Customer Area | Gold-coin | Mail | Track | Cart-icon-red
16528 ---Confederate Flag (Hollingsworth) --- Released: 38 minutes Ago. ---- 2014-10-24 15:32:43 -0400
See related pages and categories

From: Bonnie Hollingsworth <bonh@citcom.net>
Date: Thu, Oct 23, 2014
Subject: Fw: Confederate Flag
To: Judy & Homer Price <Judi.HomerPrice@gmail.com>
Cc: HK Edgerton <hk.edgerton@gmail.com>

If you did not have time to read this link from this month's Southern Heritage, take time to read it if you can:
My group nationwide, even some in the NORTH joined me in writing a letter in defense of our "southern flag". Here is the letter I wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: Bonnie Hollingsworth
To: sherman.saunders@danvilleva.gov
Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2014
Subject: Confederate Flag

I live in NC but am horrified that anyone, anywhere, would want to totally eradicate the Confederate Flag. It is part of our history, both for Whites and Blacks. One can no more change that than they can the Holocaust! Further, that flag NEVER flew over a slave ship. I fly that flag under my American flag, and I have Black friends.
Many Blacks actually believe that ALL slave owners were cruel people. Not true! One of my ancestral uncles went to JAIL for educating his slaves. They also had a chapel for the slave who wanted to learn about Jesus. When they were emancipated, only 3 young slaves chose to leave. Those who stayed were then given a small wage per month. They were happy, and could leave at any time. Why would they want to? They were provided food, clothes, education, and housing.
It further irks me that people like Sharpton and Jackson will NOT acknowlege the BLACK slave owners and expose THEIR attrocities. There were more slave owned by Blacks than by Whites in the Carolinas when the slave were emancipated. I believe it inherently WRONG for one man to own another man, just as I believe the Holocaust really happened.
The flag? It is a part of the history of this nation, and should stay, just like the "Don't Tread On Me" flag should stay. I have a decal on my front door that says, "Heritage, not Hate" written on a Confederate flag. It IS my heritage, and I am proud of it. I am Southern, and proud of it. I am not a racist, and I am proud of that fact. I have a bi-racial grandson, though not of our blood. We adore and love him, just like we do all of the other grandchildren, though he is adopted.
This is total nonsense. History cannot be re-written nor should it be. To toss out that flag would be like tossing out the British Jack!
Please think about these things before a decision is made. Thank you for your time.
Bonnie Fordham Hollingsworth
Rosman, NC 28772


16527 ---Stirring Tribute To A Beautiful Soul --- Released: about 1 hour Ago. ---- 2014-10-24 15:16:29 -0400
See related pages and categories

Monday, October 20, 2014

By Ben Jones, SCV Chief of Heritage Operations

This past Saturday, at the Hillcrest Cemetery in Monroe, North Carolina a memorial service of major historic importance took place. The ashes of Mrs. Mattie Clyburn Rice were placed next to the grave of her father, Weary Clyburn. Mr. Clyburn was born in 1841 and was a combatant in the American Civil War and passed away in 1932. His daughter, Mrs. Rice, passed on September 1st of this year, two weeks before what would have been her 91st birthday. The service was to remember "Miss Mattie" and to dedicate to her a permanent memorial.

The memorial service was a day of tears and laughter, and a day of reflection, pageantry, music, and praise. It was a memorable occasion for a beautiful soul.

Between them, the lives of father and daughter encompassed the greater part of the American Experience. When Weary Clyburn was born, there were still many alive who had fought in the American Revolution. When his daughter died, the space age had taken men to the moon and beyond, and the digital revolution had enabled the entire planet to instantly connect. During this Sesquicentennial of the War Between the States, one would have expected such a memorial tribute as this to gain the attention of the major television networks, the cable news networks, and the major regional and national newspapers.

Certainly serious historians of the era would be there to mark the occasion, for this wonderful lady had heard of the war first hand from the stories of her beloved father, and she had honored his heritage with devotion and courage.

But the event took place in a virtual blackout of media coverage. There were, to my knowledge, two reporters from the Monroe area there, but nothing beyond that. The nation did not get to hear about "Miss Mattie" and her devotion to her father's memory. The historic importance of this family went virtually unnoticed by the media.

There was, however, an Associated Press story about the Memorial on the day before the service. And that nationally distributed story is indicative of the "mainstream media's" approach to what can only be called "political correctness". Nothing else can explain the "hatchet job" on the passing of this beautiful soul. For you see, Weary Clyburn was a slave, and he served for the Confederacy, and he received a pension for his service to the Southern Army. But the story told to the nation by the Associated Press says that he was surely forced into service by his master.

And that, according to Weary and his daughter Mattie, is a lie.

According to "Miss Mattie", her father went into the war with his friend, Frank Weary, and served as his bodyguard for four years. In one battle, Weary saved the wounded Frank's life by carrying him over his shoulders to safety. A granddaughter of Frank Weary spoke heartfelt thanks for this act to Weary's descendants at the Memorial Service.

For that Associated Press story, the reporter, Martha Waggoner, interviewed a man identified as a "blogger", a man who is a high school teacher from New Jersey who lives in Massachusetts. Claiming to be a "historian", this blogger has said that Mrs. Rice had promulgated a hoax, and that it was not true that men like Weary Clyburn had supported the Confederacy because Weary Clyburn was a slave. Never mind what the man Weary Clyburn himself said. The blogger, a man named Kevin Levin, thinks he knows the minds of Southern people who lived in the 1840's better than they knew it. In choosing to interview a blogger who is best known as an avowed anti-Southern propagandist, the A.P. reporter has insulted the memory of Mrs. Rice and her father and brought great pain to her family and to the many friends who knew this wonderful lady.

Of course, the "reporter" did not bother to cover the actual event and talk to Mrs. Rice's children and grandchildren. She and her colleagues were nowhere in sight. She had "covered" the story with a phone call to a self-obsessed Massachusetts blogger.

It is an outrageous and disturbing piece of "reporting". How anyone could slander this father and daughter is beyond comprehension, but that is exactly what "reporter" Martha Waggoner and "blogger" Kevin Levin managed to do.

Ms. Waggoner could have easily contacted any number of serious, respected historians of the American Civil War in North Carolina. Instead she seemed to "cherry-pick" a blogger devoted to attacking Southern heritage and gave him the final word.

But we can speak up for Weary Clyburn and "Miss Mattie" just as she spoke up for us.

Please e-mail Ms. Waggoner at MWaggoner@ap.org and tell her politely that her story was clearly biased and insulting to the memory of Mattie Clyburn Rice and her family. Tell her, as nicely as possible, that she should apologize to every one of "Miss Mattie's" family members, and especially to the memory of Weary Clyburn and his indomitable daughter, Mattie Clyburn Rice.

On The Web:   http://shnv.blogspot.com/2014/10/a-truly-historic-day-stirring-tribute.html


16526 ---Common Sense Over Political Correctness --- Released: about 1 hour Ago. ---- 2014-10-24 14:56:02 -0400
See related pages and categories


In a major victory for Americans of Confederate heritage, the City of Danville today squashed the attempts by The Danville Museum of Fine Arts and History to remove the Third National Flag of the Confederacy from its grounds at the historic Sutherlin mansion.

"This is a huge victory for common sense over political correctness," said Kelly Barrow, the Commander in Chief of the 30,000 member Sons of Confederate Veterans, a heritage organization made up of direct descendants of those who fought for the Confederate States of America.

"The Sutherlin Mansion is called the Last Capital of the Confederacy because Jefferson Davis and his Cabinet stayed there after Richmond fell in 1865," said Barrow. "That flag flies there as a very significant part of American history. What the museum was proposing was nothing less than an unthinking insult to the more than 70 million Americans whose ancestors fought for the Southern cause. It amounts to an attempt to whitewash American and Virginian history."

In a brief statement, the City of Danville acknowledged that Virginia law prevents the removal of the flag. Attorney Fred Taylor, who represented individual citizens of Danville, said, "I am pleased to hear of the decision by the Danville City Council. Virginia state law is clear regarding the protection of the monument and the memorial, and it is reassuring to see the City Council honor its original 7994 agreement with the Heritage Preservation Association and the citizens of Danville, avoiding what could have been a needless and costly legal battle."

Ben L. Jones
Chief of Heritage Operations
Sons of Confederate Veterans

16525 ---Pt 2 - More About Secession Books Haven't Told --- Released: about 3 hours Ago. ---- 2014-10-24 13:09:58 -0400
See related pages and categories

Part 2–More About Secession the “History” Books Haven’t Told Us

Posted on October 16, 2014   
by Al Benson Jr.

It has been accurately asserted by author Gene H. Kizer Jr. that: “The arguments for the right of secession are unequivocal. There is the constitutional right based on the Compact Theory, and the revolutionary right based on the idea that a free people have a right to change their government anytime they see fit. The Compact Theory views the Constitution as a legal agreement between the states–a compact–and if any one state violates the compact, then the entire agreement becomes null and void. Northern states unquestionably violated the Constitution on a number of grounds including Personal Liberty Laws on their books, as well as by deliberately harboring fugitives from justice by protecting the sons of John Brown who were wanted by Virginia for murder at Harpers Ferry. Northern states also made a mockery of the Constitution’s Preamble which states clearly that the Constitution was established to ‘insure domestic tranquility’ and ‘promote the general Welfare.’ Certain prominent Northern leaders with the acquiescence of states like Massachusetts were utterly at war with the South and doing everything they could to destroy the domestic tranquility of the Southern states by encouraging slaves to murder white people, poison wells, destroy property and commit other acts of rapine. John Brown himself had been encouraged and financed by the North.”

I have, in the past, written about a group called The Secret Six, which financed Brown’s terrorist activities in both Kansas and Virginia. Of this group all, save one, was from New England and that one was from New York. An excellent book to read regarding this dismal period in our history is Otto Scott’s The Secret Six–The Fool as Martyr which is a biography of John Brown, and therefore deals with those that financed him in some detail. Another good work in this area worth reading, if you can find it is The Road to Harpers Ferry by J. C. Furnas. A couple years ago in my little newsletter The Copperhead Chronicle I did a series of biographical sketches on the Secret Six. Quite an interesting little group. One of them, Thomas Wentworth Higginson, a Unitarian minister made the statement “I am always ready to invest money in treason…” I mention all this to demonstrate that the North had indeed broken the Constitutional Compact.

Walter Williams, a distinguished professor of economics at George Mason University has written on the secession question on a number of occasions. In his understanding secession is indeed legal. He noted at one point that before the War Between the States a constitutional amendment was proposed by some Northern congressman that would prohibit secession. He then points out that there would have been no point in offering such an amendment if secession had already been unconstitutional. You do have to admit that he has a point.

A few years ago the late Joe Sobran, (whom I assume that most people who read have heard of), wrote an article that appeared on http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org in which he noted that: “Our ultimate defense against the federal government is the right of secession. Yes, most people assume that the Civil War settled that. But superior force proves nothing. If there was a right of secession before that war, it should be just as valid now. It wasn’t negated become Northern munitions factories were more efficient than Southern ones.” And Sobran further observed, and I have to agree with him, that: “The original 13 states formed a ‘Confederation’ under which each state retained its ‘sovereignty, freedom and independence’.” The Constitution didn’t change this; each sovereign state was free to reject the Constitution. The new powers of the federal government were ‘granted’ and ‘delegated’ by the states, which implies that the states were prior and superior to the federal government. Even in The Federalist, the brilliant propaganda papers for ratification of the Constitution…the United States are constantly referred to as ‘the Confederacy’ and a ‘confederate republic,’ as opposed to a single ‘consolidated’ or monolithic state. Members of ‘a confederacy’ are by definition free to withdraw from it.”

Sobran noted that while Hamilton and Madison sincerely hoped secession would never happen, they didn’t deny that it was a possibility, and even if Madison didn’t like or agree with it, that doesn’t make it illegal.

Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1816: “If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation…to continuance in union…I have no hesitation in saying, ‘let us separate’.” Donald W. Livingston, a professor of philosophy at Emory University, and president of the Abbeville Institute, wrote in an article published in Chronicles magazine in October, 2010, that: “A state cannot retain sovereignty unless it has it, and in joining the Union no state renounced sovereignty. What motivates the nationalist theory is not an honest look at the historical founding of America, but political ambition legitimated by the philosophical theory of the modern unitary state. This ambition appears forcefully in Hamilton, who argued at the Philadelphia Convention for a president for life, a senate with members for life, appointed by the president, and state governors appointed by the president–in other words, monarchy by another name.” You have to wonder if any of those “you can’t get out of the Union no matter what” folks have something of this sort in mind. Those that seek to deny people their rights usually do have an agenda.

On The Web:   http://revisedhistory.wordpress.com/2014/10/16/part-2-more-about-secession-the-history-books-havent-told-us/


16524 ---More About Secession Books Haven't Told --- Released: about 3 hours Ago. ---- 2014-10-24 12:51:42 -0400
See related pages and categories

More About Secession the “History” Books Haven’t Told Us

Posted on October 14, 2014   
by Al Benson Jr.

There are some that continue to claim the Southern states had no right to secede just before the War of Northern Aggression. And it seems that as more truth continues to surface about the right of secession the more loud and strident their denials become.

I recently read an article on the Internet by Gene H. Kizer Jr., author of the book Slavery Was Not the Cause of the War Between the States. Mr. Kizer noted some interesting facts. He wrote about the Hartford Convention that I have written about previously. He observed: “The States’ Rights Hartford Convention of New England, aggrieved by the financial losses of New Englanders in shipping during the War of 1812, met in 1815 and seriously discussed seceding from the Union. The Convention selected representatives to go to Washington to present its grievances to the government. It even chose a military leader should its grievances be ignored, and made arrangements for a second convention, if necessary, to make specific plans to secede. Commissioners were sent to Washington but upon arriving found that the War of 1812 had ended, therefore it was not necessary to air their grievances. The Journal of the Hartford Convention bristles with references to state sovereignty, and uses States’ Rights language such as the right of a state to decide for itself when a violation of the Constitution occurred.” As little as our “history” books deal with all of this, you’ve got to admit these folks were serious.

Mr. Kizer also mentioned an article written by Mr. H. Newcomb Morse, which appeared in the Stetson Law Review. Mr. Morse’s article was entitled The Foundations and Meaning of Secession. Mr. Morse wrote that the War of Northern Aggression didn’t prove that secession was illegal, and the reason was that: “…many instances both preceding and following the War support the proposition that the Southern states did have the right to secede from the Union. Instances of nullification prior to the War Between the States, contingencies under which certain states acceded to the Union, and the fact that the Southern states were made to surrender the right to secession all affirm the existence of a right to secede.” You have to ask yourself the question–if there had been no right to secession then how could they surrender it?

And Kizer noted that: “Morse argues that because the Constitution did not forbid secession, then every state acceding to the Constitution had the implied right to secede from it. He says that if men of the caliber of Madison, Hamilton, Wilson and the others meant to forbid secession they definitely would have said so, and the omission of a prohibition on secession in the Constitution is strong proof that the right of secession existed and was presumed.”

And, again, you have to ask yourself, how, only 13 years after the end of the War for Independence, would the founders again lock themselves into a political situation identical to the one they had just fought a war with Great Britain to extricate themselves from? If you think about that, it doesn’t make much sense.

Then there is something I have written about in the past–the reason the North did not put Jefferson Davis on trial after his two years of unnecessary imprisonment. They wanted to try him for treason, but the best legal minds in the North realized, after looking at the evidence, that secession was not treason and that David would probably be found not guilty and they’d all end up with political egg on their faces and so they backed off.

Albert Taylor Bledsoe wrote a ground-breaking book called Is Davis A Traitor? In that, he dealt with the Constitution as a compact which he said the states had acceded to, or agree to. Bledsoe made this point to show that if the states acceded to the terms of a compact, they could secede from that compact if the terms of it were broken by one of the other members. That word “accede” is one lots of folks of the “perpetual Union” theory really dislike. Basically the word accede means to agree with, not to surrender to. Bledsoe stated that at one point, Daniel Webster had said that “the states acceded to the Constitution was’unconstitutional language’.” And Bledsoe said that was Webster’s position because if states had acceded to the Constitution then it was only logical they could secede from it. So he noted that discrediting the one word “accede” became very important to Webster. However, the word “accede” was not unconstitutional language.

Mr. Kizer, in his article, stated that: “Webster had attacked the word ‘accede’ as something invented by proponents of the Constitution as compact. His intention was to discredit his opponents by discrediting the language they were using, but his plan backfired. Bledsoe points out that Webster’s attack on the word ‘accede’ by calling it a ‘new word’ was ill-founded and incorrect because’accede’ had precisely been ‘the word of the fathers of the Constitution’ with Washington ‘at their head.’ They had all used the word ‘accede’ in reference to states joining the Constitution, and of course, the converse of the word ‘accede’ is secede’.” I can remember when I did the research for my booklet The Theological and Political Implications of the Doctrine of Secession several years ago I came across several quotes by Washington where he mentioned this or that state acceding to the Constitution.

On The Web:   http://revisedhistory.wordpress.com/2014/10/14/more-about-secession-the-history-books-havent-told-us/


16523 ---Where Do Detractors Come From? --- Released: about 4 hours Ago. ---- 2014-10-24 12:31:41 -0400
See related pages and categories


Where Do Confederate Flag Detractors In Virginia Originally Come From?
by Al Benson Jr.

On Saturday, October 11, 2014 there was an interesting article posted on
http://jerryd14.wordpress.com   dealing with the origins of some of the Confederate flag
detractors that have been so active in Virginia in recent months.

The author of the article stated: "It looks kinda suspicious, I mean, I am not a forensics expert, or
crime fighter, nor mind reader, but I can smell a Damn Yankee.  It is interesting to see in most of the recent places in Virginia where the  Morons, Liberals, Politically Correct ..., quite a lot of the players seem to also be Yankee Carpet baggers. Not all, but a lot.  Coincidence, not hardly.  Yes the old DNA is there, and the author notes that they are "stiff necked, hardheaded, loud,..." and a few other choice adjectives which I will dispense with here, not that I disagree with his observation.

And he observes further: "They come here, smile and tell us how much they so love the South, and worm their slimery selves into  employment, take over Southern institutions like rats take over a package of cheese, and begin to change it all to make it like the Hell Hole Northern cesspool they slid down from." This is something most Southern folks don't stop to think about--the origins of many that run some of their heritage institutions and groups. Now I can't say that all Northern folks are bad, I am one myself, originally, but in all my years, I have never knowingly harmed or diluted any Southern heritage organization or group. If anything, I lean in the other direction. I've had some Southern folks tell me "You're more Southern than some of the Southerners I know." My wife and I now live in Louisiana and we did not come here to dilute Southern culture, we came to partake of it, and to promote it, and we've never felt unwelcome in the South. Unless some sort of family emergency arose, we'd never consider moving back north again.

Unfortunately, though, not all Northern folks take that position, and the author of the jerry14 article notes that the Director of the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts is a man from New York state. And he notes the Danvillle, Virginia Museum of Fine Arts, as a "place for inclusiveness, if you are black, liberal, and politically correct, but no Confederate Flag is desired." Some of you all have probably been reading about the big fuss over the Confederate Flag in Danville just recently. The prominent member on the board of directors at the Danville Museum is a lady named Cara Burton, and the author says: "Where do ya think she was born, Atlanta, Nope, Richmond, unh, uh, let's try New York again."

He also noted the recent problem at Washington and Lee College and mentions the head man at that school, Mr. Kenneth P. Ruscio. However, Mr. Ruscio doesn't come from New York--he comes from Red Bank, New Jersey. When a group of black students suddenly became "offended" at a Confederate Flag in the chapel as Washington and Lee, Mr. Ruscio couldn't get the flag down fast enough. What has happened is that many places of cultural importance in the South have been taken over by Northerners who have no interest in Southern heritage or culture other than dispensing with as much of it as possible. Unfortunately, you've got some Southerners that are willing to do the same thing. Wherever they were educated they were made to feel guilty about their heritage and culture and so they have come back to the South to help eradicate as much of it as possible, like good little Yankee wannabees.

I don't know what you all can do about these folks as they work to dismantle the heritage left to you by your forefathers, but you have got to do something. I don't know if starting up competing institutions to those you have already lost is an option or not in some cases, but you have got to do something. And whatever you all do, you have got to make sure your leadership has its feet firmly planted in a positive view of Southern culture and heritage.

On The Web:   http://southern-thangs.blogspot.com/2014/10/where-do-confederate-flag-detractors-in.html


16522 ---Governor Defends Flag @ Statehouse --- Released: about 6 hours Ago. ---- 2014-10-24 10:35:19 -0400
See related pages and categories

SC governor defends Confederate flag at Statehouse: Not ‘a single CEO’ has complained
David Edwards
15 Oct 2014

South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley (R) on Tuesday said that there was no need to remove the Confederate battle flag from the Statehouse grounds because it was not an issue for CEOs, and the state had “fixed” racist perceptions by electing an Indian-American governor.

During a South Carolina gubernatorial debate, Democratic candidate Sen. Vincent Sheheen called on the flag to be retired to a museum.

“I think the people of South Carolina are tired of having an image across America that’s not truly who we are,” Sheheen explained, adding that everyone should “rally together under a flag that unites us all, the American flag, that looks toward the future, and not the past.”

Haley responded that the Confederate flag was a “sensitive issue.”

“What I can tell you is over the last three and a half years, I spent a lot of my days on the phones with CEOs and recruiting jobs to this state,” the governor noted. “I can honestly say I have not had one conversation with a single CEO about the Confederate flag.”

Haley said that she had tried to improve the perception of the state by ordering employees to answer the phone with the phrase “it’s a great day in South Carolina.”

“But we really kind of fixed all that when you elected the first Indian-American female governor,” she insisted. “When we appointed the first African-American U.S. senator, that sent a huge message.”

Independent libertarian candidate Steve French said that he believed in the concept of “individual liberty” when it came to the Confederate flag.

“So, if you want to paint your house in the Confederate flag, I am completely fine with that,” he remarked.

But French disagreed with Haley when it came to businesses, saying that he had spoken with entrepreneurs who refused to move to South Carolina because the state was perceived as a “backwoods good ol’ boy network.”

“And that flag, I think, represents a lot of division in this state, and we need to be coming together,” French observed.

On The Web:   http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/10/sc-governor-defends-confederate-flag-at-statehouse-not-a-single-ceo-has-complained/


16521 ---Last Of The Senate Giants --- Released: about 6 hours Ago. ---- 2014-10-24 09:43:53 -0400
See related pages and categories

Jefferson Davis, Last of the Senate Giants
From: bernhard1848@gmail.com
Jefferson Davis was a Unionist and struggled to his last days as a Mississippi Senator to push Congress toward a peaceful solution to the sectional crisis. He belonged to the Calhoun school which saw preserving the rights of the South in the federal Union as paramount; he viewed secession as a last resort of the States in order to preserve their sovereignty and liberties, should the Constitution ratified voluntarily in 1787, and its federal agent, became destructive of those rights.

Bernhard Thuersam, Chairman
North Carolina War Between the States Sesquicentennial Commission
"Unsurpassed Valor, Courage and Devotion to Liberty"
"The Official Website of the North Carolina WBTS Sesquicentennial"
 Jefferson Davis, Last of the Senate Giants
“The theory of State Rights and the belief in secession had been understood in both sections equally, when advantage dictated understanding: as late as 1846 the State government of Massachusetts had been willing to secede, had passed resolutions to that end, in opposition to the Mexican War.
The North alone now repudiated State sovereignty because it had no interest to serve with its support. After the Republican senators had rejected the Crittenden Compromise, which gave to them every eventual advantage and to the South nothing in the end, they would not listen to a proposal of a convention of the States; they were then challenged for a compromise proposal of their own, but not a Republican replied.
At this distance it is certain that the deadlock exactly suited the North, for its purpose was to subdue the South at all costs; in a policy that conceded nothing and demanded everything, the North meant to “ride over the South rough-shod.”
The South was willing at this time to accept any measure that guaranteed it even less than its Constitutional rights in the territories; but the North no longer desired equality of sectional power; the North was bent on domination. By refusing to budge from this position, the North forced the South to act for its preservation, and by means of the slavery issue the shrewdness of the Yankee succeeded, as always, of putting his enemy in the wrong.
There was probably not a single phase of the conflict that Mr. Davis failed, in a sense, to understand; and yet, in the end, he could not see why men would not follow the law, or why the inflamed sections would not abide by compromises.  Men sometimes act reasonably, but never logically; this was a distinction that Mr. Davis, being logical, could not grasp.
[After his final speech and resignation from the United States Senate after Mississippi had seceded, Davis] painfully moved through the crowded Senate chamber out into the street, [and for him] the old Constitutional republic came . . . to a dramatic end. There would no longer be a Union in the exact sense of that word; there would be a uniformity; for one of the two types of American civilization must absolutely prevail.  Davis left the Senate smaller; it would never be so large again; he was the last of the Senate giants.
All the night of January 21 he suffered, sleepless; the nervous strain of the last six months had broken him down. His neuralgia had spread film over one iris; he was almost blind in that eye.  Mrs. Davis, anxious in the next room, heard him say, again and again, in a tone of agony:
“May God have us in His Holy keeping, and grant that before it is too late peaceful councils may prevail.”
(Jefferson Davis, His Rise and Fall, Allen Tate, Minton, Balch & Company, 1929, pp. 12-13)

16520 ---Flag To Remain In Danville --- Released: about 23 hours Ago. ---- 2014-10-23 16:41:27 -0400
See related pages and categories

Georgia Flagger cobbslegionscv@yahoo.com [FlagFight] <FlagFight@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Wed, Oct 22, 2014
Subject: [FlagFight] Virginia Flaggers Update: 3rd National Confederate Flag to REMAIN Flying in Danville! [1 Attachment]
To: Georgia Division <gascv-discussion@yahoogroups.com>, FlagFight <flagfight@yahoogroups.com>

Many groups came together for this most important Heritage Victory!
I am honored my contributions assisted others to gain this landmark event.
Thanks to all others who read earlier calls to arms and wrote letters and made calls.
Congratulations to all concerned
Next up, is the Ole Miss road marker suit on Oct 27th.
Billy Bearden
Camp 673

Confederate flag to stay on museum lawn

"City Manager Joe King announced today that the City Council will consider a resolution at its November 6, 2014 meeting stating that it has determined that under Virginia law, the City does not have the legal authority to remove the Confederate flag flying on the grounds of the Danville Museum of Fine Arts and History. The City Manager received a September 30, 2014 letter from Cara Burton, Executive Director of the museum, conveying her board of directors’ request that the City of Danville remove the Confederate flag. The November 6th resolution directs the City Manager to notify the museum Board of Directors that it cannot consider its request."

Information we received indicates that YOUR contact with City Officials made a HUGE difference.  We know that calls, emails, and letters were running 10-1 SUPPORTING the flag!

Last night, supporters filled the City Council Meeting, and spoke 10-2 in favor of leaving the flag.


"By the time council members walked out of their closed meeting and entered council chambers for the regular meeting, every seat was taken — mostly by people holding Confederate flags."


Truly a joint effort, the Va Flaggers were honored to be a part of a group that included the local Heritage Preservation Association, Danville SCV and UDC, OCR, Mechanized Cavalry, and concerned citizens from Danville, across Virginia and the South who came together to stand against the Danville Museum of Fine Arts and History's request to remove the flag from the Sutherlin Museum.

God bless all those who took the time to support the efforts in Danville...and God Save the South!

Susan Hathaway
Virginia Flaggers
P.O. Box 547
Sandston VA 23150


16519 ---Sesquicentennial Commemorative Calendars --- Released: 1 day Ago. ---- 2014-10-23 16:01:53 -0400
See related pages and categories



For those who have purchased previous calendars in our series, a personal note….embarking on the project this year seemed an ominous task…re-hashing the melancholy of the surrenders of the gallant armies of Virginia, Tennessee, the Trans-Mississippi and the dis-mantling of the government of the Confederate States of America seemed too painful to undertake.  The Nation that was established with such hope and purpose would evaporate in almost the twinkling of an eye…to be remembered so wrongly and unjustly in so many schoolchildren’s history books after such a heroic and sacrificial effort.

Nevertheless, keeping with our ongoing theme of not focusing on the military aspects of the CSA, but instead incorporating current events, her government and personalities, I believe this calendar will be an inspiration and treasure to you.  For, despite the heartbreak of the defeat of Southern military forces, the courage, heroism and obligation to ‘duty’ in spite of awful circumstances is evidenced by the Southern people even in her final days.
In striking contrast is the vindictiveness of the conquering enemy and their betrayal of Southern blacks.
Also included is a bonus tribute to the Confederate Marine Corps as well as the completion of Jefferson Davis’ grand plan for the Capital Dome in Washington, DC.
The calendars are available by mail order for only $18.50 and support our Chapter’s memorial, historical and other projects.
The calendars also make great speaker gifts and stocking stuffers for you Southern friends and family.
Simply mail your check payable you UDC 2640 (making sure to indicate the shipping address for the calendars) to: Lunelle Siegel; 606 Vanderbaker Road; Temple Terrace, FL 33617
Lunelle Siegel
Augusta Jane Evans Wilson Chapter 2640
United Daughters of the Confederacy

16518 ---Recognized, Legal African Business --- Released: 1 day Ago. ---- 2014-10-23 15:47:26 -0400
See related pages and categories

Recognized and Legal African Business
From: bernhard1848@gmail.com
New England rum was a valuable commodity to trade African kings for slaves – one hundred gallons was sufficient to purchase a male slave in the Guinea trade.  Newport, Rhode Island maintained a merchant fleet of 170 vessels in 1750, half of which were engaged exclusively in the slave trade and formed the basis of that regions financial wealth.  The American South was the recipient, not the originator, of African slavery.
Bernhard Thuersam, Chairman
North Carolina War Between the States Sesquicentennial Commission
"Unsurpassed Valor, Courage and Devotion to Liberty"
"The Official Website of the North Carolina WBTS Sesquicentennial"
Recognized and Entirely Legal African Business
“The ports of London, Liverpool, and Bristol were deeply involved in the [transatlantic] slave trade by the early years of the century, and by the 1760’s the prosperity of Liverpool, whose ships carried more than half the English part of the trade, was commonly thought to rest on the slavers.
[The Northern colonies in America] took to it, and early in the century Yankee slavers, chiefly operating out of Newport and Bristol in Rhode Island and in much smaller volume out of Boston, Salem and Providence, with a sprinkling of vessels out of Portsmouth, New London and New York, entered the business. In the main, they supplied the West Indies rather than the mainland; the vast majority of slaves brought to American shores came in British hulls.
Although some white men raided and kidnapped blacks along the African coast, such violence was neither prudent nor necessary. The vast majority of slaves were bought from native African slavers at or near the West African coast.
Whites knew almost nothing about Africa farther than fifty or a hundred miles into the interior, and for the most part the European trading companies were content to operate from coastal forts to which efficiently organized African societies were capable of delivering a steady supply of slaves.
Africa had a system or systems of slavery long before white men came to the Guinea Coast, and had regularly enslaved was captives and criminals.  Once the European trade opened, the profits to be made from a large external slave market provoked more wars and instigated more rigorous punishment of crime by native chiefs.
Other persons sold themselves or their families for food during famine, or were kidnapped by native gangs. Many native kings ran profitable slave businesses, and responded eagerly to opportunities for greater profits.  The slave trade became a recognized and entirely legal form of business in Africa.
Moreover, the Africans took to guns and gunpowder with a rapidity which, while lamentable in many respects, was highly protective in others.  Africans had no more impulse toward racial solidarity than Europeans did toward Christian unity.  [African kings could] charge Europeans substantial rents for permission to build trading forts, yet deny them the power to dominate any more land than the immediate territories around the forts.
[And it] was labor, not territory, that the whites wanted from Africa, and the African kings, through their commission merchants, were usually pleased to sell laborers, accustomed as they were to selling, exchanging, and sometimes giving away their own slaves.  At the beginning they probably did not know what they were selling their slaves into, and in the end apparently did not much care.”
(America at 1750, A Social Portrait, Richard Hofstader, Vintage Books, 1973, pp. 75-77)

16517 ---Secession Doctrine Taught --- Released: 1 day Ago. ---- 2014-10-23 15:34:21 -0400
See related pages and categories


Secession Doctrine Taught by New Englanders
From: bernhard1848@gmail.com
Historically the Democratic party, created in 1792 as a Southern reaction to Northern control of the federal government, was so successful that every major political party since has been a reaction to it.  The Federalists of New England, once unseated in 1800, reacted by formulating plans to secede from the union.
Bernhard Thuersam, Chairman
North Carolina War Between the States Sesquicentennial Commission
"Unsurpassed Valor, Courage and Devotion to Liberty"
"The Official Website of the North Carolina WBTS Sesquicentennial"
Secession Doctrine Taught by New Englanders
“The final political phenomenon to arise out of the North-South competition of the 1790s was the doctrine of Secession. It represented the death rattle of the Federalist party.
The pivotal year was 1800 when the Democratic leaders [Thomas] Jefferson and [Aaron] Burr succeeded in putting together a coalition of the have-nots of the country – the agriculturalists of the South and the proletarians of the Northern cities.  They won control of the nation.  They took the Senate with eighteen seats to fourteen Federalist, and the House with sixty-nine seats to thirty-six Federalist.
They took the presidency by an equally comfortable margin, although the quirks of the Electoral College arrangement caused Jefferson and his vice presidential candidate Burr to receive an equal number of electoral votes for President.  The Federalist party survived another sixteen years, although it would never again won control the House, Senate, or presidency.
It did not take defeat well. Barely three years after the Democratic rout, Northern Federalists began arguing for the secession of the New England States from the Union.  It would be their sullen tom-tom call, a summons to defect, until they passed from the national scene in 1816.
There was nothing understated about their secessionist position. It was widespread, and if it could not be done peaceably, they said, it should be done violently.
Listen to one of the many secessionists, Josiah Quincy III, scion of the New England Quincy’s, future mayor of Boston and future president of Harvard University. In 1811 he was a thirty-eight year-old congressman standing opposed to the admission of Louisiana as a State.
“It is my deliberate opinion,” he said, “that if this bill passes, the bonds of this union are virtually dissolved, that the States which compose it are free from their moral obligations, and that as it will be the right of all, so it will be the duty of some to prepare, definitely, for a separation; amicably if they can; violently if they must.”

One man who listened carefully that year was a freshman congressman from South Carolina.  He was John C. Calhoun, who had been taught the secessionist doctrine in the law schools of New England, who had listened to it in the Congress, and who would one day carry it back down South . . .
Meanwhile, it is an unfair strike that history has identified the South with secession when in fact the earliest and clearest argument against it were proposed by Jefferson and Madison [, both Southerners]. The creators of secession doctrine, and the teachers of it from 1800 to 1817, were New England Federalists.”
(The Natural Superiority of Southern Politicians, A Revisionist History, David Leon Chandler, Doubleday, 1977, pp. 115-116)  

16516 ---Re: Holzer's Article On Lincoln, Press --- Released: 1 day Ago. ---- 2014-10-23 15:05:28 -0400
See related pages and categories

A letter to the Civil War Times in response to Holzer's article on Lincoln and the press:
To the Editor:
Harold Holzer’s article on Lincoln’s persecution of the press [and everyone else who dared to disagree openly with his polices] is disingenuous at best. Lincoln negated the First Amendment and in fact nullified the Constitution. To suggest that this was acceptable in “the interest of national security” is to validate every tyrant throughout history. And make no mistake, Lincoln was a tyrant. To “protect the government”—and not the Constitution—as he indicated in his First Inaugural Address, he waged treasonous war upon those States that had exercised their constitutional right to secession, thus driving other States from the upper South also to secede to avoid participating in his treason.
Sadly, this criminal who ended the Great Experiment of the Founding Fathers has been elevated to demi-god status as anyone who has seen his “temple” must realize. Equally tragic is the fact that now the truth about Lincoln is being exposed despite such acolytes as Mr. Holzer, more and more Americans across the political spectrum have determined that while Lincoln was indeed a despot who murdered hundreds of thousands of Americans—North and South, white and black, free and slave, soldier and civilian—he was right to do so! After all, they say, he ended slavery—something by the way that he had no intention of doing as the Corwin Amendment and his own words indicate—and “preserved the Union”—which indeed, he did not. In fact, according to Jeremiah Black, President James Buchana’s Attorney General, “…the Union must utterly perish at the moment when Congress shall arm one part of the people against another for any purpose beyond that of merely protecting the General Government in the exercise of its proper constitutional functions.” Since waging war on States in the pursuit of their acknowledged constitutional rights is treason under Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution, Lincoln actually ended rather than preserved the original Union brought forth by the Founding Fathers.
Valerie Protopapas

16515 ---Empire State Slavocracy --- Released: 1 day Ago. ---- 2014-10-23 14:35:35 -0400
See related pages and categories

Empire State Slavocracy
From: bernhard1848@gmail.com
New York’s experience as a slave State is little discussed as is New England’s role in the infamous slave trade. From the very beginning the Puritans solved their labor shortage by enslaving Indians – in 1645 Emanuel Downing, John Winthrop’s brother-in-law, hoped that slaves could be supplied because the colony would never thrive “until we get . . . a stock of slaves sufficient to do all our business.” Highly recommended for further reading on this topic is Leon F. Litwack’s “North of Slavery,” University of Chicago Press, 1961.
Bernhard Thuersam, Chairman
North Carolina War Between the States Sesquicentennial Commission
"Unsurpassed Valor, Courage and Devotion to Liberty"
"The Official Website of the North Carolina WBTS Sesquicentennial"
Empire State Slavocracy
“New York was slow in drawing white settlers until after mid- [eighteenth] century, and the shortage of labor led to a considerable use of slaves; indeed it is possible that in the early Dutch days it was slave labor that enabled the colony to survive.
Most of the first slaves were not from Africa but were re-imported from Curacao in the Dutch West Indies.  It was a profitable system: in the 1640’s it cost only a little more to buy a slave than to pay a free worker’s wages for a year.
After the English took control of New Netherland in 1664, a brisk and highly profitable trade in skilled slaves was carried on.  Most slaveholders in the province were flourishing small farmers or small artisans who, in the absence of an adequate supply of free labor, needed moderately skilled help, and were able to pay the rising prices for slaves.
A partial census of 1755 showed . . . most owners having only one or two slaves, only seven New Yorkers owning ten or more.  Among the largest lots held were those of elder Lewis Morris with 66 slaves on his large estate and the first Frederick Philipse, an affluent landowner, with about 40.  William Smith . . . was reputed to keep a domestic staff of 12 or more to run his New York City household, and other citizens travelled with Negro footmen.
From the first the competition of black labor was resented by the whites.  Competition in the labor market was intensified by the slave owners’ widespread practice of putting out their slaves for hire, under-cutting white laborers who were paid twice the slaves’ wages.
Miscegenation, which began in New York under the Dutch, yielded such a number of persons of mixed blood in the colony that by the end of the seventeenth century slave status had to be defined not by color but by the status of the mother.  Some light-colored runaways won freedom by passing into the white population . . . Yet even under the relatively open system of slavery that prevailed, family structure was weak and there were a large number of broken and female-headed families.
The New York slave, suspended in an awkward equipoise between complete bondage and half-freedom, was often restive.  After 1702, flogging was prescribed if three slaves gathered together on their own time. They were not permitted to gamble or to buy liquor . . . nor could they engage in trade without their masters’ consent.
Fires were a frightening problem in the eighteenth-century towns and blacks were commonly suspected of arson . . . [and the] penalty for committing arson was death.  The killing of a white person by a black was punished by torture followed by execution, a sentence that courts did not hesitate to impose.”
(America at 1750, A Social Portrait, Richard Hofstader , Vintage Books, 1973, pp. 99-101)


16514 ---Va Flaggers: "But No More Than That..." --- Released: 1 day Ago. ---- 2014-10-23 14:28:09 -0400
See related pages and categories

From: Virginia Flagger <info@vaflaggers.com>
Date: Wed, Oct 15, 2014
Subject: Va Flaggers: VMFA Update - "But No More Than That..."!


By Ellen Robertson (Richmond Times-Dispatch – November 11, 1993)

"The R.E. Lee Camp of United Confederate Veterans voted to deed a chunk of the Confederate Soldiers’ Home grounds at Grove Avenue and the Boulevard as a site for a state museum of fine arts 60 years ago this week.

The Veterans approved a site of about 300 feet fronting the Boulevard and a 175-foot strip along Grove Avenue for what would become the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts, a structure to cost $250,000.

But no more than that, the veterans emphasized. They still hoped the rest of the property could be developed as a Confederate memorial park.

Gov. Garland Pollard said work on the museum would begin immediately."

"But no more than that, the veterans emphasized." The Virginia Museum of Fine Arts (VMFA) exists today ONLY because of the generosity of the Confederate Veterans who donated the land for the museum to be constructed. In return, less than 100 years later, Museum and Virginia officials have stolen the rest of the of land, and stripped the Confederate Memorial Chapel of its Battle Flags.

The Virginia Flaggers entered our THIRD year of flagging the VMFA with nearly 2 dozen flaggers on the Boulevard on September 27th, including Flaggers who traveled from as far away as Tennessee and Confederate Mizourah to join us!

Our Flaggers were on the Boulevard for a full day, and were surprised and thrilled when a delivery of pizza showed up, courtesy of an anonymous supporter!  :)

Beautiful weather meant plenty of opportunities to talk with museum visitors, residents, and tourists, and a Russian news station stopped by for an interview...

Flagging has continued, throughout October, twice a week, with October 1 marking the three year anniversary of the very first flagging.

Three years of forwarding the colors, standing for our ancestors, and changing hearts and minds.  Even so, every flagging brings a new opportunity to educate.  These ladies stopped and asked (with great skepticism) about what was going on with "all the flags on the sidewalk". They listened to a brief explanation of the situation at the Confederate Memorial Chapel and left with fliers in hand, a new perception of our flags, and a new understanding of those that who carry them and why.

Midweek flagging brought a special surprise, as we were joined by a supporter all the way from ALASKA! We were so thankful that he took time out from his visit to come stand with us!

We enter our third year of flagging the VMFA with renewed determination and commitment to seeing the Confederate Battle Flags returned to the portico of the Confederate Memorial Chapel.

Join us, and be a part of those "taking it to the streets", and standing for our Confederate veterans.

RETURN the flags!
RESTORE the honor!

Grayson Jennings
Va Flaggers


Saturday, Nov. 1st: Susan will be speaking at the 100th Anniversary celebration of the dedication of the Confederate Monument in Lebanon, VA.

Saturday, November 15th - Sunday, November 16th:  We will have a booth at the Capital of the Confederacy Civil War Show at Richmond International Raceway.  The 34th Annual Capital of the Confederacy Civil War Show presented by Mike Kent & Associates along with the Central Virginia Civil War Collector's Association. This is one of the oldest and most respected Civil War shows in the country.  Hours are Saturday 9am - 5pm and Sunday 9am - 3pm. 

Saturday, December 7th:  Mechanicsville Christmas Parade. The Va Flaggers will join the Edmund Ruffin Fire-Eaters in this VERY Confederate friendly parade.

Thursday, December 11th:  Susan will be speaking at the December meeting of the A.H. Belo Camp #49, SCV, Dallas Texas

Friday, December 12th:  Susan will be speaking at the Christmas gathering of the
Major Robert M. White, Camp No. 1250, Sons of Confederate Veterans,Temple, Texas

Saturday, December 13th:  Susan will be speaking at the Christmas gathering of the Middleton Tate Johnson Camp #1648, SCV, Arlington, TX.

Follow our blog:  http://vaflaggers.blogspot.com/

Find us on FaceBook: 

Follow us on Twitter:  https://twitter.com/VaFlagger

Virginia Flaggers
P.O. Box 547
Sandston VA 23150


16513 ---FlagFight - Danville Flag Poll --- Released: 1 day Ago. ---- 2014-10-23 14:13:18 -0400
See related pages and categories

suzn68@comcast.net [FlagFight] <FlagFight@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Tue, Oct 14, 2014
Subject: [FlagFight] Danville Flag Poll
To: FlagFight <FlagFight@yahoogroups.com>

If you come across a link to a "Danville Flag Poll", please do not click it, post or share.

This poll is bogus, created by one of the anti-Confederate bloggers who has gone to great lengths to attack us, on many, MANY different levels.

Unable to get anyone to listen to him, or visit his blog, he has resorted to posting these fake "polls", hoping to lure people to his vile site, this time, even using a photo from Gone With the Wind to entice.

Pretty sad when all these folks have left is deception and skulduggery...

Susan Hathaway
Va Flaggers


16512 ---Politically Correct Professors --- Released: 8 days Ago. ---- 2014-10-16 16:53:52 -0400
See related pages and categories

Politically Correct Professors
by Al Benson Jr.

On my blog spot http://revisedhistory.wordpress.com  I have been working on a series of articles about secession and all the reasons for it and why it was, and is, legal. So far the reception of these articles has been pretty good and quite a few folks have been reading them. I've done 6 or 7 in a row up to this point.

Most of the commentary I have gotten back from folks has been positive, but then, with my pro-Southern audience I sort of expected that most folks would tend to agree with me.

However, after the writing of these last 2 articles, I have come across a history professor (or rather he's come across me, I don't know which) from a community college on the West (Left) Coast and he is busily emailing me replies to my articles trying to show me how far off I am--that secession is not legal, that the Constitution was not a compact between the States, which I believe it was, but was, rather, a situation that, once a state got into it they could never get out unless all the states agreed to let them go.

To me this is the usual politically correct version of history, and also, to me, political correctness is really nothing more than Cultural Marxism, which is nothing more than Marxism taken to a new level. No doubt there are many folks who have bought into political correctness that have no idea of what it really is or where it came from, but unfortunately, they do as much damage with it as those Marxists that do realize where it came from and what its goal (the destruction of Western culture, particularly Christianity) really is.

Since secession can be practiced on many levels, I would advocate, for folks who have not bought into the political correctness permeating the culture around them, that they secede culturally from the politically correct culture around them. One way to do this would be to remove your children from the government school system, which spreads political correctness around as much, if not more, than many other government institutions. Take your kids and secede from the public school system. Find a good Christian school for them or if you are not able to afford to do that, then teach them at home. It is something that can be done, not all that expensively, and there are lots of home schooling resources out there now that didn't exist when my wife and I home schooled our kids back in the late 1980s.

Private Christian education would be a major step away from political correctness in the area of education and I would recommend it to all that are able to do it.

On The Web:   http://southern-thangs.blogspot.com/2014/10/politically-correct-professors.html


16511 ---Perpetual Union - Pt 2 --- Released: 8 days Ago. ---- 2014-10-16 16:33:39 -0400
See related pages and categories

Perpetual Union–If you can bamboozle enough people–Part Two

Posted on October 11, 2014   
by Al Benson Jr.

So Chase followed in the same vein that Lincoln had–the Union existed before the states and it was indestructible and irrevocable. And once you were in, you were still in, even if you seceded–in fact you really didn’t secede, you only thought you did. Of course, then, to get back into this “Union” you had never really been out of, you had to ratify certain amendments. At this point, the logic (and I use that term loosely) of the Yankee/Marxist absolutely defies description.

You have to wonder where these people got their notion of an “indestructible” Union. Did it have anything to do with what they were smoking? When the group assembled in Philadelphia in 1787 gave us the Constitution (when it was really beyond their instructions to do so) what they did, in effect, was to secede from the Articles of Confederation and give us a whole new government–one that did not use the words “perpetual union” and one that did not forbid secession, even though I have been informed that it really did.

When the New England states sent delegates to Hartford, Connecticut in 1814 to consider the secession of the New England states no one said anything. Admittedly, they ended up not seceding because the War of 1812 which had New England merchants so stirred up ended. However, they were strongly considering it, as they did two other times. In those days you didn’t take trips like that just to engage in political chit-chat. Yet no one complained. No one told the New Englanders that their secession was illegal or that the supremacy clause in the Constitution forbid them from ever seceding at any time unless all the other states were willing to let them go. The right of a state to secede was accepted. Remember the secession language in the New York and Virginia ratification ordinances? But some inform us that this was all meaningless, that once you were in you could never get out unless all the states were willing to let you go. You almost wonder if there was a slight double standard in operation here–it would have been okay if the New England states did it but not if the Southern states did it.

Contrary to Chase’s “indestructible Union” theory, Professor Donald W. Livingston has written in Secession, State & Liberty that “There was a time, however, when talk about secession was a part of American politics. Indeed, the very concept of secession and self-determination of peoples, in the form being discussed today, is largely an American invention. It is no exaggeration to say that the unique contribution of the eighteenth-century American Enlightenment is not federalism but the principle that a people, under certain conditions, have a moral right to secede from an established political authority and to govern themselves.” Livingston further wrote that: “The Constitution of the United States was founded as a federative compact between the states, marking out the authority of a central government, having enumerated powers delegated to it by sovereign states which reserved for themselves the vast domain of unenumerated powers. By an act of philosophical alchemy, the Lincoln tradition has transmuted this essentially federative document into a consolidated nationalist regime…In this version, the reserved powers of the states vanish, and the states themselves are transformed into resources for and administrative units of a nationalist political project…” That is exactly where we find ourselves today, thanks to the views of men like Lincoln and Chase, who, in a political sense, “Changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator…” (Romans 1).

The Southern states, and some Northern ones, always considered the Constitution to be a compact between sovereign states. Had it been understood by them as anything but that, it is highly doubtful that many of these states, a mere thirteen years after the end of our War for Independence, would have entangled themselves in the clutches of an indissoluble union from which they could never withdraw. The Declaration of Independence was, after all, a secession document.

The Kennedy Brothers, in their groundbreaking work The South Was Right stated, on page 162: “In her act of ratification, Virginia drew a protective shield around the sovereign community and declared that sovereignty is derived from the people…The states did not intend to establish a supreme judge to rule over them. Before entering into the proposed constitutional contract, the state of Virginia (along with several other states, both north and south) declared the legal right of the sovereign community (the people of the state) to recall any delegated power if it is used in an act of oppression or injury against the people. The fact that the other states accepted the Virginia Act of Ratification without question is reason enough to maintain the assertion that they were in agreement with Virginia.”

If the Constitution is looked to as a document that forms an “indestructible” Union, then the states that ratified it have been lied to–sold a bill of goods, bought a political “gold brick’ as it were–a brick made not of gold, but of iron–that iron to forge the chains of those states that may finally realize they have been lied to and so they want out!

Secession was not illegal, was not rebellion as the Northern politicians claimed, and, as author James Street said: “The South got a raw deal.” And the Lincoln/Chase concept of “perpetual Union” is what is taught in the government schools in this country–to make sure no one ever again concludes that secession might be the answer to the problems of an ever-expanding socialist regime in Washington.

On The Web:   http://revisedhistory.wordpress.com/2014/10/11/perpetual-union-if-you-can-bamboozle-enough-people-part-two/


16510 ---Perpetual Union - Pt 1 --- Released: 8 days Ago. ---- 2014-10-16 16:19:49 -0400
See related pages and categories

“Perpetual Union”–If you can bamboozle enough people into believing it

Posted on October 9, 2014   
by Al Benson Jr.

In his rather convoluted thinking, Abraham Lincoln stated that: The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774.” Some historians have noted that this association of the colonies before the Articles of Confederation was adopted, was a body that could only suggest certain courses of action, none of which had the force of law–a deliberative body–nothing more. Such facts made no difference whatever to Abraham Lincoln. They didn’t fit his agenda and so he ignored them. As far as he was concerned, it was all “the Union” even though his ethereal version of it existed in his mind before the documents that founded the Union existed. Walter Kennedy and I noted in Lincoln’s Marxists on page 109 and following, which is chapter 5 entitled Lincoln’s Mystical View of the Union that this was Lincoln’s mindset.

Sad to say, this seems to be a rather strong tack in the Yankee/Marxist mindset in general. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Salmon P. Chase also seemed to lean strongly in this direction with his view of the Union.

John Niven, in his book Salmon P. Chase–a biography also noted: Had the Confederate States by their secession from the Union given up their former identity as Sumner, Stevens and other radical politicians argued? If they had, then it would logically follow that secession was a lawful act and the Union had existed only at the sufferance of the states, an argument Lincoln dismissed as an abstraction…

It has been argued that “The South never really understood the Union.” That may be true–at least they never understood it in the sense that the Yankee did. Had they truly done so, I would submit that the Southern states never should have ratified the Constitution to begin with. Christian statesman Patrick Henry warned his fellow Virginians with common sense arguments and logic of the dangers of Virginia’s ratification of the Constitution. Virginians did not heed his words. They should have. And yet, maybe some of the mud stuck against the wall, for in Virginia’s ratification ordinances it was stated: We the delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected…do, in the name and behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known, that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States, may be resumed by them, whenever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression. New York’s ratification statement pretty much says the same thing. And their ratification ordinances were accepted with this language included in them.

In other words, some states ratified the Constitution with the proviso that, should things not work out in this new union, they had the right to leave. That was the Southern understanding of this new Constitution, and it would seem that some Northern folks had the same understanding. I agree with them. Yet, suffice it to say, Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, after the War of Northern Aggression (or could we call it the War of Marxist Revolution?) took a view totally opposed to that truth, as had Lincoln. Should anyone really be surprised? After all, the winners always get to redefine the “history.”

Chase noted, in 1869, that the Constitution in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union composed of indestructible States. He felt that once a state or territory got into the Union, that was it. It was there for eternity unless its status was determined by a revolution, or “consent of the states.” Chase noted the language in the Articles of Confederation about a “perpetual Union.” That term, “perpetual” did not appear in the new Constitution, but rather the new document referred to a “more perfect Union.” Chase apparently took that to mean “more perpetually perfect.” If Chase was aware or either Virginia’s nor New York’s ratification terminology he kept silent about it. After all, those ratification ordinances contradicted his “indestructible Union” tomfoolery.

And Chase was, apparently, more than ready to accept more broad, sweeping powers for the federal government. In 1866 he observed: That the war had changed the government and the powers of government were essentially different from what they were before the war. Now there was an understatement if ever I saw one, and yet a revelation as well. He’s telling you, right flat out, that the war gave the federal government more and expanded powers–probably not constitutional ones–but not to worry, Chase’s Supreme Court would remedy that little problem.

To be continued.

On The Web:   http://revisedhistory.wordpress.com/2014/10/09/perpetual-union-if-you-can-bamboozle-enough-people-into-believing-it/


16509 ---Secession - Not Just Southern Pt 2 --- Released: 8 days Ago. ---- 2014-10-16 16:03:25 -0400
See related pages and categories

Secession–Not Just Southern and Not Just Secular–Part Two

Posted on October 7, 2014   
by Al Benson Jr.

Just before, and during, the War of Northern Aggression, the sentiment in favor of secession came from other areas of the country and not just from below Mason-Dixon.

In Douglas County, Illinois a meeting was held which announced that: “We regard the Emancipation Proclamation…as the entering wedge which will ultimately divide the middle and northwestern states from our mischiefmaking, puritanical, fanatical New England brethren…” Culturally, this has happened, even though Lincoln’s “mystical Union” has been held together with bayonets.

In Brown County, Indiana, a gathering was convened that put forth this sentiment: “…Our interests and inclinations will demand of us a withdrawal from political association in a common government with the New England states, who have contributed so much to every innovation upon the Constitution to our present calamity of civil war, and whose tariff legislation must ever prove oppressive to our agricultural and commercial pursuits.” Mind you, such secession sentiments are coming forth from Indiana and Illinois.

Other sources have cited secession sentiment in even the Middle Atlantic states–New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware and Maryland. Author William C. Wright has written that: “The secession movement was prominent in the five Middle Atlantic states. Within these five states were three types of secessionists; first, those who wanted to join the Confederacy; second, those who wished to form a central confederacy, that is, to join with the other border states and divide the United States into three separate nations; third, those who preferred to let the South go in peace rather than to use force to save the Union.”

Wright noted that Pennsylvania was the most pro-Union of these states, while New Jersey had strong economic and social ties with the South. New York was divided between the up-state region which supported the Union and the Hudson Valley and New York City areas that had ties to the South. New York City Mayor Fernando Wood had even made the proposition that New York City be made into a “free city.” Wright has duly noted that: “Together, the advocates of secession weakened the Lincoln administration’s ability to react to the Confederacy. At the same time, they offered the South hope of Northern support if war broke out.” In view of this, one might be led to wonder if this situation was the real reason for Lincoln’s actions in regard to Fort Sumter. I might also question why almost none of this type of material is ever presented in our “history” books, if such they can seriously be called. But that would be little more than a rhetorical exercise because I already know why.

The majority of people today, North and South, largely due to the abolitionist propaganda presented in our “history” books (whoever said history books had to teach real history?) and the rampant apostasy in the country as a whole, have viewed secession and the War of Northern Aggression in a strictly secular light. Many who have studied history will readily admit to the political and economic causes of the War, though some continue to persist it was all about slavery. However, most will not touch the theological reasons for secession.

