The Line Between Soldier and Servant (Part 5) by Bill Vallante

It is often difficult to distinguish the dividing line between “soldier” and “servant”, for in many instances the line was blurred by the realities of war, the needs of the moment and the sentiments of the men who served. The story of Amos Rucker, of the 33rd Georgia infantry, is one such example. The term “soldier” when referring to a black man in the Confederate army is often scoffed at by modern day academic inbreds touting contemporary historical “wisdom”.

Perhaps these inbreds would do well to note the use of the word “soldier” or “veteran” by white Confederate veterans when referring to their black comrades?

AMOS RUCKER, THE NEGRO VETERAN. [496 Confederate Veteran October 1909.]

There is an underlying note of tenderness in every heart, and it vibrates to the touch of real pathos, as a violin does to its bow. The story of Amos Rucker, the old negro veteran of Atlanta, carries its own moral. Amos belonged to the Rucker family, of Colbert County, Ga., belonged in a wider sense than as a mere human chattel that the slaves were said to be, for every joy or sorrow in "ole Marster's" family touched its sympathetic chord in his heart. The children he watched grow up were as dear to him as his own, and "ole Miss" was always the pinnacle of all that was good in his eyes.

Amos was a young man at the time of the war, and when "Marse Sandy Rucker" went to the front, Amos went too, just as proud as was that young soldier of his "marster's" gray uniform and brass buttons.

In all those long, hard years the 33d Georgia Regiment bore its part in the bloody struggle, and there was no braver member than Sandy Rucker, and shoulder to shoulder with him fought Amos, as though he too was an enlisted man. He took part in every engagement, and, gun or bayonet in hand, stood ready to "close up" whenever there was a vacancy in the line. The cause of the Confederacy was his, because his master had espoused it first, then it was his from the love he came to bear the flag, and no truer, more loyal heart beat under the gray than that of Amos Rucker.

He joined the Camp of W. H. T. Walker, and there was no more loved nor respected member than the black, whose bowed form and snow white hair showed the passing of the years so plainly. He attended every meeting till the one before his death, when he sent word to the Camp that he was too ill to attend, and added: "Give my love to the boys."

He went to all the Reunions whenever possible, and here he attracted much attention. He was very proud to show off a wonderful feat of memory, for he could call the roll of his old company from A to Z, and he would add in solemn tones "here" or "dead" as the names left his lips.

The people who had had his lifetime devotion took care of both the old man and his wife. As he said: "My folks give me everything I want." At his death in Atlanta in August, 1909, there was universal sorrow. His body lay in state, and hundreds of both white and black stood with bared head to do him honor. Camp Walker defrayed all burial expenses, buying a lot in the cemetery especially for him, so that the old man and his wife could lie side by side. The funeral services were conducted by Gen. Clement A. Evans, the Commander in Chief of the Veterans, and his volunteer pallbearers were ex Gov. Allen D. Candler, Gen. A. J. West, ex Postmaster Amos Fox, F. A. Hilburn, Commander of Camp Walker, J. Sid Holland, and R. S. Osbourne. Very tenderly they carried the old veteran to his grave, clothed in his uniform of gray and wrapped in a Confederate flag, a grave made beautiful by flowers from comrades and friends, among which a large design from the Daughters of the Confederacy was conspicuous in its red and white.

A simple monument will be erected to the faithful soldier by the white comrades of his Camp and from contributions from his many friends in Atlanta

Copyright © 2003-2010, GeorgiaHeritageCouncil.org

On The Web:   http://georgiaheritagecouncil.org/site2/commentary/vallante-black-history-month5.phtml

 

Holt Collier - Confederate Soldier (Part 3) by Bill Vallante

The story of Holt Collier can be found in the pages of many Black American History books. The focus, most times however, will be on his career as a prolific hunter and guide, which occurred long after the conclusion of the WBTS and Reconstruction.

What is not usually dwelt on is the fact that he was, despite being a slave, a bonafide, gun-totin’, mustered-in Confederate soldier. His skills as a marksman impressed many who saw him, including, apparently, General Forrest, and I cannot help wonder if Daniel Woodrel and Ang Lee were thinking of him when they created the character “Holt” in the movie “Ride With the Devil”?

The following is one of several biographical accounts of his life in the Slave Narratives. Lengthy details about his post war career as a prolific hunter and guide have been deleted in the interests of brevity, as to publish everything that was written about him in the Slave Narratives would take up 14 type written pages! The interviewer seems to have jumped from one time period to another, making the chronology a bit confusing and frustrating. It is a fascinating story nonetheless.

Holt Collier, Mississippi (from the Slave Narratives)

Was born in Greenville in 1848, died in Greenville August 1st, 1936, and he was through almost his entire life a remarkable colored citizen of Washington county. He was an ex-slave and a Confederate soldier. He did a great deal for the uplift of his race. He achieved great distinction as a hunter of big game, killing bear all over the country, some on grounds where Greenville homes and public buildings now stand. He gained notice by being in the hunting party of President Theodore Roosevelt, when he came to Washington county in quest of this sport. Holt Collier in relating this colorful incident in his life said: "The President of the United States was anxious to see a live bear the first day of the hunt. I told him he would see that bear if I had to tie it and bring it to him." Collier made good his word. Before the day ended the President had seen the gay old bruin. Upon his return to Washington, Mr. Roosevelt sent to Holt a rifle duplicating the one he had used on the hunt, and which Holt had so admired.

Too feeble to rise unaided from his stout oak rocking chair, Holt Collier, nonegenarian, ex-slave and Washington county's most colorful citizen, sits in his own little home on North Broadway.

For many years Holt's erect and sturdy figure was a familiar sight on Greenville streets. A stranger would have noticed his bearing, his dark face with iron gray mustache and vandyke beard and the broad-brimmed felt hat he always wore. Now, the wide hat, similar to those worn by officers in the Confederate army, shades his failing eyes when he sits on the little porch of his home watching the passersby.

Holt Collier was born in Jefferson county in 1848; he lived there only a short while, however, because he was brought by his master, Howell Hinds, son of General Hinds, to Washington county when he was only a small boy. Holt's master, to whom he was devoted, traveled back and forth to the old home in Jefferson county; to New Orleans, to Louisville and to Cincinnatti and Holt always accompanied him in the capacity of juvenile valet. Traveling at that time was done mostly by boat, and Holt recalls quite a number of the boats that plied the river in the halcyon days of the steamboat.

At the age of twelve, Holt was sent with his master's sons to Bardstown, Kentucky. All the boys were expected to attend school, but Holt's love of hunting caused him to "play hookey" while the others studied. He often hid his gun in the spring house, returned for it later and slipped away to the fields and forest to hunt instead of going to the school room. Though Mr. Hinds never succeeded in having the boy educated in books, he, however, trained Holt to be honorable, truthful and trustworthy, and this training was evident throughout his life.

Holt tells us that at the time when the Civil War began, he was living on Plum Ridge, the Hind's plantation, south of the present city of Greenville. Mr. Howell Hinds, later Colonel Hinds and always spoken of by Holt as "The Old Colonel", and his son, Tom, were making ready to join the Confederate forces. When Holt Collier, then only fourteen years of age, learned of his master's preparations for departing, he asked to go with them. To Holt's great disappointment, however, his master and Tom agreed that the little colored boy was too young to enter the army. "I begged like a dog, but they stuck to it --- 'You are too young'", Holt relates.

In front of Old Greenville, seven steamboats were waiting to transport the volunteers from the surrounding country to Memphis; from there they were to be sent to training camps. During the afternoon the "Old Colonel" and Tom left for Old Greenville, prepared to join the men already gathered on the river bank. Night came; the dense forest and the cypress brakes between Plum Ridge and the little town of Greenville became v ery dark. Through this darkness, the young colored boy made his way toward the river and its flotilla of steamboats. Arriving at the village, he loitered at the store of a Jewish merchant, Mr. Rose, and at a propitious moment, he slipped aboard the "Vernon", climbing up the back of the boat to the kitchen where he hid himself. While Holt was in hiding, a man entered the kitchen and beckoning him to come near, Holt won the man's sympathy and aid in carrying out his plan to follow his master to the army. Arrangements were made for Holt to occupy a small room adjoining the kitchen and the cook, whom Holt had seen on the "Vicksburg", proved friendly. "He hid me during the trip and told me when to get off at Memphis," Holt tells. The soldiers from the boat having gone ashore, the cook thought that the time was ripe for Holt to make his appearance. Leaving the shelter of the "Cook-house", he climbed up the high banks at the Memphis landing to find his master standing with a group of officers, among whom were General Bedford Forrest and General Breckenridge. No more was said of Holt's youth and he went into training at Camp Boone; it was in Tennessee. He served as a soldier and did not go as a body-servant to Colonel Hinds.

After drilling for a time at Camp Boone, he was sent with his company into Kentucky. His first taste of war came in a fight at a bridge over Green River and there he met his "Old Colonel" again. During the four years conflict, he served with the Texas Cowboys, Ross' Brigade and was under Colonel Dudley Jones at the close of the struggle. After the surrender, he returned to Washington county with his master and Tom Hinds.

About that time he began to achieve distinction as a hunter. He killed bear all over the county, some of which were killed where Greenville homes and public buildings now stand. Quail matches were the fashion then and at various times Colonel Hinds pitted his man, Holt, against such sportsmen as Major Keep of Mayersville, Mississippi, Jeff Brown and Major Lawrence of Louisville. In a noted match with Mr. Lomax Anderson of Lake Village, Arkansas, Holt won for Colonel Hinds a purse of one thousand dollars in gold.

When the Carpetbagger regime was in full swing, Holt was involved in serious trouble connected with the killing of a Yankee soldier. He was arrested on suspicion and but for the persistent efforts of Colonel W. A. Percy, would most like have paid the supreme penalty.

To this day he has never told who killed the Union soldier, but those who are informed about those troublous times, have their own opinion, which they never put into words. The trouble arose over a difficulty between the soldier and Colonel Hinds. During the dispute, the Colonel, though a much older man, knocked the youngster down several time, each time following the aggression of the younger man. Finally the thoroughly angered young man drew a knife on his unarmed opponent, but a by-stander prevented his using it. Such conduct, especially when the aggressor was a much younger man, was considered an insult and Holt regarded it as such.

Holt tells that on one occasion, during Reconstruction days, he, the only negro among 500 white men, marched up Washington Avenue under fire, as a protest against the insults to the white men and women of Greenville. Several times he was taken to court because of his participation in acts of this kind.

After the tragic death of his beloved master, Holt traveled for some time with a race-horse stable and later worked on the race-horse farm of Captain James Brown near Fort Worth, Texas. There he met Frank James brother of the celebrated Jessee James. Thence he traveled into old Mexico and later hunted "little bear" in Alaska. Seeing the world did not wean Holt from his old home in the Mississippi Delta and after a few years of wandering, he returned to Greenville.

…Since Holt's death about ten days ago the following material has been given me by Mrs. T. A. Holcombe, who felt an interest in Holt and from time to time saw him. From her various conversations she had gathered considerable information on which she had planned to base a sketch of his life. She talked with him when he was stronger and better able to give details of his early life than when I saw him recently. Mrs. Holcombe visited him in the hospital where he spent the last week or ten days of his life, and was able at times to minister to his comfort and happiness. Having long been interested in him, he naturally told her more than he would have told in one interview, especially when one considers how feeble he was when I saw him last.

In the interview I am sending in I have incorporated some material which I remember from tales I heard him tell several years ago and prior to my undertaking the collecting of historical data. The last interview was not nearly so full as might have been desired so to make it of much interest. Therefore I had to add to it from other sources.

When I last talked with him he was very feeble and was easily overcome by emotion, especially when talking of his Old Colonel and some very lovely white lady who lived at Bardstown, Ky in whose charge he was placed when as a boy he was sent there to go to school.

Enclosed you will find account of his death as published in the local paper. The Commercial Appeal also carried a notice of his death last week which was published again in the Sunday edition.

During troublous times after Civil War, on one occasion Col. Hinds and a party of white men were riding about 12 miles north of Greenville when they realized that they had run into an ambush. Setting spur to their horses they dashed for safety. Col. Hinds horse stumbled, pitching him off. Holt riding ahead, looked back and Col. Hinds signalled him to ride on, but he wheeled and dashed back to his old master's rescue. Col. Hinds was running with his arms elevated above his head when Holt came abreast of him and without stopping his horse, reached down and jerked Col. Hinds up onto the horse with him, thus saving his life.

During the war Holt was in the company with Mr. J. C. Burrus of Bolivar county and on one occasion the two were in a cane-brake riding toward a slough when suddenly they realized that they were surrounded by the enemy. Mr. Burrus felt that all hope of escape was gone, but Holt was more optimistic. Hastily he revealed his plan of escape and the two made a wild dash through the slough firing two pistols each and shouting with all their might the "Rebel yell". So swiftly did they pass through the line and so completely did they deceive the enemy that they made good their escape.

"I am black, but my associations with my Old Col. gave me many advantages. I was freer then than I have ever been since and I loved him better than anybody else in the world. I would have given my life for [him]," said Holt with tears rolling down his withered cheeks.

"When my Old Col. left to join the army, he left me sitting on the fence crying and begging him to let me go with him. He said, 'No, you might get killed. I said I've got as good a chance as you. He left me sitting there watching him go across the fields to Old Greenville to catch the boat. That night I ran away and went to Greenville where I saw the artillery being loaded on a boat. After dark I slipped aboard. At Memphis when we were about half unloaded I marched across the gang-plank to shore. Mr. Thomas (Hinds) saw me and turned and called, 'Father look yonder.' My Old Colonel looked at me and took off his hat and smoothed his hair back with his hand and said, 'Thomas, if we both go to the devil that boy will have to go along!' I said, 'I got as good a chance as you.' It seemed to me that all the soldiers in the world were there. There were General Breckenridge, old Gen. Clark from Jefferson county, Gen. Bragg, General Wirt Adams and General Bedford Forrest. We were sent to Camp Boone in Tennessee and from there to Ky.

One moon-light night we were ordered double quick to Mulger Hill, to beat Col. Rousseau of the Northern army to that place. When we reached Bowling Green my folks shot down the Union flag flying at the top of a hill and Lieut. Marschalk climbed the pole and cut down the staff. We started on, but the Unions had torn up the railroad track and we had to stop and fix it before we could go on. That is why Col. Rousseau beat us to Mulger Hill. We reached Green River Bridge and entrenched on a mountain and had a skirmish with Col. Rousseau who fell back and we returned to Bowling Green where we went into winter quarters. The weather was the coldest I ever felt.

Because of my being an expert with a gun and a horse and my knowledge of the woods, Gen. Forrest talked with Capt. Evans to whose company I had been assigned when we left Camp Boone, about my enlisting as a soldier. They asked permission of my Old Colonel and he called me to him and told me to choose for myself. I said 'I will go with Capt. Evans' cavalry.' I loved horses and felt at home in the saddle. I was in Gen. Ross' Brigade, Col. Dudley Jones Regiment and Capt. Perry Evans co. 9th Texas Regt. My Old Col. gave me a horse --- one of three fine race horses he had brought from Plum Ridge. He was a beauty, iron-gray and named Medock. After leaving Bowling Green it was a long time until I saw my Old Colonel again.

In the spring the union forces drove us back to Iuka and from there to Chattanooga where we went into battle. We retreated through Tennessee into Alabama fighting every step of the way.

News that my Old Colonel had been wounded came through the lines to Mr. Thomas (Lieut. Thomas Hinds). He came to me and said, 'Holt can you go to my father? I can't go.' I got a pass from Capt. Evans and left that night. Riding night and day I reached the home of a relative of the Colonel's. I hid my horse in a cane-brake nearby and slipped up to the house after dark. Miss Eliza, the Colonel's cousin let me in and showed me where he lay. I went in and when he saw me he waved his hand for everyone to leave the room. I went over and knelt down by his bed and put my arms around him and hugged him close. He began to cry and said, 'Holt, I am badly hurt, but I believe I will pull through.' I said, 'You must; I can't live if you die.' After awhile the family came in and we talked until day-break. I was treated like a royal guest by Miss Eliza and the others. She made me a couch beside the Colonel's bed and I slept there during my stay. I never left the house and the family were on guard all the time I was there. The Federals were thick as hops and I began to get uneasy. On the fourth night I told my Old Colonel good-bye.

