See related pages and categories
Monday, October 20, 2014
A TRULY HISTORIC DAY, A STIRRING TRIBUTE TO A BEAUTIFUL SOUL, AND A MEDIA BLACKOUT
By Ben Jones, SCV Chief of Heritage Operations
This past Saturday, at the Hillcrest Cemetery in Monroe, North Carolina a memorial service of major historic importance took place. The ashes of Mrs. Mattie Clyburn Rice were placed next to the grave of her father, Weary Clyburn. Mr. Clyburn was born in 1841 and was a combatant in the American Civil War and passed away in 1932. His daughter, Mrs. Rice, passed on September 1st of this year, two weeks before what would have been her 91st birthday. The service was to remember "Miss Mattie" and to dedicate to her a permanent memorial.
The memorial service was a day of tears and laughter, and a day of reflection, pageantry, music, and praise. It was a memorable occasion for a beautiful soul.
Between them, the lives of father and daughter encompassed the greater part of the American Experience. When Weary Clyburn was born, there were still many alive who had fought in the American Revolution. When his daughter died, the space age had taken men to the moon and beyond, and the digital revolution had enabled the entire planet to instantly connect. During this Sesquicentennial of the War Between the States, one would have expected such a memorial tribute as this to gain the attention of the major television networks, the cable news networks, and the major regional and national newspapers.
Certainly serious historians of the era would be there to mark the occasion, for this wonderful lady had heard of the war first hand from the stories of her beloved father, and she had honored his heritage with devotion and courage.
But the event took place in a virtual blackout of media coverage. There were, to my knowledge, two reporters from the Monroe area there, but nothing beyond that. The nation did not get to hear about "Miss Mattie" and her devotion to her father's memory. The historic importance of this family went virtually unnoticed by the media.
There was, however, an Associated Press story about the Memorial on the day before the service. And that nationally distributed story is indicative of the "mainstream media's" approach to what can only be called "political correctness". Nothing else can explain the "hatchet job" on the passing of this beautiful soul. For you see, Weary Clyburn was a slave, and he served for the Confederacy, and he received a pension for his service to the Southern Army. But the story told to the nation by the Associated Press says that he was surely forced into service by his master.
And that, according to Weary and his daughter Mattie, is a lie.
According to "Miss Mattie", her father went into the war with his friend, Frank Weary, and served as his bodyguard for four years. In one battle, Weary saved the wounded Frank's life by carrying him over his shoulders to safety. A granddaughter of Frank Weary spoke heartfelt thanks for this act to Weary's descendants at the Memorial Service.
For that Associated Press story, the reporter, Martha Waggoner, interviewed a man identified as a "blogger", a man who is a high school teacher from New Jersey who lives in Massachusetts. Claiming to be a "historian", this blogger has said that Mrs. Rice had promulgated a hoax, and that it was not true that men like Weary Clyburn had supported the Confederacy because Weary Clyburn was a slave. Never mind what the man Weary Clyburn himself said. The blogger, a man named Kevin Levin, thinks he knows the minds of Southern people who lived in the 1840's better than they knew it. In choosing to interview a blogger who is best known as an avowed anti-Southern propagandist, the A.P. reporter has insulted the memory of Mrs. Rice and her father and brought great pain to her family and to the many friends who knew this wonderful lady.
Of course, the "reporter" did not bother to cover the actual event and talk to Mrs. Rice's children and grandchildren. She and her colleagues were nowhere in sight. She had "covered" the story with a phone call to a self-obsessed Massachusetts blogger.
It is an outrageous and disturbing piece of "reporting". How anyone could slander this father and daughter is beyond comprehension, but that is exactly what "reporter" Martha Waggoner and "blogger" Kevin Levin managed to do.
Ms. Waggoner could have easily contacted any number of serious, respected historians of the American Civil War in North Carolina. Instead she seemed to "cherry-pick" a blogger devoted to attacking Southern heritage and gave him the final word.
But we can speak up for Weary Clyburn and "Miss Mattie" just as she spoke up for us.
Please e-mail Ms. Waggoner at MWaggoner@ap.org and tell her politely that her story was clearly biased and insulting to the memory of Mattie Clyburn Rice and her family. Tell her, as nicely as possible, that she should apologize to every one of "Miss Mattie's" family members, and especially to the memory of Weary Clyburn and his indomitable daughter, Mattie Clyburn Rice.
On The Web: http://shnv.blogspot.com/2014/10/a-truly-historic-day-stirring-tribute.html
See related pages and categories
Part 2–More About Secession the “History” Books Haven’t Told Us
Posted on October 16, 2014
by Al Benson Jr.
It has been accurately asserted by author Gene H. Kizer Jr. that: “The arguments for the right of secession are unequivocal. There is the constitutional right based on the Compact Theory, and the revolutionary right based on the idea that a free people have a right to change their government anytime they see fit. The Compact Theory views the Constitution as a legal agreement between the states–a compact–and if any one state violates the compact, then the entire agreement becomes null and void. Northern states unquestionably violated the Constitution on a number of grounds including Personal Liberty Laws on their books, as well as by deliberately harboring fugitives from justice by protecting the sons of John Brown who were wanted by Virginia for murder at Harpers Ferry. Northern states also made a mockery of the Constitution’s Preamble which states clearly that the Constitution was established to ‘insure domestic tranquility’ and ‘promote the general Welfare.’ Certain prominent Northern leaders with the acquiescence of states like Massachusetts were utterly at war with the South and doing everything they could to destroy the domestic tranquility of the Southern states by encouraging slaves to murder white people, poison wells, destroy property and commit other acts of rapine. John Brown himself had been encouraged and financed by the North.”
I have, in the past, written about a group called The Secret Six, which financed Brown’s terrorist activities in both Kansas and Virginia. Of this group all, save one, was from New England and that one was from New York. An excellent book to read regarding this dismal period in our history is Otto Scott’s The Secret Six–The Fool as Martyr which is a biography of John Brown, and therefore deals with those that financed him in some detail. Another good work in this area worth reading, if you can find it is The Road to Harpers Ferry by J. C. Furnas. A couple years ago in my little newsletter The Copperhead Chronicle I did a series of biographical sketches on the Secret Six. Quite an interesting little group. One of them, Thomas Wentworth Higginson, a Unitarian minister made the statement “I am always ready to invest money in treason…” I mention all this to demonstrate that the North had indeed broken the Constitutional Compact.
Walter Williams, a distinguished professor of economics at George Mason University has written on the secession question on a number of occasions. In his understanding secession is indeed legal. He noted at one point that before the War Between the States a constitutional amendment was proposed by some Northern congressman that would prohibit secession. He then points out that there would have been no point in offering such an amendment if secession had already been unconstitutional. You do have to admit that he has a point.
A few years ago the late Joe Sobran, (whom I assume that most people who read have heard of), wrote an article that appeared on http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org in which he noted that: “Our ultimate defense against the federal government is the right of secession. Yes, most people assume that the Civil War settled that. But superior force proves nothing. If there was a right of secession before that war, it should be just as valid now. It wasn’t negated become Northern munitions factories were more efficient than Southern ones.” And Sobran further observed, and I have to agree with him, that: “The original 13 states formed a ‘Confederation’ under which each state retained its ‘sovereignty, freedom and independence’.” The Constitution didn’t change this; each sovereign state was free to reject the Constitution. The new powers of the federal government were ‘granted’ and ‘delegated’ by the states, which implies that the states were prior and superior to the federal government. Even in The Federalist, the brilliant propaganda papers for ratification of the Constitution…the United States are constantly referred to as ‘the Confederacy’ and a ‘confederate republic,’ as opposed to a single ‘consolidated’ or monolithic state. Members of ‘a confederacy’ are by definition free to withdraw from it.”
Sobran noted that while Hamilton and Madison sincerely hoped secession would never happen, they didn’t deny that it was a possibility, and even if Madison didn’t like or agree with it, that doesn’t make it illegal.
Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1816: “If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation…to continuance in union…I have no hesitation in saying, ‘let us separate’.” Donald W. Livingston, a professor of philosophy at Emory University, and president of the Abbeville Institute, wrote in an article published in Chronicles magazine in October, 2010, that: “A state cannot retain sovereignty unless it has it, and in joining the Union no state renounced sovereignty. What motivates the nationalist theory is not an honest look at the historical founding of America, but political ambition legitimated by the philosophical theory of the modern unitary state. This ambition appears forcefully in Hamilton, who argued at the Philadelphia Convention for a president for life, a senate with members for life, appointed by the president, and state governors appointed by the president–in other words, monarchy by another name.” You have to wonder if any of those “you can’t get out of the Union no matter what” folks have something of this sort in mind. Those that seek to deny people their rights usually do have an agenda.
On The Web: http://revisedhistory.wordpress.com/2014/10/16/part-2-more-about-secession-the-history-books-havent-told-us/
See related pages and categories
More About Secession the “History” Books Haven’t Told Us
Posted on October 14, 2014
by Al Benson Jr.
There are some that continue to claim the Southern states had no right to secede just before the War of Northern Aggression. And it seems that as more truth continues to surface about the right of secession the more loud and strident their denials become.
I recently read an article on the Internet by Gene H. Kizer Jr., author of the book Slavery Was Not the Cause of the War Between the States. Mr. Kizer noted some interesting facts. He wrote about the Hartford Convention that I have written about previously. He observed: “The States’ Rights Hartford Convention of New England, aggrieved by the financial losses of New Englanders in shipping during the War of 1812, met in 1815 and seriously discussed seceding from the Union. The Convention selected representatives to go to Washington to present its grievances to the government. It even chose a military leader should its grievances be ignored, and made arrangements for a second convention, if necessary, to make specific plans to secede. Commissioners were sent to Washington but upon arriving found that the War of 1812 had ended, therefore it was not necessary to air their grievances. The Journal of the Hartford Convention bristles with references to state sovereignty, and uses States’ Rights language such as the right of a state to decide for itself when a violation of the Constitution occurred.” As little as our “history” books deal with all of this, you’ve got to admit these folks were serious.
Mr. Kizer also mentioned an article written by Mr. H. Newcomb Morse, which appeared in the Stetson Law Review. Mr. Morse’s article was entitled The Foundations and Meaning of Secession. Mr. Morse wrote that the War of Northern Aggression didn’t prove that secession was illegal, and the reason was that: “…many instances both preceding and following the War support the proposition that the Southern states did have the right to secede from the Union. Instances of nullification prior to the War Between the States, contingencies under which certain states acceded to the Union, and the fact that the Southern states were made to surrender the right to secession all affirm the existence of a right to secede.” You have to ask yourself the question–if there had been no right to secession then how could they surrender it?
And Kizer noted that: “Morse argues that because the Constitution did not forbid secession, then every state acceding to the Constitution had the implied right to secede from it. He says that if men of the caliber of Madison, Hamilton, Wilson and the others meant to forbid secession they definitely would have said so, and the omission of a prohibition on secession in the Constitution is strong proof that the right of secession existed and was presumed.”
And, again, you have to ask yourself, how, only 13 years after the end of the War for Independence, would the founders again lock themselves into a political situation identical to the one they had just fought a war with Great Britain to extricate themselves from? If you think about that, it doesn’t make much sense.
Then there is something I have written about in the past–the reason the North did not put Jefferson Davis on trial after his two years of unnecessary imprisonment. They wanted to try him for treason, but the best legal minds in the North realized, after looking at the evidence, that secession was not treason and that David would probably be found not guilty and they’d all end up with political egg on their faces and so they backed off.
Albert Taylor Bledsoe wrote a ground-breaking book called Is Davis A Traitor? In that, he dealt with the Constitution as a compact which he said the states had acceded to, or agree to. Bledsoe made this point to show that if the states acceded to the terms of a compact, they could secede from that compact if the terms of it were broken by one of the other members. That word “accede” is one lots of folks of the “perpetual Union” theory really dislike. Basically the word accede means to agree with, not to surrender to. Bledsoe stated that at one point, Daniel Webster had said that “the states acceded to the Constitution was’unconstitutional language’.” And Bledsoe said that was Webster’s position because if states had acceded to the Constitution then it was only logical they could secede from it. So he noted that discrediting the one word “accede” became very important to Webster. However, the word “accede” was not unconstitutional language.
Mr. Kizer, in his article, stated that: “Webster had attacked the word ‘accede’ as something invented by proponents of the Constitution as compact. His intention was to discredit his opponents by discrediting the language they were using, but his plan backfired. Bledsoe points out that Webster’s attack on the word ‘accede’ by calling it a ‘new word’ was ill-founded and incorrect because’accede’ had precisely been ‘the word of the fathers of the Constitution’ with Washington ‘at their head.’ They had all used the word ‘accede’ in reference to states joining the Constitution, and of course, the converse of the word ‘accede’ is secede’.” I can remember when I did the research for my booklet The Theological and Political Implications of the Doctrine of Secession several years ago I came across several quotes by Washington where he mentioned this or that state acceding to the Constitution.
On The Web: http://revisedhistory.wordpress.com/2014/10/14/more-about-secession-the-history-books-havent-told-us/
See related pages and categories
Where Do Confederate Flag Detractors In Virginia Originally Come From?
by Al Benson Jr.
On Saturday, October 11, 2014 there was an interesting article posted on
http://jerryd14.wordpress.com dealing with the origins of some of the Confederate flag
detractors that have been so active in Virginia in recent months.
The author of the article stated: "It looks kinda suspicious, I mean, I am not a forensics expert, or
crime fighter, nor mind reader, but I can smell a Damn Yankee. It is interesting to see in most of the recent places in Virginia where the Morons, Liberals, Politically Correct ..., quite a lot of the players seem to also be Yankee Carpet baggers. Not all, but a lot. Coincidence, not hardly. Yes the old DNA is there, and the author notes that they are "stiff necked, hardheaded, loud,..." and a few other choice adjectives which I will dispense with here, not that I disagree with his observation.
And he observes further: "They come here, smile and tell us how much they so love the South, and worm their slimery selves into employment, take over Southern institutions like rats take over a package of cheese, and begin to change it all to make it like the Hell Hole Northern cesspool they slid down from." This is something most Southern folks don't stop to think about--the origins of many that run some of their heritage institutions and groups. Now I can't say that all Northern folks are bad, I am one myself, originally, but in all my years, I have never knowingly harmed or diluted any Southern heritage organization or group. If anything, I lean in the other direction. I've had some Southern folks tell me "You're more Southern than some of the Southerners I know." My wife and I now live in Louisiana and we did not come here to dilute Southern culture, we came to partake of it, and to promote it, and we've never felt unwelcome in the South. Unless some sort of family emergency arose, we'd never consider moving back north again.
