Dixie_store_5
Customer Area | Gold-coin | Mail | Track | Cart-icon-red
16471 ---The Tar Heels Arrive --- Released: 11 minutes 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

THREE CHEERS FOR THE TAR HEEL FLAGGERS!

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
dchildress@childressklein.com

Kenneth P. Ruscio
President of the University
540.458.8700
president@wlu.edu

RETURN the flags!
RESTORE the honor!

Grayson Jennings

UPCOMING EVENTS:

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
info@vaflaggers.com

 

16470 ---Scottish Secession Vote, Election Fraud --- Released: about 2 hours 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: about 3 hours 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: 1 day 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: 1 day 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: 1 day 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
Brentwood
 

16465 ---Liberals, Yankee Morons, Slavery --- Released: 1 day 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.

Blacks in Africa had slaves, and blacks in America had slaves. THE CONFEDERATE STATES OF AMERICA, WHICH EARLIER BEFORE SECESSION HAD SLAVES IN THEIR STATES, AS WELL AS SOME STATES THAT WERE NOT PART OF THE CONFEDERATE STATES OF AMERICA.

QUIZ TIME, IF THE FLAG THAT FLEW OVER THE U.S. FROM 1776 UNTIL TODAY WITH ITS ADDED STARS, WAS A COUNTRY THAT ALL ALLOWED SLAVERY, THEN IS IT A RACIST FLAG.

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

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

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

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

 

16464 ---MOC Is Being Destroyed --- Released: 1 day Ago. ---- 2014-09-25 10:04:37 -0400
See related pages and categories



The MUSEUM OF THE CONFEDERACY in Richmond, Va. is being DESTROYED

Friday - September 12, 2014

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

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

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



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

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

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

 

16463 ---Ole Miss, New Bigots --- Released: 1 day 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: 1 day Ago. ---- 2014-09-25 09:29:17 -0400
See related pages and categories



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

WASHINGTON, Va., Sept. 4, 2014 -- AN OPEN LETTER TO HERO DOGS, INC. OF BROOKEVILLE, MARYLAND

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: 3 days 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.
Http://www.confederatearchives.com/
 
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.
www.confederatearchives.com
 
Susan Hathaway

 

16460 ---The Sin Of Slavery --- Released: 3 days 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: 3 days 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: 3 days 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.
 
Val
 

Eric,
 
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: 3 days 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.
 
http://www.commercialappeal.com/submit-letter-to-editor   
 
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.
 
Lee
 

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: 3 days 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"
www.ncwbts150.com
"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: 3 days 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"
www.ncwbts150.com
"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: 3 days 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"
www.ncwbts150.com
"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: 3 days 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.
 
Respectfully,
 
Pastor Samuel Ashwood
www.samuelashwood.wordpress.com
 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
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: 3 days 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
gaston7460@bellsouth.net
 
 

16451 ---Rededication Of Lee Tree --- Released: 3 days 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.

LEST WE FORGET!

Susan Hathaway
Virginia Flaggers

UPCOMING EVENTS:

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
http://www.petersburgexpress.com/Petersburg_Events.html

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: 3 days 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 MISSISSIPPI DIVISION SCV IS TAKING ACTION.



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.

BOOTS & SADDLES MEN BOOTS & SADDLES From Chuck Bond"

Billy Bearden
Camp 673

 

16449 ---9/18/2014 - Lee Chapel Desecration Update --- Released: 8 days 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."

http://www.wlu.edu/presidents-office/about-the-presidents-office/history-and-governance/past-presidents/george-washington-custis-lee

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.

LEXINGTON FLAGGING REPORT:

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.

FLAGGING THIS WEEKEND:

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

UPCOMING EVENTS:

Thursday, September 11th - Sunday, September 14th:  Thunder in the Valley - Lexington, VA  Cavalry ride and Re Enactment 
http://events.lexingtonvirginia.com/events.php?view=d&id=5817&m=09&y=2014&d=10 
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
http://www.petersburgexpress.com/Petersburg_Events.html

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
info@vaflaggers.com

 

16446 ---Ole Miss/Confederate Drive --- Released: 9 days 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>

FYI
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
Commander
Haralson Invincibles Camp 673

 

16445 ---Continuing War Against The South --- Released: 9 days 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: 16 days 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.

http://events.lexingtonvirginia.com/events.php?view=d&id=5817&m=09&y=2014&d=14

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"

CONTACT INFORMATION:

University President
Kenneth P. Ruscio
president@wlu.edu
(540) 458-8700
(540) 458-8945 (fax)

Senior Assistant to the President
Elizabeth Knapp
knappe@wlu.edu
(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: 
http://www.roanoke.com/opinion/nezbeth-don-t-remove-the-flags-and-rewrite-history/article_b7bb1616-9af1-51b7-938b-f1d203cad7fa.html

Please add your voice!

RETURN the flags!
RESTORE the honor!

UPCOMING EVENTS:

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 
http://events.lexingtonvirginia.com/events.php?view=d&id=5817&m=09&y=2014&d=10 
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
http://www.petersburgexpress.com/Petersburg_Events.html

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
info@vaflaggers.com

 

16443 ---Was Hitler Inspired By Sherman? --- Released: 17 days 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: 17 days 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: 17 days 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: 17 days 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.

PROCLAMATION OF INTENT AND DEDICATION OF THE I-295 MEMORIAL BATTLE FLAG AT COLD HARBOR:

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:
http://www.vaflaggers.com/i95flagdonate.html

 

16439 ---VMFA Update, 9-4-2014 --- Released: 21 days 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!

Contact:
Alex Nyerges
Director
VMFA, 200 N. Boulevard,
Richmond, VA 23220-4007
T 804-340-1504/F 804-340-1502
email: alex.nyerges@vmfa.museum

http://wvtf.org/post/tale-two-flags-art-sparks-dialogue
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

UPCOMING EVENTS:

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 
http://events.lexingtonvirginia.com/events.php?view=d&id=5817&m=09&y=2014&d=10 
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
http://www.petersburgexpress.com/Petersburg_Events.html

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
info@vaflaggers.com

 

16438 ---The Reason For Nascar's Demise --- Released: 21 days Ago. ---- 2014-09-05 11:51:40 -0400
See related pages and categories



Sons of Confederate Veterans   
September 4, 2014    
 
PRESS RELEASE  

 
   
THE REASON FOR NASCAR'S DEMISE      

(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: 23 days 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: 23 days 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.

1.
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.

2.
South Carolina Declaration of Causes of Secession

Convention of South Carolina
December 20, 1860



DECLARATION OF THE IMMEDIATE CAUSES WHICH INDUCE AND JUSTIFY THE SECESSION OF SOUTH CAROLINA FROM THE FEDERAL UNION.

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.

3.
Legal Justification of the South in Secession
BY HON. J. L. M. CURRY, LL. D.

           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

4.
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

5.
Confederate Colonel
The New Life of The Old South

Quotes
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

 6. ADDITION TO THE ABOVE:
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.

YOU SHOULD ALL KNOW THESE THINGS AND SO MUCH MORE.

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"
www.ncwbts150.com
"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"
www.ncwbts150.com
"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"
www.ncwbts150.com
"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"
www.ncwbts150.com
"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)
 
 

16427 ---Va Flaggers - Call To Action, 8-21-2014 --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-08-22 09:33:40 -0400
See related pages and categories



From: Virginia Flagger <info@vaflaggers.com>
Date: Thu, Aug 21, 2014
Subject: Va Flaggers: W&L Update/Call to Action 8-21-2014

The Va Flaggers did not have an organized Flagging at Washington & Lee last weekend, but one of our Flaggers was in that part of the Commonwealth, took the opportunity to forward the colors, and filed the following report:

"I flagged W&L from 2 to 6 on Saturday. The majority of the passing traffic gave no response. Of those that did (maybe 25% - 30%) the response was overwhelmingly positive. One alumnus pulled out of the parking lot and asked me the status of things. He evidently has not been keeping up with things, and was mad when he found out Ruscio had removed the flags. I asked him to get the alumni involved and gave him a copy of my "Blame Abraham Lincoln for the Confederate Battle Flag." I had a stack of them with me and I handed out quite a few. One man walked up the sidewalk and asked me if I had any flyers. I suggest it might be a good thing in the future if we had some brief handouts on the situation for passers by who might be interested.

Of the negative responses, I can think of only two or three thumbs down from people with Massachusetts license plates. Their logo on the plate is "The Spirit of America" which I take to be their heritage of seceding from the British Empire and firing the first shot for their own independence from an exploitative mercantilist empire bent upon invasion, conquest, and coerced political allegiance. Evidently the secession from Old England is considered the height of patriotism in those parts, whereas secession from New England is considered high treason - a logic understandable only if one understands New England hubris.

One man walking his dog from a residence across the street informed me that we were all in the United States now, but he declined to slow down and have a rational discussion with me. I wanted to tell him that I risked my life under the Stars and Stripes for a year in Vietnam, and ask him if he was one of those people who spit on me when I got back, but he wouldn't slow down, and disappeared into the W&L campus with his dog.

A woman security guard leaving the parking lot stopped to exchange pleasantries. I asked if I was allowed on campus. She said I was most welcome, but that the Confederate Flag was not. I asked if I could wear my VMI ring on campus, since VMI fought for the Confederacy. She said that would be OK.

An Imperialist's worst nightmare is secession, and our flag stands for secession. That is the real reason it is being proscribed and denigrated these days, and the regime's "Useful Idiots" are being indoctrinated to believe it as representing slavery and racism in order to cover up the Truth. If people were to learn that its true meaning is secession from an overweening usurpation of the Constitution, then the Imperialists would be exposed for what they are."

We will have Flaggers back out at the LEE Chapel THIS Saturday, August 23rd from 10:00 am - 5:00 pm, and invite anyone who is able to join us.  This weekend will see matriculation for VMI, so the town of Lexington will be crowded with students and parents, bringing us the opportunity to educate countless people regarding the desecration of the LEE Chapel by the administration of Washington & Lee University.  We will have plenty of "ammo" (fliers) to distribute, and hope we see some local folks step up, stand up, and speak out, so that the flaggings can continue with more frequency and numbers than we can regularly supply from Richmond.

Going forward, we also have definite plans to be on campus NEXT Saturday, August 30th, and the weekend of Friday, September 12 - Sunday, September 14. (More details to follow)  Mark your calendars and make plans to join us in Lexington to protest the removal of the flags and educate the masses, especially as students and faculty arrive back on campus for the fall term.

UPDATE!!

Many of you will remember that Washington & Lee officials made the decision to CLOSE the Lee Chapel during the SCV rally/symposium held in Lexington last month, issuing the following statement...

“This unscheduled closing is based on concerns for the safety of the facility and its staff on the day that the Sons of Confederate Veterans have scheduled a rally in Lexington. We must take this unfortunate precaution because of the inflammatory and threatening letters, emails and phone calls the University has received in response to the removal of reproduction battle flags from the statue chamber ..."

Based on this inflammatory claim, the Va Flaggers filed a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request with Lexington's City Manager, asking for copies of any communications between W&L officials and law enforcement regarding any threats received.  As might be expected...we were subsequently informed that there were no reports and/or communications regarding any type of threats having been made or received.

We are pleased to continue to hear from alumni, students, and several attorneys, who are committed to pursuing the matter of restoring the flags through various channels, and encouraged by the overwhelming support we have received on campus, to date.

Stay tuned for more updates, and please continue to forward these emails and encourage others to do the same.

RETURN the flags!
RESTORE the honor!

Grayson Jennings
Va Flaggers

UPCOMING EVENTS:

Saturday, August 23rd:  10:00 am - 5:00 pm - Flagging Washington & Lee University - Meet on sidewalk in front of LEE Chapel

Saturday, August 23rd:  Flagging the VMFA, 200 N. Boulevard- Contact info@vaflaggers.com for details.

Saturday, August 23rd:  2:00 p.m. Re-dedication of the Hanover County Confederate Monument, Hanover County Courthouse.

Thursday, September 11th - Sunday, September 14th:  Thunder in the Valley - Lexington, VA  Cavalry ride and Re Enactment 
http://events.lexingtonvirginia.com/events.php?view=d&id=5817&m=09&y=2014&d=10
 
Saturday, September 20th: 11:30 a.m. Dick Poplar Day
http://www.petersburgexpress.com/Petersburg_Events.html

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

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
info@vaflaggers.com

 

16426 ---Thomas Aaron Nelson, 6th VA Cavalry --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-08-21 16:34:38 -0400
See related pages and categories



From: Virginia Flagger <info@vaflaggers.com>
Date: Thu, Aug 21, 2014
Subject: Va Flaggers: Confederate Veteran Profile - Thomas Aaron Nelson, Co. H, 6th VA Cavalry



The Virginia Flaggers are pleased to announce the release of the second in a series of profiles of Confederate Veterans who resided at the Old Soldiers’ Home, on the grounds of Confederate Memorial Park in Richmond, VA.

For over 150 weeks, the Virginia Flaggers have forwarded the colors, twice a week, on the sidewalk outside of the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts (VMFA) after museum officials forced the removal of Confederate Battle Flags from the portico of the Confederate Memorial Chapel.

One cannot truly appreciate the history and significance of the Chapel, nor the degree of desecration committed when museum leadership, driven by their own misguided prejudice and ignorance, removed the flags, without knowing the (personal) stories of the men who built the Chapel, worshiped in it every Sunday, and gathered each time the bell tolled, to pay their respects to and honor their comrades, as one by one, the Veterans passed over to eternity.

For many of our Flaggers, this fight is about more than just defending our Heritage against yet another unwarranted and unprovoked attack. For those whose veins course with the blood of the men who lived and died at the Old Soldiers’ Home, it is personal...

Veteran Profile: Thomas Aaron Nelson, Co. H, 6th VA Cavalry

Born in December, 1835, Thomas Aaron Nelson grew up in Fauquier County, Virginia, a region known for its rural beauty and fine horses. The son of Mexican-American War veteran Thomas Henry Nelson and Mary Francis Bise, he was also a descendant of Thomas Nelson Jr., a planter and soldier from Yorktown who represented Virginia in the Continental Congress, signed the Declaration of Independence and served as governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Not much is known of Thomas' early years, although records tell us he had a fair complexion, dark hair and hazel eyes, and considered himself a farmer like his famous forefather. On September 29, 1857, Thomas married his cousin Fannie (their maternal grandmothers were sisters).

It's not surprising, given Fauquier County's reputation, that Thomas should "jine the cavalry" after his native Virginia seceded from the Union. War Department records attest to his enlistment as a private on March 12, 1862. Though his younger brother, Joseph Henry Nelson, was a daredevil who rode with Mosby's Rangers, Thomas' unit of choice was Co. H (the "Wise Dragoons"), 6th Virginia Cavalry. The summer of 1863 proved an especially trying one for young Thomas. July 3 found him near Fairfield, Pennsylvania, just a few miles from Gettysburg and the deadliest battle of the war. While the ill-fated Pickett's Charge was getting underway, small numbers of the 7th Virginia Cavalry under Brig. Gen. William "Grumble" Jones intercepted 400 of the 6th U.S. Cavalry. These relatively green U.S. regulars were out to seize a Confederate wagon train and block the likeliest enemy escape route through Fairfield Gap. When the 6th U.S. Cavalry repulsed their 7th Virginia counterparts, Jones sent in the 6th Virginia Cavalry, whose rousing charge overwhelmed the regulars, securing the Fairfield Gap pass and the Hagerstown Road. This small but important victory facilitated the Confederate army's retreat towards the Potomac River after the Battle of Gettysburg.

Unfortunately, according to a July 18 report, Thomas was wounded at Fairfield. Then, on July 21, he was captured at Chester Gap, Virginia, one of the armies' routes over the Blue Ridge and a frequent site of skirmishes. Listed on an August 1 Prisoner of War roll at Washington, D.C.'s Old Capitol Prison, he was transferred to Maryland's notorious Point Lookout prison on August 23, 1863. It was not until February 13, 1865, just months before the surrender, that he was exchanged. Records show that he was paroled at Winchester, Virginia, on April 22, 1865; a copy of his signed oath still exists.