My horse, hearing me coming, nickered which frightened me, but I reached the lines in safety. I did not see my Old Colonel again until we met on the battle-field of Shiloh. He said 'Holt, I have worried a heap about you.' I said, 'Yes sir, I got as good a chance as you.' The soldiers were falling thick and fast, but I was never hit once. General Albert Sidney Johnston, in command of the Confederate troops was riding a big white horse when a bullet struck him in the thigh, severing an artery. I was only a few yards away at the time. Six soldiers carried him to the shade of a tree where he died in a short while. We retreated to Corinth (to protect an important connection with the Trans-Mississippi Division) and Capt. Evans Company was detailed for scout duty along the Mississippi River and up near Old Greenville. We did a heap of good too; saved our folks property and ran the Unions out. During that time I did a great deal of scout duty. The whole country was a wilderness and if our boys got lost I could always find the way out. I had been raised in this part of the country and had hunted in the woods all my life.

"Well Mam, when the war was over we went to Vicksburg and were mustered out under General Kirby Smith of Texas."After I came home I had a heap of trouble. The Federals were garrisoned at Greenville (the new town of that name) and they arrested me four times. At that time the country was under military rule and I had to go to Vicksburg for trial. Col. Percy, my Old Colonel, Judge Trigg and Mr. William L.Nugent stood by me through thick and thin. I will never forget them, my old white friends - they are all gone now. Col. Percy and Col. Hinds went with me to Vicksburg for the trial. Col. Percy told them if they put me in jail he wanted a cot put beside mine for he was going to jail with me.

Holt Collier from SOURCE MATERIAL FOR MISSISSIPPI HISTORY, Washington County

Copyright © 2003-2010, GeorgiaHeritageCouncil.org

On The Web:   http://georgiaheritagecouncil.org/site2/commentary/vallante-black-history-month3.phtml

 

Some Thoughts on The Slave Narratives (Part 2) by Bill Vallante

"Some of the colored fought on one side, and some on the other. They was just like children. The ones whats got good Mas and Pas wants to stay with them, and the ones whats got mean ones, wants to leave them. " ---Callie Washington, Mississippi

Several years ago I asked a professional historian where I might be able to view or obtain an unedited and complete version of the Federal Writers’ Project/Slave Narratives. I had heard various stories about the treatment of the slaves and I wanted to see for myself what the former slaves themselves said. Rather than answer my question directly, this “historian” told me that I should not get the complete Narratives collection because it was not accurate and had many flaws in it. Instead, he recommended one of many books written on the subject, the name of which I forget. Of course, like most books about the Narratives written during the decades of political correctness, this book focused on the “legacy” and the “brutality” of slavery. I don’t suppose it’s possible that anyone in the Old South who owned a slave would ever consider treating his or her slaves with anything resembling humanity? Naaaah!?

Being obstinate by nature, I ignored his advice and chalked him up to being simply one of the many academic inbreds that history and social science departments have produced since the 1960s, and I continued the search. Eventually, I located the complete Slave Narratives collection on CD Rom at Ancestry.com. I purchased it and began to pore through it. 9 months later I’d finally completed the project, taking notes and doing a lot of cutting and pasting along the way.

Historians like the one who gave me the advice not to pursue my search feel that the narratives are not accurate for several reasons:

* Because many of the interviewers were white, the black folks who were interviewed might have simply told the interviewers what they wanted to hear or were afraid to speak their minds.
* Many of the white interviewers were southerners who had opinions of their own and some were suspected of having edited the interviews in order to put the best possible face on the treatment that slaves received.
* Those interviewed were old and their memories may have been failing
* Many interviewers were not professionals and were poorly trained in interviewing skills

While there may be some truth in these contentions, it apparently has not stopped many contemporary historians and others from writing books on the subject and from using SELECTED interviews from the Slave Narratives for their own purposes. Of course, if one looks at most of these contemporary books one usually sees only the interviews which relate mistreatment. One is left to ask why only those interviews which document mistreatment are acceptable and those which relate the opposite are not?

Black people didn’t tell the white people everything or were afraid to speak their minds? It didn’t stop several hundred of those interviewed and who had been very badly treated from giving quite detailed accounts of their mistreatment. And am I to assume that every black person I’ve ever had a conversation with in my life has lied to me or “held out” on me simply because I’m white? If the memories of these people were failing, why are instances of recounted mistreatment acceptable and instances of the opposite not? And what about those white southern interviewers? Did some of them interject their own sentiments and thoughts into the narratives? Yes, some did. But again, the logical question arises – who is to say that the northern interviewers and the black interviewers didn’t do the same thing? In fact, the evidence is pretty plain that they did – some examples of neo-abolitionist melodrama:

“Among these few remaining persons who have lived long enough to tell of some of their experiences during the reign of "King Slavery" in the United States is one Mrs. Amanda McDaniel. “

“Her (referring to the ex-slave being interviewed) reminiscences are interesting because they depict that humble and contented attitude of slaves which is so often stressed by fanciful fictionists.”

...."sixteen years of hell as a slave on a plantation," a story which will convince the reader that, even though much blood was shed in our Civil War, the war was a Godsend to the American Nation. This story is told just as given by Mr. Stone.”

“These are the Memoirs of one who fought the battle. One who knows the galling chain of bondage and has lived to enjoy freedom”

I guess white southerners weren’t the only opinionated interviewers in this project – but it is something that I never hear the current crop of politically correct experts admit to – and it gives me yet another reason to hold the vast majority of these “experts” in contempt!

The Slave Narratives is a compilation of almost 3500 interviews, stories, short biographies, obituaries, etc. Those interviewed or written about were former slaves or the children or grandchildren of slaves. Though many of the interviewers displayed poor interviewing skills, they were nonetheless skilled enough in many cases, to transcribe the interviews in the exact manner in which the interviewee spoke. If for example, the person interviewed said the word “them”, it would many times be pronounced as “dem” and would be written and spelled as such in the transcription. Initially I found it to be a major pain in the neck – it seemed as if I had to learn a foreign language. In retrospect though I’d have to say that it gave a flavor to the work that, if you’re imaginative enough, almost allows you to hear the voices – it was for me, quite a thrill!

Oh yes, about treatment – well it seems that the type of treatment the slaves received varied from one master to another. There were some basic guidelines and laws of course, but in large part, American slavery left most decisions and judgement calls in the hands of the slaveowner. As one old ex-slave said, “Well suh, et wuz jus’ lak it is t’day – dey wuz gud people an’ dey wuz bad people”. If you want to write an Uncle Tom’s Cabin novel, there is more than enough material to help you along in these Narratives. But if you want to write a “Moonlight and Magnolias” novel, there’s more than enough material there as well. Life in any time period consists of the good and the bad. Indeed, it would not be life without both.

From what I’ve observed, the treatment of the slaves, put of course, within the context of the early and mid 19th century, reflected what I’ve always observed to be the breakdown of humanity in general, and which is similar to what the old slave said – There are some good people in this world, and there are some bad people in this world. When dealing with others, good people behave according to their character and bad people behave according to theirs. And, to no one’s surprise, there are also a lot of people whose character falls somewhere in between. Most of the people in between are usually trying to do the right thing, with some being better at it than others. They too behave according to character, although their behavior could sometimes be labeled as “dysfunctional” and is not as consistent as the behaviors of the other two groups.

Simply put, the Slave Narratives is a story of life – life in another time, of people in another time. That time, its parameters and the people who lived in it are as different from us and our time as the sun is from the moon. But they were people nonetheless, and theirs was life nonetheless. Like us, the people of that time displayed the same types of behaviors and experienced the same types of emotions that we do – there was love and hate, loyalty and betrayal, courage and cowardice, incredible generosity and incredible greed, brutality and compassion, success and disappointment....there was even humor, for what is life in any time without humor? For those who read the Narratives and can see only the brutal side of life I say – you have my sympathies, because you’ve missed much in the story and you’re probably missing a whole lot in your own life as well.

My mother and father told me many interesting stories of slavery and of its joys and sorrows. From what they told me there was two sides to the picture. One was extremely bad and the other was good. "These features of slavery were also dependent on the phases of human attitude and temperment which also was good or bad. If the master was broadminded, with a love in his heart for his fellowman, his slaves were at no disadvantage because of their low social standing and their lack of a voice in the civil affairs of the community, state, and nation. On the other hand if the master was narrowminded, overbearing and cruel the case was reversed and the situation the slaves were placed in caused in condition to exist concerning their general welfare that was bad and the slave was as low socially as the swine or other animals on the plantation. "Some owners gave their slaves the same kind of food served on their own tables and allowed the slaves the same privileges enjoyed by their own children. Other masters fed their slave children from troughs made very much like those from which the hogs of the plantation were fed. --Yellerday, Hilliard, ex-slave, North Carolina

Copyright © 2003-2010, GeorgiaHeritageCouncil.org

On The Web:   http://georgiaheritagecouncil.org/site2/commentary/vallante-black-history-month2.phtml

 

Black History Month & 'Civil War Memory' (Part 1) by Bill Vallante

"There is indeed a certain childish willfulness in the American mind that insists on chastising the people of the past for not being like them, or else pretending that they were. Which is a certain way NOT to learn anything from history." ---Dr. Clyde Wilson

Recently I sparred with a (white) neo-abolitionist blogger who had, in his daily rants, written a tribute to Martin Luther King. Flanking this tribute however were two “pot-shots” at General Lee, whose birthday comes at about the same time as King’s, and several pot-shots at the SCV.

I asked him why it was that he seemed unable to stay in his own little corner and have a good time celebrating something he sees as important without going over to someone else’s corner and poking fun at something that someone else considers important? “What is it”, I asked, “about you people that makes you so inclined to be pests?”

Needless to say, he did not appreciate my sarcasm. His response was as follows:

“First of all it is not "your corner" or anyone's corner for that matter. It's called American history and my blog's theme focuses on the way in which Americans have chosen to remember their past. In large part and in reference to the Civil War this has involved highlighting an idealized Confederate past by ignoring the contributions of African Americans.”

I didn’t really expect the blogger, a transplanted yankee/liberal teacher now living in Virginia, to comprehend the philosophy of “live and let live”, so his failure to comprehend my analogy of staying in his own “corner” didn’t really surprise me. Besides, “Live and Let Live” has never been the liberal way.

What is significant however, is his reference to an “idealized Confederate past” and “ignoring the contributions of African Americans”. Contemporary (liberal) historians often describe this notion with the phrase, “Civil War Memory”, a phrase popularized by Amherst historian/professor David Blight. Blight and those like him maintain that our “memory” of the war is in error, and that the way Americans “remember” the war has left the African American out in the cold. Of course, Mr. Blight and company intend to remedy this situation. Remember the phrase because you’ll be hearing more and more of it as America draws closer to the 150th Anniversary of the “Civil War.

The last eight months have allowed me plenty of time for research however, and I submit that there is much in the neo-abolitionist memory that he or she has chosen NOT to remember, or to simply ignore.

Since “Black History Month” is once again upon us, I would like to take this time to reveal some of the history that our neo-abolitionist friends have apparently forgotten or tried to bury. The stories and excerpts that follow in this series are taken from the Slave Narratives, the Confederate Veteran Magazine, 1893-1912, the Southern Historical Society Papers, the Official Records of the War of the Rebellion, and several books, some of which were written back in a time when much of this stuff was recent history. The stories include tributes to and remembrances of Black Confederates, not only soldiers and those in the military, but black southern civilians as well, a more critical look at the USCT, and a hard look at some of the flights of fancy that contemporary politically correct historians engage in – i.e., 'Reconstruction' as a Story of Social Progress.

Robert Penn Warren once wrote – “The Civil War is America’s ‘felt’ history – that is not to say that all Americans feel it in exactly the same way.” Apparently our neo-abolitionist friends don’t quite see it that way. It’s their way or the highway. I’m a believer in “live and let live” and I don’t like to rain on anyone else’s parade, but if that’s the way they want it, then let the games begin!

Copyright © 2003-2010, GeorgiaHeritageCouncil.org

On The Web:   http://georgiaheritagecouncil.org/site2/commentary/vallante-black-history-month1.phtml

 

Confederate sniper rifle showcased in Dover

Author was in Paris in December
Tuesday, February 2, 2010

The rifle used by Confederate sniper Capt. Jack Hinson will be on display from 10 a.m.-3 p.m. Saturday at the Stewart County Public Library as part of an appearance by Hinson biographer Tom McKenney.

McKenney, author of Jack Hinson’s One-Man War, will present a lecture on Hinson beginning at 10 a.m., at the library in Dover, followed by a book signing until 3 p.m.

McKenney, of Marion, Ky., spent more than 15 years researching and writing the story of Hinson, who at the start of the war was a friend of Union Gen. Ulysses S. Grant, as well as several Confederate officers.

According to McKenney’s research, Hinson was also a cousin by marriage to famed outlaw Jesse James.

The former plantation owner became a guerilla fighter after Union troops decapitated his sons and placed their heads on his gateposts.

By the time the war ended, Hinson had taken down an armed Union transport single-handedly, and was the target of an extensive, and ultimately fruitless, Union manhunt.

According to McKenney’s book, Hinson used the specially-commissioned rifle to kill an estimated 100 men.

He gave the specially-made long-range rifle to Confederate Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest, who then gave the rifle to his friend and adjutant general, Maj. Charles W. Anderson of Murfreesboro.

The rifle became a family heirloom, ultimately being handed down to its present owner, Judge Ben Hall McFarlin of Murfreesboro.

A retired Marine Corps lieutenant colonel, McKenney is a former infantry officer and parachutist who served in Vietnam and Korea.

He appeared at a book signing at Rhea Public Library in Paris in early December.

He has contributed articles to Guideposts, American Legion Magazine, Military and Leatherneck.

Copyright © 2010 The Paris Post-Intelligencer

On The Web:   http://www.parispi.net/articles/2010/02/02/news/local_news/doc4b685ae22eb78470336682.txt

 

January 31, 2010

Flagging down tourists and history
Charles Oliver
charlesoliver@daltoncitizen.com

During the Civil War, both the Union and Confederate armies would place towers along high points, including the ridges around Dalton, and use flags to communicate with soldiers spread out over large areas.

“They called them wig wag towers. They put these towers on ridges — say from Chattanooga to Dalton — and using those flags they could tell if something was happening in Chattanooga all the way back to Dalton,” said local Civil War enthusiast Marvin Sowder.

Now, some history buffs are talking to local officials about recreating some of those towers to draw attention to the area’s rich Civil War history.

“The idea is to have three towers on three of the highest points around Dalton, preferably where they were during the Civil War. And these towers will display the history of how they used the flags,” said Dalton architect Kenneth Harless, who is helping to design some of the towers.

Harless said he is just beginning to research the towers. The idea calls for making them look as historically accurate as possible.

“Obviously, given modern building codes, we aren’t going to make them out of logs and have wooden stepladders going to the top,” he said.

Harless said the original towers were between 100 and 150 feet tall.

“From what I’ve been told, the ones around Dalton were probably closer to 100 feet,” he said.

Harless said his idea is that when people climb to the top of the towers there will be maps and arrows pointing towards sites that were important during the Civil War. There will be brief explanations of what happened at those places.

Dalton city administrator Ty Ross said having one or more of the towers along Rocky Face Ridge could help catch the attention of drivers along I-75 and perhaps get them to come to Dalton and learn more about the area, especially if the towers are lighted at night.

Sowder said the sesquicentennial of the Civil War, which starts in 2011, could increase Civil War tourism.

“Anything that could help preserve and draw attention to our Civil War heritage might help bring people in,” he said.

Dalton City Council member Charlie Bethel says the idea is still in the early stages of discussion, few details have been decided on and there’s no commitment to it yet. There’s no consensus on how many towers would be built or where they would be located, for instance.

“I’d say it’s more of a concept at this point than a project,” he said.

One big question that no one can answer yet is how much it would cost to build the towers.

Dalton Mayor David Pennington said that would be a major consideration.

Whitfield County Board of Commissioners Chairman Mike Babb said he’s concerned about the costs as well. He said he’s also concerned the towers could be magnets for vagrants and vandals.

“When things are remote like that, my concern is about how do you protect them,” he said. “I want to know that.”

On The Web:   http://www.northwestgeorgia.com/local/local_story_031215040.html

 

1/30/2010

Soldier served with Confederate Army

Charlotte Burrous
The Daily Record

For more than a half a century, he lived in Cañon City.

Prior to that, William Tecumpseh Bridwell served in the Confederate Army during the Civil War.

Born 1845 in Wheeling, W.V., he lived most of his early life in Virginia, according to the archives at the Royal Gorge Regional Museum and History Center.

When the Civil War broke out, several southern states seceded from the United States. At that point, Bridwell volunteered with the 4th Virginia Cavalry as a soldier under the “Stars and Bars,” serving until the south surrendered at Appomattox.

During the hostilities, Bridwell served with Gen. Lee when the Confederates invaded Pennsylvania then fought in the battle of Gettysburg, as well, as the participating in the retreat when the Confederate Army lost the war.