However, there were many in the South that viewed secession in the same light that they viewed the biblical separation spoken of in Second Corinthians 6:14-18. They looked at an increasingly apostate and “progressive” North, while, in the main, most Southerners clung to orthodox Christianity. Informed Southerners watched much of the Northern clergy, no doubt influenced by the taint of Unitarianism, seek to deify man and to exalt the goodness of his human nature and his “free will.” It was the same sort of thing they did with abolitionist/terrorist John Brown in 1859 where Northern Unitarians claimed that Brown’s gallows was equal to Christ’s cross.

The late Professor M. E. Bradford, writing in the Southern Partisan magazine for the fourth quarter of 1991, noted that: “…Professor Bell Wiley observes, the Southern churches had always warned their communicants against ‘extreme confidence in human endeavor.’ The ordinary Southerner of 1860 did not approach the world as did those who had voted for Mr. Lincoln. They were…’as dubious of human ability in social and political matters as in the matter of salvation.’ The belief of the sovereignty of God and dependence of man was the whole of their thinking.”

In regard to Southern clergymen, Professor Bradford wrote: “Because most Southern clergymen were, during the years of sectional conflict within their denominations, convinced that apostasy and infidelity had become the dominant religions of the North.” You know something? They were right! Bradford observed that: “As the War approached, these (Southern) clergymen more and more tended to view the sectional controversy as a dispute between those who acknowledged the authority of the Scripture and those who set their own moral sense above it–in other words, between Christians and infidels.”

Thus we have another, seldom acknowledged, yet perhaps the most important dimension to the secession question–the spiritual and theological dimension. The majority probably have no interest in dealing with this aspect of the question. The “history” they’ve been taught tells them not to, but the spiritual dimension was and is here and needs to be dealt with. As someone with a Christian worldview, I believe all truth is educational and all things, ultimately, reflect someone’s theology. Everything eventually comes down to this–choose who you will serve, the Trinitarian God of the Scriptures or the World System. It has to be one or the other. Many Southern secessionists held to this view. For them, although political issues were prominent as were economic ones, their ultimate view of secession was a theological view. They viewed the doctrine of biblical separation and secession as one. In our apostate day, such a conclusion merits our serious consideration.


A Constitutional View of the Late War Between the States
by Alexander H. Stephens (volume one)
Krause Reprint Company, New York, 1970

Democracy in America
by Alexis de Tocqueville (volume one)
Vintage Books, New York, July, 1990

The Hidden Civil War
by Wood Gray
Viking Press, New York, 1942

The Secession Movement in the Middle Atlantic States
by William C. Wright
Associated University Presses, Inc. Cranberry, New Jersey, copyright 1973

A Theological and Political View of the Doctrine of Secession
by Al Benson Jr.
The Copperhead Chronicle, Sterlington, Louisiana, copyright 1995, reprinted 2009
(booklet 30 pages)

On The Web:   http://revisedhistory.wordpress.com/2014/10/07/secession-not-just-southern-and-not-just-secular-part-two/


16508 ---Quote Of The Week, Month, Whatever --- Released: 8 days Ago. ---- 2014-10-16 15:33:58 -0400
See related pages and categories

Quote of the Week ... or Month ... or Whatever

"I think the Virginia Flaggers err when they fly the CSA navy jack/Army of Tennessee flag as a salute to the soldiers of the Army of Northern Virginia. Not only do they fly a flag with no context, but the flag they fly violates any sort of historical context.

After all, it’s not history, but heritage, with these folks, and we know that it’s a heritage of hate, judging from the bitterness spewed by their spokespeople and supporters."

Your job, dear readers, should you accept it, is to --

(1) advise who should get to decide when flying a flag "errs" and what the criteria  for their decision should be; and what qualifications they should have to make such decisions for anyone but themselves.

(2) Identify spokespeople for the Virginia Flaggers.

(3) Identify any instances of hate and bitterness "spewed" by them at the VaFlaggers blog, Facebook group, or other venues. (Provide links.)

Personally, I think the Virginia Flaggers are doing a great job of keeping the Confederate battle flag visible, and people who are upset about it are those who wish to remove Confederate flags from public view and hide them in a basement somewhere, if not actually destroy them. This certainly includes the people who mouth off about "context".

The flippin' context for the Virginia Flaggers memorial flags is that they are Confederate battle flags flying in a Confederate state where battles were fought, for the purpose of commemorating the Confederate soldiers who fought those battles. How hard is that to comprehend?


On The Web:  




16507 ---Plate Backers Seek Court Help --- Released: 8 days Ago. ---- 2014-10-16 14:42:47 -0400
See related pages and categories

Confederate license plate backers seek high court help

Austin Bureau
Published: 11 October 2014

AUSTIN — A Southern heritage group wanting to sell Confederate battle flag license plates has asked the U.S. Supreme Court for help in its long fight against a Texas agency opposed to the idea.

The Sons of Confederate Veterans, in a legal filing last week, said the justices should reject the state’s recent request that it take up the case after a lower court ruled Texas cannot block the specialty plates.

The veterans group’s lawyer acknowledged that the Civil War-inspired plate “evokes passionate viewpoints,” but said that because of free speech rights, Texas cannot ban the tag simply because some may find it offensive.

The state attorney general’s office told the high court in August that the Department of Motor Vehicles has the power to regulate controversial messages on government-issued property.

The back and forth between plate supporters and the state is the latest development in what has been a five-year dispute. The DMV twice snubbed the group’s request for the plate with the stylized flag.

Critics have denounced it as racially offensive. The veterans group say it’s intended to honor Confederate soldiers.

After the group won an appeals court ruling in July that cleared the way for the plate, the state asked the Supreme Court to weigh in.

The court now is sifting through nearly 10,000 petitions to decide which cases — possibly as many at 90 — that it will hear during the session ending the middle of next year.

The plate, with the words “Sons of Confederate Veterans 1896” encircling the red flag of blue bars and white stars, remains in limbo in Texas until the case is resolved. Nine other states allow it.

John McConnell, the group’s attorney, said that most courts have deemed license plates as private speech, even when issued by state governments. That means the DMV overreached when it refused the flag tag, he said.

“The Constitution does not allow the state to censor unpopular viewpoints because the majority finds them ‘offensive.’ Such a standard allows for unbridled discretion and is a recipe for viewpoint discrimination,” he said.

Attorney General Greg Abbott’s office said the court should hear the case because lower courts have issued conflicting decisions in similar suits across the country.

McConnell said the state-cited cases are not relevant.

©2014, The Dallas Morning News Inc

On The Web:  http://www.dallasnews.com/news/state/headlines/20141011-confederate-license-plate-backers-seek-high-court-help.ece


16506 ---SCV Files Petition Against UM --- Released: 8 days Ago. ---- 2014-10-16 14:15:10 -0400
See related pages and categories

Sons of Confederate Veterans files petition against UM
Posted on Sep 30 2014
by Lacey Russell

The Mississippi Division Sons of Confederate Veterans has filed a petition for injunction against The University of Mississippi in hopes of deterring the street name change from Confederate Drive to Chapel Lane.

Natchez attorney Holmes Sturgeon, alumnus of The University of Mississippi Law School and legal representative of the organization, filed the petition Sept. 18 in Lafayette County Chancery Court.

“The purpose of the Sons of Confederate Veterans is to see that the memory of the Confederate soldiers is kept alive,” Sturgeon told The Daily Mississippian in a telephone interview. “Therefore, there is no real compromising on issues like this, in my opinion.”

Allen Terrell, former Ole Miss student and current resident of Natchez, is the direct descendant of two Civil War veterans – both of his great-great grandfathers fought and died while serving as privates in the Confederate army.

Today, Terrell said he respects his ancestors by serving as Mississippi Division Commander of the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

“We don’t necessarily celebrate the war,” Terrell explained of his organization. “We realize that was a bad time. It was a pivotal time in our history, but we honor and celebrate the men that fought for the cause which they believed at that time was right.”

As a result of the discriminatory incidents that occurred on campus over the last few years, Chancellor Dan Jones released an action plan in August for cultivating a more inclusive environment at the university. The six-fold strategy included changing the name of the one-block street known as Confederate Drive to Chapel Lane.

“The chancellor is trying to make the university an extremely diverse and welcoming place,” Terrell said.  “He appears to be isolating groups like ours though – Mississippians that care about their Southern heritage. Why don’t we get to figure into this diversity?

“If you’re going to be diverse, is it just diversity for minorities? I mean diversity encompasses everybody.”

Both Terrell and Sturgeon believe renaming Confederate Drive is in direct violation of a state statute that says no monuments or memorials from the Civil War erected on public property, shall be relocated, removed, disturbed, altered or renamed.

Sturgeon said due to the lack case references in the annotated code, he believes the statute has not yet been tried in court of law.

“Now it doesn’t say off in there that Confederate Drive can’t be changed,” Sturgeon explained. “However, it does say that streets and roads of that nature that are (historically named) can’t be changed.

“I’m sure there’s always a ‘can’ wherever there’s a ‘can’t,’ because there’s some circumstances in which it probably could be changed, but the Supreme Court has never heard a case on that particular law yet.”

UM attorney Lee Tyner said the university was served the petition for injunction last Friday.

“We’re confident that we have the ability to change that street name, and we’re also committed to not violating any laws,” Tyner said in a telephone interview. “We’re comfortable that if the judge reviews what we’ve done, that it’s fully within what we can do legally.”

Terrell said he is aware of the negative connotation surrounding the word “confederacy” today. He explained his organization does not condone or support actions of the white supremacist group the Ku Klux Klan, and over the last year, he has removed some Sons of Confederate Veterans members for Klan affiliation.

“You need to put your mindset back in the 1860s when you’re talking about what our organization represents,” he said. “If we were racists, would we have black members in our organization? If we were racist, would we have Jewish members?  Would we have Hispanic members? We’re not some white, Aryan group.

“We are a heritage organization. Our only goal is to honor our ancestors, and make sure that people know the true history of the South.”

The name of Confederate Drive has officially been changed to Chapel Lane since Sturgeon’s filing of the petition 12 days ago.  He said a hearing for the injunction has been noticed for Oct. 27.

“If they want to go all the way, then I’ll go all the way for the rest of my life,” Sturgeon said. “I don’t mind doing that until the day I die. We’ll just go on and on until we get something that will assure us that the monument to the Confederate soldiers is left right where it is, that the cemetery is not disturbed and the road leading to the cemetery is not disturbed or renamed or defaced or desecrated.

“It is a lawsuit. It is litigation. It is a petition for something, and we are going to get to the bottom of it.”

On The Web:   http://thedmonline.com/sons-of-confederate-veterans-files-petition-against-um/


16505 ---Danville To Research Flag Issue --- Released: 8 days Ago. ---- 2014-10-16 10:16:33 -0400
See related pages and categories

Danville to do more research on Confederate flag issue

Posted: Friday, October 10, 2014
Danville Register & Bee

Danville City Council has asked the city’s attorney to conduct further legal research regarding a request to remove the third national Confederate flag from the front lawn of the Sutherlin Mansion.

The board of directors of the Danville Museum of Fine Arts & History — which is housed inside the Sutherlin Mansion — voted on Sept. 25 to ask the city to remove the Confederate flag from the museum grounds. The board sent a written request to the city on Sept. 30.

The museum wants to move the flag inside for a planned Confederate flag exhibit as part of the museum’s sesquicentennial of the Civil War.

City Attorney Clarke Whitfield will report his findings at a closed city council meeting that will follow its work session on Oct. 21.

State law allows local governments to hold closed meetings for legal consultation. City council will reconvene in open session and discuss how to proceed.

Following a city council meeting Thursday night, Danville residents, including members of local Confederate heritage organizations, expressed opposition to the flag’s removal.

A handful of other local residents were in favor of taking it down.

“That flag doesn’t represent me,” said Danville resident Matthew Bailey. It represents negativity and people being separated, Bailey said.

“Our city should be in the forefront of reconciliation and peace,” he added. The flag’s removal would allow everyone to “move forward together,” Bailey said.

Steve Adkins, who opposes taking the flag down, said previous city councils have recognized the importance and value of the flag and preserving Danville’s heritage. The flag doesn’t represent all of the city but is “part of our past,” Adkins said.

Danville resident Tony Lundy said the city has been peaceful the last 20 years since the 1994 resolution and agreement with a local heritage group over the flags’ display at the mansion.

“This has been a peaceful city for the last 20 years,” Lundy said. “I don’t want to see that change … We’re not asking for much,” Lundy said.

Following the 1994 resolution passed by city council, the Heritage Preservation Association became responsible for the flag’s maintenance, purchase, removal and replacement. The city owns the monument and the flag pole, along with the Sutherlin Mansion and its grounds.

The flag itself belongs to the HPA.

One lady who spoke at the meeting said the flag should be relegated to the history books so it doesn’t “fly in our faces every day.”

Glenn Scearce, who was against taking down the flag, said African-Americans have a right to be angry but that white Southerners have a history, also. The South “suffered terribly” during the Civil War and the years afterward, he said.

The subject of slavery was happening for 200 years before the flag was sewn together, Scearce said. If the flag is removed from the museum lawn, it will be on display for a short while, put into a closet and then it will disappear, he said.

The Confederate flag is not a symbol of hatred and it was not flying over ships that brought slaves to America, he said.

“My history also has a place in America,” Scearce said.

Ed Clark, second lieutenant commander with the Sons of Confederate Veterans, said “Old Glory” flew over the ships that brought slaves to America, not the Confederate flag. The ships’ passengers were already slaves before they came and they were educated, taught to write here, Clark said. The flag should fly at the museum, he said. It represents an independent nation that was illegally invaded by [President Abraham] Lincoln, who didn’t care about slaves, Clark said.

“That flag represents independence, defiance against tyranny,” Clark said.

In the waning days of the Civil War, the Sutherlin Mansion served as the final home of the Confederate government after the fall of Richmond. Danville is considered the “last capitol” because it marked the last time the full Confederate government met in one place before the armies in the field surrendered.

The monument includes a seven-foot granite obelisk and a flagpole flying the third national flag of the Confederacy. According to the resolution, the purpose of the acceptance was to recognize the mansion’s historical status as the “Last Capitol of the Confederacy.”

© 2014 BH Media Group Holdings, Inc

On The Web:  http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/state-regional/danville-to-do-more-research-on-confederate-flag-issue/article_26b71b40-50d6-11e4-ae41-0017a43b2370.html


16504 ---Slaves Freeing Themselves From Freedom --- Released: 8 days Ago. ---- 2014-10-16 09:40:07 -0400
See related pages and categories

Slaves Freeing Themselves from Freedom
From: bernhard1848@gmail.com
Often mislabeling homeless black refugees in the South as “loyal,” Northerners saw them as easily-acquired and underpaid mercenaries who would help them subjugate the American South. Most of them were not so easily mislead, knew what their new friends had in mind, and simply wanted to go home to be left alone.
Bernhard Thuersam, Chairman
North Carolina War Between the States Sesquicentennial Commission
"Unsurpassed Valor, Courage and Devotion to Liberty"
"The Official Website of the North Carolina WBTS Sesquicentennial"
Slaves Freeing Themselves from Freedom
“At Hilton Head, in March 1862, it was proposed to organize out of certain loyal blacks, within easy reach, a patriotic Negro brigade.  But this reinforcement so little appreciated the intended honor that the vigilance of a strong picket of white soldiers was necessary to prevent the escape of the slave to his master.
With their Enfield rifles and other military equipments, one-third of the nucleus did, in fact, decamp. [Northern] General [David] Hunter’s force succeeded in recovering at least five of these refugees from freedom.  “Taken when fleeing toward the mainland, occupied by rebels, they were placed in irons and confined at the Rip Raps [along the shore]”
Fugitives from freedom, encountering every peril to escape therefrom, by some fugitive freedom laws are pursued, overtaken, loaded with irons and threatened with worse if they make further efforts to free themselves from freedom. It may be, in cold iron outline, is imaged something of deeper import – “the name of freedom graven on a heavier chain.”
(Leigh Robinson’s Address, 18 December, 1909, Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 36, 1908, pg. 320)


16503 ---Prejudices Of Northern States --- Released: 8 days Ago. ---- 2014-10-16 09:29:21 -0400
See related pages and categories

Prejudices of the Northern States
From: bernhard1848@gmail.com
Radical Republican Governor John Andrew of Massachusetts petitioned Lincoln to allow his State agents to seize captured South Carolina slaves and count them as Massachusetts soldiers under his State quota – thus avoiding the conscription of white Massachusetts men and keeping captured blacks out of his State.  For the same general purpose Andrew obtained 400 well-paid California men to serve as the Second Massachusetts Cavalry regiment.
Bernhard Thuersam, Chairman
North Carolina War Between the States Sesquicentennial Commission
"Unsurpassed Valor, Courage and Devotion to Liberty"
"The Official Website of the North Carolina WBTS Sesquicentennial"
Prejudices of the Northern States
“In the house of them who felt so keenly their mission to call others to repentance, how fared it with the Negro?  In the general laws of Massachusetts (compiled in accordance with a resolution of February 22, 1822) it is provided: “That no person being an African or Negro, other than the subjects of the emperor of Morocco” – (and certified citizens of other States) “shall tarry within the Commonwealth for a longer time than two months.”
In case of such prolonged stay, if after warning and failure to depart, “it shall be made to appear that the said person has thus continued in [Massachusetts] . . . he or she shall be whipped, not exceeding ten stripes, and ordered to depart, and if he shall not so depart, the same process shall be had and inflicted, and so toties quoties.” In March, 1788, this was one of the “perpetual laws of the Commonwealth.”
When war raged for freedom, how was it then?  In September 1862, General [John] Dix proposed to remove a “number of [Negro] contrabands” from Fortress Monroe to Massachusetts.  To this Governor Andrew replied: “I do not concur in any way, or to any degree in the plan proposed” [and that you will be deprived] “of the strength of hundreds of stout arms, which would be nerved with the desperation of men fighting for liberty.”
But the Negro, despite all the invocations to do so, had never offered to fight for liberty; did not then offer.  At that time no Negro had ever sat upon a jury; none trained in the militia; none trained in the militia of Massachusetts.  Why should the Negro be ambitious to die for Massachusetts?
The war governor proceeds: “Contemplating, however, the possibility of such removal, permit me to say that the Northern States are of all places the worst possible to select for an asylum . . . I would take the liberty of suggesting some Union foothold in the South.”
In this same month, the adjutant-general [Dix] inquired of the army of the West: “What is to be done with this unfortunate race . . . You cannot send them North.  You all know the prejudices of the Northern States for receiving large numbers of the colored race.  Some States have passed laws prohibiting them to come within their borders . . . look along this river (the Mississippi) and see the number of deserted plantations on its borders. These are the best places for these freed men.”
Ever, as with the constancy of natural causes, exercised in some other man’s house, on the banks of some far-off, ancient river.  On these terms who would not be an altruist?
“In the State where I live,” said John Sherman, on April 2, 1862, “we do not like Negroes. We do not disguise our dislike.  As my friend from Indiana (Mr. Wright) said yesterday, “The whole people of the Northwestern States, are, for reasons, whether correct or not, opposed to having many Negroes among them, and that principle or prejudice has been engraved in the legislation of nearly all the Northwestern States.”
(Leigh Robinson’s Address, 18 December, 1909, Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 36, 1908, pp. 319-321)

16502 ---A Needful Defense --- Released: 9 days Ago. ---- 2014-10-15 18:13:36 -0400
See related pages and categories

A needful defense
From: vaproto@optonline.net
To all:
Yesterday I had one of those “moments” in which one sees rather clearly a great issue which is seldom addressed by those who defend the South and her heritage. As I was speaking to one of the ladies at my club, she opined that had the South prevailed in the “Civil War” (sic), slavery would still exist! Of course, I did the best to counter this, especially noting that it was the South who had — before the rise of radical abolitionism in the North — a preponderance of emancipation groups, the North either being uninterested in the matter or preferring the profit it gained from the Triangle trade. I also pointed out the nature of that trade and which section of the country ran it.
But, as you all know too well, any response to such a complex subject often loses its force simply because it is itself too complex for the person you are trying to inform to grasp. Then I remembered a movie from years ago about what would have happened had the South won its war. I believe that a “promo shot” showed astronauts landing on the moon and placing on that body (of all things!) the battle flag! In that film, naturally, slavery was still around as a sort of skeleton at the banquet.
We MUST counter and defeat the idea not just that slavery was the reason for the war, but that had the South won the war, slavery would still be with us. And while it is very useful to show the anti-black bias of the North (the idea of the honorable and Christian Yankee going to war to free his black brothers is not only wrong but somewhat nauseating!) what we need to do is concentrate on the South’s efforts to end slavery while making such plans as would be needed to transition blacks from servitude to freedom. It is obvious that had emancipation been permitted to proceed in the South, our present race relations would be far different than they are at present — something else that testifies on our behalf.
As long as the idea that slavery would have remained had the South triumphed, we will make little headway in our efforts to bring to light the crimes committed against the people of the South and what that all means for us today. There is an underlying attitude among those who take any interest at all in this subject (and who are not with us) that whatever was inflicted on the South was deserved not only because slavery existed there but because it would have continued to exist had not the North won the war.

16501 ---SCV Press Release - 10-13-2014 --- Released: 9 days Ago. ---- 2014-10-15 17:56:08 -0400
See related pages and categories

Sons of Confederate Veterans   
October 13, 2014    


(Atlanta - October 13, 2014)  The Georgia Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans is honored to announce the unveiling of a new Bronze Soldier Confederate Monument at the Marietta Confederate Cemetery where over 3,000 Confederate soldiers rest in peace. Georgia Division Adjutant Tim Pilgrim, who is heading up the project, stated, "This was a project made possible by the joint cooperation of the Marietta Confederate Cemetery Foundation and the local Sons of Confederate camps in the area. 

Pilgrim indicated that most of the funding for the new monument came from the Georgia Division's specialty tag funds and from donations by the local Sons of Confederate Veterans camp. "It's part of our on-going recognition of the 150th Anniversary of the War Between the States," said Pilgrim, "in honor of more than 3,000 Southern Heroes who rest in these hallowed grounds that made the ultimate sacrifice to protect their family and homes from an invading army."  

The Bronze Confederate Soldier is (5) five foot (10) ten inches tall in full military regalia and gear, holding his musket. He will be place atop a (5) five foot high granite pedestal centered in a new paver plaza. The octagon pavers will be true to historical period style with granite knee walls on three sides of the plaza. The engravings in front of the granite pedestal will include the Great Seal of the Confederate States of America with the Confederate motto of "Deo Vindice" -- Latin for "God is our Vindicator."  The East side will have the Marietta Confederate Cemetery Logo and the West side lists the (14) fourteen States that have Soldiers buried in the Marietta Confederate Cemetery.  

Marietta Confederate Cemetery is the largest Confederate cemetery South of Richmond and is located at 395 Powder Springs St, Marietta, GA 30064. The Marietta Confederate Cemetery is one of the largest burial grounds for Confederate dead.

The City of Marietta and Friends of Brown Park will also be unveiling two new sections to the existing memorial walls. The new section will list 350 additional names of Confederate soldiers buried as "Unknowns" in the Confederate Cemetery. Brown Park now has four granite walls commemorating 1,150 Confederate soldiers buried in the adjacent Marietta Confederate Cemetery after two new memorial walls were installed recently.

The Bronze Confederate Soldier Monument as well as the two new memorial walls will be unveiled to the public at an unveiling ceremony this Sunday, October 19 at 1 p.m.
For more information about the Sons of Confederate Veterans or any of this year's planned events to commemorate the Sesquicentennial of the War, contact the Georgia SCV at 404-456-3393 or online at www.GeorgiaSCV.org   



16500 ---Danville Flag Removal - Round 2 --- Released: 9 days Ago. ---- 2014-10-15 17:29:02 -0400
See related pages and categories

From: Georgia Flagger cobbslegionscv@yahoo.com [FlagFight] <FlagFight@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Sun, Oct 12, 2014
Subject: [FlagFight] Danville Confederate Flag Removal...Round 2
To: Georgia Division <GASCV-Discussion@yahoogroups.com>, "FlagFight@yahoogroups.com" <FlagFight@yahoogroups.com>

Billy Bearden
Camp 673

1st White House of the Confederacy, Montgomery, Alabama. On March 4, 1861, President John Tyler’s granddaughter, Miss Letitia Tyler, raised the first flag of the Confederacy, the Stars and Bars, on the Capitol grounds. Today, a First National proudly flies on the grounds of the home and museum which is located directly across from the State Capitol building. The museum is a wonderful tribute to President Davis and his family, and a real treasure and asset to Montgomery's heritage and tourism.

Meanwhile, back in Virginia, at the LAST Capital of the Confederacy a Third National flag proudly flies on the lawn, marking the Sutherlin Mansion as the last residence of Jefferson Davis as President of the Confederate States of America.

"The Anne Eliza Johns Chapter 164, UDC was instrumental in saving “the last Capital of the Confederacy”, the old Sutherlin Mansion, home of Major William T. Sutherlin in Danville. President Jefferson Davis stayed there April 3-10, 1865 when he and his cabinet evacuated Richmond. The last full cabinet meeting was held here and this is where Davis received news of Lee’s surrender. When Mrs. Sutherlin died in 1912, the mansion was threatened with demolition. The Daughters raised $20,000, Half of the funds required, which were matched by the City of Danville. In 1912, the City deeded to the UDC two upstairs rooms in the mansion for a meeting place in appreciation of their work in saving the building. A wall was removed to make one large room which the chapter continues to use for its meetings. The room contains the marble table where Jefferson Davis wrote “The Last Proclamation”. The two chandeliers in the room are original to the house. There are many antiques and collectibles in the chapter room donated by friends including portraits of the Sutherlins and Anne Eliza Johns along with items purchased by the chapter such as the iron strong box which stored the gold brought to Danville by President Davis."


Through their generosity, the Danville Museum of Fine Arts and History was established. Fast forward 100 years, and museum Director Cara Burton has decided to repay this kindness by sending a letter to Danville City Council requesting the Third National Confederate flag be removed from the property.  Instead of honoring the heritage and history of the historic property,  the museum has chosen to make a request that dishonors the proud history of the Sutherlin Mansion, and disprespects the very organization to whom they owe their existence.

On October 9th, dozens of supporters of the flag attended the Danville City Council meeting to urge members to deny the request. The matter was discussed in closed session, and although comments from citizens were in support of the flag by a 4 to 1 margin, council members chose NOT to end the matter quickly, as they should have, by simply denying the request. Reportedly, more "research" will be done, and the matter will be discussed and action decided in another closed session meeting on October 21st, followed immediately by an open City Council meeting.

The Mayor and each member of City Council announced that they wanted to hear what the citizens have to say on this matter. Have you let YOUR voice be heard? Your ancestors can no longer speak. If you do not raise your voice in their defense, who will?

Please take time over the next 9 days to write, call, and email the Mayor, City Council members, and the City Manager's office. Be polite, but firm...and encourage them to honor the history and heritage of Danville and her people by denying the absurd request by the Danville Museum of Fine Arts and History. Ask them to honor the 1994 resolution and abide by Virginia State Law, which prohibits the removal of the memorial flag.

City Council staff directory, with contact information can be found here:

City Manager's Office directory here...

ACT NOW...forward this information to help reach as many as possible... and make plans to attend the meeting on October 21st.

Susan Hathaway
Virginia Flaggers

P.O. Box 547
Sandston VA 23150


16499 ---Tribute To Moses Ezekiel - 10-12-2014 --- Released: 9 days Ago. ---- 2014-10-15 16:49:33 -0400
See related pages and categories

From: cjohnson1861@bellsouth.net [FlagFight] <FlagFight@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Sun, Oct 12, 2014
Subject: [FlagFight] Hispanic Heritage Month tribute to Moses Ezekiel
To: "flagfight@yahoogroups.com" <flagfight@yahoogroups.com>

Sunday October 12, 2014

Please see my latest article as below at Canada Free Press and thank these good folks at: cfp@canadafreepress.com

See article at: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/66674

Hope many more carry this Southern Historical article. Thanks and God bless Dixie!
Hispanic Heritage Month tribute to Moses Ezekiel

By: Calvin E. Johnson, Jr., Speaker, Writer of short stories, Author of book “When America stood for God, Family and Country” and Chairman of the National and Georgia Division Sons of Confederate Veterans Confederate History and Heritage Month committee.

1064 West Mill Drive, Kennesaw, Georgia 30152, Phone 770 330 9792 or 770 428 0978
Hello America and the World!

The movie “Field of Lost Shoes” will premiere on May 17th.

“Field of Lost Shoes” is about one of the more storied minor battles of the Civil War, when cadets from Virginia Military Institute were hurled into action to stop a Union invasion of their corner of the Shenandoah Valley. Read more at:

September through October is Hispanic Heritage month and an Atlanta TV station is currently airing Hispanic Heritage Month tributes. Will the American media that are doing Hispanic segments include the story of Moses Jacob Ezekiel who had a Jewish-Hispanic Heritage and who marched with his fellow VMI Cadets to engage the Yankee invasion at the Battle of New Market?

Are children taught about such great Americans like Moses Ezekiel?

Moses J. Ezekiel was born in Richmond, Virginia on October 28, 1844. He was one of fourteen children born to Jacob and Catherine De Castro Ezekiel. His grandparents came to America from Holland in 1808, and were of Jewish-Spanish Heritage.

At the age of 16, and the beginning of the War Between the States, Moses begged his father and mother to allow him to enroll at Virginia Military Institute.

Three years after his enrollment at (VMI) the cadets of the school marched to the aid of Confederate General John C. Breckinridge. Moses Ezekiel joined his fellow cadets in a charge against the Yankee lines at the "Battle of New Market."

When the War Between the States ended, Moses went back to Virginia Military Institute to finish his studies where he graduated in 1866. According to his letters, which are now preserved by the American Jewish Historical Society, Ezekiel met with Robert E. Lee during this time. Lee encouraged him by saying, "I hope you will be an artist.....do earn a reputation in whatever profession you undertake.

The world famous Arlington National Cemetery is located in Virginia and overlooks the Potomac River. At section 16, of the cemetery, is a beautiful Confederate Monument that towers over the graves of 450 Southern soldiers, wives and civilians. These words are inscribed on the memorial:

"Not for fame or reward, not for place or for rank,
Not lured by ambition, or goaded by necessity,
But in simple obedience to duty, as they understood it,
These men sacrificed all, dared all....and died."

The United Daughters of the Confederacy entered into a contract with Moses J. Ezekiel to build this Confederate Monument at Arlington National Cemetery. It is written that he based his work on the words of Prophet Isaiah, "And they shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks."

This Confederate Memorial towers 32 and 1/2 feet and is said to be the tallest bronze sculpture at Arlington National Cemetery. On top is a figure of a woman, with olive leaves covering her head, representing the South. She also holds a laurel wreath in her left hand, remembering the Sons of Dixie. On the side of the monument is also a depiction of a Black Confederate marching in step with white soldiers.

Ezekiel was not able to come to the dedication of the monument held on June 4, 1914, with President Woodrow Wilson presiding. Many Union and Confederate soldiers were in attendance among the crowd of thousands.

Moses Jacob Ezekiel studied to be an artist in Italy. As a tribute to his great works, he was knighted by Emperor William I of Germany and Kings Humbert I and Victor Emmanuel, II of Italy---thus the title of "Sir."

Among the works of Sir Moses J. Ezekiel are: "Christ Bound for the Cross", "The Martyr", "David Singing his song of Glory" and "Moses Receiving the Law on Mount Sinai."

Upon his death in 1917, Moses Ezekiel left behind his request to be buried with his Confederates at Arlington. A burial ceremony was conducted on March 31, 1921, at the amphitheater at Arlington National Cemetery. It was presided over by the United States Secretary of War John W. Weeks. He was laid to rest at the foot of the memorial that he had sculptured. Six VMI cadets flanked his casket that was covered with an American flag.

The death of Moses Ezekiel, the distinguished and greatly loved American, who lived in Rome for more than forty years, caused universal regret here----1921, The New York Times Dispatch from Rome, Italy.

The following is inscribed on his grave marker:

"Moses J. Ezekiel
Sergeant of Company C
Battalion of Cadets of the
Virginia Military Institute."


16496 ---Danville Flag Removal Call To Action --- Released: 15 days Ago. ---- 2014-10-09 12:03:51 -0400
See related pages and categories

From: Virginia Flagger <info@vaflaggers.com>
Date: Wed, Oct 8, 2014
Subject: Va Flaggers: Urgent! Danville flag removal Call to Action!

We just received word from the folks in Danville that they want to pack the courthouse tomorrow night, Thursday, October 9th for the scheduled City Council Meeting.

Although we have been told that the matter of the request to remove the Confederate flag memorial from the grounds of the Sutherlin Mansion WILL NOT be on the agenda, we want to send a STRONG message to all involved by way of a large turnout of flag supporters.

If there is anyway you can get there, plan to meet at 6:15 at the courthouse, and bring a car full of folks!

PLEASE pass the word, especially among those who are within driving distance, and help PACK THE MEETING WITH CONFEDERATES.

427 Patton St.
Fourth Floor
Danville, VA  24541


Susan Hathaway
Va Flaggers

Virginia Flaggers
P.O. Box 547
Sandston VA 23150

16495 ---Va Flaggers: Trey Tate Obituary --- Released: 16 days Ago. ---- 2014-10-08 12:34:15 -0400
See related pages and categories

From: Virginia Flagger <info@vaflaggers.com>
Date: Wed, Oct 8, 2014
Subject: Va Flaggers: Trey Tate Obituary

The Virginia Flaggers are mourning the sudden loss of one of our own. Floyd Lewis Tate III (Trey), 31, a dedicated defender of the honor of his Confederate ancestors, was killed tragically in a traffic accident early Tuesday morning.

Funeral services will be held Friday, October 10, 2014 at Bethany Christian Church, 2401 Bethany Church Rd., Bumpass, Virginia, 23024.  Visitation: 1:00 p.m.  Memorial Service: 2:00 p.m. and graveside service at 3:00 p.m.

In lieu of flowers, the family has asked that donations be made to the Richmond SPCA, or the Edmund Ruffin Fire-Eaters, Camp #3000, Sons of Confederate Veterans, P.O. Box 70086, Henrico, VA 23255-0086.

Some of you may recall that Trey lost his father just a few short months ago. We humbly ask for prayers for his family, including his infant daughter, his mother, and his brother, Brandon White and their families...and for your patience and understanding as we take time to support the family, and grieve for a young life cut short.

“Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort,  who comforts us in all our troubles, so that we can comfort those in any trouble with the comfort we ourselves have received from God.  For just as the sufferings of Christ flow over into our lives, so also through Christ our comfort overflows.”  2 Corinthians 1:3-5

With a heavy heart,

Susan Hathaway
Virginia Flaggers

P.O. Box 547
Sandston VA 23150


16494 ---There The Skeletons Lie --- Released: 16 days Ago. ---- 2014-10-08 12:18:10 -0400
See related pages and categories

There The Skeletons Lie: Corinth in 1866

September 28, 2014

I found the following article in The Weekly Democrat of Natchez, which was published on May 14, 1866. The writer was not identified, but whoever it was painted a graphic picture of Corinth one year after the war ended:

Not the least mentionable of the ‘pitched battles’ of the late war was that which was fought in front of this grand ‘intrenched camp’ that we call Corinth, on the 3d and 4th days of October, 1862. During the past two days a portion of my sojourn here has been spent as a partial exploration of that part of the battlefield which lies in the Northwestern angle formed by the crossing of the Memphis, Charleston, Mobile and Ohio Railroads.

The sight that I saw of vast numbers of Confederate ‘bones’ – whose skeletons and parts of skeletons – lying exposed and bleaching on the field, in the bushes and on the hillsides, under logs and on stumps; of the neatly enclosed and well marked graves of Federal soldiers, all buried at the proper depth; and of the forest trees rent in all directions, rent and torn by shot and shell, and the storm of ‘furious war’ and of many separate and distinct, desperate conflicts, hand to hand, and muzzle to muzzle; all of these ‘sights,’ I say, are well worthy of a brief record. Besides, I have another object in calling attention to the battlefield of Corinth apart from the gratification of public curiosity, and that is to urge upon our people the propriety of collecting the bones of their dead brethren, at some suitable spot near this place, and giving them decent interment. It is estimated by an intelligent gentleman of this town, that upon the two fields of Shiloh and Corinth, in this vicinity, there are not less than 12,000 ‘Confederate dead,’ whose bones for the most part, lie bleaching above ground!

Of all the Confederate dead on this field, Col. Rogers is, I am told, the only one who was buried deep enough to prevent the rains from washing the dirt away and exposing the bones. He, it is said, was buried under the immediate supervision of Gen. Rosecrans. In the North western angle, formed by the crossing of the railroads, from Corinth out to and beyond the outer line of works, three and a half miles distant, the whole of this great battle-ground is dotted, here and there – in some places thick as meadow mole-hills – with the graves of Federal and the exposed remains of Confederate dead.

The Confederate dead, it clearly appears, were merely covered up on the ground where they fell. The Federal dead were neatly interred, in the usual way, with head and foot-boards in every instance, and in most cases, I believe, were enclosed with wooden palings. I saw but one Federal grave where the bones were at all exposed. I saw but one Confederate timulus where the bones – generally the skull – were not more or less exposed and scattered around in all directions. At the outer line of entrenchments, where a portion of Maury’s division made the assault, I saw two human skull bones, one pelvis, and two jaw-bones, lying on a stump, with no trace of a grave or timulus nearer than fifty or one hundred yards.

In front of the outer breastworks not far from the same spot, I saw two timuli, where some six or eight Confederate dead had been covered up on one side of a hill. Here several of the skulls and feet of most of the bodies had been uncovered by the action of the elements, and were lying around upon the ground, already bleached, perfectly white, and of course, rapidly crumbling to decay. The condition of these timuli, I am told by gentlemen residing in the vicinity who have examined every part of the field, is a fair specimen of all the rest. In one place (as I was informed by Capt. Mask, of this town, who, with Col. Polk, rode over the field with me.) The bodies of two or three Confederates were placed by the side of a log, (to save labor I suppose,) and a little dirt thrown over them; the dirt had all washed away, and there the skeletons lie, wholly exposed and uncared for, ‘like the beasts that perish!’

After reading this article, I have a better appreciation of why cemetery associations, created to properly bury Confederate dead,  flourished in the post-war South. There was a terrible need for them.

On The Web:   http://mississippiconfederates.wordpress.com/2014/09/28/there-the-skeletons-lie-corinth-in-1866/


16493 ---Museum Wants Flag Removed - 10/7 Update --- Released: 16 days Ago. ---- 2014-10-08 11:53:52 -0400
See related pages and categories

From: Virginia Flagger <info@vaflaggers.com>
Date: Tue, Oct 7, 2014
Subject: Va Flaggers: Danville Museum Wants Confederate Flag Removed - UPDATE


Many thanks to all of you who took the time to email, write or call the suggested contacts for the Danville Museum of Fine Arts and History, as well as the Danville City Manager and Mayor.

After reviewing the state and city ordinances, resolutions, and statutes regarding the Confederate memorial at the Sutherlin Mansion, we are confident that the outrageous request from the Director of the museum is BY LAW not permissible, and will be denied.

Still, we MUST remain vigilant, and ask that each of you, if you have not already done so, take a few minutes to write a polite email or make a phone call and let those involved know just how many people feel strongly about this matter.  Encourage Museum Director Ms. Cara Burton to withdraw her request, and urge the City Manger and City Attorney to deny the request and put an end to this nonsense.

Danville City Manager Joe King:
(434) 799-5100

Danville City Mayor Sherman M. Saunders
 (434) 799-8737

City Attorney W. Clarke Whitfield, Jr.
Ph: (434) 799-5122
Fx: (434) 797-8972

Danville Museum of Fine Arts & History
975 Main Street
Danville, Virginia 24541
Phone: 434.793.5644
Fax:     434.799.6145
Executive Director Cara Burton

This is the form email reply that is being sent from City officials:

Thank you for your email.

Please be aware that the Danville City Council has not yet had the opportunity to consider the request of the Board of Directors of the Danville Museum of Fine Arts and History to remove the Confederate flag from the museum grounds.  When it does, discussions will be conducted at announced times in public meetings.  City Council will seek public input on the matter before making a decision.  Please regularly check our municipal website, http://www.danville-va.gov, for news and announcements.

From the City Clerk this morning:
"Next Danville Council meeting is Thursday Oct 9th @ 7pm.  Flag agenda not on Oct 7th agenda - per city clerk. She states flag agenda may be in Work session agenda immediately following council meeting across the hall.  Public is welcome to attend BOTH council and work sessions, but comments are not allowed in work session."

Based on this information, we would encourage any and all who oppose the removal of the Confederate Memorial in Danville, and who can make the trip, to attend both the meeting and work session Thursday night.  A strong showing, as a preemptive strike, will send a message to both museum and city officials.  427 Patton Street, Council Chambers, 4th Floor, Danville, VA 24541

Thank you all for your support and efforts.

Susan Hathaway
Va Flaggers


Wednesday, October 8th:  Flagging the VMFA, 200 N. Boulevard, 2:00 pm - 6:00 pm

Saturday, October 11th: Flagging the VMFA, 200 N. Boulevard, 11:00 am - 3:00 pm

Thursday, October 16th:  Susan will be speaking at the October meeting of the Sgt. William A. Hamby Camp #1750, SCV, Crossville TN.   6:00 pm CST, 111 E. 1st Street, Crossville.

Saturday, Nov. 1st: Susan will be speaking at the 100th Anniversary celebration of the dedication of the Confederate Monument in Lebanon, VA.

Saturday, November 15th - Sunday, November 16th:  We will have a booth at the Capital of the Confederacy Civil War Show at Richmond International Raceway.  The 34th Annual Capital of the Confederacy Civil War Show presented by Mike Kent & Associates along with the Central Virginia Civil War Collector's Association. This is one of the oldest and most respected Civil War shows in the country.  Hours are Saturday 9am - 5pm and Sunday 9am - 3pm. 

Saturday, December 7th:  Mechanicsville Christmas Parade. The Va Flaggers will join the Edmund Ruffin Fire-Eaters in this VERY Confederate friendly parade.

Thursday, December 11th:  Susan will be speaking at the December meeting of the A.H. Belo Camp #49, SCV, Dallas Texas

Friday, December 12th:  Susan will be speaking at the Christmas gathering of the
Major Robert M. White, Camp No. 1250, Sons of Confederate Veterans,Temple, Texas

Saturday, December 13th:  Susan will be speaking at the Christmas gathering of the Middleton Tate Johnson Camp #1648, SCV, Arlington, TX.

Follow our blog:  http://vaflaggers.blogspot.com/

Find us on FaceBook:  https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Virginia-Flaggers/378823865585630

Follow us on Twitter:  https://twitter.com/VaFlagger

Virginia Flaggers
P.O. Box 547
Sandston VA 23150


16492 ---Secession: Not Just Southern --- Released: 16 days Ago. ---- 2014-10-08 11:22:23 -0400
See related pages and categories

Secession–Not Just Southern and Not Just Secular

Posted on October 4, 2014   
by Al Benson Jr.

Often when the issue of secession has been “historically” dealt with it has been done in such a manner as to give the impression that it was purely a Southern political phenomenon. Clearly our present establishment “historians” love to have it so. As usual, there is a little more to the story than what they are pleased to tell us.

Lots of people other than Southerners, in years gone by, admitted the right of secession in this country. Well-known anti-slavery American jurist Joseph Story admitted the right of a state to withdraw from the Union. Judge Story stated: “The obvious deductions which may be, and indeed have been drawn, from considering the Constitution as a Compact between the States, are, that it operates as a mere treaty, or convention between them, and has an obligatory force upon each State no longer that it suits its pleasures, or its consent continues;…and that each State retains the power to withdraw from the Confederacy, and to dissolve the connection, when such shall be its choice;…” So it would seem that Judge Story thus admitted the right of a state to secede.

Thomas Jefferson believed in the right of state secession, and, according to Alexander H. Stephens, the Kentucky Resolutions fully established this.

Even ultra-nationalist Alexander Hamilton was forced, by his own admission, to admit that the right of state secession existed. In regard to Hamilton, Alexander Stephens, who was named after him, wrote: “Even Mr. Hamilton must have believed that this right was incident to the systems; for in his urgent appeals to Mr. Jefferson, as early as 1790, for his influence with members of Congress, in aid of the bill for the assumption of the States debts, he presented the strong reason, that if the measure should not pass, there was great danger of a secession of the members from the creditor States, which would end in ‘a separation of the States.’…he was Secretary of the Treasury. Would he have urged such an argument if he had not believed that those States had a right to withdraw?” That’s an interesting question that those nationalists today of the Hamilton stripe might consider addressing themselves to–then again, maybe not.

And William Rawle, U.S. District Attorney under George Washington, said: “The Union is an association of the people of Republics; its preservation is calculated to depend on the preservation of those republics…It depends on the State itself, to retain or abolish the principle of representation; because it depends on itself, whether it will continue a member of the Union. To deny this right, would be inconsistent with the principles on which all our political systems are founded;…”

Even DeToqueville addressed the secession question. He had stated: “The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the States; and these, in uniting together, have not forfeited their Nationality, nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people. If one of the States chose to withdraw its name from the contract, it would be difficult to disprove its right of doing so,…”

Even utopian socialist Horace Greeley, no real friend of the South, said that: “The right to secede may be a revolutionary one, but it exists nonetheless;…We hope never to live in a Republic whereof one section is pinned to the residue by bayonets.” It could be that Mr. Greely didn’t really understand the motives of Abraham Lincoln, who had, himself, recognized the right of secession in early 1848–conveniently, just before the onslaught of the socialist revolts in Europe! Again, for more about that read Lincoln’s Marxists.

To be continued.

On The Web:  http://revisedhistory.wordpress.com/2014/10/04/secession-not-just-southern-and-not-just-secular/


16491 ---Confused History - Fascism & Secession --- Released: 16 days Ago. ---- 2014-10-08 11:11:55 -0400
See related pages and categories

Confused History–Fascism and Secession

Posted on September 30, 2014   
by Al Benson Jr.

The other night I ran across some sort of forum on the Internet, and one of the contributors to it asked the question: What if? Abraham Lincoln goes Fascist instead of socialist. At this point, I can’t recall what the entire forum was all about and I only printed off the one page that had that comment on it. The person who asked the question seemed willing to acknowledge that Mr. Lincoln could fall into the socialist camp, which is more than many are willing to do. But they also considered the possibility that he might end up in the Fascist camp. This might seem an interesting argument to some folks, and I don’t doubt the sincerity of those debating this possibility, but I do have a problem with their conclusions, in that, from my understanding of the political spectrum Fascism is not a rightist, but rather a leftist position–therefore it belongs over there on the left next to socialism and communism.

Fascism, like communism and/or socialism, is a system of collectivism and government control, thus it belongs on the left side of the political spectrum, not on the right. If you are going to view the entire political spectrum from left to right, then you need to place all political systems with total government on the left, and on the right are systems with no government–anarchy–where everyone does that which is right in his own eyes, and that, in a sense, is almost as bad as the leftist position, due to the fact that man is a sinner and, if left to his own devices, he will trample the rights of others for his own personal benefit. And so there needs to be some government, but again, because man is a sinner, the amount of government needs to be limited and defined as to exactly what government can and should do (protection of life and property) and what it is not permitted to do.

So, in a sense, wondering if Lincoln would have ended up as a socialist or a Fascist is almost like saying “Would Lincoln have ended up in socialist party A or socialist party B?” Many forget that the term Nazi stood for “National Socialist.” The main difference between fascists and socialists or communists was that the Fascists were more concerned (at least theoretically) with practicing their total control in a nationalist venue, whereas the communist/socialist had bigger plans and he wanted (and still wants) to do it all on an international scale. Had Lincoln chosen Fascism he would still have been a socialist, just a little different kind than those friends of his that Donnie Kennedy and I wrote about in our book Lincoln’s Marxists.

The same night, I also came across an informative article by Tom DiLorenzo, originally published on LewRockwell.com back in July of 2013. For those who may not know, Tom DiLorenzo is an economics professor at Loyola College in Maryland and is the author of several books, among which are The Real Lincoln and Lincoln Unmasked. In this article Professor DiLorenzo made several comments pertaining to the Declaration of Independence. He stated: “The first several generations of Americans understood that the Declaration of Independence was the ultimate states’ rights document. The citizens of the states would delegate certain powers to a central government in their Constitution and these powers (mostly for national defense and foreign policy purposes) would hopefully be exercised for the benefit of the citizens of the ‘free and independent’ states, as they are called in the Declaration…If the day ever came that the national government became the sole arbiter of the limits of its own powers, then Americans would live under a tyranny as bad or worse than the one the colonists fought a revolution against.” Folks, I hate to have to say it, but that day has arrived, if only we will take our heads out of the sand and confront the sad fact. Ahh, but it’s so much easier to just watch the Reality shows and tune all that nasty stuff out. And the Christians will agree and say “Well, we don’t need to worry about all that. The Lord will return anytime now (momentarily if not sooner) and rapture us all out of this mess so we don’t have to deal with it. We don’t have to get involved. After all, politics is a dirty business anyway.” The fact that it might be a little less dirty if Christians had stayed involved instead of tucking tail and running, is a concept that totally eludes them. But I’m getting carried away here with one of my main concerns–Christian couch potatoes.

Professor DiLorenzo continued: “This was the fundamental understanding of the Declaration of Independence–that it was a Declaration of Secession from the British Empire-…” We seem to have lost that concept today. People don’t even want to think about it. I’ve been taken to task for even saying it in some quarters.

Interestingly enough, Professor DiLorenzo quotes the Kenosha, Wisconsin Democrat
for January 11, 1861, where it said: “The founders of our government were constant secessionists. They not only claimed the right for themselves, but conceded it to others. They were not only secessionists in theory, but in practice.” Such an editorial would never make it into a newspaper today–it would be considered “politically incorrect” and the vast majority of newspapers in our day strictly adhere to political correctness (Cultural Marxism).

Also quoted by Professor DiLorenzo was an editorial from the Washington, D.C. States and Union
newspaper for March 21, 1861, which said: “The people are the ruling judges, the States independent sovereigns. Where the people chose to change their political condition, as our own Declaration of Independence first promulgated, they have a right to do so. If the doctrine was good then, it is good now. Call that by whatever name you please, secession or revolution, it makes no sort of difference.”

And then DiLorenzo carefully noted: “This last sentence was in response to the Republican Party propaganda machine of the day that invented the theory that the Declaration allows for a ‘right of revoluton’ but not a right of ‘secession.’ The States and Union recognized immediately that this non-distinction was nothing more than a rhetorical flimflam designed to deceive the public about the meaning of their own Declaration of Independence. It is a piece of lying propaganda that is repeated to this day by apologists for the American welfare/warfare’police state, especially the Lincoln-worshipping neocons at National Revue, the Claremont Institute, and other appendages of the Republican Party.”

That’s a pretty telling analysis of something that has been used since the days of “Father Abraham” right up to and including our day, when we are informed that we have a “right to revolution” but no right to secession. I’m sorry, but I have to consider that rationale to be a pile of high-grade cow chips.

On The Web:  http://revisedhistory.wordpress.com/2014/09/30/confused-history-fascism-and-secession/


16490 ---Gravestone Has The Wrong Name --- Released: 17 days Ago. ---- 2014-10-07 17:35:59 -0400
See related pages and categories

Descendant says Confederate soldier's gravestone has the wrong name, but the VA won't fix it

Published September 30, 2014
Associated Press

ELMIRA, N.Y. –  A descendant of a Confederate soldier who died in a Civil War prison camp in New York says the wrong name is on his gravestone, and the Department of Veterans Affairs won't fix it.

Tom Fagart of Concord, North Carolina, tells the Star-Gazette of Elmira (http://stargaz.tt/1pDS9S1 ) that his great-great-grandfather Pvt. Franklin Cauble was buried with the last name Cooper engraved on his gravestone at Woodlawn National Cemetery.

Fagart says Cauble and a soldier named Cooper were friends who enlisted on the same day, served in the same regiment and were captured on the same day in Petersburg, Virginia.

Fagart says both men were sent to Elmira's prison camp, where Cauble died in 1864. Cooper was released after the war ended in 1865.

The VA says it doesn't correct historic gravestones.

On The Web:  http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/09/30/descendant-says-confederate-soldier-gravestone-has-wrong-name-but-va-wont-fix/#.VCrdDLjRQcQ.email


16489 ---There Should Be More Secessionist Movements --- Released: 17 days Ago. ---- 2014-10-07 16:39:23 -0400
See related pages and categories

Ron Paul Thinks There Should Be More Secessionist Movements in the U.S.

The former U.S. congressman and perennial presidential candidate tells National Journal that he's "real pleased" with American secessionist groups.
By Rebecca Nelson

September 30, 2014 - Secessionists across the world were inspired by Scotland's energetic attempt at independence from the United Kingdom earlier this month. Ron Paul, as it turns out, joined them.

In an essay on his eponymous institution's website Sunday, the former U.S. congressman from Texas wrote that any supporters of freedom should cheer secessionism because it allows for smaller government—a constant mantra for the libertarian and perennial presidential candidate, who didn't previously realize there were more than a handful of secessionist groups in the United States.

"I was real pleased with that, and a bit surprised," Paul told National Journal. "But then, on second thought, you think, 'Why not? Why not more?' "

Fringe groups calling for states and regions to secede from the U.S., such as the Second Vermont Republic and the Alaskan Independence Party, gained more publicity in the weeks leading up to the Scottish referendum. As the outsized federal government continues to encroach on individual rights, Paul said, he thinks there will be a groundswell of these movements.

"It's something that I think is going to grow, because the failure of the federal government is going to get much worse," he said. "When the bankruptcy evolves, and maybe some of these pension funds are confiscated, and the wars never end, and bankruptcy comes forth, people [will say], 'Hey, we're getting a bad deal from this. Why don't we leave?' "

He added: "I think it's inevitable people wanting to leave will be there, and the numbers will grow."

Realistically, though, Paul said he doesn't think any of these groups could actually succeed. Despite the founders' own deep belief in secession—they gained America's independence from Europe, after all—he said the Civil War set the precedent that secession would carry "very, very bad" results.

"By our history, the heavy hand of the federal government would come down," Paul told National Journal. "They'd probably shoot 'em."

In typical fashion, Paul argued that the principle of secession was more important than what could actually happen in reality. It's the threat, he said, that's important to keep the federal government in check.

"I think what is most important is we have a concrete right to secede," Paul said. "Even if we never had any secession, or any state declare independence, we would be so much better off, because there would always be this threat. Once the threat of a state leaving was removed, it was just open-door policy for the federal government to expand itself and run roughshod out over the states because the states couldn't do much."

Given that his son, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., will likely run for president in 2016 with a much better chance of winning than his father ever had, the elder Paul's willingness to share his reasonably radical views seem imprudent, if not unexpected. In an election cycle that has often equated the politics of Ron and Rand, this latest remark is sure to annoy the potential 2016-er's supporters.

For Rand's sake, it's fortunate that Ron didn't express his support for the Texas Nationalist Movement or any other secessionist groups in the U.S. Before he'd back Texan independence, he joked, "I better check out and see who's running Austin before we decide about that."

Copyright © 2014 by National Journal Group Inc.

On The Web:  http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/ron-paul-thinks-there-should-be-more-secessionist-movements-in-the-u-s-20140930


16488 ---Museum Wants Flag Removed --- Released: 17 days Ago. ---- 2014-10-07 16:03:33 -0400
See related pages and categories

From: Virginia Flagger <info@vaflaggers.com>
Date: Fri, Oct 3, 2014
Subject: Va Flaggers Alert: Danville Museum Wants Confederate Flag on Lawn Removed



"The Danville Museum of Fine Arts & History's board of directors has approved a three-year strategic plan to create a new mission and vision that will drive new initiatives and partnerships.  As part of the initiative, the museum's board of directors recently asked the city "to remove the Confederate flag from the grounds of the Danville Museum of Fine Arts and History," according to a letter sent to City Manager Joe King.

The new theme for the museum, "The Last Capitol of the Confederacy, The Beginning of a United Nation," will help define the museum's goal to be more inclusive and improve the scope of its work, according to a news release from the museum. The new theme recognizes the museum's 40-year history and the legacy of the Sutherlin Mansion.

In the waning days of the Civil War, the mansion served as the final home of the Confederate government after the fall of Richmond. Danville is considered the "last capitol" because it marked the last time the full Confederate government met in one place before the armies in the field surrendered."

Contact information:

Danville City Manager Joe King:
(434) 799-5100

Danville City Mayor Sherman M. Saunders
 (434) 799-8737


Danville Museum of Fine Arts & History
975 Main Street
Danville, Virginia 24541

Phone: 434.793.5644
Fax:     434.799.6145
Executive Director Cara Burton

Urge the museum to withdraw their request.  Urge the Mayor and City Manager to leave the flag display AS IS!