After the war, while Thomas' brother Joseph returned to Fauquier County and served as mayor of Warrenton for several terms, Thomas moved his family to Missouri for reasons unknown. He and Fannie had 16 children, though not all lived to adulthood. When Fannie died in 1899, Thomas returned to Virginia and lived with his sisters, moving from one of their houses to the other until finally applying, in June 1913, to live at the Soldiers' Home of the R.E. Lee Camp No.1 Confederate Veterans in Richmond. The Camp Commandant admitted him on July 14. But being weak and "getting right feeble," the 77-year-old Thomas asked permission to report after the heat of summer. He also inquired whether there would be room for his trunk, and whether the camp would provide transportation—adding, "The [fare to Richmond] will be $3.55." Thomas' file includes a heartfelt letter from his sister, Mrs. Robert Moffett, notifying the Soldiers' Home of her brother's death on August 14, 1915, during a visit to see her. He is buried in the family graveyard near Warrenton, Virginia.

Almost 100 years after Thomas Aaron Nelson left this earth, his great-great niece, Elizabeth Wilson is determined that his sacrifice, courage and devotion to God and country will not be forgotten, as she forwards the Colors in his memory, and in protest of those who have desecrated the Confederate Memorial Chapel and the hallowed ground on which it rests, and dishonored our gallant Confederate Veterans.

God bless Thomas Aaron Nelson, and God bless those who stand and speak for those who no longer have a voice!

RETURN the flags!
RESTORE the honor!

UPCOMING EVENTS:

Saturday, August 23rd:  10:00 am - 5:00 pm - Flagging Washington & Lee University - Meet on sidewalk in front of LEE Chapel

Saturday, August 23rd:  Flagging the VMFA, 200 N. Boulevard- Contact info@vaflaggers.com for details.

Saturday, August 23rd:  2:00 p.m. Re-dedication of the Hanover County Confederate Monument, Hanover County Courthouse.

Thursday, September 11th - Sunday, September 14th:  Thunder in the Valley - Lexington, VA  Cavalry ride and Re Enactment 
http://events.lexingtonvirginia.com/events.php?view=d&id=5817&m=09&y=2014&d=10
 
Saturday, September 20th: 11:30 a.m. Dick Poplar Day
http://www.petersburgexpress.com/Petersburg_Events.html

Sunday, September 28th: 3:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. Va Flaggers' Third Anniversary Picnic. More details to follow.  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

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
info@vaflaggers.com
 

16425 ---Granddaughter Of Longstreet Dead At 84 --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-08-19 16:25:45 -0400
See related pages and categories



Granddaughter of Gen. Longstreet dies at age 84
   
By Alana Swain
August 13, 2014
   
Jamie Louise Longstreet Paterson, a Gainesville native and granddaughter of Confederate Gen. James Longstreet, died on Aug. 5.

Born on July 22, 1930, in Gainesville, Paterson was the daughter of Fitz Randolph Longstreet and Zelia Stover Longstreet. She graduated from Gainesville High School in 1948, attending Gainesville Business School shortly after.

Joe Whitaker, treasurer of The Longstreet Society, said he remembers being in school with Paterson as they were growing up in the area.

“When I started Main Street School, I think she was in third grade, and I knew who she was from Day One,” he said.

Whitaker even said he recalls a specific instance showcasing Paterson’s involvement in her well-known and historic family, even as a high school student.

“When I was a sophomore in high school, I believe, she got Helen Dortch Longstreet (wife of Gen. Longstreet) to come and speak to the whole assembly at Gainesville High School,” he said.

“Her father was still living while she was in high school,” Whitaker continued, “but they had Jamie to do all activities that had to do anything with the Gen. Longstreet.”

Paterson went on to work at the Gainesville Midland Railroad. She lived in what was once the old Piedmont Hotel at 827 Maple St., which was owned by Gen. Longstreet, and is now a museum and headquarters of The Longstreet Society.

After meeting her late husband, William D. Paterson, in 1953, at a square dance while he was stationed at an Army Ranger camp in North Georgia, the two were married in 1957 and relocated to Washington, D.C.

The couple relocated again to Bowie, Md., in 1962, and raised two sons. Paterson eventually moved to Northern Virginia in May after battling Myelodysplastic syndrome and pulmonary fibrosis.

“She definitely should be recognized,” said Whitaker. “If they gave her something to do officially to represent the Longstreet family, she did it well. She didn’t seek notoriety at all,” he said.

“There’s a lot of things in Gainesville because of the Longstreet family,” Whitaker added. “There’s a lot that we don’t realize, how much the general brought to Gainesville after he moved here.”

According to her obituary, Paterson was skilled with crafts and sewing, was fond of gardening, and “took great pride in her flowers, enjoying them while sitting on her front porch swing when the weather was nice.”

Paterson was also happy for The Longstreet Society and recognition of her grandfather, said Garland Reynolds, a Gainesville architect who worked on the Piedmont Hotel.

“(She was) a very sweet lady and friend,” Reynolds said.

She is survived by her two sons, William Daniel “Dan” Paterson Jr. and James R. Paterson, her daughter-in-law, Sherry Paterson, her grandson, Shane Comegys and his wife, Melissa Comegys, and two great-grandsons, Elijah and Jude Comegys.

Paterson also had a great-granddaughter on the way, whom she knew about before she passed.

She will be interred at Alta Vista Cemetery in Gainesville in the Longstreet family plot in October.

© Copyright 2014 The Times, Gainesville, GA
 
On The Web:  http://www.gainesvilletimes.com/section/6/article/103250/

 

16424 ---The Village Idiot --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-08-19 15:59:52 -0400
See related pages and categories



The VILLAGE IDIOT , Kristopher Goad on the Boulevard

Saturday - August 16, 2014

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

Ole Kristopher Cheney Goad, such a dipstick, here he is protesting the Virginia Flaggers all the while the brainless weirdo has 12 Confederate ancestors he either did not know about or has disowned them, and for sure they would disown ole Khristopher, andwho probably about right now are haunting him and wish he had of been kin to someone else. This is the type of peckerheads that are opposing the Virginia flaggers, who loyally and in their absolutely appropriate and very civil actions and manners, protest the rotten and unfair actions by the VMFA, the MOC, W&L and such places in their removal of Confederate battle flags that the political correct crowds had removed and are attempting on destroying all Southern history if we allow them to, but we will not allow this to go unchallenged. Support the Virginia flaggers as they fight for your ancestors, they need your money and encouragement.

You would think this brain dead bicycle freak would have know about his ancestors, but, nope, he didn’t. So now let’s all wait for the story he drums up.

Yes, indeed, Mr. Goad. That is YOUR FLAG…the flag of Capt. William Joseph McDowell Preston, 14th Regt., Co. C. Georgia – CSA – YOUR 3rd great-grand uncle.

Some of you may have seen photos and/or heard accounts of the agitator who sometimes joins our Flaggers on the Boulevard in Richmond. His entire “protest” consists of following our flaggers, holding signs like this one and loudly blasting rap music, laced with vile profanity, racial slurs, and sexually explicit lyrics…

Yes, indeed, Mr. Goad. That is YOUR FLAG...the flag of Capt. William Joseph McDowell Preston, 14th Regt., Co. C. Georgia – CSA – YOUR 3rd great-grand uncle. Some of you may have seen photos and/or heard accounts of the agitator who sometimes joins our Flaggers on the Boulevard in Richmond. His entire "protest" consists of following our flaggers, holding signs like this one and loudly blasting rap music, laced with vile profanity, racial slurs, and sexually explicit lyrics. On May 19, May, 2014, a video was uploaded to youtube.com, featuring Kristopher Cheney Goad (aka "Goad Gatsby") speaking outside of the VMFA, and proclaiming "Hip hop is my heritage" and "I don't feel that the Confederacy represents who I am as a Virginian, and my ancestors." He has also been seen on many occasions, on the Boulevard holding signs that read, "Not my flag." Apparently, Mr. Goad, like so many, was unaware of his family tree, rich with Confederate heritage, which includes (no less than) 12 Confederate ancestors from Virginia, Georgia, Tennessee, and North Carolina... Kristopher Cheney Goad's Confederate Ancestors: 1. Jasper Newton Cheney (a physician), 32nd Infantry, Co. A. Georgia, CSA – 3rd great-grandfather. 2. Capt. William Joseph McDowell Preston, 14th Regt., Co. C. Georgia – CSA – 3rd great-grand uncle. • Also, he is a brother to Mary Ann Preston (who was married to Jasper Newton Cheney, 32nd Infantry, Co. A. Georgia, - 3rd great-grandfather). 3. Charles Thomas Preston, brother to Capt. William Preston. – 6th Infantry, Co. C. Georgia. 3rd great-grand uncle. 4. John Henry Vannerson (a druggist), 35th Regt., 5th Inf. Mountain Rifle, Tennessee – 3rd great-grandfather. 5. Robert Elam Vannerson, - 16th Regt. Co. C, Tennessee – 3rd great grand uncle. (Brother to John Henry). 6. Frances Theodore Vannerson - 35th Regiment, Tennessee Infantry (5th Infantry) (1st Mountain Rifle Regiment) Co. G, B. – 3rd great grand uncle. (brother to John Henry). 7. Beverly Gunter - 50th Infantry Regiment, CO. H. Virginia – 3rd great-grand uncle. 8. Housen Gunter - 4th Regiment, Co. F., Virginia. – 3rd great grand uncle. 9. Eli F. Flippin – 53rd Regt Co. G, North Carolina, 3rd great-grand uncle. 10. William Lawson – 10th NC Art. Co. K. – 4th great-grandfather. 11. Ambrose J. Flippin - Capt. Co. P 72nd Regt. North Carolina – 3rd great grandfather. 12. Samuel Blancett – Co. H. 51st Va Inf., Patrick County VA – 4th great-grandfather.

“Not my flag”? Not so fast, Mr. Goad…

Some of you may have seen photos and/or heard accounts of the agitator who sometimes joins our Flaggers on the Boulevard in Richmond. His entire “protest” consists of following our flaggers, holding signs like this one and loudly blasting rap music, laced with vile profanity, racial slurs, and sexually explicit lyrics.

On May 19, May, 2014, a video was uploaded to youtube.com, featuring Kristopher Cheney Goad (aka “Goad Gatsby”) speaking outside of the VMFA, and proclaiming “Hip hop is my heritage” and “I don’t feel that the Confederacy represents who I am as a Virginian, and my ancestors.” He has also been seen on many occasions, on the Boulevard holding signs that read, “Not my flag.”

Apparently, Mr. Goad, like so many, was unaware of his family tree, rich with Confederate heritage, which includes (no less than) 12 Confederate ancestors from Virginia, Georgia, Tennessee, and North Carolina…

Kristopher Cheney Goad’s Confederate Ancestors:

1. Jasper Newton Cheney (a physician), 32nd Infantry, Co. A. Georgia, CSA – 3rd great-grandfather.

2. Capt. William Joseph McDowell Preston, 14th Regt., Co. C. Georgia – CSA – 3rd great-grand uncle.
• Also, he is a brother to Mary Ann Preston (who was married to Jasper Newton Cheney, 32nd Infantry, Co. A. Georgia, – 3rd great-grandfather).

3. Charles Thomas Preston, brother to Capt. William Preston. – 6th Infantry, Co. C. Georgia. 3rd great-grand uncle.

4. John Henry Vannerson (a druggist), 35th Regt., 5th Inf. Mountain Rifle, Tennessee – 3rd great-grandfather.

5. Robert Elam Vannerson, – 16th Regt. Co. C, Tennessee – 3rd great grand uncle. (Brother to John Henry).

6. Frances Theodore Vannerson – 35th Regiment, Tennessee Infantry (5th Infantry) (1st Mountain Rifle Regiment) Co. G, B. – 3rd great grand uncle. (brother to John Henry).

7. Beverly Gunter – 50th Infantry Regiment, CO. H. Virginia – 3rd great-grand uncle.

8. Housen Gunter – 4th Regiment, Co. F., Virginia. – 3rd great grand uncle.

9. Eli F. Flippin – 53rd Regt Co. G, North Carolina, 3rd great-grand uncle.

10. William Lawson – 10th NC Art. Co. K. – 4th great-grandfather.

11. Ambrose J. Flippin – Capt. Co. P 72nd Regt. North Carolina – 3rd great grandfather.

12. Samuel Blancett – Co. H. 51st Va Inf., Patrick County VA – 4th great-grandfather.

On The Web:  http://jerryd14.wordpress.com/2014/08/16/the-village-idiot-kristopher-goad-on-the-boulevard/

 

16423 ---Govt Declares War On Its People --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-08-19 15:38:54 -0400
See related pages and categories



Government Declares War On Its Own People

Posted on August 17, 2014   
by Al Benson Jr.

For any who have seen the movie Gods and Generals you may remember one scene right near the beginning of the movie, where Robert E. Lee, played by Robert Duval, stated “This is the first time in history that a president has threatened to invade his own country.”  Although it was just a movie, that was a pretty accurate assessment of Lincoln’s intentions should much of the South decide to secede because it did not want to continue to pay 85% of the tariffs for the entire country.

Once the Southern states did secede, a legitimate act and not treason, contrary to what today’s “historians” tell us, Lincoln proceeded to invade the Confederate States in the most brutal manner possible.

In the process of trying to subjugate the Confederate States, the Lincoln administration and its Yankee/Marxist hoards “unofficially” declared war not only on the South but on the North as well. Most Northerners fail to realize this. The Lincoln Marxists declared war on all Northerners that did not agree with “Lincoln’s Little War.” It was much like George Bush’s statement after the rather hazy event on 911–“If you are not with us then you are with the terrorists.” Patriotism for both Lincoln and Bush consisted of showing unwavering support for whatever the regime in power planned to do. If you dared to disagree with the agenda or the methods why you just weren’t being “patriotic.” If you had clear enough vision to see major problems with Bush’s “Patriot Act” (and there were and are problems) which tore gaping holes in the Bill of Rights, then by Bush’s definition, you were “with the terrorists.”  In other words, keep your mouth shut! Standing up for your God-given rights now became treason. Same situation with Comrade Abe. If you dared to speak against his “little war” it could get you some time in a Yankee/Marxist prison somewhere. If you were a clergyman or a newspaper editor who didn’t support Lincoln’s invasion of the South, and said as much, then, at some point, you were probably going to end up as chopped liver for some prison camp–and even if you didn’t say anything but someone reported that you had, it was all the same. No corroborating evidence needed–just arrest the bum!

Given this situation do you wonder why the North had so many Copperheads? Many of these folks, to one degree or another, realized what Comrade Lincoln and his Marxist buddies were all about and they wanted no part of it.

They thought they had a God-given right to their liberties and their right to speak up for what they believed was the truth. The Lincoln administration went into overdrive to disabuse them of that fallacy.

If George Orwell had wanted to, he could have written a book about real civil liberties abuses in this country during the War of Northern Aggression and he could have called the book 1864. He wouldn’t have had to change the story line of his book all that much, just the names and dates and he could have changed the last line of the story to “He loved the Great Emancipator!”

The definition of patriotism in this country since 1861 has been “Unwavering support for whatever the regime in power does, even if they are in the process of taking your freedoms away.” You are supposed to demonstrate your “patriotism” by supporting the loss of your liberties–all the time thanking your national secular “saviors” for their efforts to protect you and keep you safe–the “safety” of the federal prison or the FEMA “re-education” camp. You are supposed to love Big Brother for all of this and if you don’t then you are just an ungrateful wretch, and guilty of treason because you don’t. Treason has been redefined as “anything the federal government disapproves of.” Oh, they won’t come right out and say it that way–but their actions speak louder than their silence.

Lincoln set the precedent, and most of the rest have followed it–although some might say that the precedent was really set with the Alien and Sedition Acts back when John Adams was still president. And those taking that position might have a point. If that is truly the case, then our problems in this country started lots earlier than most even want to think about. Interestingly enough, the Constitution, for all the vaunted checks and balances, does not seem to have protected us much from most of what has followed. But you can, at least, trace significantly the decline of liberty from the Lincoln administration right down to the Marxist regime we are currently saddled with. I have often said–if you hadn’t had Lincoln you wouldn’t have Obama. I still think that’s valid.