“He served valiantly in many a hard fought battle for the cause he believed to be right, but when the war was over, he patriotically accepted the result and turned his attention to reconstruction and the art of peace,” the archives said.

In 1878, he moved to Colorado, two years after its admission into the United States. In a new state, Bridwell worked as a carpenter then in the grocery business with Charles Apple before settling on the insurance and real estate business for the rest of his life.

Along the way, he met and married Barbara Cox on May 31, 1879. There is no record in the archives of what happened to her. Nor is there a record of what happened to Canadian immigrant Mary Robertson whom he married on Sept. 26, 1901.

A pioneer in the line of work, Bridwell kept an insurance office for more than 35 years.

But he also became known as one of the prime stockholders in Cañon City and Cripple Creek Toll Road Company on the Shelf Road.

“What is unique about Bridwell being involved with this project was that one of the other major stockholders in the company was B.F. Rockafellow,” who served with the Union during the Civil War, the archives state.

In his spare time, Bridwell joined the Masonic order, serving as a grand master of the lodge of Colorado, a high priest with the Royal Arch Masons of Colorado, a Knight Templar, as a Shriner and a member of the Scottish Rite Consistory.

Bridwell went through most of the chairs in the Masonic bodies of Cañon City. He was proud he had not missed a grand lodge convention in 40 years.

Also, he was involved with the Episcopal Christ Church as a vestry, supporting its activities.

Always involved, he became a charter member of the Cañon City Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks No. 610, having the No. 3 card when he joined.

One of the oldest and best known residents of Cañon City at the time of his demise, Bridwell died Sept. 29, 1927, leaving a niece as his only surviving relative.

According to the archives, the community sent “great masses of flowers and wreaths of immartelles,” which “proclaimed the high esteem in which the deceased was held by those who knew him best.

 © 2010 The Cañon City Daily Record

On The Web:   http://www.canoncitydailyrecord.com/region-story.asp?ID=12848
 

February 1, 2010

History Mystery: Body of Confederate soldier is buried in Green Ridge Cemetery

BY DIANE GILES
dgiles@kenoshanews.com

The last History Mystery question: What former member of the Confederate Army is buried in Kenosha’s Green Ridge Cemetery?

The answer: His name was William C. McDoniel, and he is the only Confederate soldier buried in Kenosha with full military honors.

At the time of his death at the age of 66 on May 7, 1909, he may have been the first in Wisconsin to be buried with full military honors.

McDoniel was born in 1843 in Missouri. At the age of 18 he began serving with the Confederate army and served all four years of the Civil War.

He was mustered out of the service as a bugler attached to the staff of Gen. John S. Marmaduke. During his time of service, he fought in some of the most bitterly waged battles of the Civil War.

In several of those battles, Kenosha men were engaged on the Union side. McDoniel fought in the Battle of Jenkins Ferry, where Kenoshan Capt. Charles Frantz lost an arm; and the Raid of Holly Springs, where Kenoshan George Hale was in the thick of the fight.

He was there at the Fort Pillow massacre and later at the raid on Memphis in April 1864, where he clashed with many Kenosha County soldiers who were members of the 39th Wisconsin.

But by 1909, there was no North or South in the minds of gray-haired men who had fought in the war, at least not in the Grand Army of the Republic chapter here.

McDoniel lived in Kenosha for six years before he died and got to be friends with some of his previous foes.

When he died, a small funeral was held at his home on Bond Street (12th Avenue), which was well attended by the G.A.R. members.

It was his request that members of the G.A.R. serve as his pallbearers. They were George Hale, Theodore Boyington, Charles Truax, Oscar Rector, L.C. Graves and James G. Russell.

They carried his casket from McDoniel’s parlor to the horse-drawn hearse and then from the hearse to the cemetery grave.

©2010 Kenosha News

On The Web:   http://www.kenoshanews.com/news/history_mystery_body_of_confederate_soldier_is_buried_in_green_ridge_cemetery_7258816.html

 

Sons of Confederate Veterans have a role in modern America

America faces a crossroads very similar to those prior to Fort Sumter. More government, less nationalism, maybe socialism, which way do we go?

by Mark Vogl
Tuesday, February 2, 2010

What is this guy talking about?

Well, I will try to explain. It will only take ten short paragraphs.

The Sons of Confederate Veterans (S.C.V.) is a fraternal organization composed of male descendents of the men who served in the Confederate Armed Forces during the War for Southern Independence. Their emblems include the controversial Confederate battle flag. Their core responsibility is articulated in a charge given to them by Lt. General Stephen D. Lee which calls on them to defend the heritage, honor, and reputation of the Confederate soldier and the Cause they fought for.

The Cause they fought for was individual liberty, state's rights, the original Constitution and the right to secede. In essence, Confederates fought an aggressive Union which would not allow the states to exercise an accepted right of secession. This right had been exercised by all the original states when they withdrew from the government of the Articles of Confederation, and entered the present day United States of America. Further, the Tenth Amendment reserved all powers not addressed in the Constitution to the States and people respectively. And lastly, the new union was formed as each individual state entered the union.

So, despite the military victory of Grant and Sherman, and despite the victor's interpretation towards secession, the fact is that secession remains a right of the states, and a political alternative which some day will most likely be exercised.

Why the S.C.V. deserves a chair, not at the table, but right next to it is so today's policy makers see the colors of secession, the Confederate battle flag as they attempt to find the future for America.

America is caught in a vortex of highly controversial issues, many with no real compromise. You either kill an unborn infant, or you allow it to be born, for the infant there is no middle ground. You either allow homosexual marriage...even if you call it something else, or you don't. Either a person has a right to health care or they don't.

In the past, liberals have sold policy initiatives in half loaves, calling for compromise. But today, that sales strategy is burned out. We have seen the compromises develop into full blown, expensive, not effective policies. We have seen compromise go the way of the Missouri Compromise as socialism now raises it's ugly head in the form of national health care and government ownership of private business.

Americans are done with hearing about how government can solve the problems, when all government does is continually make new problems, add taxes, and never accomplish much. Further, Americans have watched the federal government act negligently with respect to its primary duty...ie., protect the homeland at the border. The tens of millions of illegal immigrants have only expanded the need for government social services, increased health care costs and chasllenges, overwhelmed our education infrastructure, and filled our prisons.  Illegal drugs flow over the border like a rushing river.

Whether you are a Democrat watching blue states vote red, or Republicans waiting their turn to take over the reigns of government, one thing is clear. Americans are out of patience, and want the solutions they have repeatedly called for. America is a new America. Not the America of the mid 20th century, or the world leader of the Cold War. We are now just one nation among many.

Are we a great nation? We can be. Should we lead in the world? Sometimes? But we are not the Super Power of an earlier era. We are no longer the wealthiest nation. We no longer have excess money to fix every problem in the world. We have to make choices. Real choices, with real ramifications. Washington is not where those answers are. They had their chance and through Clinton - Bush - Obama they have demonstrated they can't do it, are headed in the wrong direction, and we don't want 'em any more.

The S.C.V. should be present so as to remind politicians that the American people don't have endless patience. The S.C.V. is the very best living example, as the War for Southern Independence Sesquicentennial rapidly approaches, that if the federal government can't find a way, the states and the people will.

On The Web:   http://www.nolanchart.com/article7335.html
 

Monday, February 1, 2010

Why Southron disdain sherman and his yankees!

Sherman's March Through The South

U.S. General William Tecumseh Sherman's march through the South, notably, through Georgia and South Carolina, may qualify as the most hideous of all military assaults against a civilian population in modern history. The list of recorded accounts of events that Sherman was wholly responsible for would be entirely too long to attempt to cover in this post. But, several examples from the Official Records of Sherman's actions will surely leave you convinced that Sherman detested the Southern people.

Brigadier General Edward M. McCook, First Cavalry Division of Cavalry Corps, at Calhoun, Georgia, on October 30, 1864, reported to Sherman, "My men killed some of those fellows two or three days since, and I had their houses burned....I will carry out your instructions thoroughly and leave the country east of the road uninhabitable."

Sherman, on November 11, 1864, telegraphed Halleck, "Last night we burned all foundries, mills, and shops of every kind in Rome, and tomorrow I leave Kingston with the rear guard for Atlanta, which I propose to dispose of in a similar manner, and to start on the 16th on the projected grand raid.....Tomorrow our wires will be broken, and this is probably my last dispatch."

In Kingston, Georgia, Sherman wrote to U.S. Major General Philip H. Sheridan, "I am satisfied...that the problem of this war consists in the awful fact that the present class of men who rule the South must be killed outright rather than in the conquest of territory, so that hard, bull-dog fighting, and a great deal of it, yet remains to be done....Therefore, I shall expect you on any and all occasions to make bloody results."

Captain Orlando M. Poe, chief engineer, Military Division of the Mississippi, reported: "The court-house in Sandersonville (Georgia), a very substantial brick building, was burned by order of General Sherman, because the enemy had made use of it's portico from which to fire upon our troops."

Sherman, in Milledgeville, Georgia, issued Special Order no. 127, "In case of...destruction (of bridges) by the enemy,...the commanding officer...on the spot will deal harshly with the inhabitants nearby....Should the enemy burn forage and corn on our route, houses, barns, and cotton-gins must also be burned to keep them company."

General Howard reported to Sherman, "We have found the country full of provisions and forage....Quite a number of private dwellings...have been destroyed by fire...; also, many instances of the most inexcusable and wanton acts, such as the breaking open of trunks, taking of silver pate, etc."

Sherman reported to Grant, "The whole United States...would rejoice to have this army turned loose on South Carolina to devastate that State, in the manner we have done in Georgia."

On December 22 in Savannah, Georgia, Sherman advised Grant, "We are in possession of Savannah and all it's forts....I could go on and smash South Carolina all to pieces." On December 24 Sherman wrote Halleck, "The truth is the whole army is burning with an insatiable desire to wreak vengeance upon South Carolina."

When Sherman had reached Savannah he was ordered to board ship and sail to Virginia to join Grant outside Virginia. Sherman rebelled in rage. He pledged, "I'm going to march to Richmond...and when I go through South Carolina it will be one of the most horrible things in the history of the world. The devil himself couldn't restrain my men in that state." General William T. Sherman also issued the following military order at Big Shanty, Georgia (presently Kennesaw) on June 23, 1864: "If torpedoes (mines) are found in the possession of an enemy to our rear, you may cause them to be put on the ground and tested by a wagon load of prisoners, or if need be a citizen implicated in their use. In like manner, if a torpedo is suspected on any part of the road, order the point to be tested by a carload of prisoners, or by citizens implicated, drawn by a long rope."

General Sherman also wrote to U.S. Brig. Gen. John Eugene Smith at Allatoona, Georgia, on July 14, 1864: "If you entertain a bare suspicion against any family, send it to the North. Any loafer or suspicious person seen at any time should be imprisoned and sent off. If guerrillas trouble the road or wires they should be shot without mercy."

General Sherman also wrote to U.S. Brig. Gen. Louis Douglass Watkins at Calhoun, Georgia, on Oct. 29, 1864: "Can you not send over to Fairmount and Adairsville, burn 10 or 12 houses of known secessionists, kill a few at random and let them know it will be repeated every time a train is fired upon from Resaca to Kingston."

And, finally, Gen. Sherman writing to U.S. Maj. George H. Thomas on Nov. 1, 1864: "I propose...to sally forth and make a hole in Georgia that will be hard to mend."

Sherman's march through the South will be remembered by generations still yet to come. Sherman himself estimated that the damage done by his troops in Georgia totaled $100,000,000. His statement on the destruction done to Georgia; "This may seem a hard species of warfare, but it brings the sad realities of war home." The ultimate attempt at total genocide by the U.S. troops under Sherman would have to be the multiple cases of troops sowing salt into the soil of an area in which they were about to leave. Thus, leaving the entire area unfit to grow any crops in the near future.

On The Web:   http://yankeewarcrimes.blogspot.com/2010/02/why-southron-distain-sherman-and-his.html

 

Defending Truth is Doing One's Duty

Commentary by J. A. Davis
1/31/2010

"Duty is the sublimest word in the language. You can never do more than your duty. You should never wish to do less." --Robert E. Lee

Sad though this report may be it needs to be published for those of us who cherish our Christian beliefs and are willing to set ourselves apart from those who willingly or unwittingly do harm to truth in the name of the church.

Such is the case of the attached article which appeared in the Arkansas Diocese of the Catholic Church under the signature of the presiding bishop in Little Rock.

For the life of me I cannot understand the rationalization for bringing demeaning references to Robert E. Lee into an otherwise well thought article on abortion. What good purpose, even if his Lee slights were true, (and they are not) can that serve?

The two are incongruent. Worse, the message shows an absolute absence in knowledge of the real character of Robert E. Lee. If intentional, the Bishop gives good cause to reason why so many are leaving the church today. Author John Esten Cooke provides relevant insights on the character of Lee.

Lee on Slavery:
"The doctrines and miracles of our Savior have required nearly two thousand years to convert but a small portion of the human race, and even among Christian nations what gross errors still exist! While we see the course of the final abolition of human slavery is still onward, and give it the aid of our prayers, let us leave the progress as well as the results in the hands of Him who, chooses to work by slow influences, and with whom a thousand years are but as a single day." --Robert E. Lee, from a letter to President Pierce before the war

Lee encouraged Christian thought and behavior in his soldiers and students:
"He did not fail, on many occasions, to show his men that he was a sincere Christian. When General Meade came over to Mine Run, and the Southern army marched to meet him, Lee was riding along his line of battle in the woods, when he came upon a party of soldiers holding a prayer-meeting on the eve of battle. Such a spectacle was not unusual in the army then and afterward--the rough fighters were often men of profound piety--and on this occasion the sight before him seems to have excited deep emotion in Lee. He stopped, dismounted--the staff-officers accompanying him did the same--and Lee uncovered his head, and stood in an attitude of profound respect and attention, while the earnest prayer proceeded, in the midst of the thunder of artillery and the explosion of the enemy's shells." --John Esten Cooke, from Part 5, Chapter 13 of A LIFE OF GEN. ROBERT E. LEE

"I shall be disappointed, sir, I shall fail in the leading object that brought me here, unless the young men all become real Christians; and I wish you and others of your sacred profession to do all you can to accomplish this result." --Robert E. Lee, to Dr. White at Washington College after the war. [ From Part 8, Chapter 19 of A LIFE OF GEN. ROBERT E. LEE by John Esten Cooke

"We must forgive our enemies. I can truly say that not a day has passed since the war began that I have not prayed for them." --Robert E. Lee, from Part 8, Chapter 19 of A LIFE OF GEN. ROBERT E. LEE" by John Esten Cooke

How far adrift some who hold high places in religion today have gone and tried to take their flocks with them. Do the passages above sound like a man "aligned with the culture of death" as Bishop Taylor describes Lee?

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free,...it expects what never was and never will be." --Thomas Jefferson

"You shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free." --John 8:32

Here are just a few items the Bishop should check out if for nothing else than to enlighten himself to the truth.

* Robert E. Lee's stand on slavery.
* Lee's stand on the morality of war and his beliefs about the protection of non-combatants.
* Lee's deep Christian convictions.
* The recognition by the Vatican of the Confederate government and inter diplomatic participation in Rome and Richmond.
* Thousands of Catholics who served the Confederacy from both the North and the South.
* The fact the Pope personally crafted a crown of thorns and sent it to Jefferson Davis, Confederate President, while he was held in prison at Ft. Monroe, Virginia after the war.
* Great heroes of the Catholic faith who served in high Confederate positions (cabinet) as well as leadership in the field. People such as General Patrick Cleburne and Father Ryan who set examples for all generations to follow.

And there is much more.

Let us pray our Holy Father will give all the wisdom to learn the truth and speak the truth. In these days of a much divided world and nation we need divine guidance as never before. With it, we need the tolerance that Jesus taught for all mankind, which includes Confederates and their descendants.

"Help me to be, to think, to act what is right because it is right; make me truthful, honest, and honorable in all things; make me intellectually honest for the sake of right and honor and without thought of reward to me." --Robert E. Lee, from the Truman Library. This Robert E. Lee prayer was memorized by President Harry S. Truman, and used by Truman throughout his life.

"Such are the reasons that I proudly display the picture of [Robert E. Lee] this great American on my office wall." --President Dwight D. Eisenhower, from a letter to Dr.Leon Scott, 8/1/1960

Copyright © 2003-2010, GeorgiaHeritageCouncil.org

On The Web:   http://georgiaheritagecouncil.org/site2/commentary/davis_defending_truth_is_duty020110.phtml
 

Civil War-era steamer discovered off Hernando Co. shore
Thursday, January 28, 2010

HERNANDO COUNTY (Bay News 9) -- Archaeologists believe they discovered a Civil War-era steamer right off the coast of Bayport in Hernando County.