Unfortunately, though, not all Northern folks take that position, and the author of the jerry14 article notes that the Director of the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts is a man from New York state. And he notes the Danvillle, Virginia Museum of Fine Arts, as a "place for inclusiveness, if you are black, liberal, and politically correct, but no Confederate Flag is desired." Some of you all have probably been reading about the big fuss over the Confederate Flag in Danville just recently. The prominent member on the board of directors at the Danville Museum is a lady named Cara Burton, and the author says: "Where do ya think she was born, Atlanta, Nope, Richmond, unh, uh, let's try New York again."
He also noted the recent problem at Washington and Lee College and mentions the head man at that school, Mr. Kenneth P. Ruscio. However, Mr. Ruscio doesn't come from New York--he comes from Red Bank, New Jersey. When a group of black students suddenly became "offended" at a Confederate Flag in the chapel as Washington and Lee, Mr. Ruscio couldn't get the flag down fast enough. What has happened is that many places of cultural importance in the South have been taken over by Northerners who have no interest in Southern heritage or culture other than dispensing with as much of it as possible. Unfortunately, you've got some Southerners that are willing to do the same thing. Wherever they were educated they were made to feel guilty about their heritage and culture and so they have come back to the South to help eradicate as much of it as possible, like good little Yankee wannabees.
I don't know what you all can do about these folks as they work to dismantle the heritage left to you by your forefathers, but you have got to do something. I don't know if starting up competing institutions to those you have already lost is an option or not in some cases, but you have got to do something. And whatever you all do, you have got to make sure your leadership has its feet firmly planted in a positive view of Southern culture and heritage.
On The Web: http://southern-thangs.blogspot.com/2014/10/where-do-confederate-flag-detractors-in.html
See related pages and categories
SC governor defends Confederate flag at Statehouse: Not ‘a single CEO’ has complained
15 Oct 2014
South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley (R) on Tuesday said that there was no need to remove the Confederate battle flag from the Statehouse grounds because it was not an issue for CEOs, and the state had “fixed” racist perceptions by electing an Indian-American governor.
During a South Carolina gubernatorial debate, Democratic candidate Sen. Vincent Sheheen called on the flag to be retired to a museum.
“I think the people of South Carolina are tired of having an image across America that’s not truly who we are,” Sheheen explained, adding that everyone should “rally together under a flag that unites us all, the American flag, that looks toward the future, and not the past.”
Haley responded that the Confederate flag was a “sensitive issue.”
“What I can tell you is over the last three and a half years, I spent a lot of my days on the phones with CEOs and recruiting jobs to this state,” the governor noted. “I can honestly say I have not had one conversation with a single CEO about the Confederate flag.”
Haley said that she had tried to improve the perception of the state by ordering employees to answer the phone with the phrase “it’s a great day in South Carolina.”
“But we really kind of fixed all that when you elected the first Indian-American female governor,” she insisted. “When we appointed the first African-American U.S. senator, that sent a huge message.”
Independent libertarian candidate Steve French said that he believed in the concept of “individual liberty” when it came to the Confederate flag.
“So, if you want to paint your house in the Confederate flag, I am completely fine with that,” he remarked.
But French disagreed with Haley when it came to businesses, saying that he had spoken with entrepreneurs who refused to move to South Carolina because the state was perceived as a “backwoods good ol’ boy network.”
“And that flag, I think, represents a lot of division in this state, and we need to be coming together,” French observed.
On The Web: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/10/sc-governor-defends-confederate-flag-at-statehouse-not-a-single-ceo-has-complained/
See related pages and categories
Politically Correct Professors
by Al Benson Jr.
On my blog spot http://revisedhistory.wordpress.com I have been working on a series of articles about secession and all the reasons for it and why it was, and is, legal. So far the reception of these articles has been pretty good and quite a few folks have been reading them. I've done 6 or 7 in a row up to this point.
Most of the commentary I have gotten back from folks has been positive, but then, with my pro-Southern audience I sort of expected that most folks would tend to agree with me.
However, after the writing of these last 2 articles, I have come across a history professor (or rather he's come across me, I don't know which) from a community college on the West (Left) Coast and he is busily emailing me replies to my articles trying to show me how far off I am--that secession is not legal, that the Constitution was not a compact between the States, which I believe it was, but was, rather, a situation that, once a state got into it they could never get out unless all the states agreed to let them go.
To me this is the usual politically correct version of history, and also, to me, political correctness is really nothing more than Cultural Marxism, which is nothing more than Marxism taken to a new level. No doubt there are many folks who have bought into political correctness that have no idea of what it really is or where it came from, but unfortunately, they do as much damage with it as those Marxists that do realize where it came from and what its goal (the destruction of Western culture, particularly Christianity) really is.
Since secession can be practiced on many levels, I would advocate, for folks who have not bought into the political correctness permeating the culture around them, that they secede culturally from the politically correct culture around them. One way to do this would be to remove your children from the government school system, which spreads political correctness around as much, if not more, than many other government institutions. Take your kids and secede from the public school system. Find a good Christian school for them or if you are not able to afford to do that, then teach them at home. It is something that can be done, not all that expensively, and there are lots of home schooling resources out there now that didn't exist when my wife and I home schooled our kids back in the late 1980s.
Private Christian education would be a major step away from political correctness in the area of education and I would recommend it to all that are able to do it.
On The Web: http://southern-thangs.blogspot.com/2014/10/politically-correct-professors.html
See related pages and categories
Perpetual Union–If you can bamboozle enough people–Part Two
Posted on October 11, 2014
by Al Benson Jr.
So Chase followed in the same vein that Lincoln had–the Union existed before the states and it was indestructible and irrevocable. And once you were in, you were still in, even if you seceded–in fact you really didn’t secede, you only thought you did. Of course, then, to get back into this “Union” you had never really been out of, you had to ratify certain amendments. At this point, the logic (and I use that term loosely) of the Yankee/Marxist absolutely defies description.
You have to wonder where these people got their notion of an “indestructible” Union. Did it have anything to do with what they were smoking? When the group assembled in Philadelphia in 1787 gave us the Constitution (when it was really beyond their instructions to do so) what they did, in effect, was to secede from the Articles of Confederation and give us a whole new government–one that did not use the words “perpetual union” and one that did not forbid secession, even though I have been informed that it really did.
When the New England states sent delegates to Hartford, Connecticut in 1814 to consider the secession of the New England states no one said anything. Admittedly, they ended up not seceding because the War of 1812 which had New England merchants so stirred up ended. However, they were strongly considering it, as they did two other times. In those days you didn’t take trips like that just to engage in political chit-chat. Yet no one complained. No one told the New Englanders that their secession was illegal or that the supremacy clause in the Constitution forbid them from ever seceding at any time unless all the other states were willing to let them go. The right of a state to secede was accepted. Remember the secession language in the New York and Virginia ratification ordinances? But some inform us that this was all meaningless, that once you were in you could never get out unless all the states were willing to let you go. You almost wonder if there was a slight double standard in operation here–it would have been okay if the New England states did it but not if the Southern states did it.
Contrary to Chase’s “indestructible Union” theory, Professor Donald W. Livingston has written in Secession, State & Liberty that “There was a time, however, when talk about secession was a part of American politics. Indeed, the very concept of secession and self-determination of peoples, in the form being discussed today, is largely an American invention. It is no exaggeration to say that the unique contribution of the eighteenth-century American Enlightenment is not federalism but the principle that a people, under certain conditions, have a moral right to secede from an established political authority and to govern themselves.” Livingston further wrote that: “The Constitution of the United States was founded as a federative compact between the states, marking out the authority of a central government, having enumerated powers delegated to it by sovereign states which reserved for themselves the vast domain of unenumerated powers. By an act of philosophical alchemy, the Lincoln tradition has transmuted this essentially federative document into a consolidated nationalist regime…In this version, the reserved powers of the states vanish, and the states themselves are transformed into resources for and administrative units of a nationalist political project…” That is exactly where we find ourselves today, thanks to the views of men like Lincoln and Chase, who, in a political sense, “Changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator…” (Romans 1).
The Southern states, and some Northern ones, always considered the Constitution to be a compact between sovereign states. Had it been understood by them as anything but that, it is highly doubtful that many of these states, a mere thirteen years after the end of our War for Independence, would have entangled themselves in the clutches of an indissoluble union from which they could never withdraw. The Declaration of Independence was, after all, a secession document.
The Kennedy Brothers, in their groundbreaking work The South Was Right stated, on page 162: “In her act of ratification, Virginia drew a protective shield around the sovereign community and declared that sovereignty is derived from the people…The states did not intend to establish a supreme judge to rule over them. Before entering into the proposed constitutional contract, the state of Virginia (along with several other states, both north and south) declared the legal right of the sovereign community (the people of the state) to recall any delegated power if it is used in an act of oppression or injury against the people. The fact that the other states accepted the Virginia Act of Ratification without question is reason enough to maintain the assertion that they were in agreement with Virginia.”
If the Constitution is looked to as a document that forms an “indestructible” Union, then the states that ratified it have been lied to–sold a bill of goods, bought a political “gold brick’ as it were–a brick made not of gold, but of iron–that iron to forge the chains of those states that may finally realize they have been lied to and so they want out!
Secession was not illegal, was not rebellion as the Northern politicians claimed, and, as author James Street said: “The South got a raw deal.” And the Lincoln/Chase concept of “perpetual Union” is what is taught in the government schools in this country–to make sure no one ever again concludes that secession might be the answer to the problems of an ever-expanding socialist regime in Washington.
On The Web: http://revisedhistory.wordpress.com/2014/10/11/perpetual-union-if-you-can-bamboozle-enough-people-part-two/
See related pages and categories
“Perpetual Union”–If you can bamboozle enough people into believing it
Posted on October 9, 2014
by Al Benson Jr.
In his rather convoluted thinking, Abraham Lincoln stated that: The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774.” Some historians have noted that this association of the colonies before the Articles of Confederation was adopted, was a body that could only suggest certain courses of action, none of which had the force of law–a deliberative body–nothing more. Such facts made no difference whatever to Abraham Lincoln. They didn’t fit his agenda and so he ignored them. As far as he was concerned, it was all “the Union” even though his ethereal version of it existed in his mind before the documents that founded the Union existed. Walter Kennedy and I noted in Lincoln’s Marxists on page 109 and following, which is chapter 5 entitled Lincoln’s Mystical View of the Union that this was Lincoln’s mindset.
Sad to say, this seems to be a rather strong tack in the Yankee/Marxist mindset in general. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Salmon P. Chase also seemed to lean strongly in this direction with his view of the Union.
John Niven, in his book Salmon P. Chase–a biography also noted: Had the Confederate States by their secession from the Union given up their former identity as Sumner, Stevens and other radical politicians argued? If they had, then it would logically follow that secession was a lawful act and the Union had existed only at the sufferance of the states, an argument Lincoln dismissed as an abstraction…
It has been argued that “The South never really understood the Union.” That may be true–at least they never understood it in the sense that the Yankee did. Had they truly done so, I would submit that the Southern states never should have ratified the Constitution to begin with. Christian statesman Patrick Henry warned his fellow Virginians with common sense arguments and logic of the dangers of Virginia’s ratification of the Constitution. Virginians did not heed his words. They should have. And yet, maybe some of the mud stuck against the wall, for in Virginia’s ratification ordinances it was stated: We the delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected…do, in the name and behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known, that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States, may be resumed by them, whenever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression. New York’s ratification statement pretty much says the same thing. And their ratification ordinances were accepted with this language included in them.
In other words, some states ratified the Constitution with the proviso that, should things not work out in this new union, they had the right to leave. That was the Southern understanding of this new Constitution, and it would seem that some Northern folks had the same understanding. I agree with them. Yet, suffice it to say, Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, after the War of Northern Aggression (or could we call it the War of Marxist Revolution?) took a view totally opposed to that truth, as had Lincoln. Should anyone really be surprised? After all, the winners always get to redefine the “history.”
Chase noted, in 1869, that the Constitution in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union composed of indestructible States. He felt that once a state or territory got into the Union, that was it. It was there for eternity unless its status was determined by a revolution, or “consent of the states.” Chase noted the language in the Articles of Confederation about a “perpetual Union.” That term, “perpetual” did not appear in the new Constitution, but rather the new document referred to a “more perfect Union.” Chase apparently took that to mean “more perpetually perfect.” If Chase was aware or either Virginia’s nor New York’s ratification terminology he kept silent about it. After all, those ratification ordinances contradicted his “indestructible Union” tomfoolery.
And Chase was, apparently, more than ready to accept more broad, sweeping powers for the federal government. In 1866 he observed: That the war had changed the government and the powers of government were essentially different from what they were before the war. Now there was an understatement if ever I saw one, and yet a revelation as well. He’s telling you, right flat out, that the war gave the federal government more and expanded powers–probably not constitutional ones–but not to worry, Chase’s Supreme Court would remedy that little problem.
To be continued.
On The Web: http://revisedhistory.wordpress.com/2014/10/09/perpetual-union-if-you-can-bamboozle-enough-people-into-believing-it/
See related pages and categories
Secession–Not Just Southern and Not Just Secular–Part Two
Posted on October 7, 2014
by Al Benson Jr.
Just before, and during, the War of Northern Aggression, the sentiment in favor of secession came from other areas of the country and not just from below Mason-Dixon.
In Douglas County, Illinois a meeting was held which announced that: “We regard the Emancipation Proclamation…as the entering wedge which will ultimately divide the middle and northwestern states from our mischiefmaking, puritanical, fanatical New England brethren…” Culturally, this has happened, even though Lincoln’s “mystical Union” has been held together with bayonets.
In Brown County, Indiana, a gathering was convened that put forth this sentiment: “…Our interests and inclinations will demand of us a withdrawal from political association in a common government with the New England states, who have contributed so much to every innovation upon the Constitution to our present calamity of civil war, and whose tariff legislation must ever prove oppressive to our agricultural and commercial pursuits.” Mind you, such secession sentiments are coming forth from Indiana and Illinois.
Other sources have cited secession sentiment in even the Middle Atlantic states–New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware and Maryland. Author William C. Wright has written that: “The secession movement was prominent in the five Middle Atlantic states. Within these five states were three types of secessionists; first, those who wanted to join the Confederacy; second, those who wished to form a central confederacy, that is, to join with the other border states and divide the United States into three separate nations; third, those who preferred to let the South go in peace rather than to use force to save the Union.”