Lincoln and Edwin Stanton probably jousted with one another over who was going to be the dictator de jour, and those who have read their history realize that this question was decided at Ford’s Theater on one April night in 1865–or as one wag put it–“Aside from that Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?”

Our current Commissar doesn’t have any visible competition at this point and so as long as he continues his efforts at remaking the US into a third world banana republic , per the instructions of his handlers behind the scenes, he will remain in power, no matter how egregious his offenses. What he ludicrously refer to as the “news” media will continue to run interference for him unless told not to.

His only problem might be if he, like Richard Nixon before Watergate, gets to thinking that he is actually a real president and not just a mouthpiece. Nixon had that problem and was “Watergated” because of it. So far our present commissar has kept himself out of that kind of difficulty–so far.

However, let us not kid outselves. Some historians have labeled the time after the War of Northern Aggression and “reconstruction” as “Post-America.”  In other words, what constituted the real America was gone by that point, and if that be true, then none of us alive today has ever lived in the real America because it has not existed in our lifetime. We have lived in a pseudo-America and been forced to participate in the farce. So, North and South, and even East and West, we must begin to rethink where we have come from and realize where we really are, and realize that we have ever only existed in a parody of the real America.

We have a long way to go to get back to the real thing, if we ever do, and without the Lord’s help and guidance we will never make it.

We will never truly understand our history until we grasp the fact that Lincoln made war on his own people, North and South, and today the Obama regime is still making war on the American people. All his support goes to those that are trying to tear this country down. The story is there for those who have eyes to see.

On The Web:   http://revisedhistory.wordpress.com/2014/08/17/government-declares-war-on-its-own-people/

 

16422 ---Leaders Defend Embattled Nickname --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-08-19 15:28:04 -0400
See related pages and categories



After Uproar, ‘Ole Miss’ Leaders Defend Embattled Nickname, Pledge To Keep It

by Andrew Desiderio
George Washington University
August 14, 2014

Was it all just one big misunderstanding?

In an interview with The College Fix, University of Mississippi’s chief communications officer Tom Eppes strongly denied the campus will eliminate or diminish its widely used and beloved “Ole Miss” nickname due to its historic ties to slavery.

The recent idea that “Ole Miss” would be axed or used less frequently because some people are uncomfortable with it had been met with a huge backlash, prompting national headlines, a petition that called for Chancellor Dan Jones’ resignation signed by about 3,000 people, and a protest march against the changes.

But the notion – prompted by a recent report by Chancellor Jones that called on “developing a plan to provide guidance on best uses of the terms ‘The University of Mississippi’ and ‘Ole Miss’ ” – was misunderstood, Eppes said.

In the report, Jones said the plan should follow “traditional convention” that uses “Ole Miss” in athletics and school spirit references, and “University of Mississippi” in reference to academics. Eppes said that’s actually been standard operating procedure for years. But some interpreted that as a policy change.

“As has been the case all along, we will use ‘University of Mississippi,’ the formal name of the university, in first reference in news releases and when referencing academic research or communicating on behalf of academic schools or departments,” he said.

“Ole Miss” was originally used by slaves when referring to a plantation owner’s wife, and that “Ole Miss” officially became the nickname of the university following a yearbook contest in the late 1800s, The Associated Press reports.olemiss.ken-lund.flickr

Today, most people don’t think about slavery or racism when the moniker “Ole Miss” is used, Eppes said, adding the campus will not scrap the venerable nickname, nor change their “OleMiss.edu” email address and website URL, because of a few concerns.

“Neither the website URL nor the email address are changing, despite media reports to the contrary,” he said.

“National research clearly demonstrated that the name carries none of the antebellum meaning that concerned some faculty,” Eppes added. “In fact, it’s regarded very positively nationwide.”

The report by Chancellor Jones, published Aug. 1, states that campus evaluations found “the vast majority of current students of all races embraces the name and does not attach any meaning to it other than an affectionate name for the university.”

What’s more, researchers found that a significant margin likes and prefers the “Ole Miss” name over the full University of Mississippi title.

“The affectionate term ‘Ole Miss’ is and will continue to be an important part of our national identity,” Jones had stated.

Eppes said “confusion” was also prompted in part by concerns stemming from a University of Mississippi history professor, who told The New York Times earlier this year about his frustration with the name.

“If you bill yourself as Ole Miss and you call yourself the Rebels and the first thing a visitor to the campus sees is a Confederate monument, whether intentionally or not, it conveys an image,” history professor Charles Eagles told the newspaper.

“If I could do one thing,” Eagles continued, “the place would never be called Ole Miss again.”

Those quotes were then connected more recently with Jones’ report, which detailed an “action plan” on how the campus will distance itself from its controversial Confederate past.

In fact, some changes are in the offing.

Campus officials will rename a street on campus from “Confederate Drive” to “Chapel Lane.” The University of Mississippi will also hire a “vice chancellor for diversity.”

“It is my hope that the steps outlined here … will prove valuable in making us a stronger and healthier university,” Jones said in his report, “bringing us closer to our goal of being a warm and welcoming place for every person every day, regardless of race, religious preference, country of origin, ability, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation or gender expression.”

But the confusion over the fate of “Ole Miss” prompted fierce debate on both sides.

Student Emma Jennings penned an open letter to Chancellor Jones in which she addressed those who may want to change the university’s email domain, currently @olemiss.edu, saying the impact on racial diversity will be negligible.

“Does changing our email address URL from ‘olemiss.edu’ to ‘umiss.edu’ promote diversity?” she asked in her letter. “Or does it suggest that we are a school that is ashamed of itself and ashamed of its past?”

She also slammed the idea of hiring a vice chancellor for diversity and inclusion.

“By creating [this position] … you are suggesting to the rest of the world that Ole Miss is inherently a racist school, and her students are incapable of change on their own,” she wrote.

Jennings also fired back at Jones’s report, saying it “could use some more research, investigation, and a broader base of opinion quotes to be truly on the right track to a diverse university.”

The student government also recently came out in support of keeping Ole Miss around.

“The Associated Student Body is glad to read that the chancellor’s report underlines the importance of retaining the term Ole Miss as our university’s nickname,” it stated. “Representing our student body, we agree that the overwhelming majority of students of all races see the term affectionately and would be upset with its removal. We believe that the goodwill that the university gains through retaining the beloved nickname is irreplaceable and its removal would be a great detriment to our university.”

In contrast, senior Sierra Mannie penned an op-ed in Time in which she claimed the university “has spent too long marinating in such an idyll, willfully and disappointingly ignorant of the antebellum period and its shame.”

Mannie stated she even “teared up” after reading Jones’ report, praising his leadership on the issue. But she admits she still uses “Ole Miss” when not speaking about academics. “It’s much shorter,” she wrote.

The Ole Miss Alumni Association did not return a request for comment by The College Fix on this issue.

On The Web:   http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/18808/

 

16420 ---Heart Of Race Relations Problem --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-08-18 16:21:32 -0400
See related pages and categories



The Heart of the Race Relations Problem
 
From: bernhard1848@gmail.com
 
The disruption of Southern race relations by federal authorities such as the Supreme Court and various imported agitators, has done more harm than good, according to author William D. Workman, Jr (below).  He wrote in 1960 that “In many respects, the refusal of the North to leave the South alone has had a harmful effect upon the very individuals about whom the Northerners profess most concern – that is, the Southern Negro.”  As they “helped” the Southern Negro, they also ruined his good relations with the white neighbors he had to live with.  Bernhard Thuersam
 

The Heart of the Race Relations Problem
 
“More [problems] can be expected in the future if Northern integrationists, with or without political backing, continue to pillory the white South under the guise of helping the black South.
 
Meanwhile, the harried Southern Negro, who may or may not agree with the fulminations made in his behalf, stands to lose more than he gains.  In most of the South, he is now possessed of all the purely legal rights which are coming his way, and continued agitation from the North can add little to his political status . . . [and] On the other hand, and this has become quite apparent in the last few years, the Negro becomes – willingly or unwillingly – the object of the white Southerner’s resentment.
 
Basically, the white Southerner has little quarrel with his Negro neighbor, and frankly despises the Northern propagandists – including the Supreme Court of the United States – with far greater intensity than is ever directed toward the Negro.
 
When the Northerner preaches the “brotherhood of man,” the Southerner calls for “freedom of association” and proceeds to sever longstanding ties which formerly linked him amicably with his Negro fellow-Southerners.
 
The net result is that the Northern action brings about almost the reverse reaction from that desired. Instead of bringing Southern whites and Negroes closer together, it drives them farther apart since, in the eyes of the white Southerner, the Negro is identified with those forces which seek to pillory and persecute the South.
 
The heart of the problem lies in the achievement of community acceptance of whatever pattern of race relations seems best for that community. [Where] there is not acceptance, no amount of pressure – federal, religious, or otherwise – will bring about a satisfactory situation. The matter of race relations is too close a thing . . . and not a thing to be handled by impersonal formula and governmental edict . . . .
 
In the years preceding the Supreme Court decision of 1954, and in a diminishing degree since then, Southern communities were making notable progress in the expansion of not only racial amity but of bi-racial achievement.  The pressures which have built up following the desegregation decision, however, tended in large measure to “freeze” things as they were, and indeed in many cases to undo the good that had been accomplished by slow, patient work over the years.  
 
Florida’s Gov. LeRoy Collins had this to say in March of 1956:
 
“For as long as I can remember, the Florida A&M [Negro] University choir on Sunday afternoons has held vesper services open to the general public. Many white citizens have over the years attended these concerts with great admiration for the excellence of these Negro voices singing the spirituals of their race.  But this has almost completely stopped, I am advised. The singing still goes on each Sunday, and it is as good as it has ever been, but there are no longer white listeners.  Fear of being labeled integrationists has intimidated them into staying away .
 
These things don’t make good sense but they are happening nevertheless.  They signal not just a halt in the advancement of good race relations, but actually a decided move backward.  They show the insidious results when our people are pulled by one side or the other into the fighting pit of the extremists . . . “
 
(The Case For the South, William D. Workman, Jr., Devin-Adair, 1960, pp. 134-138)

 

16419 ---Lies Passing As History --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-08-18 15:14:12 -0400
See related pages and categories



Manufactured Lies Passing as History
 
From: bernhard1848@gmail.com
 
Long before the collision at Charleston, efforts to avoid armed conflict were pursued by the South to settle its differences with the North and avoid bloodshed. From the Crittenden Compromise of late 1860 to the Confederate commissioners sent to Washington in March of 1861, to the Hampton Roads Conference of February 1865, the Southern statesmen worked diligently to both avert and end the war.  There is no question that as one reviews the timeline of peace initiatives and conferences that one side wanted peace, and the other wanted war.
 
Bernhard Thuersam, Chairman
North Carolina War Between the States Sesquicentennial Commission
"Unsurpassed Valor, Courage and Devotion to Liberty"
www.ncwbts150.com
"The Official Website of the North Carolina WBTS Sesquicentennial"
 
Manufactured Lies Passing as History
 
“After all, President Coolidge’s first installment of our history to set off Borglum’s group on a Western mountainside [Mt. Rushmore] did not please the sculptor, and he wrote the history himself which is to be chiseled in stone and go down the ages!  Who can say that it was not least as good as the ex-President’s?
 
At Gettysburg, on May 30, President [Herbert] Hoover exhibited to a marked degree that strange ignorance or that determined avoidance of the truth of history which we see when a speaker has to place Abraham Lincoln in that niche which had been fashioned for him by what Mr. Mencken calls “prostitute historians,” and which has now been accepted by the North, by the world, and even by the larger part of the South, which is both servile and ignorant, and yet it is a niche which shames truth and degrades history!
 
[Hoover] stated, in effect, that all the blood and horror and tears of the “Civil” War might have been avoided had the people been possessed of the human kindness and tolerance of Abraham Lincoln.
 
There could scarcely have been fashioned a statement which would have done more violence to the truth. The veriest tyro in history research must know that Abraham Lincoln was a part of, and largely cooperated with, that group which thought that “a little bloodletting will be good for this nation.”
 
Everyone not an ignoramus in Southern history must know that Lincoln opposed sending delegates to that compromise or peace convention which might, at the last moment, have devised some means for avoidance of the holocaust. Everyone not determined to make a point at expense of truth must know that Lincoln, secretly, determinedly, and almost alone, sent that fleet of reinforcements and supplies to Fort Sumter, and thus, as five of his cabinet had told him, brought on the war inevitably.
 
Lincoln did much to inaugurate war, and there is no word of history which sets forth the fact that he did any act or uttered any word which would have avoided war, and yet, in a speech which was to reach the ears of the world, President Hoover, at Gettysburg, makes the statement, totally devoid of accuracy, that we might have avoided war had we been possessed of the human kindness and tolerance of Abraham Lincoln, the man who more than any other, or any group of others, is responsible, as worthy historians now set forth, for the inauguration of four years of horror in this country.
 
We sometimes wonder if the Yankees do not get weary themselves of this incessant round of prevarication, or are they so steeped in this false history that they cannot see the truth.  We know of many instances, which have come directly to our knowledge, where they refuse the truth when it is demonstrated to them. But are all of them that way?
 
Or is it just a part of the price, this living lie, which we, as a conquered people here in the South, must pay in order to establish the truth of that time-old statement which sets forth that a conquered people must have their history written by their conquerors, as has been done since Ur of the Chaldees, and submit, gracefully or otherwise, to the inevitable sequence of this, that our history shall be nothing but manufactured lies.”
 
(Our History in High Places, Arthur H. Jennings, Past Historian in Chief, SCV, Confederate Veteran, July 1930, pp. 254-255)
 
 

16418 ---Usual Odds At Gettysburg --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-08-18 15:04:38 -0400
See related pages and categories



Lee Faces the Usual Odds at Gettysburg
 
From: bernhard1848@gmail.com


 
Despite the claim of victory at Gettysburg and a so-called high-water mark of the American Confederacy, the Northern army nearly twice General Robert E. Lee’s strength was badly mauled and in no condition to contest Lee’s return to Virginia.  Lee’s army did not re-cross the Potomac until 13 July and was not “seriously annoyed or molested in the interval” from a quiet 4 July.  Lee immediately moved to the Rapidan river to confront the Northern army as it moved into Virginia east of the mountains.
 
Bernhard Thuersam, Chairman
North Carolina War Between the States Sesquicentennial Commission
"Unsurpassed Valor, Courage and Devotion to Liberty"
www.ncwbts150.com
"The Official Website of the North Carolina WBTS Sesquicentennial"
 
 
Lee Faces the Usual Odds at Gettysburg
 
“After the assault on the enemy’s works on the 3rd of July, there was no serious fighting at Gettysburg. The 4th passed in comparative quiet.  Neither army evinced any disposition to assail the other.  Notwithstanding the brilliant achievements of [Generals Richard] Ewell and [A.P.] Hill on the first day, and the decided advantage gained by Longstreet on the second, the failure of the operations on the third day, involving as they did, but two divisions of the army, deprived us of the prestige of our previous successes, and gave a shadow of right to our adversary’s claim of having gained a victory.
 
Their exultation, however, should be tempered with moderation, when we consider that, after one day of absolute quiet, the Confederates withdrew from their front without serious molestation, and with the bridges swept away, and an impassable river in rear, stood in an attitude of defiance until their line of defeat could be rendered practicable, after which they safely re-crossed into Virginia.
 
Then, again, so serious was the loss visited upon the Federals in the engagements of the first and second days, and so near success was the effort to storm their position on the third day, that they were themselves undecided as to whether they should stand or retreat.
 
In discussing several councils or conferences held by General Meade with his corps-commander, General Sickles testified, before the Committee on the Conduct of the War, that the reason the Confederates were not followed up was on account of differences of opinion whether or not the Federals should themselves retreat, as “it was by no means clear, in the judgment of the corps-commanders, or of the general in command, whether they had won or not.”
 
On the 20th of July, 1863, after the return of General Lee to Virginia, his army numbered forty-one thousand three hundred eighty-eight effective, exclusive of the cavalry corps [of about 7600].  It appears . . . that General Lee’s loss in the Pennsylvania campaign was about nineteen thousand.
 