Susan Hathaway
Virginia Flaggers
P.O. Box 547
Sandston VA 23150


16487 ---Va Flaggers: Ruscio's Double Talk --- Released: 21 days Ago. ---- 2014-10-03 14:12:00 -0400
See related pages and categories

From: Virginia Flagger <info@vaflaggers.com>
Date: Fri, Oct 3, 2014
Subject: Va Flaggers W&L Update: Ruscio's Double Talk


It has become apparent to us, in talking with and hearing from W&L alumni and students, and even members of our own heritage organizations, that MANY good people have accepted President Ruscio and other university officials’ “smoke and mirrors” explanation for the recent removal of Confederate Battle Flags from the LEE Chapel.

We, and a growing number of others who have followed this entire incident since “The Committee” sent its letter of demands in April, see through these PR attempts and are committed to exposing the act for what it was…a lame, disgraceful attempt to appease 6 agitators.

Even a cursory examination of the press releases from the University finds that President Ruscio has engaged in double talk and rhetoric that even he cannot keep straight from one month to the next.

When the flags were stripped from the Chapel in July, Ruscio released a statement which included the following:

“In his letter Tuesday, the administrator said the purpose of the historic flags in a campus setting is to educate. “They are not to be displayed for decoration, which would diminish their significance, or for glorification, or to make a statement about past conflicts,” he wrote. “The reproductions are not genuinely historic; nor are they displayed with any information or background about what they are. The absence of such explanation allows those who either ‘oppose’ or ‘support’ them to assert their own subjective and frequently incorrect interpretations.”

Link to the statement here: 

This is very interesting double talk, considering Ruscio’s comments, made just a few months earlier:

“Lee Chapel displays replicas of eight battle flags that represented different armies of the Confederate States of America, at the back of the chapel’s main floor, near the statue called "The Recumbent Lee." THESE REPLICAS ARE DESIGNED FOR HISTORICAL AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. I am aware of no similar displayed anywhere else on our campus...”

Link to the statement here: 

So…according to Ruscio, (in April, 2014) the flags were displayed for “historical and educational purposes”…and yet by July, 2014, they have become a “decoration” and therefore their removal was required.

What REALLY changed between April and July?  What pressures were exerted that would force Ruscio and W&L officials to do such an “about face” and decide to desecrate the Chapel and dishonor the memory of General Robert E Lee and the thousands of Confederate Veterans with direct ties to the university?  We are determined to find the answers to these questions, and continue to fight this battle from all sides, until the flags are returned, and the honor is restored to the LEE Chapel.

Last week, we sent an update with new contact information for the Rector of the W&L Board of Trustees.  We received information that the email address was incorrect and have included the revised information below.  PLEASE continue to contact these folks and let them know that we have only just begun to fight.  FORWARD this and all communications to any W&L students and/or alumni so that we can counter the lies that are being told.

In the meantime, the Virginia Flaggers will be back at the LEE Chapel at Washington & Lee THIS SATURDAY, October 4th, from 10:00 am – 5:00 pm, forwarding the colors and protesting the desecration of the RE LEE mausoleum by University officials. We will be handing out literature, and educating students, Lexington residents, and tourists about the forced removal of Confederate Battle Flags from the Chapel, in response to the demands of SIX W&L law students. JOIN US, and be a part of those taking a stand against this vile act of desecration, and for the sacred memory and honor of Gen. Robert E. Lee.

Contact Info:

J. Donald Childress
Rector of the Board of Trustees
Atlanta, Georgia

Kenneth P. Ruscio
President of the University

RETURN the flags!

RESTORE the honor!

Va Flaggers


Saturday, October 4th:  Flagging the VMFA: 2:00 pm - 6:00 pm

Saturday, October 4th:  Flagging Washington & Lee University:  10:00 am - 5:00 pm

Thursday, October 16th:  Susan will be speaking at the October meeting of the Sgt. William A. Hamby Camp#1750, SCV, Crossville TN.   6:00 pm CST, 111 E. 1st Street, Crossville.

Saturday, November 1st: Susan will be speaking at the 100th Anniversary celebration of the dedication of the Confederate Monument in Lebanon, VA.

Saturday, November 15th - Sunday, November 16th:  We will have a booth at the Capital of the Confederacy Civil War Show at Richmond International Raceway.  The 34th Annual Capital of the Confederacy Civil War Show presented by Mike Kent & Associates along with the Central Virginia Civil War Collector's Association. This is one of the oldest and most respected Civil War shows in the country.  Hours are Saturday 9am - 5pm and Sunday 9am - 3pm. 

Thursday, December 11th:  Susan will be speaking at the December meeting of the A.H. Belo Camp #49, SCV, Dallas Texas

Friday, December 12th:  Susan will be speaking at the Christmas gathering of the
Major Robert M. White, Camp No. 1250, Sons of Confederate Veterans,Temple, Texas

Saturday, December 13th:  Susan will be speaking at the Christmas gathering of the Middleton Tate Johnson Camp #1648, SCV, Arlington, TX.

Follow our blog:  http://vaflaggers.blogspot.com/

Find us on FaceBook:  https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Virginia-Flaggers/378823865585630

Follow us on Twitter:  https://twitter.com/VaFlagger

Virginia Flaggers
P.O. Box 547
Sandston VA 23150


16486 ---Marker Honors Maury Co. Soldier --- Released: 21 days Ago. ---- 2014-10-03 13:08:56 -0400
See related pages and categories

Civil War Trails marker honors Maury County soldier


A brown aluminum marker rested on the ground at Zion Church Cemetery in Columbia, waiting for permanent placement near one of Maury County’s most famed residents’ grave.

The monument bares the likeness of Samuel Rush Watkins, born June 1839 in the Zion community between Mt. Pleasant and Columbia. His wife Virginia Mayes Watkins is also pictured — the pair beside each other on the marker and in their eternal resting place.

Two workers dug holes, gently lifted the sign, aligned the posts with the newly dug holes and put the marker in its new home.

The Confederate soldier was honored with a Civil War Trails marker Tuesday, the monument placed a stone’s throw away from his gravesite. The Civil War Trails program is a group of historic demarcations that winds through Maryland, North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia. The program has marked more than 1,500 sites.

Sam Watkins is most recognized as the author of “Company Aytch: Or, a Side Show of the Big Show.” The first-hand soldier’s account of the Civil War is highly regarded by historians. Documentary film-maker Ken Burns included some of Watkins’ experience in his 1990 film “The Civil War.”

“(Company Aytch) shows how an individual got around at all the major battles, and it brings it home. He personifies the common soldier,” Civil War Trails Executive Director Mitch Bowman said.

Maury County has seven Civil War Trails markers, he added.

The markers attract visitors as far as Europe, tourists who often take weeks to travel the routes, Bowman said.

“The Civil War Trails program’s main mission is to make visiting Civil War sites a user-friendly experience,” he said. “We like to captivate an interest in a wide swath of audience, from children on up to experienced historians.”

Maury County Archives Director Bob Duncan helped author the marker’s verbiage, some of which reads, “In his book ‘Company Aytch: Or, a Side Show of the Big Show,’ Watkins left an incomparable memoir of his experiences as a rank-and-file soldier during the Civil War.”

Watkins’ writings appeared in the The Daily Herald and were compiled into a book in 1882.

His home is a few miles west of his grave site, and his family worshiped at the Zion Presbyterian Church, according to the marker.

He fought in several major battles, including Shiloh, Murfreesboro, Chattanooga, Franklin and Nashville. Watkins was only one of seven soldiers of the original 120-member Company H when Confederate Gen. Joseph Johnston’s Army of Tennessee surrendered to Union Gen. William T. Sherman in April 1865, according to the marker.

“His story is what draws people to Maury County,” Maury County Convention &Visitors Bureau Assistant Director Becky Leifheit said about Watkins.

The markers create a draw for Civil War enthusiasts, and many people visit Maury County seeking information about the Civil War, including visitors from Australia and England, Leifheit said.

Civil War Trails markers can also be a boon for tourism in the area, especially with ongoing the 150th anniversary, she said.

“We just have so much history here — not only Civil War history — but our Antebellum homes really draw people here,” Leifheit said.

The MCCVB is working toward getting additional markers at the Nelson Hotel in downtown Columbia and Elm Springs on Mooresville Pike. Leifheit said she would like to see one of the two markers placed next year.

Copyright ©Stephens Media LLC 2014.

On The Web:   http://columbiadailyherald.com/news/local-news/civil-war-trails-marker-honors-maury-county-soldier


16485 ---Great For The Forty-Eighters --- Released: 21 days Ago. ---- 2014-10-03 12:31:10 -0400
See related pages and categories

“Father Abraham” Thought Secession Was Great For the Forty-Eighters

Posted on September 27, 2014   
by Al Benson Jr.

In 1860, according to Abraham Lincoln, the Southern states did not possess the right to secede from the Union. Lincoln’s view of the Union was that it had actually predated the Constitution, and that, once in the Union, a state basically had no right not granted to it by Big Brother in Washington. Although he would not have couched it in exactly those terms, that was where he was really coming from. Donnie Kennedy and I have dealt with this in our book Lincoln’s Marxists.

However, in light of his own remarks, Mr. Lincoln’s anti-secession sentiments were very selectively applied, just like the edicts of the present Regime are today. Lincoln was opposed to Southern states seceding from the Union to preserve their Christian heritage and the rights of the individual states according to the Constitution and he was also opposed to their secession because they paid the major portion of the country’s tariffs and to have them gone would cost the Northern states big tariff bucks that the South had heretofore paid. In Lincoln’s mind, these were not good enough reasons for secession, but he did view secession as a viable option if the reasons for it were chaos and revolution.

On January 12, 1848, Lincoln, while in Congress, made a speech in which he stated the following: Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right–a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit. Supposedly, Lincoln was applying this to Texas in 1848, after their late unpleasantness with Mexico. Even were such the case, Lincoln should have been honor-bound to recognize, for other states, what he seems to have recognized for Texas.

However, with my suspicious mind, my personal contention is that, while Lincoln may have referred these remarks to Texas in a secondary way, his prime target for these sentiments was the socialist revolutionary movement that was soon to erupt in several countries in Europe in early 1848. That was the year the socialist and communist revolutionaries plunged Europe into chaos with bloody revolts in several countries. This activity began shortly after Lincoln gave his secession speech in Congress.

The carefully crafted persona of “Honest Abe the railsplitter,” the hayseed from the Illinois prairies, is one that has been carefully nurtured by our politically correct, Cultural Marxist, historic spin doctors. They definitely can’t afford to let us know what “Father Abraham” really was, a sharp, politically astute lawyer and lobbyist for the big railroads, as well as a thoroughly pragmatic politician with his own leftward-leaning agenda.

Lincoln was hardly the country bumpkin that biographers and “historians” have made him out to be. He was conscious of world events and had his own ideas and opinions regarding them. He was acquainted with what went on in Europe. By the same token, many in Europe kept tabs on what was happening over here. Lincoln’s 1848 speech in favor of secession (although the historians won’t admit that’s what it was) was well-timed to give European socialists the kind of American support for their endeavors that many of them could only have dreamed about. It let them know that there were American politicians that supported their socialist agenda.

In his book Lincoln And The Emperors A. R. Tyrner-Trynauer stated on page 32: The sympathy of the United States in general and Lincoln’s Republicans in particular for the revolutionaries of Europe was a long-established fact. That was written in 1962. More recently, in 1991, historian James McPherson, revealing a bit more about Lincoln, told us that: Lincoln championed the leaders of the European revolutiion of 1848; in turn, a man who knew something about those revolutions–Karl Marx–praised Lincoln in 1865 as ‘a single-minded son of the working class’ who had led his ‘country through the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained race and the reconstruction of a social world’. Look at and analyze what McPherson is telling you there. The “reconstruction of a social world” is supposed to be the death knell for the old Christian South, for private property, and of real Christian culture. That’s what it was really all about. Why else do you suppose that, when the Northern radicals (socialists) in Congress sought to destroy the culture of the South they called that program “Reconstruction?” That was Marx’s terminology.

Worth noting again, as Donnie Kennedy and I stress in our book, is the fact that socialist revolutionaries from the 1848 European debacle flocked to join the Union armies as the War of Northern Aggression got under way. Lincoln had the verbal support of Marx and Engels, as well as that of the Russian revolutionary Bakunin. Socialist and communist personalities ended up with high-ranking positions in Lincoln’s armies and also ended up in positions of influence in journalism, education, politics, and the list goes on. The fact that European socialists so lopsidedly supported the Union cause should give people pause to consider the true nature of the Union cause. Was Karl Marx really concerned about Lincoln freeing an “enchained race” of blacks? Hardly! Marx’s own personal comments show that he was prejudiced against blacks, and so was Lincoln for that matter. If you don’t think so, scrounge through the Lincoln Douglas Debates and see what you find. For both Marx and Lincoln the blacks were nothing more than cannon fodder for the socialist world revolution–and nothing has changed since then.

In the final analysis you have to ask, were Lincoln and Marx really that far apart? Such a question today will, no doubt, shock some tender souls who have been taught that Lincoln was, in effect, a secular messiah–the apotheosis of a mere man into a “god.” But, then, today, some feel that way about Obama. A noted television journalist, awhile back, said of her and her colleagues regarding Obama, “We thought he was the messiah.” I can only assume, at this point, that she has had her rude awakening. That same rude awakening needs to take place in regard to “Father Abraham” and his socialist and communist friends in the early Republican Party (and in the same party today along with the Democrats).

On The web:   http://revisedhistory.wordpress.com/2014/09/27/father-abraham-thought-secession-was-great-for-the-forty-eighters/


16484 ---Secession Books Neglect To Mention --- Released: 21 days Ago. ---- 2014-10-03 12:16:55 -0400
See related pages and categories

Secession the “History” Books Neglect to Mention

Posted on September 24, 2014   
by Al Benson Jr.

After posting my last article on secession a reader informed me that I had left out the most important part–the fact that secession in this country went all the way back to 1776. It was never my intention to neglect that, but he felt that I did. I have to agree with him–it did go back that far, though most historians today never bother to label what the 13 colonies did in regard to England as secession. By the same token, we are never informed by the “historians” that the New England states threatened secession in the early 1800s no less than three times, one of those times being over the War of 1812, which interrupted the Northeast’s commerce with England. The fact that British troops were torching Washington was of little consequence to the New Englanders if it caused commerce to be stalled.

However, one writer, James McClellan, in a book called Liberty, Order and Justice published by the Center for Judicial Studies in Washington in 1989. McClellan wrote, on page 65, that: “In any event, 1763 marks an important turning point in Anglo-American relations, for this is the year when the mother country embarked upon a bold new course of action to increase revenue, tighten restrictions on colonial commerce, and require the Americans to assume a greater share of the imperial tax burden. In response to Parliament’s abrupt change of colonial policy, the Americans began to question the constitutional basis of parliamentary statues designed to impose a new economic relationship between the colonies and England. Reaffirming and at the same time reinterpreting their ancient rights and privileges, they turned in the final stages of resistance to thoughts about the nature of free government. In the end, they came reluctantly to the conclusion that secession was their only recourse.” And they had tried a lot of other options first. Secession had not been their first choice, as today it should not be the first choice, but should rather be the one measure to protect the liberties of the people when all other legitimate choices have been tried and failed. When you are in the position of trying to deal honorably with a rogue government and nothing else will work, what other choice to you have except bondage?

And so the Declaration of Independence was written and it listed all the problems the colonists had with England as the reasons for their secession from England. I had not always realized that the Declaration was a secession document. One day, several years ago now, I was rereading it and looking at all the reason the colonists gave for their action and the thought just struck me “The Declaration of Independence is really a secession document.” That was a new thought to me and I wondered if I had, as the English say, gone “a little bit around the bend.” But in subsequent reading in the months after that I found that several other writers had come up with the same conclusion, and so I felt I was not all that far out of line.

Back in June of 1992, Lew Rockwell Jr. wrote an article for “Free Market” in which he said: “In the U.S., meanwhile, the central government gets more tyrannical and expensive by the day. Is it time to think about bidding it adieu? Certainly, secession from Britain made a lot of sense.” And Rockwell quoted Thomas Jefferson and the Declaration where he said: whenever “any Form of Government becomes destructive, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it and to instutute a new Government.” When a “long train of abuses and usurpations” shows “a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government.” And to really do that, you need to secede.

Back in 1994, Columnist Sam Francis did a column noting that Professor Walter Williams had argued in favor of secession, and Francis agreed with him. And then Francis went on to mention a couple little tidbits that, for some reason, hardly seem to make it into most “history” textbooks in our day. He said: “The Confederates of yore were hardly the first to uphold the right of states to secede. In 1815 the Hartford Convention seriously discussed the secession of New England. Later, some abolitionists proposed secession because they just couldn’t stand being part of the same country with slaveholders, a sentiment the slaveholders reciprocated. Confederate General George Pickett, who opposed secession on grounds of ‘expediency’ never doubted the right to secede and noted that the textbook on constitutional law he used as a cadet at West Point acknowledged secession’s legality.” I believe that book was written by William Rawle, LL.D and entitled A View of the Constitution Secession is dealt with in Rawle’s book on pages 238-239. So the concept of secession was taught in a book used at West Point, and some future Confederate leaders got their view of secession from a book used at the United States Military Academy. That being the case, you have to wonder at what point secession became treasonous. Today’s “historians” will never tell!

Other sources have cited secession sentiment in even the Middle Atlantic states–New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware and Maryland. Author William C. Wright has written that: “The secession movement was prominent in the five Middle Atlantic states.”

So secession was not just a “Southern Thang.” The spirit of secession manifested itself in New England and the Middle Atlantic states and it was evident, to those who are willing to look, even in the Declaration of Independence. So those that scream that secession is treason either are totally ignorant of U.S. history or they fervently hope their audience is.

On The Web:   http://revisedhistory.wordpress.com/2014/09/24/secession-the-history-books-neglect-to-mention/


16483 ---Secession Was Not Treason: Still Isn't --- Released: 21 days Ago. ---- 2014-10-03 11:59:32 -0400
See related pages and categories

Secession Wasn’t Treason. It Still Isn’t

Posted on September 22, 2014   
by Al Benson Jr.

Secession and the knee-jerk reactions to it have been of interest to me ever since I started doing historical research. Yankee/Marxist politicians, in 1861, sought to portray secession by the Southern states as the most monstrous of crimes ever perpetrated on the human race. The fact that some Northern states had threatened secession and actually sent delegates to Hartford, Connecticut in 1814 to consider the issue was a historical fact that was lost on them, and they hoped on everyone else too. Somehow, when the Northern states considered it, it was not treason. That was only the case when Southern states did it.

Between 1814 and 1860, secession went from being a favored possibility to a horrendous crime, most notably if the South did it. Even, and especially, in our day, many of our crop of “historians” absolutely howl about how secession was treason and how the Confederate States were seeking to overthrow the United States government–all of which is complete bovine fertilizer–and don’t think they don’t know it. All the Southern states wanted were to be able to go in peace. They had no interest whatever in overthrowing the federal government in Washington; they just wanted to depart and set up their own government. However, Mr. Lincoln and his erstwhile collectivist friends couldn’t allow that, as the Southern states paid the lion’s share of the tariff for the whole country and if they were allowed to depart, why the Northern states might have to start ponying up their share of the tariff because the South would no longer be there to pay over 80% of it.

When the shooting part of the War of Northern Aggression was over and the Confederate States, which never officially surrendered, by the way, were in ruins, the benevolent Yankee/Marxist government took Jeff Davis, who, with his cabinet, had fled rather than surrender, and they tossed him into prison at Fortress Monroe in Virginia for two years, planning at the outset to bring him to trial for treason and secession, which they claimed were one in the same. After two years of prisoner abuse and political horseplay, the Union government finally decided, rather reluctantly, that it could not afford to bring Davis to trial because, should that event transpire, it might well be proven in court that Davis and the South had been right–secession was not at all illegal, nor was it unconstitutional. After all, what did they think the Declaration of Independence was other than a secession document?

Several years back now, 1995 I think it was, I wrote a short 26 page booklet on secession. It has since become one of the booklets I offer in my home school mini-history course. In that booklet I quoted an author, James Street, who had written a book entitled simply “The Civil War.” Mr. Street had a few comments about what happened to Jeff Davis at the end of the War. He said: “The North didn’t dare give him a trial, knowing that a trial would establish that secession was not unconstitutional, that there had been no ‘rebellion’ and that the South had got a raw deal.” You can’t say it much plainer than that.

Later, I picked up another book, written by Burke Davis (no relative to Jeff that I know of), entitled “The Long Surrender.” It dealt with much of what happened with the people involved during the final days of the Confederacy, when Richmond fell, and Jeff Davis and the Confederate government fled the city and tried to set up somewhere else in order that they might carry on the struggle.

After Jeff Davis was captured, the vindictive and radical Yankee/Marxist Secretary of War, Edwin Stanton, (who many feel may have known more about the Lincoln assassination than is admitted) wanted to implicate Davis both as a co-conspirator in Lincoln’s assassination and as a traitor for being the head of the secessionist government in Richmond, even though secession had not been original with Davis. Try as they might, the radical leftist Republicans in Washington couldn’t quite bring it off. Burke Davis noted, on page 204 of his book, a quote by Chief Justice Salmon P Chase, telling Stanton “If you bring these leaders to trial, it will condemn the North, for by the Constitution, secession is not rebellion…His (Jeff Davis’) capture was a mistake. His trial will be a greater one. We cannot convict him of treason. Secession is settled. Let it stay settled.” Only it wasn’t–and isn’t. Burke Davis continued on page 214 of his book, noting that a congressional committee proposed a special court for Davis’ trial, headed by Franz Lieber. Again, Davis noted: “After studying more than 270,000 Confederate documents seeking evidence against Davis, this court discouraged the War Department: ‘Davis will be found not guilty,’ Lieber reported, ‘and we shall stand there completely beaten’.”

What the radical, Yankee/Marxist politicians were admitting among themselves (they’d never say it anywhere else) was that they had just fought a “civil war” that had taken or maimed the lives of over 600,000 Americans, both North and South, and that they had no constitutional justification whatever for having done so, nor had they any constitutional right to have impeded the Southern states when they chose to withdraw from the constitutional compact. They had fought solely for the right to keep an empire together. Call is “Manifest Destiny” or whatever noble-sounding euphemism you want to tack onto it, either way, they had been wrong. Now they could ill afford to let Jeff Davis go to trial, else their grievous crime would become public knowledge and beget them even more problems in the future, and that would have given them problems as they sought to redistribute among their friends whatever wealth remained in the South.

Needless to say, you probably have not read about any of this in what passes for “history” books in the last 150 years. As the narrator at the beginning of the movie “Braveheart” so correctly stated: “History is written by those who’ve hanged heroes.”

Real human rights in both North and South had been trampled on, and have continued to be up until and including today. What the Lincoln administration and early Marxist Republicans started and kept up during “reconstruction” has finally come to full fruition in our day, with such legislation as the “Patriot Act” and Obamacare, which effectively cancel out much of the Bill of Rights–as was intended and still is.

The War of Northern Aggression started the trend in this country in which leftist politicians have ever sought to usurp the rights of individual Americans, and to rule over us rather than to represent us as they were originally delegated to do. Truly, there is nothing new under the sun. And now, with secessionist sentiment running rampant all over the world, the politicians are getting a bit nervous.

If you want some of the real history of that period in this country I would recommend James and Walter Kennedy’s book “The South Was Right,” Frank Conner’s book “The South Under Siege–1830-2000,” and Walter Kennedy’s and my book “Lincoln’s Marxists.”

On The Web:   http://revisedhistory.wordpress.com/2014/09/22/secession-wasnt-treason-it-still-isnt/


16482 ---Right To Secede? Interesting --- Released: 21 days Ago. ---- 2014-10-03 11:44:26 -0400
See related pages and categories

Scotland had the right to secede? Interesting

A Belle's Eye View

Monday, September 22, 2014

One interesting angle on the recent vote in Scotland, which has been largely ignored by the mainstream media, is the utter absence of analysis of the issue involving secession.

Even those who were most adamantly urging a “no” vote did not deny Scotland the right to decide its own fate.

What a contrast to strident Unionists in this country, who vehemently deny that the South, or Vermont, or any of the many factions in this country seeking independence, past or present, have the right to determine their governmental fate.

England didn’t threaten to send troops, or state that having in 1707 agreed to the complete joining of the two countries, Scotland had lost its right to autonomy.

No, while they were certainly anxious about the election, there were no military threats or cries of treason. What a contrast to the handling of our Late Unpleasantness.

It is interesting to note the arguments against independence, and who made them.

George Soros said it would be a blow “to the prevailing international order.” Well, that makes one wonder: Is the current international order something worth preserving?

Dan E. Phillips in an Abbeville Institute Press article notes approvingly that Soros states it would be a “retrograde” step.

True conservatives agree — although they would argue that is a positive development.

Phillips ably argues, “The clear demonstration that territorial secession can happen without bloodshed will serve as a stark reminder to modern-day Unionists that our own bloody clash didn’t have to be that way.”

For the past half century, we’ve seen an increasing move towards smaller countries.

While there is a general belief that bigger is better, smaller countries like Iceland, Switzerland, Norway and Denmark show that it is possible to be a small, secure country.

Scotland has oil, although the naysayers have tried to downplay the natural resource. It has a fiercely held cultural identity, and I doubt that you’ve seen the last of the call for independence.

Here in the States, there is some fear that it might inspire various secessionist groups, who have suddenly garnered attention after years of being treated as tin-foil-hatted nut cases.

In 2012, 80,000 of my fellow Texans signed a petition urging secession. The groups themselves are not necessarily more optimistic in the wake of the Scottish vote.

“If the condition of this country as it is today is not enough to make people want to leave it, I cannot tell you what would.

“If you have no faith in your central government, if Congress has the support of 10 to 12 percent of the public, if the president’s approval numbers are close to 30 percent in some states;

“I don’t know why this resentment doesn’t translate into secession, which is the only reliable peaceful way to make change,” opined Kirkpatrick Sale, whose Middlebury Institute has held seminars and published books on the topic of secession.

The Texas Nationalist group, the League of the South, Cascadia Now, the Alaskan Independence Party, numerous Hawaiian independence groups, the Second Vermont Republic — they all hold fast to the dream of independence.

It is a new day for secessionists. Even though the Scots themselves voted against independence, I have faith that all is not lost.

Just the acceptance of the idea, and the playing out of the vote on the international stage, gives me hope that one day I, like my forebearers, may choosed to live in an independent Texas or South.

It’s difficult to look at the current political landscape and say, “Yep. This is great. Give me more!”

So, my beloved Scotland, whose valleys, lochs and mountains I’ve spent weeks and weeks exploring, I’m sorry you didn’t finally finish was William Wallace and Robert the Bruce started.

And I fear Robert Burns was right and, “We’re bought and sold for English gold — such a parcel of rogues in a nation.”

© Copyright 2014, parispi.net, Paris, TN.

On The Web:   http://www.parispi.net/opinion/columns/article_d6102142-4279-11e4-83fc-cbedacc46d99.html


16481 ---Abbeville And Scottish Secession --- Released: 21 days Ago. ---- 2014-10-03 11:25:29 -0400
See related pages and categories

Abbeville and Scottish Secession

Friends of the Abbeville Institute:

Scotland voted "No" to independence.  The media will have you believe this was a crushing victory.  After all, only 45 percent of the Scottish people voted for secession.  We should flip that on its head.  45 percent of the nearly 90 percent of eligible voters voted FOR self-determination.  The "No" vote barely won, and the aftermath is going to be dramatic.  Several European secession movements have used the publicity of the Scottish referendum to push their own cause. Among these are the Flemish in Belgium, Catalonia in Spain, the Veneto and Lombardy in Italy, Bavaria in Germany, and many more.

The time of the large "indivisible" unitary state is over. A new demand for self-government has emerged either in the form of political independence or for "quasi-independence" in the form of greater state or provincial autonomy. Quebec failed to secede in 1995 in a close vote of 51-49.  As a consequence, Quebec received sufficient autonomy so that, for the moment, there is little interest in secession.

Scotland will certainly gain in self-government because of this referendum. Indeed, they were promised a "devolution revolution" in exchange for a "no" vote. Whether that will satisfy the discontents that forced the referendum or whether the expanded exercise of self government will simply spark a greater desire for independence remains to be seen. Westminster gave Scotland its parliament in 1998. That was supposed to satisfy secessionist discontents. But this expanded exercise of self government only strengthened them.

The referendum was a peaceful assertion of the natural right of self-determination.  No bullets were fired.  No Molotov-cocktails were lobbed at police.  No teargas canisters or dogs were deployed. Independence lost, but it will be back, and not just in Scotland. British prime minister David Cameron should be commended for allowing the referendum. I should add that the Canadian supreme court has ruled that every Canadian province has the right to a referendum on secession at public expense whenever it pleases.

The Drudge Report recently ran an article from REUTERS which "shockingly" exposed increasing American acceptance of secession. Twenty-five percent of Americans, on both the Left and the Right, support the idea of secession for their State.  This is an important and growing trend.

State nullification and secession are fundamental principles in the Constitution as understood by the Jeffersonians who, more or less, dominated the Union from Jefferson's election in 1800 to South Carolina's secession December 20, 1861. Of the New England secession movements (1804-1814), Jefferson said in 1816: "If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation ... to a continuance in union ... I have no hesitation in saying, 'let us separate.'"

If anyone is an American,Jefferson is.That State secession from the first has been a vital part of the American tradition has been suppressed by mainline historians since 1865 as a "Southern heresy." It is true Southerners acted upon it, but there is nothing especially "Southern" or "Confederate" about it.

The right of secession is a timeless principle, memorably asserted in the Declaration of Independence, and is as applicable to an American state today as it is to Scotland, Catalonia, or the Veneto; or as it was to Norway which seceded from Sweden in 1905, or to Singapore which seceded from the Malaysian federation in 1967, or as it was to the 15 states that seceded from the Soviet Union in 1991. Whether it would be good for a State to secede is a practical question for the future. But the question can no longer be suppressed by the fiction that the American federation of States is "indivisible."

Though secession is not a Southern heresy, as presented by main stream scholars, it is true that the Southern tradition alone has preserved this Jeffersonian part of the American tradition. The Abbeville Institute is the keeper of the Jeffersonian tradition. If you value that tradition and wish to have a deeper intellectual grasp of it and its place in the broader American tradition, please lend your support to the Abbeville Institute.

Our goal is to explore what is true and valuable in the Southern tradition, including the Jeffersonian principle of secession. George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson were secessionists.  Southerners were the last Americans to attempt independence.  A loss by force of arms does not invalidate the natural right of political self-government.  People all over the world are realizing this.

For as little as an annual gift of $50, you can help in our effort to gain a deeper understanding of the Southern tradition and what that tradition intimates for us today. All donations to the Abbeville Institute are tax deductible to the full extent of the law. They will be used to maintain our website and provide educational programs for college students, scholars in higher education, and the general public. Please go to www.abbevilleinstitute.org,click the link for donations and choose a sponsorship level. Or mail check to Abbeville Instittute, P.O.Box 10, McClellanville, SC 29458.


Donald W. Livingston
President, The Abbeville Institute


16480 ---History Spotlight: Battle Flag --- Released: 21 days Ago. ---- 2014-10-03 11:07:39 -0400
See related pages and categories

Spotlight on History: The Confederate Battle Flag

Special to the Daily Light

For the average non-Southerner, the continued affection residents of the South display toward the controversial Battle Flag can be baffling. If other Americans are so incensed by the banner, why not just fold it up and put it away? Why indeed? The war has been over for 150 years.

Can a symbol so emotionally charged ever be mutually understood?  The very same symbol means completely different things to different people. Many hate groups have gravitated toward the historical flag. However, these very same groups also use other symbols that are loved and cherished by millions of people.

The pinnacle of the Ku Klux Klan was in the 1920s. They boasted over a million members with national leadership in Ohio and Illinois.

The most careful photographic scrutiny of the era will fail to reveal a single Confederate flag. One will however find the American flag and the Christian cross in profusion.

Patriotic Americans and Christians already have a context for these symbols. The icons cannot be co-opted because they already mean something else.

This is also precisely why Southerners continue to love the Battle flag in the face of so much bad publicity. The flag already has meaning and context.

The Battle flag did not make its appearance in its recognizable form until 1862, yet some of the design elements date to antiquity. The “X” is the cross of St. Andrew. It was the fisherman Andrew who introduced his brother Simon Peter to Jesus in Galilee 2000 years ago.

When the disciple Andrew was himself martyred years later he asked not to be crucified on the same type of cross Christ died upon. His last request was honored and he was put to death on a cross on the shape of the “X.”

Andrew later became the patron saint of Scotland and the Scottish flag today is the white St. Andrews cross on a blue field. When Scottish immigrants settled in Northern Ireland in the 1600s, the cross was retained on their new flag, albeit a red St. Andrews cross on a white field.

When the New World opened up, landless Scots and Ulster-Scots left their homes and most of them settled in the South, preserving their old culture in the isolated rural and frontier environment. 

Fully 75 percent of the early South was populated by these Celts.  Most sold themselves into indentured servitude because they could not afford the cost of passage, thus becoming the first American slaves.

The lowland English of Saxon descent by contrast settled the Northeastern colonies. This imbued those colonies with such an English character they are still known as New England. 

These Northern descendants could not have been more different from their Southern countrymen. Many historians believe the longstanding historical animosities between Saxon and Celt did not bode well for the new country. With this historical perspective the St. Andrews cross seems almost destined to be raised again as ancient rivals clashed on new battlefields.

From this Celtic stock, the ingredients that made the unique Southern stew were gradually introduced.

The American Revolution unleashed Celtic hatred of the redcoat. Southerners penned the Declaration of Independence, chased the British through the Carolinas and defeated them at Yorktown.

However, they were dismayed when New England immediately sought renewed trade with England and failed to support the French in their own revolution.

Another Virginian later crafted the Constitution, a document as sacred to Southerners as their Bibles. Law, they believed finally checkmated tyranny. The 13-starred banner was their new cherished flag. These same features would later become a permanent part of the Battle Flag.

But all was not well with the new republic. Mistrust between the regions manifested even before the revolution was over. The unwieldy Articles of Confederation preceded the constitution.

Two of the former colonies (North Carolina and Rhode Island) to be coerced into approving the latter document after wrangling that included northern insistence they be allowed to continue the slave trade another 20 years.

Virginia and Kentucky passed resolutions in 1796 asserting their belief that political divorce was an explicit right. Massachusetts threatened on three separate occasions to secede, a right affirmed by all the New England states at the 1818 Hartford convention.

The abolitionists were champions of secession and would burn copies of the constitution at their rallies. Their vicious attacks upon all things Southern occurring as it did in the midst of Northern political and economic ascendancy animated Southern secessionists years before the average Southerner could consider such a possibility.

By 1860, the United States was in reality two countries living miserably under one flag. When war broke out, Dixie’s’ original banner so resembled the old American forebear that a new flag was needed to prevent confusion on the field of battle.

The blue St. Andrews cross, trimmed in white on a red field appeared above the defending Confederate army. Thirteen stars appeared on those bars representing the 11 seceding states and revolutionary precedent.

These fighting units were all recruited from the same communities, with lifelong friends and close relatives among the casualties of every battle. As they buried their dead friends and relatives, the names of those battles were painted or stitched on their flags.

At Appomattox a Union observer wrote, they were stoic as they stacked their arms but wept bitterly when they had to furl their flags.

Then, as now, the flag symbolizes for Southerners not hate but love; love of heritage, love of faith, love of constitutional protections, love of family and community.

On The Web:   http://m.waxahachietx.com/news/ellis_county/spotlight-on-history-the-confederate-battle-flag/article_c17b6e8a-d601-5f8b-b019-94f79ce404aa.html?mode=jqm


16479 ---Horrid Fragment Of Feudal Despotism --- Released: 23 days Ago. ---- 2014-10-01 15:37:49 -0400
See related pages and categories

North Carolina's Horrid Fragment of Feudal Despotism
From: bernhard1848@gmail.com

Constitutional scholar and lawyer R. Carter Pittman (1898-1972) wrote that “Philosophy and sociology have always been the tamper tools that have sprung institutions of liberty out of alignment. Historical research and common sense born of experience, have always been the tools to spring them back into place. Doctors of pseudo-socio-science have always been the apes of tyranny.”
He viewed the “all men are created equal” phrases in State constitutions as being “forced upon the people . . . by carpetbag doctors of pseudo-socio-science, while Federal bayonets held the outraged white people at bay. As soon as those doctors were run out, nearly all the States returned to George Mason’s phrase: "That all men are born equally free and independent."
Bernhard Thuersam, Chairman
North Carolina War Between the States Sesquicentennial Commission
"Unsurpassed Valor, Courage and Devotion to Liberty"
"The Official Website of the North Carolina WBTS Sesquicentennial"
North Carolina’s Horrid Fragment of Feudal Despotism
“Inequality will exist as long as liberty exists.  It unavoidably results from that very liberty itself.” Alexander Hamilton, 26 June 1787
“American high school and college textbooks are loaded with equalitarian propaganda, all pointing to the Declaration of Independence equality clause as the “American dream” or the “American creed.”  No one questions the right of all men to equal justice under law, but propagandists have carried the doctrine beyond equality of rights to equality of things . . .
The Declaration of Independence never became living law in America, and no provision of the Federal Constitution or Bill of Rights can be traced to it and . . . its influence on State constitutions and bills rights has been insignificant.
It was written to serve the temporary purposes of a sanguinary conflict.  It was and perhaps will always be history’s most effective piece of propaganda, but it neither grants nor protects human rights.  The Declaration of Independence does not say that all men are equal.  It says they were “created” equal.  There equality ends.
The [United States] Constitution proclaims in its preamble that it was established “to . . . insure domestic tranquility . . . and secure the blessings of liberty.”  Nowhere does it hint a purpose to insure or impose equality of men or things.
For decades after 1776 North Carolina’s Bill of Rights proclaimed “that all men are born equally free and independent.”  There must surely be some explanation as to why people who had lived under the maxims of George Mason since 1776 should suddenly change in 1868.
The Constitution of 1868 was framed in a convention called under the reconstruction acts of [the Northern] Congress, by Major General [Edward] Canby.  It assembled at Raleigh, January 14, 1868.  Federal soldiers stood guard over deliberations. The same equality clause was inserted in the bills or rights of many Southern States while the natural leaders of the white people were held at bay by Federal bayonets. See for examples, the Alabama Bill of Rights, the Louisiana Bill of Rights of 1868, South Carolina’s of 1868 and Florida’s of 1868.
As is well-known by those the least familiar with American history, shortly after the Federal troops were withdrawn [in 1877], the white people of the South quickly expelled the carpetbaggers and subdued the scalawags and recaptured the State governments. Every one of those States, with one exception, promptly called a constitutional convention according to its own wishes in place of those imposed upon it by military might.
All struck the doctrine of human equality from their constitutions, except North Carolina. Why North Carolina should have retained that doctrine in her Bill of Rights is a mystery.  There it stands on parchments as a horrid fragment of feudal despotism imposed on a proud and helpless people by superior force.”
(Equality Versus Liberty, the Eternal Conflict, R. Carter Pittman, August, 1960;www.rcarterpittman.org)

16478 ---NY's Notorious Slave Ships --- Released: 23 days Ago. ---- 2014-10-01 15:25:04 -0400
See related pages and categories

New York's Notorious Slave Ships
From: bernhard1848@gmail.com
In the post-Revolution era, African slavery was waning as cotton production was a laborious task and not worth cultivating on a large scale until Eli Whitney of Massachusetts revolutionized the industry in 1793. Thereafter, New England mills could not live without raw slave-produced cotton, Manhattan lenders ensured plantation owners that money was available for plantation expansion, and New England slavers continued to import the labor supply.
Bernhard Thuersam, Chairman
North Carolina War Between the States Sesquicentennial Commission
"Unsurpassed Valor, Courage and Devotion to Liberty"
"The Official Website of the North Carolina WBTS Sesquicentennial"
New York’s Notorious Slave Ships
“In the decade 1850-1860 Great Britain maintained consulates in six Southern ports: Norfolk, -- changed to Richmond in 1856 – Charleston, Savannah, Mobile, New Orleans and Galveston.
[Consul G.P.R.] James [in Norfolk and Richmond] . . . considered that Virginians were very kind to their slaves and that slavery was an injury to masters rather than Negroes. One of the proprietors of the Richmond “slave warehouse” was, wrote his son Charles later, an “unmistakable Yankee,” said to be very humane to his charges, “but the business was regarded as infamous.  I heard a respectable man denounced for accepting his hospitality.”
At Niagara Falls, James saw a runaway Negro belonging to one of his Norfolk neighbors; he had found it difficult to make a living and was cold and he begged the consul to ask his owner to take him back.
[Consul] Henry G. Kuper of Baltimore gave assurance that the slave trade was being extensively carried on by many American citizens, especially in New York . . . with the connivance of Spanish authorities in Cuba where most of the cargoes were conveyed . . . Consul Edward W. Mark wrote from Baltimore that at any moment twenty vessels might be found under construction at that port, admirably adapted for the slave trade. Some were built expressly for the trade by “respectable houses,” which would not enter the trade themselves but merely executed the orders they received.
Mark believed, however, that in Baltimore little countenance was given to the trade. It was carried on rather “from New York and the eastern parts of the Union . . . and generally by New England and foreign firms.”
[In 1858 Consul] Molyneaux of Savannah told the story of a Charleston mercantile house . . . which proposed to send the ship Richard Cobden . . . on a [suspicious] voyage to Africa to bring “free emigrants” to a United States port. The collector of the port appealed to United States Secretary of the Treasury Howell Cobb who pronounced the proposal illegal.
About the same time the Lydia Gibbs, a vessel of one-hundred and fourteen tons of Northern build, sailed from Charleston under one Watson, a Scotchman naturalized in the United States. He took it to Havana where it was sold to unknown persons for $12,000.  Watson was to receive $6,000 more if he escaped detection, and in addition a certain percentage of the slaves he should succeed in landing in Cuba.
[In July 1858 Charleston Consul Robert Bunch] wrote that the brig Frances Ellen had cleared from Charleston for Africa, supposedly to engage in the slave trade; that the firm of Ponjand and Lalas, two Spaniards, which sent it out, was believed to be regularly engaged in this traffic [and] intended to land five or six cargoes in Texas . . .
In December, 1859, the South Carolina legislature received from the New York assembly a set of resolutions passed by the latter body, condemning the slave trade and urging the Southern States not to connive at or encourage the odious traffic.  South Carolina returned the resolutions to the senders without comment and Bunch, though agreeing with the New York sentiments, dryly noted that the action was not “happily received,” “as it is notorious that, during the present year, at least ten slavers have been fitted out in New York for one in the entire South.”
(The South in the 1850’s as Seen by British Consuls, Laura A. White, The Journal of Southern History, February 1935, excerpts, pp. 29, 31, 36-41)

16477 ---Capt. George Thomas Parker --- Released: 23 days Ago. ---- 2014-10-01 15:10:41 -0400
See related pages and categories

Captain George Thomas Parker of Gates County

George Thomas Parker served with the Fifth North Carolina Regiment for the duration of the war, originally enlisting with Company G at Camp Winslow in Halifax County on 20 June 1861 and appointed First Sergeant.  The Fifth Regiment mustered into Confederate service on 15 July 1861 and left for Virginia the same day. It arrived at Manassas Junction on 16 July and was assigned to the Fourth Brigade of Brigadier-General James Longstreet and marched to Mitchell’s Ford on Bull Run Creek where it saw its baptism under fire at First Manassas.  Promoted to regimental Sergeant-Major, he returned to Company G as a second lieutenant, then transferred to Company H on 15 January 1862; first lieutenant to rank from 12 October 1862; and captain to rank from 15 June 1863.
From northern Virginia the regiment was sent to the Williamsburg area to resist enemy invasion in March and April 1862.  Parker was wounded during Gen. Joseph E. Johnston’s offensive at Seven Pines in May 1862 but returned to duty to participate at King’s School House, Cold Harbor, Gaines Mill, Frayser’s Farm, Seven Days, South Mountain, Sharpsburg, Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, Gettysburg, Mine Run and Spotsylvania, where Parker was wounded in the right thigh in May or June 1864.  He was reported as “absent wounded” through December 1864, returned to Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia and paroled at Appomattox on 9 April 1865.  
Brothers David Wood and James Robert also served the Confederacy, as well as Joseph John Parker who died of typhoid fever in October 1861.  This “camp fever” was ubiquitous and usually the result of exposure to the elements and poor camp sanitation.  Parker was paroled at Appomattox in April 1865.
Capt. Parker returned home after Appomattox “so ragged and dirty they put him in the smokehouse to take a bath. He threw away all the clothes he had on and left his pistol out there,” according to daughter Julia in a 1954 interview.  Parker married Eunice Katherine Riddick on 2 December 1865 and their union produced six children, including Julia.
A dedicated member of the United Confederate Veterans after the war, Parker served as commander of the Tom Smith Camp of the UCV in Suffolk, Virginia where he had made his home.  After several years of illness and then paralysis, he passed away at age 74 on 18 January 1911; wife Eunice followed him in death on 10 February 1931.
Capt. Parker’s obituary described a faithful Christian and member of his congregation, a superior role model for his children and future generations:
“A consistent and faithful member of Main Street Methodist Church, he was always found at his post of duty in the choir and the other activities of his church, taking great interest in all things which pertained to the moral and spiritual uplift of the community.  He was a brave soldier, a good husband and father, a true citizen, and a devout Christian gentleman.  Freed from his rundown house of clay, he lives in a glorious body in the “house of many mansions.” He served his day and generation well and has gone to reap the reward – the crown of rejoicing and the presence of his God forever.”
Sources:  Confederate Images, C.E. Avery, Confederate Veteran, Volume 6, 2000, pg. 9; North Carolina Troops, 1861-1865, A Roster, Volume IV, Weymouth T. Jordan

16476 ---Economic Causes Of The War --- Released: 23 days Ago. ---- 2014-10-01 14:58:31 -0400
See related pages and categories

“The Economic Causes of the War”
The excellent explanation of the economic causes of the War Between the States by Dr. Donald W. Miller, Jr. is added in its entirety.  It was published in September 2001. Please pass this website along to family, friends and acquaintances to help them better understand American history, the reasons for the 1861-1865 conflict, and the unsurpassed valor of North Carolinians who fought for their independence.  Read an excerpt below:
“Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North.  The love of money is the root of this, as of many evils.  The quarrel between the North and the South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel.”  Charles Dickens
In the schoolbook account of the American Civil War, Abraham Lincoln rose to the presidency and took the steps needed to end slavery.  He led the country in a great Civil War against the slaveholding States that seceded, restored these states to the Union, and ended slavery. Accordingly, historians rate Abraham Lincoln as one of our greatest presidents.
People in the South, like my great-great-grandfather Louis Thomas Hicks, had a different view of the war. Louis Hicks fought in the Battle of Gettysburg in the Army of Northern Virginia, commanding the 20th North Carolina Regiment (in Iverson's Brigade of Rodes Division in Ewell's Second Corps). He led his regiment into action on the first day of the battle and was forced to surrender after losing eighty percent of his men (238 out of 300) in two-and-a-half hours of fighting. In his personal account of the battle, he wrote, "[As a prisoner] I lied awake, thinking of my comrades and the great cause for which we were willing to shed our last drop of blood."
His daughter, Mary Lyde Williams, echoed similar sentiments in her Presentation Address given at the Unveiling of the North Carolina Memorial on the Battlefield of Gettysburg on July 3, 1929.  She began her address with the words, "They wrote a constitution in which each State should be free." Four children, including her granddaughter, my mother, who was then 10 years old, removed the veil that covered the statue.
Today’s Standard View of the War
Today American children are taught in the nation's schools, both in the North and South, that it was wrong for people to support the Confederacy and to fight and die for it.
Well-intentioned, "right thinking" people equate anyone today who thinks that the South did the right thing by seceding from the Union as secretly approving of slavery. Indeed, such thinking has now reached the point where groups from both sides of the political spectrum, notably the NAACP and Southern Poverty Law Center on the left and the Cato Institute on the right, want to have the Confederate Battle Flag eradicated from public spaces. These people argue that the Confederate flag is offensive to African-Americans because it commemorates slavery.
The war did enable Lincoln to "save" the Union, but only in a geographic sense. The country ceased being a Union, as it was originally conceived, of separate and sovereign States. Instead,
America became a "nation" with a powerful federal government. Although the war freed four million slaves into poverty, it did not bring about a new birth of freedom, as Lincoln and historians such as James McPherson and Henry Jaffa say.  For the nation as a whole the war did just the opposite: It initiated a process of centralization of government that has substantially restricted liberty and freedom in America, as historians Charles Adams and Jeffrey Rogers Hummel have argued – Adams in his book, When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession (published in 2000); and Hummel in his book, Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men (1996).
Read more at: http://www.ncwbts150.com/EconomicCausesoftheWAr.php

16475 ---Georgia Trend, 9/2014 --- Released: 23 days Ago. ---- 2014-10-01 14:46:05 -0400
See related pages and categories

From: waynedobson51@yahoo.com

There was a  section in the September 2014 issue of Georgia Trend Magazine that detailed 25 historical artifacts tracing the history of Georgia.  If I recall correctly, these items are the property of the Atlanta Historical Society. It was interesting that no reference was made to Confederate soldiers nor the great Confederate legacy of Georgia. In fact, in the portion about the War Between the States the only soldier noted was from Co. H of the 2nd U.S. Colored troops. This is blatant and contrived omission which dishonors the ancestry of many of the citizens of Georgia.  I suppose the aim of political  correctness is to please a perceived majority. Well, it did not please me nor did  it tell the truth.
John Wayne Dobson                                 
Macon, GA

16474 ---Field Of Lost Shoes --- Released: 23 days Ago. ---- 2014-10-01 14:33:09 -0400
See related pages and categories

From: waynedobson51@yahoo.com    
I was at the 150th anniversary of the battle of Atlanta when a vendor selling DVD's handed me a card advertising the new film, "Field of Lost Shoes." It looked good and I had always been interested in the Battle of New Market so when I got home I looked up the official trailer on You Tube.  It did not take the narration long to declare the War was "over slavery" and soon enough one V.M.I. character declared, "we should not be fighting to keep people in chains…"
Must we get beat over the head by the same tired ol' slavery issue with every depiction of the War and especially those that showcase our Southern history?   Another You Tube site I checked had a representative of V.M.I. carefully making the point that the cadets at New Market never carried the Confederate battle flag. That is likely accurate but what is he ashamed of - did the cadets not assault Federal lines and fight for the South?   I guess I am disappointed in the film even before I have had a chance to see it.
At every turn our beloved Southern heritage is slandered, perverted and told from a Northern viewpoint, but I categorically and forever refuse to act ashamed, nor cower in the shadows with a despicable apology on my lips for ancestors who "need no pardon for anything they've done."

16473 ---VA Flaggers 3rd Anniversary Celebration --- Released: 23 days Ago. ---- 2014-10-01 14:18:09 -0400
See related pages and categories

From: Virginia Flagger <info@vaflaggers.com>
Date: Mon, Sep 29, 2014
Subject: Va Flaggers: Third Anniversary Celebration Picnic/Auction Report

Words cannot adequately convey the depth of our gratitude for the outpouring of support for our Third Anniversary Picnic/Auction. We were overwhelmed by the number of items received for the auctions and raffle... from supporters from New York to Texas! The picnic would not have been possible without the dozens of folks who helped with food prep, set up, organizing and leading activities, and clean up. Last but not least, we owe a deep debt of gratitude to those who attended, from all across the South, helping to make it our largest gathering yet, and generously bidding on the items donated. It was such a privilege and honor to have the opportunity to visit with so many Flaggers and supporters, and meet new folks who came to find out what we are all about.

Our goal was to raise enough money to order an additional flag for the Fredericksburg site, so that we would have an extra to use when repairs are needed, etc. Initial numbers from last night’s event show that we not only met that goal, but we exceeded it…by AT LEAST threefold…and the final tally will not be known for a few more days.

The final item auctioned was the first flag flown at the Chester I-95 Memorial Flag Site, raised one year ago yesterday,  a 10' x 15' AOT. It sold for a high bid of $200. After the auction, the gentleman who won the bid, one of our most dedicated Flaggers, quietly told me that he was donating the flag BACK TO THE VA FLAGGERS, to be auctioned again.

To say I was moved by his generosity and commitment to the Cause is an understatement.  "Who could not conquer with such troops as these..?" General Thomas J. Jackson, CSA

We could not have asked nor hoped for a better celebration of our Third Anniversary and the First Anniversary of the I-95 Memorial Battle Flag at Chester. To each and every one of you who had a part in making it, and our first three years, such an amazing success, we THANK YOU, and covet your prayers and continued support as we embark on our fourth year, with our spirits uplifted, our hearts full, and with a renewed determination to continue to forward the Colors and defend the honor of our Confederate Ancestors.

God bless you all, and God Save the South!

Susan Hathaway
Va Flaggers


Saturday, October 4th:  Flagging the VMFA: 2:00 pm - 6:00 pm

Saturday, October 4th:  Flagging Washington & Lee University:  10:00 am - 5:00 pm

Thursday, October 16th:  Susan will be speaking at the October meeting of the Sgt. William A. Hamby Camp#1750, SCV, Crossville TN.   6:00 pm CST, 111 E. 1st Street, Crossville.

Saturday, Nov. 1st: Susan will be speaking at the 100th Anniversary celebration of the dedication of the Confederate Monument in Lebanon, VA.

Saturday, November 15th - Sunday, November 16th:  We will have a booth at the Capital of the Confederacy Civil War Show at Richmond International Raceway.  The 34th Annual Capital of the Confederacy Civil War Show presented by Mike Kent & Associates along with the Central Virginia Civil War Collector's Association. This is one of the oldest and most respected Civil War shows in the country.  Hours are Saturday 9am - 5pm and Sunday 9am - 3pm. 

Thursday, December 11th:  Susan will be speaking at the December meeting of the A.H. Belo Camp #49, SCV, Dallas Texas

Friday, December 12th:  Susan will be speaking at the Christmas gathering of the
Major Robert M. White, Camp No. 1250, Sons of Confederate Veterans,Temple, Texas

Saturday, December 13th:  Susan will be speaking at the Christmas gathering of the Middleton Tate Johnson Camp #1648, SCV, Arlington, TX.

Follow our blog:  http://vaflaggers.blogspot.com/

Find us on FaceBook:  https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Virginia-Flaggers/378823865585630

Follow us on Twitter:  https://twitter.com/VaFlagger

Virginia Flaggers
P.O. Box 547
Sandston VA 23150


16472 ---VMFA Mass Flagging --- Released: 23 days Ago. ---- 2014-10-01 14:03:04 -0400
See related pages and categories

From: Virginia Flagger <info@vaflaggers.com>
Date: Sat, Sep 27, 2014
Subject: Va Flaggers: VMFA Mass Flagging TODAY

Va Flaggers report from the front line! Full court press at the VMFA today, as folks in town for our Third Anniversary picnic/auction are joining the Flaggers for an all day flagging, 9:00 am - 3:00 pm. A dozen flaggers are already on the ground on the Boulevard in the Capital of the Confederacy, with more expected to join us throughout the day.

If you have ever wanted to come see what we are all about, and/or are ready to take a stand for our ancestors, and against those who have desecrated the Confederate Memorial Chapel, today is a great day to get out and turn talk into action!

The VMFA Virginia Museum of Fine Arts forced the removal of Confederate Battle Flags from the portico of the Confederate Memorial Chapel, on the sacred grounds of the Old Soldiers' Home in Richmond. The Veterans can no longer stand up and speak out. Will you?

If you cannot join us today, please take a moment to call the VMFA and voice your concern. Ask them to honor ALL American Veterans and return the Confederate flags to the portico of the Confederate Memorial Chapel. Call 804.340.1563 TODAY... and phone in support for the men and women on the sidewalk at the VMFA.

Online auction opportunity! Many of you have requested that we offer an opportunity for an online auction, for those of you who won't be able to make it to the picnic on Sunday, but want to participate. We have two items available for online bids, both bids starting at $19.99. The auctions end Monday night at 7:00 EST. All proceeds benefit the Va Flaggers.

Approximately 7.5 inches wide by 10.5 inches high
Woodburning on irregular pieces of wood cut from a tree branch
Created and donated by Ms. Valerie Protopapas.

1917 Edition with inscription and signature of Mrs. George Pickett.


RETURN the flags!
RESTORE the honor!

Grayson Jennings
Virginia Flaggers


Thursday, October 16th:  Susan will be speaking at the October meeting of the Sgt. William A. Hamby Camp#1750, SCV, Crossville TN.   6:00 pm CST, 111 E. 1st Street, Crossville.

Saturday, Nov. 1st: Susan will be speaking at the 100th Anniversary celebration of the dedication of the Confederate Monument in Lebanon, VA.

Thursday, December 11th:  Susan will be speaking at the December meeting of the A.H. Belo Camp #49, SCV, Dallas Texas

Friday, December 12th:  Susan will be speaking at the Christmas gathering of the
Major Robert M. White, Camp No. 1250, Sons of Confederate Veterans,Temple, Texas

Saturday, December 13th:  Susan will be speaking at the Christmas gathering of the Middleton Tate Johnson Camp #1648, SCV, Arlington, TX.