"It's amazing to dig up some history like that," said Nicole Tumbleson, maritime archaeologist.

A video of a recent dive that Florida Public Archaeology Network did on the wreckage reveals what's left of the steamer, including a porcelain sink. Even the hinge that attached the sink to the inside of the ship is intact.

"To find a vessel like that in Bayport just really changes our idea of what was going on in Florida at that time," Tumbleson said.

In 1863, Bayport was being used to sneak supplies to the Confederate Army. When the Union Navy spotted the steamer, they planned to capture it.

Confederates got wind of the Union Navy's plan, and they decided to blow up the ship rather than have it captured, Tumbleson said. It has sat underwater ever since, for almost 150 years.

Joe Meehn and his wife, who have lived in Bayport overlooking the gulf for 20 years, said they never knew about the steamer sitting on the bottom of the ocean.

"It's interesting because that leads to other questions, right? You want to know more," said Meehn.

Tumbleson thinks a steamer like this shows Florida had a bigger role in the Civil War than most people think.

©2010 Bay News 9

On The Web:   http://www.baynews9.com/content/36/2010/1/28/576242.html?title=Civil%20War-era%20steamer%20discovered%20off%20Hernando%20Co.%20shore&cid=rss

 

UDC sponsoring Georgia Day essay contest

Staff Report
news@effinghamherald.net
Jan. 28, 2010

The United Daughters of the Confederacy is the oldest patriotic organization in the county and the Springfield chapter will soon celebrate its chapter being 50 years old, having been organized in 1960. They held a quilt raffle and the proceeds will help fund the many projects of the local chapter.

In February, the chapter will hold a Georgia Day program in one of the county schools and will sponsor an essay contest open to all students in grades 5-12. Information concerning the essay subject for this year can be obtained from the principal at all Effingham County schools. Winners from each of the grade levels will be recognized at chapter, district and state levels and will receive a monetary award.

The chapter also sponsors a Confederate Memorial Day service that honors veterans of all wars, contributes items to veterans’ hospitals and contributes to scholarships for deserving students.

The Georgia Division of the UDC is working to restore and preserve all the Confederate monuments which are in states of deterioration.

On The Web:   http://www.effinghamherald.net/news/article/9568/

 

Confederate leader’s ancestor a highlight at recent Cotillion

By Deborah Deggs Cariker

Updated: 01.28.10

APRIL SOUND – Tucked amid the swish of fancy hoop skirts and the tipping of gray kepis Jan. 16 was a history lesson from a Dallas banker whose ancestors didn’t just read history, they made it.

Bertram Hayes-Davis, 61, is the great-great-grandson of Jefferson Davis – West Pointer, military man, U.S. congressman and senator, wounded hero of the Mexican War, friend of Texas annexation, Secretary of War, cotton planter, author, and the lone president of the Confederate States of America. Davis menfolk, descended from Welsh colonists, were also noteworthy in the American Revolution and the War of 1812.

At the 2010 Confederate Heroes’ Day Cotillion, Hayes-Davis discussed the many attributes of Jefferson Davis prior to his accepting the post he shunned, attributes largely ignored in contemporary history books.

“I have always been aware of the accomplishments of Jefferson Davis,” his great-great-grandson said. “My family has been engaged in the preservation of his legacy throughout our generations.”

Davis actually preferred the first role conferred upon him in early 1861, that of leading Mississippi’s state troops. Davis’ wife Varina wrote that she initially thought some family member had died when she saw her husband react to the telegram informing him of the presidency. It had been only days since he’d left his U.S. Senate seat to stand with his state after Mississippi adopted the ordinance of secession Jan. 9, 1861.

“I do think,” said Davis, bidding fellow Senators goodbye 149 years ago, “she has justifiable cause, and I approve of her act. I conferred with her people before that act was taken, counselled (sic) them that if the ‘state of things which they apprehended should exist when their convention met, they should take the action which they have now adopted.’

“I find in myself perhaps a type of the general feeling of my constituents toward yours. I am sure I feel no hostility toward you, Senators of the North,” continued Davis. “I am sure there is not one of you, whatever sharp discussion there may have been between us, to whom I cannot say in the presence of my God, I wish you well, and such I am sure is the feeling of the people whom I represent toward those whom you represent. I carry with me no hostile remembrance. Whatever offense I have given which has not been redressed or for which satisfaction has not been demanded, I have, Senators, in this hour of our parting, to offer you my apology for any pain which in the heat of discussion I have inflicted. I go hence unincumbered by the remembrance of any injury received, and having discharged the duty of making the only reparation in my power for any injury offered, Mr. President and Senators, having made the announcement which the occasion seemed to me to require, it only remains for me to bid you a final adieu.”

After the war between the states, Union troops captured Davis and imprisoned him for two years, eventually denying him the trial he demanded and dropping the case against him in 1869. In 1875, he declined the job as president of what is now Texas A&M University, wrote his memoirs and died, likely of pneumonia, at his home at Beauvoir, near Biloxi, Miss., early on Dec. 6, 1889. He remained a man without a country until Oct. 17, 1978, when a congressional joint resolution restored his U.S. citizenship, backdating it to Dec. 25, 1868.

Some Americans might find it interesting to note that Davis was not a secessionist. Additionally, historians note he was baffled by how Northerners viewed slaveholders since he and his brother did not whip their slaves and left plantation management to the slaves, including a kind of court system where slaves were judge and jury for those who broke plantation rules. Another Davis family fact that is inconsistent with contemporary history textbooks is that Davis’ wife rescued an orphaned mulatto boy who had been beaten by his uncle, and Jefferson Davis adopted him. During the War, Jim Limber Davis was abducted by Union troops and sent North, never to be seen again. Hayes-Davis says Jim is always considered family.

Hayes-Davis is no stranger to traveling, as he trekked south to Montgomery County for the third annual cotillion event at the April Sound Country Club. He made 20 trips nationally to celebrate the 200th anniversary of his great-great-grandfather’s birth.

“That event was essentially ignored by everyone outside the South,” Hayes-Davis reported. Still, he is not thwarted in his efforts and continues his attempts at education, especially for people who automatically assume anyone connected with the Confederacy is racist.

“I counter with the facts,” the banker said. “It was an era of practices that were part of the structure of society in the 1800s throughout the country. (Slavery) was not created by the Confederacy, and the issue was not what the conflict was about. There was no question the entire country knew this was a wrongful institution and would be eliminated.”

Besides Hayes-Davis’ history lesson, cotillion goers learned dances of that era with Texas Victorian Dancers from League City, and tapped their boots to strains of mid-19th century songs performed by Celtaire String Band. Three area young ladies were honored as the 2010 Southern Belles: LaPorte, Texas-native Chelsey Marie Hernandez, Clear Creek high schooler Gabrielle Elizabeth Sesher, and Blinn College junior Patricia Jean Wonder.

The dinner-dance was organized by local chapters of the Sons of Confederate Veterans and Order of Confederate Rose. Event coordinators say this commemorates the 37-year-old Texas state holiday created by Chapter 221 of Senate Bill 60 of the 63rd Texas legislature that honors Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee and other Confederate heroes, and was the last holiday in the state of Texas dedicated to Confederate veterans.

Copyright ©1995 - 2010 | HCNOnline.com

On The Web:   http://www.hcnonline.com/articles/2010/01/28/conroe_courier/news/cotillion0129.txt

 

Official Wants Authentic Confederate Flags Returned to Texas

Thursday, 28 Jan 2010

GREG GROOGAN
Reporter

In the shadow of the Lone Star State capital towers a mounted warrior carved from stone.

It is a monument to Terry's Texas Rangers - fierce cavalrymen who warred for the Confederacy a century and half ago.

"You would describe them as hell raisers," says Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson.

Some 1,700 rode off to serve, but less than two hundred were still mounted by war's end. Somewhere between the battles of Shiloh and Bentonville, Terry's Texas Rangers lost a treasured flag.

A hundred-fifty odd years later Patterson, a former U.S. Marine, is leading the charge to get the battle flag back.

"Candidly, I don't think those flags should be there, they should be here," he says. "They're in the case of the ranger flag is a museum in Chicago.

"These flags were lost on the battlefield. Their home is in Texas. They were carried into battle by Texas troops and they ought to be in Texas where those of us with a historic interest in these flags are able to view them," he adds.

It's a rescue mission some might view as misguided. The emblem, after all, was carried by troops whose government sought to perpetuate slavery.

Among students studying history at the University of Houston the issue aroused strong reactions.

"There may be some value to some people, but there are others who may find it offensive," said UH student Jessica Capistran.

"We don't need to, being that its in the past," said UH student Chris Ramsey of the flag acquisition effort. "Leave it in the past and look to the future."

UH Senior Brandon Chizer sees the retrieval attempt differently.

"It's like learning about the holocaust. That's painful for a lot of people, but should we not learn about it because it was bad? No, if we don't learn about it, we are doomed to repeat it right? Isn't that the point of history?" he asked.

Commissioner Patterson couldn't agree more and believes these emblems of by-gone days can trigger deeper understanding.

Reason enough, he contends, to bring a banner home.

(c) 2010 Fox Television

On The Web:   http://www.myfoxhouston.com/dpp/news/local/100128-confederate-flag-battle

 

Friday, January 29, 2010

The John B. Gordon Story

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

Jeremiah 6:16 of the Bible reads: “Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls.”

But, have we forgotten God and the old paths of our Founding Fathers and Mothers? Is American history even taught anymore in public and private schools?

As the world looks to America, do we know who helped make the USA free and great?

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

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

John B. Gordon, born February 6, 1832, was an orator, lawyer, statesman, soldier, publisher and governor of the State of Georgia. His is best known as one of Gen. Robert E. Lee's generals. At Appomattox, Gordon's corps encounter with the soldiers under Gen. Joshua Chamberlain is a classic story. Gordon would always remember Chamberlain for the courtesy and respect shown he and his men.

Carter Godwin Woodson, father of Black History Week, has much in common with John B. Gordon. Both men believed that accurate American history should be taught in our schools. Woodson also believed the study of Black history should include those African-Americans who fought on both sides of the War Between the States.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let’s not forget!

On The Web:   http://shnv.blogspot.com/2010/01/john-b-gordon-story.html

 

Comparison to Lee doesn't hold up

January 28, 2010

Vanzetta McPherson self-inflicted denigration in her recent article in which she attempted to elevate the character of Martin Luther King Jr. to that of Robert E. Lee.

A woman of her erudition and experience as a federal judge knows when she is writing to convince the uneducated reader and should be embarrassed to present an epistle loaded with fallacious rhetoric and supposition to the educated.

"Yeah, what she said!" remark the ignorant racist agitators who continue the trek for monetary mileage on the bedraggled slavery issue. She states that "America loves winners" and for her, she is just glad that Lee did not win.

As a former federal judge with full knowledge of the Constitution, she knows that the Constitution does not prohibit secession and the war was illegally waged by the federal government against the South. She knows that the South's desire to separate, not slavery, was Lincoln's catalyst to stoop to the heinous depths of total war on a civilization.

She also knows that if the South had seceded that Christianity and/or International Harvester would have brought an end to slavery. She also knows that the Confederate leaders were never brought to trial because the U.S. Supreme Court warned that the Constitution would not support any allegations brought against them.

King's sordid FBI files were sealed by a federal judge for 50 years until 2027. Lee's life is an open book and all praiseworthy. With all these things being self-evident, where in the world did McPherson get her version?

Charlie Graham

On The Web:   http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/article/20100128/OPINION02/1270377/1006/opinion


 

1/27/2010

"Under the Radar": a battle plan for 2010

By SWR's Lady Val:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would appreciate any thoughts on this matter.

On The Web:   http://southernarticles.blogspot.com/2010/01/under-radar-battle-plan-for-2010.html
 

States' rights rebellion over National Guard

Lawmakers fight to keep governors, not president, in control of troops
Posted: January 26, 2010

By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

Responding to an executive order by President Obama, a new push is under way for states to adopt laws limiting the use of their National Guard units unless there is an invasion, insurrection or other limited circumstance.

As WND reported, Obama's order establishes a new "Council of Governors" designated to advise on the "synchronization and integration of state and federal military activities in the United States."

The recent order, posted on the White House website, was accompanied by the explanation that the group is to work "to protect our nation against all types of hazards." It comes just weeks after the president issued a similarly obscure order vastly expanding INTERPOL's privileges in the U.S.

The White House said the new council is to include governors and administration officials to review "such matters as involving the National Guard of the various states; homeland defense, civil support; synchronization and integration of state and federal military activities in the United States; and other matters of mutual interest pertaining to National Guard, homeland defense, and civil support activities."

However, there was no definition of the group's authority. Can the council recommend "military activities" and can the governors, who already are in command of their own state guard units, mandate activities outside of their areas of jurisdiction? The White House did not respond to WND questions on the issue.

Now the Tenth Amendment Center is recommending a model legislation that states can use to limit the activities of their own National Guard members.

The model legislation states: "The governor shall withhold or withdraw approval of the transfer of the National Guard to federal control in the absence of: a) A military invasion of the United States, or b) An insurrection, or c) A calling forth of the guard by the federal government in a manner provided for by Congress to execute the laws of the union, provided that said laws were made in pursuance of the delegated powers in the Constitution of the United States, or d) A formal declaration of war from Congress."

The organization said the requests to state legislatures already have begun with a letter on the issue dispatched by Walt Garlington, founder of the Louisiana State Sovereignty Committee, to state Rep. Brett F. Geymann.

"I ask you to once again take up the cause of states' rights and protect Louisiana from this latest unconstitutional action coming from Washington, D.C.," the letter said. "Please introduce a bill reasserting the governor's power over Louisiana's National Guard to counteract the EO issued by Pres. Obama."

The model legislation proposed by the Tenth Amendment Center says the law is, "For the purpose of requiring the governor to withhold or withdraw approval of the transfer of this state's National Guard to federal control in the absence of an explicit authorization adopted by the federal government in pursuance of the powers delegated to the federal government in Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 of the U.S. Constitution."

It cites U.S. Constitution provisions that Congress has the power to provide for "calling forth the militia" to "execute the laws of the union," or to suppress insurrections or repel invasions.

The proposal cites Daniel Webster's statement in 1814 to Congress, "It will be the solemn duty of the state governments to protect their own authority over their own militia, and to interpose between their citizens and arbitrary power. These are among the objects for which the state governments exist."

The White House said the new panel was called for in the Fiscal Year 2008 National Defense Authorization Act and will include 10 governors picked by the president as well as the Coast Guard commandant and other officials from the Department of Homeland Security and other agencies.

The White House announcement said the council "will provide an invaluable senior administration forum for exchanging views with state and local officials on strengthening our national resilience and the homeland defense and civil support challenges facing our nation today and in the future."

Los Angeles Times blogger Andrew Malcolm poked fun at the announcement,  writing Obama "has determined that, a) there is an insufficient number of advisory bodies among the gazillion already in existence for the federal government in general and said president and his White House specifically."

Obama also, Malcolm said, "chooses to ignore the existence of the National Governors Assn., the Republican Governors Assn., the Democratic Governors Assn. and the secure telephones within arms-reach of virtually everywhere said president chooses to sit and/or recline."

Ultimately, he said, Obama has decided, "One more meaningless advisory body probably couldn't hurt anything, and might actually look good."

At Canada Free Press, commentary writer Judi McLeod said, "Like the 30-plus czars running America with neither the people's nor the Congress's blessings, the Council of Governors is already a done deal."

Blogger Nicholas Contompasis suggested it was the "first step towards martial law in America" because it sets up the "use of federal troops and the combination of state and federal agencies under the Defense Department."

Participants on his forum page said the order appears to be in defiance of posse comitatus, which restricts U.S. military action within the United States. One contributor noted the order talks about "hazards" but then addresses only military hazards.

"The very notion of the executive branch (good intentions or not) issuing executive orders/presidential directives that apply to anything or anyone not specifically within the executive branch is tyrannical," the forum participant said.

Copyright 1997-2010 WorldNetDaily.com Inc.

On The Web:   http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=122689

 

Historic Tannehill Park betting on resurgence

By Thomas Spencer -- The Birmingham News
January 25, 2010

It took a real optimist to imagine it becoming one of the top tourist attractions in central Alabama, but it now draws more than 440,000 visitors a year.

As the park approaches its 40th anniversary, officials there are hoping to bounce back after a tough year.

Heavy and persistent rains in 2009 slashed attendance at events. That, plus proration from the state and the general economic downturn, have resulted in layoffs and reduced hours of operation during the winter.

