of the United States today the slave insurrection in Haiti is a remote thing, part of the inevitable and the just march of events. But to the South, where white refugees had fled – at least one to Southampton County – the Haiti massacre was the dread reminder of what could happen to them. With Nat Turner, it had happened. The deep fear of the blacks’ uprising against them had been implemented. It was never to leave.

(The Land they Fought For, Clifford Dowdey, Doubleday & Company, 1955, pp. 14-22)

Slavery... the elephant in the room

2010-04-17T23:46:00.002-04:00

Ever since Virginia's governor restored the tradition in Virginia of declaring a Confederate Heritage month, everyone and their brother have come out of the woodwork to criticize his actions. They have complained of the "racism" of his declaration, and of his lack of declaring slavery as the cause of the war. We have seen similar complaints regarding schools named after Confederate heroes. These people act as if everything confederate should be redacted from the historical record due to this, and that anything even remotely honoring these men should be stricken down.

Let's examine that possibility for a moment: lets examine the possibility that we should eliminate slaveholders from the historical record.

George Washington: let's tear down the Washington monument, rename the district of Columbia and take white out to the dollar bill and a chisel to the quarter.

Thomas Jefferson : why not throw away the declaration of Independence, chisel his face off of the nickel, and do away with any monuments to his memory
There were 17 members of the Constitutional convention that were slave owners, and the document allowed slavery, so let's throw it away with the declaration.
Lincoln endorsed the "Corwin amandment" as a measure to end his war. The Corwin amendment would have specifically codified slavery as an institution not to be tampered with. He also signed the emancipation proclamation which left any slaves not in an "area of rebellion" alone. so, I guess we need to take down the Lincoln memorial, melt down all of the pennies and burn all of our 5 dollar bills ( i actually like the sound of that)
Alexander Hamilton was one of those slave owning members of the convention, so lets do away with the ten bill as well.
We also need to remove the $20 (Andrew Jackson), the $50 (Grant), and the $100 (Franklin) from service for the same reasons.
The capitol dome was built with slave labor, so don't put away those chisels just yet.
We also need to abolish black History month. why? continue reading.

Slavery, as an institution has existed for thousands of years, and on every continent but Antarctica... as far as we know; so how is it that the Confederacy alone, in it's five years as an independent nation, should bear the burden ? Slavery was a common practice both North and South since before the constitution, and continued into the constitutional era, as evidenced by the many mentions of "other persons" in the document itself.

we'll ignore the multiple millenia before the English began to settle in what would become America, likewise we'll also ignore the fact that people of every ethnicity have been slaves ( as it seems the media so often does) and we'll focus specifically on African slavery in what would become the United States.

In 1619, a dutch trading ship arrived at Jamestown, and traded his cargo, 20 Africans, for supplies. At this time there was nothing in the law concerning slaves, so these men were indentured servants, the same as many other colonists who came to the new world. One of these men was originally listed in the manifest as "Antonio, a negro", but later took the Christian name of the family that purchased him. He became Anthony Johnson. Johnson eventually paid off his debt and became a freedman. As a freedman he eventually bought servants of his own, including a man named "John Casor". At some point, John Casor ran away to the farm of another colonist, a Robert Parker. Johnson took Parker to court and won, the court declaring Casor to be his servant for life. THIS was the precedent for Slavery in America, a black man owning another Black man.

That's one part of history they don't discuss.

Slavery was, and is, a stain on American history, but it is a stain on ALL of our histories... North and South, white and black. you want to erase the honor and heritage of the CSA because of it, go ahead...
I'll meet you in D.C. to begin deconstruction shortly thereafter.

Defending the Southern Heritage

2010-04-16T03:31:00.004-04:00

by Clyde Wilson
Many good people have been working in recent years to preserve public acknowledgment and celebration of our Confederate history. Our fights have been largely defensive reactions to the innumerable strokes of our enemies, and most of them have been defeats. Our enemies control most of the "respectable" political, religious, educational, business, and media institutions of American society, including nearly all "Southern" institutions.

We have lost in part because many defenders of Confederate symbols have not understood the nature of the battle.Southerners are a conservative people. They prefer the traditional to the abstract and are slow to adopt new theories (one
of the several characteristics that distinguish them from other inhabitants of the United States). This is a good and healthy virtue, but like all virtues it can, if we are not careful, become a self-defeating rigidity. The conservative philosopher
Russell Kirk contrasted mere stand-patter conservatism of the dull-witted or poor in spirit who reject anything new with the true conservatism of an Edmund Burke or a John C. Calhoun who perceived that it was necessary to change in order to conserve because new conditions had created new threats to our patrimony.

Unfortunately, too many spokesmen in the fight for Southern heritage are stand-patters, i.e., dinosaurs on their way to extinction. They are trying to live in a world that they grew up in but which does not exist any more. The world that they
grew up in accepted Southerners and Southern heritage as a positive part of America. That world began disappearing a half century ago and is almost gone.

After Reconstruction, which all sensible Northerners came to realize had been a grievous mistake, most Americans, North and South, took the Road to Reunion. Southerners had to agree that they were glad that the Union had been saved and a
stronger America had emerged. (They were already genuinely glad of the end of slavery.) For the most part they did this with sincerity and enthusiasm (they had to if they had any hopes of personal success). Southerners became good and loyal
members of the new America. They have lived up to that pledge every generation since, in fact have been the most loyal of all Americans and done more than their fair share in every war.

As their part of the bargain, Northerners acknowledged that Southerners had been brave and honorable in their war for independence, and their heroes, like Lee and Jackson, would be celebrated as American heroes. (There were always a few
old Yankees around who wanted to exterminate the rebels, and indeed there still are, but they were a minority.) This is why "The Birth of a Nation," creation of D.W. Griffith, son of a Confederate soldier, could be regarded as a national epic at the beginning of the twentieth century. Will Rogers, another son of a Confederate soldier, was a nationalinstitution and he and Shirley Temple and many others portrayed very sympathetic Southern characters in the films of the
1920s and 1930s.

Gone With the Wind, book and movie, was an all-time bestseller in the North as well as the South. Every major male non-Southern Hollywood star in the 1950s and 1960s portrayed a heroic Confederate: Errol Flynn, John Wayne, Clark Gable, Allan Ladd, Charlton Heston, Richard Harris, Montgomery Clift, Henry Fonda, Ronald Reagan, and Richard Widmark, to name just a few. In all his best movies, John Wayne is a Confederate: "Red River," "The Searchers," and "True Grit," the last two based on Southern novels.

Confederate battle flags were seen among American fighting men, in real life and film, during World War II and Korea,and Vietnam. Douglas Southall Freeman’s R.E. Lee and Lee’s Lieutenants were celebrated as accounts of American military valor. When President Roosevelt inaugurated the first completed dam of the TVA, he did so on a platform that flew US and Confedrate flags.

That world does not exist any more! Defenders of Southern heritage should stop acting like it does. The people who want to do away with Confederate symbols are not people who will come around when you argue a little historical interpretation
with them, or when you point out (as you know to be true) that your forebears were not fighting for slavery, or prove that you are a loyal American whose heart contains no hate and violence.

They do not care! They have no heritage of their own and do not know what a heritage is. They believe in their own self-interest and fashionable abstractions. We do not and will not in the foreseeable future live in a world where Southern
heritage will be publicly honored except by us. We live in a regime where Confederate symbols are scheduled for complete obliteration. At present, we can expect no help from our own institutions, the politics of Southern states being
dominated primarily by Big Business.

Defending Southern Heritage
newspaper carries more weight with any politician than 20,000 Confederates at a rally, or any number of personal visits from earnest citizens. This is a fact.)

The Compromise is broken. Why this happened would take several books to explain. Northern society has periodically gone through fits of fanaticism which have focused upon us. When was the last time you thought about telling people in New York or Seattle what to do? Never, because it is not a part of our national character as Southerners. But hundreds of thousands of Northerners are thinking about you and about their right to suppress your evil ways. In their fantasy world,
which is the only culture of any significance they have, you are the evil obstacle to making the world perfect. They have always been that way.

It has nothing to do with you. It is their problem. It has nothing to do with the South except that the South lies convenient for their aggressions. They cover up their emptiness, hatred, hypocrisy, and insignificance by identifying you as the
Enemy. This is the way Puritans behave when they lose their religion. Our forefathers saw this clearly. It was that kind of society and people that they fought to be free of!

Many of our official defenders have not figured out that the Compromise no longer exists. In a recent legislative election in South Carolina, the leftwing candidate brought out a bevy of veterans and SCV members to publicly condemn the
conservative candidate because the conservative candidate was a Southern activist who allegedly would not repeat the Pledge of Allegiance.

It was as if the conservative candidate was one of the spoiled Yankee children who promoted treason in time of war in the 1960s. These good people are too blind to figure out that those 60s traitors are now in power in America and are the ones
who are hellbent on using their power to destroy every last vestige of our Southern heritage and identity!

This unfortunately represents the attitude of too many flag defenders. One despairs at such blindness. The compatriots I am talking about, however, can be educated. I have seen it done. Democrats and Republicans both, of the ruling establishment, are relying on this kind of stupid "patriotism" to kill off challenges to their power. Southern heritage is the first casualty of that power.

WAKE UP! It is not 1945 any more, or even 1975. You can either honor your Southern heritage and preserve your Southern identity, or you can give unthinking obedience to the America of today. You cannot do both without engaging in self-defeating contradiction.

Here are a few suggestions.
Don’t compromise. Compromise is only a defeat and a springboard for another attack. Don’t think that being a good sport will make the other side good sports. Who follows an uncertain trumpet? You will probably lose. But a loss on principle
preserves a rallying point. John C. Calhoun says: a defeat on principle is not an overthrow, while a victory by compromise is a defeat.

Be worthy of your ancestors. Don’t be a goody goody "American" humbly begging to be allowed to keep a shred of your heritage. You are a member of a great people who are under attack and have been betrayed by their leaders. It is needed to
defend the Southern people here and now and not just the noble Confederate soldier.

Think like a Southerner. We cannot defend just our Confederate forebears, as important as that is. They are but a part of Southern history. Lay claim to all of Southern history and culture, from Captain John Smith and Pocahontas to Dale
Earnhardt. To concentrate on Confederate history alone is to concede to the enemy that the Confederacy can be segregated off as an evil episode of slavery and treason. It also plays into the North’s everlasting tendency to claim anything Southern that is good, as "American," that is, non-Southern. George Washington is just as Southern as Robert E. Lee. Thomas Jefferson is just as Southern as Jefferson Davis. Andrew Jackson is just as Southern as Bedford Forrest. Alvin York, and
Audie Murphy, and the Alamo are just as Southern as Stonewall Jackson. Lay claim to all your heritage!