Concerning the strength of the Federal army [in late June 1863] . . . General Hooker’s . . . total effective (force of officers and men) [was] fully one hundred and twelve thousand . . . against the Army of Northern Virginia at sixty-two thousand of all arms – fifty thousand infantry, eight thousand cavalry, and four thousand artillery – and I believe these figures very nearly correct.”
 
(Four Years With General Lee, Walter H. Taylor, Indiana University Press, 1962, pp. 110-113)
 
 

16417 ---Ethnic Cleansing In America --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-08-18 14:53:54 -0400
See related pages and categories



Ethnic Cleansing in America Circa 1862
 
From: bernhard1848@gmail.com
 
Sherman’s strategy of subduing Americans in the South who desired political independence and a more perfect Union included setting stark starvation and destruction loose upon the land to convince them otherwise.  Before beginning his Meridian, Mississippi campaign in early 1864, he wrote his wife, “We will take all provisions, and God help the starving families.” 
 
Bernhard Thuersam, Chairman
North Carolina War Between the States Sesquicentennial Commission
"Unsurpassed Valor, Courage and Devotion to Liberty"
www.ncwbts150.com
"The Official Website of the North Carolina WBTS Sesquicentennial"
 
Ethnic Cleansing in America Circa 1862
 
“Copied from the “Washington Evening Star”:


 
United States Commissioner A.J. Williams, of Cleveland, Ohio, a member of the Loyal Legion, recently gave out for publication the following letter written by Gen. Sherman to his brother, Senator John Sherman, in 1862.
 
Memphis, Tenn., Aug. 13, 1862
 
My Dear Brother,
 
“ . . . At last I got here and found the city contributing gold, arms, powder, salt and everything the enemy wanted. It was a smart trick on their part thus to give up Memphis that the desire of gain to our Northern merchants should supply them with the things needed in war.  I have one man under sentence of death for smuggling arms across the lines, and hope Mr. Lincoln will approve it.
 
But the mercenary spirit of our people is too much and my orders are reversed and I am ordered to encourage the trade in cotton, and all orders prohibiting gold, silver and notes to be paid for it are annulled by orders from Washington.  But what are the lives of our soldiers to the profits of the merchants?
 
After a whole year of bungling, the country has at last discovered that we want more men. Now 1,300,000 men are required when 700,000 was deemed absurd before.
 
Of course I will approve the confiscation act, and would be willing to revolutionize the government so as to amend that Article of the Constitution which forbids the forfeiture of land to the heirs.  My full belief is, we must colonize the country de novo, beginning with Kentucky and Tennessee, and should remove 4,000,000 of our people at once south of the Ohio River, taking the farms and plantations of the Rebels.
 
I deplore the war as much as ever, but if the thing has to be done, let the means be adequate.
 
Don’t expect to overrun such a country or subdue such a people in one, two or five years. It is the task of half a century.  We must colonize and settle as we go South . . . enemies must be killed or transported to some other country.
 
Your affectionate brother, W.T. Sherman”
 
(Gen. Sherman’s Colonization Scheme, His Comment on Men and Measures in August 1862, Confederate Veteran, November 1896, pg. 37)
 
 

16416 ---History & Heritage Month Update --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-08-18 14:40:37 -0400
See related pages and categories



Confederate History and Heritage Month Update
 
To you, Sons of Confederate Veterans, we will commit the vindication of the cause for which we fought. To your strength will be given the defense of the Confederate soldier's good name, the guardianship of his history, the emulation of his virtues, the perpetuation of those principles which he loved and which you love also, and those ideals which made him glorious and which you also cherish.


 
— Lieut.-Gen. Stephen D. Lee, Commander-in-Chief, United Confederate Veterans, April 25, 1906
From the National and Georgia Division Sons of Confederate Veterans Confederate History and Heritage Month Committee for 2014 through 2016.
 
Committee Members for 2014 through 2016
 
Calvin E. Johnson, Jr., Chairman
Billy Bearden
James King
Fred Wilhite
John Black
 
And in memory of member Jeff Davis.
 
Follow us on face book with many events and news items that is read by thousands every week at: https://www.facebook.com/ConfederateHeritageMonth?ref_type=bookmark
 
Click on “like” our Confederate History Month page and send to others.
 
WASHINGTON, Va., July 29, 2014 /PRNewswire/ -- The Sons of Confederate Veterans, a heritage organization which represents approximately 30,000 male descendants of the Confederate States Army, has accused officials of Washington and Lee University in Lexington, Virginia of "exhibiting the same kind of narrow minded prejudice and knee-jerk bias that has always been the enemy of brotherhood and understanding."
 
The group, known as the SCV, was created in 1896 and is based in Columbia, Tennessee. According to a statement released by the SCV's Chief of Heritage Operations Ben Jones, the recent removal of Confederate symbols from the burial place of General Robert E. Lee was a "breaking point for us. Our patience with this 'new McCarthyism' is exhausted."
 
Read more: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/sons-of-confederate-veterans-accuse-university-of-narrow-minded-prejudice-269069621.html
 
It is great honor to receive the Sons of Confederate Veterans National Organization “Distinguished Service Medal.”
 
Compatriot Billy Bearden and member of the Confederate History Month Committee for National and Georgia brought the medal to a meeting of my SCV camp Chattahoochee Guards. Joel Coleman Adjutant of the Chattahoochee Guards mailed it to me. Thank you all who were behind my award that I will always treasure.
 
From CHHM member Billy Bearden:
 
At the 119th National Reunion in North Charleston, I picked up a package for a well known Georgian, who is 110% dedicated to the Cause and Colors of our Confederate Veterans. Last night, I attended the meeting of the Chattahoochee Guards Camp 1296, and shared with all gathered the contents of the package, and they were very excited and very agreeable to it's meaning. While he was unable to attend the meeting, the package will soon be in his hands. For way more years than I can remember - long before I became an SCV member - he was there on the front lines. He is Chairman on the Georgia and National Heritage and Confederate History & Heritage Month Committees. He has dozens of news articles printed annually, and is a great leader in the Georgia SCV. His name is Calvin Johnson and I am proud to be his friend. Congratulations, Calvin, on being presented with the Distinguished Service Award. You are truly most deserving and long overdue!
 
Thank you Billy!
 
Let me share this special award with all members of the CHHM committee and SCV who stand up for Dixie every day.
 
If you don’t have your Georgia SCV tag, what are you waiting on? I got mine and it’s a beauty to behold. See picture in article of mine that was published in Canada Free Press:
 
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/the-georgia-scv-tag-is-about-heritage
 
More to come and Have a Dixie Day!
 
Calvin E. Johnson, Jr., Chairman
National and Georgia Division Confederate History and Heritage Month Committee
1064 West Mill Drive, Kennesaw, Georgia 30152, Phone: 770 428 0978 or 770 330 9792
 
 

16415 ---Re: Andersonville (regenstein) --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-08-18 14:27:20 -0400
See related pages and categories



Re: Andersonville
 
From: regenstein@mindspring.com
 
Hi Chuck, thanks for all your good work. Here is some additional commentary on Andersonville.
 
Sincerely, Lew
 

James King is right that the food shortages afflicting Union POW's held by the Confederates were the fault of the policies of the Lincoln Administration.
 
This has been affirmed by My ancestor, Major Raphael Jacob Moses, who was General James Longstreet's Chief of Commissary, responsible for feeding and supplying his army of 40,000 men.


 
When Henry Wirz, the former commandant of the   Andersonville Prison in Georgia was put in trial for his life after the war, for starving and abusing his POW’s, Moses came to his defense. Moses wrote to him, pointing out that the hungry federal prisoners at Andersonville were receiving the same provisions as the equally deprived Confederates in the field:
 
"I only heard a few days ago that you were in prison, charged with cruelty to the Andersonville prisoners. Heaven knows that if there was ever such a charge without a shadow of foundation, this is such. Major Allen can prove, and so can I, that the Andersonville prisoners were supplied from this post with precisely the same rations as our army in the field…"
 
As Jerrold Northrop Moore writes in “Confederate Commissary General,”
 
"Wirz was condemned to death. Just before his execution he was offered a reprieve in exchange for a statement to convict Jefferson Davis of cruelty to Federal prisoners of war. Wirz refused and was hanged."
 
It is shameful, but not surprising, that some in the news media will not allow the truth to be published about this historical issue.
 
Lewis Regenstein
Atlanta
 
 

16414 ---Death Because Of Culture? --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-08-18 14:16:18 -0400
See related pages and categories



Last weekend, a tragedy on a Sprint car racetrack in NY resulted in the tragic death of Kevin Ward, Jr. who had gotten out of his car and was hit and killed by Tony Stewart. The investigation continues, but it did not stop at least one sports commentator from one of the most idiotic accusations this side of accusing George Bush being responsible for 911. Here’s the comment from ESPN’s Colin Cowherd: “It’s really, really part of the South, and it’s an eye-for-an-eye culture.”
 
Really? So this guy thinks the death of Kevin Ward is because of a southern culture? Since Ward is a native of New York and Stewart is from Indiana, I guess I’m not getting the geographical connection, but as a proud Southerner, I take offense at some guy whose name rhymes with cow turd trying to blame southerners for a testosterone fueled feud between two Yankee drivers. Cowherd reveals his ignorance of southern culture by invoking an eye for an eye as being Southern. Maybe he should get out more.
 
If you have a flat tire on a country road in Mississippi, you won’t be there long before someone in a pickup truck stops to help you change it. People in Arkansas still pull over to the side of the road so a funeral procession can go by; A fellow who kills a deer in Georgia will probably give you some of the meat for your family; catching a mess—yes, we call it a mess of fish means the neighbors will get some too; total strangers in Tennessee will say hello, and when people say they will pray for you in South Carolina, they really will. I don’t know where the goon from ESPN is from, but it ain’t from the south. If he wants to make a complete fool of himself, he should come see us and try to show us how to cook grits, make redeye gravy, run a trotline in Louisiana, set a hook on a largemouth bass, field dress a deer, or clean a Weatherby 300 mag rifle. He can explain to us the difference between King James Version and the NIV, sing Amazing Grace in 4 octaves, and play fiddle in a country band. He can give us his recipe for a barbecue rub, coach Little League football, tree a coon with a hound dog, and show us how he calls ducks. If he can’t do that, he ought to stick with what he knows which clearly is not Southern culture and shut his pie hole. Bless his heart!
 
Mike Huckabee
 
 

16413 ---Tribute To Martin Niemoller --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-08-13 15:42:57 -0400
See related pages and categories



Friday, August 08, 2014
A Tribute to Martin Niemoller

By Valerie Protopapas

First they came for Quantrill and the Missouri guerrillas—and I didn’t object because, after all, they weren’t even Southerners or an official part of the Confederate army. And anyway, we still have Lee and Jackson and the Army of Northern Virginia.

Then they came for Nathan Bedford Forrest—and I didn’t object because, after all, he was nothing more than a semi-literate slave trader and there was that matter of Fort Pillow after all. And anyway, we still have Lee and Jackson and the Army of Northern Virginia.

Then they came for Jefferson Davis—and I didn’t object because, after all, he was only a politician and wasn’t even that good a president. And anyway, we still have Lee and Jackson and the Army of Northern Virginia.

Then they came for the Battle Flag—and I didn’t object because, after all, it wasn’t a national flag and besides, it was used by the klan during the civil rights movement in the 50s and 60s (of course, before that, the klan had used the American flag). And anyway, we still have Lee and Jackson and the Army of Northern Virginia.

Then they came for the monuments erected to Confederate soldiers and heroes—and I didn’t object because, after all, many are falling down through age and few even know what they’re about, so what does it really matter? And anyway, we still have Lee and Jackson and the Army of Northern Virginia.

Now they’ve come for Lee and soon they will come for Jackson and all the rest—and at this point, what right do I have to object?

On The Web:  http://shnv.blogspot.com/2014/08/a-tribute-to-martin-niemoller.html

 

16412 ---What The Battle Flag Means --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-08-13 15:21:59 -0400
See related pages and categories



WHAT THE CONFEDERATE BATTLE FLAG MEANS

Saturday - August 9, 2014

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

Many today oppose the flying of the Confederate Battle Flag. I cannot help but to believe that some, not many, but some of these folks would think differently if they could somehow understand what we Southerners feel about our ancestors, as this flag to us is our ancestors in so many ways. I am not intending to discuss the origination or all the various versions, types and shapes of all the various flags that the citizens and leaders accepted as  ” Confederate Flags ” back during the 1861-1865 period as I am certain that those of you reading this know which flag I speak of.

To me and to many others the flag is a tangible object that we can see, and when we do see it, it brings many thoughts I know to me, thoughts of the faces of the soldiers and sailors as they left their mothers and fathers as young boys and men, to go away not knowing what lie ahead for them. I think of the children left behind as the breadwinner, the protector, the father, who left his family to do his heartfelt duty,  for his family and his neighbors and his state, as he was aware of the invading army’s plans to kill and destroy them and their lands and homes. Newspapers had for a long time printed stories of the coming war, and they incited and fanned the flames through the nation as much as the loudest politicians of the time did, so everyone knew what was being said, and their was much fear, and people were very unsettled as they waited to see what might happen.

Yes, the Confederate battle flag brings all these thoughts and feelings to me and much more, the thoughts of what these men had to endure during those hard summer marches, the dust, the mud, the thirst, the hunger, the aches and pains, the wind, rain, snow and cold, and much discomfort in living outside in the elements, and the knowledge of a possible life ending disease or battle wound. Many men became sick on and off during their time in the war, dysentery, mumps, measles, and various other disease as they went through woods, creeks, swamps and drink insect infested dirty water, ate unpleasant food or many days had no food at all, with little available means to keep themselves clean. No man escaped seeing the dead and wounded friends, it had to be  a horrific horror, and I cannot possibly write a statement that gives a picture as accurate as it needs to be concerning this, oh what these men had to see and endure. Yes, this was a terrible existence, not like the Hollywood scenes, it must have been hell on earth.

Yes that beautiful Confederate flag brings me both sadness and smiles, the things i stated earlier about the suffering, the dead and their suffering for such a war that should never have been forced on the South all makes me very sad, and when I also think of humor such as what I think some of my ancestors would say to me if they were here and knew how their history and their sacrifices were viewed by many today, and I think some of them would say something that I would take as funny, knowing the humurious ways of many of my people, yes it makes me smile that I have never met my 10 or more Confederate ancestors, but am sure that if I could see them and talk with them they would likely kidd me on some of my concerns about how they have been vilified, and disrespected for doing what any honorable decent and brave man would have done, to offer their life to defend family and friends, their state, their kin and neighbors as most men did. Today’s America, with so many college trained writers who spent several years under the brainwashing of liberal teachers and professors who have sharpened their skills at distortion, deception, lying, and twisting and politicizing the events, causes and related incidents that comprised the war. These liberals, who as you or I, can only read the letters, books, the writings from the participants, or the families and witnesses to learn of this war and all the participants and events, so they have no special window into this war that is not also available to you and to me. They have the same information, the very same information any one of us can obtain, but when they walk away and write or teach they present a totally different version. They do not err, they deliberately and knowingly distort so as to make certain idols of theirs look better and more noble than they were, and I am speaking only about the many liberal political correct writers and so called historians that are here today and those that have passed through with their writings and books and teachings they knew were dishonest and wrong, I have said, and I am sure it has been written by someone with much more knowledge than I, that for a person to learn the truth about these war events, causes, reasons various   and the history of what things occurred, is to review many documents  by various people. Do not depend on one single story, or one single book unless it is a first person document that has been witnessed and is generally accepted by most persons with standing, but never read a book and depend on the writers total accuracy, compare it to other documents, and you generally can get a very close and accurate picture of what actually was said, or done and when and by whom.

The Confederate Battle flag never has ever been to me a thing to use in disagreement to some civil rights issue, or some football game or other such event, including a NASCAR race, it has nothing to do with car racing, it has everything to do with family bonds, and love of these family ties and nothing to do with politics..