But Tannehill is no longer in the middle of nowhere. Development has spread into the adjacent countryside, with subdivisions sprouting from the farm fields nearby.

Park officials are looking to bring in more people on a regular basis, hoping to broaden the park's base of visitors and increase revenue. Now open is the first segment of a new mountain biking trail built by volunteers with Birmingham Urban Mountain Pedalers. The rocky and challenging 1.5 mile single track trail is the first segment of what will be 11 miles of trail, winding through wooded sections of the 1,500 acre park that now are inaccessible.

A restored and upgraded 2-mile walking trail isgetting its finishing touches now. The trail runs along Roupes Creek, also known as Mud Creek, and follows the path that mule-drawn rail cars once followed from ore deposits to the furnace.

Additionally, the park has just launched a new Web site, www.tannehill.org, and continues to add exhibits to its Museum of Iron and Steel. The museum, extensively remodeled in 2005, traces use of iron in civilizations from the Egyptians in 4000 B.C. to modern steel mills. The museum is open only on weekends until mid-March, when it will return to regular hours.

Those improvements build on last year's addition of a Bob Sykes Barbecue restaurant at the park, serving lunch and dinner Thursdays through Sundays. Tannehill Stables, the private horse-riding business that leads trail rides on park property, also is making improvements.

Alabama Labor Commissioner Jim Bennett, who has served on Tannehill's governing board since it was created in 1969, said the park always has had to find creative ways to make money. It has survived on a modest subsidy from the state, turning a $100,000 line item into a $1.8 million operation paid for by revenue from events and visitors.

"This park is largely self-sustaining, which is unusual," Bennett said. "We're doing the best we can with limited resources."

Confederate arms

Tannehill is historically significant because it was home to the area's earliest iron manufacturing, beginning in the 1830s. Large furnaces, now restored, were built in 1859 and were an important source of iron for Confederate arms manufacturing. But after Union troops destroyed the operation in 1865, the furnaces never returned to service, and the center of iron production shifted to Birmingham. "This was the birthplace of Alabama's iron and steel industry," Bennett said.

The park's calendar builds on 19th century history with Civil War reenactments, old time music festivals and Tannehill's Trade Days.

According to Bennett, the park has amassed the largest collection of 19th century log cabins in the South. Some of those cabins are available to rent out, for a rustic family adventure.

The park also hosts RV and primitive camping and seasonal events such as the annual Labor Day Picnic and a Halloween celebration that packs the park with visitors who tour elaborately decorated campers set up for most of the month of October.

Other opportunities are on the horizon.

Alabama's land preservation program, Forever Wild, is considering the purchase of an additional 560 acres adjacent to the park, offered for sale at a discount by Hoover City Council President Pro-tem Jack Wright. The land that could be added to the park includes stretches of Roupes Creek and a portion of Shades Creek where Cahaba lilies bloom.

David Dionne, executive director of the fledgling Red Mountain Park in Birmingham, said the new park takes inspiration from the blend of history and recreation at Tannehill.

"They have done a great job of blending the two there," Dionne said. "I think it is an amazing park."

© 2010 Alabama Live LLC.

On The Web:   http://blog.al.com/birmingham-news-stories/2010/01/historic_tannehill_park_bettin.html
 

Recycling Ain't New

– Commentary by Frank Gillispie 1/27/10

On my way back home from a medical procedure the other day, I stopped by Ingles Deli to see if I could find something soft enough to eat. The procedures are leaving my mouth very sensitive.

After placing the order, the clerk ask their normal question, Roll or Cornbread? Now I was raised on cornbread. It is a part of my normal menu. But it is a rough food and not suited for a tender mouth. So I ask the clerk to crumble the cornbread into a little dish and spoon some potlikker over it. She gave me a funny look and said, “I don’t think we have any potlikker.”

“Of course you do,” I answered. “You have it every day.”

About then one of the more experienced ladies spoke up and told her what potlikker is. That is the liquid left over in the pot after you boil turnip greens.

The rural south was so completely devastated by the War for Southern Independence and the atrocities by the Yankee occupiers that they called “Reconstruction,” that they had to make use of every possible resource. And the impact of that devastation was still in effect when I was born in rural Madison County. My diapers and gowns were made from old flower sacks, for example. The major portion of our food came from a large family garden, along with chickens and eggs from the yard, salt pork from the hogs we butchered and preserved in the “smoke house.”

And of course, corn. Corn was a major food for hogs, chickens and people. A common menu consisted of string beans, turnip greens and fatback for lunch. Supper often consisted of another pone of cornbread and the potlikker left over from lunch. I have dined on that delicacy many times.

Another food left over from cooking or processing was cracklings. They went into the cornbread to give it more flavor and a smoother texture. You can still buy cracklings at the grocery stores, but the young clerks have no idea what it is or where it comes from. Cracklings are the bits of meat left over after rendering lard during hog killing time.

Those old quilts that people pay such high prices for at the antique shows? They were made from scraps of cloth left over from our home made clothing, towels and other needed items. Nothing was ever thrown away.

My grandfather, U. G. Gillispie, carried this lifestyle to the extreme. He was a tobacco user. He would chew the plug until he got all the taste possible out of it, then put it on the porch rail to dry. Finally he would crumble it up into his pipe and smoke it.

Scout around one of the old rural home places some time. The one thing you are not likely to find is a garbage dump. Every piece of trash was saved and reused until there was nothing left of it.

Recycling is a big thing these days. But those involved in that cause ought to have been around in the rural south of my childhood. Recycling was not just encouraged then. It was a necessity.

Copyright © 2010 by Frank Gillispie

On The Web:   http://georgiaheritagecouncil.org/site2/commentary/gillispie-recycling_aint_new012710.phtml
 

From: ChasVoice - billsbest1@gmail.com
Date: January 25, 2010
Subject: 71 Things About Lincoln that Beck won't Tell You

Does Glenn Beck really know his American history as he so boastfully claims? Really, does he? If so, then he's become known as The Great Lincoln Obfuscator. Why? Maybe we'll find out this summer when he sits in a nest in the shelter of Washington's Lincoln Memorial. What is he setting his audience up for? Lincoln was the 1st president of action to implement the collective plans of the modern-day Progressives!

THE INDICTMENT

Before discussing the reviews and reaction, let's review DiLorenzo's findings.? He makes about 71 discrete factual, legal, political, or moral accusations or allegations against or about Lincoln or his subordinates as follows:

    1. Saying contradictory things before different audiences.

    2. Opposing racial equality.

    3. Opposing giving blacks the right to vote, serve on juries or intermarry while allegedly supporting their natural rights.

    4. Being a racist.

    5. Supporting the legal rights of slaveholders.

    6. Supporting Clay?'s American System or mercantilism as his primary political agenda: national bank, high tariff, and internal improvements.

    7. Supporting a political economy that encourages corruption and inefficiency.

    8. Supporting a political economy that became the blueprint for modern American.

    9. Being a wealthy railroad lawyer.

    10. Never defending a runaway slave.

    11. Defending a slaveholder against his runaway slave.

    12. Favoring returning ex-slaves to Africa or sending them to Central America and Haiti.?

    13. Proposing to strengthen the Fugitive Slave law.

    14. Opposing the extension of slavery in the territories so that "free white people" can settle there and because allowing them to become slave states would dilute Republican influence in Congress because of the three-fifths rule.

    15. Opposing black citizenship in Illinois or their right to immigrate to that state.

    16. Failing to use his legendary political skills to achieve peaceful emancipation as was accomplished elsewhere--Lincoln's war was the only "war of emancipation" in the 19th century.

    17. Nullifying emancipation of slaves in Missouri and Georgia early in the war.

    18. Stating that his primary motive was saving the union and not ending slavery.

    19. Supporting a conscription law.

    20. Sending troops into New York City to quell draft riots related to his emancipation proclamation, resulting in 300 to 1,000 deaths.

    21. Starting a war that took the lives of 620,000 soldiers and 50,000 civilians and caused incalculable economic loss.

    22. Being an enemy of free market capitalism.

    23. Being an economic illiterate and espousing the labor theory of value.

    24. Supporting a disastrous public works project in Illinois and continuing to support the same policies oblivious of the consequences.

    25. Conjuring up a specious and deceptive argument against the historically-recognized right of state secession.

    26. Lying about re-supplying the fed?s tax collection office known as Fort Sumter.

    27. Refusing to see peace commissioners from the Confederacy offering to pay for all federal property in the South.

    28. Refusing to see Napoleon III of France who offered to mediate the dispute.

    29. Provoking Virginia to secede by taking military action against the Deep South.

    30. Supporting a tariff and other policies that systematically redistributed wealth from the South to the North, causing great consternation in the South.

    31. Invading the South without consulting Congress.

    32. Illegally declaring martial law.

    33. Illegally blockading ports.

    34. Illegally suspending habeas corpus.

    35. Illegally imprisoning thousands of Northern citizens.

    36. Tolerating their subjection to inhumane conditions in prison.

    37. Systematically attacking Northern newspapers and their employees, including by imprisonment.

    38. Deporting his chief political enemy in the North, Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham of Ohio.

    39. Confiscating private property and firearms.

    40. Ignoring the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

    41. Tolerating the arrest of ministers who refused to pray for Lincoln.

    42. Arresting several duly elected members of the Maryland Legislature along with the mayor of Baltimore and Maryland Congressman Henry May.

    43. Placing Kansas and Kentucky under martial law.

    44. Supporting a law that indemnified public officials for unlawful acts.

    45. Laying the groundwork for the establishment of conscription and income taxation as permanent institutions.

    46. Interfering with and rigging elections in Maryland and elsewhere in the North.

    47. Censoring all telegraph communication.

    48. Preventing opposition newspapers from being delivered by the post office.

    49. Illegally creating the state of West Virginia out of the "indestructible" state of Virginia.

    50. Tolerating or supporting mistreatment of citizens in conquered territory.

    51. Taxing those citizens without their consent.

    52. Executing those who refused to take a loyalty oath.

    53.Closing churches and arresting ministers.

    54. Burning and plundering Southern cites.

    55. Quartering troops in private homes unlawfully.

    56. Creating an enormous political patronage system.

    57. Allowing an unjust mass execution of Sioux Indians in Minnesota.

    58. Engineering a constitutional revolution through military force which destroyed state sovereignty and replaced it with rule by the Supreme Court (and the United States Army).

    59. Laying the groundwork for the imperialist and militarist campaigns of the future as well as the welfare/warfare state.

    60. Creating the dangerous precedent of establishing a strong consolidated state out of a decentralized confederation.

    61. Effectively killing secession as a threat, thus encouraging the rise of our modern federal monolith.

    62. Waging war on civilians by bombing, destruction of homes, and confiscation of food and farm equipment.

    63. Tolerating an atmosphere which led to large numbers of rapes against Southern women, including slaves.

    64. Using civilians as hostages.

    65. Promoting a general because of his willingness to use his troops as cannon fodder.

    66. DiLorenzo blames Lincoln for the predictable aftermath of the war: the plundering of the South by Lincoln?s allies.

    67. Supporting government subsidies of the railroads leading to corruption and inefficiency.

    68. Supporting a nationalized paper currency which is inherently inflationary.

    69. Creating the federal tax bureaucracy and various taxes that are still with us.

    70. Establishing precedents for centralized powers and suppression of liberties that continue to be cited today.

    71. Ending slavery by means that created turbulence that continues to this day.

Source: http://mises.org/etexts/ostrowski.asp

 

Black Slaveowners

[Reprinted from Issues & Views Summer 1998]

During this country's period of slavery, many freed blacks worked for years to purchase the freedom of family members. But a great many freemen became slave masters themselves, and for the same reason as whites--to make use of slave labor for the sake of profits. Larry Koger writes, "By and large, Negro slaveowners were darker copies of their white counterparts." Following are excerpts from Chapter 6 of his book, Black Slaveowners: Free Black Slave Masters in South Carolina, 1790-1860 [University of South Carolina Press].
*

Many historians have argued that the majority of black masters purchased their relatives and friends who were held in bondage. Being unable to manumit their loved ones, the black masters were forced to hold their kinsfolk and friends as nominal slaves. So they treated their relatives and friends as free persons, and whenever possible, they attempted to manumit their loved ones. Thus the dominant pattern of slaveholding that developed among free blacks was benevolent and based primarily on kinship. The chief architect of the benevolent interpretation was Carter G. Woodson, and his thesis has been accepted by most historians.

Yet the Woodson thesis has many weaknesses that have been overlooked or not fully explored by its supporters. Furthermore, the Woodson thesis has been overemphasized, while the other side of free black slaveowning has been characterized as a minor facet by many scholars. However, there is ample evidence which demonstrates that free blacks purchased slaves as capital investments. To many black masters, slaves represented valued property being used to produce more wealth. These slaveowners, therefore, bought slaves as commercial assets and used them to make a profit. In fact, the commercial side of free black slaveholding was more prevalent than previously maintained by historians. In short, the Woodson thesis that most free black slaveowners were benevolent masters may be a myth. . . .

Even though [black] slaveowners usually demonstrated benevolent behavior towards their slave relations and friends, a commercial or materialistic exchange existed between them and their slaves purchased as investments. In fact, the free blacks who maintained a dual relationship with their slaves had no universal commitment against slavery. To them, slavery was an oppressive institution when it affected a beloved relative or a trusted friend, but beyond that realm, slavery was viewed as a profit-making institution to be exploited.

In many instances, free black slaveowners shared a similar view of slavery with their white counterparts. Slaveowners of both races occasionally manumitted a trusted servant and in the same moment requested the sale of another slave. The act of freeing one or several slaves while others remained in bondage did not constitute a firm commitment against slavery, but a personal view which acknowledged that some slaves, through merit or hard work, deserved their freedom, while others were destined to be slaves until death. So when philanthropic free blacks purchased slaves and then emancipated them, they were not always paternalistic owners as Carter G. Woodson suggested.

For example, Richard Holloway, Sr., a free black of Charleston City, bought a slave named Charles Benford in order that the slave might enjoy his freedom. Yet at the same time, he owned other slaves who were not treated so kindly. In 1834, for instance, he purchased a Negro woman named Sarah and her two children, Annett and Edward, from Susan B. Robertson for $575. Within three years after the purchase, he apparently became dissatisfied with the slave family and sold them for $945. Even though Richard Holloway, Sr., allowed a trusted servant to enjoy a greater degree of freedom, he was still a slaveowner for profit. So he sold and purchased slaves as an investment even while he held other slaves for benevolent reasons. To consider him a benevolent master would be erroneous because he also exploited other slaves for his own benefit.

Another example of the dual interaction between black masters and their slaves is the case of Rose Summers. In her will, she stated: "I desire as soon as it may be practicable that my Executor herein named will sell for money my four slaves to the best possible advantage together with all my household Furniture . . . ." While Summers requested that the children of her trusted servant Bellah should be emancipated, her other slaves were doomed to the auction block. In December 1840, her executor sold the slave woman Elsey; then the slaves Sam and Henry were auctioned to the highest bidder for $970.13 in January 1841. Shortly after that date, the slave woman named Harriet was sold by the executor of Rose Summers for $300. After the sale of the Negro slaves and the furniture, the estate of Rose Summers netted $1,334.79, which was divided among five colored women designated as heirs by the deceased woman. . . .

When Carter G. Woodson declared that "the majority of Negro owners of slaves were such from the point of view of philanthropy," he failed to consider that there were so-called benevolent masters who freed one slave and sold another slave for profit. Woodson�s perceptions of free black slaveholding were partially correct; however, when the totality of the institution is examined, his assumptions are revealed to be erroneous. . . .

Many black masters were firmly committed to chattel slavery and saw no reasons for manumitting their slaves. To those colored masters, slaves were merely property to be purchased, sold or exchanged. Their economic self-interest overrode whatever moral concerns or guilt they may have harbored about slavery. Since the black masters benefited from slavery, they rationalized that because the institution was profitable, they could not relinquish their valuable property without being reimbursed. So black masters continued to own slaves even when the Union army was preparing to invade South Carolina in 1864. . . .

The commercial impulse of black masters to exploit the commodity of slave property was recorded not only by the Secretary of State but the Master of Equity in Charleston District. In scores of reports, the black masters appeared to have used their slaves as commodities. . . .

George Shrewsberry and James Hanscome, both colored slave masters, argued over the ownership of three slaves in the court of equity. Rather than sue each other, they filed a complaint against the master of the workhouse because he refused to release the slaves to either of the men until the ownership of the slaves was established. In 1845, the two colored slaveowners filed a suit against the master of the workhouse and claimed that he refused to release their property. . . . The commercial impulses of both colored men are vividly illustrated by the court proceedings. Such cases are not isolated incidents; in fact, they are prevalent in the court records. . .