Avoid argument with the enemy and concentrate on educating yourself and members of our people, especially the young,not forgetting the many Yankees of good will. In Heritage Haters you are dealing with people who send their children to
private schools while busing yours and still think they are morally superior to you because they are in favor of busing and you are not. They are not interested in debate or evidence. Remember, they are not attacking your great-grandfather’s war:
they are attacking you! And, as we learned in the flag fight in South Carolina, this goes double for the academic "experts" in the war era, who are even less interested in evidence and perspective than the ordinary flag hater.

Defending Southern Heritage
Don’t be discouraged. So beautiful and powerful is our heritage that it has taken them decades to cut away as much as they have. It will take some time and hard work to recover lost ground. If you have to argue, turn the tables. The significant factor is the North’s motives! They are the ones who invaded us,violating the fundamental American principle of the consent of the governed.If you must debate, don’t make indefensible statements that will be laughed out of court, like the war was not about slavery, most Southerners did not own slaves, and an exaggerated count of black soldiers in the Confederacy. Yes, the war was partly about slavery, though not on their side and not as centrally and in the way that they claim. Counting families, approximately one-fourth of Southerners were owners of domestic servants, almost all of them of a few people who lived and worked closely with the family. Yes, there were a great many black Confederates who helped sustain the armies and
the home front, but not as enrolled soldiers.

Stop supporting federal government wars out of unthinking loyalty. For a long time the US armed forces had a chivalric Southern flavor. They now combine all the worst aspects of bureaucracy, imperialism, graft, affirmative action, and Political Correctness, in an atmosphere of moral depravity.

Cure yourself of Republican party thinking. What further proof is needed that the South and Southerners have nothing to expect from the Republican "conservatives" except payoffs to individuals to betray their people? As the Rev. Robert
Lewis Dabney pointed out long ago, the Northern "conservatives," in the entire course of American history have never conserved anything. George W., though raised in Texas, suppressed innocuous Confederate plaques. McCain, though a descendant of Confederates, branded our flag as a hate symbol to be suppressed. The Republican governor of New York banished the Georgia flag. Shortly after their candidate was elected President, the Wall Street Journal and NationalReview published pieces ridiculing Southern conservatives. The message was clear: Give us your votes and shut up. The worst thing that can happen to the South is to be turned into an appendage of the bland, principleless elements represented by the Republican party. Think like a Southerner, not like a knee-jerk "conservative." If Jesse Jackson causes a ruckus in Decatur, Illinois, applaud him. You can be sure that if he was making trouble in your town, Decatur, Illinois,would be cheering him on. They just don't want him to bother them.

My standpatter compatriots, if you want to be a good American as defined by the ruling institutions today, forget about your Southern heritage. But most Southerners care for family, place, Christian social order, courage, loyalty, honor – all
things besieged in America today. That is, after all, why we love our heritage.

Dr. Wilson is professor of history at the University of South Carolina and editor of The Papers of John C. Calhoun.

Good Lord Deliver Us From Those Who Don't Know Their History (but think they do)

2010-04-15T12:29:00.001-04:00

By Al Benson Jr.
Cake Walk Blogs

Somehow when the Governor of Virginia issued his proclamation noting April as Confederate History Month, I had a feeling those on the left would be slightly less than ecstatic. The political and theological left hates anything remotely Confederate. The St. Andrews Cross on the Confederate battle flag reminds them that St. Andrews cross is a Christian symbol and that just drives them up the wall. Poor babies!

However, this year the vitriol really has exploded. Virginia’s governor forgot to make mention of the left’s sacred cow--slavery--in his proclamation and that was enough to get the leftists all energized. They made such a fuss that the governor back peddled somewhat and made the rather foolish statement that the War of Northern Aggression was really fought to preserve slavery, which is a gross error. Politicians are, unfortunately, politicians. I commend him for his original proclamation. I am sorry he felt he needed to somewhat back out of it.

Is the War of Northern Aggression really over? Hardly. All you have to do is to check out the Internet and you will find that the ideological part of that war continues on until this day. Cultural “reconstruction” (cultural genocide) is alive and well in the hearts and minds of all Yankees (not all Northerners) and they continue to fight this war against the South and her people. Their goal is our destruction, theologically, culturally, economically--any way they can, and they sincerely hope we don’t resist too strongly. It will be easier for them if we all roll over and play dead as they stomp our faces into the mud with their jackboots.

I will cite one instance of how the war continues from an article on http://blogs.alternet.org written by Adele Stan. Ms. Stan’s rather bigoted viewpoint is surpassed only by her ignorance of real history. She mentions a trip she took to Virginia and she says “Soon I noticed we were traveling along a road called the Jefferson Davis Highway. I was stunned, and a bit sick to my stomach. How could it be that a highway was named after a man who made war against the United States, all so the citizens of his region could continue to hold human beings in chains? Had Ms. Stans been willing to do a little real research she might have found that the South did not secede only so they could keep their slaves. If that had been all it was about they could have stayed in the Union and kept their slaves. Lincoln had openly stated that he had no intention of abolishing slavery anyplace it existed. In fact, he was even willing to go along with the infamous Corwin Amendment which would have guaranteed slavery in perpetuity. Lincoln didn’t care about slavery until it became a propaganda issue for him that he could use as a war measure--the Emancipation Proclamation--which, supposedly, freed slaves in the Confederate States but left those in Northern-held territory in bondage. Ms. Stans seems to think the war, on the part of the Union, was a holy crusade to end slavery. She doesn’t know history. I wonder if she ever read The Lincoln-Douglas Debates and found Lincoln’s true views on black people, which were not complementary by any means.

And then she continued on by peddling that old abolitionist story about how all the slave owners were raping their slaves. She has to have been reading abolitionist literature to have come up with that one because that’s where it came from to begin with.

Ms. Stan continues on: “That throughout a significant swath of the nation, men who committed treason for the sake of maintaining chattel slavery are lauded as heroes speaks to a terrible illness in the American psyche.” Here again, Stan’s historical ignorance is showing. Secession was not treason. It was not forbidden by the US Constitution, and even Yankee politicians admitted to themselves, after the war was over and they had captured Jefferson Davis that should they attempt to try him for treason he would be found not guilty. That’s the only reason they released him from prison. They knew they didn’t have a case for treason against him. Burke Davis in his book The Long Surrender, on page 204, gave a quote by Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, telling Edwin Stanton that “if you bring these leaders to trial it will condemn the North, for by the Constitution, secession is not rebellion…His (Jeff Davis’) capture was a mistake. His trial will be a greater one. We cannot convict him of treason.” Right from the horse’s mouth! The words of the Yankee politicians themselves give the lie to Stan’s foolish postulations that the Southern leaders were guilty of treason. I would recommend Burke Davis’ book to Ms. Stans. She might learn something.

She fairly froths at the mouth about the Virginia governor’s proclamation and the very idea that the Southern states seceded over constitutional issues instead of slavery is one she refuses to accept. She claims that’s what her school books in the North taught her. Interesting. I grew up in the North and mine didn’t. She can’t get over this obsession that the war was fought only so the South could keep her slaves. That’s where she’s at and she refuses to be confused with the facts.

Stans notes that “the Confederacy lovers” and others are all pushing the states rights issue and she seems to rather dislike all the “10th Amendment groups” that are sprouting up all over. She attributes this to Obama’s being in office and she even ventures into the area of gun control, commenting that Obama has done nothing to try to change our existing gun rights. He just has no interest whatever in all that. Lady, if you really believe that all I can say is--well, maybe in the interest of Christian charity I’d better not say it. In a rare moment of “objectivity” she is willing to admit that Sherman’s burning of Atlanta was a war crime. On that one point, she is right on target, but the rest of her comments show an abysmal lack of understanding about the real reasons for the war and I don’t know who taught her the history she’s learned, but whoever it was ought to be denied tenure at any school in the land.

All this points to the fact that there is rabid hatred of the South, her people, her culture, and her religion in many areas of the country. There is room in the multi-cultural pantheon for everyone but the white Christian Southerner, and he is even to be denied normal civility. Do you get the feeling there is something wrong with this picture?

"The Great Locomotive Chase"

2010-04-12T12:49:00.001-04:00

By Calvin E. Johnson, Jr., Chairman of the National and Georgia Division Confederate History Month Committee for the Sons of Confederate Veterans and a resident of Kennesaw, Georgia —home of the famous Locomotive “The General.” cjohnson1861@bellsouth.net

April is Confederate History and Heritage Month!

ORDER HERE

2010 marks the 54th anniversary of Walt Disney Pictures great movie classic "The Great Locomotive Chase" starring Fess Parker and Jeffrey Hunter.

Our nation's most famous locomotive "The General" is now home at the Southern Museum of Civil War and Locomotive History in Kennesaw, Ga. Kennesaw is about 45 miles north of Atlanta on the Old Highway 41. http://www.southernmuseum.org

April 12, 2010, is the 148th anniversary of the "Great Locomotive Chase" that made "The General" famous. Jefferson Cain, an employee of the Western and Atlantic Railroad, was Engineer of The General. At 4:15 on the morning of April 12, 1862, Cain pushed the throttle of The General and drove the engine out of Atlanta, Georgia for Chattanooga, Tennessee as a cool spring rain fell on the city.
During the spring of 1862, the peaceful town of Big Shanty (now Kennesaw) was paid not so peaceful a visit by Union spies led by James Andrews, who brought with him plans to disrupt Confederate supply lines. Andrews and his men boarded the train at Marietta, Georgia. They had spent the previous night at the Fletcher House now (Kennesaw House). Twenty boarded the train while two were left behind.

The next stop was the Lacy Hotel in Big Shanty for a twenty minute breakfast break. That's where The General was stolen in full view of “Camp McDonald" a drill camp and home to many Confederate officers and enlisted men. There was no telegraph there, which was one reason Andrews chose the site.

Andrews, A Kentuckian, had made a name for himself by smuggling much needed quinine through Union lines for the benefit of Confederate soldiers and civilians. There were with him three experienced engineers, William Knight, Wilson Brown and John Wilson. When asked where they were from, they replied by saying, "I am from Fleming County, Kentucky." They also said that they were on their way to join the Confederate Army.

The official plan to steal The General was approved by Union General Ormsby Michael. The plan was to take the locomotive north on the Western and Atlantic Railroad and destroy tracks, bridges and tunnels along the way. General Michael agreed that he would take Huntsville on April 11, 1862, and then would wait on Andrews before moving into Chattanooga, Tennessee.

"Someone.....has stolen my train,” William Fuller, conductor on the General said in amazement as the train was pulling away from the Big Shanty train depot. Men of the Western and Atlantic railroad almost immediately began the chase with engineer Jefferson Cain, William Fuller, and machine foreman Anthony Murphy close behind.