Follow our blog:  http://vaflaggers.blogspot.com/

Find us on FaceBook:  https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Virginia-Flaggers/378823865585630

Follow us on Twitter:  https://twitter.com/VaFlagger

P.O. Box 547
Sandston VA 23150

16471 ---The Tar Heels Arrive --- Released: 28 days Ago. ---- 2014-09-26 11:58:48 -0400
See related pages and categories

From: Virginia Flagger <info@vaflaggers.com>
Date: Wed, Sep 24, 2014
Subject: Va Flaggers: W&L Lee Chapel Desecration Update: The Tar Heels Arrive!

A group of flaggers from the Old North State traveled to Lexington this past weekend to protest Washington & Lee University after University officials stripped Confederate Battle Flags from the chamber of the LEE Chapel, desecrating the final resting place of Gen. Robert E. Lee and dishonoring Lee and all Confederate veterans. They filed this report:

"The flagging during the Washington & Lee University Alumni Homecoming was a great success. From the moment the Tar Heels set up at the entrance in front of Lee Chapel, motorists and pedestrians alike got a clear view of Confederate soldiers and their flags of honor. The streets were filled with parked cars and visitors flooding into Lexington for the homecoming events. The weather was perfect and pedestrians traveled the sidewalks all day.

Over the course of the day over 100 fliers where handed out, people stopped to talk to the flaggers and were upset to hear about the desecration of the LEE Chapel. Motorist honked horns, waved and shouted their thanks to the flaggers for their continuous efforts to restore the flags. Many cadets from VMI stopped to salute and shake hands with the flaggers, most in disbelief of how General Lee has been disgraced by the very University that would not be in existence today, if not for his efforts.

Students and Alumni frequently stopped to ask questions about the flags, uniforms, the soldiers, Lee's character and why the school would cave into six student’s demands so easily. Camera phones were out in force as passers-by tried to get the perfect shots of the Confederate soldiers, many pulling over to get out of their cars and buses to have their photo taken with the soldiers.

A family of first time visitors to Lexington said that seeing the soldiers out in front of Lee Chapel was the best part of their day and that they couldn’t believe how Lexington and Washington & Lee University is now ashamed to honor the Confederate soldier. Of course, not all of the students and visitors were as open minded. On the occasion where a supporter of the flag removal approached us, it gave the flaggers a perfect opportunity to educate them and debate the issues at hand, and afterwards, most left without animosity, and with new information which will hopefully spark further investigation about what the war was truly about .

In all, the flaggers made a big impact along the sidewalks of Jefferson St. Students and Alumni we spoke with vowed to write letters and let President Ruscio know of their displeasure. Many will go to their friends and pass the word along. Let’s hope this makes a big impact on the return of the flags and the restoration of honor."

-Jamie Funkhouser- Tar Heel Flagger


Call to action:

CALLING ALL CONFEDERATE COLOR/HONOR GUARDS!   Following up on the phenomenal success of the Tar Heel flagging, we would love to see a uniformed Confederate color/honor guard on duty AT LEAST once a week!  We will help coordinate your visit, provide your men with literature to distribute, talking points to share, and assist in any way possible.  For more information or to schedule your participation, contact info@vaflaggers.com.

For those who cannot make it to Lexington, we ask that you, once again, let University officials know that the desecration of the RE Lee Chapel is not acceptable. This week, we have added the contact information for Mr. J. Donald Childress, Rector of the Board of Trustees.  We ask that you contact him, in addition to President Ruscio, and continue the pressure that has been continually and effectively applied since the flags were ripped from the Chapel walls in July.

Contact Info:

J. Donald Childress
Rector of the Board of Trustees
Atlanta, Georgia

Kenneth P. Ruscio
President of the University

RETURN the flags!
RESTORE the honor!

Grayson Jennings


Thursday, September 25th:  Flagging the VMFA, 200 N. Boulevard, 2:00 pm - 6:00 pm

Saturday, September 27th:  Flagging the VMFA, 200 N. Boulevard, 9:00 am - 3:00 pm

Sunday, September 28th: 3:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. Va Flaggers' Third Anniversary Picnic.  Music, good food, and great fellowship.   Silent auction throughout the afternoon. Live auction following supper.  Period artwork and 10 x 15 Battle Flag that flew at the Chester flag site location among many items to be auctioned to support the Va Flaggers.   Donations for auction/raffle items are welcome.

Thursday, October 16th:  Susan will be speaking at the October meeting of the Sgt. William A. Hamby Camp#1750, SCV, Crossville TN.   6:00 pm CST, 111 E. 1st Street, Crossville.

Saturday, Nov. 1st: Susan will be speaking at the 100th Anniversary celebration of the dedication of the Confederate Monument in Lebanon, VA.

Thursday, December 11th:  Susan will be speaking at the December meeting of the A.H. Belo Camp #49, SCV, Dallas Texas

Friday, December 12th:  Susan will be speaking at the Christmas gathering of the
Major Robert M. White, Camp No. 1250, Sons of Confederate Veterans,Temple, Texas

Saturday, December 13th:  Susan will be speaking at the Christmas gathering of the Middleton Tate Johnson Camp #1648, SCV, Arlington, TX.

Follow our blog:  http://vaflaggers.blogspot.com/

Find us on FaceBook:  https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Virginia-Flaggers/378823865585630

Follow us on Twitter:  https://twitter.com/VaFlagger

Virginia Flaggers
P.O. Box 547
Sandston VA 23150


16470 ---Scottish Secession Vote, Election Fraud --- Released: 28 days Ago. ---- 2014-09-26 09:49:49 -0400
See related pages and categories

The Scottish Secession Vote, Election Fraud, and Secession

Posted on September 21, 2014   
by Al Benson

Well, the vote on Scotland’s secession from the United Kingdom has come and gone, and has gone pretty much as I expected. I could not honestly picture England letting Scotland go, but it had to at least look like a legitimate vote and so, as with American elections, they went through the charade.

I have read several accounts of how there was vote fraud in this secession vote, how lots of “yes” votes ended up on the “no” side of the column, and what I have read is plausible enough that, let’s just say, I don’t doubt it. The One World Ruling Elite didn’t want this to happen so it didn’t. However you look at it, though, 45% of the Scottish voters, at least (and maybe more) voted for secession. That’s a pretty good chunk of the population.

As far as vote fraud goes though, England has a long way to go before they will match some of what we have done in this country. We are the nation where the dead resurrect every election day and they vote early and often. Our last two presidential elections had such creative voting that they will have to go down in history as among the most creative elections known to man. I’ve often wondered how, in 2012, Obama got 140% of the vote in some places and 100% of it in many other places. Almost no Romney voters many places north of the Ohio river I guess. I have also wondered why the Republicans never seemed to have any problems with those numbers, but, then, if you can manage to steal ten states off Ron Paul so your weak sister, Romney, can get in there and lose to Obama then I guess nothing surprises you anymore. But, 140% of the vote some places and the Republicans never complained above the roar of a church mouse! That says something to me and it should to you. It’s called “creative voting.” Sounds like the kind of numbers that would be part of a “Commie Core” math problem. How can 140% of anything be 100%? And after the kid gives an answer the teacher says “he might have gotten it wrong but he gave a beautiful explanation as to how he got his answer, and besides, he only missed the right answer by 20!” But I digress.

But the Scottish vote will give you some inkling of how future secession votes will go, even in this country. They will go the same way our presidential races go–even if a candidate ends up with 75% of the vote, if he is not the right candidate, then his opposition will win with 25%.

But secession is an issue that just won’t go away. From time to time it rears its head and scares the living daylights out of the Establishment, and the numbers are increasing. When I first started talking about secession back when we lived in Illinois about nineteen years ago people laughed in my face. They thought the idea was ridiculous and told me so in no uncertain terms. A poll at that time revealed that about 9% of the public would be open to secession–and given 150 years of anti-secession propaganda posing as history, I thought even that was pretty good.

Since then there has been a close secession vote in Quebec and parts of several other countries, notably Spain recently, want to secede. There seems to be a growing opposition in many areas to being part of a Leviathan state, even if it is not the world’s biggest Leviathan. People feel their cultures, their identities, and their heritages all tend to get lost when they are part of the Leviathan state and they don’t want to lose all that. And I can’t blame them. I don’t want the various parts of this country to lose their cultural distinctives either. We should not all be just one huge glob of “pop culture.” That’s what the elites want us to be and we should resist that, especially since their pop culture leaves no place for the Christian faith or any place for any cultural differences between Yankees and Southern folks or between Northeasterners and Westerners. The present Regime here is trying to squeeze all of us into a “one size fits all” mentality. Again, we should resist.

Last evening someone sent me an article from Reuters in England. The title of it was “Exclusive: Angry with Washington, 1 in 4 Americans open to secession.” The article noted, in part, “Some 23.9% of American polled from Aug. 23 through Sept 16 said they strongly supported or tended to support the idea of a state breaking away, while 53.3%…strongly opposed or tended to oppose the notion. The urge to sever ties with Washington cuts across party lines and regions, though Republicans and residents of rural Western states are generally warmer to the idea than Democrats and Northeasterners, according to the poll…others said long-running Washington gridlock had prompted them to wonder if their states would be better off striking out on their own…”

And some folks are starting to wake up. Some favor secession because they are starting to realize that, no matter which party is in office, nothing gets done and the agenda doesn’t seem to change all that much. Although most of these folks don’t yet realize it, they are beginning to ascertain that both parties are controlled by one elite cabal and nothing will change until that changes. One man said “I have totally, completely lost faith in the federal government, the people running it, whether Republican, Democrat, independent, whatever.”

Interestingly, secession sentiment was highest in the Southwest, where 34.1% of poll respondents backed the idea. So 34% in the West would support secession. That’s a big jump from 9% almost 20 years ago. Given the One World socialist worldview of those that control both major parties, if they continue on their present course for another 20 years, what percentage will favor secession at that point?

Of course by that time they may figure they will have the country all sewed up and potential resistance all taken care of–and I don’t doubt, with all that ammunition the feds have bought, they will try. But what if they can’t–quite? What if the Lord won’t let them pull it off–quite? There are some folks out here that are praying to the Lord that He will restrain their enemies and His from doing all they want to do. If you believe in the power of prayer, then why not join us?

On The Web:  http://revisedhistory.wordpress.com/2014/09/21/the-scottish-secession-vote-election-fraud-and-secession/


16469 ---Speaking Out Against Flag Banning --- Released: 28 days Ago. ---- 2014-09-26 09:38:47 -0400
See related pages and categories

Parents, students speaking out about banning of Confederate flag

Posted: Sep 19, 2014
By Christina Fan, Reporter

SISSONVILLE, WV -  Parents and students are speaking out after learning that Sissonville High School banned the display of the Confederate flag on school grounds.

“I think it's an outrage,” said Jay Wiseman, who heard about the incident through social media. “Messing with people's personal property, interfering with their freedom of speech, I think they should be fired.”

Sissonville HS Principal Ron Reedy said the ban happened after an incident in the school parking lot Thursday morning. About 15 vehicles pulled up for Homecoming Week with American and Confederate flags flying. Reedy said a staff member wanted the students to take down the flag because it would be distracting to drivers going by. A heated argument erupted between the two parties.

“The issue was not the Confederate flag,” said Reedy. “The issue was following school rules and not allowing something to become a disruption to the educational process.”

Some people say the school should have no say over what the students wear. Many describe the Confederate flag as a sign of pride.

“I don't think they should be able to control what they wear, [the students] got the right,” said Justin Elliot, who graduated from SHS last year.

But others say the flag evokes a different history.

“When I see the flag, I automatically think they want to bring back the times of segregation,” said Devon Creasey, who is African American.

"Kids will say all the time we fought the war over states' rights,” said Jerry Throckmorton, a history teacher at Sissonville High School. “Well, the argument over state's rights was over slavery.”

Principal Reedy said he plans to allow the Confederate flag back in school once the attention passes. Many people say they hope kids will think about the meaning of the flag before considering to wear it in the future.

© Copyright 2000 - 2014 WorldNow and WOWK

On The Web:  http://www.wowktv.com/story/26581095/parents-students-speaking-out-about-banning-of-confederate-flag


16468 ---Old Blue Studies Yankee --- Released: 29 days Ago. ---- 2014-09-25 11:56:43 -0400
See related pages and categories

Old Blue Studies Yankee/Marxist Legalisms

Posted on September 8, 2014   
By Al Benson Jr.

One thing you have to say about Old Blue, my great blue heron friend, he is a died-in-the-wool Confederate heron. He likes to tell the story about his heron ancestor that flew over the battlefield while the Battle of Mansfield was being fought here in Louisiana, squawking at the Yankee soldiers that they should go back where they belonged.

He claimed that one of the Yankees shot at him, and missed, and he mused that, mostly, the Yankees were poor shots. The only thing they had going for them in the war was men, lots and lots of men, some of them socialists and communists.

Old Blue has spent some of his time recently, in a library that is mostly peopled by human folks, but when the librarian found he was sociable, she let him stay and poke around in some of the books. She was surprised that he possessed such an amount of erudition when some of the public high school students that used her library were barely able to master “Captain Marvel” or “Superman.”

At any rate, one day Old Blue happened across a book dealing with legal terms and court cases. At first, this was a little deep for him, but being a heron of considerable perseverance, he endeavored to work his way through it.

He came across a court case, Texas vs. White, in the years after the War of Northern Aggression. Although technically a dispute over the payment of US bonds, the case has much more interesting results. As it turned out, the state of Texas filed suit in the Yankee/Marxist Supreme Court, trying to get back the bonds sold to White and his partner, Chiles. White argued that the state of Texas had no right to bring this lawsuit partly because the Supreme Court didn’t have any jurisdiction to hear the case because Texas’ status as a state had changed because of the secession during the War of Northern Aggression.

But the Supreme Court, in typical Yankee fashion, rejected White’s arguments. And that bastion of Yankee integrity, Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, stated, in his majority opinion that the Constitution “in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union composed of indestructible States.”  In other words, once a state got into the Union its membership was perpetual and “indissoluble” unless it was ended by a revolution or the consent of the other states. According to http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com “Therefore, the secession of the insurgent government from the Union was void. Texas remained a state during the Civil War, and its citizens were all citizens of the United States.”

Old Blue found that quite interesting, in light of the fact that he had read somewhere else that the state of Texas has been readmitted to the Union on March 30, 1870. He also read: “The United States government has never recognized the right of states to secede, and considers the states to never have left the Union during the American Civil War.”

Naturally, after reading all the legal gobbledygook, Blue’s first question was “If these Southern states were never out of the Union, why did they have to be readmitted to a Union they were never out of? That’s a good question. Even some more intelligent humans might be tempted to wonder about that. Unfortunately, we’ve never really gotten a good answer from the powers that be in Sodom on the Potomac.

Wanting a better source for his information,  than Yankee lawyers, Old Blue turned to the Kennedy Brothers’ authoritative book The South Was Right. In their book, on page 171, they begin a discussion of the fraudulent 14th Amendment. On the following page they note: “To secure enactment of the amendment, the Northern Congress had to accomplish the following:

Declare the Southern States outside of the erstwhile indivisible Union.  Deny majority rule in the Southern States by the disenfranchisement of large numbers of the white population.  Require the Southern States to ratify the amendment as the price of getting back into the Union from which heretofore they had been denied the right to secede.”

After Blue read all that he scratched his head with his right wing and said “Let me get this all straight. The Yankee Supreme Court says the Southern states never left the Union, they only thought they did, and now to get back into the Union they never left they are forced to ratify an amendment that is shaky at best and possibly fraudulent at worst.” Then he asked the next logical question. “If these states needed to get back into the Union, how could they ratify the 14th Amendment before they were readmitted to the Union?  Good question. When Old Blue asked that question of a college professor at one point   he was informed that “Blue Herons are not supposed to be able to ask those kinds of questions. Even people shouldn’t ask such questions. Are you serious? Are you really serious?

The only possible answer to Blue’s question was in the Kennedy’s book. On page 172-173 Blue found the answer. The Kennedy’s wrote: “The North, in 1866, removed the Southern states from the Union. This was the same North that in 1861 refused to allow the South to secede from the Union. This same Union now declared the Southern states to be non-states. To get back into the Union (that originally the South did not want to be part of anyway and from which it had previously been denied the right to secede) it was required to perform the function of a state in that Union, while still officially no longer a part of the Union, by ratifying an amendment that previously, as states in the Union it had legally rejected! Words alone fail to meet the challenge of such pure Yankee logic.” How does all that grab you?

In retrospect, Old Blue considered this whole charade to be an exercise in “legal” legerdemain.  His parting comment on this whole scenario was “If this was the way those people in Washington thought almost 150 years ago, no wonder we have the problems we have with today’s politicians. It’s almost enough to make a self-respecting Confederate heron retreat back into the bayou and weep.”

Almost, but not quite, and why not? Because in spite of it all, there is a God in Heaven who still, through His Spirit,  governs in the affairs of men (and herons) and when the time comes, as long as His people are faithful, He will put all this to rights.
On The Web:   http://revisedhistory.wordpress.com/2014/09/08/old-blue-studies-yankeemarxist-legalisms/

16467 ---Unknown Soldiers Identified --- Released: 29 days Ago. ---- 2014-09-25 11:15:24 -0400
See related pages and categories

Civil War soldiers buried as 'unknowns' identified

By Hilary Butschek   
Associated Press
Tuesday, Sept. 16, 2014   

MARIETTA, Ga. — The names of 350 Confederate soldiers buried as “Unknowns” in the Confederate Cemetery here will now be forever emblazoned on memorial walls facing their graves as a result of the work of a local historian.

A bronze statue of a Confederate soldier will be erected there soon as well.

Brown Park now has four granite walls commemorating 1,150 Confederate soldiers buried in the adjacent Marietta Confederate Cemetery after two new memorial walls were installed Monday.

The new walls were needed when a local historian, Brad Quinlin, and Betty Hunter, president of the Marietta Confederate Cemetery Foundation, worked together to discover the names of 350 soldiers known to be buried in the cemetery.

Those 350 were then added to the 800 names already displayed on the two granite walls that have been in the park since August 2013.

Four walls face the cemetery estimated to hold 3,000 Confederate soldiers, but Hunter said she is proud to have identified more than one-third of those “buried heroes” now.

The search for the names of soldiers who died and were buried in Marietta lasted two years, Hunter said.

The city spent $47,000 to install the two new walls, which are 8 feet wide and 4.5 feet tall, as well as new landscaping, said Rich Buss, the city’s parks and recreation director.

Hunter said community members donated an additional $7,000 to buy and engrave the new slabs of granite.

“This wouldn’t have been possible without the contributions of local people,” Hunter said.

Hunter said the new memorials will help more people connect with the history of the cemetery.

“It’s nice to have them there because so many people are interested in genealogy now, and so many people don’t know where their ancestors are buried, and it will shed a lot of light as to where they died and where they were buried,” Hunter said.

Quinlin said he found the names of some of the buried soldiers after he compiled hospital records spread out across five universities around the country, including the University of Texas in Austin, Emory University, Duke University, the University of Tennessee and the University of North Carolina.

Quinlin said he looked through 45,000 pages of hospital records kept by Samuel Hollingsworth Stout, the general surgeon in charge of all Confederate hospitals in Georgia from 1863-64. Quinlin looked through the documents searching for soldiers who were wounded and sent to Marietta hospitals during the Civil War.

“We checked and double checked these names for burial records and this is how we got the complete list that we have now (of soldiers buried in the Confederate Cemetery),” Quinlin said.

Out of the 405 names Quinlin found by looking through the hospital records, Hunter said she chose 350 who she could confirm were buried in the Marietta Confederate Cemetery based on the cemetery’s burial records.

“When (Quinlin) got the names for the hospital records, he allowed us to look at them, and we pulled out the ones that had died in Marietta and did a background search to find out if they had been buried somewhere else,” Hunter said.

Some of the Confederate soldiers Quinlin found were buried in Oakland Cemetery in Atlanta, Hunter said.

The 800 names displayed on the two walls that have been at the park for a year were verified through records the Kennesaw Chapter of the United Daughters of Confederacy kept of burials, Hunter said.

The Confederate Cemetery’s new monument is a bronze statue of a Confederate soldier that will sit on a granite pedestal. The Marietta Confederate Cemetery Foundation and the Georgia chapter of the Sons of Confederate Veterans split the cost on the statue, which totaled $55,000, said Tim Pilgrim, Georgia division adjutant of the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

Pilgrim said similar statues of Confederate soldiers have already been erected in Paulding County outside the government building and in Jackson County on the Jefferson Square.

“Every time we erect a monument, we change the head to make it unique to that particular area,” Pilgrim said.

Marietta’s statue was sculpted by locals Dawn and Tina Haugen, who own a sculpture studio in Marietta.

Quinlin said he could identify more of the 3,000 Confederate soldiers buried in the cemetery in the future because he hasn’t made it through all 45,000 pages of hospital records yet.

“We still have research to do,” Quinlin said.

The results of the research so far — the two new memorial walls — as well as the statue will be unveiled to the public at a ceremony Oct. 19 at 1 p.m.

The Augusta Chronicle ©2014

On The Web:   http://chronicle.augusta.com/news/government/2014-09-16/civil-war-soldiers-buried-unknowns-identified?v=1410858026


16466 ---Forrest Statue Not An Embarrassment --- Released: 29 days Ago. ---- 2014-09-25 10:35:27 -0400
See related pages and categories

Statue of Confederate general not an embarrassment

In response to Beverly Keel's column "If I was elected mayor, this is what I'd do," I wanted to point out her incorrect conclusions in order to be politically correct.

Part of that article was her idea to place large signs on I-65 to block the view of the flags and statue of Confederate Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest, whom she describes as "a founder of the Ku Klux Klan." She also refers to the statue as an "embarrassment to this area for more than a decade" that "sends the wrong message."

Gen. Forrest did not participate in the formation of the KKK, a point made on a recent public television show.

The KKK was formed by some ex-Confederate soldiers essentially as a social club. It began with three or four members, but later expanded. At the same time, Gov. William Brownlow (selected by Unionists) followed the very hard line of punishing the South by disenfranchising men who had served as Confederate soldiers and enfranchising others such as former slaves — in effect, he took revenge on former Confederates and those who had supported the Confederacy. He even went so far as to bring some opposing members of the state legislature in front of a firing squad in order to gain control over legislative actions. He also called out the militia to eliminate the Klan. As a result, some members of the Klan knew they were to come under attack and had no leadership.

Members of the Klan approached Forrest to lead them against Brownlow's militia. Forrest initially agreed to be their leader, but found he was unable. Describing the former soldiers as disorganized and undisciplined, he resigned.

We know "the victors write the history." The story of Nathan Bedford Forrest is a great example. Union General William Tecumseh Sherman described Forrest as the best cavalry general of the war.

Considering Forrest's accomplishments and reputation, why should that statue be an "embarrassment" to anyone? Tennesseans should be proud to see one of their own recognized with a statue, and the flags he fought for. It is certainly not an embarrassment, unless one is endeavoring to place political correctness above facts.

The only valid concern one might have about the statue is the way Forrest is depicted — it appears to me to be lacking in the reproduction of the actual likeness of Forrest. Surely it could have been made to look more like the real person. People should be proud to have that statue available for all to see.

Now if the statue was that of Gov. Brownlow instead, that would be an embarrassment.

William S. Rodgers

16465 ---Liberals, Yankee Morons, Slavery --- Released: 29 days Ago. ---- 2014-09-25 10:23:29 -0400
See related pages and categories

Liberals, Yankee Morons and Slavery in America

Monday - September 8, 2014

Posted by "Jerryd14 -The War - The Confederate Flag - Southern People and our History"

I am, exasperated, perplexed, memorized, amused, fascinated, enthused, and delighted, at how damn ridiculousness and dishonest they who point fingers at the South about slavery, today. As we continue to see the increasing shortage of IQ in these people who blame the Southern states for slavery, and attempt to tie the Confederate Battle flag to slavery, it is all of those words I previously noted plus many more that apply.

Slavery, was not my idea, was it yours, I did not own any,did any of you, I bet you cannot locate one single living person in America that owned a black slave, call me if you can. Oh, in my early life I kinda thought a couple of times they were talking about me, as I was working like a slave, but no, I was wrong, just some of my old memories were apparently coming through.

Yeah, we have the Eagles, Giants, Saints,  what bout dem Mississippi Slaves, dem boys is good, score 47 points on dat dare field. Or , oh no, Redskins, how can you call them players R-E-D-S-K-I-N-S, we can call them, Panthers, or Bears, or Seahawks, or Dolphins, or Colts, or Indians, or RFeds, or sumpen, but not Redskins. BULLSHIT, LET’S CALL IT THAT.

Folks, have you heard about the illegal Immigration issues, and by the way, Obama says not to call the terroists, call them foreign combatants, u know wat I mean, just pretend along with me, use modern feel good names as we do not want to bomb ISIS unless we get an invitation. Yes, I suppose them invitations to come over and bomb the combatants is not a Hallmark Card is it.

Listen, modern day Morons and Morenesties, wake up, slavery was a biblical issue long before Starbucks was founded. Yeah, before Aunt Jemima pancakes, the plantations, and all that stuff, their was slavery. Before Dixie, and Cotton, Rice and Jambalaya, their were slaves. before America their were slaves. Eqypians, Greeks, Romans, Indians, Japaneses, Chinese, Pre Columbian civilizations all had slaves. AMERICA DID NOT INVENT THIS.



Slavery, was an institution that happened due to money making men who found human beings in various parts of the world, sitting on their ass all day, achieving nothing, and had been doing this for thousands of years, and said, hey, we could use a couple of dem boys in  Massachusetts and in Virginia and other places could use some help, let’s start a Manpower company where we obtain the labor and lease or sell them to those in need. This will keep the savages from just doing nothing, to being productive, and hell, one day they will get educated, and be president. Great idea some said, and wooof, it happened.

So, what flag is racist, none, all the worlds flags with few exception, who is racist, who is biased, in varying degrees,, 99% of humanity is, and so what, we are all different. we like different foods, music, movies, colors, speech, clothing, cars, lifestyles, ect. Am I the only person who has noticed this, none of you have I don’t guess.

So, the War to stop Southern Independence, created a flag, yeeh-haaaaaah, is that amazing, i mean they created their very own flag, just like nations, states towns, churches, associations, groups, military organizations have since the beginning of time, but, but the Confederate flag is racist. the morons are loose on our streets, they are out of their cages, and caves, and need to be immunized with some sanity and intelligence vaccinations, if you need such, call ahead, set up an appointment and then stop by my place, I will give you a shot for free.

On The Web:   http://jerryd14.wordpress.com/2014/09/08/liberals-yankee-morons-and-slavery-in-america/


16464 ---MOC Is Being Destroyed --- Released: 29 days Ago. ---- 2014-09-25 10:04:37 -0400
See related pages and categories


Friday - September 12, 2014

Posted by "Jerryd14 -The War - The Confederate Flag - Southern People and our History"

I have previously stated that in visits I made as a small school child more than 55 years ago, were so exciting. We would be walked through the old Brockenbrough house, the White House of The Confederacy, which was where president and Varina Davis and their family live in Richmond from August 1861 until April 1865.

The house was opened up by Richmond ladies in 1886, and as time went on a move was made to collect museum items, relics, books, flags, weapons, uniforms, letters, personal mementos and all such Confederate historical items as they could gather.

Many of these items were directly from the Confederate veteran or his family, and were loaned or gifted obviously with the sole intention of care and love by and for Confederate and Southern people. TIMES HAVE CHANGED, and today the rotten liberals have wormed their way into the museum and have taken over. As the generations have passed away and are not here today to speak up in protest, you and i MUST PROTEST FOR THEM. THE LEADERS AT THE MOC have for a few years refused to fly the confederate battle flag out front of the new museum building that sits next door and beside the old White House. The leaders have slowly, year by year infiltrated this institution, just as foreigners have filtered into America and are changing our customs and traditions and destroying America, these people are destroying the MOC. For several years a move has been underfoot where many in the black community have pushed for slave stories, and slave museums, and I am fine with it, with their money, time to do as they please, but leave our Confederate Museum alone. Not to be. You see, infiltrators, work within, they sneak in with false pretenses, get control and change things to suit their objectives. Another TROJAN HORSE. They first worked with the Black city mayor and council. and other Black anti Confederate groups, to take control, and as they have the museum is changing to a more Political Correct place, or simply put, screw the CSA we are turning the place into a political correct center, where we can bash the CSA AND ALL IT STOOD FOR BEFORE THEY ARE FINISHED AND ERASED. And just like every other thing they are put in charge of, it gets corrupted, defaced, lost and destroyed in a few short years, just as the MOC will.

These same half breed liberal whites, many carpet baggers, are involved in several Richmond area attacks on Southern history. Three years ago the Confederate flags were forced to be removed from the Confederate Memorial Chapel on the grounds where the later built Virginia Museum of Fine Arts was added. So here they come along with Yankee leaders and have the Confederate Flags removed from the Chapel, and some of these same people are also involved in the removal of the Confederate Battle flags that for many years flew at the entrance of the MOC, but not any more. THIS IS A DAMN DISGRACEFUL SHAME. Today the MOC has very few of the thousands and thousands of artifacts, weapons, uniforms, books, dishes, art, furniture, and so many other things donated in good faith for exhibit by Southerners, who support and respect and Honor the service, sacrifices and bravery of the Confederate States Army and Navy, and today these imposters are squandering and disposing of relics and valuables to who knows where. yOU CANNOT SEE BUT A FEW ITEMS WHEN YOU VISIT THEM PLACE TODAY, WHRE ARE TYHE THOUSANDS OF MUSKETS, RIFLES, SWORDS, REVOLVERS, BAYONETS, BELTS, CANTEENS, KNAPSACKS, COATS, HATS, DRUMS, BUGLES, SPURS, BOOKS, LETTERS, UNIFORMS, WATCHES, PICTURES , ART, FLAGS, It appears a merger is happening between the MOC and the Richmond Civil War Center at the old Tredegar museum location, a Liberal controlled place to water down and destroy our past. This is rotten to the core and it makes med mad. Our nation is under siege, I for one, would avail myself into a group of Americans who want to take back control of our nation, but I am afraid I have waited too late as few agree with me it seems, and for this I am sad but determined to stay the course as things can change and I want to be a part of the change back to our traditional America, and our Southern heritage and culture being re-instated. Please do your part, go online to http://www.scvva.org  ( Save the Museum of the Confederacy) contribute to help them fight this action, money is needed if the fight is to be won.  Raise some voices, FACEBOOK, and this blog and at every site you can go to and state your opposition. Our history is fading fast, do your part to resist it.

On The Web:  http://jerryd14.wordpress.com/2014/09/12/the-museum-of-the-confederacy-in-richmond-va-is-being-destroyed/


16463 ---Ole Miss, New Bigots --- Released: 29 days Ago. ---- 2014-09-25 09:46:56 -0400
See related pages and categories

Thursday, September 18, 2014
Ole Miss and the New Bigots

By Ben Jones

The brilliant editor H.L. Mencken had a way of being succinct that sparkled with wit. "There is no idea so stupid that you can't find a professor who will believe it," he remarked.  Mencken would have a field day with the recent actions of the University of Mississippi. If you have ever wondered why academia is often the butt of ridicule and humor, you need only to read the report from Ole Miss President Dan Jones entitled, "Action Plan on Consultant Reports and Update on the Work of the Sensitivity and Respect Committee."

We are told that the Extended Sensitivity and Respect Committee has decided that the new Vice Chancellor for Diversity and Inclusion will work with the Institute for Racial Diversity and the new Center for Inclusion and Cross Cultural Engagement.

Fellow compatriots, I am not making this up. This is not a satire, this is what the taxpayers of Mississippi are dishing out their hard-earned money to pay for.

President Jones further stated, "It is my hope that the steps outlined here reflecting the hard work of University committees and our consultants will prove valuable in making us a stronger and healthier university, bringing us closer to our goal of being a warm and welcoming place for every person, every day, regardless of race, religion, preference, country of origin, ability, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation or gender expression."

In my opinion, this is an as astounding a demonstration of politically correct, "feel-good", unadulterated hogwash as has ever been uttered by a man on the public payroll. And having spent four years in the United States Congress, I have heard some world-class hogwash in my day.

President Jones, sounding a lot like Mr. Rogers Neighborhood, has listed every possible group that might be sensitive to not being "included" in this unlimited "diversity", even one I've never heard of: "gender expression." Well, whatever that means, I figure it is o.k. if one expresses their gender at Ole Miss.

There is one very large group that is not included, however. It is those of us whose ancestors fought for the Confederacy during the War Between the States. There are over 70 million of us, but it is as if we do not exist, or have deep feelings toward our forefathers.

In fact, without a straightforward explanation, the famous Oxford street named Confederate Drive is being renamed by these academics in the name of "inclusion". That intentional insult puts the lie to any pretense of "inclusion" or of respect or of diversity on the part of the University of Mississippi.

The Confederacy existed. Thousands of young Mississippians died for it. That conflict has been the crucible event of American history. Everything before led up to it. Everything after has been influenced by it.

The entire student body of the University of Mississippi enlisted in the Confederate Army and those young men suffered 100% casualties. That war is an historical reality and we do not flinch from that reality and its consequences. Those men and their descendants built the University and kept it going through good times and bad, and through the social changes of the past 150 years.

That street was named for those brave young students. The University, in its narrow-minded rush to be politically correct, has banished that little bit of respect by renaming Confederate Drive. In their sanctimonious zeal, they have demeaned the honor and reputation of our ancestors.

In the last fifty years or so we have witnessed a truly remarkable revolution in race relations in the South. Where once there was Jim Crow and strict segregation, there is now a multi-cultural society that has the fastest growing economy in the United States. Men and women of good hearts have come together in brotherhood and cooperation to enjoy racial relations that are an exemplar for other regions. This "bridge-building" has been built on an acceptance of the past and the promise of a shared future, not the divisive finger-pointing of the academics and the politicians.

These politically correct crusaders are practicing a new kind of bigotry. It is a movement that demonizes the Confederacy and lays the sins of America entirely upon the South. If they continue to have their way, they would eradicate every vestige of our cultural history. They ask for respect but give none.

Once again, we must make our voices heard in every way possible. We must demand the respect that our families deserve. We are the last line of defense for the dignity that our ancestors earned.

On The Web:   http://shnv.blogspot.com/2014/09/ole-miss-and-new-bigots.html


16462 ---Jones Defends Southern Heritage --- Released: 29 days Ago. ---- 2014-09-25 09:29:17 -0400
See related pages and categories

Former Congressman Ben "Cooter" Jones Defends Southern Heritage Against Political Correctness


Dear Desma J. Wade and Jennifer Lund,

Recently, members of our organization, Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV), made a contribution to your organization in the amount of $482.91, to assist in your work of finding companion and service dogs for American military veterans who need such assistance. A number of our members in Maryland helped to raise that modest contribution and gave of their time and money in doing so. Today that cashier's check was returned to us at our National Headquarters in Columbia, Tennessee with a brief note which says that your Board of Directors and members of your development committee had made a decision to "respectfully decline" being one of our "beneficiaries." Your signatures were beneath.

There was no reason given for turning down this heartfelt gift, We, who have so many military veterans in our organization, cannot understand why you have done this. Without even the courtesy of an explanation, we do not feel that you have "respectfully" declined our gift, but indeed you have "disrespectfully" declined it. To us, this is an unconscionable insult to our historic and honorable heritage organization, and an insult to those whom you represent yourselves as serving, our wounded veterans. Your "decision" was gratuitous and terribly uninformed.

Sons of Confederate Veterans is one of our nation's oldest and largest heritage and genealogical groups. We were founded in 1896 and represent male direct descendants of those who fought in the American War Between The States. Our sole purpose is to commemorate and honor our ancestors. Currently there are 30,000 members throughout the United States and abroad.

There are more than 65 million American descendants of the armed forces of the Confederacy. We have served our nation in many ways. In every conflict in our nation's history we have sacrificed all to protect and defend our great nation.

The Sons of Confederate Veterans deplores the use of our forefathers' symbols by racist and "hate groups." We find these actions to be a desecration. These bigoted displays dishonor our ancestors.

Your insulting refusal to accept our caring generosity also dishonors our ancestors. But perhaps worse, you have withheld badly needed assistance from American veterans because of someone's apparent fixation with "political correctness." This is sickeningly wrong-headed.

You will find no more patriotic Americans than the members of the Sons of Confederate Veterans. And we always stand willing to help America's veterans in every way. Given your decision, it remains to be seen if you share that same willingness.

Ben L. Jones
Chief of Heritage Operations
Sons of Confederate Veterans


16461 ---Confederate Archives Update - 9/21 --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-09-23 16:53:07 -0400
See related pages and categories

Va Flaggers: Confederate Archives Update
While the Va Flaggers have been busy fighting heritage violations, erecting Memorial Battle Flags and working to honor our Confederate Veterans, our Confederate search engine project - ConfederateArchives.com - has been quietly and very successfully expanding under the direction, guidance and hard work of TriPp and Jack Lewis. Please read the following update, including information regarding the exciting new Confederate Descendant Finder Project, share the information with others, use the search engine, and add any Confederate data that you find or possess...

Confederate Archives
ConfederateArchives.com – Launched 03/2013
Total links – 2.4 million links
Total Searches since 05/2013 - 987,477
Confederate Descendant finder Project - 1,654,612 descendants and counting
Confederate Archives is a fully functioning search engine that searches the internet for websites and data concentrating on Confederate history from 1828 to present day. Type "Lee" on other search engines and notice how many results are generated for LEE JEANS, for instance, instead of General Lee. Then try ours. The main purpose of ConfederateArchives.com is to record our Southern history and to be able to provide this content if/when other search engines are forced to censor what approved results will be displayed. We never will.
We provide a safe, family friendly search engine, screened of inaccurate, inappropriate, and false information, which will allow the documentation of our TRUE Southern Heritage and history for generations to come. Sounds good? We think so, too...and we need YOUR help to make this project successful. What can you do? USE IT!  When you're researching the WBTS, ancestry, or any search related to the CSA, use ConfederateArchives.com. The more it is used, the better the results will be when people search in the future.
Please add your favorite websites using the link on the front page of the search engine.
Type of websites we would like to add to confederatearchives.com: - Confederate Cemeteries - Confederate Soldiers Lists - Museums with Confederate Artifacts - Newspapers collections from 1828 thru 1941 - Current day news articles concerning Confederate History - Current day news articles on heritage violations. - Historical Documents between 1828 to present day. - UDC Websites - SCV Camp websites - Heritage defense websites - Art work and pictures - Maps - Genealogy pages with family tree information Love letters and letters to family members...AND everything else Confederate!
In February 2014, after reviewing the data we had collected for over a year it came to our attention that we could endeavor to find ALL of the descendants of Confederate Soldiers, even those still living. The Sons of Confederate Veterans membership is around 30k members. What if we could find the living descendants of soldiers and invite these folks into our organization(s)? Just imagine...
We are working on this. We have about six more months before we finish up and can start providing SCV camps and others an outline of how to use the data we collected as well as provide the procedures and needed information to raise an army of heritage defenders.
Total develop time on ConfederateArchives.com since 03/2013 – 288hrs.
Susan Hathaway


16460 ---The Sin Of Slavery --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-09-23 15:56:52 -0400
See related pages and categories

The Sin of Slavery
From: cscitizen@windstream.net
Chuck, if slavery was/is a sin then why would God tell us how to treat slaves fairly & humanely in the bible? Looking back through 21st Century eyes it’s easy to say the practice was wrong. However, the average slave was taught to read, write (until abolitionist publications told them to rise up & murder their master & their families) and taught Christianity.
I doubt seriously blacks would have been better off left in Africa rather than under the care of a Christian master. However when the U.S. government apologizes for not freeing the slaves in America before the ink on the U.S. Constitution dried then I will too but, not until then. This means every one of the yankee states that practiced slavery as well.
I probably won`t then as I`ve never owned any slaves. Doing so would be as stupid & fruitless as apologizing for my English ancestors who treated my Welsh, Scottish & Irish ancestors just as badly, if not worse by selling them into slavery to the American colonies before blacks were ever thought of as being used as slaves.
If slavery apologists are going to apologize for slavery in America perhaps they need to go on a worldwide tour & apologize for the whole worlds slavery practices from the beginning of mankind. The rest of us are tired of the continual harping of those apologists.
Billy E. Price
Ashville Alabama

16459 ---Scotland: Last Gasp For Freedom --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-09-23 15:47:23 -0400
See related pages and categories

I was disappointed that Scotland lost its recent bid for independence. Truly, it was the last grasp for freedom by those gallant and beleaguered people. Perhaps the moment touched the contacts of my secessionist DNA.
It is has been my avocation, my craft and my privilege to spend half my adult life recreating vignettes of times past, especially from the American experience of the 1860's. 

As such, I am often asked if I would have preferred to have lived during those vibrant times of our Country's development. Those were perilous days, not so unlike the ones in which we now live and, I am content to play my role upon the specific stage of life to which my Almighty and omnipotent God has assigned me.
However, at least during those days of the War Between the States, there was a chance - a slim chance for the freedom of the Southern people.  Now, as with Scotland all hope is gone. Our distinct and noble culture that has been so diluted and corrupted by northern despotism and ideology that only fleeting traces remain. Still, there was a time, ladies and gentlemen, oh, there was a time. 
John Wayne Dobson
Macon, GA

16458 ---Why I Am A "Neo-Confederate" --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-09-23 15:35:24 -0400
See related pages and categories

Why I am a "neo-Confederate"
My response to a Yankee gentleman who decried by siding with “neo-Confederates” and wondered why I did so as I was (reasonably) intelligent. Below is my response written in 2012.

I have given considerable thought to your query on my “neo-Confederate” contacts. If I put in everything, you would have an essay and I’m sure your curiosity does not extend to that degree so I will try to keep it short.
The South was right and I am not alone in that belief. Hear the considered opinion of Lord Acton—a giant of his and any other time. Acton in a letter to Robert E. Lee, said:
“I saw in States’ rights the only availing check upon the absolutism of the sovereign will, and secession filled me with hope, not as the destruction but as the redemption of Democracy…. Therefore I deemed that you were fighting the battles of our liberty, our progress, and our civilization, and I mourn for the stake which was lost at Richmond more deeply than I rejoice over that which was saved at Waterloo.”
After over ten years of research, I now know that what I revered for most of my life was an illusion and that our present national condition is the consequence of more than 150 years in which the original vision of most—but not all—of the Founders has been replaced by a central tyranny which at least used to pay “lip service” to the will of the people. My conclusions are summed up by Professor Jay Hoar, an historian from Maine (not Mississippi) who said:
“The worst fears of those Boys in Gray are now a fact of American life—a Federal government completely out of control.”
Of course, I have been assured that Hoar’s opinions are suspect because he spent time in the South. But if Hoar had lived on the moon, that would not change the fact that he is correct. Our “no-longer-federal” government is completely out of control and cares nothing for anyone’s consent, much less that of “the governed.”
And finally, I must bring forth the words of Ulysses Grant who said,
“The questions which have heretofore divided the sentiment of the people of the two sections—slavery and state's rights, or the right of a state to secede from the Union—they (Southern men) regard as having been settled forever by the highest tribunal—arms—that man can resort to.”
And with that unchallenged sentiment, I realized that we no longer have any law but the law of the jungle—the survival of the strongest. Antonin Scalia—a conservative—said the same thing when asked about the constitutionality of secession. Grant and Scalia were not talking about what was called after the war “the abitrement of the sword,” that is, acceptance of a military defeat by such men as John Mosby and Robert E. Lee, but the actual belief that triumph in arms somehow bestowed legitimacy upon one side of an issue! If right is determined by might, then Hitler wasn’t “wrong,” he was merely bested in war! Had he won, his adherents would have every moral “right” to build the same type of monuments to him that we have built to another tyrant and war criminal, Abraham Lincoln! As well, if we accept Grant’s and Scalia’s premise, then we are then forced to agree with another well respected conservative, John Bolton, who said that the United States government killed many Southern civilians during the Civil (sic) War without due process and it was the right thing to do! I reject that philosophy which apparently is now—and has been—the philosophy of this country for at least 150 years (ask the American Indian)! If the right is determined by the strong rather than by the law, then why bother with the law except as a subterfuge to hide that fact from the ignorant and the naïve?
I stand with those whom you call “neo-Confederates” because they are waging an admittedly losing battle to preserve their history, their symbols and their way of life—Christian Western civilization and I would prefer to die with the righteous than live with the Spirit of the Age. They cannot win because the tide of history is against them but for those who think that their loss means nothing to “America,” I assure you, the symbols, history and heritage of the “The United States” will soon follow the symbols, history and heritage of The Confederate States. The latter can no more be allowed to remain in our Brave New World than the former. Already we see American—not Confederate—flags being censored in our schools lest they “offend” our Third World “guests”—invited or otherwise.
I am almost 72; my husband is almost 75 (as noted, this was written in 2012). we are already “dead” in the eyes of Obamacare as is my handicapped son who is just another expensive “useless eater.” My daughter and her husband have no problem with the current regime—and by that I mean all of them and not just one political party. Indeed, I echo the sentiments of Patrick Buchanan who stated that the two parties are merely two wings on the same bird of prey. I have no grandchildren, nor will I have any so I am not overcome with angst about the future. It is sad to see the end of “the Great Experiment,” but actually it ended before it really began. The seeds of its destruction were sown at its birth. Patrick Henry was right when he declared that the Constitution was nothing but a plan for the installation of a tyrannous central government despite every effort to prevent that from happening (bye-bye Bill of Rights!). Benjamin Franklin was right when he said that when the Congress discovered it could use the People’s money to buy elected office in perpetuity the Republic was dead. Today, we are merely seeing these warnings played out. The final death blow was struck in 1865. We are only now coming to the last dying gasps.
Valerie Protopapas

16457 ---Parks Appeal - Write Commercial Appeal --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-09-23 15:22:14 -0400
See related pages and categories

Parks Appeal – write the CA
Park friends and supporters,
Please write to Letters to the Editor of the Commercial Appeal newspaper.    We MUST keep this in front of our government officials and in front of our friends and fellow citizens.  We must remind them all that we will not forget our ancestors and will continue the fight for the preservation of our American history.
Please write that you agree with (applaud, congratulation, commend) the SCV & CTSOP for filing the appeal in the Parks Lawsuit.

Jefferson Davis Park - Memphis
The Memphis City Council was wrong in trying to rename our historic parks (Confederate Park, Jefferson Davis Park, and Forrest Park) and their acts were illegal. 
And add whatever else you wish.  We know we’re right, and the city and city council are wrong.
A press release was sent to all the media but they may try to ignore our appeal of this injustice.  We must write in and keep them aware of our efforts.

As you are perhaps aware, on Thursday Sept 4, 2014 the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) and the Citizens to Save Our Parks filed an appeal of the recent court ruling dismissing the Parks Renaming lawsuit on ‘standing’.   The case will now go to the Tennessee Court of Appeals, Western District in Jackson, TN.  No hearing date has been scheduled as yet.  The original suit was brought to correct the Memphis City Council’s unauthorized attempted renaming of Forrest Park, Jefferson Davis Park, and Confederate Park in downtown Memphis.
Lee Millar, spokesman for the SCV, stated that “we feel that the chancellor inadequately considered the precedent case law and failed to consider material facts.  Thus we are appealing the case and will continue until the original historic park names are restored.  We know that the city council was wrong in attempting to rename these three historic parks.  The preliminary dismissal will not deter us and the Sons of Confederate Veterans along with the Citizens to Save Our Parks shall continue to work to maintain this part of our American history.”
It should be noted that Forrest Park and Confederate Park are on the U.S. Department of the Interior’s National Register of Historic Places and to the civilized world (which evidently excludes Memphis), the parks will always be known as Forrest Park, Jefferson Davis Park, and Confederate Park.

16456 ---Southerners Demand Political Equality --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-09-23 14:58:15 -0400
See related pages and categories

Southerners Demand Political Equality in the Union
From: bernhard1848@gmail.com
Like many Southerners, Whig Congressman Thomas L. Clingman of North Carolina was shocked at the Northern support for the post-Mexican War Wilmot Proviso and asserted that its passage would compel the South to reconsider its relationship with the Union.  Along with Robert Toombs of Georgia, Clingman was a vocal opponent of President James Polk, who many believed to have maneuvered the United States into war with Mexico.  Both would live to see “a bold man, as well as a bad one, in the White House.”
Bernhard Thuersam, Chairman
North Carolina War Between the States Sesquicentennial Commission
"Unsurpassed Valor, Courage and Devotion to Liberty"
"The Official Website of the North Carolina WBTS Sesquicentennial"
Southerners Demand Political Equality in the Union
“[During] the last and short session of the Twenty-ninth Congress . . . [Toombs] made only one speech, which the continued Whig opposition to the prosecution of the Mexican War was reflected. The immediate occasion was the proposed bill authorizing ten additional regiments of regular soldiers for the war.  Toombs opposed the bill for several reasons.
First, he preferred the use of volunteer to regular soldiers.  They elected their own officers, whereas the President appointed the officers to command regulars.  In Toombs’ mind the volunteers had acted in this capacity “with much greater judgment, skill, and patriotism” than Polk.
The President throughout the war had played politics in appointments and would doubtless continue to do so. Furthermore, said Toombs, the “battles of the republic ought to be fought by its citizens soldiery” who were faithful to its institutions and interested in good government. He was not implying that the present administration was looking toward a Caesar-type dictatorship but the time might come when “you have a bold man, as well as a bad one, in the White House.”
After his remarks on the “ten-regiment bill,” Toombs launched into a review of the war itself.  He again charged the President with provoking hostilities and with attempting to discourage freedom of debate in the House by charges of disloyalty toward those who questioned war policy.  Toombs desired peace, but he wanted no dismemberment of Mexico to accompany it.  We have territory enough, he said, and should improve what we have.
Although as a unionist he deplored the agitation engendered by the principle of the Wilmot Proviso, he warned that as a Southerner he would not stand idly by and see his section shut out of any acquired territory [from the Mexican cession].
He stood firmly on the right [of Southerners] “wherever the American flag waved over American soil to go with their flocks and their herds, their maid servants and their men servants.” Southerners, “would be degraded, and unworthy of the name of American freemen, could they consent to remain, for a day or an hour, in a Union where they must stand on ground of inferiority, and be denied the rights and privileges which were extended to all others.”  Almost fourteen years later Toombs was to say virtually the same thing in the Senate and then help lead his State out of the Union.”
(Robert Toombs of Georgia, William Y. Thompson, LSU Press, 1994 (original 1966), pp. 41-42)

16455 ---Abolition In The Old South --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-09-23 14:44:32 -0400
See related pages and categories

Abolition in the Old South
From: bernhard1848@gmail.com
What the South feared most with its ever-increasing black population from 1750 onward was slave revolt and massacre.  Despite colonial legislature attempts in Virginia and North Carolina to control or stop the British and New England transatlantic slave trade which brought blacks to the South, the Crown forbid interference with their colonial labor supply.
Bernhard Thuersam, Chairman
North Carolina War Between the States Sesquicentennial Commission
"Unsurpassed Valor, Courage and Devotion to Liberty"
"The Official Website of the North Carolina WBTS Sesquicentennial"
Abolition in the Old South:
"The American Revolution swelled the ranks of the tiny Southern free black population. In the years following the Revolution, the number of free Negroes increased manyfold, so that by the end of the first decade of the nineteenth century there were over 100,000 free Negroes in the Southern States . . . The free Negro caste had grown from a fragment of the colonial population to a sizable minority throughout the South.
[In] the North, abolition met stiff opposition. In Rhode Island and Connecticut, which had the largest proportion of Negroes in New England, antislavery forces could enact only gradual-emancipation laws. Pennsylvania enacted a gradual-emancipation act in 1780, but, despite of its many Quakers, never legislated immediate abolition. Lawmakers in New York and New Jersey, where the ratio of blacks to whites was three times that of Pennsylvania, repeatedly rebuffed antislavery forces and refused to enact even gradual emancipation for another twenty years. Significantly, emancipation laws in both New York and New Jersey compensated slaveholders for their property. Only after property rights were satisfied were human rights secured.
In 1782, Virginia repealed its fifty-nine year-old prohibition on private acts of manumission. Slaveholders were now free to manumit any adult slave under forty-five by deed or will. North Carolina slaveholders could free their slaves...for meritorious service and with the permission of the county court. Liberalized provisions for manumissions were extended to the new States and territories of the South. Kentucky adopted the Virginia law in 1792, and the Missouri Territory accepted a similar rule in 1804. Almost immediately slaveholders took advantage of the greatly liberalized laws. Throughout the South, but especially in the upper South, hundreds of masters freed their slaves. Although manumission at times had nothing to do with anti-slavery principles, equalitarian ideals motivated most manumitters in the years following the Revolution.
Beginning in 1792, the revolt on Saint-Domingue sent thousands of refugees fleeing toward American shores. Most were white, but among them were many light-skinned free people of color who had been caught on the wrong side of the ever-changing lines of battle . . . [though Southerners] feared the influx of brown émigrés. The States of the lower South, ever edgy about slave rebellions, quickly barred West Indian free people of color from entering their boundaries, and other States later followed their lead. A mass meeting in Charleston urged the expulsion of "the French Negroes" . . . In Savannah, nervous official barred any ship that had touched Saint-Domingue from entering the harbor."
(Slaves Without Masters: The Free Negro in the Antebellum South, Ira Berlin, The New Press, 1974, excerpts pp. 15-36)

16454 ---Fight Like Men For Our Firesides --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-09-23 14:25:56 -0400
See related pages and categories

"Let Us Fight Like Men for Our Firesides"
From: bernhard1848@gmail.com
By refusing to compromise or discuss alternatives to secession with Southern legislators, and as President-elect endorse the cooling-off period Southern Unionists in North Carolina and the rest of the South desired, Lincoln drove a reluctant North Carolina and Virginia into the Southern Confederacy to protect their liberties in a more perfect union.
Bernhard Thuersam, Chairman
North Carolina War Between the States Sesquicentennial Commission
"Unsurpassed Valor, Courage and Devotion to Liberty"
"The Official Website of the North Carolina WBTS Sesquicentennial"
“Let Us Fight Like Men for Our Firesides”
“In [North Carolina] wrote [Jonathan] Worth, the Union sentiment was largely in the ascendant and gaining strength until Lincoln prostrated us. Congress having refused to pass the force bill [against South Carolina], we felt that the President could abandon Sumter and Pickens without any sacrifice of his principles, but in conformity with the Legislative will.  He induced the whole South so to believe.
The assurance of [Secretary of State William] Seward to Judge [and Supreme Court Justice John A.] Campbell seems to have been made with deliberate duplicity . . . He [Lincoln] did more than all the secessionists to break up the Union, but whether he did this, not being statesman enough to comprehend the effect of his measures; or whether his purpose was to drive all the slave States into rebellion, thinking he could bring against us men enough, with the aid of servile insurrection, to overthrow us and abolish Slavery, we are in doubt . . . I infer . . . that Lincoln’s measures have united the North.  The[y] have certainly united North Carolina [for secession].”
“[Worth added a short time later that the] voice of reason is silenced.  Furious passion and thirst for blood consume the air . . . the very women and children are for war. I think the annals of the world furnish no instance of so groundless a war – but . . . let us fight like men for our own firesides.”
(The Civil War and Reconstruction, J. G. Randall, D.C. Heath and Company, 1937, pp. 256-257)

16453 ---Sinfulness Of Institution Of Slavery --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-09-23 14:12:55 -0400
See related pages and categories

Re: Mark Vogl
From: bjpershing@juno.com
Dear Chuck,
I must take vigorous exception to the remarks of Mark Vogl, and some of our other Confederate friends, regarding the sinfulness of the institution of slavery.  Mr. Vogl stated, and apparently many of our pro-Southern friends agree, "Clearly, slavery was and is a sin."
I would like to know by what authority Mr. Vogl denounces slavery as a clearly defined sin.  Judging by other remarks made in the same article, I take it Mr. Vogl is a professing Christian, and I am certainly happy to regard him as such.  However, by making the statement that slavery is clearly a sin, he has fallen into the trap of allowing the worldly culture to define right and wrong, instead of the Christian's one and only source of truth and morality: the holy scriptures.  The only "defense" Mr. Vogl made of his statement that I could find was at the beginning of his article, in which he stated that since liberty comes from God, then slavery must be a sin.  This is not biblical reasoning, and to my knowledge can be found nowhere in the Bible.  It is true, that without sin there would be no slavery.  But at the same time, without sin there would also be no divorce, and almost certainly would not be money.  That does not mean that divorce or money are intrinsically evil; they have become an unhappy necessity of living in a fallen world.  In light of the biblical evidence, we should view slavery along the same lines.
It would take far too much space to cover all the biblical data regarding slavery, but I would simply challenge any skeptic to find any pronouncement in the Bible that defines slavery as a sin.  I already know that they cannot, and therefore I take my turn and direct their attention to the Decalogue.  The fourth and tenth commandments both enshrine the right of a master in his slaves, first by requiring him to allow his slaves to rest on the sabbath, and secondly by forbidding us to covet a man's slaves.  I would also point the interested Christian to Leviticus 25:39-46, in which rules and regulations are delivered concerning slavery.  The Hebrew was compelled to manumit his Hebrew slaves at the year of jubilee, but could maintain heathen bondmen in servitude perpetually.  That which the law of God condones by definition cannot be sin (Romans 7:7).
Our Lord Jesus Christ commended the faith of a slaveholder (Matthew 8:5-13), and often used slaves and masters as examples in His parables, without ever once suggesting any evil in the institution.  In Luke 17:7-10, He even mocked at the idea of a master thanking his slave for bringing him his supper!  I would refer also to the constant teaching of the apostles, who regulated the behavior of masters towards slaves, and slaves towards masters, without ever once giving so much as a shadow of a hint that the master was required by the laws of Christ to emancipate his bondmen (Ephesians 6:5-9; Colossians 3:22-25 & 4:1; I Timothy 6:1-5, in which Paul very aptly describes the Abolitionist character; Titus 2:9, 10; I Peter 2:18).  For a thorough discussion of the biblical data concerning slavery, I cannot recommend highly enough R.L. Dabney's book A Defense of Virginia and the South.  Dabney, who was once General Jackson's chief of staff, deals very thoroughly with slavery in the Bible and in American history.  I also very highly commend Dabney's article Anti-biblical Theories of Rights, which may be found on page 497 of Volume 4 of Dabney's works.  I fear that all too many Southerners have embraced the very anti-biblical theories of rights which Dabney describes, which has caused them to come to agree with the bloodthirsty Abolitionists who started the war that destroyed the Southern nation.
In short, we as Southerners need to cease and desist at once from denouncing slavery as a sin, at least insofar as we consider ourselves Christians.  The fact is that our Southern forefathers were not only right on issues of the Constitution, state's rights, economics, etc., but they were also right on the issue of slavery.  When we deny this, we give the enemy a foothold that he should not have.
Pastor Samuel Ashwood
Pastor Samuel Ashwood and all Southerners;
I am a practicing Catholic, a saved Christian (as a child when Billy Graham was at Shea Stadium) and I admit to no pastoral training.  However, I do read both history and Bible extensively and have taught Catechism to Catholic children.
I condemn slavery as a sin for the following reason;
Our nation is founded on the Christian belief, as stated in the Declaration of Independence, that all men have inalienable rights given to us by our Creator, among these rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  I believe these inalienable rights are evidenced in Genesis when God places Adam and Eve on earth as free people.   He did not place them in slavery.  God gave them the gift of liberty.
When anyone takes a gift given by God it is stealing and a sin. Simple.  And if you participate in continuing a sin...you are sinning.
So much of the discussion of the cause of the secession revolves around the Cause.  I believe the Cause was about staying faithful to the original Constitution and Declaration of Independence.  The arguments about slavery at the drafting of the Declaration, and around the creation of the Constitution are well known.  It is interesting that a slave owner was the one to write and argue about the evils of slavery.
But let's continue with why I cite slavery as a sin.
While on the earth the Gospel cites several references to Jesus' command to love one another.  Now, again, I am no pastor, but for me, love means the highest place I can hold another.  I could never place a loved one in slavery.  I could never accept someone I loved in slavery.  So therefore, since Christ commanded me to love all, it would be wrong to hold them in slavery.
Also while on earth Christ told us to do unto others as you would have them do unto you.  Since I would not accept slavery for myself, I cannot place someone else in slavery.  I cannot accept them in slavery, anymore than I can accept someone committing any other sin, abortion, drug use, etc.
Now to  the inevitable question...why didn't Christ condemn slavery.  I can think of two responses.  First, Christ said divorce is wrong...but some Christian faiths allow it, despite Christ's clear statement that it is wrong.  So condemning a human practice did not seem to have the desired impact even on people who can read the Bible and say they live by it.  (PS I am divorced and accept that I live sin.)
Second, Christ came to the earth to save us, to provide us with a means to salvation.  He did not come to restate the laws or condemn individual practices, though clearly in the Gospels he does do that.
Now lastly, my article was written as someone who loves the South and believes that we can learn from history.  I do not love history to re-enact, I love history to help govern today.  I love history because it is earlier human experience in problems we face today.  There is much to take from the Confederate Constitution, but to talk about that, you have to clear the decks of the single issue which has prevented a real discussion of the changes made to the US Constitution.
This argument about slavery is eternal and will not stop..  I express my point of view so that those who have not yet made up their mind can consider well considered points of logic and history.  I do wonder how anyone can promote the South without condemning slavery... but, each of us carry crosses and I accept that.
I respect the Pastor's comments as both friendly and an attempt to express his point of view.  But I have to wonder how many Christian Pastors are ready to walk into their church and say Christianity accepts slavery.  I can tell you no Priest I have had in my 59 years of life would.  And all the pastors I speak to that I have met do not accept slavery as condoned by the Bible.
I was thrown out of the SCV, in part, because of my belief that slavery was and is a sin.  Won't change on that... so I guess as with my faith, I am also fallen in being a Southerner.
I repeat that there is a great deal of good in the South, but no people is without sin or error.  This one is the big log in the eye that should be easy to remove, but isn't.
This is my response, with respect,
Mark Vogl

16452 ---Why Didn't Grant Free Slaves? --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-09-23 13:30:30 -0400
See related pages and categories

If the War Between the States was fought over slavery, why did General U. S. Grant who owned slaves, keep them in bondage throughout the entire war???  Someone asked him after the War why he didn't free them, and he replied, "Good help was hard to come by."  Also, read Lincoln's comments about slavery and how he wanted to pass an amendment to the U.S. Constitution permitting the states to keep slaves, if only they would stay in the Union.
Nowhere in the Bible have I read that Jesus condemned slavery.  Wasn't it Paul that told the runaway slave to return to his Master?  Let's remember that NOT A SINGLE SLAVE was ever brought to this country on a ship flying the Confederate flag.  And the Confederate Constitution forbade the importation of slaves to the Confederacy.
James Gaston
Americus, GA

16451 ---Rededication Of Lee Tree --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-09-23 13:20:11 -0400
See related pages and categories

From: Virginia Flagger <info@vaflaggers.com>
Date: Fri, Sep 19, 2014
Subject: Va Flaggers: Rededication of the LEE Tree, Rainelle, WV

In 1934, the Traveller’s District Chapter of the United Daughters of the Confederacy, along with Greenbrier Co. and state agencies, placed a huge ironstone rock under the Lee Tree on Big Sewell Mountain, near Rainelle, WV. The rock has a bronze plaque commemorating the site where R.E Lee pitched his headquarters tent beneath a large Maple tree in 1861. This is also the site where Lee first saw Traveller, and where he first rode his famous war horse. A wrought iron fence was erected around the site.