For example, there were mortgages registered by free blacks who used their slaves as collateral to secure loans. In 1811, Philis Wells, a free colored woman of Charleston City, used her servant Mark as collateral to obtain a loan from Peter Desportes for $900. In 1823, a slave named Sarah was used as security by William Aiken, a free black and a carpenter of Charleston City, when he applied for a loan from Joseph S. Brown for $600. . . .

The black masters who were not related to their slaves by ties of kinship were not personally disturbed when default and seizure occurred. In December 1841, John S. Mark, a barber of Charleston City, bought a Negro man named Billy and his wife, Provy, from Otto Cook for $420. Two years later, he obtained a loan from George Shrewsberry for $300. To secure the loan, he mortgaged Billy and Provy. Shortly thereafter, John St. Mark apparently defaulted on the loan and sold the slaves Billy and Provy for $375. . . .

Most of the black women who conveyed their slaves in marriage settlements were not related to their slaves by kinship; thus their slaves were primarily viewed as commodity. For example, shortly after the marriage settlement of Hannah Norman Miles, she sold her servant woman Lucy, who was part of the chattel in her marriage contract, for 35 pounds sterling. When the bond of kinship has been eliminated from the slaveholding of free blacks, the commercial element becomes a strong motive. Consequently, the colored women who established marriage settlements viewed their slaves as investments to be utilized. In the marriage contract of Claudia Angelina Inglis, the daughter of a colored slaveowning barber from Charleston City, she held one-fifth interest in three slaves named Lindy, James, and George. . . . By and large, slaves conveyed in marriage contracts were seen as property by their colored owners.

The probate records also demonstrated the commercial motives of black slaveholding in South Carolina. In scores of wills, black slave masters used their human chattel as commercial assets, requesting that their slaves should be auctioned to the highest bidder for payment of their debts or for the benefit of family members. In 1820, Benjamin Lincoln, a free black and a tailor of Charleston City, instructed his executors to "sell my Negro Woman Slave Phillis and for the proceeds therof to pay my just debts. . . ."

Abraham Jackson, an ex-slave from St. Paul�s Parish, stipulated that "my Negro Woman by the name Sarah be immediately set free from all Servitude . . ." However, Jackson did not emancipate the children of the slave woman, but requested that they be disposed of as "my Executor shall judge proper . . ." Indeed, even as the colored masters were making their deathbed testaments, the commercial bond of slavery permeated their dying demands. To them, slavery remained an economic system to be exploited. . . .

Clearly, the bond of kinship compelled the colored slaveholders to inform their executors that their loved ones were not chattel to be humiliated and dehumanized by appraising them at the level of horses, cattle, and swine, narrowed to the impersonal medium of gold and silver. Yet the colored masters who were not related to their servants were not restrained from considering their slaves as chattel. Consequently, when the executors of the commercial masters filed their inventories, those slaves were appraised just like cattle and pigs. . . .

The commercial impulse of black slaveholding can be examined nowhere better than in Charleston City. In the port city, the environment was conducive to black slaveholding. The urban setting of Charleston provided many free blacks with the economic opportunity to prosper. . . . In fact, free blacks nearly monopolized such work as barbering, bricklaying, shoemaking, and tailoring. Once the black entrepreneurs were able to establish themselves and had developed a clientele, they began to prosper and eventually earned the capital needed to invest in slaves. So it was quite common for free black artisans to purchase slaves and use them in their businesses.

In 1822, Moses Brown, a colored barber, purchased a Negro boy named Moses from Mary Warhaim for $300. Since Moses Brown was a barber, he instructed his slave in the art of cutting hair. By 1823 the slave boy was working in his master�s shop on 5 Tradd Street. Also in 1829, Camilla Johnson, a colored pastry cook, purchased a mulatto woman named Diana Todd (who was 18 years old) from Joseph and Ann Wilkie for $375. According to a Charleston socialite, Camilla Johnson used her mulatto servant to work at several of the parties she was hired to cater. As these black artisans began to prosper, they were able to utilize the services of slaves, and so they invested in human chattel and trained their servants in the skills of their trade to increase the profits of their businesses. . . .

When black masters exploited their slaves for commercial purposes, they encountered the same problems which perplexed many white slaveowners. Regardless of the color of the slave masters, the oppressive nature of slavery was met with opposition from the slaves.

Many black masters were faced with the dilemma of controlling their slaves when they exploited the labor of their servants. The black masters believed that punishment was a necessary instrument to control their slaves and preserve a sense of authority. Like white slaveowners, the black masters placed disobedient slaves in the city jail or the workhouse and contemplated further punishment for their servants. In 1851, Elizabeth Collins Holloway, a colored woman, placed her servant Celia in the city jail after her slave had run away. In 1852, Holloway�s servant Peggy was confined in the workhouse for disciplinary reasons. Such a confinement usually lasted from five to thirty days, depending upon the disposition of the slave masters. After the slaves were released from the workhouse, it was not unusual for their masters to give them a flogging for their disobedience. . . .

By and large, the commercial impulse of black masters to exploit their slaves was quite apparent in Charleston City. Many slaveowners of African descent used the labor of slaves for their own benefit. Yet the exploitation of slave labor was not always a smooth process because the slaves of black masters attempted to assert their own rights to freedom by resisting their owners. Thus, Carter G. Woodson's serene picture of black slaveholders does not totally portray the realities of the institution.

Copyright © 2010 Issues & Views

On The Web:     http://www.issues-views.com/index.php/sect/1006/article/1091

 

Family traces history of Tennessee's wealthiest black slave owner

Katie Allison Granju
Posted: 2/22/2007

By COLBY SLEDGE Staff Writer
THE TENNESSEAN

Like many wealthy landowners of the pre-Civil War South, Sherrod Bryant owned slaves. They probably worked much of Bryant's 700 acres in Middle Tennessee, an area larger than that of Andrew Jackson's Hermitage plantation.

The slaves under Bryant helped raise hogs for their owner, who had a large family and was always looking to buy more property. Unlike many slave owners, however, Sherrod Bryant was black.

Today, the notion of a black man owning black slaves seems contradictory ? Bryant himself was a free black ? and perhaps even hypocritical. According to Bryant's descendants, however, their ancestor, who was never a slave, was simply following the normal pattern of life for a rich landowner in the Upper South.

"I think at some point some of the members (of the family) might not have looked upon it very favorably, but the more we discuss it, the more we suddenly realize that to gain wealth during that time, if you had a lot of property, you had to have slaves to help you cultivate it," said Carl Bryant, a fourth-generation descendant of Sherrod.

Ancestor's life studied

For the past six years, Carl, a retired Air Force veteran, has studied the life of Sherrod Bryant, who probably was among the wealthiest blacks in Tennessee in the 1800s. Upon his arrival to the state in 1806 from North Carolina, the then 25-year-old Sherrod Bryant set to purchasing land, acquiring seven different parcels in the still-fledgling Midstate between 1811 and 1852.

That land included 300 acres known as Bryant Grove on the Rutherford County side of Long Hunter State Park, as well as the area of the Schermerhorn Symphony Center in downtown Nashville.

Along the way, he picked up slaves to help him work the land, Carl Bryant said. He used a genealogy Web site along with an inventory list from county archives that listed 22 slaves under Sherrod's possession, including some who appeared to be children of older slaves.

"That was just a fact, that if you had a lot of property and you were a big farmer plus you had to feed your family, you had slaves because where would you find help?" Carl Bryant said.

There have been several cases of free blacks owning slaves in the pre-Civil War South, according to Dr. George Smith, a Murfreesboro physician and Civil War re-enactor who said he began studying the issue of blacks owning slaves after hearing of Sherrod Bryant.

Smith said free blacks would often purchase slaves to free them, but Carl Bryant said he had no evidence that Sherrod freed his slaves after his death in 1854.

"Most of our impressions of slavery has been influenced by TV and movies," Smith said. "But slavery was a peculiar institution, and Sherrod Bryant was part of that."

Dr. David Carlton, a professor at Vanderbilt University who specializes in the history of the South, said that while it was possible for a free black to own a large amount of slaves, it certainly wasn't common.

"Generally speaking, 20 slaves is treated by historians as the lower limit of farming a plantation," Carlton said.

He was 'one of a kind'

Carl Bryant went through county archives in Nashville, Murfreesboro and Lebanon as well as federal census records and genealogy records from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to discover more about Sherrod.

He hasn't been able to find much about Sherrod's parents, however, information crucial to understanding the source of Sherrod's wealth.

The Bryant family contains mixed-race lineage, Carl said, and he wonders whether Sherrod's father was white.

"He knew all the right people," Carl said of Sherrod, who had a letter issued by influential members of Davidson County that asked that Sherrod be treated "in every respect as if he were a white man" when purchasing land.

"It's a very, very important untold part of Tennessee history," said Dan Whittle, president of Friends of Long Hunter State Park.

Whittle said he became interested in Sherrod Bryant's story after driving through the park one day and noticing a sign signifying Bryant's status as one of the wealthiest free blacks in Tennessee.

"He was a successful free black entrepreneur with papers and was really unique in Tennessee history ? kind of a one-of-a-kind person up until that era," he said.

Sherrod Bryant is buried in Bryanttown Cemetery on Elm Hill Pike, where the inscription on his marker reads, "Here rests from his labors Sherod (sic) Bryant, whose honesty, piety and industry were examples."

Those virtues, and not simply his slave holdings, are what Carl Bryant wants his notable ancestor to be remembered for.

"Many pioneers that came have died and have been forgotten," he said. "I don't want him to be forgotten."

The Tennessean

Copyright ©2010 wbir.com

On The Web:   http://www.wbir.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=42586

 

THE HIDDEN 14TH AMENDMENT AGENDA

By Michael LeMieux
January 21, 2010
NewsWithViews.com

The history of the united States of America is not free of defect. But in spite of those defects we were able to fashion a society that rose above the norm of the time and created a nation founded on individual liberty.

One of the defects of the age becomes very much apparent when contrasted against the preamble to the Declaration of Independence in which it states: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are crated equal.” And yet we were engaged in the practice of slavery. This is not disputed and the history of slavery has been upon the earth as long as we have recorded history. The Bible speaks of the slavery even during the time of Christ and before. So was there a legal difference between a person who was a slave and person who was a citizen? The answer is obviously yes. We will get into this a little later.

At the conclusion of the civil war, congress proposed the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments—abolishing slavery, and creating and granting federal citizenship, and suffrage (voting) for its new citizens. The 13th Amendment was ratified December 6th, 1865. It is interesting to note that the last state to ratify this amendment was Mississippi on March 5th, 1995, a full 130 years after the initial ratification, for a total of 36 out of our current 50 states.

The 13th Amendment states:

Section 1. “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”

Section 2. “Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”

This was the first amendment which included an enforcement clause.

Why did congress feel it necessary to include the 2nd section which gave them power to enforce this legislation? It was because they did not have the power to do so by Article 1 of the Constitution. They were expanding their power. Congress had only the powers that were enumerated under Article 1, Section 8. They did not have any authority to enforce the 13th Amendment, as this power was not enumerated. Now we have what I call the initial marriage of the legislative and judicial branches of government. Congress needed to have power to enforce this amendment, to pass laws, (legislate), and to give the Supreme Court, (the judicial branch), the ability to side with congress via this amendment.

Up until this time, many of the states did not recognize blacks as persons who could become citizens. Even with the passing of the 13th Amendment, the Federal Government had no power within the states to effect the necessary changes to force the issue. In the case of Blair v. Ridgely, 97 D. 218,249, S.P. the Supreme Court held “Prior to the adoption of the federal Constitution, states possessed unlimited and unrestricted sovereignty and retained the same ever afterward. Upon entering the Union, they retained all their original power and sovereignty...” The Federal Government, therefore, could not force the states to do all that was required on the issue without granting this additional power.

One very important case of the time was Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856), which required the 14th Amendment to overturn the Supreme Courts decision. The Dred Scott case was specifically about the rights of slaves, property owners, and the separation between federal and State jurisdiction. The case was brought by Dred Scott, a black man, who by Missouri law, could not be a citizen of that state and, therefore, could not bring suit. The court found in favor of Sandford, the defendant, due to the lack of jurisdiction.

In 1865 The Freedman’s Bureau Act was established which aided the war department in dealing with refugees from the south. It assisted with relocation, feeding, clothing, and transportation of blacks fleeing the south.

In 1866 the Civil Rights Act was passed by Congress. It was vetoed by President Andrew Johnson, but the veto was overridden by Congress. This act was the forerunner to the 14th Amendment. This act made all persons born in the United States, citizens of the United States without regard to their previous condition, and it made those who denied blacks these rights guilty of a misdemeanor. Problems began when organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan (and others) ignored the act and defied the federal government. During this time, separatist and Klan groups did everything in their power to defeat attempts to integrate the blacks into the citizenry.

These acts included murder, burning of homes, beatings and many other atrocious acts. In 1870 to 1871, the Enforcement acts were put into place by congress to give further weight to the previous acts and to give criminal codes to violations of federal intent of the reconstruction amendments (13, 14, and 15). They also allow for federal prosecution under those codes.

Prior to the 14th Amendment the federal government had little or no jurisdiction over the citizens of the many states of the union. After the 14th Amendment the federal government became directly involved with the citizens, to the detriment of our entire society and the constitutional republican form of government. At this point, we lost the Constitution of our heritage and we entered a Constitutional dictatorship. Because we elect a new person every four to eight years does not change the dictatorial powers the office holds. If you have any doubt, review the thousands of executive orders/ proclamations that create law and executive organizations—all without congressional approval.

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment reads:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

The 14th Amendment attempts to change the very nature of our government and our Constitution. The very first sentence states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” For the first time in our history we had federal citizenship, which is separate and distinct from state citizenship. More importantly, it created a change in the order of government—now the federal was placed ahead of the state.

Now here is where we have s sticky problem. You see before the 14th Amendment there were no federal citizens only State Citizens. So was the purpose of the 14th Amendment designed to make the newly freed slaves on par with the established citizenry? Or was it written this way to ensure federal superiority over the problem states and ensure there would be no further rebellion?

If we look at the continued expansion of the federal government since this time into areas that are not enumerated in the Constitution we would have to assume it was the latter. But this is a discussion for another article.

In Dred Scott v. Sandford the Supreme Court states: “The words ‘people of the United States’ and ‘citizens’ are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing… They are what we familiarly call the ‘sovereign people’ and every citizen is one of this people.” And when answering whether those falling under the 14th Amendment are constituent members of this sovereignty they responded: “We think they are not, and that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word “Citizens,” in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States… and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them.”

Those that were citizens prior to the 14th Amendment, De Jure Citizens, had already been defined by those that drafted the document. The 14th Amendment could not redefine that term as they were not the authors and the only other recourse besides this amendment was to hold a Constitutional Convention to foundationally change the founding documents. So instead they crated a second class of citizen – the 14th Amendment citizen.

One other point of interest is that not everyone in our country has the same ‘rights.’ As a matter of fact 14th Amendment citizens do not have rights; they only have privileges and immunities. Remember, our ‘Unalienable Rights’ come from our creator; privileges and immunities come from government and what government can give it can take away. In fact the 14th Amendment does not refer to rights at all and the only illusion to parity was a mention of the 4th Amendment Due Process clause wording dealing with life, liberty, and property.

There is a term, internationally recognized, for someone who receives privileges and immunities from a governmental jurisdiction, it is called a subject. This is what we were before we broke away from England; wishing to no longer be ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’

Obviously the existing ‘Citizens’ were not affected by the 14th Amendment; in fact the Supreme Court has cited such. It was only to provide for the protection of those to whom it confers federal citizenship upon.

Herein lays the problem. As time progresses; how does the federal government go about determining who is and who is not a 14th Amendment citizen? Because, as it is worded, anyone being naturalized, of whatever race, would become a 14th Amendment federal citizen.

So the federal government decided to ‘assume’ all persons desiring or attesting to be such were in fact 14th Amendment citizens and would treat them so. However; as time progressed it became ‘common knowledge’ or rather ‘common assumption’ that all citizens were the same. If you were to poll 100 people on the street today if they are United States citizens nearly all 100 would answer in the affirmative. Or conversely asking them if a person was born in a state of the Union what would be their citizenship; nearly all would respond with United States citizen.

The federal government has also allowed anyone in the country to come under the protective arm of the federal citizenship by just attesting to such even if they were not 14th Amendment citizens. How then do we attest to such? We do it every time we sign a document stating that we are a citizen of the United States; such as voting, military service, passport application, Social Security Number, or the myriad of other financial and government forms.