With no telegraph at Big Shanty, the men ran north along the railroad tracks to Moon Station and procured a platform handcar; then went on until they found "The Yonah." The next train used was the "William R. Smith."

The last locomotive used in the chase by William Fuller was the famous “Texas” that was heading south. The Texas is now housed in Atlanta, Georgia’s Cyclorama at Grant Park. With no time to spare, the Texas was run in reverse through the entire chase.

James Andrews and his Raiders were slowed down by southbound trains that had to pass before they could continue. With the telegraph out of service, Fuller was fortunate to catch telegraph operator Edward Henderson. Fuller gave the young Henderson a hand up on the train, as it was in motion, and gave him a message for General Ledbetter that Henderson sent from Dalton.

Andrews and his men failed to destroy the bridges over Georgia’s Chickamauga Creek, Etowah River and Tunnel Hill. They also failed to slow down the pursuers by setting up the cars of The General on fire and sending them back down the railroad tracks. The end came when they ran out of wood and lost power about 18 miles south of Chattanooga.

It took about two weeks for the Confederates to capture the Union spies. Some of them made it as far as Bridgeport, Alabama. Eventfully, all 20 of Andrews Raiders were captured. James Andrews and six of his men were hung in Atlanta, eight escaped, and others were paroled.

The United States Congress created the Medal of Honor in 1862 and it was awarded to some of the raiders. James Andrews was not eligible because he not a part of the military service.

William Fuller, who is buried at Atlanta’s Oakland Cemetery, was recognized by the Confederate Government, Georgia Governor Joseph Brown and the Georgia General Assembly for his act of heroism.

Learn more about Confederate History Month at:
http://confederateheritagemonth.com and http://confederatehistorymonth.com

My Family’s Fate on the Day Lee Surrendered

2010-04-06T13:17:00.000-04:00

By Lewis Regenstein

One hundred and forty five years ago, on 9 April, 1865, Robert E. Lee surrendered his Army of Northern Virginia to Union Commander Ulysses S. Grant, marking the effective end of the South’s struggle for independence.

It was a fateful day for the South, and in particular for my great grandfather and his four elder brothers, all of whom were fighting for the Confederacy.

On that day, the eldest brother Joshua Lazarus Moses was killed a few hours after Lee, unbeknownst to the troops elsewhere, had surrendered. Josh was commanding an artillery battalion (Culpepper's Battery or Culpepper's Light Artillery) that was firing the last shots in defense of Mobile, before being overrun by a Union force outnumbering his 13 to one. In this battle, Fort Blakeley, one of his brothers, Horace, was captured, and another, Perry, was wounded.

Joshua had also been in the thick of the fighting in the War’s opening battle, when Fort Sumter was attacked in April, 1861. Josh was the last Confederate Jew to fall in battle, one of the more than 3,000 estimated Jews who fought for the South. His first cousin, Albert Moses Luria, was the first, killed at age 19 at the Battle of Seven Pines (Fair Oaks) in Virginia on 31 May, 1862..

While Lee was surrendering at Appomatox, a 2,500 man unit attached to Sherman’s army, known as Potter’s Raiders, was heading towards my family’s hometown of Sumter, South Carolina. Sherman had just burned nearby Columbia, and it was feared that his troops were headed to Sumter to do the same.

My then 16 year old great grandfather, Andrew Jackson Moses, rode out to defend his hometown, along with some 157 other teenagers, invalids, old men, and the wounded from the local hospital. It was a mission as hopeless as it was valiant, but Sumter’s rag-tag defenders did manage to hold off Potter’s battle-seasoned veterans for over an hour before being overwhelmed by this vastly superior force outnumbering theirs by some 15 to one.

Jack got away with a price on his head, and Sumter was not burned after all. But some buildings were, and there are documented instances of murder, rape, and arson by the Yankees.

The fifth bother, Isaac Harby Moses, having served with distinction in combat in Wade Hampton's cavalry, later rode home from North Carolina after the Battle of Bentonville (North Carolina), the War’s last major battle, where he commanded his company, all of the officers having been killed or wounded. He never surrendered to anyone, his Mother proudly observed in her memoirs.

Earlier, on 10 March, 1865, as a member of a company of Citadel Cadets, he had his horse shot out from under him, and was attacked by a Union soldier wielding a sword. He was among those who fired the very first shots of the conflict, when his cadet company opened up on the Union ship, Star of the West, which was attempting to resupply the besieged Fort Sumter in January, 1861, three months before the War officially began.

Over two dozen members of the extended Moses family fought in the War, and it sacrificed at least nine of its sons for The Cause. Family members served and worked closely with such legendary generals as Robert E. Lee, James Longstreet, and Wade Hampton,firing some of the first and last shots of the War in its opening and closing battles. They fought on horseback and on ships, in the trenches and in the infantry. They built fortifications, led their men in charges, and one had responsibility for provisioning an entire army corps of some 50,000 men.

This officer, the best known of the Moses family Confederates, was Major Raphael Moses, General Longstreet’s chief commissary officer, whose three sons also fought for the South. The uncle of the five Moses brothers, Major Moses ended up attending the last meeting and carrying out the Last Order of the Confederate government .

He was ordered to deliver the last of the Confederate treasury, $40,000 in gold and silver bullion, to help feed and supply the defeated Confederate soldiers in the Augusta hospital, and straggling home after the War -- weary, hungry, often sick, shoeless and in tattered uniforms. With the help of a small group of determined armed guards, Moses successfully carried out the order from President Jefferson Davis, despite repeated attempts by mobs to forcibly take the bullion.

Like their comrades-in-arms, the Moses’ were fighting, for their homeland -- not for slavery, as is so often said, but for their families, homes, and country. Put simply, most Confederate soldiers felt they were fighting because an invading army from the North was trying to kill them, burn their homes, and destroy their cities.

The hard-pressed Confederates were usually heavily outnumbered, outgunned, and out-supplied , but rarely outfought, showing amazing courage, skill, and valor.

The anniversary of this fateful day should serve to remind us what the brave and beleaguered Southern soldiers and civilians were up against. Perhaps the events of that day, and of the War itself, will help people understand why, in this time when the South is so often vilified, native Southerners still revere their ancestors’ courage, and rightfully take much pride in this heritage.

Lewis Regenstein, a Native Atlantan, is a writer and author

American Stalin:

2010-02-12T15:18:00.001-05:00

The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Real Abraham Lincoln

They didn't teach you this in school... A published economist's comments on Abraham Lincoln...

"Lincoln was a master politician, which means he was a consummate conniver, manipulator, and liar." -- Economist Murray Rothbard, "America's Two Just Wars: 1776 and 1861," in "The Costs of War: American's Pyrrhic Victories," ed. John Denson (New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction, 1997), p. 131

The Editor of Ebony Magazine comments on Abraham Lincoln...

"On at least fourteen occasions between 1854 and 1860, Lincoln said unambiguously that he believed the Negro race was inferior to the White race. In Galesburg, he referred to 'the inferior races.' Who were 'the inferior races'? African Americans, he said, Mexicans, who he called 'mongrells," and probably all colored people." -- Lerone Bennett, Jr., Editor of Ebony Magazine, "Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincoln's White Dream" (Chicago: Johnson Publishing Co., 2000), p. 132

How Honest Abe really felt about slavery... which begs the question: Was the Civil War really fought because Honest Abe was sympathetic to slaves, and wanted to free slaves? Let's see what Honest Abe himself says about the subject...

"Negro equality? Fudge!" -- Abraham Lincoln, Fragments: Notes for Speeches, Sept. 1859 (Vol. III) "If I could save The Union without freeing any slaves, I would do it" -- Abraham Lincoln, in a letter to Horace Greeley "I am a little uneasy about the abolishment of slavery in this District [of Columbia]." -- Abraham Lincoln, 1862 "The whole nation is interested that the best use shall be made of these [new] territories. We want them for the homes of free white people." -- Abraham Lincoln, October 16, 1854 "I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality; and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in the favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary." -- Abraham Lincoln, "Lincoln's Reply to Douglas, Ottawa, Illinois, August 21, 1858," in "Abraham Lincoln: His Speeches and Writings, ed. Roy P. Basler (New York: Da Capo Press, 1990), p. 445 "I will say, then, that I am not nor have ever been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the black and white races---that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with White people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the White and black races which will ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the White race." -- Abraham Lincoln, "Fourth Lincoln-Douglas Debate, September 18, 1858, Charleston, Illinois," in "Abraham Lincoln: Speeches and Writings" (New York: Library of America, 1989), p. 636, and in Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Volume 5, page 371 "Free them, and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this.... We cannot, then, make them equals." -- Abraham Lincoln, "Lincoln's Reply to Douglas," p. 444 "What I would most desire would be the separation of the white and black races." -- Abraham Lincoln, Spoken at Springfield, Illinois on July 17th, 1858; from Abraham Lincoln: Complete Works, 1894, Volume 1, page 273 "We know that some Southern men do free their slaves, go North and become tip-top abolitionists, while some Northern Men go South and become most cruel masters. When Southern people tell us that they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery than we are, I acknowledge the fact. When it is said the institution exists, and it is very difficult to get rid of in any satisfactory way, I can understand and appreciate the saying. I surely will not blame them for not doing what I should not know what to do as to the existing institution. My first impulse would possibly be to free all slaves and send them to Liberia to their own native land. But a moment's reflection would convince me that this would not be best for them. If they were all landed there in a day they would all perish in the next ten days, and there is not surplus money enough to carry them there in many times ten days. What then? Free them all and keep them among us as underlings. Is it quite certain that this would alter their conditions? Free them and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this, and if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of whites will not. We cannot make them our equals. A system of gradual emancipation might well be adopted, and I will not undertake to judge our Southern friends for tardiness in this matter." -- Abraham Lincoln in speeches at Peoria, Illinois "I acknowledge the constitutional rights of the States, not grudgingly, but fairly and fully, and I will give them any legislation for reclaiming their fugitive slaves." -- Abraham Lincoln in speeches at Peoria, Illinois "The point the Republican party wanted to stress was to oppose making slave States out of the newly acquired territory, not abolishing slavery as it then existed. " -- Abraham Lincoln in a speech at Peoria, Illinois "I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Abraham Lincoln's Inaugural Address on the Capitol steps, 1861 "Do the people of the South really entertain fear that a Republican administration would directly or indirectly interfere with their slaves, or with them about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears. The South would be in no more danger in this respect than it was in the days of Washington." -- Letter from Abraham Lincoln to A.H. Stephens, Public and Private Letters of Alexander Stephens, p. 150 "My paramount object, is to save the Union, and not either destroy or save slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing the slaves, I would do it. If I could save the Union by freeing some and leaving others in slavery, I would do it. If I could save it by freeing all, I would do that. What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because it helps save the Union." -- Abraham Lincoln in a letter to Horace Greeley "Judge Douglas has said to you that he has not been able to get an answer out of me to the question whether I am in favor of Negro citizenship. So far as I know, the Judge never asked me the question before. (applause from audience) He shall have no occasion to ever ask it again, for I tell him very frankly that I am not in favor of Negro citizenship. (renewed applause) If the state of Illinois has the power to grant Negroes citizenship, I shall be opposed to it. (cries of "here, here" and "good, good" from audience) That is all I have to say." -- Abraham Lincoln, Speech at Springfield, Illinois, June 1857 Mr. Wendell Phillips said that Lincoln was badgered into issuing the emancipation proclamation, and that after it was issued, Lincoln said it was the greatest folly of his life. President Lincoln in his Emancipation Proclamation evidently had in mind to colonize or segregate the slaves if freed: "It is my purpose to colonize persons of African descent, with their consent, upon this continent or elsewhere, with the previously obtained consent of the government existing there." Abraham Lincoln later said, in discussing the options of colonizing them with segregated areas of Texas, Mississippi and South Carolina: "If we turn 200,000 armed Negroes in the South, among their former owners, from whom we have taken their arms, it will inevitably lead to a race war. It cannot be done. The Negroes must be gotten rid of." Ben Butler responded to this by saying: "Why not send them to Panama to dig the canal?" Lincoln was delighted with this suggestion, and asked Butler to consult Seward at once. Only a few days later, John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln and one of his conspirators wounded Seward. Actually, Honest Abe brought up the slavery issue to gain sympathy only after he was losing the war. It worked, and the tide turned. However his true character is revealed in his words.