Wright noted that Pennsylvania was the most pro-Union of these states, while New Jersey had strong economic and social ties with the South. New York was divided between the up-state region which supported the Union and the Hudson Valley and New York City areas that had ties to the South. New York City Mayor Fernando Wood had even made the proposition that New York City be made into a “free city.” Wright has duly noted that: “Together, the advocates of secession weakened the Lincoln administration’s ability to react to the Confederacy. At the same time, they offered the South hope of Northern support if war broke out.” In view of this, one might be led to wonder if this situation was the real reason for Lincoln’s actions in regard to Fort Sumter. I might also question why almost none of this type of material is ever presented in our “history” books, if such they can seriously be called. But that would be little more than a rhetorical exercise because I already know why.
The majority of people today, North and South, largely due to the abolitionist propaganda presented in our “history” books (whoever said history books had to teach real history?) and the rampant apostasy in the country as a whole, have viewed secession and the War of Northern Aggression in a strictly secular light. Many who have studied history will readily admit to the political and economic causes of the War, though some continue to persist it was all about slavery. However, most will not touch the theological reasons for secession.
However, there were many in the South that viewed secession in the same light that they viewed the biblical separation spoken of in Second Corinthians 6:14-18. They looked at an increasingly apostate and “progressive” North, while, in the main, most Southerners clung to orthodox Christianity. Informed Southerners watched much of the Northern clergy, no doubt influenced by the taint of Unitarianism, seek to deify man and to exalt the goodness of his human nature and his “free will.” It was the same sort of thing they did with abolitionist/terrorist John Brown in 1859 where Northern Unitarians claimed that Brown’s gallows was equal to Christ’s cross.
The late Professor M. E. Bradford, writing in the Southern Partisan magazine for the fourth quarter of 1991, noted that: “…Professor Bell Wiley observes, the Southern churches had always warned their communicants against ‘extreme confidence in human endeavor.’ The ordinary Southerner of 1860 did not approach the world as did those who had voted for Mr. Lincoln. They were…’as dubious of human ability in social and political matters as in the matter of salvation.’ The belief of the sovereignty of God and dependence of man was the whole of their thinking.”
In regard to Southern clergymen, Professor Bradford wrote: “Because most Southern clergymen were, during the years of sectional conflict within their denominations, convinced that apostasy and infidelity had become the dominant religions of the North.” You know something? They were right! Bradford observed that: “As the War approached, these (Southern) clergymen more and more tended to view the sectional controversy as a dispute between those who acknowledged the authority of the Scripture and those who set their own moral sense above it–in other words, between Christians and infidels.”
Thus we have another, seldom acknowledged, yet perhaps the most important dimension to the secession question–the spiritual and theological dimension. The majority probably have no interest in dealing with this aspect of the question. The “history” they’ve been taught tells them not to, but the spiritual dimension was and is here and needs to be dealt with. As someone with a Christian worldview, I believe all truth is educational and all things, ultimately, reflect someone’s theology. Everything eventually comes down to this–choose who you will serve, the Trinitarian God of the Scriptures or the World System. It has to be one or the other. Many Southern secessionists held to this view. For them, although political issues were prominent as were economic ones, their ultimate view of secession was a theological view. They viewed the doctrine of biblical separation and secession as one. In our apostate day, such a conclusion merits our serious consideration.
A Constitutional View of the Late War Between the States
by Alexander H. Stephens (volume one)
Krause Reprint Company, New York, 1970
Democracy in America
by Alexis de Tocqueville (volume one)
Vintage Books, New York, July, 1990
The Hidden Civil War
by Wood Gray
Viking Press, New York, 1942
The Secession Movement in the Middle Atlantic States
by William C. Wright
Associated University Presses, Inc. Cranberry, New Jersey, copyright 1973
A Theological and Political View of the Doctrine of Secession
by Al Benson Jr.
The Copperhead Chronicle, Sterlington, Louisiana, copyright 1995, reprinted 2009
(booklet 30 pages)
On The Web: http://revisedhistory.wordpress.com/2014/10/07/secession-not-just-southern-and-not-just-secular-part-two/
See related pages and categories
Quote of the Week ... or Month ... or Whatever
"I think the Virginia Flaggers err when they fly the CSA navy jack/Army of Tennessee flag as a salute to the soldiers of the Army of Northern Virginia. Not only do they fly a flag with no context, but the flag they fly violates any sort of historical context.
After all, it’s not history, but heritage, with these folks, and we know that it’s a heritage of hate, judging from the bitterness spewed by their spokespeople and supporters."
Your job, dear readers, should you accept it, is to --
(1) advise who should get to decide when flying a flag "errs" and what the criteria for their decision should be; and what qualifications they should have to make such decisions for anyone but themselves.
(2) Identify spokespeople for the Virginia Flaggers.
(3) Identify any instances of hate and bitterness "spewed" by them at the VaFlaggers blog, Facebook group, or other venues. (Provide links.)
Personally, I think the Virginia Flaggers are doing a great job of keeping the Confederate battle flag visible, and people who are upset about it are those who wish to remove Confederate flags from public view and hide them in a basement somewhere, if not actually destroy them. This certainly includes the people who mouth off about "context".
The flippin' context for the Virginia Flaggers memorial flags is that they are Confederate battle flags flying in a Confederate state where battles were fought, for the purpose of commemorating the Confederate soldiers who fought those battles. How hard is that to comprehend?
On The Web:
See related pages and categories
Confederate license plate backers seek high court help
By MARISSA BARNETT
Published: 11 October 2014
AUSTIN — A Southern heritage group wanting to sell Confederate battle flag license plates has asked the U.S. Supreme Court for help in its long fight against a Texas agency opposed to the idea.
The Sons of Confederate Veterans, in a legal filing last week, said the justices should reject the state’s recent request that it take up the case after a lower court ruled Texas cannot block the specialty plates.
The veterans group’s lawyer acknowledged that the Civil War-inspired plate “evokes passionate viewpoints,” but said that because of free speech rights, Texas cannot ban the tag simply because some may find it offensive.
The state attorney general’s office told the high court in August that the Department of Motor Vehicles has the power to regulate controversial messages on government-issued property.
The back and forth between plate supporters and the state is the latest development in what has been a five-year dispute. The DMV twice snubbed the group’s request for the plate with the stylized flag.
Critics have denounced it as racially offensive. The veterans group say it’s intended to honor Confederate soldiers.
After the group won an appeals court ruling in July that cleared the way for the plate, the state asked the Supreme Court to weigh in.
The court now is sifting through nearly 10,000 petitions to decide which cases — possibly as many at 90 — that it will hear during the session ending the middle of next year.
The plate, with the words “Sons of Confederate Veterans 1896” encircling the red flag of blue bars and white stars, remains in limbo in Texas until the case is resolved. Nine other states allow it.
John McConnell, the group’s attorney, said that most courts have deemed license plates as private speech, even when issued by state governments. That means the DMV overreached when it refused the flag tag, he said.
“The Constitution does not allow the state to censor unpopular viewpoints because the majority finds them ‘offensive.’ Such a standard allows for unbridled discretion and is a recipe for viewpoint discrimination,” he said.
Attorney General Greg Abbott’s office said the court should hear the case because lower courts have issued conflicting decisions in similar suits across the country.
McConnell said the state-cited cases are not relevant.
©2014, The Dallas Morning News Inc
On The Web: http://www.dallasnews.com/news/state/headlines/20141011-confederate-license-plate-backers-seek-high-court-help.ece
See related pages and categories
Sons of Confederate Veterans files petition against UM
Posted on Sep 30 2014
by Lacey Russell
The Mississippi Division Sons of Confederate Veterans has filed a petition for injunction against The University of Mississippi in hopes of deterring the street name change from Confederate Drive to Chapel Lane.
Natchez attorney Holmes Sturgeon, alumnus of The University of Mississippi Law School and legal representative of the organization, filed the petition Sept. 18 in Lafayette County Chancery Court.
“The purpose of the Sons of Confederate Veterans is to see that the memory of the Confederate soldiers is kept alive,” Sturgeon told The Daily Mississippian in a telephone interview. “Therefore, there is no real compromising on issues like this, in my opinion.”
Allen Terrell, former Ole Miss student and current resident of Natchez, is the direct descendant of two Civil War veterans – both of his great-great grandfathers fought and died while serving as privates in the Confederate army.
Today, Terrell said he respects his ancestors by serving as Mississippi Division Commander of the Sons of Confederate Veterans.
“We don’t necessarily celebrate the war,” Terrell explained of his organization. “We realize that was a bad time. It was a pivotal time in our history, but we honor and celebrate the men that fought for the cause which they believed at that time was right.”
As a result of the discriminatory incidents that occurred on campus over the last few years, Chancellor Dan Jones released an action plan in August for cultivating a more inclusive environment at the university. The six-fold strategy included changing the name of the one-block street known as Confederate Drive to Chapel Lane.
“The chancellor is trying to make the university an extremely diverse and welcoming place,” Terrell said. “He appears to be isolating groups like ours though – Mississippians that care about their Southern heritage. Why don’t we get to figure into this diversity?
“If you’re going to be diverse, is it just diversity for minorities? I mean diversity encompasses everybody.”
Both Terrell and Sturgeon believe renaming Confederate Drive is in direct violation of a state statute that says no monuments or memorials from the Civil War erected on public property, shall be relocated, removed, disturbed, altered or renamed.
Sturgeon said due to the lack case references in the annotated code, he believes the statute has not yet been tried in court of law.
“Now it doesn’t say off in there that Confederate Drive can’t be changed,” Sturgeon explained. “However, it does say that streets and roads of that nature that are (historically named) can’t be changed.
“I’m sure there’s always a ‘can’ wherever there’s a ‘can’t,’ because there’s some circumstances in which it probably could be changed, but the Supreme Court has never heard a case on that particular law yet.”
UM attorney Lee Tyner said the university was served the petition for injunction last Friday.
“We’re confident that we have the ability to change that street name, and we’re also committed to not violating any laws,” Tyner said in a telephone interview. “We’re comfortable that if the judge reviews what we’ve done, that it’s fully within what we can do legally.”
Terrell said he is aware of the negative connotation surrounding the word “confederacy” today. He explained his organization does not condone or support actions of the white supremacist group the Ku Klux Klan, and over the last year, he has removed some Sons of Confederate Veterans members for Klan affiliation.
“You need to put your mindset back in the 1860s when you’re talking about what our organization represents,” he said. “If we were racists, would we have black members in our organization? If we were racist, would we have Jewish members? Would we have Hispanic members? We’re not some white, Aryan group.
“We are a heritage organization. Our only goal is to honor our ancestors, and make sure that people know the true history of the South.”
The name of Confederate Drive has officially been changed to Chapel Lane since Sturgeon’s filing of the petition 12 days ago. He said a hearing for the injunction has been noticed for Oct. 27.
“If they want to go all the way, then I’ll go all the way for the rest of my life,” Sturgeon said. “I don’t mind doing that until the day I die. We’ll just go on and on until we get something that will assure us that the monument to the Confederate soldiers is left right where it is, that the cemetery is not disturbed and the road leading to the cemetery is not disturbed or renamed or defaced or desecrated.
“It is a lawsuit. It is litigation. It is a petition for something, and we are going to get to the bottom of it.”
On The Web: http://thedmonline.com/sons-of-confederate-veterans-files-petition-against-um/
See related pages and categories
Danville to do more research on Confederate flag issue
Posted: Friday, October 10, 2014
BY JOHN R. CRANE
Danville Register & Bee
Danville City Council has asked the city’s attorney to conduct further legal research regarding a request to remove the third national Confederate flag from the front lawn of the Sutherlin Mansion.
The board of directors of the Danville Museum of Fine Arts & History — which is housed inside the Sutherlin Mansion — voted on Sept. 25 to ask the city to remove the Confederate flag from the museum grounds. The board sent a written request to the city on Sept. 30.
The museum wants to move the flag inside for a planned Confederate flag exhibit as part of the museum’s sesquicentennial of the Civil War.
City Attorney Clarke Whitfield will report his findings at a closed city council meeting that will follow its work session on Oct. 21.
State law allows local governments to hold closed meetings for legal consultation. City council will reconvene in open session and discuss how to proceed.
Following a city council meeting Thursday night, Danville residents, including members of local Confederate heritage organizations, expressed opposition to the flag’s removal.
A handful of other local residents were in favor of taking it down.
“That flag doesn’t represent me,” said Danville resident Matthew Bailey. It represents negativity and people being separated, Bailey said.
“Our city should be in the forefront of reconciliation and peace,” he added. The flag’s removal would allow everyone to “move forward together,” Bailey said.
Steve Adkins, who opposes taking the flag down, said previous city councils have recognized the importance and value of the flag and preserving Danville’s heritage. The flag doesn’t represent all of the city but is “part of our past,” Adkins said.
Danville resident Tony Lundy said the city has been peaceful the last 20 years since the 1994 resolution and agreement with a local heritage group over the flags’ display at the mansion.
“This has been a peaceful city for the last 20 years,” Lundy said. “I don’t want to see that change … We’re not asking for much,” Lundy said.
Following the 1994 resolution passed by city council, the Heritage Preservation Association became responsible for the flag’s maintenance, purchase, removal and replacement. The city owns the monument and the flag pole, along with the Sutherlin Mansion and its grounds.
The flag itself belongs to the HPA.
One lady who spoke at the meeting said the flag should be relegated to the history books so it doesn’t “fly in our faces every day.”
Glenn Scearce, who was against taking down the flag, said African-Americans have a right to be angry but that white Southerners have a history, also. The South “suffered terribly” during the Civil War and the years afterward, he said.
The subject of slavery was happening for 200 years before the flag was sewn together, Scearce said. If the flag is removed from the museum lawn, it will be on display for a short while, put into a closet and then it will disappear, he said.
The Confederate flag is not a symbol of hatred and it was not flying over ships that brought slaves to America, he said.
“My history also has a place in America,” Scearce said.
Ed Clark, second lieutenant commander with the Sons of Confederate Veterans, said “Old Glory” flew over the ships that brought slaves to America, not the Confederate flag. The ships’ passengers were already slaves before they came and they were educated, taught to write here, Clark said. The flag should fly at the museum, he said. It represents an independent nation that was illegally invaded by [President Abraham] Lincoln, who didn’t care about slaves, Clark said.