In U.S. v. Anthony the courts stated: “The rights of Citizens of the State, as such, are not under consideration in the Fourteenth Amendment. They stand as they did before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and are fully guaranteed by other provisions.” That is because the 14th Amendment did not give this other class of citizen the ‘rights’ enjoyed by the then current citizenry.

The Slaughter House case explains further is stating: “It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States, and a Citizenship of a State, which are distinct from each other, and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual… Of the privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States, and of the privileges and immunities of the Citizens of the State, and what they respectively are, we will presently consider, but we wish to state here that it is only the former, which are placed by this clause under the protection of the Federal Constitution, and that the latter, whatever they may be, are not intended to have any additional protection by this paragraph of the Amendment.” It could only be the former because the Citizenship of the latter was already settled and distinctly different from the new class of citizen.

Of course they do not tell us that there is a difference between these two classes of citizens because to do so would place a great strain on the supposed peace we all enjoy. For instance: what if you found out that you were of the pre 14th Amendment class of Citizen and did not require to pay certain license fees or that you could own your property outright without the fear of tax liens. In fact that every law that infringed upon your unalienable rights would automatically become void, but the government did not tell you. There would be a great deal of unhappy people in this world.

On the other hand what if you were a 14th Amendment citizen and you found out that there was a whole class of Citizens that did not have to pay things you had to or that certain ‘rights’ were not available to you; do you think there might be a few upset people?

The problem is we have lived this way and have been lied to and brainwashed into thinking a certain way when in fact the reality, our history, and our Liberties have been distorted to hide the truth so that we can be controlled by a central government that no longer obeys the charter by which they were created.

The idea of an overbearing central government was repugnant to our founders. We fought bitter wars at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives to get out from under such a government. Today, and since the 14th Amendment, the federal government has invaded every aspect of our lives. The hidden agenda of the 14th Amendment has been the total control of all the States of the Union and all the people, and the Constitution has been relegated to the history books by the superiority clause of this Amendment.

Today we face the most aggressive expansion of federal power and control at the cost of our very freedom and liberty. I challenge each reader to compare the reasons we split from England against the government we now look to in Washington and decide – are we really free?

© 2010 Michael LeMieux

On The Web:   http://www.newswithviews.com/LeMieux/michael108.htm

Remember Confederate heroes

January 21, 2010

Col. Alan C. Huffines, Ret., Abilene

In 1931, Texas followed her sister Southern states and created Confederate Heroes Day, to be commemorated on the anniversary of General Robert E. Lee’s birth (Jan. 19).

Lee, a Christian gentleman, epitomized to the depression era Texans what duty and sacrifice meant while enduring unimaginable hardship and privation. Tuesday was the state holiday.

Here in Abilene there are several memorials to Confederates, usually with Texas historical markers or street names. See if you can recognize a few of the Abilene founders who served the Southern Cross:

Private Missouri M. CLACK (Company A, 1st Tennessee Cavalry)

Private James J. CLINTON (Company G, 2nd Arkansas Cavalry)

Captain Claiborne W. MERCHANT (Company H, 14th Texas Cavalry)

Musician William A. MINTER (Company G, 5th South Carolina Infantry)

Lieutenant James H. PARRAMORE (Company C, 8th Texas Cavalry)

Brigadier General John SAYLES (Texas State Troops)

Lieutenant John W. WOOTEN (Company K, 10th Texas Cavalry)

Private James J. WYLIE (Company E, Frontier Regiment)

And of course there are communities such as nearby Robert Lee (he never used the middle initial) and Stonewall (Jackson) County. At least 27 Texas counties are named for confederate veterans or events.

Please take a moment and remember those in gray and butternut who believed in state rights enough to fight and die for it and understood duty as “the most sublime word in the English language.”

2010 The E.W. Scripps Co.

On The Web:   http://www.reporternews.com/news/2010/jan/21/remember-confederate-heroes/

Thursday, Jan. 21, 2010

Group proposing secession monument in SC

CHARLESTON, S.C. -- The Sons of Confederate Veterans are proposing a monument commemorating the ordinance by which South Carolina seceded before the Civil War.

The Post and Courier of Charleston reported Thursday the group approached the Patriots Point Development Authority about putting the monument at the authority's naval and maritime museum on Charleston Harbor.

The proposed 11 1/2-foot stone memorial would include the wording of the ordinance and the names of the 170 signers.

The group plans to raise $160,000 and hopes to have the monument completed by December, the 150th anniversary of the signing.

The authority board says it needs more time to consider the idea and will consider it next month

On The Web:   http://www.thesunnews.com/575/story/1272939.html

 

Alabama lawmakers pass historic resolution

Jan 20, 2010
By Nick Lough

KILLEN, AL (WAFF) - Alabama state leaders sent a strong message to Washington, reminding our nation's leaders that the state can secede from The Union if people here don't like what's going on at the capitol.

Not since the civil war has a state tried to leave the union, but after Tuesday's vote on the Alabama State Sovereignty Resolution cleared both state legislative chambers, local lawmakers sent a strong hint they're watching what's going on in the nation's capital and they know their constitutional rights.

"We went down to Montgomery on Monday," said Angela Laughlin who was in the capital as the votes were tallied.

The mother of four is a member of the Shoals area Patriots, a group that pushed through grassroots campaigning to let legislators know what she said people were telling her.

"You're supposed to be quiet in the gallery but everybody was cheering," said Laughlin.

The resolution revolves around the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and giving power to the states and its people. 

It states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Laughlin doesn't believe Alabama will ever attempt to leave the United States, but she believes the foundation is there in case such a move was ever warranted and leaders in Washington should take note.

"You don't kick a tenant out without serving them notice first," said Laughlin. "So we are serving them notice."

10th Amendment Resolutions have been introduced in 37 state legislatures.

©2010 WAFF.

On The Web:   http://www.waff.com/Global/story.asp?S=11853830

Confederate flag concerns persist in S.C.

Monday, January 18, 2010
 

Jan. 18, 2010 (United Press International) -- The Confederate flag no longer flies from its position atop the South Carolina State House -- but its new location isn't far enough away, activists say.

Raised over the dome of the building in 1962 as a gesture of defiance against desegregation, it was still there for the first annual Martin Luther King Day march and rally 10 years ago, The (Columbia) State reported Monday. Television coverage of that first march and rally of more than 50,000 prodded reluctant South Carolina lawmakers to remove what was seen as an ugly image of the state from national newscasts, the newspaper said.

"The rally reinforced the idea that a broad cross-section of South Carolinians wanted something done about it," said former Gov. Jim Hodges, a Democrat. "That was something missing before, the public aspect."

Legislators agreed to move the flag several months after the 2000 rally. Since then, it has flown from a 30-foot pole near a Confederate monument -- still on the State House grounds

Many say they are disappointed the decision to move the flag did not instead put it in a museum or a less visible location.

"The flying of the Confederate flag sends the wrong message," Lonnie Randolph, state president of the NAACP, said. "This was to promote slavery. Us flying the flag on State House grounds says we want to bring those days back. Those days ain't coming back."

On The Web:   http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewiStockNews/articleid/3790065

 

Monday, Jan. 18, 2010

Flag's relocation disappointed many

Confederate banner is off the dome but still a visible symbol
By WAYNE WASHINGTON - wwashington@thestate.com

The Confederate flag will be a lot closer to those who gather at the State House today for the 10th annual King Day at the Dome march and rally than it was for the first march.

No longer is the flag atop the State House dome, where in 1962 it was raised as a gesture of defiance to those who would contemplate desegregation and racial equality.

Now, the flag flaps on a 30-foot pole near a Confederate monument on the State House grounds. It is more visible, and, for many South Carolinians, it still stands for the things it always stood for - white supremacy and slavery, or Southern heritage and pride.

The flag's current position is due in no small part to the more than 50,000 people who rallied on King Day a decade ago.

They commanded national and international attention. Their presence prodded reluctant lawmakers and the governor of South Carolina to do something, anything, to move ugly images of the state from the top of national newscasts.

"It was clear that it was not going away," former Gov. Jim Hodges said of the issue during a telephone interview last week. "It continued to be a front-burner issue. The rally reinforced that."

The sheer size of the turnout made a point, too.

"The rally reinforced the idea that a broad cross-section of South Carolinians wanted something done about it," said Hodges, a Democrat. "That was something missing before, the public aspect."

Hodges was governor, in part, because of the power of the flag.

His predecessor, Republican David Beasley, had angered some of his supporters by signaling a willingness to consider moving the flag from the State House dome. He then lost a close re-election battle to Hodges.

The success of the 2000 King Day rally opened new fronts in an age-old civil rights struggle. The rally showed the muscle of the NAACP, which played a major role in organizing the event. But its fallout eventually distanced that group from some rally supporters who reluctantly oppose the NAACP's boycott of the state because the Confederate flag continues to fly on State House grounds.

"At a point, when a majority of people don't like where you're going, it seems to make sense to stop and reassess," said Cynthia Hardy, a radio talk show host who helped organize the 2000 rally. "We do have to assess the methods we use to achieve our goals."

SCHISM FOLLOWED

State legislators who used the cudgel of the rally to hammer out the compromise that brought the flag down felt stung when NAACP officials not only rejected the deal, but also lashed out at them.

"The NAACP's resolution said take it down and put it in a place of historical context," said former state Sen. Kay Patterson, a Richland County Democrat who spent decades trying to persuade his colleagues to remove the flag from the dome and from the chambers and lobby of the State House.

"There was no talk about not putting it near the Confederate memorial," said Patterson. "Hell, you couldn't get a place with more historical context."

Patterson, like other legislators who wanted the flag down, pressed for the flag to be put in a museum or in some other less public place.

The King Day rally had generated momentum for that course.

"There was no will to do anything until that rally," said the Rev. Joseph Darby, a Charleston minister and a vice president of the NAACP at that time. "I hear some people say, 'We would have done something about it.'

"Yeah, right. Just like you were going to do something about segregation."

Charleston Mayor Joe Riley attempted to add to the momentum in April, when he led a 112-mile walk from his city to Columbia to press for the lowering of the flag.

"I felt it was important that a white political leader lead this march," he said. "This was being portrayed as black versus white in our state. I knew that was a misrepresentation."

But the flag still had important political backers, principally Republicans led by Senate President Pro Tempore Glenn McConnell, of Charleston.

Moving the flag from the dome and off the State House grounds was a non-starter, rally or no rally, legislators said.

"We didn't have the numbers to do what they want, bury the flag," state Sen. Robert Ford, D-Charleston, said of those who wanted the flag moved to a museum.

Hodges had tried for a different compromise - bringing the flag down and placing it near a statue of Confederate Lt. Gov. and S.C. Gov. Wade Hampton on the less visible south side of the State House.

The NAACP opposed that move.

"The flying of the Confederate flag sends the wrong message," Lonnie Randolph, state president of the NAACP, said in a recent interview. "This was to promote slavery. Us flying the flag on State House grounds says we want to bring those days back. Those days ain't coming back."

Hardy said she also was disappointed the deal to lower the flag did not put in a museum or a less visible location.

"It was a disappointing move," she said of the deal. "It felt empty and still does. (Legislators) said that's the best they could do.

"I was disappointed with the best they could do."

Hardy said friends from other states don't understand why the symbol still holds so much sway.

"My friends from around the country think we're from a mean state, that we don't respect the rights of other people," she said. "They think South Carolina is (an) oppressive place and that the oppressors don't mind waving the symbols of oppression."

'IT'S STILL IMPORTANT'

Despite the disappointment of not being able to get the flag off the State House grounds entirely, those who participated in the rally said it was still a watershed moment, one that should give today's marchers confidence that enough voices, speaking together, can be heard.

"In the years since the first rally, we have not had as many people," said Cynthia Hardy's husband, Jim Hardy IV. "But it's still a galvanizing point where people can come together and let their voice be heard.

"I think it's still important."

On The Web:   http://www.thestate.com/local/story/1115275.html

 

NAACP vows stronger Confederate flag fight in S.C.

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
January 18, 2010

COLUMBIA -- The national leader of the NAACP says the civil rights organization will make a stronger push to get the Confederate flag removed from the grounds of the South Carolina Statehouse.

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People President Benjamin Jealous said Monday he didn't want to go into details, but said it is time to increase the pressure to remove the flag from a 30-foot tall pole on the front lawn of the capitol.

Monday's rally at the Statehouse was the 10th anniversary of the original Martin Luther King Jr. Day rally in 2000, where 50,000 people turned out to demand South Carolina remove the Confederate flag from atop the Statehouse dome.

A law passed a few months later put the flag in its current location.

On The Web:   http://www.greenvilleonline.com/article/20100118/NEWS/1180330/1004/NEWS01/NAACP-vows-stronger-Confederate-flag-fight-in-S.C

 

Wednesday, January 20, 2010
I’M NO WATERMELON

by Joan Hough

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You tell me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

On The Web:   http://shnv.blogspot.com/2010/01/im-no-watermelon.html

 

Subject: Press Release: Dixie Defenders Camp #2086, Sons of Confederate Veterans to March in Martin Luther King Day Parade

Press Release: Dixie Defenders Camp #2086, Sons of Confederate Veterans to March in Martin Luther King Day Parade
 
Cross City, (Dixie County) Florida
 
January 15, 2010
 
For information, contact: Phil Walters of GatorGuides.com  813-968-6154 or Commander Joe Sparacino of the Dixie Defenders camp 352-949-9169
 
Dixie Defenders Camp #2086, Sons of Confederate Veterans to March in Martin Luther King Day Parade
 
The members of the Dixie Defenders Camp #2086, SCV, a veterans service organization, are pleased to announce their participation in the Cross City Martin Luther King Day parade. Staging for the parade will be at the Dixie County High School on U.S. Hwy 19 in Cross City, with step off at 10:30 am and will wind through downtown Cross City.
"Our community education efforts have reaped dividends & we are thrilled to be invited & march in this community event," says Joe Sparacino, Commander of the Dixie Defenders camp, SCV. "African Americans have made great contributions to this country, including the South during the war for Southern Independence and have been forgotten by history. We have made strives to tell this history through living history presentations and the community has opened their arms because of these efforts!" Sparacino says.
 
Noted living historian and a past NAACP chapter President H. K. Edgerton will be present marching as a Black Confederate Soldier. Edgerton, of Ashville N.C. says this sharing of Southern Heritage on Dr. King's holiday in Cross City is historic and part of Dr. King's vision of "All men sitting together at the table of Brotherhood."

Please come out & enjoy the parade and Holiday.
 

Southern National Covenant: Has its time come?

For decades our country has been sliding down a slippery slope. Sometimes the slope is steeper than others, but the slope is always downward. Every decade or so we have the "great" change in government. In 1994 we had the Republican Revolution that brought us the Contact with America.

But the Contract with America was broken! Kaput! Just campaign rhetoric.

The Republican Party over a few elections controlled the entire federal government; White House, US Senate and US House of Representatives. But sadly, even in the middle of a federal government Republican Revolution - so to speak - a large majority of incumbents were returned!

During this period of Republican control, the federal government grew by leaps and bounds, the national debt and liabilities grew by leaps and bounds. On down the slope ....

In 2008, just a year ago, we had the Obama Revolution. Now the Democratic Party controls the White House, US Senate and US House of Representatives. The federal government is growing even faster, the national debt and liabilities is growing faster. We are sliding down a steeper slope, but the same downward slope as under the Republican Party. Sadly, even in the middle of a federal government Democratic Revolution - so to speak - a large majority of incumbents were returned!

As we enter 2010, another landmark election year, I can already hear the cry --- "If we just elect the right Republicans - all will be OK!"

If after all of these decades of alternating between the various combinations of Republican and Democrat control of federal, State and local government - you still believe this is the solution - you are wasting your time reading this website.

The System is broken! Repeating the same ole Republican/Democratic skirmishing is nothing but a waste of time.

Perhaps it is time to begin considering alternatives.

On The Web:   spofga.org/build/2010/southern_national_covenant.php

Additional Information:   http://dixieoutfitters.com/p/southern-national-covenant

Sunday, Jan. 10, 2010

S.C. not spending on Civil War anniversary

By Brian Hicks - The (Charleston) Post and Courier

For the past few years, the state of Virginia has put up to $2 million annually into planning, programming and advertising for the 150th anniversary of the Civil War.

Kentucky has put at least $1 million into its efforts, while Tennessee, Georgia and Arkansas are refurbishing historical markers, sprucing up battlefields and planning for the expected tourism bonanza.

But in South Carolina - where the war began and still permeates the landscape - state officials have put almost no money into events for the sesquicentennial. And even though the 150th anniversary of South Carolina's secession is less than a year away, that's not likely to change any time soon. Some people fear the state is going to miss out on some needed tourism dollars.