In 1937, after the Maple Tree died, a second tree was planted.

Over the years, the concrete posts of the fencing had crumbled, and the fence had deteriorated badly and the second tree had died. In 2013, Allen K. Stone, who portrays General Lee, approached the Flat Top Copperheads SCV Camp 1694 and suggested they take on the restoration of the monument as a project. The Traveeller District UDC supplied the funding and the Flat Top Copperheads provided the labor to replant the tree, replace the corner posts, and restore the fence. One of the camp members confided to me that they placed a time capsule at the base of one of the newly placed footings, (right rear if standing at the front of the memorial) with the hopes that others, who will continue the care of this sacred place, will discover it one day. He asked me to record it in this report, so that there would be a record for those who come behind us.

On Sunday, September 7th, 2014, a crowd of over 200 people gathered for a ceremony to rededicate the Lee Tree and the marker, 80 years after the original placing of the memorial. It was a cool, foggy day on the mountain, but the dampness did not deter the spirit of those who attended, including the keynote speaker, C. Kelly Barrow, SCV Commander-In-Chief.

It was a wonderful event, with beautiful music, moving rituals, musket and cannon salutes, and speakers who discussed the history of the monument, heritage defense, and local history. I was honored and surprised to be recognized with the “Commander’s Award” from the Flat Top Copperheads, a beautiful “Loyal Ladies of the Confederacy” brooch, and given the privilege of firing the cannon, courtesy of the Giles Light Artillery.

I had the pleasure of seeing a very beautiful part of (occupied) western Virginia, and meeting and chatting with some of the nicest folks I’ve ever met, including some new friends from the Mechanized Cavalry, among many others. Special thanks to Terry McAllister of the PJ Thurmond SV Camp #2190 for the warm welcome and escort. It was great to meet so many new friends and have the chance to visit with old ones.

Kudos and special thanks and to Commander Blaine Hypes and the Flat Top Copperheads for their ongoing commitment and dedication to living the Charge…and God bless all the men and women of the SCV and UDC who worked hard to repair and restore the monument, and for their diligence in organizing and hosting such a successful re-dedication event.

On the way home, I stopped in Lewisburg, WV and visited the Confederate Cemetery there. The remains of 95 unknown Confederate soldiers from the Battle of Lewisburg, fought May 23, 1862, lie in this cross-shaped common grave. It has a vertical length 80 feet long and a cross arm of 40 feet long, with an overall width of 10 feet.

Yankee Colonel George Crook would not permit the southern sympathizers to bury their own dead, and thus they were originally laid out in the Old Stone Church and later placed in a trench along the south wall of the church without ceremony. It wasn't until after the war that the remains of the 95 Confederate dead were removed from the churchyard and interred in the cross-shaped mass grave.


Susan Hathaway
Virginia Flaggers


Saturday, September 20th:  Flagging the VMFA, 200 N. Boulevard, 9:00 am - 1:00 pm

Saturday, September 20th:  Flagging Washington and Lee University - The Tar Heel Flaggers are organizing a flagging for 9:00 am - 5:00 pm . Young Alumni Weekend/Homecoming!  Class Agents and Alumni Board will also be on Campus. This will be the perfect way to spread the word, teach and influence young growing minds on the truth of Lee and will put more pressure on the University.  Contact:  Jamie Funkhouser.  jamiefunkhouser@yahoo.com
Saturday, September 20th: 11:30 a.m. Dick Poplar Day

Thursday, September 25th:  Flagging the VMFA, 200 N. Boulevard, 2:00 pm - 6:00 pm

Sunday, September 28th: 3:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. Va Flaggers' Third Anniversary Picnic.  Live music, good food, and great fellowship.   Silent auction throughout the afternoon. Live auction following supper.  Period artwork and 10 x 15 Battle Flag that flew at the Chester flag site location among many items to be auctioned to support the Va Flaggers.   Donations for auction/raffle items are welcome.

Thursday, October 16th:  Susan will be speaking at the October meeting of the Sgt. William A. Hamby Camp#1750, SCV, Crossville TN.   6:00 pm CST, 111 E. 1st Street, Crossville.

Saturday, Nov. 1st: Susan will be speaking at the 100th Anniversary celebration of the dedication of the Confederate Monument in Lebanon, VA.

Thursday, December 11th:  Susan will be speaking at the December meeting of the A.H. Belo Camp #49, SCV, Dallas Texas

Friday, December 12th:  Susan will be speaking at the Christmas gathering of the
Major Robert M. White, Camp No. 1250, Sons of Confederate Veterans,Temple, Texas

Saturday, December 13th:  Susan will be speaking at the Christmas gathering of the Middleton Tate Johnson Camp #1648, SCV, Arlington, TX.

Follow our blog:  http://vaflaggers.blogspot.com/

Find us on FaceBook:  https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Virginia-Flaggers/378823865585630

Follow us on Twitter:  https://twitter.com/VaFlagger

Va Flaggers
P.O. Box 547
Sandston VA 23150


16450 ---FlagFight - Ole Miss Update, 9/19 --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-09-23 13:00:41 -0400
See related pages and categories

From: Georgia Flagger cobbslegionscv@yahoo.com [FlagFight] <FlagFight@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Fri, Sep 19, 2014
Subject: [FlagFight] Ole Miss Update
To: Georgia Division <GASCV-Discussion@yahoogroups.com>, "FlagFight@yahoogroups.com" <FlagFight@yahoogroups.com>


The chancellor and vice provost on diversity affairs have been served a summons to appear in court on October 27th concerning the Mississippi Division's injunction petition and restraining order preventing the renaming of Confederate Drive.

I had the honor of witnessing the same summons being served on the Mississippi Attorney General at exactly 11:35 this morning.


Billy Bearden
Camp 673


16449 ---9/18/2014 - Lee Chapel Desecration Update --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-09-18 14:39:19 -0400
See related pages and categories

From: Virginia Flagger <info@vaflaggers.com>
Date: Thu, Sep 18, 2014
Subject: Va Flaggers: W&L LEE Chapel Desecration Update

Desecrating the LEE Chapel by removing the Confederate Battle flags placed there in 1930 dishonored ALL Confederate veterans, especially the hundreds with direct connections to the university, including Gen. George Washington Custis Lee, whose birthday was marked this week.  Born September 16, 1832, he served 26 years as the 9th President of Washington and Lee University, following the death of his father in 1870. "Custis Lee" as he was called by his family, is also buried in the family crypt below the Chapel.

Upon his death, on Feb. 18, 1913, University trustees resolved that "his administration witnessed periods of depression in the affairs of the University calculated to make the stoutest heart lose courage; yet at no time did he lose confidence in the work to which he put his hand."


Just over 100 years after his death, the university saw fit to capitulate to the demands of 6 agitators, rather than defend the honor and sacred memory of Custis Lee, his father, and hundreds of other Confederate Veterans.


The Va Flaggers traveled to Lexington for three days of Flagging Washington & Lee University last weekend.  It was VMI's homecoming and the streets and sidewalks were packed with students, parent, and alumni, almost all of whom offered their enthusiastic support for our efforts.

While the weather offered some challenges, our Flaggers were determined, and they had the chance to talk with many citizens, students and tourists about the desecration of the LEE Chapel by university officials.

On this trip, we were told by Chapel docents that they know, for a fact, that Robert E. Lee specifically did not want Confederate flags at his funeral.  When asked for documentation of this claim, none was provided.  The gentle lady simply said that "that was what they have been told to tell visitors who inquire about the missing flags."

It is certainly sad, but not unexpected, that these types of  statements are being fabricated to try and "explain away" the desecration of the Chapel.


Jamie Funkhouser will be leading a group of Tar Heels to Lexington this weekend to continue the Flagging of Washington & Lee University after the removal of Confederate Battle Flags from the chamber of the LEE Chapel.  This weekend is Young Alumni/Homecoming weekend for the University, and it will be an opportune time to forward the colors, educate the thousands of students, parents, and alumni who will be on campus, and protest the vile act of desecration committed by university officials.

They will be on site at the Chapel from 9-5 on Saturday, September 20.  Join them and be a part of what has been 2 months of a continued presence at Washington & Lee.  Contact Jamie via email at: jamiefunkhouser@yahoo.com for more information.

RETURN the flags!
RESTORE the honor!

Grayson Jennings
Va Flaggers


Thursday, September 11th - Sunday, September 14th:  Thunder in the Valley - Lexington, VA  Cavalry ride and Re Enactment 
The Virginia Flaggers are a sponsor for the event, and will co-ordinate flagging W&L all weekend!

Saturday, September 20th:  Flagging the VMFA, 200 N. Boulevard, 9:00 am - 1:00 pm

Saturday, September 20th:  Flagging Washington and Lee University - The Tar Heel Flaggers are organizing a flagging for 9:00 am - 5:00 pm . Young Alumni Weekend/Homecoming!  Class Agents and Alumni Board will also be on Campus. This will be the perfect way to spread the word, teach and influence young growing minds on the truth of Lee and will put more pressure on the University.  Contact:  Jamie Funkhouser.  jamiefunkhouser@yahoo.com
Saturday, September 20th: 11:30 a.m. Dick Poplar Day

Thursday, September 25th:  Flagging the VMFA, 200 N. Boulevard, 2:00 pm - 6:00 pm

Sunday, September 28th: 3:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. Va Flaggers' Third Anniversary Picnic.  Live music, good food, and great fellowship.   Silent auction throughout the afternoon. Live auction following supper.  Period artwork and 10 x 15 Battle Flag that flew at the Chester flag site location among many items to be auctioned to support the Va Flaggers.   Donations for auction/raffle items are welcome.

Thursday, October 16th:  Susan will be speaking at the October meeting of the Sgt. William A. Hamby Camp#1750, SCV, Crossville TN.   6:00 pm CST, 111 E. 1st Street, Crossville.

Saturday, Nov. 1st: Susan will be speaking at the 100th Anniversary celebration of the dedication of the Confederate Monument in Lebanon, VA.

Thursday, December 11th:  Susan will be speaking at the December meeting of the A.H. Belo Camp #49, SCV, Dallas Texas

Friday, December 12th:  Susan will be speaking at the Christmas gathering of the
Major Robert M. White, Camp No. 1250, Sons of Confederate Veterans,Temple, Texas

Saturday, December 13th:  Susan will be speaking at the Christmas gathering of the Middleton Tate Johnson Camp #1648, SCV, Arlington, TX.

Follow our blog:  http://vaflaggers.blogspot.com/

Find us on FaceBook:  https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Virginia-Flaggers/378823865585630

Follow us on Twitter:  https://twitter.com/VaFlagger

Virginia Flaggers
P.O. Box 547
Sandston VA 23150


16446 ---Ole Miss/Confederate Drive --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-09-17 15:56:20 -0400
See related pages and categories

From: Georgia Flagger cobbslegionscv@yahoo.com [FlagFight] <FlagFight@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Tue, Sep 16, 2014
Subject: [FlagFight] Ole Miss / Confederate Drive
To: Georgia Division <GASCV-Discussion@yahoogroups.com>, "FlagFight@yahoogroups.com" <FlagFight@yahoogroups.com>

Message from Mississippi Division Commander Allen Terrell:

"Ole Miss has announced a ceremony this Friday to rename Confederate Drive. I have been in contact with the Division Judge Advocate today and he is going to try and contact the attorney general for a possible opinion on Code 55-15-81. I also received a request from the editor of the university's newspaper for an interview. Looks like things may be fixin to heat up. I ask for your prayers that I present a good argument and make our point clearly."

Billy Bearden
Haralson Invincibles Camp 673


16445 ---Continuing War Against The South --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-09-17 15:37:56 -0400
See related pages and categories

The Continuing War Against the South

A war is still being waged against the South, not by bullets and bayonets but by a campaign of demonization. As a political and social stratagem, demonization is a ploy as old as civilization itself. The objective of the game is to dehumanize an opponent, individual or a group in order to gain public support for diminishing his power and influence in one or more spheres: political, social, economic, or cultural.

Modern America over the past two decades abounds with examples of the demonization process, most of them perpetuated by the Left (which includes many on the Republican “right”) against the traditional Right. The Oklahoma City bombing, black church burnings, and the Atlanta Olympics pipe-bombing in the 1990s; the 9-11 “Truther” movement, the Obama birth certificate “Birther” movement, the anti-ObamaCare movement thus far this century have all been used by the government and its lap-dog media to portray anyone to the right of the mainstream GOP as dangerous to the public weal. But the boogie-man singled out to receive the lion’s share of the liberal/neocon hostility is the traditional Southerner, who is uniformly presented by the media, the academy, and popular culture as Beelzebub incarnate. Unfortunately, the demonization of Southerners and their region is not of recent origin.

The Origins of Conflict

Southerners of both high and low estate contributed mightily to the founding and advancement of the American Republic. Despite that, they have been subjected to a long-running campaign of demonization that has turned them into national whipping-boys in this post-modern, post-Christian era. The demonization of the South did not begin, as some may think, with the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s, though it did take on a particularly hostile tone during those decades. Rather, the campaign to portray the South as the sole blot on an otherwise pure and shining “City on a Hill” began in earnest in the 1830s with the rise of the Yankee reformist impulse (i.e. Abolitionist, women’s rights, temperance, and other like-minded movements) and fears that the so-called “Slave Power” of Southern aristocrats threatened American democracy. The three decades from the publication of William Lloyd Garrison’s Liberator in 1831 to the outbreak of The War for Southern Independence in 1861 witnessed a virulent crusade to vilify not only the South’s culture and institutions but Southerners themselves.

To understand why the Yankee thought it necessary and profitable to demonize the South, we must trace briefly the dichotomy between a rapidly-changing antebellum North and a stable, conservative South. Southern men-of-affairs, especially South Carolina’s John C. Calhoun, understood that unchecked consolidation and the campaign against slavery would result in either the destruction of the South or in the dissolution of the Union. The gathering forces against which the South had to contend were foreboding. The sweep of “progress” was already gripping the North (especially New England), urging it toward finance and industrial capitalism and the exploitation of “free” labor. William H. Seward warned the South that unless it voluntarily discarded its old ways–particularly an outmoded adherence to States Rights and the “peculiar institution”–it would later yield them amidst a sea of blood. Such threats to the well being of their region caused thoughtful Southern leaders to consider what sort of checks might be imposed against an increasingly hostile North.

But progressive Northern leaders were in no mood to be checked by a numerical minority in the slaveholding South. Undermining the Southern way of life would be the first step in the triumph of the Yankee worldview, and to accomplish this, the South had to be demonized in the eyes of a majority of Northerners before the radicals could hope for its actual physical destruction.

Yankee Revolution

Revolutionary change in the North’s economic and political systems had been accompanied by European-style reform movements of every stripe. Indeed, New England and parts of the Midwest now produced a breed of perpetual reformers in whom emotion trumped commonsense and hard experience. Eventually, all the reformist strands were woven together into the rope of Abolitionism, and by the 1830s the anti-slavery movement had become a messianic, apostate religious crusade. Radical abolitionist propaganda found its way not only into literature and public oratory, but into juvenile story books, church hymnals, and even almanacs, as well.

Boston in the mid-nineteenth century was the center of a Unitarian-Universalist revolt against traditional Christianity in which sinful mankind was transformed into a creature of innate goodness and light. If mankind was inherently good, then all social problems were external ones that could be eradicated by one sort of reform or another. Perhaps even the Southern slave-driver could be redeemed if only he could be made over in the image of the sturdy, democratic New Englander and his cousin in the Midwest who knew the proper interpretation of the Declaration of Independence. To these abstract idealists, the South seemed woefully out of step with the idea that “all men are created equal.” While New Englanders called down the wrath of God’s “terrible swift sword” against the South, western men in Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan, writes historian A. O. Craven, “had a way of viewing evil as something there ought to be a law against.” This combination of sanctimony and the appeal to laws that surely would be enacted by John Randolph of Roanoke’s “King Numbers,” served to unite the disparate elements of the White South and gird them for the impending conflict.

A Bloody Solution to the Southern Problem

The war waged from 1861-1865 was precipitated in no small part by the Abolitionists who had for thirty years fanned the flames of hatred against the South. When the fighting broke out in April1861, they all rejoiced, some at finally being rid of the South and others at the opportunity of destroying her. One of their own, Julia Ward Howe, while in Washington during the early days of the war, penned the lyrics to what became the Unitarian-Abolitionist anthem–”The Battle Hymn of the Republic.” Her words hailed the advent of a holy war against an evil South and equated the crucifixion of Christ with the present crusade against slavery. The South Carolina Presbyterian divine, Rev. James Henley Thornwell, well understood the nature of the “irrepressible conflict” waged against his homeland. He wrote: “The parties in this conflict are not merely Abolitionists and slaveholders, they are Atheists, Socialists, Communists, Red Republicans, Jacobins on the one side and the friends of order and regulated freedom on the other. In one word, the world is the battleground, Christianity and Atheism the combatants, and the progress of humanity the stake.”

Four years of Jacobin-inspired warfare devastated the South. In addition to some 450,000 Confederate soldiers killed and wounded, the region’s civilian population suffered horrendously, especially during the final campaigns of the conflict. The last months of the Confederacy were filled with arson, robbery, rape, and murder, crimes perpetrated more often than not with the approval of Union military officers and civilian officials. Much of the destruction was pure vandalism directed against defenseless women and children and represented a deliberate policy to strike terror in the hearts of the Southern people. What General William T. Sherman called the “holiest fight ever fought on God’s earth” made little distinction between black and white. A reporter for the New York Herald, who witnessed the sack of Columbia, South Carolina, in 1865, noted that “Negro women were for the most part victims of the [Union] soldiers’ lust. A number of them were woefully mistreated and ravished.”

War’s Aftermath

In the wake of this carnage, Northern business interests began a systematic and wholesale economic plundering of the South that would continue through Reconstruction. Oppressive taxes were levied on cotton, and in just three years (1865-68) over $70 million was expropriated from the Southern economy. As late as 1880 the value of Southern agricultural lands was only two-thirds of what it had been in 1860. Gross farm income did not rise above 1859 levels until the early 1880s, though the South’s population rose nearly fifty-percent during that period. In the decades following the war, the South became an economic colony at the mercy of Northeastern plutocrats who exacted enormous sums of capital through usurious interest rates, stole lands and resources through tax foreclosures, and rigged local elections at the point of a bayonet. Famine and pestilence stalked the land, and it was common to see homeless widows and orphans begging bread from door to door and once-proud veterans reduced to destitution. Indeed, abolitionist Wendell Phillips summed up the situation well when he remarked after the war: “This [the North’s victory] is the new dispensation. This is the New Testament. 1860 is the blank leaf between the old and the new. . . . We have conquered not the geographical but the ideal South . . . and we have a right to trample it under the heel of our boots. This is the meaning of the war.” So it was.

American Empire

The South’s defeat in 1865, as Thornwell predicted, cleared the way for the triumph of a Jacobin/Marxist worldview in a consolidated American Empire. Wasted by war and military occupation and swindled by crooked Carpetbag and Scalawag “entrepreneurs,” the Southern people could do nothing to halt the centralizers’ juggernaut. One would think the demonizers’ work done at this point. But after a truce of sorts prevailed for several decades, especially during times of war when America needed the services of Southern manhood, the demonization of all things traditionally Southern resumed apace in the 1950s and 1960s during the Civil Rights Movement and the age of leftist revolution. And it continues to this day, the perpetrators showing no signs of letting up.

The prevailing question for traditional Southerners is this: How long will you patiently remain as a second-class citizen in this current political arrangement, hoping it can be reformed? If you do choose to remain on the flimsy hope of reform, you likely will lose everything dear to you, including your children’s and grandchildren’s future. You must recognize that the war against you continues and will not end until everything you cherish has been destroyed. Such was and is the definition of “war” by the forces of evil in this conflict. And the prevailing evil is the USA.

The demonization and destruction of the traditional South has removed a counterweight from the political entity known as The United States of America. Without that counterweight of Southern conservatism and tradition, America descended into the pit of Enlightenment-inspired left liberalism from which it has not, will not, and cannot return.

Here are some concrete examples. Since the South’s defeat in 1865, America has: 1) fought a war for empire (the Spanish-American War); 2) helped destroy the old European order (World War One); 3) provided aid to the communists in Spain (the Spanish Civil War—which saw American volunteers in the Abraham Lincoln Brigade fight against Franco); 4) allied itself with the communist USSR under Stalin (World War Two); 5) provided political and economic support for black communist-backed regimes in Rhodesia and South Africa (in the Bush Wars and anti-Apartheid campaign); 6) supported the pro-Muslim forces against Christian Serbia in the 1990s; and 7) currently supports anti-Christian Muslim rebels against the Syrian government, including perhaps ISIS itself. Without a vital and viable old Southern conservatism—that “old time religion” that theologically defined the South–to provide balance, the USA has consistently pushed a leftist/godless ideology worldwide.

Thus, without the South to reel her in, America has become an unholy terror to the whole world. Perhaps a revitalized and independent South will be the necessary antidote to such hubris. And perhaps this is why the powers-that-be in the USA still demonize her.

Michael Hill
Killen, Alabama


16444 ---Thunder In The Valley/Flagging W&L --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-09-10 16:02:25 -0400
See related pages and categories

From: Virginia Flagger <info@vaflaggers.com>
Date: Tue, Sep 9, 2014
Subject: Va Flaggers Update: Thunder In the Valley/Flagging W&L

The Virginia Flaggers will be in Lexington this weekend, as a sponsor of “Thunder In the Valley”, and to coordinate flagging Washington and Lee throughout the weekend. Join us Thursday-Sunday and enjoy this great cavalry re-enactment, and take the opportunity to stand against the administration of Washington and Lee and their desecration of the LEE Chapel.


Email info@vaflaggers.com for more information.

As a reminder, we have called for and implemented a TOTAL boycott of Lexington, since the September 1, 2011 actions of the Lexington City Council, which effectively banned the display of the flags of Lee and Jackson on city flag stands in the days leading up to and including the Virginia State Lee-Jackson Day holiday. PLEASE make sure you make your hotel reservations, dining, and shopping plans OUTSIDE of the city limits, and stop by City Hall and let them know WHY!

Washington & Lee Chapel Desecration Update:  We are receiving updates from alumni groups that are organizing, and hearing from several sources that law suits are being prepared to bring against the school and administration for the unlawful and improper removal of the Confederate Battle Flags from the LEE Chapel.  In the meantime, we ask that you continue to contact university officials by phone, email and US Mail.

The following is a letter submitted to Washington & Lee University President Kenneth Ruscio and forwarded to us. Since the desecration of the LEE Chapel at the hands of the W&L administration, we have received copies of hundreds of well written, poignant communications. This one is different than most. It was written and sent by a 15 year old student, without prompting, instruction, or assistance. In this young man, we find the wisdom, maturity, and intestinal fortitude that is sorely lacking among W&L University leadership.  Submitted without correction or editing...

"Dear Mr. Ruscio/ Mr. Ruscio's Secretary,

As a Virginian, I am completely appalled and disgusted with your University's unintelligent decision to remove the replica (but historically accurate) Battle Flags from the Lee Chapel.

Your university has several different flags in the chapel that honor Robert E Lee, but you felt the need to exclude the Confederacy from the Chapel. The Battle Flags that were in the Chapel were appropriate for the following reasons: 1) They were positioned above/beside the "Recumbent Lee", a statue by Edward Valentine that depicts Lee in his Confederate uniform, asleep on the battlefield where these flags were present. 2) Most (if not all) Confederate Generals have at least one (yes replica) battle flag on their grave to honor them. For example: Nathan Bedford Forrest, Stonewall Jackson, JEB Stuart, John Singleton Mosby, George Pickett and the President of the Confederacy, Mr. Jefferson Davis. 3) The Battle flags that you removed were the flags of the Confederate Soldier, not the government. The Battle Flag never flew over any building of the Confederate government. It was kept safely in a wooden box and when battle occurred, it was raised and ran through the battlefield so the Confederate Soldiers could be identified. Therefore, if someone deems the Battle Flag "racist" then they don't understand the flag in no way represents the institution of slavery, which the South wasn't fighting to preserve in the first place.

I understand that the flags were added to the Lee Chapel in the thirties however, many years prior to when the flags were added, the Lee Crypt had Ivy growing inside and stick flags were placed in the Ivy to honor Robert E Lee. When Washington and Lee representatives say that the flags were not original to the Chapel does that mean that the "Recumbent Lee" must be removed considering that it was not original to the Chapel? Why don't we take out the rest of the flags that are on display since they are not original either? Why don't we strip off the extra layers of paint on the walls since they too are not original ?

I also understand that an original battle flag is coming to the museum downstairs however, it will not be their permanently, it is not meant to honor Lee, and it will be displayed in the very back of the museum in a separate section. Don't get me wrong, I applaud your discussion to bring an original flag to the museum, but just because you're putting an original in the museum does not make it necessary to remove the flags from the Lee Chapel.

I will end this letter with a few questions. Where are the United Daughters of the Confederacy's flags now? When will the original flag arrive to the museum? Why did you cave to the minority? And when will the flags be returned to the chapel to properly honor Robert E Lee?

With great repugnance,
Patrick S, Mechanicsville, VA"


University President
Kenneth P. Ruscio
(540) 458-8700
(540) 458-8945 (fax)

Senior Assistant to the President
Elizabeth Knapp
(540) 458-8867
(540) 458-8745 (fax)

Mailing Address:
204 West Washington Street
Washington and Lee University
Lexington, Virginia 24450

We also encourage you to copy your letters to the local media.  Every time we get a letter printed, we speak for those who are no longer able, educate and influence those who need to hear the truth, and encourage those who have yet to speak out.  Great one here, from the Roanoke Times: 

Please add your voice!

RETURN the flags!
RESTORE the honor!


Tuesday, September 9th:  Flagging the VMFA, 200 N. Boulevard, 2:00 pm - 6:00 pm

Thursday, September 11th - Sunday, September 14th:  Thunder in the Valley - Lexington, VA  Cavalry ride and Re Enactment 
The Virginia Flaggers are a sponsor for the event, and will co-ordinate flagging W&L all weekend!

Saturday, September 13th:  Flagging the VMFA, 200 N. Boulevard, 2:00 pm - 6:00 pm

Saturday, September 20th:  Flagging Washington and Lee University - The Tar Heel Flaggers are organizing a flagging for 9:00 am - 5:00 pm . Young Alumni Weekend/Homecoming!  Class Agents and Alumni Board will also be on Campus. This will be the perfect way to spread the word, teach and influence young growing minds on the truth of Lee and will put more pressure on the University.  Contact:  Jamie Funkhouser.  jamiefunkhouser@yahoo.com
Saturday, September 20th: 11:30 a.m. Dick Poplar Day

Sunday, September 28th: 3:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. Va Flaggers' Third Anniversary Picnic.  Live music, good food, and great fellowship.   Silent auction throughout the afternoon. Live auction following supper.  Period artwork and 10 x 15 Battle Flag that flew at the Chester flag site location among many items to be auctioned to support the Va Flaggers.   Donations for auction/raffle items are welcome.

Thursday, October 16th:  Susan will be speaking at the October meeting of the Sgt. William A. Hamby Camp#1750, SCV, Crossville TN.   6:00 pm CST, 111 E. 1st Street, Crossville.

Saturday, Nov. 1st: Susan will be speaking at the 100th Anniversary celebration of the dedication of the Confederate Monument in Lebanon, VA.

Thursday, December 11th:  Susan will be speaking at the December meeting of the A.H. Belo Camp #49, SCV, Dallas Texas

Friday, December 12th:  Susan will be speaking at the Christmas gathering of the
Major Robert M. White, Camp No. 1250, Sons of Confederate Veterans,Temple, Texas

Saturday, December 13th:  Susan will be speaking at the Christmas gathering of the Middleton Tate Johnson Camp #1648, SCV, Arlington, TX.

Follow our blog: 

Find us on FaceBook: 

Follow us on Twitter: 

Virginia Flaggers
P.O. Box 547
Sandston VA 23150


16443 ---Was Hitler Inspired By Sherman? --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-09-09 15:31:55 -0400
See related pages and categories

Was Adolph Hitler Inspired by Sherman – kinda seems that way

Tuesday - September 2, 2014

Posted by "Jerryd14 -The War - The Confederate Flag - Southern People and our History"    

Sherman loved killing the Southern people, and in letters between himself and his wife, they marveled at the extermination aspects of the Southern people. This is chilling, and dark and evil. Thjomas DiLorenzo wrote some articles about the possible inspiration Hitler may have aquired from reading about the murderious acts by the Yankee army led by numerous heathen officers including the chief amongst them, William T. Sherman who is today burning in hell with Hitler, Thank you God.


Was Hitler Inspired by Lincoln’s Army?

By Thomas DiLorenzo

January 31, 2014

In my Fall 2010 Independent Review article entitled “The Culture of Violence in the American West: Myth versus Reality,” I noted the creepiness of the fact that General William Tecumseh Sherman referred to the U.S. Army’s twenty-five year campaign of genocide against the Plains Indians, which he was in charge of for the duration, as “the final solution to the Indian problem” (Cited in Michael Fellman, Citizen Sherman, p. 260). It is creepy because it reminds one of Adolf Hitler’s “final solution” rhetoric. I did not claim in my article that Hitler literally plagiarized General Sherman or was even familiar with Sherman’s “final solution” rhetoric, but scholarship that has been brought to my attention suggests that he may well have been.

The scholarship is cited in a June 18, 2013 article in the jewishjournal.com Web site by Lia Mandelbaum entitled “Hitler’s Inspiration and Guide: The Native American Holocaust.” Citing the books Adolf Hitler by John Toland and Hitler’s Rise to Power by David A. Meier, Mandelbaum writes that “it shook me to my core” when she “learned that the genocidal mentality and actions of the U.S. policymakers [from 1862 to 1890] would find similar expression years later when the Nazis, under Hitler, studied the plans of [“The Long Walk of the Navajo”] to design the concentration camps for Jews.”

The “Long Walk of the Navajo,” also known as the Bosque Redondo, was the January 1864 deportation and ethnic cleansing of the Navajo Indians who were forced at gunpoint by the U.S. Army to walk more than 300 miles from their ancestral lands in northeastern Arizona and northwestern New Mexico to a concentration camp known as Bosque Redondo in eastern New Mexico. This took place in the dead of winter. Hundreds died along the way of the forced march, including many women, children, and the elderly. In the succeeding four years the U.S. Army would imprison almost 10,000 Navajo in concentration camps where they lived “under armed guards, in holes in the ground, with extremely scarce rations,” writes Mandelbaum. At least 3,500 of them died in the camps.

In his book, Adolf Hitler (p. 202), John Toland wrote that “Hitler’s concept of concentration camps as well as the practicality of genocide owed much, so he claimed, to his studies of English and United States history.” Hitler “admired the camps for Boer prisoners in South Africa and for the Indians in the wild west; and often praised to his inner circle the efficiency of America’s extermination – by starvation and even combat – of the red savages who could not be tamed by captivity.”

Hitler was apparently “very interested in the way the Indian population had rapidly declined due to epidemics and starvation when the United States government forced them to live on the reservations.” And the Nazis did force hundreds of prisoners in their concentration camps on death marches where many of them starved or froze to death.

Adolf Hitler was infatuated in his youth with tales of the American West. “His favorite game to play outside was cowboys and Indians,” wrote David A. Meier in Hitler’s Rise to Power. He read 70 of novels about the American West by the German author Karl May, who “had never been to America” and “invented a hero named Old Shatterhand, a white man who always won his battles with Native Americans.” Hitler “continued reading [May’s novels] even as Führer,” wrote Mandelbaum, even referring to the Russians as “Redskins” during the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union and ordering his military commanders to read May’s books.

The U.S. government’s war of genocide against all the Plains Indians, not just the Navajo, would indeed be a “good” example for any psychotic, murderous tyrant like Adolf Hitler. It was prosecuted by all of Lincoln’s generals, including Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, Custer, and various other “Civil War luminaries” such as John Pope, O.O Howard, Nelson Miles, Alfred Terry, E.O.C. Ord, Edward Canby, Benjamin Garrison, and Winfield Scott Hancock, wrote John Marszalek in Sherman: A Soldier’s Passion for Order (p. 380). Sherman and Sheridan adopted the motto, “The only good Indian is a dead Indian” as their armies murdered at least 45,000 Indians from 1864 to 1890, including thousands of women and children (See Russell Thornton, American Indian Holocaust and Survival). The survivors were placed in concentration camps euphemistically called “reservations,” where many of their descendants remain to this day.

Lincoln’s generals were not shy about announcing their intentions to commit genocide. John Pope announced that “It is my purpose to utterly exterminate the Sioux . . . . They are to be treated as maniacs or wild beasts, and by no means as people with whom treaties or compromises can be made” (David Nichols, Lincoln and the Indians, p. 87). “All the Indians will have to be killed or be maintained as a species of paupers,” General Sherman announced, calling his policy “a racial cleansing of the land” (See Michael Fellman, Citizen Sherman, p. 264). “Sherman gave [General Phil] Sheridan prior authorization to slaughter as many women and children as well as men Sheridan or his subordinates felt was necessary when they attacked Indian villages,” wrote Fellman (p. 271).

So it is not a stretch to believe that Adolf Hitler, who fancied himself to be a serious student and admirer of U.S. military history from the Lincoln regime to the end of the nineteenth century, would have been “inspired” by Lincoln’s maniacal, murderous, genocidal generals like Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, and Custer, as the historians John Toland and David A. Meier maintain. Indeed, Hitler was a rabid admirer of Lincoln’s compulsion to destroy state sovereignty and of the military tactics (i.e. waging total war on civilians) that he employed to achieve it. On page 566 of the 1999 Mariner/Houghton Mifflin edition of Mein Kampf Hitler repeated Lincoln’s historically false and absurd argument from his first inaugural address that the states were never sovereign. “The individual states of the American union . . . could not have possessed any state sovereignty of their own,” wrote Hitler, paraphrasing Lincoln. He did this to make his own case for the abolition of states’ rights or federalism in Germany and the creation of a centralized, monopolistic state.

The arguments in favor of states’ rights that were being made in Germany, wrote Hitler, were “propagated by the Jews” and should therefore be dismissed. “The mischief of individual federated states . . . must cease,” the dictator bellowed. “A rule basic for us National Socialists,” Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf, “is derived: A powerful national Reich.” The only real difference between this statement and Lincoln’s theory of the American union is that Hitler referred to a “national Reich” whereas Lincoln, ever the master of slick political rhetoric, called the same thing “the mystic chords of union.”

On The Web:  http://jerryd14.wordpress.com/2014/09/02/was-adolph-hitler-inspired-by-sherman-kinda-seems-that-way/


16442 ---Daughter Of Confederate Dies At 91 --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-09-09 13:35:24 -0400
See related pages and categories

Daughter of slave, Confederate soldier, dies at 91

Sep. 03, 2014
Emily Meeks

Mattie Clyburn Rice made her mark when she set out to get recognition for her slave father who fought in the Civil War. And she made sure of it before she died at the age of 91.

After a lifetime of discovery and achieving a long overdue recognition for her father, Rice died from congestive heart failure at the Hospice Home in High Point on Monday. A resident of Archdale, she lived just one year more than her father.

Rice grew up in Monroe listening to the war stories told by her father, Weary Clyburn, a slave whose heroic actions during the Civil War were documented but unrecognized. At least until July 18, 2008. On that day, a memorial marker dedicated to Clyburn’s faithful service as a “colored Confederate” was installed in Monroe, along with the unveiling of a new headstone in his honor. Monroe's mayor also declared the day "Weary Clyburn Day."

It was a day Rice waited for for more than 50 years.

A lifetime member of the United Daughters of Confederacy, she sought to have her father’s story etched into history, giving him the credit he deserved. Clyburn was 74 when Rice was born, and he died at the age of 90. Rice was 8.

In a 2013 interview with The High Point Enterprise, Rice recalled her childhood memories of her father and his conversations with other Civil War veterans.

“I always say that I guess they thought I was playing, but I was listening,” Rice said. “It was fascinating to me how they lived a different life from me. I couldn’t figure out why they were slaves and why they had to do all this fighting. I said to myself that if I ever get old enough and have enough money, I’m going to find out where these people went and what they did.”

And she did.

Her journey began when she got a job working for the government and took notice of the color of her paycheck. She said she remembered her father also cashing green checks. Her curiosity piqued, she went to find out where those checks came from. Her search led her to her father’s old pension record, which was stored in the Union County Courthouse. The record confirmed the thrilling stories he told when she was just a child. A document dated Feb. 1, 1926, described her father’s heroic venture.

“Weary Clyburn, colored, was a bodyguard for Frank Clyburn, Company E, 12th Regiment of South Carolina volunteers; that he went to Columbia with his master to training camp,” the document read. “Thence to Charleston, Morris Island, Page's Point and Hilton Head and other places throughout the war; that at Hilton Head, while under fire of the enemy, he carried his master out of the field of fire on his shoulder."

Rice, a mother of six, spent her vacation time discovering her father’s life as a slave and soldier, making faraway trips to find the truth. She went to St. Louis, the Pentagon, South Carolina, where her father was born, and Gettysburg, Pennsylvania.

Her tireless journey paid off and his story revealed itself.

Clyburn’s life began on a plantation in Lancaster as a slave. He grew up beside his slave master’s son, Frank Clyburn, of whom he followed into the Civil War, where they fought side by side for the Confederates. Not only did he carry a wounded Frank from the battlefield with bullets flying past him, a document also confirmed he performed personal services for Robert E. Lee. Although he was born a slave, Rice made sure that everyone knew her father died a hero.

© 2014 High Point Enterprise

On The Web:  http://www.hpe.com/news/x950251412/Daughter-of-slave-Confederate-soldier-dies-at-91


16441 ---Another Flag Raised - Thank You VMFA-MOC --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-09-09 13:21:56 -0400
See related pages and categories

Another Confederate Battle Flag is Raised – Thank you VMFA-MOC – Rawls, Levin, Simpson, Hall, Mackey, Meyer, Baker

Friday - September 5,  2014

Posted by "Jerryd14 -The War - The Confederate Flag - Southern People and our History"

Oh my, it seems that everywhere I drive on the interstate system around Central Virginia I get to see a beautiful Confederate Battle flag flying. It is such a wonderful thing, I feel like singing Dixie, and having some sweet Ice Tea, Yee Hah.

Yes, the Liberals like Brooks Simpson, Kevin Levin, Al Mackey, Andy Hall,and the two little Yankee boys, Rob Baker and Corey Meyer plus the thousands of other Liberal Yankee myth makers and liars. Oh, many said, it won’t happen, can’t be done, REALLY, well jerko’s, keep watching, there is more to this story to come. Southern people are strong, good, civil, warm human beings, and they have backbones of steel, when you screw with us, we will fight back, so as it was in 1861, the Liberals and homo’s, and anti God goofballs in our society will eventually get this, and I am thrilled.

The Confederate Battle flag is not a symbol of racism, I know many of the brainwashed in  our society think this way, and that is too bad,it was a military signal, and Military identifier, and of course today it is well associated with The Confederate States Army, and I say Hip-Hip-Hooray, this army was fighting IN THE DEFENSE OF THE SOUTHERN STATES AFTER THE HEATHEN YANKEE ARMY INVADED THE SOUTH TO RAPE, BURN, MAIM, LOOT, ROB, STEAL AND MURDER THE SOUTHERN PEOPLE, MEN, WOMEN AND CHILDREN, CIVILIANS, THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE ISIS TERRORIST IN SYRIA AND IRAQ ARE DOING TODAY, THE YANKEES WERE EXACTLY THE SAME IN THEIR HATRED OF SOUTHERN PEOPLE, THEY LACKED MACHINE GUNS, RPG’s, TANKS, AND such, otherwise the two groups share the common ideals, They are nasty, heathen, unchristian thieves and murderers, they hate Christians, and free people, and want to create a terror dictatorship across the region, just like the Yankees did.

Well, thank God,  and while we are free today to raise our flags, this will eventually end as America crumbles under such evil men as Barack Obama, a Yankee like devil, who is a Liberal, a racist and the Northern whites and 90% of the blacks know this and are fine with the incompetence, wasteful, disgraceful manner he conducts himself and fails to lead America.

So, another flag raised in honor of the South, and the wonderful past and present, as we are still here, and we are growing stronger in our opposition to the Liberal movement, so watch our flags wave as you pass by them across the South, and maby, you will learn the words to Dixie, and hum along with us.

On The Web:  http://jerryd14.wordpress.com/2014/09/05/another-confederate-battle-flag-is-raised-thank-you-vmfa-moc-rawls-levin-simpson-hall-mackey-meyer-baker/


16440 ---Flag Raised At Cold Harbor --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-09-09 12:49:14 -0400
See related pages and categories

From: Virginia Flagger <info@vaflaggers.com>
Date: Fri, Sep 5, 2014
Subject: Va Flaggers: I-295 Memorial Battle Flag Raised at Cold Harbor

On the third anniversary of the founding of our organization, the Va Flaggers are pleased to announce the completion of our third Interstate Memorial Battle Flag project.  Last month, a 9x12 Army of Tennessee pattern Confederate Battle Flag was quietly hoisted up a 45’ pole, high on a hill, on a parcel of land adjacent to north bound Interstate 295, near Cold Harbor.  Raised just days after the 100th Anniversary of the dedication of the Hanover County Confederate Monument, she will fly as a living, breathing reminder of the courage and sacrifice of our Confederate Veterans.  This memorial was made possible through the diligence of several Va Flaggers, the continued and generous support from folks across the U.S., and the dogged determination of one 15 year old boy to honor his Confederate ancestors, several of whom fought in battles in Hanover County.


WHEREAS, in April 1861, the Commonwealth of Virginia, in order to retain her honor, exercised her Constitutional Right to secede from the Union; and

WHEREAS, Virginia, known as the Mother of States and Statesmen, did not make this decision lightly but only after exhaustive efforts to bring about a peaceful resolution to the issues which divided Southern and Northern states failed; and

WHEREAS, the sons of Hanover County, Virginia heeded the call of their Mother State by the tens of thousands to defend their country, their Commonwealth, their home and their family from an invading army; and

WHEREAS, these brave Virginians of Hanover County fought in the Confederate Armed Forces alongside other men from across the South; and

WHEREAS, these men sacrificed their all and spilled their blood defending the sacred soil of both Hanover County and Virginia; and

WHEREAS, their sacrifices Hallowed the Ground of Hanover County such as Hanover Courthouse, Mechanicsville, Gaines Mill, Seven Days, First and Second Cold Harbor, Haw’s Shop/Enon Church, Peake’s Station, Beaverdam, Watt House, North Anna and many other battlefields; and

WHEREAS, Richmond, Virginia, was the Capital of the Confederate States of America and the wartime home of President Jefferson Davis and many Hanoverians protected and served this Capital; and

WHEREAS, we must never forget the sacrifices made by the women of the South, who with every ounce of their being supported their men in uniform, undertook the duties normally performed by men, and suffered along with their children, and other citizens untold horrors in a war torn land; and

WHEREAS, “after four years of arduous service marked by unsurpassed courage and fortitude”, as General Robert E. Lee so eloquently wrote, the war for Southern Independence ended for the fabled Army of Northern Virginia on April 9, 1865; and

WHEREAS, the honorable blood of such brave Virginians from Hanover County such as John Tyler, Captain William Latane, Edmund Ruffin, and the thousands of known and unknown heroes of Hanover County, Virginia flows through the veins of thousands of its citizens; and WHEREAS, it is the sworn duty and privilege of the citizens of Hanover County to encourage education within Hanover County, defend the good name of Hanover County, and to teach and promote the true history of the Hanover County to future generations;

THEREFORE, the Virginia Flaggers do hereby dedicate the I-295 Cold Harbor Memorial Confederate Battle Flag in honor of the sons of Hanover County, and in memory of all Confederate Soldiers who fought, bled, and died on her soil.

Grayson Jennings

Gifts to the Interstate Memorial Battle Flag projects may be mailed to:

Va Flaggers
P.O. Box 547
Sandston VA 23150
Payable to Va Flaggers

or through PayPal:


16439 ---VMFA Update, 9-4-2014 --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-09-05 12:08:45 -0400
See related pages and categories

From: Virginia Flagger <info@vaflaggers.com>
Date: Thu, Sep 4, 2014
Subject: Va Flaggers: VMFA Update 9-4-2014

The Virginia Flaggers closed out our 152nd week, and 35th month of flagging the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts (VMFA) with a great showing on Saturday.  A dozen Flaggers were on hand to forward the colors and were able to spread out around the block, making sure all who entered and left the VMFA were greeted with Confederate flags!

Special shout out to Calvin Allen, Texas Division, SCV, 3rd Brigade Commander, who took time out of his schedule to come stand with us while visiting Richmond! Thank you, Commander for your support and for making your stand with us, ALL THE WAY FROM TEXAS!

For our Flaggers, it was pretty much a day like any other August day in the naked city.  Hot, humid, little or no breeze to float our flags with lots of bicycle traffic & young folks walking their dogs.  We had several VCU students stop and ask what the flags were all about.  Most seemed to be from up north but were attending college down here.  All good comments.

For a college town like Richmond, September brings thousands of new students to Richmond for the first time, and we are honored to have the privilege (thanks to our friends at the VMFA) to be able to welcome and greet them, and educate them about the honor of our Confederate ancestors and the flags under which they fought and died.

As we begin our 36th month on the Boulevard, we are excited about the coming fall weather...not only for the relief it brings our Flaggers, who have stood in the heat all summer, but for the new opportunities the changing season will bring for us to continue our work of changing hearts and minds in the Capital of the Confederacy...while we protest the VMFA and their forced removal of Confederate flags from the portico of the Confederate Memorial Chapel.

JOIN US TODAY, Thursday, September 4th, 3:00 pm - 7:00 pm, as we continue our vigil. 200 N. Boulevard, Richmond, VA.   If you cannot be on the Boulevard, you can still support the troops on the ground by contacting the VMFA, politely expressing your displeasure with their desecration of the Confederate Memorial, and asking them to return the flags and restore the honor!

Alex Nyerges
VMFA, 200 N. Boulevard,
Richmond, VA 23220-4007
T 804-340-1504/F 804-340-1502
email: alex.nyerges@vmfa.museum

Tale of Two Flags: Art Sparks Dialogue
"Virginia Flaggers like Sydney Lester and Barry Isenhour plan to keep coming back week after week to the VMFA and not likely for the art.”Put them two flags back up there and the only time they’ll ever see me is when I come down here for a memorial service.”"

RETURN the flags!
RESTORE the honor!

TriPp Lewis
Va Flaggers


Thursday, September 4th:  Flagging the VMFA, 200 N. Boulevard, 3:00 pm - 7:00 pm

Saturday, September 6th:  Flagging the VMFA, 200 N. Boulevard, 11:00 am - 3:00 pm

Thursday, September 11th - Sunday, September 14th:  Thunder in the Valley - Lexington, VA  Cavalry ride and Re Enactment 
The Virginia Flaggers are a sponsor for the event, and will co-ordinate flagging W&L all weekend!

Saturday, September 21st:  Flagging Washington and Lee University - The Tar Heel Flaggers are organizing a flagging for 9:00 am - 5:00 pm . Young Alumni Weekend/Homecoming!  Class Agents and Alumni Board will also be on Campus. This will be the perfect way to spread the word, teach and influence young growing minds on the truth of Lee and will put more pressure on the University.  Contact:  Jamie Funkhouser.  jamiefunkhouser@yahoo.com
Saturday, September 20th: 11:30 a.m. Dick Poplar Day

Sunday, September 28th: 3:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. Va Flaggers' Third Anniversary Picnic.  Live music, good food, and great fellowship.   Silent auction throughout the afternoon. Live auction following supper.  Period artwork and 10 x 15 Battle Flag that flew at the Chester flag site location among many items to be auctioned to support the Va Flaggers.   Donations for auction/raffle items are welcome.

Thursday, October 16th:  Susan will be speaking at the October meeting of the Sgt. William A. Hamby Camp#1750, SCV, Crossville TN.   6:00 pm CST, 111 E. 1st Street, Crossville.

Saturday, Nov. 1st: Susan will be speaking at the 100th Anniversary celebration of the dedication of the Confederate Monument in Lebanon, VA.

Thursday, December 11th:  Susan will be speaking at the December meeting of the A.H. Belo Camp #49, SCV, Dallas Texas

Friday, December 12th:  Susan will be speaking at the Christmas gathering of the
Major Robert M. White, Camp No. 1250, Sons of Confederate Veterans,Temple, Texas

Saturday, December 13th:  Susan will be speaking at the Christmas gathering of the Middleton Tate Johnson Camp #1648, SCV, Arlington, TX.

Follow our blog:  http://vaflaggers.blogspot.com/

Find us on FaceBook: 

Follow us on Twitter: 

Virginia Flaggers
P.O. Box 547
Sandston VA 23150


16438 ---The Reason For Nascar's Demise --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-09-05 11:51:40 -0400
See related pages and categories

Sons of Confederate Veterans   
September 4, 2014    


(Atlanta - September 4, 2014) It's no secret that NASCAR attendance is dropping across the country, including here in Atlanta.  Perhaps there's a reason.

Early in 2013, NASCAR announced that it would no longer be publicly divulging attendance estimates of its races.  In Atlanta, we know that the size of crowds has been progressively getting smaller and smaller in recent years; and now it appears likely that NASCAR will cut back to a single major race in Atlanta each year, effectively ending the tradition of a major Labor Day race in Atlanta.  But the trend is not just in Atlanta, as races are being cut from other venues; and some venues are reportedly cutting out huge portions of their grandstand capacity for the remaining races.

NASCAR, and car racing in general, has long been a primarily Southern sport gone national.  The popularity of racing spread nationally over the last 20 years after existing for multiple generations mainly at Southern tracks with rural Southern blue-collar fans in Southern states.  In fact, just a few short years ago, NASCAR racing appeared poised to become one of the largest national sports in America, even boasting the largest average attendance of any sport.  So what has happened within a single decade to effectively end that chase for popularity and, instead, turn into a situation where major racing venues, especially across the South, are having trouble even filling their stands where once it was literally standing room only?