It has to do with honor and respect, not disrespect of the North, or disrespect of the U.S. Government today, I have like many others served this nation and offered my body and soul for the defense of what the U.S Flag stands for, and I love the U.S. flag, and I love the Confederate battle flag as well.  I love them, AND I DO NOT WANT ANYONE DEFACING, OR REMOVING EITHER ONE OF THESE FLAGS FOR THEIR POLITICAL LIKE OR DISLIKES WITHIN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

I am sure if I spent more time I could add various other meanings of my love for these flags, the blood spilled into the earth as the men and women did their duty and suffered for me, and you. Yes, they are only symbols, but try and get a mental grip on what important symbols these two flags are to me, and to many of you I hope, and if you do, then you will understand that this symbol made of cotton, or nylon, is more than just a piece of cloth up on a flagpole. I love both of these flags, and I repeat, I do not want to see either of them used as a means to get back at some other group or such. Many blacks AND SOME WHITE LIBERALS incorrectly attach racism and slavery to the Confederate flag, and support and praise the U.S. flag. Why is that, The U.S. FLAG FLEW FOR 84 YEARS OVER  A NATION THAT ALLOWED SLAVERY, THE CONFEDERATE FLAG FLEW FOR 4 YEARS OVER THE CONFEDERATE STATES AND IT WAS NOT FOR SLAVERY, SO WHY HATE THIS FLAG, LOGICALLY  YOU WOULD THINK THE HATERS WOULD HATE THEM BOTH OR HATE NEITHER ONE, and I suggest hating neither one. Slavery started in Egypt 6000 years ago, and it was a different time with different  people, customs, and norms, and you cannot use 2014 standards and thinking to even understand 1861 times, it was different in so many ways.

I am today simply saying, the Confederate flag is important to me and to many thousands, and I am asking those of you who cannot understand why many people will drive 50 to 100 miles each way, weekly to stand on a hot sidewalk 6 hours just to respectfully protest a place that has unfairly, and without justification removed such flags from various appropriate and legal places, for nothing but spiteful, political reasons and nothing more. These actions are wrong, and cause unrest, anger and oppose friendliness and respect to all who love and honor these flags.  Yes, these people who protest the flags removals,  love what this flag stands for, and we are not wrong because we feel this way.  I feel certain to a person, that like myself, we who love the Confederate flag, also love the U.S. Flag, and we would never wish to have the U.S. flag removed from those places it now fly’s, we would never suggest removing existing U.S. monuments or memorials, or U.S. flags, and ask that you who oppose the Confederate flag, show us the same respect that we demonstrate to you, please respect and give and observe decency to us and our memorials and flags, stop the lies, and the misinformation that is being blogged, stop the fabrications and denials of the facts when they occur, stop the attacks on those of us who want our flags back in their proper place, just be fair, honest, and decent, tell only what is true,nothing more is asked of you.

On The Web:  http://jerryd14.wordpress.com/2014/08/09/what-the-confederate-battle-flag-means/

 

16411 ---Rally Protests W&L Decision --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-08-13 14:27:43 -0400
See related pages and categories



Rally protests Washington & Lee flag decision

Wednesday, August 6, 2014
Heather Harris



Less than a month after Washington and Lee University in Lexington bowed to student demands and removed Confederate battle flags from the Lee Chapel, the Stonewall Brigade Camp of the Sons of Confederate Veterans held a rally in protest of the school's decision.

Since the removal of the flags from Lee Chapel in early July, the university has faced heavy criticism. About 3 days after the flags came down, the Stonewall Brigade Camp began planning for a rally.

On July 26, the Stonewall Brigade Camp's rally at Hopkins Green and the public forum that followed drew a crowd of approximately 400 supporters. Attendees came from surrounding states and Ohio, and even attracted tourists from Europe who happened to be in the area already.

“We had less than 2 weeks, really, to put it together. We're satisfied with what we were able to pull off ,” said Brandon Dorsey of the SBC.

Among the special guest speakers at the event were former Georgia congressman Ben Jones, known for his role as Cooter on “The Dukes of Hazard”; Dr. Marshall DeRosa, a professor of political science at Florida Atlantic University; and David Chaltas, an educator and Robert E. Lee interpreter. DeRosa gave a presentation titled “The Heroical Robert E. Lee: Under Attack by the Useful Idiots of the Ruling Class”, which included an open discussion afterward for attendees to offer suggestions and voice their opinions.

Although the rally was a peaceful event with no altercations, Washington and Lee University shut down the Lee Chapel and visitor parking lot over the weekend due to reports of threatening emails, phone calls and letters.

“They claimed that they received some major threats... which I think was just a PR move. If you've received those kinds of threats, have you turned them over to the police? We wouldn't want to be associated with that. They refused to answer that question,” Dorsey said.

Dorsey also stated that Fletcher Avenue was blocked off, preventing access to the neighboring Virginia Military Institute, which houses a museum that is normally open to the public on a daily basis.

“If people don't do as they wish, they have the ability to cut it off. They've tried to avoid the press about this as much as possible,” Dorsey said.

The Stonewall Brigade Camp hopes to approach Washington and Lee University again about having an open forum of discussion, an offer that was previously rejected by the school. Attendees of the rally also had several suggestions, which the SBC is looking to pursue.

In April of this year, a group of 6 minority students from Washington and Lee's law school issued a list of 4 mandates to the university's Board of Trustees. Calling themselves “The Committee”, the students demanded that the school fully recognize Martin Luther King, Jr. Day and issue an official apology for both the university's and Robert E. Lee's participation in slavery.

The students also demanded that the school “stop allowing neo-Confederates to march on campus with Confederate flags on Lee-Jackson Day”, and to not permit the groups to hold events at Lee Chapel. Additionally, they demanded that all Confederate flags be removed from the chapel and the campus. They expected the demands to be met by September 1.

The removal of the flags first came to the SBC's attention when a number of their members, who are graduates of Washington and Lee, received an alumni newsletter that mentioned the battle flags being taken down, saying that the matter was only of interest to the school community.

“[The university] did it in the summer without a press release, I suppose hoping it would go without much notice,” Dorsey said. “You can't really hide behind that excuse.”

A 15-year-old boy who was attempting to visit the Lee Chapel and crypt was turned away until he flipped his shirt inside-out because of the Confederate flag graphic. The report was confirmed by two witnesses that day.

“There's thousands of people that visit that chapel every year and most of them are going to be Civil War enthusiasts,” Dorsey said. “At a university, you typically think you have freedom of expression.”

The members of the Stonewall Brigade Camp believe the university owes it to their students and to the community to live up to their mission statement and motto.

“If the students have so many misconceptions about Robert E. Lee, it's time to do something to fix that,” Dorsey said.

© 2014 BH Media Group Holdings, Inc

On The Web:  http://www.dailyprogress.com/ruralvirginian/rally-protests-washington-lee-flag-decision/article_e1020f8a-1cc6-11e4-9746-001a4bcf6878.html

 

16410 ---Ole Miss Changes Ignore History --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-08-13 14:07:57 -0400
See related pages and categories



Some protest Ole Miss changes, saying they ignore history
August 11, 2014
by Dennis Turner

OXFORD, Miss. — Confederate Drive has been part of the University of Mississippi for as long as anyone can remember.

But Chancellor Dan Jones plans to re-name it “Chapel Drive” as part of a campaign to erase some controversial aspects of the school’s past.

That has sparked protest from history buffs like Debbie Sidle, who claim Jones wants to re-write history, “If you change history, then you make your children ashamed of their history which they shouldn’t be. What do you expect them to grow up to be?”

That’s why she and about 40 others, marched in Oxford from the east end of town to the Ole Miss campus carrying Confederate flags.

University of Mississippi Public Relations Director Dan Blanton told us the changes need to be made, ”We need to take a leadership role in the discussion on diversity and inclusion and racial reconciliation. We’ve made a commitment to doing that.”

The University even hired a “Chancellor for Diversity” to oversee that.

Another controversial change involves how the University refers to itself.

Leaders want to use the name Ole Miss for athletics and the University of Mississippi for academics.

Blanton said these changes don’t change the school as a whole, ”I can make it categorically clear that Ole Miss will always be who we are.”

University officials believe the changes will bring in more students from more diverse backgrounds.

Protestors say Ole Miss history, however distasteful, is in the eye of the beholder and shouldn’t get painted over.

”When you re-write history, the way they’re re-writing history, all you have left is nothing. Ole miss will be a generic school, just like every other generic school,” said Sidle, who told us she and others will keep protesting to get their message out.

On The Web:  http://wreg.com/2014/08/11/some-protest-ole-miss-changes-saying-they-ignor-history/

 

16409 ---Cemetery Speaks To War Tragedy --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-08-13 13:50:27 -0400
See related pages and categories



Confederate Cemetery Speaks to Compassion of Oxford, Tragedy of War

Posted on August 6, 2014
Commentary by Steve Vassallo.

What inspired me to come to Ole Miss more than any other reason — history! If you have not yet read the book “The Education of A Lifetime,” you need to do so. Everyone who loves Ole Miss must read this book! I could not put it down until I finished. The book is extremely well written, but the historical aspects of it are simply fascinating. I did not know that the same individual who designed Central Park in New York also laid out our beautiful campus. History is what makes Ole Miss unique. Our location and campus setting reflect the natural beauty of this region of the United States.

One of the more interesting features of the Ole Miss campus is the Confederate Cemetery located behind Tad Smith Coliseum. What inspired me to research this story was a similar initiative that occurred in Nashville in the early 60's. A writer for the Nashville Tennessean decided to do a story on the City Cemetery near Lafayette Street. Once published, hundreds if not thousands of people flocked to the cemetery. Many may not previously have even known of its existence. It’s amazing to me that we have graduates here who do not know of the existence either of the subject of this story.





Shiloh was one of the deadliest battles in U.S. history. On April 6, 1862, more men would die there than in the previous history of our nation! Many of the wounded could not be cared for in Corinth, Miss., so the overflow came to Oxford and Ole Miss in an attempt to save their lives.

The Ole Miss campus was basically converted into a hospital during the war as classes were suspended. In researching this story I was unaware that the Confederate Monument in the Circle was the exact location where the University Greys stacked their books before leaving for the war. Alexander J. Quinche who became a professor of Latin and modern languages in 1860, was the principal custodian of university property during the Civil War. His friendship with Grant was attributed (as the primary reason) Ole Miss was not destroyed as was Oxford.

Nearly 2,000 patients were treated on the Ole Miss campus during this period (1862-64). Of this number, an estimated 700 died. Hospital records were lost when Federal forces captured Oxford in 1863. Many of those who perished here were interred in the campus cemetery. It is believed that at least 11 of those interred were Federal soldiers. If this is correct (and I believe it to be), it shows compassion beyond description of those who were serving Ole Miss at that time! Shortly after the war, the Union soldiers were reportedly removed and re-interred in the Corinth National Cemetery.

One myth that I dispelled in researching this story is this: The cemetery was never a mass grave as many believe. There were individual graves oriented in an east-west direction. There were 432 anomalies discovered and verified by remote sensing research. Many of the names of those buried in the cemetery appear on the large stone monument located at the center of the cemetery. The majority of those buried remain unknown.

The Albert Sidney Johnston Chapter of the United Daughters of the Confederacy is responsible for the monument and brick wall. In 1936, the original iron fence was in a state of disrepair and replaced by bricks from the previously-burned Gordon Hall on campus. At one time, there were individual grave markers in the cemetery that were destroyed some time around 1900. The featured photo that accompanies this story highlights the entrance that few have ever seen, including this writer. Many thanks are extended to the Cofield Collection, Archives and Special Collections, University of Mississippi Libraries for allowing us the use of this extremely rare photo.

Regardless of what our thoughts and views are regarding the Civil War, it remains forever a part of our nation’s history. If we can take the lessons learned from history and apply these to our current lives, we will be leaving a greater place to future generations. The history associated with this campus is what makes it even more special. If time allows me in 2015, I intend to do a story on every building on campus starting with The Lyceum. Thanks to Robert Khayat and others, we can be proud of the fact that the beauty of our campus is second to none! Let’s keep it that way.

© 2014 HottyToddy.com

On The Web:  http://hottytoddy.com/2014/08/06/confederate-cemetery-speaks-to-compassion-of-oxford-tragedy-of-war/

 

16408 ---Ole Miss Or NSFW? --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-08-13 13:32:36 -0400
See related pages and categories



August 6, 2014

Is Ole Miss—Sorry, O** M***—NSFW?

Olé, Olé, Olé! University of Mississippi discourages use of its nickname after finding that hardly anybody thinks it offensive.

By Ryan Lovelace

The University of Mississippi will require university officials to use discretion when identifying the school as “Ole Miss” because it could be understood as a racist nickname.

“UM’s longstanding nickname is beloved by the vast majority of its students and alumni,” says a statement from Ole Miss. “But a few, especially some university faculty, are uncomfortable with it. Some don’t want it used at all and some simply don’t want it used within the academic context.”

The university says it conducted a national study during the last year and found that the “vast majority of respondents don’t attach any meaning to it [Ole Miss] other than an affectionate name for the university” and “a significant margin likes and prefers the ‘Ole Miss’ name.” Despite “a very small percentage” of respondents who said they associate “Ole Miss” or “University of Mississippi,” with negative race issues, the school has decided to use the nickname sparingly as a representation of school spirit and in athletic circumstances going forward.

Dan Jones, Ole Miss’ chancellor, told the Daily Mississippian a new chief diversity officer would work with the provost to offer guidance to UM Communications about its usage of the school’s nickname. Jones also mentioned the statue of James Meredith, the first black student to enroll at the school, when talking about the university’s new comprehensive action plan to increase diversity and inclusion. Earlier this year, a fraternity at Ole Miss reportedly closed after three members were accused of tying a noose around the neck of the Meredith statue.

Emma Jennings, a student at Ole Miss, told the Daily Mississippian she wrote an open letter to Jones questioning the university’s plan as a response to the Meredith statue incident. As a result, she said she has been called racist. “Does changing our email address URL from “olemiss.edu” to “umiss.edu,” promote diversity?” Jennings wrote in the letter. “Or does it suggest that we are a school that is ashamed of itself and ashamed of its past? While the University of Mississippi has a history that we may not be proud of as modern Americans, the best approach is not to do what we can to erase the past.”

Ole Miss has taken several recent steps to change the way others perceive it. In 2009, Ole Miss reportedly stripped lyrics from its fight song to discourage fans from chanting “the South will rise again,” and in 2010 it dumped the “Colonel Reb” mascot. While the New York Times referred to the mascot as a “caricature of an antebellum Southern plantation owner . . . a man dressed as a Confederate soldier” and “Mark Twain crossed with Colonel Sanders,” Ole Miss’ website says “Blind Jim” Ivy may be the inspiration for the mascot. Ivy, the son of an ex-slave, was a peanut vendor on campus who was famous for saying, “I’ve never seen the rebels lose a game.” In the late 19th century, the university website says, Ole Miss students made him the mascot of the football team and dean of the freshman class.

Rather than discouraging use of the nickname of the university to appease some faculty members, perhaps Ole Miss could do a better job of educating the public about its history. 

© National Review Online 2014

On The Web:  http://www.nationalreview.com/article/384624/ole-miss-sorry-o-m-nsfw-ryan-lovelace

 

16407 ---Sanitizing Ole Miss --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-08-13 13:11:11 -0400
See related pages and categories



Sanitizing The Ole Miss Campus

By Gail Jarvis
August 11, 2014



The ongoing campus cleansing and tradition-trashing at the University of Mississippi is a classic example of what is wrong with many of today’s colleges. The administration at the University of Mississippi, “Ole Miss”, is submissively following practices that have been tried at other institutions, practices that failed to produce the results hoped for. Over the years, an emphasis on campus social engineering designed to conciliate minorities, has created a vast racial bureaucracy at colleges around the nation. This bureaucracy continues to grow, but racial complaints rarely lessen. In many cases, they have gotten worse.

This is the scenario at these colleges. - Even colleges located outside of the South. Once campus activists have targeted an item for removal, it is described as a symbol of “racism, hatred, intolerance, and bigotry.” The University administration is too intimidated to question the validity or seriousness of such complaints, so it usually capitulates and removes the item. And each time the activists succeed in getting an item removed, a new one is targeted for removal.