"It's not about white or black, or blue or gray - it's about green," said Randy Burbage, South Carolina division commander for the Sons of Confederate Veterans. "I think we're missing out on a huge economic opportunity because of all the tourism."

Right now, there are conferences scheduled for December (the anniversary of secession) and April 2011 (the anniversary of the firing on Fort Sumter). Heritage groups are planning re-enactments, commemorations and other programming. Many groups say other events are in the planning stage but are not ready to be announced.

Still, next to Virginia - which has produced a DVD documentary for school children - South Carolina's dance card seems a bit light.

"We're doing a lot with no money," said Robert Rosen, a member of the state's Sesquicentennial Advisory Board and president of the Fort Sumter/Fort Moultrie Trust, which is planning Lowcountry events.

On The Web:   http://www.thesunnews.com/news/local/story/1253033.html

 

Crowd remembers Rebel martyr

17-year-old Dodd, hanged in 1864, compared with Nathan Hale

By Charlie Frago

A 17-year-old boy hanged by Union troops for spying during the Civil War was a hero, a leader of the Sons of Confederate Veterans told a small crowd gathered Saturday in Little Rock’s Mount Holly Cemetery.

Mark Kalkbrenner of White Hall gave a brief speech about the legacy of David O. Dodd, the boy who was executed on Jan. 8, 1864, after being found with information on Union troop strength in Little Rock.

Dodd never gave up any names of other spies and his death was a brave one, said Kalkbrenner, commander of the Arkansas Division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

Kalkbrenner compared Dodd’s actions with those of Nathan Hale, a Revolutionary War hero hanged for espionage ...

Copyright © 2010, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Inc.

On The Web:   http://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2010/jan/10/crowd-remembers-rebel-martyr-20100110/

 

Scuffle over confederate flag leads to arrest of Lely High student

By Naples Daily News staff report

Posted January 9, 2010

NAPLES — A Lely High School student was arrested Friday and charged with felony battery after Collier County sheriff’s deputies responded to a complaint that he punched another student and then tried to pull him out of a car that was displaying a Confederate flag.

Arrested on the battery charge was Alfredo David, 18, of Naples.

The victim, whose named was withheld from a sheriff’s report, said he was approached by several Hispanic students while waiting for traffic to move as he was leaving Lely High School. He said they were upset about his flag and that one of them walked up and punched it, according to reports.

The victim reported that David taunted him to try to start a fight, punched him in the chest through an open driver’s side window and then tried to pull him out of the vehicle.

The victim held onto the steering wheel to keep from being pulled out of the car and then stepped on the accelerator to get to safety, according to sheriff’s reports.

David’s address was listed as the 5000 block of Bryant Avenue in Naples. According to deputies, he didn’t want to tell his side of the story.

He has a prior conviction for battery, according to reports.

2010 The E.W. Scripps Co.

On The Web:   http://www.marconews.com/news/2010/jan/09/scuffle-over-confederate-flag-leads-arrest-lely-hi/

 

Lexington's Stonewall Jackson House offers rare glimpse into 19th Century life

Written by Hank Zimmerman  

When you first see it, the exterior looks historical enough, but not all that different from many other Federal period town houses a traveler can see while following Route 11, the Old Valley Pike, from town to town in the Shenandoah Valley.

But the house at 8 Washington Street in historic downtown Lexington, Va. was the home of a quiet Virginia Military Institute professor named Thomas Jonathan Jackson, who perhaps stood out only to his neighbors during his daily walks around town.  During the decade preceding the American Civil War, Jackson taught natural philosophy and artillery tactics at VMI and had not yet marched off to fame, glory and his eventual death as the legendary Confederate General, "Stonewall" Jackson.

Although Jackson would never return to his Lexington home alive, the house has remained much as it had been the day he rode off to his destiny in 1861.  After moving to Lexington ten years earlier, Jackson had mourned the death of his first wife and then married Mary Anna Morrison, and settled into a daily routine, much of which has been researched and is now interpreted by the Stonewall Jackson Foundation. The foundation owns and operates the Stonewall Jackson House, where public tours provide intimate looks at mid-19th Century life in the Valley of Virginia.

We really make an effort to represent the day-to-day life," says Michael Anne Lynn, Executive Director of the Stonewall Jackson Foundation. "Sometimes I jokingly refer to this as 'Stonewall Jackson, the Back Story.' What we really are talking about is daily life in that decade before the Civil War. And, of course, that was a time when half the population was directly involved in agriculture. When what a family could grow in their back yard had a great deal to do with how good their diets were."

The museum is operating on a limited schedule until March, but it will be open for two special events in January, 2010: The annual Lee-Jackson Day celebration on Jan. 16 and the Stonewall Jackson's birthday on Jan. 21.  Free tours and refreshments will be offered to the public on Jackson's birthday.

Tour visitors see the original wood stoves that would have been Mr. and Mrs. Jackson's main source of heat. Visitors also get a sense for how dim the interior lighting was in the 1850s, as well as real examples of the middle class comfort that was sought after at the time, things like carpets and upholstered furniture.

There are written records that link many of the existing household belongings to a copy of an inventory that was made soon after Jackson had died. It has also been possible for the foundation to document that many of the home furnishings arrived in Lexington on a canal boat, which at the time was one of Lexington's primary transportation links to the outside world.  The records also provide more personal details, such as that Jackson took a cold bath every morning before he went for his daily walk.

Lynn says that, if Jackson could return to life in Lexington today, much of the town would still be recognizable to him. It means that visitors can best experience Lexington the way the Jacksons would have - on foot.  After parking at the Visitor's Center a few paces down the hill from the Stonewall Jackson House, or in the free parking in the Court House lot, pedestrians can spend the greater part of the day visiting VMI, Lee Chapel and the campus of Washington & Lee University. There are also plenty of shops and restaurants along the way.

Although there are only two days in January that the Stonewall Jackson House will be open to the public, it may be worth it to schedule time for a visit. Any museum visit is one winter activity that does not require bundling up against cold temperatures.  The Lee-Jackson Day celebration also offers insights into why the life of Thomas Jonathan Jackson and his famous counterpart, Robert E. Lee, is celebrated in the first place.

"I think that the main reason why Jackson has endured as a figure of interest to people is not only because of his military leadership, but also because of his personal qualities," Lynn says. "I think, to a great extent, that explains why both Lee and Jackson are revered and thought of." Both Jackson and Lee were men of enormous integrity, great religious faith and determination.

“It's interesting that the two of them emerge as figures of great interest - in a situation where it's very unusual for a defeated general to be so revered. That they have qualities that hold our interest," she says.

Certainly, the career paths of these two great men crossed often when they were alive, and the location of this crossroads was among the streets of Lexington, Virginia.

More information about visiting the Stonewall Jackson House is online at StonewallJackson.org.  Travel information for Lexington is at LexingtonVirginia.com. A Shenandoah Valley Radio interview with Michael Anne Lynn is here.

Copyright ©2010 by Shenandoah Valley.com.

On The Web:   http://shenandoahvalley.com/home/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=739&Itemid=27

 

Civil War re-enactors found not guilty of assaulting each other

Posted to: News Virginia

The Associated Press
© January 8, 2010

STANARDSVILLE, Va.

In a Civil War re-enactment that went too far, two Union and Confederate cavalry commanders who tussled on the field of battle each were found not guilty of assault.

The two pressed charges against each other after the Sept. 19, 2009, re-enactment of the Battle of Stanardsville.

The Confederate commander, Doug Nalls, claimed his Union counterpart, Joseph Ferguson, knocked off his hat, and Nalls allegedly responded by firing his revolver. While the weapon was not loaded with a bullet, the Union commander suffered facial injuries from the revolver's powder blast, according to a prosecutor.

This chapter of the Civil War ended in a draw: A judge concluded Wednesday that he could not find either man guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt."

The Greene County commonwealth's attorney said the re-enactment gone bad was the result of "bad blood" between the men that boiled over on the battlefield, located about 20 miles north of Charlottesville.

Confederate re-enactors testified during the trial that the two had exchanged words before the violent encounter. According to Confederate witnesses, the Union commander used archaic slurs such as "blaggard" and "knave" to describe his Confederate counterpart.

The prosecutor, Ronald L. Morris, said Thursday more contemporary insults were also exchanged. He said courtroom accounts of the physical exchange were in dispute except for two points: "The hat came off and the gun was fired."

Nalls' father testified he had to wade into battle to separate the men.

Ferguson left court unhappy with the outcome. "The feud on the battlefield goes on," he said.

Injuries, accidental or otherwise, are not uncommon during Civil War re-enactments. In 2008, a Confederate re-enactor brought a loaded weapon into a battle being filmed for a documentary and shot and wounded a Union re-enactor.

© 1993-2010, HamptonRoads.com

On The Web:   http://hamptonroads.com/2010/01/civil-war-reenactment-dispute-ends-courtroom-stalemate

 

Friday, Jan. 08, 2010

Rally to focus on flag, cigarette tax, census

NAACP chief to speak at King Day at the Dome

Ben Jealous, national president of the NAACP, will be the featured speaker at the annual King Day at the Dome rally.

This year's event, to be held Jan. 18 on Martin Luther King Jr. Day, will be the 10th rally. The first rally, in 2000, drew roughly 50,000.

The NAACP will use the rally to again call for the removal of the Confederate flag from State House grounds.

Dr. Lonnie Randolph, president of the S.C. NAACP, said the civil rights organization also will use the rally to urge the state to raise its lowest-in-the-nation cigarette tax and to urge South Carolina residents to be counted in this year's census.

No politicians will be allowed to speak at the rally this year. Two years ago, the featured speakers included three Democratic candidates for president - U.S. Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and former U.S. Sen. John Edwards.

Randolph said the rally would have a political element. He wants to urge South Carolinians to vote this year. Randolph noted the 124 seats in the S.C. House are up for election, as are the eight constitutional offices, which include governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general and state superintendent of education.

"Let (politicians) know your support comes with a price," Randolph said.

But removing the Confederate flag remains a top priority for the NAACP, which was the driving force behind the first march a decade ago.

The banner was still perched upon the State House dome then. By summer, a legislative compromise had been struck to move the flag to the Confederate Soldier Monument near the foot of the State House steps.

The NAACP has continued an economic boycott of the state, one that Randolph said is working.

He cited the Atlantic Coast Conference's recent decision to move its postseason baseball tournament elsewhere after awarding it to Myrtle Beach. Randolph said the ACC, SEC and NCAA are honoring the NAACP's boycott and are not bringing events to South Carolina.

Many state lawmakers and business leaders have said the boycott is harmful at a time when the state's tourism industry is struggling in a down economy.

"Ten years later we have real good support," Randolph said.

- Leroy Chapman Jr.

On The Web:   http://www.thestate.com/local/story/1100943.html

 

Klan founder's bust moved from Tenn. House chamber

ERIK SCHELZIG
Associated Press
January 7, 2010

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — A bust of Civil War general and early Ku Klux Klan leader Nathan Bedford Forrest has been moved from outside the doors of the Tennessee House chamber but still remains in a place of prominence on the main floor of the state Capitol.

The rearrangement of the Capitol busts was spurred by a new bust to honor Sampson W. Keeble, the state's first black lawmaker who served in the House from 1873 to 1874. The likeness of Keeble is meant to serve as a "commemorative emblem" to all 14 black lawmakers who served in the 19th century.

Until Wednesday, the busts outside the House chamber were of Forrest and Union Adm. David G. Farragut, who in 1864 famously ordered "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" as he led his fleet to victory in the Battle of Mobile Bay, Ala.

The busts of the two Tennesseans facing each other were meant to represent the two sides in the Civil War, Tennessee State Museum Director Lois Riggins-Ezell said.

Riggins-Ezell said lawmakers wanted instead to have the busts of two prominent former House members placed outside the chamber: former presidents James K. Polk and Andrew Johnson.

The Farragut and Forrest busts have now been moved to the main corridor between the House and Senate chambers, and lawmakers will have a direct view of Forrest as they step off the express elevator from the legislative office complex.

Born poor in Chapel Hill, Tenn., in 1821, Forrest amassed a fortune as a plantation owner and slave trader in Memphis until enlisting as a 40-year-old private in the Confederate army at the outset of the Civil War. He rose to become a cavalry general within a year.

Some accounts accused Forrest of ordering black prisoners to be massacred after a victory at Tennessee's Fort Pillow in 1864, though the extent of his responsibility is disputed.

In 1867, the newly formed Klan elected Forrest its honorary Grand Wizard or national leader, but he publicly denied being involved. In 1869, he ordered the Klan to disband because of the members' increasing violence.

Two years later, a congressional investigation concluded his involvement had been limited to his attempt to disband it.

On The Web:   http://www.theleafchronicle.com/article/20100107/NEWS01/100107008/Klan+founder+s+bust+moved+from+Tenn.+House+chamber+

 

Resistance Is NOT Futile: Forgotten Lessons from the Nullification Crisis

08. Jan, 2010
by Josh Eboch

Even as calls for nullification of proposed federal health care mandates have intensified on the state level, an almost hysterical effort has arisen to discredit such measures, and paint them as part of an obsolete theory with no bearing on modern politics.

Regardless of its logical descent from our most basic founding principle, that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, nullification simply doesn’t work, critics say.

Or does it?

While it’s true that our system of checks and balances has been weakened substantially over the years, federalism itself has not. Divided power remains as viable a structure of government as it was the day our Constitution was ratified. Perhaps a better question is: Can nullification succeed peacefully?

Of course! It already has. For proof, one need look no further than the truth behind a favorite parable of establishment statists, the Nullification Crisis of 1832-33.

Over the years, that crucial victory for the sovereign states has been converted into a cautionary tale by those who wish to discourage taxpayers from ever questioning their federal masters. So distorted is the history that a recent article on modern nullification efforts in the Nashville City Paper declared

In the Nullification Crisis of the 1830s, South Carolina passed a law nullifying federal tariffs, but the state backed down after President Andrew Jackson sent Navy warships to the Charleston harbor.

The only problem with that story is it never happened.

After nullifying the so-called Tariff of Abominations in late 1832, the citizens of South Carolina began making serious preparations to defend themselves with deadly force against any attempt by federal agents to collect the hated tax. What followed was a tense standoff between President Jackson and a relatively small group of determined citizens, that could easily have resulted in secession or war.

But those citizens refused to be intimidated by Jackson’s repeated threats of violence, and they certainly didn’t surrender to warships in Charleston Harbor.

As Wikipedia admits, it was not until the end of February 1833, when “both a Force Bill, authorizing the President to use military force against South Carolina, and a new negotiated tariff satisfactory to South Carolina [emphasis added] were passed by Congress,” that “the South Carolina convention reconvened and repealed its Nullification Ordinance.” From that point on, right up until the War Between the States, the tariff rate declined steadily.

In other words, after putting the federal government on notice that they were prepared to defend their sovereignty, with force if necessary, the people of South Carolina agreed to abide by a new “negotiated tariff,” that they felt was fair, rather than fight a war or leave the Union; neither of which they wanted to do in the first place. A clear victory for nullification, and for peace.

In fact, the entire episode is more or less a perfect demonstration of how robust federalism and divided power once protected liberty within our voluntary Union, by keeping the ambitions of the central government in check.

So why the modern spin on this event as some kind of heroic, unilateral militarism by President Jackson, and a watershed moment for centralization? Well, for one, that interpretation fits with what statists would have us all believe anyway: that there is no force on Earth (including public opinion) capable of resisting orders from the national government.

It also makes for a neat segue into the conflict that erupted 30 years later along the same fault lines of federal vs. state authority, providing a convenient way to dismiss, without debate, those who call for nullification today, by linking them with slavery and the antebellum South. At least in the eyes of an historically ignorant public.

Yet, from the Fugitive Slave Act to REAL ID, American history is replete with examples of states successfully asserting their sovereignty in constitutional disputes with the federal government. And there is every reason to believe that they could do so again with regard to health care, should it prove necessary.

If the proposed federal mandates are so unpopular in any given state that a majority of its people support legislation or a state constitutional amendment to nullify them, that should be a clear indicator to President Obama and Congress that the governed have withdrawn their consent. Any attempt to assert federal power in the face of such opposition will inevitably be seen by the citizens of those states as illegitimate and unjust.

At that point, it will be up to those in Washington to decide whether they want to respect the natural laws on which our nation was founded, or whether they would prefer to wager their lust for power against the full electoral fury of the sovereign people’s wrath.

Copyright © 2010 by TenthAmendmentCenter.com.

On The Web:   http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/01/08/resistance-is-not-futile-forgotten-lessons-from-the-nullification-crisis/