In 2012, NASCAR made the decision to ban the appearance of the "General Lee" Dodge Charger from the former television series "Dukes of Hazzard," citing as their reason, "The image of the Confederate flag is not something that should play an official role in our sport as we continue to reach out to new fans and make NASCAR more inclusive,"  according to NASCAR spokesman David Higdon.  Ben Jones who played "Cooter" on the former television show -- and who now serves as the national Chief of Heritage Operations for the Sons of Confederate Veterans -- said this about the decision back in 2012, "At a time when tens of millions of Americans are honoring their Union and Confederate ancestors during this Sesquicentennial of the Civil War, NASCAR has chosen to dishonor those Southerners who fought and died in that terrible conflict by caving to 'political correctness' and the uninformed concerns of corporate sponsors."

But NASCAR made the decision to abandon its Southern roots right after the turn of the new century.  Echoing the sentiments of NASCAR spokesmen and executives, Dale Earnhardt, Jr said as far back as 2003 in an interview with Complex Magazine about the Confederate flag, "Anybody who is trying to show that flag is probably too ignorant to know what the hell he's doing."

More and more over the last decade, NASCAR has become dependent upon television deals to make up for the declining attendance of actual people at their races -- the rank and file rural Southerners who have been the traditional fan base of racing since the first moonshiners raced out of the hills with their cargo and defiance of what they viewed as tyrannical and intrusive federal authorities.

Back in 2010, NASCAR spokesman Steve Phelps reportedly stated in an interview, "We don't condone that type of display and putting the flags out, the Confederate flags. That is not something that we think is good for the sport, candidly. So it's something that we see, candidly, we see fewer and fewer of them as you go to races and you know, ultimately it'll be something that'll die away completely."  Ironically, NASCAR's continued attack upon the Confederate battle flag and Southern heritage symbols appears to be having unintended consequences, not the least of which is that it appears that it is NASCAR racing, itself, that seems to be dying away. 
For more information about the Sons of Confederate Veterans or any of this year's planned events to commemorate the Sesquicentennial of the War, contact the SCV  online at www.GeorgiaSCV.org   


16437 ---Agitation Propaganda Then And Now --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-09-03 10:31:02 -0400
See related pages and categories

Agitation Propaganda Then and Now

Posted on August 25, 2014   
by Al Benson Jr.

This is a subject I have written about in the past but it is still relevant today and so I don’t think it hurts to remind folks. All radical and anti-Christian revolutionary movements opposed to God and His lawful authority have used agitation propaganda, or what has been called “agit-prop” and they still use it today. Such material has been used to inflame the passions and emotions of ordinary people so they will, without benefit of serious thought or reflection, become cannon fodder for the revolutionaries in their quest to overthrow legitimate God-given authority. This fits right in with the “critical theory” technique employed by the Marxists and their handlers today, though it is hardly something new.

It went on before the French Revolution got into full swing and was, no doubt, responsible for much of what followed in that horrid debacle. The late historian, Otto Scott, in his book Robespierre–the Voice of Virtue (Mason & Lipscomb, New York), noted that the French revolutionaries of that day made more than adequate use of the printed word. On page 47 of his book he commented on the use of pamphlet shops in Paris and how much material they turned out.  He quoted an English observer of all this who said, of the printed pamphlets: “Thirteen came out today, sixteen yesterday, ninety-two last week…nineteen twentieths are in favor of liberty…violent against clergy and nobility…Nothing in reply appears…”  Note his last comment–“Nothing in reply appears.” In regard to reaching the general public, or at least those who could read, the Leftist revolutionaries (for that’s really what they were) had the entire field to themselves. There was no rebuttal to their vitriol whatever.

In this country, in the decades of abolitionist ascendancy before the War of Northern Aggression, the media was used in the exact same way, to promote the careers of such men as abolitionist/terrorist John Brown. Although Brown, a failure in every business he was ever involved in, was nothing more than an impoverished-most-of-the-time murderer, he was, via the Northern “news” media, given the appearance of a saint, of at least the stature of Oliver Cromwell. It was a glowing tribute to the prowess of the Northern “news” media that a man like John Brown was able to be passed off as anything other than the murderer he really was. Yet it happened.  It was one of the higher points of what passed for abolitionist “journalism.”

Otto Scott, in his excellent and informative book The Secret Six–The Fool As Martyr noted that: “John Brown appeared…with a reputation created by James Redpath of the N.Y. Tribune, attested by Richard Hinton of the Boston Traveler and the Chicago Tribune, enameled by Phillips of the New York Times in his recent book on Kansas, by the Times’ Sam Tappen, and by Richard Henry Kagi of the New York Post.”  So the Northern media conducted what was plainly a campaign of agitation propaganda against the South, and history shows that, at the time, the Southern states had nothing with which to counter such a Northern propaganda blitz. Furthermore, many Southerners did not even think this specious propaganda was worth replying to, so they just ignored it. They shouldn’t have. Again, this attitude gave the Leftists the complete playing field, with almost no opposition whatever.

In passing, I will remind folks that the New York Tribune was owned by utopian socialist Horace Greeley, the same Horace Greeley that employed Charles Dana and Karl Marx. Does that tell you anything? You can read about some of this in Lincoln’s Marxists the book co-authored by Donnie Kennedy and myself. Don’t look for too many of the professional “historians” to tell you all that much about it.

Not only that, there were many more newspapers in the North than in the South. In a book entitled The North and the South–Being a Statistical View of the Condition of the Free and Slave States (originally published in 1857 by John P. Jewett and Company, Boston, and Henry P. B. Jewett, Cleveland) many observations were made as to the power of the press in both Northern and Southern states. It is stated on page 112 of the book that: “In 1828 the number of papers at the North was to that at the South as 3 to 1; and in 1840 as 2 1/2 to one…in 1850 the number of papers at the South was 704; at the North 1799; while the circulation at the South was 782,453, and at the North 4,296,768; or over five at the North to one at the South…” So the abolitionists and their radical socialist comrades had a whopping numerical advantage. For some reason, as stated previously, those that took a constitutional, states’ rights position seemed almost reluctant to reply to the Yankee/Marxists. Their position deserved a fair hearing, which it never got outside of the South.

In our day, Herbert Philbrick, in his book I Let Three Lives traced the use of agitation propaganda by the Communists in this country when he infiltrated the Communist Party USA for the FBI. That would never happen nowadays! Philbrick wrote: “Secret underground presses are a vital adjunct to the Communist Party in every non-Communist nation, including the United States. Propaganda and deception are the keystones on which the movement to subvert a people and their government must be built. Communications and agitation by means of the printed word, through pamphlets, magazines, leaflets, and newspapers are essential to the structure.”

Philbrick pointed out a situation that has not changed since before the French Revolution, and one that continues right up to our day–and now you can add the Internet into the mix. Radical left-wingers, whether in the streets, on Wall Street, in our public education system, or in the halls of Congress,make much use of the media for their own purposes, and haplessly, the media seem all too willing to go along with it, as it works toward the One World goal of tearing down this country and its culture, which is a main part of their agenda along with the destruction of Christianity.

Lots of uninformed folks will say “This is America, that can’t happen here.” To which I would reply–what are you willing to do to make sure it doesn’t happen here?

On The Web:   http://revisedhistory.wordpress.com/2014/08/25/agitation-propaganda-then-and-now/


16436 ---Confederate Chapel. Arlington House --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-09-03 09:50:23 -0400
See related pages and categories

VMFA- The Confederate Chapel, and Arlington House and Cemetery

Thursday - August 28, 2014

Posted by "Jerryd14 -The War - The Confederate Flag - Southern People and our History"

The Confederate veterans had many days of joy and laughter on the acres of ground along the Boulevard in Richmond, Virginia as visitors would come and sometimes music was played and dances took place there. These old men and their family and friends were a gift to Richmond in that the citizens could see and touch the many who lived out their sunset years on that property. Their are many photos of events there, the soldiers, and most were so very humble and gentlemanly it is reported, as I never was there while they were alive. I have heard many first hand stories of the picnics out under the old shade trees there on the Old Robinson farm, and the many discussions about battles and things and people these men would speak about. I can only imagine the joy of listing to them. As in so many cases this property and the caretakers aged away and the land eventually became land of the State of Virginia, and instead of memorializing it all, they instead kept the Robinson house and the Confederate chapel as historic sites, and began to allow several other groups to construct other facilities on this land while maintaining the Robinson house and the Confederate Memorial chapel. Unfortunately, as with many things, in the beginning of this process moat everyone was Southern and Virginian and no one considered that in time the Carpet Bagger heathens would show up a nudge themselves into jobs and slowly take control of certain key positions and then undermine all the intentions of the  founders and those who were intending on the honor, respect and love for the Confederate veterans and their descendents to be continued on. No, that got railroaded by the Liberals, as they have done all they can so far to make this place neutral rather than Confederate, as they cowardly forced the SCV who has a lease on the Chapel to take the two Confederate battle flags down or loose the lease. THIS WAS NEVER ENVISIONED, AND THIS IS NOT ALL THEY WILL DO AS TIME GOES ON, MARK IT DOWN, IT IS STEP BY STEP, BOARD BY BOARD, BRICK BY BRICK as they dismantle our history. We, all who love the South and their ancestors must resist, protest, make telephone calls to the VMFA, and join the flaggers out on the sidewalks to keep the protest going as long as it takes. When I think of this I cannot help but to think of an earlier nasty despicable act by a Yankee military man, Montgomery Meigs. This no good rotten bastard illegally went on the private property that was owned by Robert E. Lee, at his wife’s family house and land that became General Lees, and ransacked and damaged the private residence, stole furniture and art among other things, defaced the building structure, and began burying the dead from the war in Mrs. Lee’s rose garden. This was wrong, and once again, demonstrates the very attitude of a Yankee, a person who has no humanity, or decency, or love of God. There was no military need to do this, no benefit to winning the war, oh no, it was meanness, cruel, shameless Yankees doing what they do best, destroying things that are good.

Earlier before the war, Captain Meigs was involved with the construction of the U.S. Capitol dome, under Architect Thomas Walter. Meigs, had copper plates with his name cut out in large openings about 6? high placed between the cast iron stairs up in the dome, and signed his name on drawings that were done by Thomas Walter. He was a ego maniac, among numerous other names I could use here. But just know, this is the kind of man the South found itself fighting against.

So, today, these same bastards and their loud, pushy ways affront anyone who is mild mannered, gentle, or nice, as they are the face of UN-NICE and have been this way sine immigrating to America, Oh how I wish the War had been won by the South, knowing what I know now.

On The Web:   http://jerryd14.wordpress.com/2014/08/28/vmfa-the-confederate-chapel-and-arlington-house-and-cemetery/


16435 ---Follow Up - Donnie Kennedy Interview --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-08-26 15:45:47 -0400
See related pages and categories

Follow up on Donnie Kennedy Interview
by Al Benson Jr.

I talked with Donnie Kennedy on Tuesday morning, August 19th regarding his interview on the Alan Colmes show on Fox Radio. Most folks realize that Colmes is a rank liberal, and Donnie realized that before he went on his show, so he knew where  Colmes would be coming from.

Donnie felt that he held his own pretty well during the interview and although I did not get to hear it, I think he probably did too. I have heard Donnie talk on tv before in front of questionable hosts and he held his own.

Part of the reason he agreed to the interview was to have an opportunity to get a little exposure for the book he and I co-authored, "Lincoln's Marxists." We have felt that, with this book, we covered the kind of material that the "historians"--so called, just love to leave out regarding Mr. Lincoln, the Republican Party, and the socialist and Communist influence that was very prevalent in this country at that time, and has continued on ever since.

There are many on the left that have commented on our book and the blanket charge they all throw at is is "they say Lincoln was a Communist." In fact, we have not said that, but then, who are these people to worry about facts? Their agenda is to spread propaganda, not truth. We have said that Lincoln and the Republican Party were influenced by socialists and communists and there is evidence to back that up. If you want to know where, then you will have to read the book. It's all in there and we give sources, but we never said "Lincoln was a communist."

One of our major concerns is that folks in the Southern and Confederate Movements have been almost totally unaware of this. Both Donnie and I have given speeches to Southern groups over the past few years and when you bring up some of the material we've dug up on Lincoln's involvement with the socialist "Forty-eighters" from Europe you can see people's jaws drop! They never heard this until we dealt with it--which tells you something about the quality of what passes of history nowadays, even in conservative circles.

Lord willing, we plan to keep on hammering away with this information. People, North and South, need to know the real history and we try to provide as much of it as we are able to in "Lincoln's Marxists."

On The Web:   http://thecopperhead.blogspot.com/2014/08/follow-up-on-donnie-kennedy-interview.html


16434 ---The Cyclorama, Battle Of Atlanta --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-08-26 15:28:24 -0400
See related pages and categories

The Cyclorama, Battle of Atlanta and Gone with the Wind
By Calvin E. Johnson Jr. 
August 25, 2014

This summer marks the 150th Anniversary of the Battle of Atlanta.

Please share with parents, teachers, students, historians and all who cherish the Heritage of America’s past that includes those days when women kept the home fires burning while the men of Yankee Blue and Confederate Gray met with cold-hard steel on a battlefield of honor.

Fifty years have passed since the War Between the States Centennial. Today, the South joins the nation in celebrating our Sesquicentennial-150th Anniversary of the war of “1861-1865” that some call the 2nd American Revolution.

The South awaits you with Uncle Remus stories, Confederate flags waving, Southern Belles in hoop skirts and the band playing Dixie. Fried chicken, sweet potato pie, mint juleps and hush my mouth-good ole Southern Hospitality is the norm in the land of cotton where old times are not forgotten.

Atlanta, Georgia, the Gate City of the South, is surrounded with history that includes the beautiful Stone Mountain Memorial Park carving of Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson and Jefferson Davis, and….

Atlanta’s Grant Park where Fort Walker once stood that was named for Confederate Major General William H.T. Walker who was killed during the Battle of Atlanta.

An upturned cannon waymark in the Glenwood Triangle of Atlanta currently marks the place where Walker was killed. Its front description plate reads: “In memory of Maj. Gen. William H.T. Walker, C.S.A.” and the rear plate reads: “Born November 26, 1816; killed on this spot July 22, 1864.”

The Old South is but a time “Gone with the Wind” but the Heritage of Dixie will never die!

The Loews Grand Theater, originally DeGive’s Grand Opera House, was located at the corner of Peachtree Street and Forsyth Streets in Atlanta, Georgia. This grand movie house where “Gone with the Wind” premiered 75 years ago this December burned in 1978, but….

During the last weekend of July 2014, “Gone with the Wind” thrilled audiences yet again at the fabulous Fox Theater on Peachtree Street in Atlanta, Georgia. John Hall and Billy Bearden of the Sons of Confederate Veterans no doubt got some thumbs-up, cheers and Rebel Yells when they unfolded a Confederate flag in front of the theater to commemorate the occasion.

Gone with the Wind adapted from Margaret Mitchell’s novel is set in the Old South before, during and after the War for Southern Independence and includes realistic-horror scenes of the burning and evacuation of Atlanta.

Do you remember Rhett Butler telling Miss Scarlett O’Hara?

“Take a good look my dear. It’s an historic moment you can tell your grandchildren about - how you watched the Old South fall one night.”

The Battle of Atlanta, fought during July and August 1864, was the beginning of the end of the hopes and dreams of the Southern people but stories about Old Dixie continue to be shared.

Union General William T. Sherman began his infamous march on Atlanta in July 1864, and the Atlanta Campaign ended with the Battle of Jonesboro, about 35 miles south of Atlanta on September 1. The carnage of destruction and death continued with the march to the sea that ended with the burning of Columbia, South Carolina, that is written was a gift from Sherman to Lincoln.

The Confederate forces in Atlanta were first commanded by General Joseph E. Johnston and later by General John Bell Hood.

Atlanta Georgia’s Cyclorama,  a painting depicting the Battle of Atlanta,  is moving across town. The recent headlines read:

“The move, which will take two years to complete, will relocate The Battle of Atlanta painting, the locomotive “Texas,” and other Civil War artifacts to the Atlanta History Center. They will be restored and housed in a new facility. Construction on the annex is expected to begin summer 2015.”

The Cyclorama has been housed since 1921 in Atlanta’s Grant Park but….

The move may be best made to an historical area of Atlanta, the Atlanta History Center, which has a tradition of keeping history alive.

The amazing story about the Cyclorama would not be complete without going back forty years ago when some folks felt the Cyclorama might not make it through the 1970s much less the coming 21st Century.

Mrs. Elizabeth “Francis L.” Edmondson, a good friend, was active in Atlanta’s Cyclorama Restoration, Inc. a group that helped save the Cyclorama. An obituary gives her credit for being the Cyclorama’s Historian.

Deterioration of the painting and water damage led to the $11 million restoration of the Cyclorama in 1979-81.

The Cyclorama was narrated at one time by volunteers, some of whom were veterans or widows of veterans of the War Between the States and in the 60s and 70s by the late great Victor Jory who appeared in the movie Gone with the Wind.

The Georgia Division Sons of Confederate Veterans joins the nation in remembering the War Between the States Sesquicentennial through 2015.

Have a Dixie day!

On The Web:  http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/65538


16433 ---Right To Secede - Then And Now --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-08-26 15:05:12 -0400
See related pages and categories

The right of the States to secede from the Union, then and now.

Monday - August 25,  2014

Posted by "Jerryd14 -The War - The Confederate Flag - Southern People and our History"

“Everyone should do all in his power to collect and disseminate the truth, in the hope that it may find a place in history and descend to posterity. History is not the relation of campaigns and battles and generals or other individuals, but that which shows the principles for which the South contended and which justified her struggle for those principles. ”
Robert E. Lee

“The flags of the Confederate States of America were very important and a matter of great pride to those citizens living in the Confederacy. They are also a matter of great pride for their descendants as part of their heritage and history.”
Winston Churchill

I am not particularly interested in seeing another war for Southern Independence, at least on most days, but I would not mind having California, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Massachusetts, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, and one or two others go away, voluntarily would be my wish.

But I do want to gather some information, and to share some things that will open your eyes as to the legal and just ideas that the Southern states, and some non southern states had when deciding to secede. I say again and again, they were not only justified in seceding, but were within their legal rights in all manner to do so, and if money would have had no part in all this, Lincoln would not have been persuaded by big Northern money men to start a war and kill 600,000 human beings, Americans for his rich buds benefit. The Economy Man, the Economy.

So, I have collected some writings by others, who deserve all the effort and credit for their labor and research, I am just offering it to you to read, study, and be better informed, and one last thing I wish to impart to you, THE WAR FOR SOUTHERN INDEPENDENCE, SLAVERY WAS ONLY A PART AS WAS EVERY SINGLE ASPECT OF HOW TO RUN THE STATE IN QUESTION, SECESSION WAS TO RELIEVE OURSELVES FROM THE NORTHERN FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS CONSTANT MEDDLING, CONTROLS THAT THEY WERE NOT GRANTED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION AND ARE NOT GRANTED TODAY. WE WERE THEN OVER TAXED, OVER CONTROLLED, HATED AND FOR THE MOST PART, DESPISED BY THE MAJORITY OF THE  HEATHEN UNCHRISTIAN NORTHERNERS. SO WE SHOULD HAVE SECEDED, AND I AM HAPPY TO REPORT, WE DID. Now, some of the attached writings, commentaries, may be confusing, but overall they do give a light in so far as to some, only some few thoughts on secession. Folks, this was a BIG DEAL, very complex, today we think of a bugle call and a cannon blast as if it was one big fun time, no it was deep, hard heart felt opinions, hardheaded people, hot headed people, on all sides, it was a mess, BUT, as for me, I feel that the states should have been allowed to do as they wished as far as secession went.    Thank you my brave and noble Southern ancestors, now on to the articles.

The Right to Secede
by Joseph Sobran

How can the federal government be prevented from usurping powers that the Constitution doesn’t grant to it? It’s an alarming fact that few Americans ask this question anymore.

Our ultimate defense against the federal government is the right of secession. Yes, most people assume that the Civil War settled that. But superior force proves nothing. If there was a right of secession before that war, it should be just as valid now. It wasn’t negated because Northern munitions factories were more efficient than Southern ones.

Among the Founding Fathers there was no doubt. The United States had just seceded from the British Empire, exercising the right of the people to “alter or abolish” — by force, if necessary — a despotic government. The Declaration of Independence is the most famous act of secession in our history, though modern rhetoric makes “secession” sound somehow different from, and more sinister than, claiming independence.

The original 13 states formed a “Confederation,” under which each state retained its “sovereignty, freedom, and independence.” The Constitution didn’t change this; each sovereign state was free to reject the Constitution. The new powers of the federal government were “granted” and “delegated” by the states, which implies that the states were prior and superior to the federal government.

Even in The Federalist, the brilliant propaganda papers for ratification of the Constitution (largely written by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison), the United States are constantly referred to as “the Confederacy” and “a confederate republic,” as opposed to a single “consolidated” or monolithic state. Members of a “confederacy” are by definition free to withdraw from it.

Hamilton and Madison hoped secession would never happen, but they never denied that it was a right and a practical possibility. They envisioned the people taking arms against the federal government if it exceeded its delegated powers or invaded their rights, and they admitted that this would be justified. Secession, including the resort to arms, was the final remedy against tyranny. (This is the real point of the Second Amendment.)

Strictly speaking, the states would not be “rebelling,” since they were sovereign; in the Framers’ view, a tyrannical government would be rebelling against the states and the people, who by defending themselves would merely exercise the paramount political “principle of self-preservation.”

The Constitution itself is silent on the subject, but since secession was an established right, it didn’t have to be reaffirmed. More telling still, even the bitterest opponents of the Constitution never accused it of denying the right of secession. Three states ratified the Constitution with the provision that they could later secede if they chose; the other ten states accepted this condition as valid.

Early in the nineteenth century, some Northerners favored secession to spare their states the ignominy of union with the slave states. Later, others who wanted to remain in the Union recognized the right of the South to secede; Abraham Lincoln had many of them arrested as “traitors.” According to his ideology, an entire state could be guilty of “treason” and “rebellion.” The Constitution recognizes no such possibility.

Long before he ran for president, Lincoln himself had twice affirmed the right of secession and even armed revolution. His scruples changed when he came to power. Only a few weeks after taking office, he wrote an order for the arrest of Chief Justice Roger Taney, who had attacked his unconstitutional suspension of habeas corpus. His most recent biographer has said that during Lincoln’s administration there were “greater infringements on individual liberties than in any other period in American history.”

As a practical matter, the Civil War established the supremacy of the federal government over the formerly sovereign states. The states lost any power of resisting the federal government’s usurpations, and the long decline toward a totally consolidated central government began.

By 1973, the federal government was so powerful that the U.S. Supreme Court could insult the Constitution by striking down the abortion laws of all 50 states; and there was nothing the states, long since robbed of the right to secede, could do about it. That outrage was made possible by Lincoln’s triumphant war against the states, which was really his dark victory over the Constitution he was sworn to preserve.

South Carolina Declaration of Causes of Secession

Convention of South Carolina
December 20, 1860


The People of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D. 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.

And now the State of South Carolina having resumed her separate and equal place among nations, deems it due to herself, to the remaining United States of America, and to the nations of the world, that she should declare the immediate causes which have led to this act.

In the year 1765, that portion of the British Empire embracing Great Britain, undertook to make laws for the government of that portion composed of the thirteen American Colonies. A struggle for the right of self-government ensued, which resulted, on the 4th of July, 1776, in a Declaration, by the Colonies, “that they are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; and that, as free and independent States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.”

They further solemnly declared that whenever any “form of government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government.” Deeming the Government of Great Britain to have become destructive of these ends, they declared that the Colonies “are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.”

In pursuance of this Declaration of Independence, each of the thirteen States proceeded to exercise its separate sovereignty; adopted for itself a Constitution, and appointed officers for the administration of government in all its departments — Legislative, Executive and Judicial. For purposes of defense, they united their arms and their counsels; and, in 1778, they entered into a League known as the Articles of Confederation, whereby they agreed to entrust the administration of their external relations to a common agent, known as the Congress of the United States, expressly declaring in the first article, “that each State retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right which is not, by this Confederation, expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled.”

Under this Confederation the War of the Revolution was carried on, and on the 3d September, 1783, the contest ended, and a definite Treaty was signed by Great Britain, in which she acknowledged the Independence of the Colonies in the following terms:

“Article 1.– His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz: New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that he treats with them as such; and for himself, his heirs and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.”

Thus were established the two great principles asserted by the Colonies, namely: the right of a State to govern itself; and the right of a people to abolish a Government when it becomes destructive of the ends for which it was instituted. And concurrent with the establishment of these principles, was the fact, that each Colony became and was recognized by the mother Country as a FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATE.

In 1787, Deputies were appointed by the States to revise the Articles of Confederation, and on 17th September, 1787, these Deputies recommended, for the adoption of the states, the Articles of Union, known as the Constitution of the United States.

The parties to whom this Constitution was submitted, were the several sovereign States; they were to agree or disagree, and when nine of them agreed, the compact was to take effect among those concurring; and the General Government, as the common agent, was then invested with their authority.

If only nine of the thirteen States had concurred, the other four would have remained as they then were — separate, sovereign States, independent of any of the provisions of the Constitution. In fact, two of the States did not accede to the Constitution until long after it had gone into operation among the other eleven; and during that interval, they each exercised the functions of an independent nation.

By this Constitution, certain duties were imposed upon the several States, and the exercise of certain of their powers was restrained, which necessarily implied their continued existence as sovereign States. But, to remove all doubt, an amendment was added, which declared that 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. On 23d May, 1788, South Carolina, by a Convention of her people, passed an Ordinance assenting to this Constitution, and afterwards altered her own Constitution, to conform herself to the obligations she had undertaken.

Thus was established, by compact between the States, a Government, with defined objects and powers, limited to the express words of the grant. This limitation left the whole remaining mass of power subject to the clause reserving it to the States or to the people, and rendered unnecessary any specification of reserved rights.

We hold that the Government thus established is subject to the two great principles asserted in the Declaration of Independence; and we hold further, that the mode of its formation subjects it to a third fundamental principle, namely: the law of compact. We maintain that in every compact between two or more parties the obligation is mutual; that the failure of one of the contracting parties, to perform a material part of the agreement, entirely releases the obligation of the other; and that where no arbiter is provided, each party is remitted to his own judgment to determine the fact of failure, with all its consequences.

In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert, that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused for years past to fulfil their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.

The Constitution of the United States, in its 4th Article, provides as follows:

“No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.”

This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio river.

The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the Institution of Slavery has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the general government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these states the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the state government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constitutional compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

The ends for which this Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be “to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.”

These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assumed the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of Slavery; they have permitted the open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the Common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the Common Government, because he has declared that that “Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,” and that the public mind must rest in the belief that Slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

This sectional combination for the subversion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons, who, by the Supreme Law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its peace and safety.

On the 4th March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced, that the South shall be excluded from the common Territory; that the Judicial Tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.

The Guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.

Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation, and all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error, with the sanctions of a more erroneous religious belief.

We, therefore, the people of South Carolina, by our delegates, in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.

Legal Justification of the South in Secession

           THE Southern States have shared the fate of all conquered peoples. The conquerors write their history. Power in the ascendant not only makes laws, but controls public opinion. This precedent should make the late Confederates the more anxious to keep before the public the facts of their history, that impartial writers may weigh and properly estimate them in making up the verdict of an unbiased posterity. Besides, as they have been the objects of persistent misrepresentation, and authentic records have been perverted to their prejudice, their descendants are liable to receive and hold opinions hostile and derogatory to their fathers.

    In this series of volumes, pertaining to the history of the Confederate States, all concerned wish to disclaim in advance any wish or purpose to reverse the arbitrament of war, to repeal the late amendments to the Constitution, to revive African slavery, or secession as a State right or remedy; or to organize any party, or cultivate an opinion, which, directly or indirectly, shall inculcate disloyalty to the Union, or affect the allegiance of citizens to the Federal government. Let it be stated, once for all, that this argument as to the right of the South to be protected in property in slaves and the exclusive right of a State to be the final judge of the powers of the general government and to apply suitable remedies, is based on the Constitution and the rights of the States as they existed in 1860. The amendments made, since that year, in Federal and State constitutions, put an entirely new and different phase on the subjects discussed, for these changes have expurgated slavery and secession from our institutions. Our sole object is to present the Southern side of the controversy as it existed in 1860 and to vindicate it from accusations and aspersions which are based on ignorance and injustice. As the South is habitually condemned and held criminal for seeking to perpetuate a great wrong, it is well to inquire and investigate who was responsible for the state of things which precipitated and prolonged the crisis of 1860-1865. If the act of secession cannot be justified the Southern people will be stigmatized as a brave and rash people deluded by bad men who attempted in an illegal and wicked manner to overthrow the Union. Painfully are we conscious of the disadvantages in any effort to vindicate the motives and principles and conduct of the Southern States and secure a rehearing and re-adjudication of a suit which seems to have been settled adversely by the tribunal of public opinion. We have a right to ask of our fellow citizens and of the world a patient and fair hearing while we present anew the grounds of our action. We challenge the closest scrutiny of facts and arguments, and if they cannot be disproved and refuted, justice and honesty demand a modification or reversal of the adverse judgment. Few writers seem to comprehend the underlying idea of secession, or the reasons for the establishment of the Southern Confederacy. Swayed by passion or political and sectional animosity, they ignore the primary facts in our origin as a government, the true principles of the Constitution, the flagrant nullifications of the Northern States; and, when they philosophize, conclusions are drawn from false premises and hence injustice is done. Too often, in the endeavor to narrate the deeds of and since the war, prejudiced and vicious statements as to character and motives have been accepted and acted on as verifiable or undeniable facts.

    In deciding upon the rightness or wrongness of secession, in passing judgment upon the Confederate States, it is essential to proper conclusions that the condition of affairs in 1860 be understood and that clear and accurate notions be had of the nature and character of the Federal government and of the rights of the States under the constitutional compact. And here, at the threshold, one is confronted by dogmas which are substituted for principles, by preconceived opinions which are claimed to be historical verities, and by sentimentality which closes the avenues to the mind against logic and demonstration. To a student of our political and constitutional history it is strange how stubborn historical facts are quietly set aside and inferences and assumptions are used as postulates for huge governmental theories. These errors are studiously perpetuated, for in prescribed courses of reading in civics and history are books full of grossest misstatements teaching sectional opinions and latitudinous theories, while works which present opposite and sounder views are vigorously excluded. State rights is perhaps the best term, although not precise or definite in its signification, for suggesting the view of the Constitution and of Federal powers, as held by the Southern States. During the administration of General Washington, those who were in favor of protecting the reserved rights of the States against threatened or possible encroachment of the delegated powers assumed the name of the Republican party, but were often called the State Rights party.(*) There is no ultimate nor authoritative appeal

            (*) “In the great historic debate in the Senate in 1830, Robert Y. Hayne, of South Carolina, said that they assumed the name of Democratic Republicans in 1812. True to their political faith they have always been in favor of limitations of power, they have insisted that all powers. not delegated to the Federal government are reserved, and have been constantly struggling to preserve the fights of the States and to prevent them from being drawn into the vortex and swallowed up by one great consolidated government. As confirmatory of the statement that the South has been misrepresented and villified through ignorance, it may be said that, while school boys are familiar with Webster’s eloquent periods, few writers and politicians have read the more logical and unanswerable argument of Hayne.”

    for determining the political differences between the North and South except the Constitution, but some preliminary inquiries, answers to which will be suggestive and argumentative, may aid in understanding and interpreting that instrument.

   Our Constitution is not a mere temporary expedient. It exists in full force until changed by an explicit and authentic act, as prescribed by the instrument, and in its essential features is for all time, for it contains the fundamental principles of all good government, of all free representative institutions. Among these requisites, unalterable by changing conditions of society, are individual liberty, freedom of labor, of human development, rights of conscience, equality of the States, distribution of political powers into independent executive, legislative and judicial departments, and a careful restriction of those powers to public uses only, the healthy action of concurrent majorities, a careful safe-guarding that the power which makes the laws and the power which applies them shall not be in the same hands, and local self-government. The people are ultimately the source of all political power, and the powers delegated are in trust, alterable or terminable only in a legitimate and prescribed manner. Changes cannot be made to conform to a supposed moral sense, or to new environments, neither by the “fierce democracy,” nor by the action of a department, nor by a combination of all departments.

    To obtain a correct comprehension of the dignity and power of the States it is well to consider them as they emerged from their colonial condition, having waged a tedious and successful war against the mother country, having achieved separate independence and established a new form of government, a federal union of concurrent majorities, under a written constitution. The American colonies have not had sufficient importance ascribed to them for their agency in achieving civil and religious liberty; and, with their rights and powers as separate governments, as the potential forerunners of our constitutional, representative, federal republic. The institutions founded in this western world, in the essential elements o law and freedom, were far in advance of contemporary transatlantic institutions. The relations they sustained to one another and to the controlling English government, their large measure of local administration, must be clearly comprehended to do them justice for what they wrought out and to understand what character and power they preserved as States in the government of their creation under the Federal constitution. Their precise political condition prior to the Revolution cannot be obscured. The colonies were separate in the regulation of domestic concerns, in home affairs, but sustained a common relation to the British empire. The colonists were fellow subjects, owed allegiance to the same crown, had all the rights, privileges and liabilities of every other British subject.(*) The inhabitants of one colony owed no obedience to the laws, were not under the jurisdiction of any other colony; were under no civil obligation to bear arms or pay taxes, or in any wise to contribute to the support or defense of another, and were wholly distinct and separate from all others in political functions, in political rights, and in political duties. In so far as all the colonists were one people and had common rights, it was the result of their mutual relation to the same sovereign, of common dependence on the same head, and not any result of a relation between themselves.

            (*) Some of these principles are ably discussed by the Hon. Thomas F Bayard in an address, 7th of November, 1895, before the Edinburgh Philosophical Institution, the same paper which excited the partisan ire of the House of Representatives in 1896.

    There was neither alliance nor confederacy between the colonies.
    When hostilities between Great Britain and the colonies became imminent, because of adverse imperial legislation and the unlimited claim of the right of taxation, and united effort was obvious and imperative, to relieve themselves from the burdens and injustice of the laws and the claims of a distant government, the colonies, each acting for itself, and not conjointly with any other, sent deputies to a general congress, and when the body assembled each colony had a single vote, and on all questions of general concern they asserted and retained their equality. The Congresses of 1774, 1775 and 1776 were occasional and not permanent bodies, claimed no sovereign authority, had no true governmental powers, and seldom assumed to go beyond deliberation, advice and recommendation. When under stress of war and the danger of or impossibility of delay they acted as a de facto government, their acts were valid, had the force and effect of law only by subsequent confirmation or tacit acquiescence. The common oppressions and dangers were strong incentives to concert of action and to assent and submission to what was done for resistance to a common enemy. There never was any pretense of authority to act on individuals, and in all acts reference was had to the colonies, and never to the people, individually or as a nation.

    Virginia made a declaration on the 12th of June, 1776, renouncing her colonial dependence on Great Britain and separating herself forever from that kingdom. On the 29th of June, in the same year, she performed the highest function of independent sovereignty by adopting and ordaining a constitution, prescribing an oath of fealty and allegiance for all who might hold office under her authority, and that remained as the organic law of the Old Dominion until 1829.

    The Declaration of Independence, subsequently on the 4th of July, was an act of Congress declaring absolution of the colonies from allegiance to the crown and government of Great Britain and that they were “free and independent States.” The Congress which made this Declaration was appointed by the colonies in their separate and distinct capacity. They voted on its adoption in their separate character, each giving one vote by all its own representatives who acted in strict obedience to specific instructions from their respective colonies, and the members signed the Declaration in that way. The members had authority to act in the name of their own colony and not of any other, and were representatives only of the colony which appointed them. Judge Story, in his “Commentaries on the Constitution,” reasons upon this instrument as having the effect of making the colonies “one people,” merging their existence as separate communities into one nation. The Declaration of Independence is often quoted as an authoritative political document defining political rights and duties, as on a parity with the Constitution, and as binding parties and people and courts and States by its utterances. The platform of the Republican party in 1856 and 1860 affirms the principles of this Declaration to be essential to the preservation of our republican institutions, the Constitution and the rights of the States, when, in truth and in fact, its main and almost its sole object was to declare and justify the separation from, and the independence of, the British crown. In no sense was the paper or the act intended as a bill of rights, or to enunciate the fundamental principles of a republic, or to define the status of the colonies, except in their relation to the mother country. No true American will underrate the significance or the importance of the act of separation from a foreign empire, or hold otherwise than with the highest respect the reasons which our fathers gave in vindication of their momentous and courageous action. Refusing to be subject to the authority of the crown and the parliament was a heroic undertaking dictated by the loftiest patriotism and a genuine love of liberty. Putting into the minds and hearts of our ancestors more far reaching and prescient purposes than they possessed will not magnify their virtues nor enhance their merit. They met the issues presented with the sagacity of statesmen and were not guilty of the folly of propagandism of the French revolutionists, a few years later. The colonies being distinct and separate communities, with sovereignty vested in the British crown, when the tie which bound them to that sovereignty was severed, upon each colony respectively was devolved that sovereignty and each emerged from provincial dependence into an independent and sovereign State. A conclusive proof of the relation of the colonies to one another and to the revolutionary government is to be found in the recommendation in 1776 for the passing of laws for the punishment of treason, and it was declared that the crime should be considered as committed against the colonies individually and not against them all as united together. The joint expression of separate wills in reference to continued union with England expressed no opinion and suggested no action on the subject of a common government, or of forming a closer union. It completed the severance of the rapidly disuniting ties which bound to the government across the seas. Some of the colonies, prior to the 4th of July, had declared their independence and established State constitutions, and now all, by a more public and stronger and more effective affirmation, united in doing what had by some been separately resolved upon. Ceasing to be dependent communities involved no change in relations with one another beyond what was necessarily incident to separation from the parent country. The supremacy which had previously existed in Great Britain, separately over each colony and not jointly over all, having ceased, each became a free and independent State, taking to herself what applied to and over herself. The Declaration of Independence is not a form of government, not an enumeration of popular rights, not a compact between States, but was recognized in its fullest demands, when, in 1782, Great Britain acknowledged New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York, South Carolina, Georgia and the other colonies to be “free, sovereign and independent States.”

    Stress is laid on the revolutionary government and on the Declaration of Independence by those who are anxious to establish the theory of a national or consolidated government, reducing the States to mere dependencies upon central power. As has been shown, the contention, derived from those sources, is without legal or historical foundation; but the temporary government, largely for war purposes, was superseded by the Articles of Confederation, which, because of the reluctance of the States to delegate their powers, did not become obligatory until 1781, as their ratification by all the States was a condition precedent to their having any binding force. These articles, in explicit terms, incapable of misinterpretation, declare that “each State retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence and every power, jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled.” There can be no mistake here as to the reservation of entire freedom, entire independence, entire sovereignty. These were retained without qualification or limitation, and the use of the word “retains” is the clearest assertion that these unsurrendered prerogatives were possessed under the previous government.

    This historical review was not necessary except argumentatively as throwing light on the real facts, and as raising the strong presumption, to be rebutted only by irrefragable proof, that a state once sovereign has not voluntarily surrendered that ultimate supreme power of self-government or self-existence. While in a colonial condition the people of the several States were in no proper political sense a nation, or “one people;” by the declaration and the treaty of peace each State became a complete sovereignty within its own limits; the revolutionary government was a government of the States as such through Congress as the common agent, and by the Articles of Confederation each state expressly reserved its entire sovereignty and independence. In all this succession of history there was no trend to consolidation and the most conspicuous; feature was the jealous retention by the States of their separate sovereignty.

    Source:  Confederate Military History, Vol. 1

Abraham Lincoln and Secession

Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division
Reference Number: LC-USZC2-2354
Featured Book

William C. Harris, Lincoln’s Rise to the Presidency
(University of Kansas, 2007)

Abraham Lincoln was demonized in the South long before he took office as President in 1861. During the four-way campaign in 1860, Lincoln was demonized as a black Republican whose election would split the Union. Historian Arthur Cole wrote: “Lincoln was pictured in many quarters not only as a black Republican but ‘as an Abolitionist; a fanatic of the John Brown type; the slave to one idea, who, in order to carry that out to its legitimate results, would override laws, constitutions, and compromises of every kind’, as a Robespierre ready to overturn the whole fabric of society.”1 Historian Michael Burlingame wrote that Lincoln told a Tennessee visitor in the secession winter that “to execute the laws is all that I shall attempt to do. This, however, I will do, no matter how much force may be required.”2

Lincoln tried to avoid adding fuel to the attacks on him. During the 1860 campaign, he refrained from making any policy pronouncements – for fear they would be misconstrued in both North and South. After the election, Lincoln told one journalist: “I know the justness of my intentions and the utter groundlessness of the pretended fears of the men who are filling the country with their clamor. If I go into the presidency, they will find me as I am on record – nothing less, nothing more. My declarations have been made to the world without reservation. They have been often repeated; and now, self-respect demands of me and of the party that has elected me that when threatened, I should be silent.”3 As far back as 1856, Mr. Lincoln had told a Republican convention in Illinois: “We say to the southern disunionists, we won’t go out of the Union, and you shan’t.”4

Southern failure to abide by majority rule was at the center of the secession crisis. “We have just carried on election on principles fairly stated to the people,” Lincoln wrote to New Hampshire Senator John Hale a week before Georgia acted. “Now we are told in advance, the government shall be broken up, unless we surrender to those we have beaten, before we take the offices. In this they are either attempting to play upon us, or they are in dead earnest. Either way, if we surrender, it is the end of us, and of the government. They will repeat the experiment upon us ad libitum….There is, in my judgment, but one compromise which would really settle ths slavery question, and that would be a prohibition against acquiring any more territory.”5

Lincoln was about to be bullied by the South and many in the South were unwilling to let him be president. Historian Walter A. McDougall wrote: “If the Republican had dismissed talk of secession as bluff, so had the southern Democrats discounted the chance that the bluff would be called. It was time for everyone to sober up, but since the Republicans were too busy toasting themselves, only some southerners did.”6 Historian Michael Burlingame wrote: “A few days after the election, Charles Francis Adams viewed Southern threats to secede as a means ‘to frighten Mr. Lincoln at the outset, and to compel him to declare himself in opposition to the principles of the party that has elected him.’ Adams confessed that he awaited the president-elect’s reaction ‘with some misgivings,’ for ‘the swarms that surround Mr Lincoln are by no means the best.’”7 The game of bluff had been going for more that a decade. The Compromise of 1850 had temporarily quieted the discord. Historian William E. Gienapp wrote: “Belief in the constitutional right of secession, which a growing number of Southerners endorsed after 1846, encouraged southern politicians to resort to political blackmail. Increasingly, they engaged in a dangerous game of brinkmanship, steadily escalating their demands on the North heedless of the consequences.”8

Response to the 1860 Election

Secessionists used the Lincoln victory as an excuse to act on a decade of threats to leave the Union. William E. Gienapp wrote: “Socially the agent of aristocracy, the Slave Power politically was the proponent of minority rule. In both its social pretensions and political principles, Republicans identified the Slave Power with values utterly repugnant to northern voters’ republican ideals….Control of the nation by ‘a mere handful of Southerners,’ contended a newspaper published in southern Illinois, represented the ‘paradox of republican government, in which a minority rules the majority.’” Gienapp wrote that after Abraham Lincoln’s election in 1860, “the northern majority possessed the power to which it was entitled. Yet southerners refused to accept the popular verdict…”9 When two northerners visited Richmond in July 1864, Jefferson Davis told them: “We seceded to rid ourselves of the rule of the majority…”10 Lincoln denied that right. As Lincoln would say in his First Inaugural Address: “I hold, that in contemplation of universal law, and of the Constitution, the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper, ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our national Constitution and the Union will endure forever – it being impossible to destroy it, except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.”11

During this period, Mr. Lincoln was relentlessly upbeat about the Union and skeptical of secession. Journalist William H. Smith recalled: “On two…occasions during the campaign a delegation from Indiana visited Mr. Lincoln. He impressed them with the conviction that the Union must be preserved at all hazards. There was something tangible about him which made those who called on him feel that he possessed great reserve powers, and would be able to meet any contingency which might arise. His visitors always left him in more enthusiastic mood than they were when he arrived.”12 Mr. Lincoln believed there was a danger of self-fulfilling prophecies – too much attention had been given to southern complaints in the past. He also believed that southern self-interest would prevail, telling Ohio Republican Donn Piatt: “They wont give up the offices. Were it believed that vacant places could be had at the North Pole, the road there would be lined with dead Virginians.”13 But southern slaveholders were not be appeased with patronage. Historian James A. Rawley wrote: “By 1850, the Southern states shared a history of grievances against the North ranging from territorial restriction of slavery in fact and in intent; surging anti-slavery agitation; broad sanction of John Brown’s violence; an economic posture threatening southern interests; formation of a sectional party hostile to the South’s peculiar institution; and repeated Northern defiance of the Constitution in deed, as in the personal liberty laws, and in word, as in Seward’s ‘higher law’ doctrine and the Republican Party’s denunciation of the Supreme Court’s ‘new dogma’ of the Dred Scott decision.”14

Attorney Donn Piatt spent time with Mr. Lincoln in October and November 1860. He later wrote: “Mr. Lincoln did not believe, could not be made to believe, that the South meant secession and war. When I told him, subsequently to this conversation, at a dinner-table in Chicago, where the Hon. Hannibal Hamlin, General [Robert] Schenck, and others were guests, that the Southern people were in dead earnest, meant war, and I doubted whether he would be inaugurated at Washington, he laughed and said the fall of pork at Cincinnati had affected me. I became somewhat irritated, and told him that in ninety days the land would be whitened with tents. He said in reply, ‘Well, we won’t jump that ditch until we come to it,’ and then, after a pause, he added, ‘I must run the machine as I find it.’ I take no credit to myself for this power of prophecy. I only said what every one acquainted with the Southern people knew, and the wonder is that Mr. Lincoln should have been so blind to the coming storm.”15

Although Abraham Lincoln understood the nature of southern antipathy to him and his principles, his comprehension of southern events and attitudes was flawed. He misread the South in late 1860 and early 1861 because he used the past as a prologue to the future. Historian William E. Gienapp noted that secessionists were gambling against the North: “They had little incentive to compromise or take a broad national view of matters, or even seek northern cooperation, for they could always leave the Union if their tactics led to political disaster.”16 Historian Russell McClintock wrote “that the secession crisis…began in direct response to the outcome of a national election, specifically to the triumph of a particular party. Thus it not only represented the breakdown of constitutional government…but was also intimately tied to the structure and operation of the antebellum party system.” 17 McClintock wrote: “Struggling to reconcile a wide disparity on the contentious question of force, the Democracy tried to united on a pro-compromise position and cast their rivals as fanatical warmongers. The Republicans, who had been universally deaf to Democrats’ pleas for ‘traditional,’ secession-neutral Jackson Day resolutions just two weeks earlier, now found themselves divided on the far weightier matter of a national compromise, to the point that some feared that conservative members might bolt and join the Democrats.”18

The Republican Party was young and untested. And Lincoln needed to maintain its unity if he was going to maintain the unity of the country. Historian Edward Conrad Smith wrote: “Lincoln’s own policy apparently developed slowly during the winter. Shortly after the election he determined to give the former democratic element of the Republican party a strong representation in his cabinet, with a view to uniting the North.”19 Historian Charles W. Ramsdell wrote that “support had come from a heterogeneous mass of voters and for a variety of reasons. The slavery issue, the drive for a protective tariff and internal improvements, the promise of free homesteads in the West, and disgust at the split among the Democrats had each played its part. Many voters had been persuaded that there was no real danger of a disruption of the Union in the event of his election. The secession of the border states had now thrown the former issues into the background and thrust to the front the question whether the government should, as Lincoln phrased it, ‘enforce the laws’ and in so doing bring on war with the newly formed Confederacy.”20 Although Mr. Lincoln saw the storm clouds approaching, he misjudged the seriousness of the threat. After all, he had spent only two years in Washington and had seldom been farther south than Kentucky. Civil War scholar Bruce Catton observed: “It may be that the mounting pressure for offices, the increasing evidence that there were many among the multitudes who wanted a political victory to bring tangible political rewards, made it hard for the man in Springfield to tell the difference between a revolutionary fervor and a simple political maneuver.”21

Lincoln though his best policy was patient, quiet firmness. Journalist Henry Villard wrote: “Mr. Lincoln is above bulling and bearing. Although conservative in his intentions, and anxious to render constitutional justice to all sections of the country, he is possessed of too much nobleness and sense of duty to quail before threats and lawlessness. He knows well enough that the first step backward on his part, or that of his supporters, will be followed by a corresponding advance on the part of the cotton rebels, and he knows that for every inch yielded, a foot will be demanded.’”22 Mr. Lincoln thought silence was the best retardant for inflamed passions. He refused to make public statements that many urged him to give. In response to such a request from New York businessman George T. M. Davis, Mr. Lincoln wrote in late October 1860: “What is it I could say which would quiet alarm? Is it that no interference by the government, with slaves or slavery within the states, is intended? I have said this so often already, that a repetition of it but mockery, bearing an appearance of weakness, and cowardice, which perhaps should be avoided. Why do not uneasy men read what I have already said? and what our platform says? If they will not read, or heed, then [these?], would they read, or heed, a repetition of them? Of course the declaration that there is no intention to interfere with slaves or slavery, in the states, with all that is fairly implied in such declaration, is true; and I should have no objection to make, and repeat the declaration a thousand times, if there were danger of encouraging bold bad men to believe they are dealing with one who can be scared into anything.”23 Mr. Lincoln believed that the public statements he had made between 1854 and 1860 should be a sufficient guide to his intentions. He continued that taciturn policy as president-elect, despite great pressure to issue a public statement that would pacify the South and prevent the secession of southern states.