“That flag represents independence, defiance against tyranny,” Clark said.
In the waning days of the Civil War, the Sutherlin Mansion served as the final home of the Confederate government after the fall of Richmond. Danville is considered the “last capitol” because it marked the last time the full Confederate government met in one place before the armies in the field surrendered.
The monument includes a seven-foot granite obelisk and a flagpole flying the third national flag of the Confederacy. According to the resolution, the purpose of the acceptance was to recognize the mansion’s historical status as the “Last Capitol of the Confederacy.”
© 2014 BH Media Group Holdings, Inc
On The Web: http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/state-regional/danville-to-do-more-research-on-confederate-flag-issue/article_26b71b40-50d6-11e4-ae41-0017a43b2370.html
See related pages and categories
Sons of Confederate Veterans
October 13, 2014
A NEW GUARD STANDS AT THE MARIETTA CONFEDERATE CEMETERY
(Atlanta - October 13, 2014) The Georgia Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans is honored to announce the unveiling of a new Bronze Soldier Confederate Monument at the Marietta Confederate Cemetery where over 3,000 Confederate soldiers rest in peace. Georgia Division Adjutant Tim Pilgrim, who is heading up the project, stated, "This was a project made possible by the joint cooperation of the Marietta Confederate Cemetery Foundation and the local Sons of Confederate camps in the area.
Pilgrim indicated that most of the funding for the new monument came from the Georgia Division's specialty tag funds and from donations by the local Sons of Confederate Veterans camp. "It's part of our on-going recognition of the 150th Anniversary of the War Between the States," said Pilgrim, "in honor of more than 3,000 Southern Heroes who rest in these hallowed grounds that made the ultimate sacrifice to protect their family and homes from an invading army."
The Bronze Confederate Soldier is (5) five foot (10) ten inches tall in full military regalia and gear, holding his musket. He will be place atop a (5) five foot high granite pedestal centered in a new paver plaza. The octagon pavers will be true to historical period style with granite knee walls on three sides of the plaza. The engravings in front of the granite pedestal will include the Great Seal of the Confederate States of America with the Confederate motto of "Deo Vindice" -- Latin for "God is our Vindicator." The East side will have the Marietta Confederate Cemetery Logo and the West side lists the (14) fourteen States that have Soldiers buried in the Marietta Confederate Cemetery.
Marietta Confederate Cemetery is the largest Confederate cemetery South of Richmond and is located at 395 Powder Springs St, Marietta, GA 30064. The Marietta Confederate Cemetery is one of the largest burial grounds for Confederate dead.
The City of Marietta and Friends of Brown Park will also be unveiling two new sections to the existing memorial walls. The new section will list 350 additional names of Confederate soldiers buried as "Unknowns" in the Confederate Cemetery. Brown Park now has four granite walls commemorating 1,150 Confederate soldiers buried in the adjacent Marietta Confederate Cemetery after two new memorial walls were installed recently.
The Bronze Confederate Soldier Monument as well as the two new memorial walls will be unveiled to the public at an unveiling ceremony this Sunday, October 19 at 1 p.m.
For more information about the Sons of Confederate Veterans or any of this year's planned events to commemorate the Sesquicentennial of the War, contact the Georgia SCV at 404-456-3393 or online at www.GeorgiaSCV.org
See related pages and categories
There The Skeletons Lie: Corinth in 1866
September 28, 2014
I found the following article in The Weekly Democrat of Natchez, which was published on May 14, 1866. The writer was not identified, but whoever it was painted a graphic picture of Corinth one year after the war ended:
Not the least mentionable of the ‘pitched battles’ of the late war was that which was fought in front of this grand ‘intrenched camp’ that we call Corinth, on the 3d and 4th days of October, 1862. During the past two days a portion of my sojourn here has been spent as a partial exploration of that part of the battlefield which lies in the Northwestern angle formed by the crossing of the Memphis, Charleston, Mobile and Ohio Railroads.
The sight that I saw of vast numbers of Confederate ‘bones’ – whose skeletons and parts of skeletons – lying exposed and bleaching on the field, in the bushes and on the hillsides, under logs and on stumps; of the neatly enclosed and well marked graves of Federal soldiers, all buried at the proper depth; and of the forest trees rent in all directions, rent and torn by shot and shell, and the storm of ‘furious war’ and of many separate and distinct, desperate conflicts, hand to hand, and muzzle to muzzle; all of these ‘sights,’ I say, are well worthy of a brief record. Besides, I have another object in calling attention to the battlefield of Corinth apart from the gratification of public curiosity, and that is to urge upon our people the propriety of collecting the bones of their dead brethren, at some suitable spot near this place, and giving them decent interment. It is estimated by an intelligent gentleman of this town, that upon the two fields of Shiloh and Corinth, in this vicinity, there are not less than 12,000 ‘Confederate dead,’ whose bones for the most part, lie bleaching above ground!
Of all the Confederate dead on this field, Col. Rogers is, I am told, the only one who was buried deep enough to prevent the rains from washing the dirt away and exposing the bones. He, it is said, was buried under the immediate supervision of Gen. Rosecrans. In the North western angle, formed by the crossing of the railroads, from Corinth out to and beyond the outer line of works, three and a half miles distant, the whole of this great battle-ground is dotted, here and there – in some places thick as meadow mole-hills – with the graves of Federal and the exposed remains of Confederate dead.
The Confederate dead, it clearly appears, were merely covered up on the ground where they fell. The Federal dead were neatly interred, in the usual way, with head and foot-boards in every instance, and in most cases, I believe, were enclosed with wooden palings. I saw but one Federal grave where the bones were at all exposed. I saw but one Confederate timulus where the bones – generally the skull – were not more or less exposed and scattered around in all directions. At the outer line of entrenchments, where a portion of Maury’s division made the assault, I saw two human skull bones, one pelvis, and two jaw-bones, lying on a stump, with no trace of a grave or timulus nearer than fifty or one hundred yards.
In front of the outer breastworks not far from the same spot, I saw two timuli, where some six or eight Confederate dead had been covered up on one side of a hill. Here several of the skulls and feet of most of the bodies had been uncovered by the action of the elements, and were lying around upon the ground, already bleached, perfectly white, and of course, rapidly crumbling to decay. The condition of these timuli, I am told by gentlemen residing in the vicinity who have examined every part of the field, is a fair specimen of all the rest. In one place (as I was informed by Capt. Mask, of this town, who, with Col. Polk, rode over the field with me.) The bodies of two or three Confederates were placed by the side of a log, (to save labor I suppose,) and a little dirt thrown over them; the dirt had all washed away, and there the skeletons lie, wholly exposed and uncared for, ‘like the beasts that perish!’
After reading this article, I have a better appreciation of why cemetery associations, created to properly bury Confederate dead, flourished in the post-war South. There was a terrible need for them.
On The Web: http://mississippiconfederates.wordpress.com/2014/09/28/there-the-skeletons-lie-corinth-in-1866/
See related pages and categories
Secession–Not Just Southern and Not Just Secular
Posted on October 4, 2014
by Al Benson Jr.
Often when the issue of secession has been “historically” dealt with it has been done in such a manner as to give the impression that it was purely a Southern political phenomenon. Clearly our present establishment “historians” love to have it so. As usual, there is a little more to the story than what they are pleased to tell us.
Lots of people other than Southerners, in years gone by, admitted the right of secession in this country. Well-known anti-slavery American jurist Joseph Story admitted the right of a state to withdraw from the Union. Judge Story stated: “The obvious deductions which may be, and indeed have been drawn, from considering the Constitution as a Compact between the States, are, that it operates as a mere treaty, or convention between them, and has an obligatory force upon each State no longer that it suits its pleasures, or its consent continues;…and that each State retains the power to withdraw from the Confederacy, and to dissolve the connection, when such shall be its choice;…” So it would seem that Judge Story thus admitted the right of a state to secede.
Thomas Jefferson believed in the right of state secession, and, according to Alexander H. Stephens, the Kentucky Resolutions fully established this.
Even ultra-nationalist Alexander Hamilton was forced, by his own admission, to admit that the right of state secession existed. In regard to Hamilton, Alexander Stephens, who was named after him, wrote: “Even Mr. Hamilton must have believed that this right was incident to the systems; for in his urgent appeals to Mr. Jefferson, as early as 1790, for his influence with members of Congress, in aid of the bill for the assumption of the States debts, he presented the strong reason, that if the measure should not pass, there was great danger of a secession of the members from the creditor States, which would end in ‘a separation of the States.’…he was Secretary of the Treasury. Would he have urged such an argument if he had not believed that those States had a right to withdraw?” That’s an interesting question that those nationalists today of the Hamilton stripe might consider addressing themselves to–then again, maybe not.
And William Rawle, U.S. District Attorney under George Washington, said: “The Union is an association of the people of Republics; its preservation is calculated to depend on the preservation of those republics…It depends on the State itself, to retain or abolish the principle of representation; because it depends on itself, whether it will continue a member of the Union. To deny this right, would be inconsistent with the principles on which all our political systems are founded;…”
Even DeToqueville addressed the secession question. He had stated: “The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the States; and these, in uniting together, have not forfeited their Nationality, nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people. If one of the States chose to withdraw its name from the contract, it would be difficult to disprove its right of doing so,…”
Even utopian socialist Horace Greeley, no real friend of the South, said that: “The right to secede may be a revolutionary one, but it exists nonetheless;…We hope never to live in a Republic whereof one section is pinned to the residue by bayonets.” It could be that Mr. Greely didn’t really understand the motives of Abraham Lincoln, who had, himself, recognized the right of secession in early 1848–conveniently, just before the onslaught of the socialist revolts in Europe! Again, for more about that read Lincoln’s Marxists.
To be continued.
On The Web: http://revisedhistory.wordpress.com/2014/10/04/secession-not-just-southern-and-not-just-secular/
See related pages and categories
Confused History–Fascism and Secession
Posted on September 30, 2014
by Al Benson Jr.
The other night I ran across some sort of forum on the Internet, and one of the contributors to it asked the question: What if? Abraham Lincoln goes Fascist instead of socialist. At this point, I can’t recall what the entire forum was all about and I only printed off the one page that had that comment on it. The person who asked the question seemed willing to acknowledge that Mr. Lincoln could fall into the socialist camp, which is more than many are willing to do. But they also considered the possibility that he might end up in the Fascist camp. This might seem an interesting argument to some folks, and I don’t doubt the sincerity of those debating this possibility, but I do have a problem with their conclusions, in that, from my understanding of the political spectrum Fascism is not a rightist, but rather a leftist position–therefore it belongs over there on the left next to socialism and communism.
Fascism, like communism and/or socialism, is a system of collectivism and government control, thus it belongs on the left side of the political spectrum, not on the right. If you are going to view the entire political spectrum from left to right, then you need to place all political systems with total government on the left, and on the right are systems with no government–anarchy–where everyone does that which is right in his own eyes, and that, in a sense, is almost as bad as the leftist position, due to the fact that man is a sinner and, if left to his own devices, he will trample the rights of others for his own personal benefit. And so there needs to be some government, but again, because man is a sinner, the amount of government needs to be limited and defined as to exactly what government can and should do (protection of life and property) and what it is not permitted to do.
So, in a sense, wondering if Lincoln would have ended up as a socialist or a Fascist is almost like saying “Would Lincoln have ended up in socialist party A or socialist party B?” Many forget that the term Nazi stood for “National Socialist.” The main difference between fascists and socialists or communists was that the Fascists were more concerned (at least theoretically) with practicing their total control in a nationalist venue, whereas the communist/socialist had bigger plans and he wanted (and still wants) to do it all on an international scale. Had Lincoln chosen Fascism he would still have been a socialist, just a little different kind than those friends of his that Donnie Kennedy and I wrote about in our book Lincoln’s Marxists.
The same night, I also came across an informative article by Tom DiLorenzo, originally published on LewRockwell.com back in July of 2013. For those who may not know, Tom DiLorenzo is an economics professor at Loyola College in Maryland and is the author of several books, among which are The Real Lincoln and Lincoln Unmasked. In this article Professor DiLorenzo made several comments pertaining to the Declaration of Independence. He stated: “The first several generations of Americans understood that the Declaration of Independence was the ultimate states’ rights document. The citizens of the states would delegate certain powers to a central government in their Constitution and these powers (mostly for national defense and foreign policy purposes) would hopefully be exercised for the benefit of the citizens of the ‘free and independent’ states, as they are called in the Declaration…If the day ever came that the national government became the sole arbiter of the limits of its own powers, then Americans would live under a tyranny as bad or worse than the one the colonists fought a revolution against.” Folks, I hate to have to say it, but that day has arrived, if only we will take our heads out of the sand and confront the sad fact. Ahh, but it’s so much easier to just watch the Reality shows and tune all that nasty stuff out. And the Christians will agree and say “Well, we don’t need to worry about all that. The Lord will return anytime now (momentarily if not sooner) and rapture us all out of this mess so we don’t have to deal with it. We don’t have to get involved. After all, politics is a dirty business anyway.” The fact that it might be a little less dirty if Christians had stayed involved instead of tucking tail and running, is a concept that totally eludes them. But I’m getting carried away here with one of my main concerns–Christian couch potatoes.
Professor DiLorenzo continued: “This was the fundamental understanding of the Declaration of Independence–that it was a Declaration of Secession from the British Empire-…” We seem to have lost that concept today. People don’t even want to think about it. I’ve been taken to task for even saying it in some quarters.
Interestingly enough, Professor DiLorenzo quotes the Kenosha, Wisconsin Democrat
for January 11, 1861, where it said: “The founders of our government were constant secessionists. They not only claimed the right for themselves, but conceded it to others. They were not only secessionists in theory, but in practice.” Such an editorial would never make it into a newspaper today–it would be considered “politically incorrect” and the vast majority of newspapers in our day strictly adhere to political correctness (Cultural Marxism).
Also quoted by Professor DiLorenzo was an editorial from the Washington, D.C. States and Union
newspaper for March 21, 1861, which said: “The people are the ruling judges, the States independent sovereigns. Where the people chose to change their political condition, as our own Declaration of Independence first promulgated, they have a right to do so. If the doctrine was good then, it is good now. Call that by whatever name you please, secession or revolution, it makes no sort of difference.”