How Honest Abe really felt about Christianity:

"My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the sriptures have become clearer and stronger with advancing years, and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them." -- 1862 letter from Abraham Lincoln to Judge J.S. Wakefield, after the death of Willie Lincoln Comments made by Abraham Lincoln's friend and former law partner, William H. Herndon, shortly after Lincoln's death:

"Mr. Lincoln was an infidel, sometimes bordering on atheism." "He never mentioned the name of Jesus, except to scorn and detest the idea of a miraculous conception." "He did write a little work on infidelity in 1835-6, and never recanted. He was an out-and-out infidel, and about that there is no mistake."

In 1834, while still living in New Salem and before he became a lawyer, he was surrounded by a class of people exceedingly liberal in matters of religion. Volney's Ruins and Paine's Age of Reason passed from hand to hand, and furnished food for the evening's discussion in the tavern and village store. Lincoln read both these books and thus assimilated them into his own being. He prepared an extended essay--called by many a book--in which he made an argument against Christianity, striving to prove that the Bible was not inspired, and therefore not God's revelation, and that Jesus Christ was not the Son of God. The manuscript containing these audacious and comprehensive propositions he intended to have published or given a wide circulation in some other way. He carried it to the store, where it was read and freely discussed. His friend and employer, Samuel Hill, was among the listeners and, seriously questioning the propriety of a promising young man like Lincoln fathering such unpopular notions, he snatched the manuscript from his hands and thrust it into the stove. The book went up in flames, and Lincoln's political future was secure. But his infidelity and his skeptical views were not diminished. -- Herndon's biography of Abraham Lincoln titled The True Story of a Great Life.

How Honest Abe really felt about secession:

"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and to form one that suits them better. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may make their own of such territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority intermingling with or near them who oppose their movement." -- Abraham Lincoln on the floor of Congress, January 12, 1848, Congressional Globe, Appendix 1st Session 30th Congress, page 94

"Only a despotic and imperial government can coerce seceding states" - William Seward, U.S. Secretary of State under Abraham Lincoln on 10 April 1861 to Charles Francis Adams, Minister to the Court of St. James (Britain)
Honest Abe's Emancipation Proclamation did not free a single slave. Did you know that Abraham Lincoln practically imposed a dictatorship on the Northern states, closed down nearly 300 Northern newspapers, had thousands of Northerners arrested, invaded the Northern states of Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri and took over their legislatures, all because those three sovereign states didn't want to participate in his war which they considered unconstitutional. The Writ of Habeas Corpus was suspended by Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War, during which tens of thousands of antiwar Northerners were imprisoned for voicing their views. Lincoln issued an arrest warrant for the Supreme Court Chief Justice when he correctly ruled that according to Article I of the Constitution, only Congress, not the president, could suspend the Great Writ of Habeas Corpus. Most Americans do not know that the American Civil War stated out as a kind of coup. While Congress was in recess the Lincoln warmongers had multiple provocations in the works to resupply and land troops in the Southern forts that were under a truce. At the time that was clearly an act of war. But their plan was to get the Confederates to fire on the resupply ships and then accuse them of starting the war. It worked very well. In the end Lincoln killed more Americans than Hitler and Tojo combined. Yet, he is still revered in the land of the free. The Red Chinese, when defending their treatment of Tibet, use Lincoln as their hero. Our press never reports that interesting twist over here. At the beginning of the Civil War, Lincoln and his little coup of Northern Industrialists wanted a nice short six month war to get them out of a depression. The federal government was dead broke and 10,000 businesses had gone bankrupt in the North. They had agreed to pull out of the Southern port forts and a truce was in effect. Confederate peace negotiators in Arlington, Virginia were assured that the North had no military intentions toward the seceded South. 'We just have some hot heads we have to contend with up here before we can do a non-aggression treaty'. To get the war started Lincoln launched multiple resupply missions to several of the forts, an act of war at the time, to get the Confederate States of America forces to fire on them which they did at Sumter in Charleston. Lincoln claimed that an innocent food supply convoy had been attacked. The archives showed they were landing troops, artillery and munitions. To this day we hardly ever meet a soul who knows this real history despite it's being right in our archives. It is rare to find a military officer, especially a Yankee, that knows that the loading manifests for the Fort Sumter ships have been open in the archives for a hundred years. They clearly show the troops and cannons on the manifests. But these inconvenient facts are ignored by the professional historians...it has something to do with hurting book sales. Lincoln killed more Americans than Hitler and Tojo combined. Here’s a little known fact about “Saint Abraham”: When General Benjamin “Beast” Butler issued an order declaring all the women of New Orleans to be prostitutes because they refused to genuflect to his occupying soldiers on the streets, Lincoln refused to rescind the order despite international pressure to do so. The order was a license to rape. - Thomas DiLorenzo And that, folks, is a brief, politically incorrect, observation of the indisputable facts. More Abraham Lincoln research Pastor John Weaver's booklet: Honest Abe Wasn't Honest Abraham Lincoln's Religious Views Worst President Ever? Let's be honest about Abe, shall we? Lew Rockwell's King Lincoln Archive De-Mythologized Lincoln Suggested Books
The Real Lincoln by Thomas DiLorenzo
When In The Course of Human Events by Charles Adams
Abraham Lincoln: Was He A Christian by John E. Remsburg
The Real Lincoln by Charles L.C. Minor
Lincoln Unmasked by Thomas DiLorenzo
Facts and Falsehoods Concerning The War On The South by George Edmonds
America's Caesar by Greg Loren Durand

Red Republicans and Lincoln's Marxists: Marxism in the Civil War by Walter Kennedy. This web page is not copyrighted. You may use anything on it without permission.

Remembering The Destroyer Of The Republic

2010-02-12T15:01:00.000-05:00

By Al Benson Jr.

In February the country remembers the birth of the man who was responsible for the destruction of the republic the Founding Fathers gave to this country. What this man left us instead of the old republic was a centralized, collectivist “democracy” where the governmental forms were preserved but the real substance removed, and to this day, thanks to an educational system that has dumbed down millions since its inception, we don’t realize that.

Abraham Lincoln has been regarded by generations as “the great emancipator” because he issued the Emancipation Proclamation. It didn’t free a single slave. Go back and read it. The proclamation “freed” slaves where Lincoln had no authority to, in the Confederate States, and it left in bondage those slaves in any territory held by the Union where slavery existed. Sounds like the sort of “emancipation” Mr. Obama wants for present day America.

Lincoln was a friend to communists and socialists. He had them in his armies. He had them as friends. Some of them helped draft the Republican Party platform he ran on in 1860. Socialists and communists were among the early Republican Party movers and shakers.

When Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto (he was actually a hired hack writer) in 1848 he listed ten points for communists to use in taking over a country. Whether inadvertently or not, Lincoln incorporated several of these into his agenda. The Communist Manifesto called for “A heavy, progressive graduated income tax.” In 1862 the Lincoln administration foisted upon Americans the Internal Revenue Service, which soon began to tax everything from soup to nuts. Didn’t realize we’d gotten the IRS quite that early did you? Most think it didn’t come until the early 1900s. Wrong! It was a “gift” from Mr. Lincoln.

Marx advocated “Centralization of credit in the hands of the State by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.” Lincoln’s administration, in 1863, gave us the National Banking Act, which mandated uniformity in banking and bank note currency.

In his manifesto, Marx also promoted a “Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of population over the country.” This was carried out by the “Southern Redistribution Act” which redistributed property into large collectives, or combines, under the control of Yankee carpet-baggers. Part of this constituted taking the property of Southerners and “redistributing the wealth” to the greedy hordes of carpet-baggers who came south after the War to capitalize on Southern misery, and to get rich as quickly as they could, any way the could. Even though, by this time, Lincoln had gone to his reward, the Marxist policies of his administration were being carried forward, and even expanded by those would-be Marxists in the Republican Party that followed him.

But the real linchpin of Marx’s program was its tenth point: “Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial labor.” To implement that, the Lincoln administration gave us the Morrill Land Grant Act, which authorized Federal aid to “established government-controlled (public) colleges. With the aid came increased government accountability and regulations.” Author John Chodes has noted: “This was the closest that Washington had ever come to direct aid to education. The stated objective was to fund colleges that teach agriculture and mechanic arts via money raised through federal land-grant sales. The true objective was to bring the Northern perspective to the reconquered areas of the South, to teach the rebel’s children ‘respect for national authority’--to break their rebellious spirit forever. The three R’s had absolutely nothing to do with this landmark bill.” The idea was to brainwash the next generation of Southern youngsters so they would never dream of seceding as their fathers had--and the government schools in the South are still doing that today.

All of this happened under Lincoln or his immediate successors. Lincoln’s view of a centralized national government presiding of one “indivisible” nation was the same view held by Marx, and later Hitler. It was not the view held by our Founding Fathers, nor by the delegates of those states that ratified the Constitution, but whose ratification language clearly stated that, should this new Union not work out, their states retained the right to withdraw (secede) and again look after their own interests. The thought of individual states governing themselves scared the daylights out of Lincoln, just as it does today’s national totalitarians in both parties.