The president understood the dangers that any public pronouncement would entail. Shortly after the 1860 presidential election, Mr. Lincoln talked to one visitor about yielding to the worries of Southerners: “It is the trick by which the South breaks down every northern man. I would go to Washington without the support of the men who supported me and were my friends before election. I would be as powerless as a block of buckeye wood. The honest man (you are talking of honest men) will look at our platform and what I have said. There they will find everything I could now say or which they would ask me to say. All I could say would be but repetition. Having told them all these things ten times already, would they believe the eleventh declaration? Let us be practical. There are many general terms afloat, such as ‘conservatism,’ ‘enforcement of the irrepressible conflict at the point of the bayonet,’ ‘hostility to the South,’ and so forth – all of which mean nothing without definition. What then could I say to allay their fears, if they will not define what particular act or acts they fear from me or my friends?”24 Nevertheless, Lincoln tried to disseminate his position to friends. Historian Michael Burlingame wrote: “Lincoln also used journalists to broadcast his views. From November to February, Henry Villard of the New York Herald and Cincinnati Commercial reported almost daily from Springfield, often describing the opinion of “Springfield” or “the men at the capitol,’ which doubtless reflected the president-elect’s thinking.”25

An election having been held, Lincoln did not believe that it could be annulled by secession. Lincoln told visitors that “it was sometimes better for a man to pay a debt he did not owe, or to lose a demand which was a just one, than to go to law about it; but then, in compromising our difficulties, he would regret to see the victors put in the attitude of the vanquished, and the vanquished in the place of the victors. He would not contribute to any such compromise as that.”26 Lincoln’s attitude toward compromise was summed up by his law partner: “Away – off-begone! If the nation wants to back down, let it – not I.”27 The South’s persistent threats to dissolve the Union had become a fixture of American politics; those threats had not materialized, ergo, those would not materialize. In surveying southern newspapers, historian Arthur C. Cole wrote: “The election of Lincoln ‘means all the insult for the present and all the injury for the future that such an act can do’, proclaimed the Wilmington, North Carolina, Daily Journal. The Atlanta Confederacy predicted that, while Lincoln’s administration would be conservative for twenty-four months, it would insidiously be ‘coiling its slimy folds around our dearest rights and patriarchal interest’; the Montgomery Southern Confederacy proclaimed the danger that the Republicans would in four short years ‘inflict a moral sting upon slavery’ from which it would never recover. ‘The Southern States will not tamely submit to be governed by a party that declares eternal war on their constitutional rights’, announced the Raleigh Press of November 9.”28 Lincoln scholar Harry V. Jaffa wrote that “Southern opinion laid great weight upon the doctrine that secession by each state, deratifying its membership in the Union by the same procedures as had ratified it, was sanctioned by the Constitution.”29

Both sides were maneuveuring for the loyalty of southern unionists. Historian Craig L. Symonds wrote:”Lincoln’s goal had been to pursue a policy of quiet firmness in the hope of preserving the loyalty of the border states and buy time for the rebellious states to appreciate their foolishness.”30 Lincoln believed that there were influential Unionists and there were – like his friend Alexander H. Stephens of Georgia – but they were steam-rolled by more passionate secessionists, especially in the cotton South. Historian Daniel Walker Howe wrote: “After Lincoln’s election, Stephens and the handful of Unionist Democrats in Georgia found themselves together, willy-nilly, with old Whigs in trying to prevent secession. Throughout the South, wherever the Whig party remained a vital force, there opposition to secession could be effective.”31 But the ties of statehood proved greater than the tradition of nationalism for even old Whigs like Stephens, who found themselves unable to control events. Momentum favored secession. Historian William Link wrote: “Lincoln’s election…dealt a stunning blow to [southern] moderates, who feared unleashed sectional extremism. A week after the election, one moderate described a crisis that would soon bring the secession of the Lower South and the ‘awful calamity of civil war.’” Link wrote: “Most Virginia Unionists favored defending the Union only if Lincoln renounced coercion of seceding states.”32 Historian Sean Wilentz noted that “although the border-state Unionists included a large number of nonplanters – who, in places, even expressed antislavery opinions – their leaders came out of the same elite of comfortable slaveholders who dominated politics throughout the South. For these upper South gentlemen, secession, far from a necessity, looked suicidal for slavery, handing the northern Republicans the grounds for destroying the institution even where it existed. The Union, they believed, gave infinitely greater protection to slavery than some fancied and untested new confederacy….If their hostility to secession obstructed the spread of disunionism, their allegiance to the Union extended only so far as it would preserve, protect, defend, and extend the slaveholders’ democracy.”33

Mr. Lincoln had more faith in southern loyalists than events and people would justify. The President-elect was highly skeptical of the success of secession, but reluctant to talk about it and even more reluctant to change his positions. He wrote a correspondent urging him to speak out: “I am not at liberty to shift my ground – that is out of the question. If I thought a repetition would do any good I would make it. But my judgment is it would do positive harm. The secessionists, per se believing they had alarmed me, would clamor all the louder.”34 Mr. Lincoln told Ohio’s Don Piatt: “If our Southern friends are right in their claim, the framers of the Government carefully planned the rot that now threatens their work with destruction. If one State has the right to withdraw at will, certainly a majority have the right, and we have the result given us of the States being able to force out one State. That is logical.”35

Lincoln did allow occasional glimpses into his thinking in talks with Springfield visitors – comments that newspapers reported. In November, he was reported as saying: “I know the justness of my intentions and the utter groundlessness of the pretended fears of the men who are filling the country with their clamor. If I go into the presidency, they will find me as I am on record – nothing less, nothing more. My declarations have been made to the world without reservation. They have been often repeated; and now, self-respect demands of me and of the party that has elected me that when threatened, I should be silent.”36 Lincoln told some Kentuckians that southern secessionists had no special excuse for their action other than “the naked desire to go out of the Union.”37 Lincoln was not about to give them an excuse. He told a Mississippi visitor that “if the southern states concluded upon a contingent secession, that is, upon awaiting aggressive acts on the part of his administration, they would never go out of the Union.”38

In December 1860, Lincoln reportedly said: “I think, from all I can learn, that things have reached their worst point in the South, and they are likely to mend in the future. If it be true, as reported, that the South Carolinians do not intend to resist the collection of the revenue, after they ordain secession, there need be no collision with the federal government. The Union may still be maintained. The greatest inconvenience will arrive from the want of federal courts; as with the present feeling, judges, marshals, and other officers could not be obtained.”39 Mr. Lincoln tried to calm the worries of visitors to Springfield. In January 1861, he told one Pennsylvania visitor who asked him about southern secession: “I do not think they will. A number from different sections of the South pass through here daily, and all that call appear pleasant and seem to go away apparently satisfied, and if they only give me an opportunity, I will convince them that I do not wish to interfere with them in any way, but protect them in everything that they are entitled to. But if they do, the question will be and it must be settled, come what may.”40 The President-elect was very conscious of the oath he would take at his inauguration. Lincoln told a New York visitor “that he did not quite like to hear southern journals and southern speakers insisting that there must be no ‘coercion’; that while he had no disposition to coerce anybody, yet, after he had taken an oath to execute the laws, he should not care to see them violated.”41

At the end of November 1861, Mr. Lincoln launched a trial balloon in the form of language he composed for Illinois Senator Lyman Trumbull to read during a speech in Springfield at which President-Elect Lincoln would be in attendance: “I have labored in, and for, the Republican organization with entire confidence that whenever it shall be in power, each and all of the States will be left in as complete control of their own affairs respectively, and at as perfect liberty to choose, and employ, their own means of protecting property, and preserving peace and order within their respective limits, as they have ever been under any administration. Those who have voted for Mr. Lincoln, have expected, and still expect this; and they would not have voted for him had they expected otherwise. I regard it as extremely fortunate for the peace of the whole country, that this point, upon which the Republicans have been so long, and so persistently misrepresented, is now to be brought to a practical test, and placed beyond the possibility of doubt. Disunionists per se, are now in hot haste to get out of the Union, precisely because they perceive they can not, much longer, maintain apprehension among the Southern people that their homes, and firesides, and lives, are to be endangered by the action of the Federal Government. With such:”‘Now, or never’ is the maxim.” He added: “I am rather glad of this military preparation in the South. It will enable the people the more easily to suppress any uprisings there, which their misrepresentations of purposes may have encouraged.”42

Historian Maury Klein wrote that Lincoln’s words were “intended as a gesture to sooth public fears, but some northern papers denounced it as proof that Lincoln planned to abandon Republican principles, while southern editors held it up as a declaration of war on the South.”43 The incident convinced the president-elect that his best and safest posture was silence. Klein noted that Mr. Lincoln wrote New York Times editor Henry J. Raymond a few days later: “I now think we have a demonstration in favor of my view. On the 20th. inst. Senator Trumbull made a short speech which I suppose you have both seen and approved. Has a single newspaper, heretofore against us, urged that speech [upon its readers] with a purpose to quiet public anxiety? Not one, so far as I know. On the contrary the Boston Courier, and its class, hold me responsible for the speech, and endeavor to inflame the North with the belief that it foreshadows an abandonment of Republican ground by the incoming administration; while the Washington Constitution, and its class hold the same speech up to the South as an open declaration of war against them.” Mr. Lincoln continued: “This is just as I expected, and just what would happen with any declaration I could make. These political fiends are not half sick enough yet. ‘Party malice’ and not ‘public good’ possesses them entirely. ‘They seek a sign, and no sign shall be given them.’ At least such is my present feeling and purpose.”44

President-elect Lincoln’s Silence

Mr. Lincoln’s maintained his policy of self-imposed silence, writing one Connecticut correspondent who urged him to speak out: “I could say nothing which I have not already said, and which is in print, and open for the inspection of all. To press a repetition of this upon those who have listened, is useless; to press it upon those who have refused to listen, and still refuse, would be wanting in self-respect, and would have an appearance of sycophancy and timidity, which would excite the contempt of good men, and encourage bad ones to clamor the more loudly.”45 Historian Susan-Mary Grant wrote: “Although in his private correspondence his shock at events was palpable, his public utterances tended to downplay the seriousness of the situation, especially in those speeches he made en route to Washington for his inauguration.”46

Mr. Lincoln’s thinking on December 13,1861 was reported by his secretary: “The very existence of a general and national government implies the legal (power), right and duty of maintaining its own integrity. This, if not expressed, is at least implied in the Constitution. The right of a state to secede is not an open or debatable question. It was fully discussed in Jackson’s time and denied not only by him, but by the vote of Congress. It is the duty of a president to execute the laws and maintain the existing government. He cannot entertain any proposition for dissolution or dismemberment. He was not elected for any such purpose. As a matter of theoretical speculation it is probably true that if the people, with whom the whole question rests, should become tired of the present government, they might change it in the manner prescribed by the Constitution.”47

Optimism, discipline and rejection of any compromise on extension of slavery were the tools Mr. Lincoln brandished. Still, historian Albert D. Kirwan wrote that Lincoln “apparently thought that the average southerner could distinguish between Lincoln’s own philosophy on the slavery question and that of abolitionists like William Lloyd Garrison….He also seemed to think that secession was largely talk on the part of a few hotheads, and would be easily put down by an overwhelming Unionist sentiment in the South. The Upper South he believed so steadfast that there was patently no danger of secession there. If there were, the border states would smother the sentiment.”48 President-elect Lincoln continued to believe disciplined silence was his best policy as he prepared to leave Springfield for Washington in early February. Secretaries John G. Nicolay and John Hay wrote: “Now that secession was proclaimed in every Cotton State, his simple logic rose about minor considerations to the peril and the protection of the nation, to the assault on and the defense of the Constitution. He saw but the ominous cloud of civil war in front, and the patriotic faith and enthusiasm of the people behind.”49 Historian Kenneth M. Stampp wrote: “Lincoln’s reaction to the secession movement during the weeks before he left Springfield was revealed only in fragments, in fleeting glimpses through the screen which generally concealed his thoughts. Several times he exposed himself a little by sending advice in private letters to Republican leaders, or by suddenly blurting out some significant observation while conversing with friends. On rare occasions a newspaper reporter would elicit an incisive comment from him.” These glimpses according to Stampp, revealed that Mr. Lincoln “shared or merely reflected the views of most Northerners, for he was being guided by and not controlling public opinion. Always he was careful to keep abreast of popular currents by listening to reports from his many visitors and by watching the trends in the northern press.”50

Historian Edward Conrad Smith wrote that Lincoln “was extremely careful to make no statement in advance of his assuming the reins of the government that could be construed by the secessionists to their advantage.” Smith wrote: “There is nothing in the published writings of Lincoln which manifests the slightest wavering on the question of maintaining the Union. Everything he wrote indicates that he had a positive policy, even to the extent of going to war as a last resort.”51 Lincoln wrote one southern editor: “Please pardon me for suggestion that if the papers, like yours, which heretofore have persistently garbled, and misrepresented what I have said, will now fully and fairly place it before their readers, there can be no further misunderstanding.”52Historian Michael Burlingame wrote: “Lincoln’s unwillingness to make a public declaration may have been a mistake. Such a document might have allayed fears in the Upper South and Border States and predisposed them to remain in the Union when hostilities broke out. But it might also have wrecked the Republican coalition and doomed his administration to failure before it began.”53

Attempts at Compromise

Lincoln needed to deal with both the public and the private turmoil in the nation. The anxiety was particularly acute in Washington. “The second session of the Thirty-seventh Congress convened on the first Monday of December, 1860. The Senators and Representatives of the rebellious States were no longer with us. The rumblings of treason, deep and significant, were everywhere heard. What was to be the outcome no one could tell,” recalled Illinois Congressman Elihu B. Washburne. “The loyal members of both Senate and House were closely organized to concert measures to meet the appalling emergencies that confronted them. It was determined that each House should appoint one of its members to form a committee to watch the current of events and discover as far as possible the intentions of the rebels. The committee of ‘Public Safety,’ as it might be called, was a small one, only two members, Governor [James] Grimes, the Senator from Iowa, on the part of the Senate, and myself on the part of the House. Clothed with full powers, we at once put ourselves in communications with General Scott, the head of the army, with headquarters at Washington, and Chief of Police [John] Kennedy, of New York City, a loyal and true man…He at once sent us some of his most skillful and trusted detectives; and earnestly, loyally, and courageously they went to work to unravel the plots and schemes set on foot to destroy us.”54

Mr. Lincoln counseled Republican members of Congress against any compromise which would undermine the principles and platform of the Republican party. In mid-December 1860, President-elect Lincoln wrote Illinois Congressman William Kellogg to “entertain no proposition for a compromise in regard to the extension of slavery – that if this were done – the work achieved by the late election would all have to be done over again.”55 The president-elect’s unwillingness to compromise pleased many Republicans but annoyed others. Compromise would have been difficult regardless of Lincoln’s position against extension of slavery in the West. “Unwillingness by Republicans and Breckinridge Democrats to yield on the territorial question, ten years of sectional stress, miscalculation on both sides, all this made compromise a formidable undertaking,” wrote historian James A. Rawley.56

Compromise, Lincoln understood, was a slippery slope. In early 1861, Lincoln told a visitor: “By no act or complicity of mine shall the Republican party become a mere sucked egg, all shell or no principle in it.”57 Lincoln Scholar Harold Holzer wrote: “Lincoln described the situation more succinctly than any of his self-appointed advisors. Assuring his visitor that ‘he looks with contempt on the whole pack of compromisers,’ he bluntly declared that ‘he did not wish to pay for being inaugurated.’”58 Historian Michael Burlingame wrote: “Lincoln’s firmness was rooted in a profound self-respect that forbade knuckling under to what he perceived as extortionate bullying.”59 Lincoln wrote William H. Seward in late January: “I say now…as I have all the while said, that on the territorial question – that is, the question of extending slavery under the national auspices, – I am inflexible. I am for no compromise which assists or permits the extension of the institution on soil owned by the nation.”60 On the other hand wrote historian Russell McClintock, “Lincoln’s chief means of encouraging Southern unionism lay in giving his future secretary of state [Seward] free rein in Washington – to a point.”61 Historian Michael Burlingame wrote: “Dominating Congress that winter, Seward maneuvered desperately to keep the Union from breaking apart before Lincoln’s inauguration. The senator viewed himself as a well-informed realist who must somehow save the nation from fire-eaters in the Deep South and naive stiff-back Republicans like Lincoln who failed to understand the gravity of the crisis.”62

Mr. Lincoln understood that the national situation was deteriorating and that President James Buchanan was doing little to halt the country’s dissolution: “Every hour adds to the difficulties I am called upon to meet, and the present administration does nothing to check the tendency toward dissolution. I, who have been called to meet this awful responsibility, am compelled to remain here, doing nothing to avert it or lessen its force when it comes to.”63 Nevertheless, President-elect Lincoln did not want to rush to Washington, telling a reporter: “I don’t want to go before the middle of February, because I expect they will drive me insane after I get there, and I want to keep tolerably sane, at least until after inauguration.”64 Lincoln Scholar Harold Holzer wrote: “Discarding his longtime Whiggish belief in congressional supremacy, Lincoln forcefully interjected himself into the congressional debate….he made his views clear in a series of remarkably tough letters to key allies on Capitol Hill, which he knew would be widely shared with other Republicans.”65

Facing secession, Mr. Lincoln did not want a strictly northern administration but neither did he want to abandon his principles in search of southern cabinet members. In most states of the South he hadn’t even appeared as a ballot option for voters in 1860. His circle of southern political acquaintances was small. Historian Arthur Cole wrote that “Lincoln was anxious to give Southerners adequate consideration for appointments under the new régime. He was willing to give at least one Southerner who had opposed his election a place in the cabinet, and, as he informed Seward, he preferred one who had a bona fide ‘living position in the South’ to one from the border states or one who had a record of long service in Washington. He tendered a cabinet appointment to John A. Gilmer, of North Carolina, in whom he placed considerable confidence as a Union man.”66 Historian Nelson D. Lankford described John Gilmer: “A bluff, powerfully built congressman from Greensboro, North Carolina, he had a round face, a kindly smile, and an appealing ability as a speaker to captivate his listeners, even bring them to tears.”67 Gilmer, however, was not interested in a Cabinet appointment and Mr. Lincoln was not interested in appointing a southerner who did not share his views.

Albany editor Thurlow Weed, who favored conciliation, recalled “that Mr. Lincoln made me the bearer of his letter to Mr. Gilmer, with which I repaired to Washington. It being an open letter, Mr. Gilmer, after reading it attentively, entered into a frank conversation with me upon the subject which was exciting profound interest and anxiety in and out of Congress. He said that he entirely approved of the views of Mr. Lincoln on that question, and that he was gratified with the confidence reposed in him; but that before replying to it he deemed it proper to confer with members of Congress from Southern States, who, like himself, were opposed to secession. Soon afterward the ‘Border State proposition’ was rejected by the House of Representatives. Under these circumstances, hopeless of keeping North Carolina in the Union, Mr. Gilmer declined the offer of a seat of a seat in the cabinet.”68 In mid-December 1860, an editorial appeared in the Illinois State Journal, which has been attributed to Mr. Lincoln:

    “We see such frequent allusion to a supposed purpose on the part of Mr. Lincoln to call into his cabinet two or three Southern gentlemen, from the parties opposed to him politically, that we are prompted to ask a few question.”
    “First. Is it known that any such gentleman of character, would accept a place in the cabinet?”
    “Second. If yes, on what terms? Does he surrender to Mr. Lincoln, or Mr. Lincoln to him, on the political difference between them? Or do they enter upon the administration in open opposition to each other?”69

The southerner to whom Mr. Lincoln had the greatest affinity was Georgian Alexander H. Stephens, an old Whig congressional colleague who would become the Confederacy’s vice president in February 1861. After requesting a copy of a Stephens speech against secession delivered in early November 1860, Lincoln sought to reassure Stephens: “Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would, directly, or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears. The South would be no more danger in this respect, than it was in the days of Washington. I suppose, however, this does not meet the case. You think slavery is right and ought to be extended; while we think it is wrong and ought to be restricted. That I suppose is the rub. It certainly is the only substantial difference between us.”70 On December 20, South Carolina seceded. It was soon joined by Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and Texas.

Representatives of the new “Confederate” states convened in Montgomery, Alabama on February 4, 1861 and inaugurated Jefferson Davis as president on February 18. When New York Republican leader Thurlow Weed visited Mr. Lincoln in late December, the President-elect told him: “I believe you can pretend to find but little, if any thing, in my speeches, about secession; but my opinion is that no state can, in any way lawfully, get out of the Union, without the consent of the others; and that it is the duty of the President, and other government functionaries, to run the machine as it is.”71 But, noted historian Bruce Catton, the South was right to be worried about Lincoln’s election because “the mere existence of a Federal administration hostile to slavery spelled eventual doom for the institution even though the doom might be delayed for a great many years.”72

Historian David M. Potter wrote that “it would be hazardous to conclude that a better understanding of the southern temper would have made him and certain other members of his party more amenable to compromise. Lincoln himself had predicted in 1858 that the sectional conflict would not subside until a crisis was ‘reached and passed.’ When the crisis actually arrived, he showed no disposition to back off. ‘The tug has to come,’ he declared, ‘and better now, than any time hereafter.’”73 Virginia Unionist John Minor Botts recalled being told in early April 1861: “Botts, I have always been an Old-line Henry-Clay Whig, and if your Southern people will let me alone, I will administer this government as nearly upon the principles that he would have administered it as it is possible for one man to follow in the path of another.”74

Mr. Lincoln was not completely out of touch with moderate southern opinion, but he did underestimate radical secessionists who out-maneuvered the unionists. “There is some justification for Lincoln’s optimism, even in retrospect, given the narrow margins by which secessionists triumphed in most states in the South,” wrote historian Potter. “But the election returns, so far as they can be analyzed, show that in a number of states the results were remarkably close.”75 Historian Michael Burlingame wrote: “Lincoln’s optimism rested not only on the information derived from visitors and newspapers but also on his interpretation of the election results.” 76 Historian Stephen B. Oates argued: “With the border states also threatening to secede, Lincoln seemed confused, incredulous, at what was happening to his country. He seemed not to understand how he appeared in southern eyes….He could not accept the possibility that his election to the presidency might cause the collapse of the very system which had enabled him to get there.”77 Meanwhile, Southern extremists exaggerated the threat that Lincoln’s election posed to their slaveholding society. Historian James M. McPherson noted: “Many Southerners feared not only Black Republicanism but “red” Republicanism as well. Proud of their stable, conservative social order, they viewed the Republican party as a political embodiment of all the ‘isms’ that afflicted Northern society.”78

Kentuckian Duff Green came to visit Mr. Lincoln in late December 1860. He reported to President James Buchanan that President-elect Lincoln “said that the real question at issue between the North and the South, was Slavery ‘propagandism’ and that upon that issue the republican party was opposed to the South and that he was with his own party; that he had been elected by that party and intended to sustain his party in good faith, but added that the question of the Amendments to the Constitution and the questions submitted by Mr. Crittenden, belonged to the people and States in legislatures or Conventions and that he would be inclined not only to acquiesce, but give full force and effect to their will thus expressed….”79 Historian David E. Woodward wrote that “The letter serves as an excellent example of the charged antebellum political environment, and its elusive journey demonstrates how difficult it was for Lincoln to make any statement or comment before his inauguration.”80 Earl Schencks Miers noted: “The visit to Springfield of Buchanan’s personal emissary, Duff Green, was so closely guarded that there was no immediate notice of it in the press. Again Mr. Lincoln called on Trumbull to guard his interest, enclosing a copy of a letter to Green.”81

The coming conflict was felt by Lincoln’s family. The day after Christmas, Joseph Gillespie asked the Lincoln boys what Santa Claus had brought them. Robert replied: “Papa received a Christmas gift in a letter.” Mr. Lincoln added: “[O]h, yes, Gillespie, I forgot to tell you that some kind friend in South Carolina sent me a printed copy of the ordinance they adopted a few days before Christmas, and I was telling Bob here…that it must have been intended for a Christmas gift.” Gillespie recalled: “I was silent, for I could see that he had been endeavoring to keep from his son a knowledge of his father’s danger, and that he sought to give the deed of a most malignant enemy the guise of a friendly act.”82 During this period resident-elect Lincoln even worried about the loyalty of Egypt, as southern Illinois was known. Lawyer Henry C. Whitney wrote: “I did a considerable ‘fetching and carrying’ for Mr. Lincoln during that gloomy winter; and as he was anxious to know definitely the conditions of politics in Egypt, I started from Chicago, on the night of December 23, 1860; and, ostensibly as a commercial traveler, commenced my researches at noon the next day at Lawrenceville.” Whitney concluded that southern Illinois was safe for the Union.83

Lincoln had to balance both pro-compromise and anti-compromise factions of the Republican Party. Historian Arthur Cole noted: “Following the election an even more conservative trend set in. Lincoln felt its pressure from the ranks of his own party as he made preparations to assume the reins of office. The New York Herald of December 4, 1860 rejoiced in the evidence that Republican leaders were ‘ready now for terms of compromise with the South, which every Republican a month ago would have scouted as degrading to the most servile Northern doughface’….Lincoln stood firmly against compromise on slavery extension; on the other hand, at a time when leaders of his party were trying to effect the admission of New Mexico as a free state, he did not ‘care much about New Mexico, if further extension were hedged against.’”84

Republicans had a diversity of opinions – depending on how high a priority they placed on the Union, slavery and business interests. Historian Daniel J. Ryan wrote: “If the general citizenship had knowledge of what Lincoln’s mental attitude…they would have been satisfied, but its publicity would have been disastrous. From his vantage ground at Springfield he was in full touch with the situation, which called for the exercise of the greatest wisdom as well as caution. Under the threats of secession he saw the influence of [Horace] Greeley’s appeal spreading through the North. It found a willing lodgment in two classes of his own party: the commercial element and pro-abolition Republicans. The former feared war, as destructive to trade and credits…The motive of the latter was hatred of slavery, which was stronger in their minds than love for the Union.”85 Northern businessmen worried about the loss of their profitable southern trade. David M. Potter wrote that “one may fairly infer that the Northern publicists who, for a brief time, bespoke the cause of voluntary dissolution, advocated it only as an alternative to compromise and not as a principle of action. When the choice lay between dissolution and war, all accepted armed conflict; some welcomed it.”86

Still, Mr. Lincoln remained optimistic, probably excessively so. A reporter for the Philadelphia Evening Bulletin met with President-elect Lincoln in late December 1860 at the Illinois State House. “At length one of the party [of the reporter's friends] asked him if he had any news from the South. ‘No,’ he replied; ‘I have not yet read the dispatches of the morning papers. But,’ he added, ‘I think, from all I can learn, that things have reached their worst point in the South, and they are likely to mend in the future. If it be true, as reported, that the South Carolinians do not intend to resist the collection of the revenue, after they ordain secession, there need be no collision with the Federal Government. The Union may still be maintained. The greatest inconvenience will arise from the want of Federal courts; as with the present feeling, judges, marshals, and other officers could not be obtained.’ On this point Mr. Lincoln spoke at some length, regretting its difficulty, but adding that his mind was made up as to how it should be overcome. His tone and language were moderate, good-humored and friendly towards the South.”

He then went on to speak of the charges made by the South against the North, remarking that they were so indefinite that they could not be regarded as sound. If they were well defined they could be fairly and successfully met. But they are so vague that they cannot be long maintained by reasoning men even in the Southern States. Afterwards he spoke of the course pursued by certain Republican newspapers at the North, which I need not name, in replying to the threats of secession from Southern States, by saying, ‘Let them secede; we do not want them.’ This tone, he remarked, was having a bad effect in some of the border States, especially in Missouri, where there was danger that it might alienate some of the best friends of the cause, if it were persisted in. In Missouri and some other States, where Republicanism has just begun to grow, and where there is still a strong Pro-Slavery party to contend with, there can be no advantage in taunting and bantering the South.”87

Among the newspapers to which the New York Times referred was the New York Tribune, whose erratic editor Horace Greeley wanted to “let the erring sisters go in peace.”88 Northerners were not united against secession, noted historian Edward Lillie Pierce: “Greeley, appalled with the prospect of civil war with an uncertain issue,…treated secession as a revolutionary right, and discountenanced coercive measures for keeping the seceding States in the Union. Wendell Phillips, in a passionate harangue, affirmed the right of the slave States, ‘upon the principles of 1776,’ to decide the question of a separate government for themselves. Thurlow Weed, on the other hand, contemporaneously with Greeley’s prompt declaration, proposed to reach a peaceful issue in another way, – by acceding to the substance of the claims of the seceders.”89

President-elect Lincoln unhappily viewed the actions and inaction of Congress and the Buchanan Administration in Washington. After he won the 1860 election, President-elect Lincoln told fellow lawyer Joseph Gillespie: “Joe, I suppose you will never forget that trial down in Montgomery County, where the lawyer associated with you gave the whole case in his opening speech? I saw you signaling to him, but you couldn’t stop him. Now, that’s just the way with me and [President James] Buchanan. He is giving away the case, and I have nothing to say, and can’t stop him.”90 Another attorney, Henry Clay Whitney, indicated the pressure Mr. Lincoln was under. Whitney wrote: “Lincoln’s best friends besought him to quiet the public apprehension by saying – something. One of the most popular and honored men in Illinois – Joseph Gillespie – beseeched him, in the name of their old ‘Whig’ intimacy, to issue an address, setting forth pacific views, and upon Lincoln declining, burst forth in a flood of tears. Yet Lincoln was neither unadvised, nor insensible to the situation and its needs, as I happen in more than one way to know.”91

Mr. Lincoln counseled Republican members of Congress against any compromise which would undermine the principles and platform of the Republican party. In mid-December President-elect Lincoln wrote Illinois Congressman William Kellogg to “entertain no proposition for a compromise in regard to the extension of slavery – that if this were done – the work achieved by the late election would all have to be done over again.”92 His unwillingness to compromise pleased many Republicans but annoyed others.

Mr. Lincoln was naturally cautious, but especially so when where secession was concerned and he was unwilling to commit himself to a definitive course of action. Lincoln chronicler Melvin L. Hayes wrote: “Even aside from political expediency, Lincoln had a watch-and-wait attitude toward the divisive questions of the day. He liked to tell about the time during his service as a circuit lawyer, when he stopped at an inn in a torrential rain. He and other attorneys were glad to find a Methodist presiding elder there too, for he was familiar with the treacherous Fox River, which lay ahead. When asked about the stream, the clergyman said he had crossed it often and understood it well, ‘but I have one fixed rule regarding the Fox River: I never cross it till I reach it.’”93 Historian David E. Woodward wrote: “A number of people traveled to Springfield, Illinois, attempting to draw opinions from Lincoln. The historical record shows that he revealed few details during those four months. Lincoln remarked, “I could say nothing which I have not already said, and which is in print and accessible to the public.’ He wished neither to articulate unrealistic solutions nor hinder ongoing negotiations.’”94

On January 11, 1861, President-elect Lincoln wrote Pennsylvania Congressman James Hale: “Yours of the 6th is received. I answer it only because I fear you would misconstrue my silence. What is our present condition? We have just carried an election on principles fairly stated to the people. Now we are told in advance the Government shall be broken up unless we surrender to those we have beaten, before we take the offices. In this they are either attempting to play upon us or they are in dead earnest. Either way, if we surrender, it is the end of us and of the Government. They will repeat the experiment upon us ad libitum. A year will not pass till we shall have to take Cuba as a condition upon which they will stay in the Union. They now have the Constitution under which we have lived over seventy years, and acts of Congress of their own framing, with no prospect of their being changed; and they can never have a more shallow pretext for breaking up the Government, or extorting a compromise, than now. There is in my judgment but one compromise which would really settle the slavery question, and that would be a prohibition against acquiring any more territory.”95

The future president of the Confederacy had a different, even more belligerent attitude. On January 13, Mississippi Senator Jefferson Davis wrote the governor of South Carolina: “We are probably soon to be involved in that fiercest of human strife, a civil war. The temper of the Black Republicans is not to give us our rights in the Union or allow us to go peaceably out of it. If we had no other cause, this would be enough to justify secession at whatever hazard.”96 At the same time, a Texas correspondent for the New York Herald reported: “I do not know that I can find language sufficiently strong to express to you the unanimity and intensity of the feeling in this region in opposition to the perpetuation of the Union under the rule of President Lincoln and a black Republican administration.”97

Compromise Ruled Out

About a week later, Mr. Lincoln was quoted as saying: “I will suffer death before I will consent or will advise my friends to consent to any concession or compromise which looks like buying the privilege of taking possession of this government to which we have a constitutional right; because, whatever I might think of the merit of the various propositions before Congress, I should regard any concession in the face of menace the destruction of the government itself, and a consent on all hands that our systems shall be brought down to a level with the existing disorganized state of affairs in Mexico. But this thing will hereafter be as it is now, in the hands of the people; and if they desire to call a Convention to remove any grievances complained of, or to give new guarantees for the permanence of vested rights, it is not mine to oppose.” 98 Not all Republicans agreed with him. Historian Russell McClintock wrote that Republican “moderates disagreed over whether the unionist backlash could occur without Republican assistance. Some, like Seward and John Sherman, joined conservatives in the belief that Republican intransigence was crippling the Southern unionist effort; others, including Lincoln and Trumbull, agreed with the radicals that concessions would encourage secessionism and destroy the Republican Party.”99

In Mr. Lincoln’s view, southern secessionists rejected the fundamental basis of democracy. Historian Michael F. Holt wrote: “Without question, the most persistent theme in secessionist rhetoric was not the danger of the abolition of restriction of black slavery, but the infamy and degradation of submitting to the rule of a Republican majority.” Holt noted that “secessionist rhetoric had much less resonance among the residents of the upper South, and they rejected the demands to join their sister states to the south. They did not perceive Lincoln’s victory as the end of republicanism, but as the product of its normal workings.” Holt argued that “while residents of the upper South were as emphatically opposed to Republican programs as other Southerners, they had much more confidence that the new administration could be checked by Congress and vanquished at future elections when their majorities would fade away.”100

While white northern and southern politicians were deliberating – and seceding, slaves were also evaluating the changed political landscape and southerners were frightened. Historian William A. Link wrote: “Abraham Lincoln’s election pushed the struggle between slaves and slaveholders to a new level of intensity. Convinced that invaders were conspiring to foster insurrection, masters feared that outside forces were undermining their social system. Slaves challenging masters was nothing new; for many generations, bondspeople had opposed master’s authority. What was different about the rush of events after November 1860 was how the collapsing national political system aroused slaves to new opportunities and challenged and excited slaveholders’ sensibilities about the instability of the political-constitutional system. Secession represented a logical measure of self-protection that flowed directly from deteriorating master-slave relationships, increased slave restiveness, and the possibility of northern intervention. The same was true across much of the Deep South during late 1860 and early 1861.”101

Lincoln’s tools to handle the situation were limited. He had no executive experience, no experience in the Cabinet and only a single term as a member of Congress. He was a demon in the South and a question mark in the North. Historian Kenneth M. Stamp wrote: “It took a deep faith in the talents of the ‘citizen class of people’ to nourish even the hope that Lincoln might be able to cope with the national crisis. The new President could not rely upon his national prestige, for he had little of that….Nor could he capitalize upon the experience gathered from long participation in national politics, for that too was lacking.” Stampp noted: “His strength could come from nowhere but within himself: from his native shrewdness, his instinctive feeling for trends in public opinion, above all, from his capacity for growth. The secession movement tested the sufficiency of these qualities and gave him his first real training in statecraft.”102

President-elect Lincoln understood that he must show his mettle. He would not compromise on the key issue of the expansion of slavery into the territories. “Let there be no compromise on the question of extending slavery. If there be, all our labor is lost, and ere long, must be done again,” wrote President-elect Lincoln to Senator Trumbull. “Have none of it. Stand firm. The tug has to come, and better now than any time hereafter.”103 Mr. Lincoln held firm in all his letters to congressional allies. President-elect Lincoln wrote to Illinois Congressman Elihu B. Washburne on December 13, 1860: “Prevent as far as possible any of our friends from demoralizing themselves and our cause by entertaining propositions for compromise of any sort on slavery extension. There is no possible compromise upon it, but which puts us under again, and all our work to do over again. Whether it be a Missouri line or Eli Thayer’s Popular Sovereignty, it is all the same. Let either be done, and immediately filibustering and extending slavery recommences. On that point hold firm as a chain of steel.”104

Attempted Compromise in Congress

Many Republicans were worried. In the Senate and the House, committees were appointed to seek an agreeable compromise. Lincoln chronicler Frank van der Linden wrote: “The dimming prospects for congressional action in the secession crisis depressed Representative Tom Corwin the Ohio Republican who headed the House Committee of Thirty-three. Corwin hated war…After weeks of wrangling in his committee the gloomy chairman told Lincoln in a confidential letter: ‘If the states are no more harmonious in their feelings and opinions than these thirty-three Representative men, then appalling as the idea is, we must dissolve, and a long and bloody civil war must follow.”105 In mid-January letter, Corwin reported to Lincoln: “I have been for thirty days in a Committee of Thirty-Three. If the States are no more harmonious in their feelings and opinions than these thirty-three representative men, then, appalling as the idea is, we must dissolve, and a long and bloody civil war must follow. I cannot comprehend the madness of the times. Southern men are theoretically crazy. Extreme Northern men are practical fools. The latter are really quite as mad as the former. Treason is in the air around us everywhere. It goes by the name of patriotism. Men in Congress boldly avow it, and the public offices are full of acknowledged secessionists. God alone, I fear, can help us. Four or five States are gone, others are driving before the gale. I have looked on this horrid picture till I have been able to gaze on it with perfect calmness. I think, if you live, you may take the oath.”106

Lincoln conferred on January 19-21 with Illinois Congressman William Kellogg, who served on the House Committee of Thirty-three. Like Corwin had in December, Kellogg urged Lincoln to come to Washington to reach a congressional compromise, but a newspaper report subsequently quoted Lincoln as declaring: “I will suffer death before I will consent or will advise my friends to consent to any concession or compromise which looks like buying the privilege of taking possession of this government to which we have a constitutional right…”107

Beginning in 1854 when he spoke out forcefully against the Kansas-Nebraska Act, Lincoln had been a consistent opponent of any expansion of slavery in the territories. Historian William B. Hesseltine wrote: “Lincoln’s refusal to entertain a compromise and his willingness to furnish a rallying cry, privately expressed though they were, indicated his growing strength. Less than six weeks after election day he had begun to take a grip upon the party. In a sense his strength was only relative: he was less muddled than the Republican congressmen. In part, his growing power resulted from his skillful handling of the patronage. After listening carefully to the hordes of visitors who streamed into Springfield, he had begun wisely to select his cabinet from the sundry elements of his chaotic party.”108 Historian James M. McPherson wrote that “on the matters of slavery where it already existed and enforcement of the fugitive slave provision of the Constitution, Lincoln was willing to reassure the South. But on the crucial issue of 1860, slavery in the territories, he refused to compromise, and this refusal kept his party in line. Seward, or any other man who might conceivably have been elected president in 1860, would have pursued a different course.” McPherson noted: “He refused to yield the core of his antislavery philosophy to say the break up of the Union.”109

Under conditions of mutual suspicion, it was difficult to achieve any meaningful compromise, especially between political extremes in the North and South. Historian David M. Potter wrote: “It is one of the misfortunes of the literature of vindication, by both Northern and Southern apologists, that it has overemphasized these tactical maneuvers in Congress. Far more significant than all the disputed by-play of congressional manipulation is the undisputed fact that no compromise was tendered by one section, or requested by the other. This was true, in one case, because the leaders who might have made such a tender preferred to adhere to the Chicago Platform; and, in the other case, because the leaders who might have made such a request preferred to invoke secession. Yet in neither instance is there any convincing evidence that the policies adopted were the policies desired by the ordinary men and women who had to bear the consequences.”110 President-elect Lincoln, however, believed he was pledged to the content of the Republican National Platform adopted at Chicago and he was unwilling to abandon that pledge.

Lincoln did not seek conflict, but nor could he shrink from it. South Carolina triggered the conflict that most sought to avoid. The state and its secessionist citizenry were the bully whom no one took seriously until they led the Deep South out of the Union. Arthur Cole wrote: “Southern champions were defending an agrarian civilization against the encroachment of a Northern industrialism, which harbored the menace of a pure democracy against the landed aristocracy which they were building up…These champions found the non-slaveholders unresponsive to their appeals against Northern economic oppression; they had reason, too, to be fearful of arousing the class consciousness of a yeomanry whose coöperation was essential to the maintenance of prevailing institutions.”111

Lincoln and the Constitution

Against these secessionist forces, Mr. Lincoln saw the Constitution as inviolable.

Historian Don E. Fehrenbacher noted: “Lincoln believed that the power needed to meet the secession crisis had been provided by the Constitution and vested primarily in the president. He cited the commander-in-chief clause, the clause requiring him to ‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed,’ and his presidential oath – ‘registered in heaven,’ as he put it – to ‘preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”112 Historian Herman Belz wrote: “Considered as a matter of practical constitutional reason, a consensus existed that no right of secession existed. Much as theorists of state sovereignty might speculate otherwise, political men understood that secession, if actually undertaken, would require violation of national law and present itself as unlawful rebellion. The Union was…the sovereign government of the nation, constitutionally authorized to legislate for individuals, compel obedience, command loyalty, and punish the crime of treason.”113 Lincoln contended in a draft of his First Inaugural: ‘Plainly, the central idea of secession, is the essence of anarchy. A constitutional majority is the only true sovereign of a people. Whoever rejects it, does, of necessity, fly to anarchy or to despotism. Unanimity is impossible; the rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissable; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism is all that is left.”114

During this period, Northerners frequently were the victims of their own wishful thinking regarding secession. According to John Nicolay, “On the part of the North, also, there had been grave misapprehension of the actual state of Southern opinion. For ten years the Southern threats of disunion had been empty bluster. The half-disclosed conspiracy of 1856 did not seem to extend beyond a few notorious agitators. The more serious revolutionary signs of the last three months – the retirement of Southern members of Congress, the secession of States, the seizure of federal forts and the formation of the Montgomery provisional government – were not realized in their full force by the North, because of the general confusion of politics, the rush and hurry of events, the delusive hopes of compromise held out by Congressional committees and factions, and the high-sounding professions of the Washington peace conference.”115 This conference was ill-intentioned but toothless affair that convened in Washington in early February without delegates from much of the South and some northern states. Historian Stephen B. Oates noted that “Lincoln…refused to endorse the Washington Peace Convention. He didn’t even want Illinois to send delegates.”116

On February 9, 1861, Lincoln met for an hour in Springfield with an old friend. Quincy attorney Orville H. Browning reported in his diary: “We discussed the state of the Country expressing our opinions fully and freely. He agreed entirely with me in believing that no good results would follow the border State Convention now in session in Washington, but evil rather, as increased excitement would follow when it broke up without having accomplished any thing. He agreed it broke up without having accomplished any thing. He agreed with me no concession by the free States short of a surrender of every thing worth preserving, and contending for would satisfy the South, and that Crittendens proposed amendment to the Constitution in the form proposed ought not to be made, and he agreed with me that far less evil & bloodshed would result from an effort to maintain the Union and the Constitution, than from disruption and the formation of two confederacies.”117 Preserving the Union and the Constitution were Lincoln’s priorities. When Pennsylvania Governor-elect Andrew Curtin wrote Mr. Lincoln for advice on his inaugural, Mr. Lincoln wrote back: “I think you would do well to express, without passion, threat, or appearance of boasting, but nevertheless, with firmness, the purpose of yourself, and your state to maintain the union at all hazards. Also if you can, procure the Legislature to pass resolutions to that effect.”118

Mr. Lincoln maintained his disciplined public silence on how he would handle the crisis even as he traveled from Springfield to Washington in February. The necessity of not making news was wearing on President-elect Lincoln, who told Ward Hill Lamon “he had done much hard work in his life, but to make speeches day after day, with the object of speaking and saying nothing, was the hardest work he ever had done.”119 Lamon wrote that until March, “Mr. Lincoln had been slow to realize or acknowledge, even to himself, the awful gravity of the situation, and the danger that the gathering clouds portended. Certain it is that Mr. Seward wildly underrated the courage and determination of the Southern people, and both men indulged the hope that pacific means might yet be employed to arrest the tide of passion and render a resort to force unnecessary. Mr. Seward was inclined…to credit the Southern leaders with a lavish supply of noisy bravado, quite overlooking the dogged pertinacity and courage which Mr. Lincoln well knew would characterize those men, as well as the Southern masses, in case of armed conflict between the sections.”120

As president-elect, Lincoln had been unrealistic about the determination of secessionists in the South. David Potter wrote that “the President-elect had…showed and continued to show a complete misunderstanding of the Southern temper, and a complete misconception of the extent of the crisis. On this misconception, his later policy was constructed.” On his train trip across the North from Springfield to Washington in February 1861, Mr. Lincoln remained relentlessly upbeat about the Union while retaining his circumspect silence about specifics of his policies. Potter wrote that Lincoln’s comments suggest that he believed that southern Unionists would help prevent war and secession.” Potter wrote: “Translated into realistic terms…the circumstances required, first, that the South be reassured as to the good will, conciliatory purposes, and Constitutional scruples of the new admiration; second, that a symbolic assertion of Federal authority be maintained; third, that the operation of Federal jurisdiction must be tacitly waived until it could be resumed by Southern consent. These terms for peaceable reunion were precisely the terms which Lincoln attempted to meet in his inaugural address.”121

Mr. Lincoln’s rule book was the Constitution. He met with representatives of border states at the Washington Peace Convention at the end of February 1861. It was easy to do since the convention was being held in the Willard Hotel where the President-elect was staying. The convention itself was an exercise in futility, noted Massachusetts member George S. Boutwell, who wrote “that the Convention did not possess all the desirable characteristics of a deliberative assembly. It was in some degree disqualified for the performance of the important task assigned to it, by the circumstances of its constitution…Moreover, there were members who claimed that certain concessions must be granted that the progress of the secession movement might be arrested; and on the other hand there were men who either doubted or denied the wisdom of such concessions.”122 Historian Burton J. Hendrick wrote that the convention “offered no practical plan for reunited the severed Union; all it could do was to propose again the Crittenden compromise, with its extension of the Missouri line. But the convention may have served a valuable purpose in preventing the secession of Virginia and certain sister Border states until Lincoln had been solidly seated in power.”123

Mr. Lincoln was conciliatory without compromising. Union officer John Pope recalled in his memoirs: “There was at the time a “Peace Convention’ in session at Willard’s Hotel, consisting of old gentlemen sent from every state in the Union, to consult together and devise and submit to the country measures which should quiet the public feeling and restore fraternal relations. They had been wise men in their day, but that day had passed and their wisdom had become folly in such a crisis as then beset us. Whilst they were with immense gravity and importance effecting some proposed modification of the fugitive slave law, or agreeing upon some small concession to the supporters of state sovereignty, the whole country was in the throes of a revolution which swept away both slavery and state sovereignty. They were a worthy and most eminent body of gentlemen in every respect, except a comprehension of the situation with which they thought they were dealing.”124 Mr. Lincoln remained firm when he met with delegates. Vermont Republican Lucius Chittenden recalled Lincoln telling some delegates to the Peace Conference. “My course is as plain as a turnpike road. It is marked out by the Constitution. I am in no doubt which way to go. Suppose now we all stop discussing and try the experiment of obedience to the Constitution and the laws.”125

Few in Washington wanted to support a compromise measure that would fail – or support one that would fail to attract support from their own party colleagues. What moderates did want to show was that the failure to compromise was not their fault – but the fault of intransigent. Most politicians did not want to get too far away from the predominant views of their section or party. Historian Russell McClintock wrote that “when the Crittenden plan came up for discussion on December 22, the committee rejected the extension of the Missouri line that lay at its heart. The six Northern Democratic and Upper South senators on the committee were in favor, and even the two Deep South delegates reluctantly agreed to recommend it, but only if the Republicans went along. All four Republicans present – Seward was still in New York meeting with Weed – voted against it. As a result, the two cotton-state representatives added their nays, and just like that it was dead.”126

Despite all the rhetoric about state’s rights by secessionists, the fundamental issue was slavery. Lincoln’s analysis of slavery’s impact on secession was confirmed by the Cornerstone speech made by Vice President Stephens in Savannah in late March 1861: “Our new government is founded…upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first in the history of the world, based upon this great physical and moral truth.”127 Secessionists tried to clothe their rationale in the Declaration of Independence, but the reality of slavery undermined that claim.

While Stephens worried about slavery, Mr. Lincoln was worried about the Constitution. In his message to Congress on July 4, 1861, President Lincoln would write that there might seem “to be of little difference whether the present movement at the South be called ‘secession’ or ‘rebellion.’ The movers, however, well understand the difference. At the beginning, they knew they could never raise their treason to any respectable magnitude, by any name which implies violation of law. They knew their people possessed as much of moral sense, as much of devotion to law and order, and as much pride in, and reverence for, the history, and government, of their common country, as any other civilized, and patriotic people. They knew they could make no advancement directly in the teeth of these strong and noble sentiments. Accordingly they commenced by an insidious debauching of the public mind. They invented an ingenious sophism, which, if conceded, was followed by perfectly logical steps, through all the incidents, to the complete destruction of the Union. The sophism itself is, that any state of the Union may, consistently with the national Constitution, and therefore lawfully, and peacefully, withdraw from the Union, without the consent of the Union, or of any other state. The little disguise that the supposed right is to be exercised only for just cause, themselves to be the sole judge of its justice, is too thin to merit any notice.”

    With rebellion thus sugar-coated, they have been drugging the public mind of their section for more than thirty years, and, until at length, they have brought many good men to a willingness to take up arms against the government the day after some assemblage of men have enacted the farcical pretence of taking their State out of the Union, who could have been brought to no such thing the day before.128

Southern Unionism and Lincoln’s Inauguration

Along with William H. Seward, Lincoln placed great importance to appealing to Unionist sentiments in the Border States. During the latter days of the Buchanan Administration, Attorney General Edwin Stanton passed on confidential information to Senator Seward through a mutual friend, Peter H. Watson. Stanton also passed on information to Senator Charles Sumner. Seward also got information from General Scott. Historian David M. Potter wrote that “Seward, as usual, followed a course which perplexed his contemporaries and has baffled historians. The only thing clear about it is that he was primarily concerned with saving the Border states, and that, to this end, he maintained a wide communication with Southern Unionists. It also appears that he held consultations of some sort with Douglas and Crittenden.”129 Lincoln scholar Harry V. Jaffa wrote: “Critical to the uture, as seen from the perspective of March 4, 1861, was the fact that although seven of the fifteen slave states had seceded, eight had not. The border states were Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, Kentucky, and Missouri. Between the Deep South and the border states lay the middle tier: North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas.”130 Historian Michael Burlingame wrote: “Lincoln was not unrealistic in imagining that the Upper South and Border States might remain in the Union. After all, the Deep South had threatened to secede in 1832-1833, in 1850-1851, and yet again in 1856, as recently as 1859-1860, secessionists in South Carolina, Alabama, and Mississippi had failed to win support for disunion.”131

In retrospect, it is clear that Seward – and to a lesser extent Lincoln – placed too much faith in southern Unionists. Historian Sean Wilentz wrote that Lincoln “was utterly mistaken” in his faith in southern Unionists. “His election, the culmination of the long-building crisis of American democracy, instantly turned many Deep South moderates and even erstwhile Unionists into secessionists. No misrepresentation was necessary to show that he and his Republicans wanted to put slavery on the road to extinction, which was enough to make him a tyrant in Dixie.” 132 Historian Michael Burlingame wrote: “Lincoln may have overestimated the depth and extent of Southern Unionism, but he understood Northern opinion better than Seward did.” Burlingame observed: “Seward’s behavior is one of the great mysteries of the secession crisis. If he had informed House and Senate Republicans that Lincoln supported the New Mexico Compromise, they would not have lamented, as John Sherman did on February 9, that ‘we are powerless here because we don’t know what Lincoln wants. As he is to have the Executive power we can’t go further than he approves. He communicates nothing even to his friends here & so we drift along.’”133 Seward fed the newspapers information in line with his preferred policy.

On March 4, President-elect Lincoln was escorted to the U.S. Capitol, where he took the oath of office and delivered his first Inaugural Address. Historian David Brion Davis wrote: “In his inaugural address, Lincoln attempted to be both firm and conciliatory. He declared secession to be wrong; but he also promised that he would ‘not interfere with the institution of slavery where it exists.’” 134 Lincoln said: “I hold, that in contemplation of universal law, and of the Constitution, the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper, ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our national Constitution and the Union will endure forever – it being impossible to destroy it, except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.”

Lincoln said: “All profess to be content in the Union, if all constitutional rights can be maintained. Is it true, then, that any right, plainly written in the Constitution, has been denied? I think not. Happily the human mind is so constituted, that no party can reach to the audacity of doing this. Think, if you can, of a single instance in which a plainly written provision of the Constitution has ever been denied. If, by the mere force of numbers, a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right, it might, in a moral point of view, justify revolution–certainly would, if such right were a vital one. But such is not our case. All the vital rights of minorities, and of individuals, are so plainly assured to them, by affirmations and negations, guarranties and prohibitions, in the Constitution, that controversies never arise concerning them. But no organic law can ever be framed with a provision specifically applicable to every question which may occur in practical administration. No foresight can anticipate, nor any document of reasonable length contain express provisions for all possible questions. Shall fugitives from labor be surrendered by national or by State authority? The Constitution does not expressly say. May Congress prohibit slavery in the territories? The Constitution does not expressly say. Must Congress protect slavery in the territories? The Constitution does not expressly say.

Lincoln said: “Plainly, the central idea of secession, is the essence of anarchy. A majority, held in restraint by constitutional checks, and limitations, and always changing easily, with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it, does, of necessity, fly to anarchy or to despotism. Unanimity is impossible; the rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissable; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy, or despotism in some form, is all that is left.”

President Lincoln concluded his First Inaugural Address, which was wholly devoted to the secession crisis with an appeal to the South: “In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The government will not assail you. You can have no conflict, without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in Heaven to destroy the government, while I shall have the most solemn one to ‘preserve, protect, and defend’ it.”

    I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Through passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battle-field, and patriot grave, to every living heart and hearthstone, all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.135

Lincoln scholar William Lee Miller wrote: “Although his address was as conciliatory as his convictions allowed, and a reasoned effort at persuasion with his ‘dissatisfied countrymen,’ it was nevertheless implicitly clear that, should they persist, force would be used to prevent their seceding, and that the oath-bound president would be the one to use it.”136

Lincoln had consulted Seward on the text of his address, but incoming Secretary of State Seward clearly was not consulting with Lincoln on every he was doing. And Seward was not acting in concert with Lincoln. Historian John Taylor wrote: “A master of news management, Seward was almost certainly behind some of the pacifist sentiment that found its way into print in the first weeks after Lincoln’s inauguration. In Washington, the National Intelligencer ran an earnest editorial calling for the evacuation of Fort Sumter. In January, the South Carolina Legislature had declared that any reenforcement of the fort would be considered an act of war.” 137 Lincoln requested his cabinet members to furnish him with written advice on March 15. Historian John Eisenhower noted that the kind of conflicting advice Mr. Lincoln was receiving was reflected in a letter the influential and venerable Scott sent Seward shortly before the inauguration:

    “Hoping that, in a day or two, the new President will have, happily, passed through all personal dangers, & find himself installed an honored successor of the great Washington – with you as chief of his cabinet – I beg leave to repeat, in writing, what I have before said to you, orally, this supplement to my printed “views,” (dated October last) on the highly disordered condition of our (so late) happy & glorious union. To meet the extraordinary exigencies of the times, it seems to me that I am guilty of no arrogance in limiting the President’s field of selection to one of the four plans of procedure, subjoined: -
    I. Throw off the old, & assume a new designation – the Union party; – adopt the conciliatory measures proposed by Mr. Crittenden, or the Peace convention, & my life upon it, we shall have no new case of secession, but, on the contrary, an early return of many, if not all the states which have already broken off from the Union, without some equally benign measure, the remaining slave holding states will, probably, join the Montgomery confederacy in less than sixty days, when this city – being included in a foreign country – would require permanent Garrison of at least 35,000 troops to protect the Government within it.
    II. Collect the duties on foreign goods outside the ports of which this Government has lost the command, or close such ports by acts of congress, & blockade them.
    III. Conquer the seceded States by invading Armies. No doubt this might be done in two or three years by a young able General – a Wolfe, a Desaix or a Hoche, with 300,000 disciplined men – estimating a third for Garrisons, & the loss of a yet greater number by skirmishes, sieges, battles & southern fevers. The destruction of life and property, on the other side, would be frightful – however perfect the moral discipline of the invaders.
    The conquest completed at that enormous waste of human life, to the north and north west – with at least $250[,]000,000, added thereto, and cui bono? – Fifteen devastated provinces – not to be brought into harmony with their conquerors; but to be held, for generations, by heavy garrisons – at an expense quadruple the net duties or taxes which it would be possible to extract from them – followed by a Protector or an emperor.
    IV. Say to the seceded – States – wayward sisters, depart in peace!”138

Clearly, both Seward and Scott were out of tune with President Lincoln and most Republicans. Eisenhower wrote: “Seward passed the letter to an uninterested Lincoln and made sure that his colleagues, both in and out of government, were made aware of the general’s written support of his own views. The result was a temporary alliance of Seward and Scott against the inclinations of most Lincoln supporters – and, it later turned out, of Lincoln himself. Strong Union men such as Montgomery Blair…were dismayed to see Scott softening toward the secessionists…”139 Even Democrat Edwin M. Stanton, the outgoing attorney general, urged more forceful action that the Lincoln Administration contemplated. Stanton biographer Frank A. Flower wrote that “Stanton, who having advised Seward on March 5, the day following the inauguration, that ‘everything the Government possesses for the defense has been put in shape for instant use,’ was disgusted and angry because Lincoln made no attempt ‘for forty days,’ as he says in one of the foregoing letters, to take advantage of that preparation, during every moment of which delay secession was gaining in strength and the Confederacy increasing its store of war munitions and its enlistment of soldiers.”140

In truth, Lincoln was trying to figure out what actions he should take. Navy Secretary Gideon Welles later wrote: “”The President then, and until decisive steps were finally taken, was averse to offensive measures, and anxious to avoid them. In council, and in personal interviews with myself and others, he enjoined upon each and all to forbear giving any cause of offense; and as regarded party changes consequent upon a change of administration, while they would necessarily be made elsewhere, he wished no removal for political causes to be made in the Southern States, and especially not in Virginia. Although disturbed by the fact that the supplies of the garrison at Sumter were so limited, he was disinclined to hasty action, and wished time for the Administration to get in working order and its policy to be understood. He desired, I think, on the suggestion of Mr. Seward, that General Scott, should prepare a statement of the position of Sumter, and of the other batteries, and of preparations in Charleston and Charleston Harbor,- the strength of each, how far and long could the garrison maintain itself and repel an attack if made, what force would be necessary to overcome any rebel force or organized military of the State of South Carolina, should she bid defiance to and resist the Federal authorities.”141

The fate of Fort Sumter – according to its commander Robert Anderson – seemed increasingly hopeless. Historian Craig L. Symonds wrote: “Anderson’s gloomy report…suggested that Lincoln must now choose – and soon – between two equally undesirable options; he must either evacuate Anderson’s garrison from Fort Sumter and begin his administration with a craven act of surrender or commit a provocative act that not only was sure to alienate the border states but also was likely to fail.’” 142 Eisenhower wrote: “On March 13 the New York Herald’s Washington correspondent wrote: ‘I am able to state positively that the abandonment of Fort Sumter has been determined upon by the President and his Cabinet.’

    “Because Lincoln had not yet decided what to do about Sumter, Seward stalled the commissioners with excuses – official appointments and problems attendant to his new duties at the State Department. On March 15 Lincoln held the second of two cabinet meetings devoted largely to the Sumter question. Seward again opposed any attempt at relief. He cited General Scott’s and Major Anderson’s reports that any relief expedition would be costly in terms of casualties without assuring success.143

Lincoln did not take any hostile action toward the secessionists, but was prepared to take action if hostile action was taken against the Union. The flash point for the Civil War was not secession but the Confederate attack on Fort Sumter on April 12. Representatives of the Confederacy and nearby border states had come to Washington seeking negotiation. Confederate President Jefferson Davis sought to forestall an armed conflict by sending three commissioners to Washington – John Forsyth, Martin J. Crawford and A. B. Roman. Seward was approached by two justices of the Supreme Court, John A, Campbell and Samuel Nelson, who hoped to broker some compromise with the Confederate commissioners who had been denied an official contact with the Lincoln Administration. Frank van der Linden wrote that Martin “Crawford arrived first, and on the evening of Lincoln’s inaugural day, met with Senator Wigfall and three Virginia congressmen, Daniel DeJarnete, Roger Pryor, and Muscoe R.M. Garnett. ‘We all agreed that it was Lincoln’s purpose at once to attempt the collection of the revenue, to reinforce and hold Forts Sumter and Pickens, and to retake other places,’ they reported to the Montgomery government. ‘He is a man of will and firmness. His cabinet will yield to him with alacrity.’”144

Despite the unprecedented pressure he was under, President Lincoln remained prudential and principled. Historian James G. Randall wrote: “In all this prewar excitement and tension there were three things that Lincoln did not do. (1) He did not order what would now be called mobilization. For the Lincoln case the term is, of course, a misnomer; any plan for warlike operations in the South would have required a vast increase of existing forces. The militia of the United States was a shadowy thing, trained reserves did not exist, and the regular army numbered no more than sixteen thousand at a time when the holding of the Federal position at Charleston alone in case of southern attack was supposed by some to require twenty thousand. (2) Lincoln did not issue or inspire any public statements designed to inflame passion or intensify Northern hostility against the South. (3) Lincoln did not attempt to retake any of the already occupied forts in the lower South.”145

Instead of taking aggressive action, Lincoln waited for the secessionists to strike. But he could not ignore the precarious situation of Fort Sumter. In early April, President Lincoln told Virginian John Minor Botts: “We have seventy odd men in Fort Sumter, who are short of provisions. I can not and will not let them suffer for food: they have so much beef, so much pork, potatoes, etc., but their bread will not last longer than next Wednesday, and I have sent a special messenger to Governor Pickens to say that I have dispatched a steamer loaded with ‘bread’ – that was his expression, though I suppose he meant provisions generally – ‘and that if he fired upon that vessel he would fire upon an unarmed vessel, with bread only for the troops; and that if he would supply them, or let Major Anderson procure his marketing in Charleston, I would stop the vessel; but that I had also sent a fleet along with this steamer to protect her if she was fired into. What do I want with war? I am no war man; I want peace more than any man in this country, and I will make great sacrifices to preserve it than any other man in the nation.”146

Historian Kenneth M. Stampp wrote “From the time the President-elect left Springfield in February until the firing upon Fort Sumter, the central theme of his public utterances was the further development and clarification of the strategy of defense. Holding inflexibly to the view that his fundamental purpose must be the preservation of the Union, he chose his words carefully and shrewdly to absolve himself from any charge of aggression.”147 He was also inflexible on the issue of extending slavery to territories. Lincoln Scholar Harold Holzer notes that Lincoln repeatedly had used similar language in his pre-inaugural letters. “On the territorial question, I am inflexible,” he wrote North Carolinian John A. Gilmer. “On that, there is a difference between you and us; and it is the only substantial difference. You think slavery is right and ought to be extended; we think it is wrong and ought to be restricted. For this, neither has any just occasion to be angry with the other.”148

Attack on Fort Sumter

Lincoln’s strategy of defense led to the Confederate attack on Fort Sumter – thus rallying Union support in the North. Historian David M. Potter wrote: “The primary significance of the southern attack on Fort Sumter is not that it started the Civil War, but rather that it started the war in such a manner as to give the cause of Union an eruptive force which it might otherwise have been slow to acquire.”149 It was a nerve-wracking time. President Lincoln said to fellow Illinoisan Orville Browning “that all the troubles and anxieties of his life had not equalled those which intervened between this time and the fall of Sumter.”150

Lincoln had to play both a public game and a private one – and historians have chosen to put their own interpretations on his motivations. His determination not to compromise could appear to be belligerent. Historian Nelson D. Lankford contended: “The Divided opinions of his advisers and his distaste for retreat reinforced Lincoln’s temperamental reluctance to act.” Lankford wrote: “On March 28, Lincoln ended his hesitation and decided the conciliatory strategy had failed. Pressure from leaders of his own party – reflected in the drumbeat of assertive editorials in Republican newspapers warning against retreat – had its effect. But the decision was his alone, and he had to bear the responsibility for choosing risk and confrontation as much as his opponent in Montgomery.”151 Kenneth Stampp maintained that Lincoln continued to try to demonstrate his peaceful intentions even after Fort Sumter – arguing in the President’s July 4 message to Congress that he was motivated by humanitarian concern for the soldiers stationed at Fort Sumter. But in reality, argued Stampp, “Step by step he was quietly moving to assert and vindicate federal authority in the South. Before each advance the secessionists would have had to retreat, until they found themselves discredited before their own people and, for all practical purposes, back in the Union. Their only alternative was resistance, but always the burden of aggression would be upon them.”152 President Lincoln sent a messenger to South Carolina Governor Pickens: “I am directed by the President of the United States to notify you to expect an attempt will be made to supply Fort Sumter with provisions only, and that if such attempt be not resisted, no effort to throw in provisions, arms or ammunition will be made without further notice, or in case of an attack upon the fort.”153

This warning prompted the Confederates to act before the fort could be reenforced. Kenneth Stampp wrote that Lincoln anticipated this result. Military historian Colin R. Ballard wrote: “How far this opening manoeuvre was engineered by Lincoln can only be a matter of doubt, but there can be no doubt that it was just what the Strategist needed. The intrinsic value of the fort was a minus quantity; it would have taken the whole of his army to garrison it. But the dramatic end of it was a real asset. The Confederates had put themselves out of court by appealing to force. This solved all legal questions of Constitutional Law at one stroke. The only remaining question was whether the Federal Government should or should not suppress an armed rebellion. There could, of course, be no hesitation on the part of the North in answering. And so the Strategist could get down to the purely military situation.”154

Fate played a role in setting up the Confederate attack on Fort Sumter. Historian Don E. Fehrenbacher wrote: “Consider, as one small example, the ambiguity of motive and the irony of consequence in Major Robert Anderson’s decision to move his troops from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter on December 26, 1860. Anderson, a professional soldier and a Southerner, wanted to avoid surrendering his command, but he also wanted to avoid armed conflict. His removal to the more defensible Sumter, unauthorized by his superiors, was a pacificatory effort at disengagement. But Moultrie in December had nothing like the enormous symbolic meaning attached to Sumter by the following April, when the guns of a proud new republic opened fire on the fort. Thus, by postponing the day of reckoning in Charleston harbor, Anderson greatly increased its impact. He alone determined the place and nature of the confrontation that erupted into civil. War.”155

Lincoln scholar Gabor Boritt wrote: “Historians have offered three sets of views concerning Lincoln’s role in the start of war at Sumter. One argued that Lincoln deliberately provoked the first shot to unite the North behind him. Reaffirming with poor scholarship contemporary Southern partisan charges (later dignified by Jefferson Davis and Alexander Stephens), this view has few adherents among historians. It can readily be dismissed.”