And then DiLorenzo carefully noted: “This last sentence was in response to the Republican Party propaganda machine of the day that invented the theory that the Declaration allows for a ‘right of revoluton’ but not a right of ‘secession.’ The States and Union recognized immediately that this non-distinction was nothing more than a rhetorical flimflam designed to deceive the public about the meaning of their own Declaration of Independence. It is a piece of lying propaganda that is repeated to this day by apologists for the American welfare/warfare’police state, especially the Lincoln-worshipping neocons at National Revue, the Claremont Institute, and other appendages of the Republican Party.”
That’s a pretty telling analysis of something that has been used since the days of “Father Abraham” right up to and including our day, when we are informed that we have a “right to revolution” but no right to secession. I’m sorry, but I have to consider that rationale to be a pile of high-grade cow chips.
On The Web: http://revisedhistory.wordpress.com/2014/09/30/confused-history-fascism-and-secession/
See related pages and categories
Descendant says Confederate soldier's gravestone has the wrong name, but the VA won't fix it
Published September 30, 2014
ELMIRA, N.Y. – A descendant of a Confederate soldier who died in a Civil War prison camp in New York says the wrong name is on his gravestone, and the Department of Veterans Affairs won't fix it.
Tom Fagart of Concord, North Carolina, tells the Star-Gazette of Elmira (http://stargaz.tt/1pDS9S1 ) that his great-great-grandfather Pvt. Franklin Cauble was buried with the last name Cooper engraved on his gravestone at Woodlawn National Cemetery.
Fagart says Cauble and a soldier named Cooper were friends who enlisted on the same day, served in the same regiment and were captured on the same day in Petersburg, Virginia.
Fagart says both men were sent to Elmira's prison camp, where Cauble died in 1864. Cooper was released after the war ended in 1865.
The VA says it doesn't correct historic gravestones.
On The Web: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/09/30/descendant-says-confederate-soldier-gravestone-has-wrong-name-but-va-wont-fix/#.VCrdDLjRQcQ.email
See related pages and categories
Ron Paul Thinks There Should Be More Secessionist Movements in the U.S.
The former U.S. congressman and perennial presidential candidate tells National Journal that he's "real pleased" with American secessionist groups.
By Rebecca Nelson
September 30, 2014 - Secessionists across the world were inspired by Scotland's energetic attempt at independence from the United Kingdom earlier this month. Ron Paul, as it turns out, joined them.
In an essay on his eponymous institution's website Sunday, the former U.S. congressman from Texas wrote that any supporters of freedom should cheer secessionism because it allows for smaller government—a constant mantra for the libertarian and perennial presidential candidate, who didn't previously realize there were more than a handful of secessionist groups in the United States.
"I was real pleased with that, and a bit surprised," Paul told National Journal. "But then, on second thought, you think, 'Why not? Why not more?' "
Fringe groups calling for states and regions to secede from the U.S., such as the Second Vermont Republic and the Alaskan Independence Party, gained more publicity in the weeks leading up to the Scottish referendum. As the outsized federal government continues to encroach on individual rights, Paul said, he thinks there will be a groundswell of these movements.
"It's something that I think is going to grow, because the failure of the federal government is going to get much worse," he said. "When the bankruptcy evolves, and maybe some of these pension funds are confiscated, and the wars never end, and bankruptcy comes forth, people [will say], 'Hey, we're getting a bad deal from this. Why don't we leave?' "
He added: "I think it's inevitable people wanting to leave will be there, and the numbers will grow."
Realistically, though, Paul said he doesn't think any of these groups could actually succeed. Despite the founders' own deep belief in secession—they gained America's independence from Europe, after all—he said the Civil War set the precedent that secession would carry "very, very bad" results.
"By our history, the heavy hand of the federal government would come down," Paul told National Journal. "They'd probably shoot 'em."
In typical fashion, Paul argued that the principle of secession was more important than what could actually happen in reality. It's the threat, he said, that's important to keep the federal government in check.
"I think what is most important is we have a concrete right to secede," Paul said. "Even if we never had any secession, or any state declare independence, we would be so much better off, because there would always be this threat. Once the threat of a state leaving was removed, it was just open-door policy for the federal government to expand itself and run roughshod out over the states because the states couldn't do much."
Given that his son, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., will likely run for president in 2016 with a much better chance of winning than his father ever had, the elder Paul's willingness to share his reasonably radical views seem imprudent, if not unexpected. In an election cycle that has often equated the politics of Ron and Rand, this latest remark is sure to annoy the potential 2016-er's supporters.
For Rand's sake, it's fortunate that Ron didn't express his support for the Texas Nationalist Movement or any other secessionist groups in the U.S. Before he'd back Texan independence, he joked, "I better check out and see who's running Austin before we decide about that."
Copyright © 2014 by National Journal Group Inc.
On The Web: http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/ron-paul-thinks-there-should-be-more-secessionist-movements-in-the-u-s-20140930
See related pages and categories
Civil War Trails marker honors Maury County soldier
By TIM HODGE
A brown aluminum marker rested on the ground at Zion Church Cemetery in Columbia, waiting for permanent placement near one of Maury County’s most famed residents’ grave.
The monument bares the likeness of Samuel Rush Watkins, born June 1839 in the Zion community between Mt. Pleasant and Columbia. His wife Virginia Mayes Watkins is also pictured — the pair beside each other on the marker and in their eternal resting place.
Two workers dug holes, gently lifted the sign, aligned the posts with the newly dug holes and put the marker in its new home.
The Confederate soldier was honored with a Civil War Trails marker Tuesday, the monument placed a stone’s throw away from his gravesite. The Civil War Trails program is a group of historic demarcations that winds through Maryland, North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia. The program has marked more than 1,500 sites.
Sam Watkins is most recognized as the author of “Company Aytch: Or, a Side Show of the Big Show.” The first-hand soldier’s account of the Civil War is highly regarded by historians. Documentary film-maker Ken Burns included some of Watkins’ experience in his 1990 film “The Civil War.”
“(Company Aytch) shows how an individual got around at all the major battles, and it brings it home. He personifies the common soldier,” Civil War Trails Executive Director Mitch Bowman said.
Maury County has seven Civil War Trails markers, he added.
The markers attract visitors as far as Europe, tourists who often take weeks to travel the routes, Bowman said.
“The Civil War Trails program’s main mission is to make visiting Civil War sites a user-friendly experience,” he said. “We like to captivate an interest in a wide swath of audience, from children on up to experienced historians.”
Maury County Archives Director Bob Duncan helped author the marker’s verbiage, some of which reads, “In his book ‘Company Aytch: Or, a Side Show of the Big Show,’ Watkins left an incomparable memoir of his experiences as a rank-and-file soldier during the Civil War.”
Watkins’ writings appeared in the The Daily Herald and were compiled into a book in 1882.
His home is a few miles west of his grave site, and his family worshiped at the Zion Presbyterian Church, according to the marker.
He fought in several major battles, including Shiloh, Murfreesboro, Chattanooga, Franklin and Nashville. Watkins was only one of seven soldiers of the original 120-member Company H when Confederate Gen. Joseph Johnston’s Army of Tennessee surrendered to Union Gen. William T. Sherman in April 1865, according to the marker.
“His story is what draws people to Maury County,” Maury County Convention &Visitors Bureau Assistant Director Becky Leifheit said about Watkins.
The markers create a draw for Civil War enthusiasts, and many people visit Maury County seeking information about the Civil War, including visitors from Australia and England, Leifheit said.
Civil War Trails markers can also be a boon for tourism in the area, especially with ongoing the 150th anniversary, she said.
“We just have so much history here — not only Civil War history — but our Antebellum homes really draw people here,” Leifheit said.
The MCCVB is working toward getting additional markers at the Nelson Hotel in downtown Columbia and Elm Springs on Mooresville Pike. Leifheit said she would like to see one of the two markers placed next year.
Copyright ©Stephens Media LLC 2014.
On The Web: http://columbiadailyherald.com/news/local-news/civil-war-trails-marker-honors-maury-county-soldier
See related pages and categories
“Father Abraham” Thought Secession Was Great For the Forty-Eighters
Posted on September 27, 2014
by Al Benson Jr.
In 1860, according to Abraham Lincoln, the Southern states did not possess the right to secede from the Union. Lincoln’s view of the Union was that it had actually predated the Constitution, and that, once in the Union, a state basically had no right not granted to it by Big Brother in Washington. Although he would not have couched it in exactly those terms, that was where he was really coming from. Donnie Kennedy and I have dealt with this in our book Lincoln’s Marxists.
However, in light of his own remarks, Mr. Lincoln’s anti-secession sentiments were very selectively applied, just like the edicts of the present Regime are today. Lincoln was opposed to Southern states seceding from the Union to preserve their Christian heritage and the rights of the individual states according to the Constitution and he was also opposed to their secession because they paid the major portion of the country’s tariffs and to have them gone would cost the Northern states big tariff bucks that the South had heretofore paid. In Lincoln’s mind, these were not good enough reasons for secession, but he did view secession as a viable option if the reasons for it were chaos and revolution.
On January 12, 1848, Lincoln, while in Congress, made a speech in which he stated the following: 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 valuable, 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 of the territory as they inhabit. Supposedly, Lincoln was applying this to Texas in 1848, after their late unpleasantness with Mexico. Even were such the case, Lincoln should have been honor-bound to recognize, for other states, what he seems to have recognized for Texas.
However, with my suspicious mind, my personal contention is that, while Lincoln may have referred these remarks to Texas in a secondary way, his prime target for these sentiments was the socialist revolutionary movement that was soon to erupt in several countries in Europe in early 1848. That was the year the socialist and communist revolutionaries plunged Europe into chaos with bloody revolts in several countries. This activity began shortly after Lincoln gave his secession speech in Congress.
The carefully crafted persona of “Honest Abe the railsplitter,” the hayseed from the Illinois prairies, is one that has been carefully nurtured by our politically correct, Cultural Marxist, historic spin doctors. They definitely can’t afford to let us know what “Father Abraham” really was, a sharp, politically astute lawyer and lobbyist for the big railroads, as well as a thoroughly pragmatic politician with his own leftward-leaning agenda.
Lincoln was hardly the country bumpkin that biographers and “historians” have made him out to be. He was conscious of world events and had his own ideas and opinions regarding them. He was acquainted with what went on in Europe. By the same token, many in Europe kept tabs on what was happening over here. Lincoln’s 1848 speech in favor of secession (although the historians won’t admit that’s what it was) was well-timed to give European socialists the kind of American support for their endeavors that many of them could only have dreamed about. It let them know that there were American politicians that supported their socialist agenda.
In his book Lincoln And The Emperors A. R. Tyrner-Trynauer stated on page 32: The sympathy of the United States in general and Lincoln’s Republicans in particular for the revolutionaries of Europe was a long-established fact. That was written in 1962. More recently, in 1991, historian James McPherson, revealing a bit more about Lincoln, told us that: Lincoln championed the leaders of the European revolutiion of 1848; in turn, a man who knew something about those revolutions–Karl Marx–praised Lincoln in 1865 as ‘a single-minded son of the working class’ who had led his ‘country through the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained race and the reconstruction of a social world’. Look at and analyze what McPherson is telling you there. The “reconstruction of a social world” is supposed to be the death knell for the old Christian South, for private property, and of real Christian culture. That’s what it was really all about. Why else do you suppose that, when the Northern radicals (socialists) in Congress sought to destroy the culture of the South they called that program “Reconstruction?” That was Marx’s terminology.
Worth noting again, as Donnie Kennedy and I stress in our book, is the fact that socialist revolutionaries from the 1848 European debacle flocked to join the Union armies as the War of Northern Aggression got under way. Lincoln had the verbal support of Marx and Engels, as well as that of the Russian revolutionary Bakunin. Socialist and communist personalities ended up with high-ranking positions in Lincoln’s armies and also ended up in positions of influence in journalism, education, politics, and the list goes on. The fact that European socialists so lopsidedly supported the Union cause should give people pause to consider the true nature of the Union cause. Was Karl Marx really concerned about Lincoln freeing an “enchained race” of blacks? Hardly! Marx’s own personal comments show that he was prejudiced against blacks, and so was Lincoln for that matter. If you don’t think so, scrounge through the Lincoln Douglas Debates and see what you find. For both Marx and Lincoln the blacks were nothing more than cannon fodder for the socialist world revolution–and nothing has changed since then.
In the final analysis you have to ask, were Lincoln and Marx really that far apart? Such a question today will, no doubt, shock some tender souls who have been taught that Lincoln was, in effect, a secular messiah–the apotheosis of a mere man into a “god.” But, then, today, some feel that way about Obama. A noted television journalist, awhile back, said of her and her colleagues regarding Obama, “We thought he was the messiah.” I can only assume, at this point, that she has had her rude awakening. That same rude awakening needs to take place in regard to “Father Abraham” and his socialist and communist friends in the early Republican Party (and in the same party today along with the Democrats).
On The web: http://revisedhistory.wordpress.com/2014/09/27/father-abraham-thought-secession-was-great-for-the-forty-eighters/
See related pages and categories
Secession the “History” Books Neglect to Mention
Posted on September 24, 2014
by Al Benson Jr.
After posting my last article on secession a reader informed me that I had left out the most important part–the fact that secession in this country went all the way back to 1776. It was never my intention to neglect that, but he felt that I did. I have to agree with him–it did go back that far, though most historians today never bother to label what the 13 colonies did in regard to England as secession. By the same token, we are never informed by the “historians” that the New England states threatened secession in the early 1800s no less than three times, one of those times being over the War of 1812, which interrupted the Northeast’s commerce with England. The fact that British troops were torching Washington was of little consequence to the New Englanders if it caused commerce to be stalled.
However, one writer, James McClellan, in a book called Liberty, Order and Justice published by the Center for Judicial Studies in Washington in 1989. McClellan wrote, on page 65, that: “In any event, 1763 marks an important turning point in Anglo-American relations, for this is the year when the mother country embarked upon a bold new course of action to increase revenue, tighten restrictions on colonial commerce, and require the Americans to assume a greater share of the imperial tax burden. In response to Parliament’s abrupt change of colonial policy, the Americans began to question the constitutional basis of parliamentary statues designed to impose a new economic relationship between the colonies and England. Reaffirming and at the same time reinterpreting their ancient rights and privileges, they turned in the final stages of resistance to thoughts about the nature of free government. In the end, they came reluctantly to the conclusion that secession was their only recourse.” And they had tried a lot of other options first. Secession had not been their first choice, as today it should not be the first choice, but should rather be the one measure to protect the liberties of the people when all other legitimate choices have been tried and failed. When you are in the position of trying to deal honorably with a rogue government and nothing else will work, what other choice to you have except bondage?