One writer has called Lincoln “America’s Lenin” while another has referred to his as “America’s first Bolshevik.” Noting Lincoln’s imitation of so many points in the Communist Manifesto, who can disagree with either of them. The era of big government started with Lincoln, and thanks to that, we now have Obama. Seems like the “great emancipator” really didn’t emancipate much other than the spirit of Marxism in America.

On the Web

Lincoln, Fort Sumter and the Strategy to Initiate War

2010-02-11T16:39:00.001-05:00

The following is a presentation given regarding the involvement of President Abraham Lincoln with the firing on Fort Sumter, such action being an excuse by the Federal Government to wage war upon those states which had seceded from the Union. It would be difficult to edit the article to remove references to its being a presentation without making considerable changes at least to its structure if not its facts and allegations.

Lincoln, Fort Sumter and the Strategy to Initiate War

I come before you tonight to say a very few words about a man who is certainly well known to you all – the 16th President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln. I say a very few words because to cover the subject in any depth at all would require far more time than I have. Indeed, the difficulty in addressing the subject at all is made even greater by the wealth of material already known about Lincoln that is, in fact, untrue. Unraveling the Lincoln myth of necessity increases many times over the amount of correct information that must be told. I therefore had two choices: present a wealth of what you might call factoids about the man with little or no corroborating information or cover one seminal point at length and in greater detail. I choose to do the latter.

The question then became, what point should I cover that will make a difference in your own view of history? Or more important still, what incident involving Lincoln will make a difference in our understanding of history itself rather than simply the history of Abraham Lincoln? Does it matter that Lincoln was not the deeply spiritual man we have been led to believe but totally irreligious and even blasphemous in his opinions and utterances? Does it matter that he was not the Great Emancipator? Is the fact that Lincoln’s humor was not folksy but bawdy and profane of importance? Is it pertinent that he wasn’t a political babe in the woods, but an established hack in Illinois politics which was as corrupt then as it is now? Frankly, no, it does not. Oh, these points may make a difference in the myth of St. Abraham the Pure, but they do not affect the more important aspects of what Lincoln actually did as opposed to what people have been led to believe he did.

To my mind, the most important point of history that needs to be addressed in any expose of Lincoln is the myth that the South fired the first shot of the War, thus bringing upon itself all the calamities that followed. Of course, we are talking about the attack on Fort Sumter. Every schoolchild – and therefore, virtually every adult – knows that the South fired on the United States flag without provocation or with very little provocation – but nothing could be further from the truth.

It would take an entire library of books to detail the background of the decades long series of events which led to the War of Secession. Many textbooks and commentaries falsely simplify the process by declaring that the South started the War - apparently without provocation - by firing on Union-held Fort Sumter in Charleston harbor. Case closed, right? Well, not exactly! By the time of the firing on Fort Sumter on April 12th, 1861, seven states had already seceded from the Union. It was the desire of these states - South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana and Texas - to leave the Union in peace. It was also the consensus of most Northerners and Northern newspapers that secession was a constitutional right even if it might not be the best course of action. An editorial in one newspaper, The Bangor, Maine DAILY UNION, on November 12th, 1860, summed up this belief when it stated: “Union depends for its continuance on the free consent and will of the sovereign people of each state... A state coerced to remain in the Union is a 'subject province' and can never be a co-equal member of the American Union”.

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Nelson advised the U.S. Secretary of State that it would be a violation of the Constitution if the President used coercion against any state in an attempt to force it to remain in, or return to, the Union. So why, then, did the Southern troops stationed in Charleston fire upon Fort Sumter when public opinion in both the North and South seemed to be on the side of the secessionists? Well, to start, it all goes back to the purpose of Fort Sumter. Sumter was not a military fort; it protected nothing. Rather, its purpose was the collection of tariffs from ships entering the harbor at Charleston. You see, the Great War of 1861-65 was fought, like all wars, for money. Abraham Lincoln had been asked shortly after his inauguration why the Southern states should not be allowed to leave the Union in peace. His response was a sarcastic question which can be paraphrased in these words: Let them go? Let them go??! Then where, sir, would I get my revenues? Lincoln knew that approximately 75% of federal revenues were collected at Southern ports in the form of tariffs and Charleston was a major collection point through Fort Sumter.

In early December of 1860, President James Buchanan had signed an agreement with South Carolina’s Congressional representatives that forts Moultrie and Sumter would not be reinforced nor would they take aggressive action against Charleston. In return, the forts would not be attacked by South Carolina’s forces. Shortly after South Carolina seceded on December 20th, 1860, Major Robert Anderson moved the troops stationed at Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter in an action that disturbed and puzzled the officials in Charleston. Previous to this, in early December of 1860, President-elect Abraham Lincoln had instructed General Winfield Scott, head of all Federal forces, to prepare a plan to hold or retake the forts after Lincoln's inauguration on March 4th, 1861 despite the agreement signed by President Buchanan. Unbeknownst to Buchanan, General Scott sent a ship on January 7th, 1861 with supplies and 200 concealed troops to reinforce Sumter. This ship, the "Star of the West", was turned back by fire from South Carolina artillery batteries but it proved a major embarrassment to Buchanan who wished to avoid war as was his constitutional duty.

In early February, a very aggressive attack plan was presented to again reinforce Fort Sumter but Buchanan would not agree and his Cabinet declared that such a plan would constitute an act of war and would be interpreted as such by the South. On February 25th, President Jefferson Davis of the Confederacy sent a three-man Peace Commission to Washington to discuss many issues including the transition of Fort Sumter from Union to Confederate hands. Abraham Lincoln was inaugurated on March 4th, 1861 as President of the United States and refused to talk with the members of the Peace Commission who were still trying to make headway in Washington. Lincoln also announced that tariffs would continue to be collected at Fort Sumter for the coffers of the Union regardless of the secession of South Carolina from the Union. Indeed, Lincoln even joked that any state could leave the Union so long as it continued to send tariff revenues to Washington. However, Lincoln also made it clear that, unlike previous presidents, he regarded secession to be constitutionally illegal and that he was willing to use military force to prevent or overcome any state that attempted to employ it. Thus, military coercion – the waging of war by the central government against the people and states of the South which had been rejected by the People, the Nation and the Federal Government prior to Lincoln’s inauguration – became the stated intention of that same United States Government under its 16th President.

It is important to note that though Lincoln cited the Constitution as the basis for his determination of the illegality of secession and his permitted response to it, he would later in the war, on his own initiative and without following the constitutional provisions regarding the involvement of Congress and the High Court, suspend habeas corpus, wage war on the First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech, assembly and the press, use the military to coerce elections in the North and have thousands of Northern civilians, including newspaper editors, publishers and journalists as well as state legislators, arrested and imprisoned for long periods without trial or even without charges being brought against them. There can be no question that Lincoln used the United States Constitution as a means by which to cloak his tyrannical reign with legitimacy!

To return to the developing situation at the time: anxious, if possible to effect an amicable reconciliation between the States, the Confederate States Commissioners, addressed a note, on the 12th of March, to William H. Seward, Secretary of State, in the new Cabinet, setting forth the character and object of their mission. Mr. Seward replied to this verbally and informally, through Mr. Justice John A. Campbell, of the Supreme Court of the United States. Justice Campbell was a citizen of Alabama, in full sympathy with the Southern cause. He was therefore selected by Seward as a plausible intermediary. In this way the Commissioners were given to understand that Seward was in favor of peace and that Fort Sumter, about which the Commissioners felt the greatest concern, would be evacuated in less than ten days.

This proved, however, to be a farce and a deception practiced upon the Commissioners by Seward and the Lincoln Government at Washington. They were kept in the dark as regarded the intention of the Federal Government in relation to the status quo of Fort Sumter. And it was not until a provisioning and reinforcing fleet dispatched from the ports of New York and Norfolk early in April, had actually hove in sight of Fort Sumter, that they were placed in possession of the facts of the intention of the Federal Government in regard to that facility. For on March 9th, Lincoln proposed that Fort Sumter be reinforced though his Cabinet overwhelmingly opposed this action because it was believed that to do so would lead to war. Lincoln continued to attempt to persuade his Cabinet to approve reinforcing Sumter but failed again at a Cabinet meeting on March 15th . Finally, on March 29th he was able to convince the Cabinet to approve his plan although the members knew it would lead to war. On April 6th Lincoln gave the order to reinforce Fort Sumter and, for all intents and purposes, the War of Secession began.

The Confederate Peace Commissioners came in possession of these facts through a notice given on the 8th of April to Gov. Pickens of South Carolina, that a fleet was then on its way to provision and reinforce Sumter. The fort was at this time commanded by Major Robert Anderson, of the U. S. Army, with a force of less than a hundred including the men Anderson had moved from Fort Moultrie, and it was also incorrectly reported that the garrison was very short of provisions. Interestingly, on March 3rd Jefferson Davis had appointed General Pierre G. T. Beauregard as commander of Confederate forces in Charleston. In one of those odd anomalies that occurred throughout the War, Beauregard and Major Anderson were good friends. Anderson had been an instructor of Beauregard when the latter was a student at West Point. Beauregard was in command of about six thousand volunteer troops at the time, collected for the purpose of defending Charleston. Gov. Pickens informed him of the notice he had received and this was telegraphed by Beauregard to the authorities at Montgomery.

The Secretary of War replied to Beauregard: “If you have no doubt of the authenticity of the notice of the Government at Washington to supply Fort Sumter by force, demand its evacuation; and if this should be refused, proceed to reduce it.” On the 11th of April the demand for Sumter’s evacuation was made by Beauregard and Major Anderson, in writing, stated that the demand would not be complied with. This was sent by Beauregard to the Secretary of War at Montgomery, who returned the following response: “Do not needlessly desire to bombard Fort Sumter. If Maj. Anderson will state a reasonable specified time at which he will evacuate, and agree that, in the meantime, he will not use his guns against us, unless ours should be employed against Fort Sumter, you are authorized thus to avoid the effusion of blood. If this or its equivalent be refused, reduce the fort, as your judgment decides most practicable.”

In a strategy later used by the propagandists of such notaries as Stalin and Hitler, Lincoln then began leaking stories to supportive Northern newspapers that the Federal troops at Fort Sumter were near starvation and in desperate need of provisions. This, of course, was an outright lie and is refuted by the communications and records of Major Anderson himself. Additionally, the records reveal that the merchants in Charleston were daily selling foodstuffs to the garrison at Fort Sumter. Nonetheless, Lincoln's ploy worked and there was outrage in the North over the mistreatment by South Carolina of the troops at Fort Sumter. The President knew he would need Northern public opinion behind him to engage in a war with the South but that the prevailing opinion of the time had shown to be just the opposite. So, in point of fact, Lincoln needed a cause celeb, a perceived “criminal act” committed by the South against the Union to outrage the public and change the prevailing opinion. Therefore, he ordered a force of three warships to Charleston to reinforce Sumter with an estimated date of arrival of April 15th. This action left President Jefferson Davis in a quandary. Through reports from his own people he was aware of all this activity by Lincoln and he wanted to avoid being goaded into a position where the South fired the first shot which, of course, was exactly what Lincoln wanted.