Many students have come to believe that agitating for “change” is an essential part of collegiate years, possibly more important than getting an education. At Ole Miss, campus agitators are usually joined by a clique of faculty members. Evidently, teaching classes doesn’t seem to give faculty cliques as much satisfaction as helping to implement what they perceive as social justice. This combination of militant professors and activist students has helped insure the success of many symbol-removal campaigns. At Ole Miss, the administration continues to surrender to every removal demand, while the alumni and student body remain cravenly silent.

So many symbols of the South have been removed from Ole Miss that it has been jokingly suggested that any magnolias found on the campus should be removed. ( Magnolias are indeed associated with the old South in popular culture.) Although this suggestion was made in jest, its point should not be dismissed out of hand. In the purging of symbols at Ole Miss, what a thing symbolizes is more important than what it is. Of course, it may symbolize one thing to some and something completely different to others. However, the decision to remove a symbol depends upon which group’s opinions are in fashion, and for almost three decades a minority of campus protestors have essentially controlled the University’s decisions.

Quite a few campus traditions have been scrapped over the years. Some of the most newsworthy being forbidding the University’s band from playing “Dixie” at football games, not allowing students to sing “From Dixie With Love” ; preventing students from waving small replicas of Confederate flags, and replacing the schools’ popular mascot “Colonel Reb” with a bland and irrelevant “Rebel Black Bear.” Consequently, in the name of political correctness, one of college football’s most colorful mascots was forced out in favor of what is probably the dullest mascot in the nation.

The Ole Miss Chancellor, Dan Jones, justified the elimination of these traditions by claiming that students were “advocating a revival of segregation.” That might be the establishment’s clichéd explanation, but students were celebrating in ways that involved long-held traditions. I suspect that these students, as well as many alumni, feel that campus cleansing has gone too far. Chancellor Jones, unfortunately, has plans for greatly expanding his cultural cleansing, which he revealed during festivities at the University’s honoring of LGBTQ month. The Chancellor’s plans include creating the position of Vice Chancellor of Diversity and Inclusion and replacing plaques on campus historical sites with language that places these sites in a “modern context.” - I think we can guess what “placing these historical sites in a modern context” will involve.

Chancellor Jones has already renamed a campus street that had the word “Confederate”in its title, and there is even talk about phasing out the schools’ famous nickname “Ole Miss.” The administration has vacillated on this change, fearing a backlash, but the pressure to drop the nickname continues. I suspect that when complaints about the other changes have lessened, the drive to remove the school’s nickname will be revived. Predictably, this is what usually happens. The reason put forth for this change (And I’m not making this up) is that some slaves referred to the plantation owner’s wife as “ole miss.” If the cleansing campaign has sunk to this level in its search for hidden meanings, we can understand why some believe that magnolia plants will be pulled up by their roots and discarded in trash heaps located outside of the campus.

Dan Jones’ plan to hire a Vice Chancellor for Diversity and Inclusion is a foolish mistake. It is counterproductive because it will encourage campus agitators to dredge up even more complaints, demanding the removal of traditions that they only perceive as insensitive. The University already has a Chief Diversity Officer as well as a Sensitivity and Respect Committee and an Incident Review Committee. (Incredibly, Chancellor Jones also plans a Center for Inclusion and Cross-Cultural Engagements.) Ole Miss implemented an African-American Studies Program several years ago, and the William Winter Institute for Racial Reconciliation is located on the University’s campus.

Diversity officers and sensitivity committees create a campus life radically different from life in the “real world.” Is this desirable? Shouldn’t college years help prepare students to cope with the world outside of the walls of academia? - When minority students leave this sheltered campus environment and enter the “real world”, their every whim will not be catered to. So Ole Miss should stop trying to make sure that nothing unpleasant ever enters their field of vision or range of hearing.

The Leftist media heaps praise on the University of Mississippi’s administration each time it trashes one of the school’s traditions, - This is considered “progress” because these honored traditions are associated with Southern heritage. To the Leftist media, Southern heritage is composed of only two factors : slavery and racism. Nothing else. They believe that Southern heritage must be utterly eliminated in order to eradicate “racism, hatred, intolerance, and bigotry.”

But when cultural cleansing goes too far, it not only begins to lose support, but it can also cause harmful side effects. Still, neither Ole Miss trustees nor alumni question the reasonableness of Chancellor Jones inordinate removal actions. Many must surely be concerned about his exuberant overreach. And it is indeed surprising that trustees and alumni never ask how much cultural cleansing must take place before the campus is adequately “sanitized.”

As tuition for major colleges is now out of reach for many Mississippi families, you would think Ole Miss might be a little more judicious when creating additional positions to promote diversity: positions paying high six figure salaries. Already, many families are considering smaller and less expensive colleges for their children. Trade and vocational schools are also becoming a preferred option. Shouldn’t the University of Mississippi exhibit some concern for the finances of Mississippi families?

Black students represent roughly 15% of the Ole Miss student body, and many are surely attending the University simply to get a good education. These black students realize that the institution makes a special effort to not only to welcome minority students but also grants them ongoing concessions from admission to graduation. These students have no problems adapting to campus traditions. - If other black students would ease up on their adversarial attitudes, they will find themselves enjoying campus life. - Even football games where the band plays ”Dixie” and Colonel Reb brightens the sidelines.

On The Web:  http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/65209

 

16406 ---Revolutionizing U.S. Citizenship --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-08-13 12:17:46 -0400
See related pages and categories



Revolutionizing Citizenship of the United States
 
From: bernhard1848@gmail.com
 
Faced with the defeated South poised to regain voting rights and seats in Congress, the Republican party desperately needed dependable voters and it created a new category of black citizenship to attain this.  Armed with a newly enacted law, the terrorist wing of the party, the Union League, was unleashed on the South with instructions to enlist freedmen and intimidate white voters from the polls.
 
Bernhard Thuersam, Chairman
North Carolina War Between the States Sesquicentennial Commission
"Unsurpassed Valor, Courage and Devotion to Liberty"
www.ncwbts150.com
"The Official Website of the North Carolina WBTS Sesquicentennial"

Revolutionizing Citizenship of the United States
 
“ . . . [T]he provision of the [Civil Rights] bill [of 1866] appeared out of all relation to our constitutional system. Never before had Congress been known to arrogate to itself the power to regulate the civil status of the inhabitants of a State . . . , [the jurisdiction of disputes relating to contracts and property and even criminal actions, and it] seemed like a complete revelation of that diabolical spirit of centralization, of which only the cloven hoof had been manifested heretofore.
 
In addition to the definition of “slavery” and “involuntary servitude,” the Civil Rights Bill undertook to fix the precise meaning of the phrase “citizen of the United States.” For general practical purposes, exact determination of the scope of citizenship had not been found necessary [previous to the War].  Where any opinion at all had been pronounced, it had in most cases been in relation to the status of free Negroes.
 
The weight of authority on this point was adverse to the claim of citizenship for the blacks.  “No person,” said Attorney-General [William] Wirt in 1821, “is included in the description of citizen of the United States, who has not the full rights of a citizen in the State of his residence.”
 
This principle had been in general the basis of the government’s practice in all the departments. For native-born persons living within a State, citizenship of the State was the prerequisite for citizenship of the United States; for persons of foreign birth, naturalization alone was necessary. The Dred Scott decision limited this rule by determining that State citizens of African descent could not be citizens of the United States.
 
During the war, however, the old view was entirely overthrown in practice.  Mr. Lincoln’s attorney-general argued away all the precedents, and gave it as his official opinion that a free Negro, born within the United States, was ipso facto a citizen thereof.  He assumed nativity as the broad basis of citizenship . . . [and] With that assumption the status of United States citizenship was placed entirely beyond the reach of any State influence whatever, and a purely national conception was attained.
 
To justify this sweeping enactment, the special conception of citizenship which the history of our institutions had developed was discarded, and the broad principle of public law was adopted in its place.  All [Northern] authorities agreed that the status of citizen implied the reciprocal duties of allegiance and protection.  A citizen of the United States, then, was entitled to the protection of that government to which allegiance was owed. But this protection was to operate against all sources of oppression, and if a State government happened to come in this category, it too must succumb.”
 
(Essays on the Civil War and Reconstruction and Related Topics, William Archibald Dunning, The MacMillan Company, 1898, pp. 96-99) 
 
 

16405 ---Republicans Undermine Unionism --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-08-13 12:00:25 -0400
See related pages and categories



Republicans Undermine Southern Unionism
 
From: bernhard1848@gmail.com
 
Lincoln’s only attempt at including a Southerner in his cabinet was sounding out North Carolinian and Congressman John Gilmer, who was “wary, mistrustful of Lincoln and reluctant to ally himself with an administration” opposed to the interests of his State and section. The few conservative Republicans feared that should Gilmer not accept, Lincoln would select radical hard-liner Montgomery Blair and simply add more fuel to the sectional-crisis fire.
 
Bernhard Thuersam, Chairman
North Carolina War Between the States Sesquicentennial Commission
"Unsurpassed Valor, Courage and Devotion to Liberty"
www.ncwbts150.com
"The Official Website of the North Carolina WBTS Sesquicentennial"
 
Republicans Undermine Southern Unionism
 
“[Far from Fort Sumter] the president-elect was still at work composing his cabinet . . . [and] the impossibly tangled party considerations that continued to vex him.  As [President James] Buchanan’s advisors planned their [Ft. Sumter] reinforcement expedition . . . Lincoln was committing the first major blunder of his administration.  It began on Sunday, December 30 . . . when he met with that “greatest of Pennsylvania wirepullers,” Simon Cameron, about a place in the cabinet.
 
[Lincoln] knew it would be a controversial appointment.  For one thing, Cameron’s easy movements from the [Democrat party] to the Know Nothings to the Republicans had gained him a reputation as an unprincipled opportunist.
 
More damaging was the taint of corruption that surrounded him. Known to his critics as “the Great Winnebago Chief” for his mishandling of Indian funds in the 1830s, Cameron was also charged with manipulating elections and legislatures through bribery.  Yet so many recommendations poured into Springfield that Lincoln could hardly see how not to appoint him.
 
It was one of the first important choices Lincoln had made for himself since the election, and he immediately had cause to regret foregoing his usual process of passing his decisions by [Lyman] Trumbull and [Hannibal] Hamlin . . . word of the selection [of Cameron] provoked a flood of outraged letters and visits from Republican leaders.
 
Displaying an indecision that was characteristic in those early months, Lincoln immediately reversed himself . . . [and] addressed a short, private note to Cameron rescinding his offer . . . [but] the imbroglio . . . exploded into what one historian has called “a mighty battle of Republican factions.” For the next several weeks Republican managers throughout the North appeared considerably more concerned with the patronage than with secession.
 
Placing [Salmon P.] Chase at the head of the Treasury Department [would reconcile] the powerful New York radicals to [William] Seward’s appointment [as Secretary of State].
 
[But] Lincoln was aware of the predicament of Southern unionists and the damage Republican rigidity [against compromise] might do to their cause.  Nominating Chase, a long-acknowledged leader of the radicals, would give secessionists a powerful weapon in their fight to convince Southerners of Republican hostility.”
 
(Lincoln and the Decision for War, the Northern Response to Secession, Russell McClintock, UNC Press, 2008, pp. 123-125)
 
 

16404 ---Reply To University Herald --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-08-13 11:48:30 -0400
See related pages and categories



My reply to the University Herald.
 
Here we go again with another spineless, PC, rewritten-history-indoctrinated turncoat who is taking part in the cultural genocide of the Southern people and our heritage. If this were being done to any other group of people, it would not be tolerated, but because it is waged against Southerners and Southern heritage, it is deemed to be acceptable. What about the many proud black Confederate soldiers who fought for the same things their white counterparts fought for?  You want to appease a few mislead and lied to blacks of today, but what about THEIR ancestors who fought to keep out an illegal invasion?  But then, they don’t know about that because they have not been exposed to the truth but only to the yankee myths taught in the communist indoctrination centers (public schools) for 150 years.  The imperialist yankee nation must stamp out any and all symbols of pride and independence from the people of the South because they can’t have anyone thinking for themselves and wanting self-government and individual freedom, which is what those brave Confederates, black and white, were fighting for. If slavery is the hot button in all of this, then what about the FREE BLACKS who owned slaves and worked them?  What about Lincoln’s wife, General U.S. Grant, General William T. Sherman, and other Union officers who owned slaves? But you say the war was about ending slavery.  No, it was not.  Why would over 90% of non slave-owning Confederate soldiers fight for something they had no interest in?  It was about the collection of excessive tariffs from the LEGALLY seceded Southern states, and Lincoln stated so.  All this yankee propaganda for 150 years has brainwashed generations and covered over the truth with tons of lies.  Even letters from Union officers and soldiers support what the South has said all along. The continual attack on symbols of heritage and history has to stop.  People must be educated with the truth and learn that there is nothing wrong with Col. Reb, Ole Miss, the Confederate Battle Flag, Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest, or any other symbol of Confederate pride.  The CSA was illegally invaded for money and plundered by the evil US government, and its people treated like sub-humans ever since. The truth is the truth regardless of what the communists teach in the schools and universities, and it is easy enough to research and uncover.  Giving in and appeasing to “offended” groups is not the answer.  Educating the indoctrinated is the answer.
 
Jeff Paulk
Tulsa, OK
 
 

16403 ---Flying Large Battle Flags --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-08-13 11:35:09 -0400
See related pages and categories



I agree with Billy Price and the link below regarding the flying of large Confederate Battle Flags.

http://jerryd14.wordpress.com/2014/08/05/sons-of-confederate-veterans-call-to-action/
 
The cost of erecting and maintaining a large Battle flag how- ever is cost prohibited to most folks and groups. The cost of a 3'X5' on a 25 ft. PVC pole is about $30.00 and could be covered by almost anyone. Now ask yourself this question. Which would have the greater impact, one large Battle Flag or 50 or more smaller Battle Flags saturating a given area. If y'all think the lame media goes crazy when one large Battle flag goes up, what do you think they will do when 50 or more Battle Flags appear in a given area. The naacp has already stated they will do all possible to prevent such action.
 
If each Division or group would set up a account that could be funded through Pay-Pal, as the VA Flaggers have done, we all could be on the way toward success. What are WE waiting for?
 
A Grandson of "THE OLD REBEL"--FRED C. WILHITE~~Forrest's-Orphans Camp~1744
kyscv.org
fofoml@juno.com
 
 

16402 ---Truth About Andersonville Prison --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-08-13 11:16:21 -0400
See related pages and categories



Albany Herald Newspaper Refuses Article- Truth About Andersonville POW Prison
 
From: jkingantiquearms@bellsouth.net
 
TO: James Gaston-Chairman Wirz Memorial Service Andersonville Georgia
 
James,
 
Jim Hendricks refuses to allow me to write an article telling the truth about Andersonville and publish it in the Albany Herald. Read his reply below. I expected this. Each year we pay $1000 and have a color paid ad in the Herald that features a Confederate hero. I will plan to do one on Wirz next year. This way I can get the facts published unless he refuses a paid ad.
 
James King
SCV Camp Commander
Albany Georgia
 

Re: Andersonville Facts vs Lies and Propaganda
 
From: jim.hendricks@albanyherald.com
To: jkingantiquearms@bellsouth.net
 
What you've expressed here is mainly your opinion of people and their motivations, along with comparisons to other historical war and political figures that may or may not be applicable, not facts. For instance, comparing the Wirz trial to Charles I is hyperbole at best.
 
I've yet to find any substantiation that only 9 percent of prisoners in Confederate-run camps died. The numbers are consistent across the board of sources I've found, and since I have no firsthand knowledge of anything that happened a century before I was born I see little recourse other than to go with sources that I have found to be accurate on other things that I can compare.
 
I'm going to have to decline the offer. I'm not going to publish a news article that is based on what a particular writer has decided is truth while summarily discounting any and all contradictory information as bogus propaganda. Referring to the Union leaders and their "ilk" and comparing Dana to Gobbles knock out any thought I might have that your approach on an article like this would be a fair representation.
 
Jim Hendricks--Editor Albany Herald
 

TO; Jim Hendricks-Editor Albany Herald
 
Jim,
 
The 1st part posted below is Union Sec. of War Stanton's figures and the 2nd part is Union Surgeon General Barnes' figures.
  