And so the Declaration of Independence was written and it listed all the problems the colonists had with England as the reasons for their secession from England. I had not always realized that the Declaration was a secession document. One day, several years ago now, I was rereading it and looking at all the reason the colonists gave for their action and the thought just struck me “The Declaration of Independence is really a secession document.” That was a new thought to me and I wondered if I had, as the English say, gone “a little bit around the bend.” But in subsequent reading in the months after that I found that several other writers had come up with the same conclusion, and so I felt I was not all that far out of line.
Back in June of 1992, Lew Rockwell Jr. wrote an article for “Free Market” in which he said: “In the U.S., meanwhile, the central government gets more tyrannical and expensive by the day. Is it time to think about bidding it adieu? Certainly, secession from Britain made a lot of sense.” And Rockwell quoted Thomas Jefferson and the Declaration where he said: whenever “any Form of Government becomes destructive, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it and to instutute a new Government.” When a “long train of abuses and usurpations” shows “a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government.” And to really do that, you need to secede.
Back in 1994, Columnist Sam Francis did a column noting that Professor Walter Williams had argued in favor of secession, and Francis agreed with him. And then Francis went on to mention a couple little tidbits that, for some reason, hardly seem to make it into most “history” textbooks in our day. He said: “The Confederates of yore were hardly the first to uphold the right of states to secede. In 1815 the Hartford Convention seriously discussed the secession of New England. Later, some abolitionists proposed secession because they just couldn’t stand being part of the same country with slaveholders, a sentiment the slaveholders reciprocated. Confederate General George Pickett, who opposed secession on grounds of ‘expediency’ never doubted the right to secede and noted that the textbook on constitutional law he used as a cadet at West Point acknowledged secession’s legality.” I believe that book was written by William Rawle, LL.D and entitled A View of the Constitution Secession is dealt with in Rawle’s book on pages 238-239. So the concept of secession was taught in a book used at West Point, and some future Confederate leaders got their view of secession from a book used at the United States Military Academy. That being the case, you have to wonder at what point secession became treasonous. Today’s “historians” will never tell!
Other sources have cited secession sentiment in even the Middle Atlantic states–New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware and Maryland. Author William C. Wright has written that: “The secession movement was prominent in the five Middle Atlantic states.”
So secession was not just a “Southern Thang.” The spirit of secession manifested itself in New England and the Middle Atlantic states and it was evident, to those who are willing to look, even in the Declaration of Independence. So those that scream that secession is treason either are totally ignorant of U.S. history or they fervently hope their audience is.
On The Web: http://revisedhistory.wordpress.com/2014/09/24/secession-the-history-books-neglect-to-mention/
See related pages and categories
Secession Wasn’t Treason. It Still Isn’t
Posted on September 22, 2014
by Al Benson Jr.
Secession and the knee-jerk reactions to it have been of interest to me ever since I started doing historical research. Yankee/Marxist politicians, in 1861, sought to portray secession by the Southern states as the most monstrous of crimes ever perpetrated on the human race. The fact that some Northern states had threatened secession and actually sent delegates to Hartford, Connecticut in 1814 to consider the issue was a historical fact that was lost on them, and they hoped on everyone else too. Somehow, when the Northern states considered it, it was not treason. That was only the case when Southern states did it.
Between 1814 and 1860, secession went from being a favored possibility to a horrendous crime, most notably if the South did it. Even, and especially, in our day, many of our crop of “historians” absolutely howl about how secession was treason and how the Confederate States were seeking to overthrow the United States government–all of which is complete bovine fertilizer–and don’t think they don’t know it. All the Southern states wanted were to be able to go in peace. They had no interest whatever in overthrowing the federal government in Washington; they just wanted to depart and set up their own government. However, Mr. Lincoln and his erstwhile collectivist friends couldn’t allow that, as the Southern states paid the lion’s share of the tariff for the whole country and if they were allowed to depart, why the Northern states might have to start ponying up their share of the tariff because the South would no longer be there to pay over 80% of it.
When the shooting part of the War of Northern Aggression was over and the Confederate States, which never officially surrendered, by the way, were in ruins, the benevolent Yankee/Marxist government took Jeff Davis, who, with his cabinet, had fled rather than surrender, and they tossed him into prison at Fortress Monroe in Virginia for two years, planning at the outset to bring him to trial for treason and secession, which they claimed were one in the same. After two years of prisoner abuse and political horseplay, the Union government finally decided, rather reluctantly, that it could not afford to bring Davis to trial because, should that event transpire, it might well be proven in court that Davis and the South had been right–secession was not at all illegal, nor was it unconstitutional. After all, what did they think the Declaration of Independence was other than a secession document?
Several years back now, 1995 I think it was, I wrote a short 26 page booklet on secession. It has since become one of the booklets I offer in my home school mini-history course. In that booklet I quoted an author, James Street, who had written a book entitled simply “The Civil War.” Mr. Street had a few comments about what happened to Jeff Davis at the end of the War. He said: “The North didn’t dare give him a trial, knowing that a trial would establish that secession was not unconstitutional, that there had been no ‘rebellion’ and that the South had got a raw deal.” You can’t say it much plainer than that.
Later, I picked up another book, written by Burke Davis (no relative to Jeff that I know of), entitled “The Long Surrender.” It dealt with much of what happened with the people involved during the final days of the Confederacy, when Richmond fell, and Jeff Davis and the Confederate government fled the city and tried to set up somewhere else in order that they might carry on the struggle.
After Jeff Davis was captured, the vindictive and radical Yankee/Marxist Secretary of War, Edwin Stanton, (who many feel may have known more about the Lincoln assassination than is admitted) wanted to implicate Davis both as a co-conspirator in Lincoln’s assassination and as a traitor for being the head of the secessionist government in Richmond, even though secession had not been original with Davis. Try as they might, the radical leftist Republicans in Washington couldn’t quite bring it off. Burke Davis noted, on page 204 of his book, a quote by Chief Justice Salmon P Chase, telling Stanton “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. Secession is settled. Let it stay settled.” Only it wasn’t–and isn’t. Burke Davis continued on page 214 of his book, noting that a congressional committee proposed a special court for Davis’ trial, headed by Franz Lieber. Again, Davis noted: “After studying more than 270,000 Confederate documents seeking evidence against Davis, this court discouraged the War Department: ‘Davis will be found not guilty,’ Lieber reported, ‘and we shall stand there completely beaten’.”
What the radical, Yankee/Marxist politicians were admitting among themselves (they’d never say it anywhere else) was that they had just fought a “civil war” that had taken or maimed the lives of over 600,000 Americans, both North and South, and that they had no constitutional justification whatever for having done so, nor had they any constitutional right to have impeded the Southern states when they chose to withdraw from the constitutional compact. They had fought solely for the right to keep an empire together. Call is “Manifest Destiny” or whatever noble-sounding euphemism you want to tack onto it, either way, they had been wrong. Now they could ill afford to let Jeff Davis go to trial, else their grievous crime would become public knowledge and beget them even more problems in the future, and that would have given them problems as they sought to redistribute among their friends whatever wealth remained in the South.
Needless to say, you probably have not read about any of this in what passes for “history” books in the last 150 years. As the narrator at the beginning of the movie “Braveheart” so correctly stated: “History is written by those who’ve hanged heroes.”
Real human rights in both North and South had been trampled on, and have continued to be up until and including today. What the Lincoln administration and early Marxist Republicans started and kept up during “reconstruction” has finally come to full fruition in our day, with such legislation as the “Patriot Act” and Obamacare, which effectively cancel out much of the Bill of Rights–as was intended and still is.
The War of Northern Aggression started the trend in this country in which leftist politicians have ever sought to usurp the rights of individual Americans, and to rule over us rather than to represent us as they were originally delegated to do. Truly, there is nothing new under the sun. And now, with secessionist sentiment running rampant all over the world, the politicians are getting a bit nervous.
If you want some of the real history of that period in this country I would recommend James and Walter Kennedy’s book “The South Was Right,” Frank Conner’s book “The South Under Siege–1830-2000,” and Walter Kennedy’s and my book “Lincoln’s Marxists.”
On The Web: http://revisedhistory.wordpress.com/2014/09/22/secession-wasnt-treason-it-still-isnt/
See related pages and categories
Scotland had the right to secede? Interesting
A Belle's Eye View
Monday, September 22, 2014
One interesting angle on the recent vote in Scotland, which has been largely ignored by the mainstream media, is the utter absence of analysis of the issue involving secession.
Even those who were most adamantly urging a “no” vote did not deny Scotland the right to decide its own fate.
What a contrast to strident Unionists in this country, who vehemently deny that the South, or Vermont, or any of the many factions in this country seeking independence, past or present, have the right to determine their governmental fate.
England didn’t threaten to send troops, or state that having in 1707 agreed to the complete joining of the two countries, Scotland had lost its right to autonomy.
No, while they were certainly anxious about the election, there were no military threats or cries of treason. What a contrast to the handling of our Late Unpleasantness.
It is interesting to note the arguments against independence, and who made them.
George Soros said it would be a blow “to the prevailing international order.” Well, that makes one wonder: Is the current international order something worth preserving?
Dan E. Phillips in an Abbeville Institute Press article notes approvingly that Soros states it would be a “retrograde” step.
True conservatives agree — although they would argue that is a positive development.
Phillips ably argues, “The clear demonstration that territorial secession can happen without bloodshed will serve as a stark reminder to modern-day Unionists that our own bloody clash didn’t have to be that way.”
For the past half century, we’ve seen an increasing move towards smaller countries.
While there is a general belief that bigger is better, smaller countries like Iceland, Switzerland, Norway and Denmark show that it is possible to be a small, secure country.
Scotland has oil, although the naysayers have tried to downplay the natural resource. It has a fiercely held cultural identity, and I doubt that you’ve seen the last of the call for independence.
Here in the States, there is some fear that it might inspire various secessionist groups, who have suddenly garnered attention after years of being treated as tin-foil-hatted nut cases.
In 2012, 80,000 of my fellow Texans signed a petition urging secession. The groups themselves are not necessarily more optimistic in the wake of the Scottish vote.
“If the condition of this country as it is today is not enough to make people want to leave it, I cannot tell you what would.
“If you have no faith in your central government, if Congress has the support of 10 to 12 percent of the public, if the president’s approval numbers are close to 30 percent in some states;
“I don’t know why this resentment doesn’t translate into secession, which is the only reliable peaceful way to make change,” opined Kirkpatrick Sale, whose Middlebury Institute has held seminars and published books on the topic of secession.
The Texas Nationalist group, the League of the South, Cascadia Now, the Alaskan Independence Party, numerous Hawaiian independence groups, the Second Vermont Republic — they all hold fast to the dream of independence.
It is a new day for secessionists. Even though the Scots themselves voted against independence, I have faith that all is not lost.
Just the acceptance of the idea, and the playing out of the vote on the international stage, gives me hope that one day I, like my forebearers, may choosed to live in an independent Texas or South.
It’s difficult to look at the current political landscape and say, “Yep. This is great. Give me more!”
So, my beloved Scotland, whose valleys, lochs and mountains I’ve spent weeks and weeks exploring, I’m sorry you didn’t finally finish was William Wallace and Robert the Bruce started.
And I fear Robert Burns was right and, “We’re bought and sold for English gold — such a parcel of rogues in a nation.”
© Copyright 2014, parispi.net, Paris, TN.
On The Web: http://www.parispi.net/opinion/columns/article_d6102142-4279-11e4-83fc-cbedacc46d99.html
See related pages and categories
Spotlight on History: The Confederate Battle Flag
By DR. GARY LOUDERMILK
Special to the Daily Light
For the average non-Southerner, the continued affection residents of the South display toward the controversial Battle Flag can be baffling. If other Americans are so incensed by the banner, why not just fold it up and put it away? Why indeed? The war has been over for 150 years.
Can a symbol so emotionally charged ever be mutually understood? The very same symbol means completely different things to different people. Many hate groups have gravitated toward the historical flag. However, these very same groups also use other symbols that are loved and cherished by millions of people.
The pinnacle of the Ku Klux Klan was in the 1920s. They boasted over a million members with national leadership in Ohio and Illinois.
The most careful photographic scrutiny of the era will fail to reveal a single Confederate flag. One will however find the American flag and the Christian cross in profusion.
Patriotic Americans and Christians already have a context for these symbols. The icons cannot be co-opted because they already mean something else.
This is also precisely why Southerners continue to love the Battle flag in the face of so much bad publicity. The flag already has meaning and context.
The Battle flag did not make its appearance in its recognizable form until 1862, yet some of the design elements date to antiquity. The “X” is the cross of St. Andrew. It was the fisherman Andrew who introduced his brother Simon Peter to Jesus in Galilee 2000 years ago.
When the disciple Andrew was himself martyred years later he asked not to be crucified on the same type of cross Christ died upon. His last request was honored and he was put to death on a cross on the shape of the “X.”
Andrew later became the patron saint of Scotland and the Scottish flag today is the white St. Andrews cross on a blue field. When Scottish immigrants settled in Northern Ireland in the 1600s, the cross was retained on their new flag, albeit a red St. Andrews cross on a white field.
When the New World opened up, landless Scots and Ulster-Scots left their homes and most of them settled in the South, preserving their old culture in the isolated rural and frontier environment.
Fully 75 percent of the early South was populated by these Celts. Most sold themselves into indentured servitude because they could not afford the cost of passage, thus becoming the first American slaves.
The lowland English of Saxon descent by contrast settled the Northeastern colonies. This imbued those colonies with such an English character they are still known as New England.
These Northern descendants could not have been more different from their Southern countrymen. Many historians believe the longstanding historical animosities between Saxon and Celt did not bode well for the new country. With this historical perspective the St. Andrews cross seems almost destined to be raised again as ancient rivals clashed on new battlefields.
From this Celtic stock, the ingredients that made the unique Southern stew were gradually introduced.
The American Revolution unleashed Celtic hatred of the redcoat. Southerners penned the Declaration of Independence, chased the British through the Carolinas and defeated them at Yorktown.
However, they were dismayed when New England immediately sought renewed trade with England and failed to support the French in their own revolution.
Another Virginian later crafted the Constitution, a document as sacred to Southerners as their Bibles. Law, they believed finally checkmated tyranny. The 13-starred banner was their new cherished flag. These same features would later become a permanent part of the Battle Flag.