Now this is very important to understand! Legally the aggressor in this kind of circumstance is not necessarily the side firing the first shot but the side causing the first shot to be fired. In other words, from the point of view of legality, the South having been forced into a military response was not the aggressor but, sadly, the perception in the North would be just the opposite and would therefore provide the public opinion boost necessary for Lincoln's war plan. I ask you to remember two later incidents whose public outcry precipitated the nation into a war that was not at all popular at the time: Remember the Maine! and Remember Pearl Harbor! We have come to know over time that both of these attacks against the American flag were not as simple and straightforward as was believed by the public at the time. Well, neither was the attack on Fort Sumter! Rather, it was a deep, convoluted and extremely premeditated effort to do just what was done, force the South to fire what were apparently the first shots of the war.

By this time, the Union fleet was approaching Charleston and some of Beauregard’s batteries and forces were between it and Fort Sumter. Should it arrive while Anderson still held the fort, Beauregard knew he would be exposed to attack from the rear as well as from the front. He therefore gave Major Anderson notice that he would at an early specified hour compel him to withdraw from the fort if he did not otherwise willingly evacuate his position. Major Anderson, indicated that he was honor bound to resist. At 4:30 A.M. on April 12th, Beauregard again sent word to Anderson that the Confederate forces had no choice but to begin firing on the fort due to the efforts of the United States Government to reinforce it. Accordingly, the shore batteries opened fire on the morning of the 12th of April which fire was returned by the guns of Fort Sumter. The fleet came near, but in the absence of official orders from the Government, took no part in the conflict. The bombardment lasted 32 hours at which time Major Anderson then agreed to capitulate. During the entire period of shelling, some 30-odd hours, there was not one single Union casualty since Beauregard had forewarned the garrison of the actions that would be taken and the soldiers were able to take refuge out of harm’s way – hardly a war-like action on the part of Beauregard and the Confederates. In fact, the only casualty occurred when, after the surrender of the fort, the Union forces were firing a salute as they lowered their flag and an ember fell into some gunpowder causing an explosion which resulted in one death and five injuries. As a ship carrying Union soldiers left the harbor to rendezvous with the force that had arrived contrary to all prior arrangements between the United States government and the State of South Carolina, Confederate soldiers lined the beaches of Sullivan's Island and other areas around the harbor and removed their caps in a salute to the departing forces, many of whom they had come to know and respect.

Despite the goodwill between the combatants however, Lincoln now had what he wanted and the news of the Confederates firing on the American flag was quickly distributed to Northern newspapers which resulted in the anticipated fervor for severely punishing the bloody and prideful South for firing on Old Glory. The fall of Fort Sumter aroused the Northern people to the highest pitch, and enabled the party now in power, to draw large accessions from Democratic, and American parties There is little doubt that Lincoln and the Republicans wanted war. They had done all in their power to avoid compromise, the compromise favored by the vast majority of the very people who had elected Lincoln to the presidency. Lincoln had maneuvered the Confederate leaders into firing the first shot knowing that this act would inflame the passions of the North, and allow him to open hostilities against states that sought only a peaceful departure from their old compact. Historians J. G. Randall and David Herbert Donald, in their book The Civil War and Reconstruction, pondered: “Did Lincoln anticipate that sending this expedition to provision Fort Sumter would precipitate a civil war? Even at the time there were those who claimed that Lincoln well knew the consequences of his action and deliberately tricked the Confederacy into firing the first shot. There is indeed some evidence to support this view.” This evidence comes from several sources, mostly from the mouth or pen of Lincoln himself. In May of 1861, he wrote to Captain Gustavus Fox, the commander of the relief expedition to Sumter, “You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail, and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result.” On July 3rd of that same year, Lincoln confided to Orville H. Browning, a close personal friend, about the plan to supply and reinforce Sumter, “The plan succeeded. They attacked Sumter – it fell, and thus did more service than it otherwise could.” Southern historian Charles W. Ramsdell believed that “Lincoln, having decided that there was no other way than war for the salvation of his administration, his party and the Union, maneuvered the Confederates into firing the first shot in order that they, rather than he, should take the blame of beginning bloodshed.”

In the months between the secession of the cotton states and the firing on Fort Sumter, Republicans received a large measure of the blame for instigating the crisis that was at hand. The party suffered a loss of popularity even within its own rank and file, leading J. W. Kane of Pittsburgh to write to Stephen Douglas: “ The Republican party would not have a majority in any state of the Union if the election were to come off tomorrow. “Lincoln’s stealth in forcing the South into firing the first shot changed all that. He was a master of public relations and knew that constitutional abstractions carried little weight in the minds of the common people. All that the masses cared about was who fired the first shot.” In talking about the actions of the Republicans during the time between Lincoln’s election and the firing on Fort Sumter, one noted historian summed it up in this way: “But if they must choose between saving the party, at the cost of civil war, and saving the Union through sacrificing the party, they placed party first.”

President Jefferson Davis later stated: “The order for the sending of the fleet was a declaration of war. The responsibility is on their shoulders, not on ours.” Unfortunately, despite the truth of this comment by Davis, the fact is that the North won the war Lincoln desired and intentionally initiated, a war which led to the deaths not only of countless hundreds of thousands of human beings on both sides, but of the Constitution and the Republic as well. However, it also meant that, as usual, the winner got to write the history of the conflict. As a result, Mr. Lincoln got his war and schoolchildren are taught that the South started it by firing upon Fort Sumter without provocation. How sad for us as a nation to be wedded to such lies. The time has long passed for us to amend the record and let the light of truth reveal the falsehood of the myth of Honest and Noble Abraham Lincoln.

SWR's Lady Val

The John B. Gordon Story

2010-02-09T19:54:00.000-05:00

By: Calvin E. Johnson, Jr.
Historical-Writer, Author of book “When America Stood for God, Family and Country”, Speaker and Member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans
Kennesaw, Georgia

Jeremiah 6:16 of the Bible reads;

“Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls.”

But, have we forgotten God and the old paths of our Founding Fathers and Mothers? Is American history even taught anymore in public and private schools?
As the world looks to America, do we know who helped make the USA free and great?

President Theodore Roosevelt said of John B. Gordon, quote "A more gallant, generous, and fearless gentlemen and soldier has not been seen in this country." unquote

February is Black History Month and it is also the birthday month of George Washington, America’s first president. February is also the birthday month of John Brown Gordon of Georgia.

John B. Gordon, born February 6, 1832, was an orator, lawyer, statesman, soldier, publisher and governor of the State of Georgia. His is best known as one of Gen. Robert E. Lee's generals. At Appomattox, Gordon's corps encounter with the soldiers under Gen. Joshua Chamberlain is a classic story. Gordon would always remember Chamberlain for the courtesy and respect shown he and his men.
Carter Godwin Woodson, father of Black History Week, has much in common with John B. Gordon. Both men believed that accurate American history should be taught in our schools. Woodson also believed the study of Black history should include those African-Americans who fought on both sides of the War Between the States.

Black History Week became Black History Month in the 1960s.

Woodson, eleven years after the first Black History Week, founded the "Negro History Bulletin" for teachers, students and the public.

Gordon also worked to see that the history of the Confederate soldier was taught in public schools. After the war only the Northern version of the War Between the States was taught to Southern children.

John B. Gordon believed in the South's Constitutional right to secession, but after it was crushed, he worked to reunite the nation and helped white and black Southerners the war had made poor.

In Gordon's day there were no skyscrapers, telephones, automobiles, bright lights, or bad air to obscure the view of Heaven's stars. The American Revolution was in the past only as far back as the Great Depression is today. American history was still taught at a time when the Union and Confederate Veterans were still living and honored.

A John B. Gordon birthday celebration was first held in Atlanta, Georgia on Saturday, February 6, 1993, in front of Georgia’s old historic state capitol building. Weather forecasters called for rain and cold but God must have blessed that day as it was warm and sunny. Nearly one-thousand people came to remember Gordon.

A Confederate reenactment band with authentic band instruments played “Dixie” and everyone stood straight and proud. The band gave the melody, but the crowd sang the words.

Many speakers praised Gordon. One man turned to Gordon's statue and asked "General Gordon what would you say to those who would change the history of America?" Gordon, the American, the Southerner might have answered: "Take your hist ory and teach it to your children or others will teach their history!" Gordon set up a publishing company after the war to help teach children their Southern history.

In 1995, a third John B. Gordon memorial was held in Atlanta, but this time it was cold and snowy. Among the speakers in 1995, was a young Black-American. Eddie B. Page was a true friend and defender of the heritage of America. He was proud of the United States, 1956 Georgia and Confederate flags. Eddie knew his history, Southern style, and did not parrot "Political Correct" history.

John Brown Gordon was born in Upson County, Georgia. He was the fourth of twelve children born to Zachariah and Malinda Cox Gordon.

After attending the University of Georgia he came to Atlanta to study law. Here he met and married Rebecca Haralson and their union was long and happy.

September 17, 1862, is known as the bloodiest day in American history. Confederate General John B. Gordon was there, defending a position called the sunken road. Wave upon wave of Union troops attacked Gordon's men. The casualties were beyond today's understanding. Gordon was struck by Union bullets four times, but continued to lead his men. Then, the fifth bullet tore through his right jaw and out his left cheek. He fell with his face in his hat and would have drowned in his own blood except for a hole in his hat. Though Gordon survived these wounds, the last bullet left him permanently scarred. That is why you see later photographs of him only from the right side.

For years the John B. Gordon celebration, in Atlanta, was concluded by a mile march to Oakland Cemetery where the general is buried with his Confederate compatriots. Not since past Confederate Memorial days has there been a scene on an Atlanta street of soldiers in Confederate gray and women and children of black mourning dress.

The spirits of Carter G. Woodson and John B. Gordon were there with us on those February days when Confederate gray marched through a Black-American neighborhood. The people watching the parade were told about the Gordon service and were invited to Oakland. Black children spread the word that this was a memorial to Gordon who was once governor of Georgia.

Woodson and Gordon are still with us---in spirit and, if you listen, they are saying, "Teach your children the whole story of America’s past."

Let’s not forget!