    “Another approach, most clearly delineated by a penetrating David Potter, pictured a somewhat bungling Lincoln desiring peace and believing to the last that he might be able to avoid war. A third view sees the president more firmly in charge, expecting the peaceful provisioning of the Sumter garrison ‘possible,’ but the starting of hostilities ‘probable.’ Two excellent scholars, Kenneth Stampp and Richard Current, are the leading proponents of this position.”

    “Professors Current and Stampp focused on too narrow a span of time, and thus did not take fully into account Lincoln’s genuine, deep devotion to peace and how badly and for how long he misunderstood the reality of the Southern movement toward war. Conversely, Professor Potter failed to appreciate fully that sometime during the secession crisis Lincoln recognized that the war may indeed come. ‘It is not with any pleasure that I contemplate the possibility that a necessity may arise in this country for the use of the military arm.’ He said to applause in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, as early as Washington’s birthday, 1861. But he did ‘contemplate’ the possible ‘necessity.’ He also added, however, to louder applause, his ‘most’ sincere hope that it will never be the people’s ‘duty to shed blood, and most especially never to shed fraternal blood.’”

    “When Lincoln accepted war, he still practiced avoidance, like multitudes of the people he led and opposed. He remained part of the larger American culture. In the spring of 1865 he would remember that ‘Neither party expected for the war, the magnitude or the duration, which it has already attained.’”156

In early April President Lincoln sent several envoys to Charleston to evaluate the situation. One was his friend Ward Hill lamon, whom he had appointed U.S. Marshal for the District of Columbia. Lincoln brushed aside objections from Secretary of State Seward, saying: “I’ve known Lamon to be in many a close place, and he’s never been in one he couldn’t get out of.” Unfortunately, the South Carolina native was not the best or most effective envoy. Historian Russell McClintock wrote that Lamon came back to Washington with ha “preposterous….piece of intelligence – that Governor Pickens wanted South Carolina to reenter the Union….Scott and Lamon had…a long conversation about the necessity of evacuating not only Fort Sumter but also Fort Pickens. Understanding from Lamon that Lincoln would approve such an idea, Scott drew up a memorandum recommending the evacuation of both forts, which he presented to Lincoln that evening before dinner.”157

Lincoln also directed State Department clerk Robert S. Chew: “Sir – you will proceed directly to Charleston, South Carolina; and if, on your arrival there, the flag of the United States shall be flying over Fort Sumpter, and the Fort shall not have been attacked, you will procure an interview with Gov. Pickens, and read to him as follows: I am directed by the President of the United States to notify you to expect an attempt will be made to supply Fort-Sumpter with provisions only; and that, if such attempt be no resisted, no effort to throw in men, arms or ammunition, will be made, without further notice, or in case of an attack upon the Fort.”158 Historian Nelson D. Lankford wrote that “Charleston’s most notable unionist, James Louis Petigru, said: “South Carolina is too small for a republic and too big for a lunatic asylum.”159

Historian Richard Striner wrote of the Lincoln strategy to send a relief expedition to Fort Sumter: “The sheer cunning of the move has elicited praise and condemnation down the years. For Lincoln’s message to the South could be read in very different ways. In the North it sounded mild and innocuous. In the South it was an act of defiance. Lincoln knew from his agent what the South Carolinians would think when he told them of his plans. And he knew what they would do in return. But it was Northern opinion that he wanted to bring into line with his Sumter policy.” 160 Union reenforcements for Fort Sumter were being turned back from Charleston. Historian Michael Burlingame wrote: “On April 10, Jefferson Davis and his cabinet had instructed the general in charge of Charleston, P.G. T. Beauregard, to insist upon the immediate surrender of Sumter; if Anderson declined.161 Historian Richard N. Current noted: “The fact is that Jefferson Davis and the Confederates had already made their decision to capture the fort, and they would very soon have attacked it even if Lincoln had never thought of sending an expedition there….But it is quite a different thing to suggest that Lincoln considered the possibility, indeed the probability, of a conflict of arms resulting from his provisioning attempt. And it is not too much to say – for he said it himself – that he was determined to manage the project in such a way as to put the blame for war, if war should ensue, clearly and unmistakably upon the other side.” Current wrote that “it appears that Lincoln, when he decided to send the Sumter expedition, considered hostilities to be probable. It also appears, however, that he believed an unopposed and peaceable provisioning to be at least barely possible.”162 The actual expedition was a tragedy of errors; what navy ships did arrive off the port of Charleston came too late to attempt a resupply.

Lincoln placed the Confederacy in a lose-lose situation even through the immediate event would be a Confederate victory. Historian James M. McPherson wrote: “In effect, Lincoln flipped a coin and told Davis: ‘Heads I win, tails you lose.’ If Southern guns fired first, the Confederates would stand convicted of starting a war. If they let the supplies go in, the American flag would continue to fly over Fort Sumter. The Confederacy would lose face; Unionists would take courage.”163 Scholar Lois Einhorn was more critical of Lincoln’s actions. She wrote that “in his ‘Inaugural Address’ and afterward, he expressed an optimistic attitude that today seems naive and unrealistic. For example, in a “special Message to Congress’ four months after his inauguration, he explained the policy he had chosen to espouse in his ‘Inaugural Address’: ‘The policy chosen looked to the exhaustion of all peaceful measures….It was believed possible to keep the government on foot.’ Perhaps Lincoln did not want to say publicly, ‘We’re going to have a war,’ because he knew he was speaking to posterity, because people naturally want their public leaders to be optimistic, and/or because he wanted the South to fire the first shot.”164 There is no smoking gun in Lincoln’s papers, however, to suggest that he sought conflict. What he understood was that if the South sought conflict, it would have be engaged.

A great deal of wishful thinking was admittedly at work, especially in the North – wishful thinking that the attack on Fort Sumter dispelled. Historian Nelson D. Lankford wrote: “Many northerners believed that southerners who did not own slaves would never rally to the Confederate cause. Many southerners believed the downtrodden laborers and immigrants in the North would never fight for the Republican cause. To their shock, both expectations were confounded. To Upper South unionists, Lincoln’s decision to confront the Confederates over Fort Sumter was insanely reckless.”165

The Constitution, Lincoln believed, required him to act and to place his faith in Americans who believed in the Union. In the spring of 1861, President Lincoln told some administration officials: “We must not forget that the people of the seceded states, like those of the loyal ones, are American citizens, with essentially the same characteristics and powers. Exceptional advantages on one side are counterbalanced by exceptional advantages on the other. We must make up our minds that man for man the soldier from the South will be a match for the soldier of the North and vice versa.”166

Despite the deficiencies of Lincoln’s attempt to resupply Fort Sumter, historian Craig L. Symonds wrote that “some of the elements of Lincoln’s future greatness were evident in his first exercise of presidential authority over the U.S. Navy. First, he had sought expert advice wherever he could find it, not only from the aged and authoritative Scott and Totten but also from the more unlikely sources such as [Gustavus] Fox, [Montgomery] Meigs, and [David Dixon] Porter. Second, he allowed, even demanded, free discussion among the advocates of different policy options, asking his advisers to put their ideas in writing to clarify their thoughts. Third, he was willing to consider unconventional solutions and independent thinking. And finally, when a decision had to be made, he made it himself, saw it through, and accepted both the responsibility and the consequences.”167

President Lincoln acted carefully and deliberately to avoid a confrontation if possible and win it if necessary. Historian James G. Randall wrote: “In this light Lincoln’s executive acts in April 1861 had at least five important aspects: (1) they inaugurated for the nation a state of war where there had been peace; (2) they set up a legal front in terms of theory and status; (3) they equally set the pattern for the President’s own theory of executive measures with regard to Congress: (4) they launched a military policy (reliance upon ‘militia’ and upon action by the states rather than upon national army expansion); (5) finally, these measures fixed the mold into which the government’s policy was to be cast in its relations with foreign nations.”168

After Fort Sumter’s fall, the President acted quickly to assemble a broad-based coalition in the North behind the Union war effort. Ward Hill Lamon recalled: “Mr. Lincoln had shown great wisdom in appreciating the importance of holding such Democrats as Mr. [Stephen A.] Douglas close to the Administration, on the issue of a united country or a dissolution of the Union. He said: ‘They are just where we Whigs were in 1848, about the Mexican war. We had to take the Locofoco preamble when Taylor wanted help, or else vote against helping Taylor; and the Democrats must vote to hold the Union now, without bothering whether we or the Southern men got things where they are; and we must make it easy for them to do this, for we cannot live through the case without them.’ He further said: ‘Some of our friends are opposed to an accommodation because the South began the trouble and is entirely responsible for the consequences, be they what they may. This reminds me of a story told out in Illinois where I lived. There was a vicious bull in a pasture, and a neighbor passing through the field, the animal took after him. The man ran to a tree, and got there in time to save himself; and being able to run round the tree faster than the bull, he managed to seize him by the tail. His bullship seeing himself at a disadvantage, pawed the earth and scattered gravel for awhile, then broke into a full run, bellowing at every jump, while the man, holding on to the tail, asked the question, ‘Darn you, who commenced this fuss?’ Now, our plain duty is to settle the fuss we have before us, without reference to who commenced it.’”169 Illinois Senator Douglas, Lincoln’s longtime political rival, rallied to his support. Speaking at Chicago on May 1, Douglas put the struggle in context:

    “The present secession movement is the result of an enormous conspiracy which was matured a year ago. The conspiracy was formed by the leaders of the secession movement twelve months ago, and they have used every means to urge it on. They have caused a man to be elected by a sectional vote, to demonstrate that the Union was divided; and when the history of the country from the time of the Lecompton constitution to the date of Lincoln’s election is written, it will appear that a scheme was maturing in the meantime which was for no end except to break up the Union. They desired toe break it up, and they used the slavery question as a means This scheme was defeated by the overthrow of the disunion candidates in Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia. Still, the grand conspiracy existed, and the disunion movement was the result of it.”170

The Union could not and would not be dissolved under Lincoln’s constitutional vision. Historian Craig L. Symonds wrote: “The Confederacy, he insisted, was a legal fiction – rebellious part of the United States, not a separate nation.”171 Historian Richard Striner wrote: “Lincoln resolutely stood up to these threats of secession and proposed to let the chips fall where they might. He would not back down one inch from his program of slavery containment.”172 Historian Herman Belz wrote: “Lincoln’s construction of the nature of the Union was achieved through the instrument of prudent and forceful exercise of the executive power in time of war.”173 In the pursuit of an inflexible Union, Lincoln was flexible in his tactics. Lincoln scholar William Lee Miller wrote: “Keeping these turbulent places on the Union side required making most careful judgments about when to use and when to avoid military force. Sometimes the presence of Union troops and overt military action would solidify a dominant Union opinion (as in Maryland); in other cases such action might push a touchy, fragile public over into the arms of the secessionists (as it probably would have done in Kentucky).”174

Still, Lincoln had moments of desperation. Historian Michael Burlingame wrote: “On April 25, he asked a Connecticut visitor, who thought he looked badly depressed: ‘What is the North about? Do they know our condition?’”175 Lincoln understood the shallowness of the North’s emotional response. Lincoln told the story about the soldier preparing to go to war. His sisters wanted to embroider a shirt with the words “Victory or Death.” “No, no,” he protested, “don’t put it quite that strong. Put it ‘Victory or get hurt pretty bad.’”176

Lincoln understood that what was important was not just what he did, but why he did it and when he did it. Under attack, Lincoln acted vigorously to preserve the Union and ultimately to destroy slavery. Historian Herman Belz wrote: “Inspired by a variety of motives, Americans in the deepest sense went to war in 1861 to resolve constitutional controversy over the nature of the Union and the status of slavery in republican society. In both a practical and a moral sense, Lincoln’s construction of the executive power in the secession crisis succeeded in placing these reciprocally related issues in the course of ultimate resolution.”177 Just as slavery would be placed in the course of ultimate extinction. In his special message to Congress on July 4, 1861, Lincoln laid out the Union case and why compromise had not been possible:

    “The Constitution provides, and all the States have accepted the provision, that ‘The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government.’ But, if a State may lawfully go out of the Union, having done so, it may also discard the republican form of government; so that to prevent its going out, is an indispensable means, to the end, of maintaining the guaranty mentioned; and when an end is lawful and obligatory, the indispensable means to it, are also lawful, and obligatory.”

    It was with the deepest regret that the Executive found the duty of employing the war-power, in defense of the government, forced upon him. He could but perform this duty, or surrender the existence of the government. No compromise, by public servants, could, in this case, be a cure; not that compromises are not often proper, but that no popular government can long survive a marked precedent, that those who carry an election, can only save the government from immediate destruction, by giving up the main point, upon which the people gave the election. The people themselves, and not their servants, can safely reverse their own deliberate decisions. As a private citizen, the Executive could not have consented that these institutions shall perish; much less could he, in betrayal of so vast, and so sacred a trust, as these free people had confided to him. He felt that he had no moral right to shrink; nor even to count the chances of his own life, in what might follow. In full view of his great responsibility, he has, so far, done what he has deemed his duty. You will now, according to your own judgment, perform yours. He sincerely hopes that your views, and your action, may so accord with his, as to assure all faithful citizens, who have been disturbed in their rights, of a certain, and speedy restoration to them, under the Constitution, and the laws.178

Confederate Colonel
The New Life of The Old South

Quotes About The South

“There was a land of Cavaliers and Cotton Fields called the Old South. Here in this pretty world, Gallantry took its last bow. Here was the last ever to be seen of Knights and their Ladies Fair, of Master and of Slave. Look for it only in books, for it is no more than a dream remembered, a Civilization gone with the wind.”
Prologue – Gone With The Wind

“There are things in the old Book which I may not be able to explain, but I fully accept it as the infallible word of God, and receive its teachings as inspired by the Holy Spirit.”
Robert E. Lee

“Let us go home and cultivate our virtues.”
Robert E. Lee, addressing his soldiers at Appomattox

“[T]he contest is really for empire on the side of the North, and for independence on that of the South, and in this respect we recognize an exact analogy between the North and the Government of George III, and the South and the Thirteen Revolted Provinces. These opinions…are the general opinions of the English nation.”
London Times, November 7, 1861

“Our country demands all our strength, all our energies. To resist the powerful combination now forming against us will require every man at his place. If victorious, we will have everything to hope for in the future. If defeated, nothing will be left for us to live for.”
Robert E. Lee

“The principle for which we contend is bound to reassert it’s self, though it may be at another time and in another form.”
President Jefferson Davis, C.S.A.

“Nothing fills me with deeper sadness than to see a Southern man apologizing for the defense we made of our inheritance. Our cause was so just, so sacred, that had I known all that has come to pass, had I known what was to be inflicted upon me, all that my country was to suffer, all that our posterity was to endure, I would do it all over again.”
President Jefferson Davis, C.S.A.

“…the contest is not over, the strife is not ended. It has only entered upon a new and enlarged arena.”
President Jefferson Davis, C.S.A., address to the Mississippi legislature in 1881.

“We feel that our cause is just and holy; we protest solemnly in the face of mankind that we desire peace at any sacrifice save that of honour and independence; we ask no conquest, no aggrandizement, no concession of any kind from the States with which we were lately confederated; all we ask is to be let alone; that those who never held power over us shall not now attempt our subjugation by arms.”
President Jefferson Davis, C.S.A. – 29 April 1861

“It appears we have appointed our worst generals to command forces, and our most gifted and brilliant to edit newspapers! In fact, I discovered by reading newspapers that these editor/geniuses plainly saw all my strategic defects from the start, yet failed to inform me until it was too late. Accordingly, I’m readily willing to yield my command to these obviously superior intellects, and I’ll, in turn, do my best for the Cause by writing editorials – after the fact.”
Robert E. Lee, 1863

“Duty is the sublimest word in our language. Do your duty in all things. You cannot do more. You should never wish to do less.”
Robert E. Lee

“All that the South has ever desired was that the Union as established by our forefathers should be preserved and that the government as originally organized should be administered in purity and truth.”
Robert E. Lee

“We could have pursued no other course without dishonour; and as sad as the results have been, if it had all to be done over again, we should be compelled to act in precisely the same manner.”
Robert E. Lee

“I am nothing but a poor sinner, trusting in Christ alone for salvation.”
Robert E. Lee

Definition of a Gentleman – “The forbearing use of power does not only form a touchstone, but the manner in which an individual enjoys certain advantages over others is a test of a true gentleman. The power which the strong have over the weak, the employer over the employed, the educated over the unlettered, the experienced over the confiding, even the clever over the silly — the forbearing or inoffensive use of all this power or authority, or a total abstinence from it when the case admits it, will show the gentleman in a plain light. The gentleman does not needlessly and unnecessarily remind an offender of a wrong he may have committed against him. He cannot only forgive, he can forget; and he strives for that nobleness of self and mildness of character which impart sufficient strength to let the past be but the past. A true man of honor feels humbled himself when he cannot help humbling others.”
Robert E. Lee

“Every man should endeavor to understand the meaning of subjugation before it is too late… It means the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern schoolteachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the war; will be impressed by the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit objects for derision… It is said slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all. Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all our enemies are fighting for. It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties.”
Maj. General Patrick R. Cleburne, CSA, January 1864

“Sirs, you have no reason to be ashamed of your Confederate dead; see to it they have no reason to be ashamed of you.”
Robert Lewis Dabney, Chaplain for Stonewall Jackson

“If you bring these [Confederate] leaders to trial it will condemn the North, for by the Constitution secession is not rebellion. Lincoln wanted Davis to escape, and he was right. His capture was a mistake. His trial will be a greater one.”
Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, July 1867 (Foote, The Civil War, Vol. 3, p. 765)

“Governor, if I had foreseen the use those people designed to make of their victory, there would have been no surrender at Appomattox Courthouse; no sir, not by me. Had I foreseen these results of subjugation, I would have preferred to die at Appomattox with my brave men, my sword in this right hand.”
General Robert E. Lee, August 1870 to Governor Stockdale of Texas

“The Union government liberates the enemy’s slaves as it would the enemy’s cattle, simply to weaken them in the conflict. The principle is not that a human being cannot justly own another, but that he cannot own him unless he is loyal to the United States.”
London Spectator in reference to the Emancipation Proclamation

“The Northern onslaught upon slavery was no more than a piece of specious humbug designed to conceal its desire for economic control of the Southern states.”
Charles Dickens, 1862

“It is stated in books and papers that Southern children read and study that all the blood shedding and destruction of property of that conflict was because the South rebelled without cause against the best government the world ever saw; that although Southern soldiers were heroes in the field, skillfully massed and led, they and their leaders were rebels and traitors who fought to overthrow the Union, and to preserve human slavery, and that their defeat was necessary for free government and the welfare of the human family. As a Confederate soldier and as a citizen of Virginia, I deny the charge, and denounce it as a calumny. We were not rebels; we did not fight to perpetuate human slavery, but for our rights and privileges under a government established over us by our fathers and in defense of our homes.”
Colonel Richard Henry Lee, C.S.A.

“Let danger never turn you aside from the pursuit of honor or the service to your country … Know that death is inevitable and the fame of virtue is immortal”
Robert E. Lee

“The Slave must be made fit for his freedom by education and discipline, and thus made unfit for slavery. And as soon as he becomes unfit for slavery, the master will no longer desire to hold him as a slave.”
President Jefferson Davis, C.S.A.

“You have no right to ask, or expect that she will at once profess unbounded love to that Union from which for four years she tried to escape at the cost of her best blood and all her treasure. Nor can you believe her to be so unutterably hypocritical, so base, as to declare that the flag of the Union has already surpassed in her heart the place which has so long been sacred to the ‘Southern Cross.’ ”
General Wade Hampton

“I loved the old government in 1861. I loved the old Constitution yet. I think it is the best government in the world, if administered as it was before the war. I do not hate it; I am opposing now only the radical revolutionists who are trying to destroy it. I believe that party to be composed, as I know it is in Tennessee, of the worst men on Gods earth – men who would not hesitate at no crime, and who have only one object in view – to enrich themselves.”
Nathan Bedford Forrest, in an interview shortly after the war

“Captain, my religious belief teaches me to feel as safe in battle as in bed. God has fixed the time for my death. I do not concern myself about that, but to be always ready, no matter when it may overtake me. That is the way all men should live, and then all would be equally brave.”
Thomas Jonathan “Stonewall” Jackson

“Our poor country has fallen a prey to the conqueror. The noblest cause ever defended by the sword is lost. The noble dead that sleep in their shallow though honored graves are far more fortunate than their survivors. I thought I had sounded the profoundest depth of human feeling, but this is the bitterest hour of my life.”
Colonel John Singleton Mosby

“As for the South, it is enough to say that perhaps eighty per cent. of her armies were neither slave-holders, nor had the remotest interest in the institution. No other proof, however, is needed than the undeniable fact that at any period of the war from its beginning to near its close the South could have saved slavery by simply laying down its arms and returning to the Union.”
Major General John B. Gordon, from his book, Causes of the Civil War.

“The flags of the Confederate States of America were very important and a matter of great pride to those citizens living in the Confederacy. They are also a matter of great pride for their descendants as part of their heritage and history.”
Winston Churchill

“I was raised by one of the greatest men in the world. There was never one born of a woman greater than Gen. Robert E. Lee, according to my judgment. All of his servants were set free ten years before the war, but all remained on the plantation until after the surrender.”
William Mack Lee (Robert E. Lee’s black servant)

“Any society which suppresses the heritage of its conquered minorities, prevents their history or denies them their symbols, has sown the seeds of their own destruction.”
Sir William Wallace, 1281

“His noble presence and gentle, kindly manner were sustained by religious faith and an exalted character.”
Winston Churchill on the character of Robert E. Lee

“He possessed every virtue of other great commanders without their vices. He was a foe without hate; a friend without treachery; a victor without oppression, and a victim without murmuring. He was a public officer without vices; a private citizen without reproach; a Christian without hypocrisy and a man without guile. He was a Caesar without his ambition; Frederick without his tyranny; Napoleon without his selfishness, and Washington without his reward. He was obedient to authority as a servant, and loyal in authority as a true king. He was gentle as a woman in life; modest and pure as a virgin in thought; watchful as a Roman vital in duty; submissive to law as Socrates, and grand in battle as Achilles!”
War-era Georgia Senator Ben Hill’s tribute to Robert E. Lee

“They (the South) know that it is their import trade that draws from the peoples pockets sixty or seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interest. These are the reasons why these people do not wish the South to secede from the union”.
New Orleans Daily Crescent-1861

“The Southern Confederacy will not employ our ships or buy our goods. What is our shipping without it? Literally nothing… it is very clear that the South gains by this process and we lose. No…we must not let the South go”.
Union Democrat Manchester, New Hampshire. 19 February, 1861

“The cause of the South was the cause of constitutional government, the cause of government regulated by law, and the cause of honesty and fidelity in public servants. No nobler cause did man ever fight for!”
Rep. Benjamin Franklin Grady-Duplin Co. NC 1899

“Instead of friends, I see in Washington only mortal enemies. Instead of loving the old flag of the stars and stripes, I see in it only the symbol of murder, plunder, oppression, and shame.”
Rose O’Neal Greenhow, Confederate Spy

“To me, the campaign by certain groups to remove all the symbols and memorials to our Southern past amounts to the same thing…a desecration of graves. Every flag or monument that is removed, every plaque taken down, every school or street or bridge that is renamed, is no different from a broken tombstone. It is wanton and hateful violence directed at the dead who can no longer defend themselves.”
John Field Pankow

“The real issue involved in the relations between the North and the South of the American States, is the great principle of self-government. Shall a dominant party of the North rule the South, or shall the people of the South rule themselves. This is the great matter in controversy.”
Robert Barnwell Rhett (Montgomery, Alabama, 1860)

“To tar the sacrifices of the Confederate soldier as simple acts of racism, and reduce the battle flag under which he fought to nothing more than the symbol of a racist heritage, is one of the great blasphemies of our modern age”.
James Webb-Secretary of Navy And Assistant Secretary of Defense under U.S. President Ronald Regan and current U.S. Senator (D.VA.) (Born Fighting: How the Scots-Irish Shaped America, New York: Broadway Books, 2004, p. 225)

“…We must forevermore do honor to our heroic dead. We must forevermore cherish the sacred memories of those four terrible but glorious years of unequal strife. We must forevermore consecrate in our hearts our old battle flag of the Southern Cross – not now as a political symbol, but as the consecrated emblem of an heroic epoch. The people that forgets its heroic dead is already dying at the heart, and we believe we shall be truer and better citizens of the United States if we are true to our past.”
Confederate Veteran Rev. Randolph Harrison McKim

“Had the cotton gin of Massachusetts inventor Eli Whitney not come on the scene in the late 1700’s, African slavery in this country was most likely doomed. The antislavery and emancipation feeling in the South was ascendant, but thwarted by profitable slave-trading and hungry cotton mills in New England which gave rise to more plantations in the South, and the perpetuation of slavery. And after years of treating the American South as an agricultural colony, New England set out in 1861 to strip it of political power.”
Bernhard Thuersam- Director Cape Fear Historical Institute NC.

“I love the Union and the Constitution, but I would rather leave the Union with the Constitution than remain in the Union without it.”
Confederate President Jefferson Davis

“I tried all in my power to avert this war. I saw it coming, for twelve years I worked night and day to prevent it, but I could not. The North was mad and blind; it would not let us govern ourselves, and so the war came, and now it must go on unless you acknowledge our right to self government. We are not fighting for slavery. We are fighting for Independence.”
President Jefferson Davis, CSA

“When the South raised its sword against the Union’s Flag, it was in defense of the Union’s Constitution.”
Confederate General John B. Gordon

“Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world”.
Abraham Lincoln – U.S. Congress, 1847

A little over 10 years later after the South attempted precisely that, Lincoln, when asked, “Why not let the South go in peace”? replied; “I can’t let them go. Who would pay for the government”? “And, what then will become of my tariff”?
Abraham Lincoln to Virginia Compromise Delegation March 1861

“The universal practice of carrying arms in the South is undoubtedly the cause of occasional loss of life, and is much to be regretted. On the other hand, this custom renders altercations and quarrels of very rare occurrence, for people are naturally careful what they say when a bullet may be the probable result.”
LtC Sir Arthur James Lyon Fremantle, HM Coldstream Guards, 24 May 1863

“Breathe there the man with soul so dead
Who never to himself has said,
This is my own, my native land!”
Sir Walter Scott

“The consolidation of the states into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of that ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded it.”
Robert E. Lee

“Everyone should do all in his power to collect and disseminate the truth, in the hope that it may find a place in history and descend to posterity. History is not the relation of campaigns and battles and generals or other individuals, but that which shows the principles for which the South contended and which justified her struggle for those principles.”
Robert E. Lee

“It was necessary to put the South at a moral disadvantage by transforming the contest from a war waged against states fighting for their indepdence into a war waged against states fighting for the maintenance and extension of slavery…and the world, it might be hoped, would see it as a moral war, not a political; and the sympathy of nations would begin to run for the North, not for the South.”
Woodrow Wilson, “A History of The American People”, page 231

“If they (the North) prevail, the whole character of the Government will be changed, and instead of a federal republic, the common agent of sovereign and independent States, we shall have a central despotism, with the notion of States forever abolished, deriving its powers from the will, and shaping its policy according to the wishes, of a numerical majority of the people; we shall have, in other words, a supreme, irresponsible democracy. The Government does not now recognize itself as an ordinance of God, and when all the checks and balances of the Constitution are gone, we may easily figure to ourselves the career and the destiny of this godless monster of democratic absolutism. The progress of regulated liberty on this continent will be arrested, anarchy will soon succeed, and the end will be a military despotism, which preserves order by the sacrifice of the last vestige of liberty.

They are now fighting the battle of despotism. They have put their Constitution under their feet; they have annulled its most sacred provisions; The future fortunes of our children, and of this continent, would then be determined by a tyranny which has no parallel in history.”
Dr. James Henly Thornwell of South Carolina, in Our Danger and our Duty, 1862

“Why doesn’t the Confederacy just fade away? Is it because we are irresistibly fascinated by catastrophic loss? Or is it something else? Is it because the Confederacy is to this day the greatest conservative resistance to federal authority in American history?”
Professor David Blight

Confederate Pride Back to Articles Index

The Case for Southern Secession (Again?)
by John P. George

Why should Southerners believe that secession should be any more feasible now than in 1861? After all, didn’t the failed War for Southern Independence end the question of secession forever? In addition, what possible benefits could there be from forming a new Southern confederacy? These are probably the most frequently asked questions of League of the South members.

Secession today appears to be a serious but popularly accepted option everywhere except here in the United States. Fifteen years ago, someone suggesting that Russia would voluntarily allow the three Baltic states their independence after their re-annexation, at the point of a bayonet in the 1940s, would have had been considered a hopeless romantic and/or lunatic. With the breakup of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia (and possibly Canada) and a rebirth of Scottish nationalism, Southerners too are increasingly wondering whether or not greater autonomy for the South is possible.

Lincoln and the War notwithstanding, self-determination and independence remain just as much a legitimate aspiration today for Southerners as in 1861. It is impossible to read the Declaration of Independence and not believe in the right of self-determination without being hypocritical. While the purpose of this paper is not discuss in great detail the Constitutional questions concerning secession, let it suffice to be said that many constitutional experts before the War believed strongly in the Constitutional right of secession. This was based on the very origin of the federal government itself (states, in effect, had to secede’ from the old Articles of Confederation in order to join the Union). In addition, the tenth amendment states specifically that since the ‘power’ of secession is nowhere prohibited in the Constitution, that right is guaranteed to the states (‘reserved to the states respectively’). Lincoln, of course, was opposed to the question of secession going to the Taney Supreme Court because he knew lie would not prevail. What Lincoln was unable to accomplish by Constitutional means, lie was quite willing to do by forcing the South to stop Union supplies from reaching Ft. Sumter thus precipitating the War. The War itself did not, of course, settle the Constitutional question unless one believes (as Lincoln did) that might makes right.

Secession and independence remains the only an answer for the South today. Aside from the fact that the old ordinances of secession were perfectly legal and repealed only at the point of a bayonet after the War, thus giving the South a legitimate reason for returning to the status quo antebellum, the Federal government (and the North in general) has again and again demonstrated a continual arrogant abuse of power against the South. From the First Reconstruction (1865-1877) to the Second Reconstruction (1957 [when Federal troops were sent back into the South]) to the present, the Federal government has shown a habitual disregard for state rights by regarding the states as the servants of the central government rather than the reverse.

Complete Southern autonomy and the establishment of a true confederate system is the only solution for the South that can remove the possibility of new encroachments against state rights by the Federal government. Devolution of central power back to the local and state level will remove an unneeded and unwarranted level of bureaucracy and provide the greatest amount of freedom and empowerment to the people.

Southern independence will allow us to work out our own problems by ourselves and not by Federal force. From slavery to segregation to under 21 drinking, the Federal government has been unwilling to let us work things out among ourselves if it has not been the proper solution at the proper speed deemed appropriate by our Federal ‘Big Brother’. In the case of secession we were told, ‘We don’t care what you want, you will remain in the Union whether you want to or not.’ In the ease of desegregation it was, ‘If you don’t move fast enough with what we consider “all deliberate speed” in our social engineering, we will send Federal troops back into the South to force you with violence if necessary to do as we say to do.’ In the case of the question of whether those under 21 should be able to drink, it was ‘Since the Constitution says nothing about a drinking age, you will raise the drinking age to 21 or else we will not give you back some of the Federal highway tax money that we have forced you to pay us.

Southern independence will allow Southern culture and heritage to flourish. The South will no longer have to struggle constantly to be permitted to celebrate its own holidays and traditions. Most importantly, the statement that the South is a history without a nation will no longer be true; we will have our national history without Yankee revisionism. We will be able emphasize again our agrarian and small town values and stop the process of every Southern city becoming an architectural carbon copy of Northern urban sprawl, strip malls and urban congestion.

Southern independence will check the inane drift toward world government through the United Nations. The same people who love a strong federal government think nothing about chipping away at our national sovereignty and freedom. Not surprisingly, our scalawag President Clinton was opposed to U.S. support for Chechnya since the U.S. had opposed secession. Imperialistic nations such as Russia, our own Federal government, and China can be counted on not to support secession and independence for the people of Kosovo and Tibet.

Southern independence is based on the belief that there are basic and distinct differences in culture, religion, political ideology, and ethnicity that form a nation distinct from the North. Ethnically the white population of the South has been predominantly from Great Britain and Ireland and northern Europe and Protestant Christian in religion. Politically the South has long been more conservative than the North or West, and regardless of ethnic background (e.g., black, Cajun, or Cherokee) all Southerners share a common history and certain similarities in cuisine, language, and music. To find out the differences between the North and the South, just tell a Southerner there aren’t any!

Southern independence and nationalism will check the growth of liberal internationalism, social engineering and radical egalitarianism. While Marxism is dead or dying throughout the old communist block nations, it remains an insidious virus within Western liberalism which has distorted liberalism from its previous lofty aims of individual freedom. It is this Marxist tainted liberalism which promotes an androgenous, homogenized, and centralized society under the guise of ‘diversity’ and ‘multiculturalism’. Southern nationalism is based on the belief that cultural heritage and traditions can best be maintained through ethnic autonomy. Robert Frost and his ilk notwithstanding, good fences do make good neighbors. Radical egalitarians not only want to tear down their neighbors’ fences; they also believe that ‘What’s mine is mine and What’s yours is also mine.’ Thus in their striving towards equality of condition, racial preferences become “affirmative action” and any scientific research into inherent racial or gender differences becomes taboo. SAT score requirements for minorities in colleges and physical requirements for women in the armed forces are lowered in order to meet radical egalitarian dogma. Instead our Southern heritage celebrates true diversity (as in complementary differences between men and women) and true multiculturalism (where differences are recognized yet evaluated accordingly instead of pretending that all cultures are equal).

Even without an organized political party to promulgate Southern nationalism, public opinion polls have indicated that approximately ten percent of the South’s population would support Southern independence if it could be obtained without violence. This means that a Southern nationalist party organizing for elections today would start out with a larger base of support than the Parti Quebecois did when it came into existence when less than five percent of the Quebecois supported independence for Quebec. Such a political party in the South could run candidates for local election and support national candidates it felt best represented the interests of the party.

And even a single state seceding and gaining independence would be more economically viable and politically feasible than some of the national states that have come into existence over the past fifty years. Even allowing for some of the financial technicalities (e.g., assumption of a per capita portion of the national debt). Imagine how wonderful it would be to wake up one morning in a state free of the dictates of Washington, master in its own house, and master of its own destiny!

As the single star of a new ‘Bonnie Blue Flag’ grows to include others, a true confederacy could be created, i.e., one with a truly weak central government that is created solely to be the servant of states (and not vice versa). Such a central government would attend almost exclusively to foreign affairs, a common currency, postal system, and defense. The new constitution would take seriously Patrick Henry’s admonitions against the ratification of the old Constitution.

A bumper sticker appeared several years ago which stated, ‘If independence sounds good in Lithuania, it’ll play great in Dixie.’ If independence can be obtained from the Soviet Union without bloodshed by three small Baltic states, surely the same can be done by the South. Someday we will be able to repeat in fact the lines from Timrod’s ‘Ethnogenesis’ written in 1861 upon the formation of the first Confederacy:

Hath not the morning dawned with added light?
And shall not evening call another star
Out of the infinite regions of the night,
To mark this day in heaven? At last we are
A nation among nations; and the world
Shall soon behold in many a distant port
Another flag unfurled.

On The Web:  http://jerryd14.wordpress.com/2014/08/25/the-right-of-the-states-to-secede-from-the-union-then-and-now/


16432 ---VMFA Helps Get Flags Raised --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-08-26 14:05:39 -0400
See related pages and categories

Virginia Museum of Fine Arts helps get more Confederate Flags raised

Sunday - August 24, 2014

Posted by "Jerryd14 -The War - The Confederate Flag - Southern People and our History"

Who could have guessed, the unfair, one sided discriminatory actions by the stiff neck liberals in the leadership of the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts, a VIRGINIA INSTITUTION, much supported by taxpayer money, your money and mine, has inspired many contributors to give money and support to construct and two large flag poles,with large vibrant beautiful Confederate battle flags along the main Interstate I-95 highway crossing Virginia, another near the Battle of Savages Station East of Richmond, Va. as well as to have inspired other groups and individuals to construct and raise Confederate Battle Flags. The actions at the Museum have created a large and growing movement and awakening to resist the continuing attempts to erase the history of the Southern people and the Confederate States of America and it’s noble resistance to the Invaders from the North who came down to kill and maim the Southern people, including the civilian people of the South.

Today I can report that more than 20 flagpole and flags have been erected across several states, along major highways as a result of the actions of the VMFA and other left wing liberal groups who want to erase our history. Money and support is coming in, more private flag poles that I have no idea on the number, but many people have stated they are now flying the Confederate battle flag on their homes and other places as a result of what the VMFA and others who have disgraced our flags heritage, so you removed two flags, we  collectively have installed hundreds, perhaps thousands to replace them and the number is growing.

While I and many thousands more ASK, URGE, AND YES, DEMAND,  that the Museum leadership return the (2) small Confederate battle flags to the front of the Confederate Chapel, a chapel built by citizen contributions not tax money, a CONFEDERATE PLACE OF WORSHIP, for the Old Confederate Soldiers who once lived on that site where the Museum and chapel are today. The wrongful actions against Virginia veterans and citizens is shameful, and should be noted and objected to by all citizens of Virginia and any citizens of other states and countries who visit to this area, and they should in protest avoid going to the museum until such time as those (2) Confederate Battle flags are re-installed.

So in the meantime, I do ask all of the readers to contribute money to the Virginia Flaggers and other Pro-Southern Flaggers as this effort is growing across many states, where people are sick of the Liberals who lie and distort the real facts about the Confederate soldier, my ancestors and yours. We must create more monuments, flagpoles and flags are the best and most immediate method to show honor and respect to our ancestors, and thanks to the Virginia Flaggers and all others who assist and support this effort with your time and your dollars, but please continue with the support.

Folks, this is still AMERICA, put down your cell phone, your texting, tweeting, facebook and similar nonsense should not stop you from being an informed citizen. The average American citizen today, especially those from 16-35 years of age, know next to nothing about this nation.  I am talking about today’s current events, our budget deficit, the current corrupt liar in the White House, or What happened at Yorktown in 1781, Why is Williamsburg, Va. significant in American history, who fought at the battle of the Bulge, what is meant by D-DAY, WHO DID WHAT ON Dec.. 7, 1941, what is significant about the U.S.S Arizona, who lived at Mount Vernon, or Stratford Hall, what are the 3 branches of our U.S. Government, who is the Vice president of the United States of America, how many U.S. Senators are there, how many U.S. states are there, what is the capitol of Nebraska.


This ignorance in history is the simple part, nearly none are competent in math and science, could change a flat tire on their car, or know what temperature water freezes at when not under a vacuum.

But, they know all about political correctness, or they think, and have been brainwashed that the so called CIVIL WAR, was all about slavery, which is a lie.           Oh yes, there was a war, but not a Civil War, it was a War To Stop States From Seceding From The Union, or better described by the great Richmond, Virginia writer and historian, The War To Stop Southern Independence. So many liberal towns, cities, states, school administrators and teachers are guilty of perpetuating the lie that the Confederate flag is a symbol of racism, a a flag for slavery as such, when it only existed from 1861 thru 1865 as a military function and symbol of the Confederate States Army. What about our American flag, ” Old Glory ” it flew for 84 years in America before the war, and guess what, slavery was legal under this flag, are we taking down all the American flags because of this, I SAY NO, it was a different time and you cannot or should not use your 2014 mind and eyes to condemn it, I am not for slavery, and it would have ended on it’s own as the steam engine came along and replaced labor in the fields, but today’s super sensitive moron citizens think they are superior to everyone when they get a long stem wine glass and walk through the Museum and denounce the Confederate flag as something evil and they do not know enough to pass a 10 question test on the war.

Yes, the PO Liberals at the VMFA will pay for their one sided unfair attitudes and practices, where the talk about inclusion, diversity, rights, ideas, freedom of expression and all the other bullshit they spew out of their lying mouths and illegally

force the removal of two existing Confederate battle  flags from a chapel, THE CONFEDERATE MEMORIAL CHAPEL, a state historic building, that was standing on the grounds of the Old Confederate Soldiers home long before the VMFA was even a dream. To come along in 2010 and to remove these flags, was wrong, and you who read this, if you are honorable and people who have character, you should agree that this act was wrong and you should speak out by calling the VMFA, writing e mails, asking your friends to avoid the place until they correct this wrong.

On The Web:   http://jerryd14.wordpress.com/2014/08/24/virginia-museum-of-fine-arts-helps-get-more-confederate-flags-raised/


16431 ---Pathways Between Generations --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-08-26 13:39:47 -0400
See related pages and categories

Civil War Reenactments -- Pathways Between Generations
From: bernhard1848@gmail.com
The introduction to this 1999 Chronicles Magazine article states: “Civil War reenactments are more popular today than at any time in the 135 years since “the late unpleasantness” came to an end. Recent news stories, however, have been less than favorable to reenactors.” Some fifteen years later, the reenactments and the Sesquicentennial observances of this war continue unabated.  Writer and director of the motion picture “Gettysburg,” Ronald F. Maxwell, explained this phenomenon to the 14,000 spectators at Gettysburg in 1999.
Bernhard Thuersam, Chairman
North Carolina War Between the States Sesquicentennial Commission
"Unsurpassed Valor, Courage and Devotion to Liberty"
"The Official Website of the North Carolina WBTS Sesquicentennial"
Civil War Reenactments -- Pathways Between Generation
“I’ve been going to reenactments for more than 20 years, so I’ve had a chance to observe this phenomenon up close. In a time of all-encompassing and oppressive political correctness, when the ruling elites and their media acolytes control most of the information we get and tell us what to think, what opinions to hold, what to buy and what to wear, even when and where to go to war . . . there are some, the audacious and irascible few, who persist in thinking for themselves.
Just who are reenactors? The mainstream media has described them a weekend warriors, Civil War fanatics, even misfits, who should, as they say, “get a life.” What they really mean to say is “get their life,” fit into their worldview – the New World Order.
In their worldview, which now dominates the academy as well as the media, all the old heroes are to be discarded. Thomas Jefferson, we are told with sanctimonious relish, was a seriously flawed person who may have fathered offspring by one of his domestic slaves. Lee and his generals were part of the same corrupt bondage system.
For these crimes, the generation of 1776 and their grandsons of the 1860’s must be hollowed of their humanity and gutted of their greatness, brought down and reduce to the paltry, squalid place inhabited by more than a few present-day politicians and so-called leaders. Then, discredited, they are to be diminished and eventually deleted from our history books, except perhaps as footnotes to the revisionist history of America.
Why this attack on these two generations in particular? Could it be that these same elites want to stop us from looking up to men who questioned authority and fought for liberty? Who did so brilliantly and courageously? If they are to succeed in their goal of transforming citizens into consumers, to reduce us from those who would defend liberty to those whose only concern is for celebrity and fashion, they must teach us to avert our gaze from the likes of Washington and Jefferson, Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson, and Robert E. Lee.
What I admire most about reenactors is that they refuse to forget. They are not weekend warriors, for that implies frivolity and a lack of conviction. They are a living embodiment of an American spirit that is still alive and well despite pervasive and well-financed efforts to belittle, ridicule, marginalize, and neutralize it. They are warriors, as in Lee’s great series of victories, seven days a week.
There are still those among us who cherish the sacred memory of our ancestors, who value the traditions tested by the generations, whose lives vibrate yet in the distant chords of memory. These reenactments, entertaining as they are, fun as they are, are pathways between the generations, connecting old antagonists with new witnesses in an atmosphere of conciliation, compassion and understanding.
Take from us our media, our universities; take from us our libraries and our books; take our newspapers and our textbooks – take it all. With malice towards none and charity for all, we are here today and will never forget. We here today will long remember.”  Ronald F. Maxwell
(Civil War Reenactments, Ronald F. Maxwell, Chronicles Magazine, October 1999, page 6)


16430 ---Surgeon Honored By Famous Son --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-08-26 13:23:44 -0400
See related pages and categories

Confederate Surgeon Honored by Famous Son
From: bernhard1848@gmail.com
Wealthy American financier Bernard Baruch was born in 1870 in Camden, South Carolina, the son of Dr. Simon Baruch, an East Prussian immigrant who became a Confederate surgeon.  Simon was a graduate of South Carolina Medical College and the Medical College of Virginia, entered Confederate service in 1862, and witnessed the carnage at Second Manassas, Sharpsburg, Gettysburg, and later the western theater.   Dr. Baruch was later a Jewish member of the Ku Klux Klan in Camden which sought order in the postwar chaos.
Bernhard Thuersam, Chairman
North Carolina War Between the States Sesquicentennial Commission
"Unsurpassed Valor, Courage and Devotion to Liberty"
"The Official Website of the North Carolina WBTS Sesquicentennial"
Confederate Surgeon Honored by Famous Son
“Just before his trip down to Hobcaw [plantation near Georgetown] with President Roosevelt, [Bernard] Baruch took the first steps toward accomplishing another long-cherished ambition, setting up a research foundation that he hoped would be of tremendous benefit to mankind in general and returning soldiers in particular.
He provided $1,100,000 for the promotion of “physical medicine,” especially for war veterans to whom such treatment might prove beneficial.  The money was distributed as follows:
$400,000 to Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons.
$250,000 to New York University College of Medicine.
$250,000 to the Medical College of Virginia, at Richmond.
$100,000 to various other medical schools.
$100,000 to provide fellowships and residencies.
The survey for the program . . . was made by a committee headed by Dr. Ray Lyman Wilbur, chancellor of Stanford University and an old friend of Baruch. Dr. Frank Krusen, professor of physical medicine at the University of Minnesota, agreed to act as chairman of the committee that will put the program into effect.
Baruch announced that the gift was in honor of his father, Dr. Simon Baruch, of whose record and achievements Baruch was enormously proud.  It was Dr. Baruch’s interest in physical medicine, particularly treatment by water, that resulted in the family’s moving to New York from South Carolina.  So interested was Dr. Baruch in research that in 1900 Baruch persuaded his father to retire from active practice so as to give all his time to medical research.
Many of the results of his experiments are preserved in the Army Medical Library, in Washington, as is also Dr. Baruch’s first effort in print, called “Two Penetrating Bayonet Wounds of the Chest” and published in The Confederate States Medical and Surgical Journal.
The Army Medical Library also preserves a copy of Dr. Baruch’s Reminiscences of a Confederate Surgeon, which was published in 1915, and an address by the doctor on January 19, 1918, which was virtually a biography of Robert E. Lee, delivered before the Confederate Veterans Camp of New York at the Hotel Astor.”
(Bernard Baruch, Park Bench Statesman, Carter Field, Whittlesey House, 1944, pp. 300-302)

16429 ---Blockade Running From Bermuda --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-08-26 13:06:55 -0400
See related pages and categories

Blockade Running From Bermuda
From: bernhard1848@gmail.com
It is said that masters of private blockade runners could expect $5,000 in gold for a successful round trip from Bermuda to Wilmington and back, and the Captain Roberts mentioned below used his profits to rent the opulent residence of Wilmington Mayor John Dawson while in port. Confederate commerce raiders John Newland Maffitt, John Wilkinson and others performed such a work of destruction on the North’s merchant marine, that it never recovered after the war. The Dawson home is visited on the “Confederate Wilmington” walking tour.
Bernhard Thuersam, Chairman
North Carolina War Between the States Sesquicentennial Commission
"Unsurpassed Valor, Courage and Devotion to Liberty"
"The Official Website of the North Carolina WBTS Sesquicentennial"
Blockade Running From Bermuda
“In July 1863 Captain [Hezekiah] Frith loaded his sturdy little Bermuda schooner, the Harkaway, with a cargo of boots, shoes and cloth and ran the blockade into Wilmington. Frith was evidently proud of his contribution to the Southern cause.  [US] Consul [Charles M.] Allen noted that upon his return he “flew the Confederate flag a considerable time while in port.”
Another captain who often called at Bermuda . . . [was] “Captain Roberts” . . . the nom de guerre of the Honourable Augustus Charles Hobart-Hampden, a younger son of the Earl of Buckinghamshire.  Roberts/Hampden held the rank of Captain in the Royal Navy and at one time served as commander of [Queen Victoria’s] yacht.
Roberts started blockade running in 1863 . . . On one run he earned a 1,100-percent profit selling corset stays, Cockle’s Pills and toothbrushes to Southerners starved for consumer goods.
Another raider to call at Bermuda was the CSS Florida, under the command of Lieutenant John Maffitt, CSN.  She left Liverpool as the Oreto in March, 1862, and received her guns from the CSS Nashville in Nassau a month later.  After capturing a number of prizes in the South Atlantic, Maffitt turned north, threatening US shipping along the eastern seaboard.
Arriving in St. George’s in early July for coal and repairs, the Florida exchanged salutes with the British garrison at Fort Cunningham.  While in port the Florida . . . took on all the coal then available in St. George’s.  She also transferred . . . captured items from various prizes to the Robert E. Lee, which ran them into Wilmington.  While his ship was being repaired, Maffitt was “handsomely entertained” by the island’s British garrison, who, according to Georgiana Walker, “believed that Capt. Maffitt had achieved gallant deeds upon the sea & . . . [and] honored him accordingly.”
In mid-1864 the blockade runner Edith was converted to a commerce raider and commissioned as the CSS Chickamauga.  She left Wilmington for her first cruise on October 28, under the command of Capt. John Wilkinson, CSN, former captain of the runner Robert E. Lee.
The Chickamauga prowled the shipping lanes as far north as Long Island Sound, taking seven prizes before calling at Bermuda to provision. One of the vessels she captured southwest of Bermuda, the US merchant ship Harriet Stevens, carried a supply of gum opium that Wilkinson consigned to a runner for delivery to Southern hospitals.
(Rogues & Runners, Bermuda and the American Civil War, Catherine Lynch Deichmann,  Bermuda National Trust, 2003, excerpts pp. 46-57)

16428 ---Wiping South Out Of Existence --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-08-26 12:53:58 -0400
See related pages and categories

Wiping the South Out of National Existence
From: bernhard1848@gmail.com
Lacking the foresight to discern William T. Sherman’s particular view of political liberty and representative government, the American South pursued a more perfect Union 1861 without his permission and thus brought upon itself banishment as criminals who should forfeit their property to those more appreciative of his master’s kindness and dispensations.  The North was, in his eyes, “beyond all question, right in our lawful cause . . . “ 
Bernhard Thuersam, Chairman
North Carolina War Between the States Sesquicentennial Commission
"Unsurpassed Valor, Courage and Devotion to Liberty"
"The Official Website of the North Carolina WBTS Sesquicentennial"
Wiping the South Out of National Existence

Headquarters, Department of Tennessee, January 1, 1863, Major R. M. Sawyer, AAG Army of Tennessee, Huntsville:
"Dear Sawyer---In my former letter I have answered all your questions save one, and that relates to the treatment of inhabitants known, or suspected to be, hostile or "secesh."  The war which prevails in our land is essentially a war of races. The Southern people entered into a clear compact of government, but still maintained a species of separate interests, history and prejudices. These latter became stronger and stronger, till they have led to war, which has developed the fruits of the bitterest kind. We of the North are, beyond all question, right in our lawful cause . . . Now, the question arises, should we treat as absolute enemies all in the South who differ with us in opinions or prejudices – [and] kill or banish them? Or should we give them time to think and gradually change their conduct so as to conform to the new order of things which is slowly and gradually creeping into their country?
When men take arms to resist our rightful authority, we are compelled to use force because all reason and argument ceases when arms are resorted to. If the people, or any of them, keep up a correspondence with parties in hostility, they are spies, and can be punished with death or minor punishment. These are well established principles of war, and the people of the South having appealed to war, are barred from appealing to our Constitution, which they have practically and publicly defied. They have appealed to war and must abide its rules and laws.
The United States, as a belligerent party claiming right in the soil as the ultimate sovereign, have a right to change the population, and it may be and it, both politic and best, that we should do so in certain districts. When the inhabitants persist too long in hostility, it may be both politic and right that we should banish them and appropriate their lands to a more loyal and useful population. No man would deny that the United States would be benefited by dispossessing a single prejudiced, hard-headed and disloyal planter and substitute in his place a dozen or more patient, industrious, good families, even if they be of foreign birth. It is all idle nonsense for these Southern planters to say that they made the South, that they own it, and that they can do as they please---even to break up our government, and to shut up the natural avenues of trade, intercourse and commerce.
We know, and they know if they are intelligent beings, that, as compared with the whole world they are but as five millions are to one thousand millions -- that they did not create the land -- that their only title to its use and enjoyment is the deed of the United States, and if they appeal to war they hold their all by a very insecure tenure. For my part, I believe that this war is the result of false political doctrine, for which we are all as a people responsible, viz:  That any and every people has a right to self-government . . . In this belief, while I assert for our Government the highest military prerogatives, I am willing to bear in patience that political nonsense of . . . State Rights, freedom of conscience, freedom of press, and other such trash as have deluded the Southern people into war, anarchy, bloodshed, and the foulest crimes that have disgraced any time or any people.
I would advise the commanding officers at Huntsville and such other towns as are occupied by our troops, to assemble the inhabitants and explain to them these plain, self-evident propositions, and tell them that it is for them now to say whether they and their children shall inherit their share. The Government of the United States has in North Alabama any and all rights which they choose to enforce in war -- to take their lives, their homes, their lands, their everything . . . and war is simply power unrestrained by constitution or compact. If they want eternal warfare, well and good; we will accept the issue and dispossess them, and put our friends in possession. Many. many people, with less pertinacity than the South, have been wiped out of national existence.
To those who submit to the rightful law and authority, all gentleness and forbearance; but to the petulant and persistent secessionists, why, death is mercy, and the quicker he or she is disposed of the better. Satan and the rebellious saints of heaven were allowed a continuance of existence in hell merely to swell their just punishment."
W.T. Sherman, Major General Commanding  
(Reminiscences of Public Men in Alabama, William Garrett, Plantation Printing Company's Press, 1872, pp. 486-488)