But all was not well with the new republic. Mistrust between the regions manifested even before the revolution was over. The unwieldy Articles of Confederation preceded the constitution.
Two of the former colonies (North Carolina and Rhode Island) to be coerced into approving the latter document after wrangling that included northern insistence they be allowed to continue the slave trade another 20 years.
Virginia and Kentucky passed resolutions in 1796 asserting their belief that political divorce was an explicit right. Massachusetts threatened on three separate occasions to secede, a right affirmed by all the New England states at the 1818 Hartford convention.
The abolitionists were champions of secession and would burn copies of the constitution at their rallies. Their vicious attacks upon all things Southern occurring as it did in the midst of Northern political and economic ascendancy animated Southern secessionists years before the average Southerner could consider such a possibility.
By 1860, the United States was in reality two countries living miserably under one flag. When war broke out, Dixie’s’ original banner so resembled the old American forebear that a new flag was needed to prevent confusion on the field of battle.
The blue St. Andrews cross, trimmed in white on a red field appeared above the defending Confederate army. Thirteen stars appeared on those bars representing the 11 seceding states and revolutionary precedent.
These fighting units were all recruited from the same communities, with lifelong friends and close relatives among the casualties of every battle. As they buried their dead friends and relatives, the names of those battles were painted or stitched on their flags.
At Appomattox a Union observer wrote, they were stoic as they stacked their arms but wept bitterly when they had to furl their flags.
Then, as now, the flag symbolizes for Southerners not hate but love; love of heritage, love of faith, love of constitutional protections, love of family and community.
On The Web: http://m.waxahachietx.com/news/ellis_county/spotlight-on-history-the-confederate-battle-flag/article_c17b6e8a-d601-5f8b-b019-94f79ce404aa.html?mode=jqm
See related pages and categories
The Scottish Secession Vote, Election Fraud, and Secession
Posted on September 21, 2014
by Al Benson
Well, the vote on Scotland’s secession from the United Kingdom has come and gone, and has gone pretty much as I expected. I could not honestly picture England letting Scotland go, but it had to at least look like a legitimate vote and so, as with American elections, they went through the charade.
I have read several accounts of how there was vote fraud in this secession vote, how lots of “yes” votes ended up on the “no” side of the column, and what I have read is plausible enough that, let’s just say, I don’t doubt it. The One World Ruling Elite didn’t want this to happen so it didn’t. However you look at it, though, 45% of the Scottish voters, at least (and maybe more) voted for secession. That’s a pretty good chunk of the population.
As far as vote fraud goes though, England has a long way to go before they will match some of what we have done in this country. We are the nation where the dead resurrect every election day and they vote early and often. Our last two presidential elections had such creative voting that they will have to go down in history as among the most creative elections known to man. I’ve often wondered how, in 2012, Obama got 140% of the vote in some places and 100% of it in many other places. Almost no Romney voters many places north of the Ohio river I guess. I have also wondered why the Republicans never seemed to have any problems with those numbers, but, then, if you can manage to steal ten states off Ron Paul so your weak sister, Romney, can get in there and lose to Obama then I guess nothing surprises you anymore. But, 140% of the vote some places and the Republicans never complained above the roar of a church mouse! That says something to me and it should to you. It’s called “creative voting.” Sounds like the kind of numbers that would be part of a “Commie Core” math problem. How can 140% of anything be 100%? And after the kid gives an answer the teacher says “he might have gotten it wrong but he gave a beautiful explanation as to how he got his answer, and besides, he only missed the right answer by 20!” But I digress.
But the Scottish vote will give you some inkling of how future secession votes will go, even in this country. They will go the same way our presidential races go–even if a candidate ends up with 75% of the vote, if he is not the right candidate, then his opposition will win with 25%.
But secession is an issue that just won’t go away. From time to time it rears its head and scares the living daylights out of the Establishment, and the numbers are increasing. When I first started talking about secession back when we lived in Illinois about nineteen years ago people laughed in my face. They thought the idea was ridiculous and told me so in no uncertain terms. A poll at that time revealed that about 9% of the public would be open to secession–and given 150 years of anti-secession propaganda posing as history, I thought even that was pretty good.
Since then there has been a close secession vote in Quebec and parts of several other countries, notably Spain recently, want to secede. There seems to be a growing opposition in many areas to being part of a Leviathan state, even if it is not the world’s biggest Leviathan. People feel their cultures, their identities, and their heritages all tend to get lost when they are part of the Leviathan state and they don’t want to lose all that. And I can’t blame them. I don’t want the various parts of this country to lose their cultural distinctives either. We should not all be just one huge glob of “pop culture.” That’s what the elites want us to be and we should resist that, especially since their pop culture leaves no place for the Christian faith or any place for any cultural differences between Yankees and Southern folks or between Northeasterners and Westerners. The present Regime here is trying to squeeze all of us into a “one size fits all” mentality. Again, we should resist.
Last evening someone sent me an article from Reuters in England. The title of it was “Exclusive: Angry with Washington, 1 in 4 Americans open to secession.” The article noted, in part, “Some 23.9% of American polled from Aug. 23 through Sept 16 said they strongly supported or tended to support the idea of a state breaking away, while 53.3%…strongly opposed or tended to oppose the notion. The urge to sever ties with Washington cuts across party lines and regions, though Republicans and residents of rural Western states are generally warmer to the idea than Democrats and Northeasterners, according to the poll…others said long-running Washington gridlock had prompted them to wonder if their states would be better off striking out on their own…”
And some folks are starting to wake up. Some favor secession because they are starting to realize that, no matter which party is in office, nothing gets done and the agenda doesn’t seem to change all that much. Although most of these folks don’t yet realize it, they are beginning to ascertain that both parties are controlled by one elite cabal and nothing will change until that changes. One man said “I have totally, completely lost faith in the federal government, the people running it, whether Republican, Democrat, independent, whatever.”
Interestingly, secession sentiment was highest in the Southwest, where 34.1% of poll respondents backed the idea. So 34% in the West would support secession. That’s a big jump from 9% almost 20 years ago. Given the One World socialist worldview of those that control both major parties, if they continue on their present course for another 20 years, what percentage will favor secession at that point?
Of course by that time they may figure they will have the country all sewed up and potential resistance all taken care of–and I don’t doubt, with all that ammunition the feds have bought, they will try. But what if they can’t–quite? What if the Lord won’t let them pull it off–quite? There are some folks out here that are praying to the Lord that He will restrain their enemies and His from doing all they want to do. If you believe in the power of prayer, then why not join us?
On The Web: http://revisedhistory.wordpress.com/2014/09/21/the-scottish-secession-vote-election-fraud-and-secession/
See related pages and categories
Parents, students speaking out about banning of Confederate flag
Posted: Sep 19, 2014
By Christina Fan, Reporter
SISSONVILLE, WV - Parents and students are speaking out after learning that Sissonville High School banned the display of the Confederate flag on school grounds.
“I think it's an outrage,” said Jay Wiseman, who heard about the incident through social media. “Messing with people's personal property, interfering with their freedom of speech, I think they should be fired.”
Sissonville HS Principal Ron Reedy said the ban happened after an incident in the school parking lot Thursday morning. About 15 vehicles pulled up for Homecoming Week with American and Confederate flags flying. Reedy said a staff member wanted the students to take down the flag because it would be distracting to drivers going by. A heated argument erupted between the two parties.
“The issue was not the Confederate flag,” said Reedy. “The issue was following school rules and not allowing something to become a disruption to the educational process.”
Some people say the school should have no say over what the students wear. Many describe the Confederate flag as a sign of pride.
“I don't think they should be able to control what they wear, [the students] got the right,” said Justin Elliot, who graduated from SHS last year.
But others say the flag evokes a different history.
“When I see the flag, I automatically think they want to bring back the times of segregation,” said Devon Creasey, who is African American.
"Kids will say all the time we fought the war over states' rights,” said Jerry Throckmorton, a history teacher at Sissonville High School. “Well, the argument over state's rights was over slavery.”
Principal Reedy said he plans to allow the Confederate flag back in school once the attention passes. Many people say they hope kids will think about the meaning of the flag before considering to wear it in the future.
© Copyright 2000 - 2014 WorldNow and WOWK
On The Web: http://www.wowktv.com/story/26581095/parents-students-speaking-out-about-banning-of-confederate-flag
See related pages and categories
Old Blue Studies Yankee/Marxist Legalisms
Posted on September 8, 2014
By Al Benson Jr.
One thing you have to say about Old Blue, my great blue heron friend, he is a died-in-the-wool Confederate heron. He likes to tell the story about his heron ancestor that flew over the battlefield while the Battle of Mansfield was being fought here in Louisiana, squawking at the Yankee soldiers that they should go back where they belonged.
He claimed that one of the Yankees shot at him, and missed, and he mused that, mostly, the Yankees were poor shots. The only thing they had going for them in the war was men, lots and lots of men, some of them socialists and communists.
Old Blue has spent some of his time recently, in a library that is mostly peopled by human folks, but when the librarian found he was sociable, she let him stay and poke around in some of the books. She was surprised that he possessed such an amount of erudition when some of the public high school students that used her library were barely able to master “Captain Marvel” or “Superman.”
At any rate, one day Old Blue happened across a book dealing with legal terms and court cases. At first, this was a little deep for him, but being a heron of considerable perseverance, he endeavored to work his way through it.
He came across a court case, Texas vs. White, in the years after the War of Northern Aggression. Although technically a dispute over the payment of US bonds, the case has much more interesting results. As it turned out, the state of Texas filed suit in the Yankee/Marxist Supreme Court, trying to get back the bonds sold to White and his partner, Chiles. White argued that the state of Texas had no right to bring this lawsuit partly because the Supreme Court didn’t have any jurisdiction to hear the case because Texas’ status as a state had changed because of the secession during the War of Northern Aggression.
But the Supreme Court, in typical Yankee fashion, rejected White’s arguments. And that bastion of Yankee integrity, Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, stated, in his majority opinion that the Constitution “in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union composed of indestructible States.” In other words, once a state got into the Union its membership was perpetual and “indissoluble” unless it was ended by a revolution or the consent of the other states. According to http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com “Therefore, the secession of the insurgent government from the Union was void. Texas remained a state during the Civil War, and its citizens were all citizens of the United States.”
Old Blue found that quite interesting, in light of the fact that he had read somewhere else that the state of Texas has been readmitted to the Union on March 30, 1870. He also read: “The United States government has never recognized the right of states to secede, and considers the states to never have left the Union during the American Civil War.”
Naturally, after reading all the legal gobbledygook, Blue’s first question was “If these Southern states were never out of the Union, why did they have to be readmitted to a Union they were never out of? That’s a good question. Even some more intelligent humans might be tempted to wonder about that. Unfortunately, we’ve never really gotten a good answer from the powers that be in Sodom on the Potomac.
Wanting a better source for his information, than Yankee lawyers, Old Blue turned to the Kennedy Brothers’ authoritative book The South Was Right. In their book, on page 171, they begin a discussion of the fraudulent 14th Amendment. On the following page they note: “To secure enactment of the amendment, the Northern Congress had to accomplish the following:
Declare the Southern States outside of the erstwhile indivisible Union. Deny majority rule in the Southern States by the disenfranchisement of large numbers of the white population. Require the Southern States to ratify the amendment as the price of getting back into the Union from which heretofore they had been denied the right to secede.”
After Blue read all that he scratched his head with his right wing and said “Let me get this all straight. The Yankee Supreme Court says the Southern states never left the Union, they only thought they did, and now to get back into the Union they never left they are forced to ratify an amendment that is shaky at best and possibly fraudulent at worst.” Then he asked the next logical question. “If these states needed to get back into the Union, how could they ratify the 14th Amendment before they were readmitted to the Union? Good question. When Old Blue asked that question of a college professor at one point he was informed that “Blue Herons are not supposed to be able to ask those kinds of questions. Even people shouldn’t ask such questions. Are you serious? Are you really serious?
The only possible answer to Blue’s question was in the Kennedy’s book. On page 172-173 Blue found the answer. The Kennedy’s wrote: “The North, in 1866, removed the Southern states from the Union. This was the same North that in 1861 refused to allow the South to secede from the Union. This same Union now declared the Southern states to be non-states. To get back into the Union (that originally the South did not want to be part of anyway and from which it had previously been denied the right to secede) it was required to perform the function of a state in that Union, while still officially no longer a part of the Union, by ratifying an amendment that previously, as states in the Union it had legally rejected! Words alone fail to meet the challenge of such pure Yankee logic.” How does all that grab you?
In retrospect, Old Blue considered this whole charade to be an exercise in “legal” legerdemain. His parting comment on this whole scenario was “If this was the way those people in Washington thought almost 150 years ago, no wonder we have the problems we have with today’s politicians. It’s almost enough to make a self-respecting Confederate heron retreat back into the bayou and weep.”
Almost, but not quite, and why not? Because in spite of it all, there is a God in Heaven who still, through His Spirit, governs in the affairs of men (and herons) and when the time comes, as long as His people are faithful, He will put all this to rights.
On The Web: http://revisedhistory.wordpress.com/2014/09/08/old-blue-studies-yankeemarxist-legalisms/
See related pages and categories
Civil War soldiers buried as 'unknowns' identified
By Hilary Butschek
Tuesday, Sept. 16, 2014
MARIETTA, Ga. — The names of 350 Confederate soldiers buried as “Unknowns” in the Confederate Cemetery here will now be forever emblazoned on memorial walls facing their graves as a result of the work of a local historian.
A bronze statue of a Confederate soldier will be erected there soon as well.
Brown Park now has four granite walls commemorating 1,150 Confederate soldiers buried in the adjacent Marietta Confederate Cemetery after two new memorial walls were installed Monday.
The new walls were needed when a local historian, Brad Quinlin, and Betty Hunter, president of the Marietta Confederate Cemetery Foundation, worked together to discover the names of 350 soldiers known to be buried in the cemetery.
Those 350 were then added to the 800 names already displayed on the two granite walls that have been in the park since August 2013.
Four walls face the cemetery estimated to hold 3,000 Confederate soldiers, but Hunter said she is proud to have identified more than one-third of those “buried heroes” now.
The search for the names of soldiers who died and were buried in Marietta lasted two years, Hunter said.
The city spent $47,000 to install the two new walls, which are 8 feet wide and 4.5 feet tall, as well as new landscaping, said Rich Buss, the city’s parks and recreation director.