12% of CSA POW's died in Northern prisons and 9% of Union POW's died in CSA prisons.
  
The North captured 220,000 CSA soldiers and the South captured 270,000 Union soldiers.
 
At Andersonville the death rates were higher because Sherman had stolen, burned, and destroyed food sources in Georgia and Northern authorities refused to help their own people and ignored and refused CSA pleas to help suffering Union POW's.
 
Lincoln, Grant, and Stanton denied exchange. Col. Ould the CSA exchange commissioner told Northern authorities to "come get them without exchange-we cannot feed and care for them."  The CSA authorities tried to get the North to send doctors and medicine to treat their own people. They refused. They refused to take their own men without exchange being required. CSA Col. Ould finally asked the Northern authorities "Are You People Monsters"?
  
Part of the food distribution system problem was not having bowls to put food in. The North refused to send these food bowls. As I told you in the previous e-mail, the Union POW's knew who was responsible for their suffering and they cursed Lincoln, Grant, and Stanton daily.
 
I know Eric Leonard. He attends the annual memorial service for Capt. Wirz that we in the SCV have in Andersonville each November. He would lose his job if he told the truth. The USA National Park Service that pay's his salary expects him to tell the Yankee lies and propaganda.
 
The Wirz trial was a farce. Only 2 other trials in the past 400 years of English and American history equal it--The trial of English King Charles I and his beheading by Oliver Cromwell and the trial of Mrs. Mary Surrat and hanging after Lincoln's assassination. The key witness committed perjury and had never been at Andersonville. 11 days after Wirz was hanged it was discovered he was a deserter from a NY regiment and had never been at Andersonville but was a superb and convincing liar. The Yankee Military Tribunal never apologized. The barbaric Yankees cut up Wirz's body parts and displayed them at various locations in the North.
  
The real war criminals were the Yankees. At the top of the list are Lincoln, Grant, Stanton, Sherman, Sheridan and others of this ilk. And let's not forget Charles Anderson Dana, Lincoln's Assistant Sec. of War--an avowed Communist and master propagandist equalling or exceeding the ability of Hitler's chief propagandist Joseph Goebbels. Dana and Stanton turned out reams of lies and propaganda. Were all these lies and propaganda believed? You bet your boots they were. He had New England preachers standing in the church pulpits saying every man, woman, and child in the South should be exterminated.
 
The question is "Are you willing to publish an article in the Herald that tells the truth about Andersonville"? If so I have the facts to write it.
 
James W. King
SCV Camp Commander
Albany Ga.
 
I have the facts and data a small part of which is posted below--based on Federal Reports.
 
There is no purpose in this history to recount the cruelties practiced during the great struggle of the South for independence, and hence no account will be given of the atrocities at Camp Douglas , Rock Island , Elmira , Point Lookout or anywhere perpetrated by Federal subordinates in charge of Confederate prisoners. There were sufferings in all prisons and brutalities perpetrated in this as in other wars, but the proofs furnished by the evidence of General Butler, by the orders of Federal military officers, by the orders and communications of General Grant, and by the reports of Secretary Stanton, all of which are of record, fix the responsibility of this uncivilized mode of war upon the Federal administration. Secretary Stanton's report of July 19, 1866, shows that 26,246 Confederate soldiers died in Northern prisons, and 25,576 Union soldiers died in Southern prisons. Twelve per cent of the Confederate prisoners who fell into Northern captivity died notwithstanding all the facilities for receiving food, clothing, medicines and healthful conditions which the United States unquestionably possessed, while in the absence of these requisites on the part of the Confederacy the astonishing fact appears that less than nine per cent of the Union soldiers in Southern hands died in prisons. It is indisputably established that the Confederate authorities constantly pressed exchanges on equal terms, that they acceded to terms that were unequal for the sake of exchange, that they proposed many measures of relief which. were denied, that at length the most pitiable and unusual of all spectacles occurred when a deputation of Union soldiers appeared in Washington , sent by Mr. Davis to plead for release by fair exchange, and to plead in vain.
 
” There is, however, no use to quote any man, when we have official returns of the United States Surgeon General Barnes showing that a much greater number of Confederates died in Northern prisons than of Federals in Southern stockades; and this in spite of the fact that we held 50,000 more Federals in captivity than the Yankee had of our soldiers. In round numbers they had only 220,000 Confederates; we held 270,000 Federals. Of these only 22,576 died on our hands; whilst, of the 220,000 men held in Northern prisons, 26,436 died. In other words, with about 50,000 more prisoners to feed and guard we had a loss of nearly 4,000 less than the Union people lost of our men.” “The per cent, of Federal deaths was under nine in Southern prisons: the per cent, of Confederate deaths in Yankee prisons was over twelve.” And that, too with the markets of the world open to them for all needed supplies, and their bank-vaults full to overflowing with gold and greenbacks with which to purchase! Query; If in our poverty, we saved three per cent, more lives than they, what per cent, might they have saved through their wealth, if they had been willing?
 
Repeated efforts have been made to disprove, or somehow dispose of, these official figures of Surgeon General Barnes. They are so convincing and cruelly condemnatory that they cannot be endured. Unfortunately for our friends, the enemy, their shame and the attempt to hide it came all too late. The report of Dr. Barnes is quoted by Vice-President A. H. Stevens, in his great volume—“The War Between the States.” And it has editorial mention in “The National Intelligencer” of Washington, June 2, 1869. No such report can now be found! Nor is any knowledge of its existence admitted by any Department of the Government. Its disappearance is a mystery, but one not so hard to explain as the frequent reference to it by Southern orators who couldn't have seen what never existed. And the failure of Northern speakers and writers to deny its damaging showing for many years is even more a mystery. When Georgia Senator Benjamin Harvey Hill quoted it in 1876 in the U.S. Senate, why was it not questioned? Why?
 
 

16401 ---VMFA Update 8-7-2014 --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-08-13 10:42:54 -0400
See related pages and categories



Va Flaggers: VMFA Update 8-7-2014


 
The Virginia Flaggers finished out July, and our 32ND month of Flagging the VMFA, with a strong showing, twice weekly on the Boulevard in front of the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts.  Even though we stretched our line, with troops on the ground at Washington & Lee, and at other events across the Commonwealth, we have not forgotten the FIRST Chapel desecration in Virginia, and the Cause that first brought the Va Flaggers together, almost three years ago.
 
Although museum traffic has been light recently, there have still been many opportunities for good conversations with museum visitors, residents, and tourists.
 
We are always looking for new ways to add more flags to the landscape, and new methods of bringing attention to the actions of VMFA officials...
 
For those of our supporters who have just joined this email list and may not be familiar with the situation at the Confederate Memorial Chapel, we offer the following summary:
 
Twenty years after Gen. Robert E. Lee rode into Appomattox and surrendered his tattered army, ending the War Between the States, a memorial chapel was built in Richmond in memory of the 260,000 Confederate soldiers who died during the conflict. The Pelham Chapel – Confederate War Memorial is designated a National Historic Landmark by the U.S., and has been granted the status of Confederate Monument by the Commonwealth of Virginia.
 
The organ in the chapel was donated by a group of Union veterans from Lynn, Mass. One of the contributors to the soldiers' home that surrounded the chapel was Gen. Ulysses S. Grant. And a Union private from Massachusetts donated his annual pension to support the home.
 
Confederate flags had flown over the grounds since the opening of the Old Soldiers Home in 1885. Those flags did not trouble the Union soldiers who donated the organ to the chapel; nor did they trouble Ulysses S. Grant. They were placed there by Confederate Veterans, to memorialize the Confederate dead, and honor the living.
 
Fast forward 150 years…on the eve of the Sesquicentennial Commemoration of the War Between the States, June 1st, 2010, Confederate Battle Flags were forcibly removed from the Confederate War Memorial by a restriction in the lease renewal, at the insistence of the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts.
 
This is in direct violation of Virginia law, which clearly states: “it shall be unlawful for the authorities of the locality, or any other person or persons, to disturb or interfere with any monuments or memorials so erected, or to prevent its citizens from taking proper measures and exercising proper means for the protection, preservation and care of same. For purposes of this section, "disturb or interfere with" includes removal of, damaging or defacing monuments or memorials, or, in the case of the War Between the States, the placement of Union markings or monuments on previously designated Confederate memorials or the placement of Confederate markings or monuments on previously designated Union memorials.” (§ 15.2-1812)
 
As citizens of Virginia and descendants of Confederate soldiers who gallantly answered Virginia’s call to defend her, we demand that the VMFA remove these blatantly prejudicial restrictions and allow the Confederate Battle Flags to once again fly on the Confederate War Memorial.
 
We are committed to continuing our flagging efforts until the flags are returned.  Will you join us?  We will be forwarding the colors TODAY, Thursday, August 7th, 3:00 pm - 7:00 pm, on the Boulevard in front of the VMFA, 200 N. Boulevard, Richmond, VA.  Bring your flag and come stand for our Confederate Ancestors and against VMFA officials, who have desecrated the Confederate Memorial Chapel.
 
If you cannot be there in person, PLEASE take 10 minutes to support the troops on the ground by calling the Director's Office at (804) 340-1502 and asking him to return the Confederate Battle Flags to the portico of the Confederate Memorial Chapel.  He can also be reached by mail: :  Alex Nyerges
Director, VMFA, 200 N. Boulevard, Richmond, VA 23220-4007 / Fax  (804)  340-1502 / and/or email:  alex.nyerges@vmfa.museum
 
RETURN the flags!
 
RESTORE the honor!
 
TriPp Lewis
Va Flaggers
info@vaflaggers.com
 
 

16400 ---Must Read This! --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-08-12 09:50:56 -0400
See related pages and categories



From: CHRISTOPHER W BACOLA [mailto:bacolac@bellsouth.net]
Sent: Friday, August 08, 2014
To: csacommand@windstream.net

In 1887 Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh , had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years prior: "A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse over loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a Dictatorship."

"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage."
The Obituary follows:

Born 1776, Died 2016
It doesn't hurt to read this several times.
Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law in
St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning
The last Presidential election:

Number of States won by: Obama: 19 Romney: 29
Square miles of land won by: Obama: 580,000 Romney: 2,427,000
Population of counties won by: Obama: 127 million  Romney: 143 million
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by:

Obama: 13.2 Romney: 2.1

Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Romney won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country.

Obama territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in low Income tenements and living off various forms of government welfare..."

Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the "complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of Democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase..

If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegal’s - and they vote - then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.

If you are in favor of this, then by all means, delete this message.

If you are not, then pass this along to help everyone realize just how much is at stake, knowing that apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom..

Please forward to family and friends and encourage them to leave the party that has long since left them. Our country does not even have until 2016. If Republicans don’t win this year there may not be anything left by 2016. Register and vote Republican while you still have that freedom!

*****************************************************************************

From: Craig Maus <csacommand@windstream.net>
Date: Sat, Aug 9, 2014
To: CHRISTOPHER W BACOLA <bacolac@bellsouth.net>

Hello Chris-sharing w/ALL Compatriots bcc herein w/permission to forward,

I have seen this before and forwarded it earlier on but requires a MUST RE-READ.

However, as stated before when I issued it, I said the following: And this is WHY the Founding Fathers created a REPUBLIC & NOT a Democracy.

This ‘Democracy thing’ began when the Civil War ended.

It was the creation of the new Central/National Government whose New-Found Authority & Power REPLACED that which was ORIGINALLY GIVEN TO THE SOVEREIGN STATES.

Thus, the Official Era of Socialism was put into motion allowing for its Total Galvanization over the next 150 years while always & systematically referring to itself under the false name of-  a ‘Federal Government’…. when in fact the Original ‘Federal Government’ was ended & was replaced by the Central Government in 1865.

EQUALLY, that is also WHY the word DEMOCRACY NEVER once appears in either the U.S. Constitution or the Declaration of Independence because, and AGAIN, WE WERE TO HAVE BEEN A REPUBLIC- consisting of Individual Sovereigns (States) that had the Power, PRIOR to Lincoln’s ‘Civil War’, the ability to WAG OUR OWN TAILS with the Original Federal Government being subordinate to EACH of Our Sovereign States.

Thus, via the Individual Power realized via EACH STATE’S LEGISLATURE, NO Federal Government could ever supersede the wishes of ANY STATE and thus the People would always remain IN CHARGE……of EVERY THING!

And if ANY Sovereign Were to run their State foolishly, like Washington runs this Country as a Single Assembly today thru Socialistic Practices, the People, via natural disposition, could easily move to another State forcing that State into a ‘Theater of Equality’ less they face collapse.

The Design & Purpose of the Founders Intent was Brilliantly SIMPLE & LOGICAL in all aspects.

The ONLY thing the Federal Government was to do, in the interests of the SOVEREIGNS, was:

A)    Provide for their mutual defense via a Military but NOT a military superseding the control maintained by the Governor of Each State as it related to their Individual State Militias and,
B)    To mediate any natural differences (trade, etc.) that might arise between each State as stated within the confines of the Constitution.

That was IT!!!!!

ALL OTHER WRITTEN TEXTS ALWAYS SPOKE TO THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE!!!!!

Today, thanks to what the ‘Civil War’ was REALLY intended to do & accomplish, (the creation of a Centralized Socialist Government via ‘Democracy’), Washington has become EMPOWERD with Powers & Authority they were NEVER to have had!

Thus, they have SOCIALIZED EVERYTHING and are NOW our ‘OverSeers’…. in charge of every Social Dominion and Practice thanks to the policies of their Nationalization that has corrupted EVERYTHING while saturating and marginalizing America further through un-natural Immigration Policies creating a more Fractured Demographics resulting in total Polarization from which they feed.

And ANYONE remotely contesting or identifying with this Political Malady, is immediately offered up for sacrifice upon one of their many Altar’s of Political Correctness and scarred with the label of racist for merely ‘Connecting the Dots’ & holding these bastards accountable for their false plebiscites.

The REPUBLIC was Usurped long ago & its Original Design totally mutilated.

We are but a ‘mirrored image’ of what we once were and the original Federal Court System but a shadow of its former self.

In short, the net, net of this Chris is this- there is NO Justice….Just Us.

We have been living a Colossal Lie.

We Confederates have been pleading with y’all for over 150 years to wake up and smell the Confederate Coffee.

Today, we are living The Consequences of what that horrible War has wrought…. & what We Fought to Prevent !

This is what everyone is witnessing today.

Unless SEPARATION is realized America will, NOT if, collapse in of its own weight thanks to the dementia created by a Central Oligarchy whose 2-Party Duopoly is clearly components of.

“Those People”, as General Lee always referred to them as, pay homage to their Puppet Masters in the Council on Foreign Relations & their revered Tri-Lateral Commission who own this Country Lock, Stock and Proverbial barrel.

We have been played like an Austrian Fiddle and the Marxists are clearly the Riddle.

Remember the ‘3-Legged Stool of Reconstruction’…..for it is REAL and has been in the making ever since 1865 and the 2-Party Duopoly is part of that Hegemony of Deceit.

Deo Vindice,

Craig Maus,
President, The Confederate Society of America
www.deovindice.org
‘Connecting the Dots’ yet?

 

16399 ---Fight Like Forrest...Redux --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-08-07 19:01:19 -0400
See related pages and categories



From: Virginia Flagger <info@vaflaggers.com>
Date: Wed, Aug 6, 2014
Subject: VA Flaggers: Fight Like Forrest...REDUX

Although most of us on the front lines of heritage defense stopped visiting their blogs and ceased reading their nonsense long ago, many of you have been kind enough to let us know that several of the anti-Confederate bloggers/amateur historians have ratcheted up their vitriol and attacks against us over the last few weeks.

If if it were not so pathetic, it might be comical to watch...as one of them even went to the extreme of creating a bogus poll regarding the removal of flags/desecration of Lee Chapel, in an attempt to lure Confederate Heritage activists to his site.

Brooks D. Simpson on August 1, 2014 at 4:47 pm said: "Oh, I know that the various heritage sites are rushing over here to vote. Of course, then they also see the post on Lilly Baumann. Sometimes you have to provide an inducement for people to visit."