The Roots of Hate:

2010-02-01T17:33:00.000-05:00

[Snippet from Chapter 16 of Facts and Falsehoods Concerning the War on the South, 1861-1865, G. Edmonds, 1904] (out of copyright)
How the Republican Party Created a Hatred for the South

Alexander Hamilton was the head and front of American Monarchists. He wanted to make this Government a pure Monarchy. Hamilton advocated a “strong centralized Government,” of imperial policy.

Gouverneur Morris, a contemporary and friend of Hamilton, said: “Hamilton hated Republican Government, and never failed on every occasion to advocate the excellence of and avow his attachment to a Monarchic form of Government.”

From the formation of the Union, the Federalists of New England hated and feared Democratic principles. Their great leader, Hamilton, made no secret of this feeling. In his speech at a New York banquet Hamilton, in high opposition to Jefferson’s Democracy, cried out: “The People! Gentlemen, I tell you the people are a great Beast!”

In 1796 Gov. Walcott, of Connecticut, said: “I sincerely declare that I wish the Northern States would separate from the Southern the moment that event (the election of Jefferson) shall take place.”

Congressman Plumer. a Federalist and an ardent Secessionist, in 1804 declared that: “All dissatisfied with the measures of the Government looked to a separation of the (Northern vhp) States as a remedy for grievances.”

As early as 1796, men of Massachusetts began to talk of New England seceding from the Union. It was declared that if Jay’s negotiation closing the Mississippi for twenty years could not be adopted, it was high time for the New England States to secede from the Union and form a Confederation by themselves.

The Monarchic principles did not thrive under Hamilton’s lead. Hamilton was too plain spoken. The Republican party became more astute. In 1861, while making loud professions of desiring the largest freedom for the people, that party was making ready to rob them of every liberty they possessed. “At the formation of this Union,” says E. P. Powell, “Hamilton laid before the Constitutional Convention of 1787 eleven propositions, which he wished to make the basis of the Union, but they were so Monarchistic in tone they received no support whatever.”

The Republican war on the South stood solidly on Monarchic principles. The principles of 1776 were set aside in the 6os, but not for years after the South was conquered did Republicans openly admit they were inspired by the spirit of Monarchy. During McKinley’s last campaign, Hamilton was loudly lauded and Jefferson decried as a visionary, a French anarchist. Hamilton Clubs were organized and Republican novelists set to writing romances with Hamilton as the hero. During Garfield’s campaign, a Republican paper, the Lemars, Iowa, Sentinel, said: “Garfield’s rule will be the transitory period between State Sovereignty and National Sovereignty. The United States Senate will give way to a National Senate. State. Constitutions and the United States Senate are relics of State Sovereignty and implements of treason. Garfield’s Presidency will be the Regency of Stalwartism ; after that—Rex.”

Fate used the hand of an insane “Stalwart” to impede, if not stop, the Monarchic plans of that time. The New York Sun, July 3rd, 1881, quoted President Garfield as saying: “The influence of Jefferson’s Democratic principles is rapidly waning, while the principles of Hamilton are rapidly increasing. Power has been gravitating toward the Central Government.”

Power did not gravitate, it was wrenched at one jerk to the Central Government by Lincoln’s hand, as will be seen later on. Not until after Hamilton and Jefferson had passed away did the followers of Jefferson drop the name “Republican” which they had borne during his life, and assume the name “Democrat.” Democracy—the rule of the people—is more expressive of Jefferson’s doctrines. Not until 1854 did the men of the Federal and Whig persuasion unite and organize a party and take the name “Republican.”

The Republican party of the 6os was the legitimate offspring of the old New England Federalists, and inherited all its progenitor’s faiths, hopes, hates and purposes, viz: Passion for power, fear and hate of Democracy, hate of the Union, belief in States’ Rights, in States’ Sovereignty, in Secession, and the strong persistent determination to break the Union asunder and form of the Northeast section a Northeastern Confederacy.

All these ideas belonged to the old Federalists of New England, and were handed down to the Republican party in 1854. Wendell Phillips, New England’s tongue of fire, speaking of the inherent purposes of his party, said: “The Republican party is in no sense a national party. It is a party of the North, organized against the South.”

The Republican party was organized against the South, organized to fight the South in every possible way; to fight as its progenitors, the Federalists, had fought from 1796 to 1854, with calumnies, vituperations, false charges, every word and phrase hate could use, until the time came to use guns, bayonets, bullets, cannon balls and shells; and faithfully did that party carry out the ignoble and cruel purpose of its organization. The war on the South was begun by the Federalists of New England in 1796. In 1814 a work of some four hundred and fifty pages, called “The Olive Branch,” was published in Boston, which throws electric light on certain almost forgotten events in New England’s history. “The Olive Branch” contains extracts from a series of remarkable productions called the “Pelham Papers,” which appeared in the Connecticut Courant in the year 1796. The Courant was published by Hudson and Goodwin, men of Revolutionary standing. The Pelham Papers were said to have been the joint production of men of the first talent and influence in the State. Commenting on these papers of 1796, the “Olive Branch” of 1814 says:
“A Northeastern Confederacy has been the object for a number of years. They (the politicians of New England) have repeatedly advocated in public print, separation of the States. The project of separation was formed shortly after the adoption of the Federal Constitution. The promulgation of the project first appeared in the year 1796, in these Pelham Papers. At that time there was none of that catalogue of grievances which since that period, have been fabricated to justify the recent attempt to dissolve the Union.”

This refers to the efforts made in 1804 and 1814 to get the New England States to secede from the Union, so they might be separated from the Democratic Southern and Western States. The “Olive Branch” continues:
“At that time there was no “Virginia Dynasty,” no “Democratic Madness,” no “war with Great Britain.” The affairs of the country seemed to be precisely according to New England’s fondest wishes. Yet at that favorable time (1796) New England was dissatisfied with the Union and begun to plot to get out of it. The common people, however, were not then ready to break up the Union. The common people at that time had no dislike of the Southern States. Then New England writers, preachers and politicians deliberately began the wicked work of poisoning their minds against the Southern States. To sow hostility, discord and jealousy between the different sections of the Union was the first step New England took to accomplish her favorite object, a separation of the States. Without this efficient instrument, all New England’s efforts would have been utterly unavailing. Had the honest yeomanry of the Eastern States continued to respect and regard their Southern fellow-citizens as friends and brothers, having one common interest in the promotion of the general welfare, it would be impossible to have made them instruments in the unholy work of destroying the noble, the splendid Union.”

But for the unholy work of having taught the common people of New England to hate the people of the South, the cruel war of the 6os would never have been fought. “For eighteen years,” continues the “Olive Branch” (the eighteen years from 1796 to 1814), “the most unceasing endeavors have been used to poison the’ minds of the people of the Eastern States toward, and to alienate them from, their fellow-citizens of the Southern States. The people of the South have been portrayed as “demons incarnate,” as destitute of all the “good qualities which dignify and adorn human nature.” Nothing can exceed the virulence of the pictures drawn of the South’s people, their descriptions of whom would more have suited the ferocious inhabitants of New Zealand than a polished, civilized people.” [End Snippet]

Submitted By SWR's Lady Val

"Under the Radar": a battle plan for 2010

2010-01-27T21:37:00.003-05:00

By SWR's Lady Val:

Every battle that is being waged today in defense of Southern heritage and culture is a response by Southrons and their allies to attacks by their perennial enemies in the "politically correct" movement across the board. As a result, we fritter away our time, talents and (in my case, dwindling) energies fighting brush fire after brush fire seemingly without end and without result other than another brush fire popping up after the last one has been put out - that is, if it has been "put out".

From every battle waged over symbols and songs in academia (from grade school through university) to every heritage festival, parade or event from which Southern presence has been forbidden and on to more formal efforts to remove everything from the Battle Flag to Confederate monuments from the public square, we seem to be in a constant contention for mere survival - overwhelmed, outnumbered and often just plain censored into silence. Bit by bit, we are being forced first into a corner and then, ultimately, into oblivion and there seems little that we can do but continue to respond however fruitless our efforts.

But I believe that we do have a further option, but it is an option that requires a certain amount of creativity and the willingness to engage in issues other than those limited to the assault on Southern culture. We have as an example of this kind of "inclusiveness", what has happened in what has been called the "Tea Party Movement". Now, the Tea Party movement originally was concerned with taxes, just as the original Boston Tea Party was a rejection of King George's confiscatory tax program, a program which also involved military searches and seizures of the property of colonists. But over time, other people with "agendas" - mostly against the socialist programs of Barack Obama and the Democrat Congress - began to mix with the "Tea Baggers" in their demonstrations. Rather than separate themselves from these newcomers with a different agenda, the Tea Party movement decided that really, they were all part of the same movement - the movement away from an oligarchy and the attempt to re-establish the republic founded in 1776. Frankly, they were right - and since then, this "movement" made up of people with a multitude of agendas based upon this principle have made tremendous inroads on the present political and social scene. Whether the issue be taxes or abortion or efforts to destroy the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution or the assault upon Christianity, like minded folks have banded together to force the politicians and even the media to hear the voice of the American People.

What most of the people involved in this new movement - a movement which put over a million and a half people in Washington on September 12th, 2009 - don't know is that the problem didn't start with Woodrow Wilson's adoption of the Federal Reserve or FDR's New Deal. It didn't even start with "progressive" Teddy Roosevelt's belief that the wealthy "owed" something to "the government". Rather, it started with Abraham Lincoln and his unconstitutional, illegal and immoral war of aggression against the People of the South! And that is what we have to "work into the mix". We have to address every one of these issues whether it be healthcare or censorship of the internet or the assault on the 2nd Amendment and bring to the consciousness of the People the true beginnings of this over-reaching, tyrannous NATIONAL government!

Of course, this won't be easy and it has to be done with a certain amount of finesse so that we are not immediately dismissed as nothing more than a fringe element. We have to have the right information depending upon the issue involved. For instance, most folks don't realize that Lincoln illegally established the income tax and the IRS. Grant let it lapse and it wasn't until some time later that it was reinstated, but Lincoln did start it! We have to develop a line of reasoning behind each issue which brings it back to the true beginning of what went wrong - from republic to empire. We have to refute the ridiculous belief that Lincoln "saved" the Union when, in fact, he destroyed it and waged war upon a people who had every right under the Constitution to leave that union. It is going to be the type of effort that will require a deft hand but if we are careful, if we keep our own agenda "under the radar", we are going to begin to wake folks up regarding where the current situation actually had its origins and the fact that we cannot address (much less solve) it until we acknowledge where the problem began.