Hunter said community members donated an additional $7,000 to buy and engrave the new slabs of granite.
“This wouldn’t have been possible without the contributions of local people,” Hunter said.
Hunter said the new memorials will help more people connect with the history of the cemetery.
“It’s nice to have them there because so many people are interested in genealogy now, and so many people don’t know where their ancestors are buried, and it will shed a lot of light as to where they died and where they were buried,” Hunter said.
Quinlin said he found the names of some of the buried soldiers after he compiled hospital records spread out across five universities around the country, including the University of Texas in Austin, Emory University, Duke University, the University of Tennessee and the University of North Carolina.
Quinlin said he looked through 45,000 pages of hospital records kept by Samuel Hollingsworth Stout, the general surgeon in charge of all Confederate hospitals in Georgia from 1863-64. Quinlin looked through the documents searching for soldiers who were wounded and sent to Marietta hospitals during the Civil War.
“We checked and double checked these names for burial records and this is how we got the complete list that we have now (of soldiers buried in the Confederate Cemetery),” Quinlin said.
Out of the 405 names Quinlin found by looking through the hospital records, Hunter said she chose 350 who she could confirm were buried in the Marietta Confederate Cemetery based on the cemetery’s burial records.
“When (Quinlin) got the names for the hospital records, he allowed us to look at them, and we pulled out the ones that had died in Marietta and did a background search to find out if they had been buried somewhere else,” Hunter said.
Some of the Confederate soldiers Quinlin found were buried in Oakland Cemetery in Atlanta, Hunter said.
The 800 names displayed on the two walls that have been at the park for a year were verified through records the Kennesaw Chapter of the United Daughters of Confederacy kept of burials, Hunter said.
The Confederate Cemetery’s new monument is a bronze statue of a Confederate soldier that will sit on a granite pedestal. The Marietta Confederate Cemetery Foundation and the Georgia chapter of the Sons of Confederate Veterans split the cost on the statue, which totaled $55,000, said Tim Pilgrim, Georgia division adjutant of the Sons of Confederate Veterans.
Pilgrim said similar statues of Confederate soldiers have already been erected in Paulding County outside the government building and in Jackson County on the Jefferson Square.
“Every time we erect a monument, we change the head to make it unique to that particular area,” Pilgrim said.
Marietta’s statue was sculpted by locals Dawn and Tina Haugen, who own a sculpture studio in Marietta.
Quinlin said he could identify more of the 3,000 Confederate soldiers buried in the cemetery in the future because he hasn’t made it through all 45,000 pages of hospital records yet.
“We still have research to do,” Quinlin said.
The results of the research so far — the two new memorial walls — as well as the statue will be unveiled to the public at a ceremony Oct. 19 at 1 p.m.
The Augusta Chronicle ©2014
On The Web: http://chronicle.augusta.com/news/government/2014-09-16/civil-war-soldiers-buried-unknowns-identified?v=1410858026
See related pages and categories
Liberals, Yankee Morons and Slavery in America
Monday - September 8, 2014
Posted by "Jerryd14 -The War - The Confederate Flag - Southern People and our History"
I am, exasperated, perplexed, memorized, amused, fascinated, enthused, and delighted, at how damn ridiculousness and dishonest they who point fingers at the South about slavery, today. As we continue to see the increasing shortage of IQ in these people who blame the Southern states for slavery, and attempt to tie the Confederate Battle flag to slavery, it is all of those words I previously noted plus many more that apply.
Slavery, was not my idea, was it yours, I did not own any,did any of you, I bet you cannot locate one single living person in America that owned a black slave, call me if you can. Oh, in my early life I kinda thought a couple of times they were talking about me, as I was working like a slave, but no, I was wrong, just some of my old memories were apparently coming through.
Yeah, we have the Eagles, Giants, Saints, what bout dem Mississippi Slaves, dem boys is good, score 47 points on dat dare field. Or , oh no, Redskins, how can you call them players R-E-D-S-K-I-N-S, we can call them, Panthers, or Bears, or Seahawks, or Dolphins, or Colts, or Indians, or RFeds, or sumpen, but not Redskins. BULLSHIT, LET’S CALL IT THAT.
Folks, have you heard about the illegal Immigration issues, and by the way, Obama says not to call the terroists, call them foreign combatants, u know wat I mean, just pretend along with me, use modern feel good names as we do not want to bomb ISIS unless we get an invitation. Yes, I suppose them invitations to come over and bomb the combatants is not a Hallmark Card is it.
Listen, modern day Morons and Morenesties, wake up, slavery was a biblical issue long before Starbucks was founded. Yeah, before Aunt Jemima pancakes, the plantations, and all that stuff, their was slavery. Before Dixie, and Cotton, Rice and Jambalaya, their were slaves. before America their were slaves. Eqypians, Greeks, Romans, Indians, Japaneses, Chinese, Pre Columbian civilizations all had slaves. AMERICA DID NOT INVENT THIS.
Blacks in Africa had slaves, and blacks in America had slaves. THE CONFEDERATE STATES OF AMERICA, WHICH EARLIER BEFORE SECESSION HAD SLAVES IN THEIR STATES, AS WELL AS SOME STATES THAT WERE NOT PART OF THE CONFEDERATE STATES OF AMERICA.
QUIZ TIME, IF THE FLAG THAT FLEW OVER THE U.S. FROM 1776 UNTIL TODAY WITH ITS ADDED STARS, WAS A COUNTRY THAT ALL ALLOWED SLAVERY, THEN IS IT A RACIST FLAG.
Slavery, was an institution that happened due to money making men who found human beings in various parts of the world, sitting on their ass all day, achieving nothing, and had been doing this for thousands of years, and said, hey, we could use a couple of dem boys in Massachusetts and in Virginia and other places could use some help, let’s start a Manpower company where we obtain the labor and lease or sell them to those in need. This will keep the savages from just doing nothing, to being productive, and hell, one day they will get educated, and be president. Great idea some said, and wooof, it happened.
So, what flag is racist, none, all the worlds flags with few exception, who is racist, who is biased, in varying degrees,, 99% of humanity is, and so what, we are all different. we like different foods, music, movies, colors, speech, clothing, cars, lifestyles, ect. Am I the only person who has noticed this, none of you have I don’t guess.
So, the War to stop Southern Independence, created a flag, yeeh-haaaaaah, is that amazing, i mean they created their very own flag, just like nations, states towns, churches, associations, groups, military organizations have since the beginning of time, but, but the Confederate flag is racist. the morons are loose on our streets, they are out of their cages, and caves, and need to be immunized with some sanity and intelligence vaccinations, if you need such, call ahead, set up an appointment and then stop by my place, I will give you a shot for free.
On The Web: http://jerryd14.wordpress.com/2014/09/08/liberals-yankee-morons-and-slavery-in-america/
See related pages and categories
The MUSEUM OF THE CONFEDERACY in Richmond, Va. is being DESTROYED
Friday - September 12, 2014
Posted by "Jerryd14 -The War - The Confederate Flag - Southern People and our History"
I have previously stated that in visits I made as a small school child more than 55 years ago, were so exciting. We would be walked through the old Brockenbrough house, the White House of The Confederacy, which was where president and Varina Davis and their family live in Richmond from August 1861 until April 1865.
The house was opened up by Richmond ladies in 1886, and as time went on a move was made to collect museum items, relics, books, flags, weapons, uniforms, letters, personal mementos and all such Confederate historical items as they could gather.
Many of these items were directly from the Confederate veteran or his family, and were loaned or gifted obviously with the sole intention of care and love by and for Confederate and Southern people. TIMES HAVE CHANGED, and today the rotten liberals have wormed their way into the museum and have taken over. As the generations have passed away and are not here today to speak up in protest, you and i MUST PROTEST FOR THEM. THE LEADERS AT THE MOC have for a few years refused to fly the confederate battle flag out front of the new museum building that sits next door and beside the old White House. The leaders have slowly, year by year infiltrated this institution, just as foreigners have filtered into America and are changing our customs and traditions and destroying America, these people are destroying the MOC. For several years a move has been underfoot where many in the black community have pushed for slave stories, and slave museums, and I am fine with it, with their money, time to do as they please, but leave our Confederate Museum alone. Not to be. You see, infiltrators, work within, they sneak in with false pretenses, get control and change things to suit their objectives. Another TROJAN HORSE. They first worked with the Black city mayor and council. and other Black anti Confederate groups, to take control, and as they have the museum is changing to a more Political Correct place, or simply put, screw the CSA we are turning the place into a political correct center, where we can bash the CSA AND ALL IT STOOD FOR BEFORE THEY ARE FINISHED AND ERASED. And just like every other thing they are put in charge of, it gets corrupted, defaced, lost and destroyed in a few short years, just as the MOC will.
These same half breed liberal whites, many carpet baggers, are involved in several Richmond area attacks on Southern history. Three years ago the Confederate flags were forced to be removed from the Confederate Memorial Chapel on the grounds where the later built Virginia Museum of Fine Arts was added. So here they come along with Yankee leaders and have the Confederate Flags removed from the Chapel, and some of these same people are also involved in the removal of the Confederate Battle flags that for many years flew at the entrance of the MOC, but not any more. THIS IS A DAMN DISGRACEFUL SHAME. Today the MOC has very few of the thousands and thousands of artifacts, weapons, uniforms, books, dishes, art, furniture, and so many other things donated in good faith for exhibit by Southerners, who support and respect and Honor the service, sacrifices and bravery of the Confederate States Army and Navy, and today these imposters are squandering and disposing of relics and valuables to who knows where. yOU CANNOT SEE BUT A FEW ITEMS WHEN YOU VISIT THEM PLACE TODAY, WHRE ARE TYHE THOUSANDS OF MUSKETS, RIFLES, SWORDS, REVOLVERS, BAYONETS, BELTS, CANTEENS, KNAPSACKS, COATS, HATS, DRUMS, BUGLES, SPURS, BOOKS, LETTERS, UNIFORMS, WATCHES, PICTURES , ART, FLAGS, It appears a merger is happening between the MOC and the Richmond Civil War Center at the old Tredegar museum location, a Liberal controlled place to water down and destroy our past. This is rotten to the core and it makes med mad. Our nation is under siege, I for one, would avail myself into a group of Americans who want to take back control of our nation, but I am afraid I have waited too late as few agree with me it seems, and for this I am sad but determined to stay the course as things can change and I want to be a part of the change back to our traditional America, and our Southern heritage and culture being re-instated. Please do your part, go online to http://www.scvva.org ( Save the Museum of the Confederacy) contribute to help them fight this action, money is needed if the fight is to be won. Raise some voices, FACEBOOK, and this blog and at every site you can go to and state your opposition. Our history is fading fast, do your part to resist it.
On The Web: http://jerryd14.wordpress.com/2014/09/12/the-museum-of-the-confederacy-in-richmond-va-is-being-destroyed/
See related pages and categories
Thursday, September 18, 2014
Ole Miss and the New Bigots
By Ben Jones
The brilliant editor H.L. Mencken had a way of being succinct that sparkled with wit. "There is no idea so stupid that you can't find a professor who will believe it," he remarked. Mencken would have a field day with the recent actions of the University of Mississippi. If you have ever wondered why academia is often the butt of ridicule and humor, you need only to read the report from Ole Miss President Dan Jones entitled, "Action Plan on Consultant Reports and Update on the Work of the Sensitivity and Respect Committee."
We are told that the Extended Sensitivity and Respect Committee has decided that the new Vice Chancellor for Diversity and Inclusion will work with the Institute for Racial Diversity and the new Center for Inclusion and Cross Cultural Engagement.
Fellow compatriots, I am not making this up. This is not a satire, this is what the taxpayers of Mississippi are dishing out their hard-earned money to pay for.
President Jones further stated, "It is my hope that the steps outlined here reflecting the hard work of University committees and our consultants will prove valuable in making us a stronger and healthier university, bringing us closer to our goal of being a warm and welcoming place for every person, every day, regardless of race, religion, preference, country of origin, ability, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation or gender expression."
In my opinion, this is an as astounding a demonstration of politically correct, "feel-good", unadulterated hogwash as has ever been uttered by a man on the public payroll. And having spent four years in the United States Congress, I have heard some world-class hogwash in my day.
President Jones, sounding a lot like Mr. Rogers Neighborhood, has listed every possible group that might be sensitive to not being "included" in this unlimited "diversity", even one I've never heard of: "gender expression." Well, whatever that means, I figure it is o.k. if one expresses their gender at Ole Miss.
There is one very large group that is not included, however. It is those of us whose ancestors fought for the Confederacy during the War Between the States. There are over 70 million of us, but it is as if we do not exist, or have deep feelings toward our forefathers.
In fact, without a straightforward explanation, the famous Oxford street named Confederate Drive is being renamed by these academics in the name of "inclusion". That intentional insult puts the lie to any pretense of "inclusion" or of respect or of diversity on the part of the University of Mississippi.
The Confederacy existed. Thousands of young Mississippians died for it. That conflict has been the crucible event of American history. Everything before led up to it. Everything after has been influenced by it.
The entire student body of the University of Mississippi enlisted in the Confederate Army and those young men suffered 100% casualties. That war is an historical reality and we do not flinch from that reality and its consequences. Those men and their descendants built the University and kept it going through good times and bad, and through the social changes of the past 150 years.
That street was named for those brave young students. The University, in its narrow-minded rush to be politically correct, has banished that little bit of respect by renaming Confederate Drive. In their sanctimonious zeal, they have demeaned the honor and reputation of our ancestors.
In the last fifty years or so we have witnessed a truly remarkable revolution in race relations in the South. Where once there was Jim Crow and strict segregation, there is now a multi-cultural society that has the fastest growing economy in the United States. Men and women of good hearts have come together in brotherhood and cooperation to enjoy racial relations that are an exemplar for other regions. This "bridge-building" has been built on an acceptance of the past and the promise of a shared future, not the divisive finger-pointing of the academics and the politicians.
These politically correct crusaders are practicing a new kind of bigotry. It is a movement that demonizes the Confederacy and lays the sins of America entirely upon the South. If they continue to have their way, they would eradicate every vestige of our cultural history. They ask for respect but give none.
Once again, we must make our voices heard in every way possible. We must demand the respect that our families deserve. We are the last line of defense for the dignity that our ancestors earned.
On The Web: http://shnv.blogspot.com/2014/09/ole-miss-and-new-bigots.html