The good thing about this strategy, however, is that we now have a much wider field in which to express ourselves. We are no longer limited to what child was not permitted to wear a battle flag belt buckle which is, let's face it, something that most folks don't get all that exercised about especially if they are unemployed or losing their home! We can begin to carefully and cogently bring our messages - moral, ethical, cultural and political - to the attention of people for whom the battle flag and other distinctly Southern issues are of no interest whatsoever. We can counter the "race card" by pointing out that the deprivation of liberty from any American must perforce redound negatively upon the liberties of every American. Furthermore, as Obama's allies in the "black community" from the NAACP to ACORN are revealed for what they are - actual racists and worse - their strident demands regarding the censorship of Southern culture and its symbols will lose power. It's hard to play the victim when you are revealed as the aggressor.

In any event, I believe that this is a path which we must travel or be lost in the chaos of the current culture. Even if those with whom we agree win and government is restricted, our issue could still wind up being lost simply because the winners never knew about it or understood its importance.

Lady Val

I would appreciate any thoughts on this matter. Please click comment below:

I’M NO WATERMELON

2010-01-25T01:41:00.005-05:00

by Joan Hough

Talk about DISCRIMINATION! The Fed's ruled in Feb. 2004 that the term "white pride" is "offensive and immoral, yet “black pride,” “Chinese Pride,” “Mexican Pride,” Black Pride” “Gay Pride,” “Transgender Pride,” “Lesbian Pride,” etc. were allowed in ’05. This information comes to us from a man who declares himself greatly discriminated against. He identifies himself: “Justin J. Moritz is my real name. I am a retired law enforcement officer and have served as a city police officer, a county deputy, a state special agent, and a training director. I hold Associate, Bachelor’s, and Master’s degrees from three Minnesota colleges.”
(Posted on August 3, 2005)

If this discrimination doesn't smack of the rulings made over a century ago by Saint Abraham Lincoln and his "magnificent” Marxist-Radicals during their War and their RECONSTRUCTION DAYS in my South, then I'm a watermelon.

I am now “digging deep" into new library shelves overflowing with books on the RRRRR ("Radical Republican's Rancid Reconstruction Retinue") in the South.

The truth being revealed about the Grand Republican Party's Reconstruction Period in American history consists of a revolting collection of evil perpetrated in the name of a saint and his Republican angels. (Did you know that Karl Marx, himself, taught the word "Reconstruction" to Abe, the irreligious wonder of the North, that great pretender of religious piety? The term was presented via letter from Marx to Lincoln--and no, I'll not bother to look up the reference for this.

My own family managed to survive the Republican evils, but it was not easy. My Dad's grandfather and grandmother suffered greatly through the horrors of the South's so-called RECONSTRUCTION. My great grandmother, especially, went from riches to rags during that period.

I will never forget. No true Southerner should. No true American could.

Most Americans are completely ignorant of the work of the Lincoln Republicans. Most Americans have not even an inkling of an idea as to how terror-filled the "Reconstruction Period" was for Southerners--starving, abused Southerners whose only sin was that they believed in the validity of the U.S. Constitution and their right to leave a U.S. government-turned-radical. Reconstruction was a glorious time, however, for the Carpet baggers, Yankee military occupants, In-coming Republicans, and happy, thousands upon thousands upon thousands of black sycophants expecting possession of their former master’s land, his home, his white women, his possessions, and his mules.

Marxist Reconstruction meant that the South suffered a mighty influx of Yankees who suddenly, immorally and unconstitutionally acquired vast tracts of rich dirt, lakes, plantations, small farms, saw mills, fabric factories, sugar mills, salt mines, private homes, lumber land, tons of cotton, an amazingly good growing climate, and most of the other types of the South's riches. The new government installed throughout the Southern states by the Republicans produced new state Constitutions written by and voted on by white Southerner’s masters and faithful Republicans.

Confederate Southerners, teachers, judges, preachers, policemen, sheriffs, mayors, school board members, city councilman, state treasurers, attorney generals, public auctioneers, etc. were not allowed to vote or participate in their South in any legal manner. Jury duty was prohibited them. Of course no man who had served in the Confederate military could vote either. The Kings so ruled. Martial law, martial rule, dictatorship in the nation! “Little Kings” controlling the Southern states.

The Union Generals were kings in the Southern Districts assigned them by the Radical Republicans. The Kings were supported by their thousands of Lincoln’s soldiers. The kings declared that only Blacks or Whites who had never lifted a hand to help or said a kind word to a Confederate could vote. Only these voters could create and put into effect the new Constitutions the Southern states were required to write before being re-admitted to the Union.

Confederate widows, not able to vote to stick up for themselves, were plentiful throughout the South and, had a bevy of hungry children clinging to their skirts. If the lady had even made a shirt for her young Confederate soldier boy son, she had a black mark against her in the Republicans’ book, and trouble, trouble, trouble at her doorstep. Who could come to her aid? Black rapists? Sneering Union soldiers? Union Men influenced by Beast Butler, still convinced that all females in the South should be accorded the treatment of women of ill repute because one Southern female allegedly spat on a Yankee soldier, and that if this actually happened, the soldier did absolutely nothing, and said absolutely nothing to cause such an un-Southern lady like type of behavior down in New Orleans?

All the world knows that soldiers are absolutely incapable of lewd behavior and of obscene gestures and remarks—and most especially so, if they happened to be Mr. Lincoln’s Union soldiers.

Louisiana, my poor Louisiana, bore the brunt of Yankee military occupation longer than any other Southern state, so perhaps Louisianans have longer memories of the evils of the grand old Republican Party. My North Louisiana was particularly hard-hit by the Plunderers and, as a result, gave the Republican Radicals’ generals more trouble than they were given elsewhere in the state. Louisiana forests were stripped of their lumber and any idiot knows how barren land becomes and just how long it takes trees to grow strong and tall and green again. Louisiana’s white Confederates were stripped of all of their God-given rights, including their freedom. Some say they have yet to gain all back again—that even free speech no longer exists. It has been taken away again by modern Republicans and Democrats.

But, oh, how sweetly the renowned historians praise the efforts of those Kingly Yankee Generals who governed Louisiana during those dozen years of Hell! How nice it is of these noble historians to praise the Yankee Generals of Louisiana for building, with stolen Southern monies, a few roads in Louisiana.

Actually, when compared to the highways built in England by Roman conquerors or built for Louisiana by Huey P. Long, the Yankee Generals’ highways were nothing. The Roman highways were magnificent, but Long's highways were spectacular in utility and number and unlike the Republican military rulers and the Romans, Long did no evil to the people, did not rob them, destroy their homes, kill them, or load their children's shoulders with guilt. With the voters’ money, he built them free hospitals, farm to market roads, institutions of higher education, and provided school books for the children. All this was done at the state, not the national level and did not break the Law of the Land or, for that matter, God’s Law. (And don’t believe the Hollywood version of Long’s life. Remember, if you are capable, that Long, had he been allowed to live, might very well have defeated in the presidential race, that great Socialist, Franklin D. Roosevelt, darling of the Communists.

Radical Republican Senator Sherman and his megalomaniacal-arsonist brother managed to get themselves miles of Southern land. When Grant managed to make himself a pauper, who flew to his financial aid? Why, the grown-rich, hero of the Georgia fire makers, of course.

As God is my witness I will never forget the Reconstruction and War works of the followers of Karl Marx in America---those Marxist- Republicans who, even today, are not given their correct labels, but are called "RADICAL REPUBLICANS." The Marxist-self-glorifying lies are told and retold even now in all the ever-so-proper history books, written by the ever-so-politically correct graduates of the U.S. government-controlled schools. (Yes, the victors do promulgate their lies down through the ages.)

It is, definitely, more comfortable and far less tiring for one to be dumb, to be illiterate, and to have a family full of relatives who know too little, if any, true Southern history. To be otherwise is to be forced to identify and loathe lies and liars---no matter how highly placed they may be in any nation’s all powerful central government. Loathing on the part of persons of intellect requires a great expenditure of the effort necessary to prove the loathing justified. All that digging out and separating truths from nationally accepted lies is hard work. More work is all that study of the U.S. Constitution and the history of that first secession from an all powerful government headed by King George—secession largely spear-headed by Southerners).

How can Southerners, if white, vote for Republicans? How could blacks, if with Confederate roots, do the same? How can Southerners vote for Democrats when Democrats have altered their spots and now have pelts more Sherman-fire-striped, more like Lincoln-Republicans than Democrats? How could Americans, noted for being truth-lovers continue to tolerate all who continue to regurgitate Marxist lies and vote them into law?

You tell me.

I could have filled up this commentary with all kinds of references, but since the POLITICALLY CORRECT historians merely quote each other's lies and these lies are always believed, I do not feel compelled to quote the authors of truths. If the reader is interested enough to inquire, I'll be most happy to send him/her pages of names of non-brainwashed authors including such as Walter Kennedy, Al Benson, Frank Conner, Thomas j. DiLorenzo, James Kennedy, Jeff Davis, Steve Scroggins and all the writers for the Georgia Heritage Council, Bernhard Thuersam, etc., etc., etc. and, in addition I'll supply the name of my Daddy, the man who told me what he learned from the mouths of his own Confederate soldier-grandfather and long-lived cousins.

Some of us long-lived Southerners did have in our close families living witnesses of the War of Northern Aggression and of the Occupation of the South. We know what we know and what other Americans don’t know or have lied about. Sadly they know not, and know not they know not-- but their history texts are the ones taught each and every generation of Americans. The Lincoln-cultists not only give each other monetary rewards and high degrees, they teach the whole world their lying songs.

I just spoke on the telephone with a very patriotic and lovely lady who informed me that she has many Confederates on her family tree. She, also, told me that "Abe Lincoln was a nice man." When I asked her who was the first U.S. president to give us Income tax, she did not know. I doubt that she believed me when I told her that he was Honest Abe and that the Communist Manifesto written by Karl Marx, and undoubtedly read by Abe, listed Progressive Income Tax as one of the big Commie goals. So Abe gave us the progressive income tax. The tax has a history that is very interesting, but someone else can tell you that.

Control of the minds of the children via public education was, of course, another goal Karl listed, although not in precisely those words. And everybody is aware that stirring racial hatred was another “biggy” for the Communists. This was addressed in Marx’s Manifesto.

Religion, called the "opiate of the people" by Karl Marx in translation from the German "Die Religion ... ist das Opium des Volkes" was, naturally, to be supplanted by total dedication/devotion/worship of the all powerful central government—government worship being the new religion. Interestingly, the phrase “This opium you feed your people” was the creation of Marquis de Sade.

I should have, also, informed that lady that Democrat Obama lists Abe Lincoln as one of his most admired Americans. In fact, Obama took his Presidential oath of office on the Bible used by Lincoln when Lincoln took the oath of office in 1861. And Obama’s decision to ape Lincoln was considered most appropriate by many knowledgeable history buffs who do not wonder why today a Democrat Donkey lionizes a Republican Elephant.

Southern Heritage News and Views