Fraudulent profiles on FaceBook and other internet sites… misleading group names, designed to attract those of Confederate ancestry…and now a fake "poll", created specifically to lure our folks to their hate-filled sites. We can only conclude that these folks are desperate for attention and/or site traffic… and feeling VERY irrelevant. It seems that since all previous attempts to smear and defame us have failed miserably, they are resorting to deception and fraud in what appears to be last-ditch attempts to get SOMEONE to pay attention to their false accusations and innuendo, most recently attempting to link members of the Va Flaggers to a child custody/domestic dispute in Florida.

Another spent some time in Petersburg recently, and was apparently quite unsettled by our presence at the 150th Commemoration of The Battle of the Crater, so much so that the Va Flaggers have been the main subject of his blog posts ever since. The man who once predicted there would NEVER be an I-95 flag...

"Prediction: There will be no Confederate flag on I-95 near Richmond." K. Levin, August 18, 2013

…reports that he made a point to ask for directions to the Chester Memorial Battle flag site, and acknowledged that his only disappointment was that there was no wind blowing to lift the flag at the time he stopped by. What he is really upset about is the fact that we dared to offer an alternative to his “version” of events at The Crater, and that Park officials and visitors welcomed us and allowed us to share the truth before, during and after events last week. (Watch for an update soon with some very exciting news on this subject…!)

These folks have tried (and failed) over and over to connect us with everything from “white supremacists” to “child abusers” to “kidnappers”, ALL because we disagree with their version of OUR history and refuse to sit by quietly while THEY determine how we will honor and remember our ancestors. It has been almost three years since we first stepped onto the sidewalk in Richmond, and not only are we still standing, despite their repeated predictions of doom and gloom, but we are moving forward with renewed strength and support that grows daily, as more and more folks choose to take a stand.

Letter received, today, with gift:

“Dear Va Flaggers, Please accept this gift in honor of my fallen Confederate ancestors. I fully support your efforts, and would be happy if someone would put up some flags in Northern Virginia to counter the oppression of our rights to free speech. I cannot remain silent any longer.” - William W, Arlington, VA

I have been asked what I am going “to do” about these most recent attacks and the ongoing smear campaign. My answer? Nothing. These folks are only relevant when we give them our attention and we flatly refuse to do so. We have much work to do, and any time and energy wasted on dealing with folks like this who are twisted up with hate and contempt for all things Southern, only takes our focus off of the Confederate soldiers we are determined to honor and defend, and away from the front lines of the Southern Heritage battles we face every day.

Please take a moment to read “Fight Like Forrest, NOT Sherman”, in the link below, which further addresses this issue. Although it was written several months ago, the sentiments contained therein remain unchanged.

http://vaflaggers.blogspot.com/2013/09/fight-like-forrest-not-sherman.html

Thank you all for your constant prayers and support. We are looking forward with great anticipation to continuing the work that has begun, and are excited about the prospect of several new projects on the horizon.

God bless you all, and GOD SAVE THE SOUTH!

Susan Hathaway
Va Flaggers

"You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done..." Genesis 50:20

Virginia Flaggers
P.O. Box 547
Sandston VA 23150
info@vaflaggers.com

 

16398 ---Forrest Celebration Great Success --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-08-07 18:49:19 -0400
See related pages and categories



Sunday, August 03, 2014

15th Annual Nathan Bedford Forrest Birthday Celebration a GREAT SUCCESS!



Well, the 15th Annual birthday celebration for Lt. Gen Nathan B. Forrest at Fort Dixie was another HUGE SUCCESS thanks to ALL Y’ALL who physically came to the party and those who were unable to attend but sent donations, bought ancestor pavers and participated in the drawing for the NBF hot-cast bronze mini bust.  Mr. Jack Skoch of LaFayette, AL won the bust this year…Jack is a champion for our cause and reveres General Forrest, so the General is in good hands this year!

We dedicated the party this year in the HONOR of our precious friends, Bobby & Belinda Holloway. Both are cancer survivors and we are soooo thankful to God for His Amazing Grace and answer to soooo many of our prayers. Both, Bobby & Belinda are literally walking miracles from God! As you know, Belinda is my “parner in crime” and Bobby has been for so many years our Master Chef but this year the weather was just sooo hot they could not attend. Hopefully, they will be back with us next year!

As usual, I DO GUARANTEE HOT weather!  Well, it was hot as blue blazes on July 12 at Fort Dixie but that did not stop folks from coming to enjoy an “ole South Day” at Fort Dixie to fellowship with folks of like minds & hearts! We had approximately 250 folks here…a GREAT turnout! We had folks from AL, of course; Mrs. Betty Mann, Dr. Robert Griffon from Friendswood TX, Dr. Robert Stark and his wife Beth, from Brennan, TX …and folks from LA, FL, GA, MS, TN, and Tom & Jill Forrest from Belleflower, Illinois! Yep, Tom FORREST keeps the skeer on’em in the Land of Lincoln! In the words of faithful compatriot, Tyrone Crowley, “In spite of killer heat, I believe it was the best party yet to my memory”!

We kicked the party off with our friends, Mr. Johnny Westerfield of Monteagle, TN giving a very inspirational invocation and then Kirby Crabtree also of Monteagle sang his resounding rendition of the Bonne Blue Flag in A cappella while waving the Bonnie Blue!  Kirby is outstanding and sings from his heart! Todd Kiscaden, of Monteagle, TN, fired the opening Happy Birthday Cannon Salute to General Forrest after we all sang a resounding rendition of DIXIE and fired a few more times during the day!  We let folks in this community know Fort Dixie is prepared to DEFEND the fort! (Looks like we had Monteagle, TN well represented!)  Also, at the beginning of the party, Ala Div. SCV Chief of Heritage Defense, Cherokee Brasher, on behalf of the Ala Div. SCV, presented Todd Kiscaden with an award recognizing Todd for his work in Southern Heritage preservation…going above & beyond the call of duty. I’d like to add that Todd was also presented the DIXIE DEFENDER AWARD at the National SCV Reunion in Charleston for his work in Southern heritage preservation going above & beyond the call of duty…this award is given to NON-SCV members who are dedicated to the fight against political correctness and defense of the good name of the Confederate soldier and his fight for liberty!  Todd led the fight against the City of Selma and gave us a VICTORY! He is a TRUE PATRIOT!

Past Ala Div SCV Commander, Ronnie Simmons, of Columbiana, AL was our Master of Ceremonies and always does an outstanding job!  Ronnie is a natural born speaker & has a GREAT sense of humor and keeps ME on track with the program…which is the hardest part of his job! For those of you who have never had the experience of hearing Past SCV Chaplain-in-Chief, Pastor John Weaver speak, you have really missed a treat!  It goes without saying that he is inspirational - a tremendous orator… who NEVER lulls you to sleep and he is VERY astute when it comes to the history of General Forrest!  His address on General Forrest is OUTSTANDING & on DVD & CD; I highly recommend you buying it if you don’t already have it!  Christmas will be here before we know it & would be a GREAT Christmas gift! If you need contact information, contact me & I will give you his information.

Our family friend, George Denmark & my brother, Ron Smitherman, stayed busy cutting & slicing ice cold watermelon all day long at the “Pickininny Freeze Watermelon Stand”!!!  Everyone enjoys ice cold watermelon on a hot July day in the South!  While just a few feet away from the watermelon stand, at The General’s Mess Tent is Nelson Andrews, our Master Chef and Medford Pharr & Butch & our son, Austin…frying up our famous Southern Fried Catfish. Some folks who come here who don’t “normally” like Catfish, give it a try and LOVE it! Our pond-raised, grain-fed catfish is picked up FRESH (NEVER frozen) at Harvest Select Catfish in Uniontown, AL on Friday afternoon & packed in ice…we don’t serve frozen “slanty-eyed” catfish from Viet Nam!

Everyone enjoyed the music entertainment provided by Celtic singer/songwriters Jed Marum and Rickey Pittman…PROFESSIONALS to the bone!  Their music is lovely, entertaining and inspirational and in touch with our love of our history, heritage & Celtic culture. They were back by popular demand and hopefully they will come back to Fort Dixie again real soon! If you need music entertainment at your upcoming events, I highly recommend them!

The auction was a GREAT success!  We had several beautiful Confederate prints & wonderful Southern items and some rare collectibles in the auction this year!  The proceeds from the auction garnered more than $2300! Thanks to all who participated in the auction & made a purchase!  Bill Anthony of the Tallassee Armory Guards, Camp 1921 did his usual outstanding job at being our auctioneer!  I’d like to thank all who contributed items to the auction and the collection of items for the door prize drawing. Artist Ron Lesser contributed the beautiful print, The War Horse” and if anyone would like to know how to contact Ron & his Publicist, Jerry Ross I will be glad to give you the information. Ron & Jerry are very generous every year to donate a Ron Lesser print.

After supper we had a “special visitor” to come & speak…Emma Sansom Johnson, portrayed in first person by Mrs. Virginia Davis of Rainbow City, Alabama. Ginny portrays Emma Sansom Johnson in her reflections of being a young girl who was named Alabama Heroine by the Alabama State Legislature in 1901 by awarding her 600 acres of land for her valiant assistance to General Forrest in crossing Black Creek during the Abel Streight raid near Gadsden Alabama!  Ginny does a wonderful job in this first person portrayal and I highly recommend her to anyone’s camp or chapter program! After Emma Sansom’s address, we cut the General’s Birthday cake & sang Happy Birthday General Forrest!

This year we enjoyed a 2-fold celebration…the birthday of Gen. Forrest and our victory against the City of Selma! We have been back at work at Confederate Circle in Historic Live Oak Cemetery since April 16, 2014. The project is coming together absolutely beautifully. We have had NO problems with Rose Sanders and her footsoldiers! I invite you All to come to Confederate Circle whenever you are in the area & see our work in progress!  The crew arrives from TN each Monday, works all week & goes back to TN on Friday afternoon! We are shooting for May 2015, the Sesquicentennial year of the Battle of Selma for our dedication. Plans will be forthcoming as they develop and are finalized. So, keep May clear next year…don’t worry, we definitely will NOT have the dedication on Mother’s Day!

I want to thank Darcie Simmons for “soldiering” the General’s Water’n Hole serving sweet tea & lemonade and also a Big Thank You to Mrs. Lee King, the Commander of the Kitchen!  Lee does a magnificent job at guarding the kitchen making sure “no catfish is eaten before it’s time” and literally works herself to the bone in maintaining the kitchen duties!  Also, I don’t know what I would do without Tonnia Maddox and Carol Crowley at the Registration table…handling registration &  selling drawing tickets & selling items out of The Gen’rls Sto’”…Also, thank you sooo much to all the ladies who brought so many wonderful & delicious desserts and side dishes!  It’s a “Suth’rn thang”!

It was dreadfully HOT but God continues to smile upon the General’s birthday party each year with no rain. So far, we have never been rained out, even the year Hurricane Dennis was on his way…it misted & drizzled a little bit & then cleared off & cooled the evening that year! God is truly sovereign and GOOD!

It is additionally important for me to say “THANK YOU” to ALL of you who continue your faithful support of our efforts here in Selma to honor Gen. Forrest who so rightfully deserves his place of honor for his defense of Selma and the Confederate Naval Ordnance Works & Foundry from the invading forces of Gen. James H. Wilson. Without YOU this project would not be enjoying the VICTORY that we have fought so hard for for soooo long!

The day ended with more cannon salutes and beautiful fireworks…folks went home a little bit more educated, a little bit entertained, a little bit less hungry and HAPPY, HAPPY, HAPPY after a day at FORT DIXIE celebrating the 193rd Birthday of Lt. General Nathan Bedford Forrest! The tents have been taken down, the flags that adorned Fort Dixie’s front porch properly folded & put away til we see y’all again next year!

Keepin’ the Skeer on’em,

Confederately yours,

Pat Godwin

 

16397 ---Fold The Flag? --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-08-07 18:12:33 -0400
See related pages and categories



Thursday, July 31, 2014

Fold the Flag?

Letter by Sherwin Dillard that appeared in Roanoke.com, in response to a letter, Folded flags are more respectful of Lee's wishes, by Carlton E. Knight. Jr.   Many thanks to the author for permission to reprint this awesome response here.



It has been lately suggested that Robert E. Lee had accepted with grace the outcome of the war he had waged and it has become fashionable to play paper dolls with his mind (dressing him up in modern style) regarding the Confederate flag based on what he did not say or do in Lexington. In addition to the fallacy of arguing from the negative, it ignores the realities of his precarious circumstances as well as the contemporary account related by one of his chaplains, R.L. Dabney.

Lee, during his Lexington years was a man awaiting a determination of the restoration of his citizenship rights. He had met the paperwork requirements and had taken the required allegiance oath and was awaiting the official restoration.

I know an immigrant who was awaiting her naturalization. When a political matter of intense interest to her arose, she confided that while she desperately wanted to take an active role in commenting publicly on it, she dared not until her citizenship was established. She could not involve herself in political affairs or controversies until her status was settled and fixed.

I know another young lady, a Filipina, who is in the same muzzle until she has her naturalization completed in Chicago next week.

Certainly Lee, as the foremost recognizable military leader of the Southern cause, would have to closely mind his words and deeds---and took extraordinary pains to do so---in order not to jeopardize that restoration of his right to vote and partake in everyday liberties again.

Sadly for Lee, however, he died waiting. Washington, D.C., typically, lost his paperwork for a century. Not until President Gerald Ford restored his citizenship in 1975 was Lee able to speak freely again, by which time, of course, it was much, much too late.

"General Lee had given a very polite good-morning to each man as he passed out;...he gently closed the door before me, keeping the door-knob in his left hand, and said to me, as follows: 'Governor Stockdale, before you leave, I wish to give you my thanks... You know, Governor, what my position is. Those people (his uniform term for the Yankees) choose...to hold me as a representative Southerner; hence, I know they watch my words, and if I should speak unadvisedly, what I say would be caught up by their speakers and newspapers, and magnified into a pretext for adding to the load of oppression they have placed upon our poor people; and God knows, Governor, that load is heavy enough now; but you can speak, for you are not under that restraint...’ "

“Again, said Governor Stockdale, I thought he would dismiss me; but he still held the door closed... after a time he resumed and uttered these words: '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.' Then, with rising color, throwing back his head like an old war-horse, he added these words, '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.' He then dropped his head, and, with a sad look, added, 'This, of course, is for your ear only..." - LIFE AND LETTERS OF ROBERT LEWIS DABNEY- Thomas Carey Johnson, 1903

If Lee’s wishes are the supreme rule at Washington & Lee University today, they will, of course, hasten to evangelize their student body with the Christian Gospel, for Lee said, “Our greatest want is a revival that shall bring these young men to Christ. I dread the thought of any student going away from the college without becoming a sincere Christian. I shall fail in the leading object that brought me here, unless these young men all become consistent Christians.” Surely we may rely on Ruscio and the faculty to hold prayer meetings and special religious services to that end, since they are so careful to follow Lee’s example in all things.

We will see that about as soon as we see President Ruscio worshipping in Lee’s Chapel seat six days a week. Lee is a prop the school uses when they believe it furthers their political agenda and which they ignore entirely when they wish. They profess, “This chapel…shall not be used for any meetings or purposes not in keeping with its consecrated character and the memorial and sacred purposes to which it is dedicated.” Is that why they hosted a debate on “gay marriage” in April 2012 in Lee Chapel? Was that its sacred purpose intended in 1866? Of course not. Not according reason and not according to the Board of Trustees’ minutes, of which I have photocopies.

The pretended reverence for Lee and his wishes is a convenient sham no intelligent person believes for a moment.

Sherwin Dillard
Wygota College
Wenucanskipitin, Virginia

On The Web:   http://mybacksass.blogspot.com/2014/07/fold-flag_31.html?spref=fb

 

16396 ---US History In Schools Can Get Worse --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-08-07 17:55:52 -0400
See related pages and categories



Thought US “History” in Public School Couldn’t Get Any Worse? Guess Again

Posted on August 5, 2014   
by Al Benson Jr.

Public schools around the country will be reopening later this month for another yearly go at the three B’s–Brainwashing, Baloney, and Buffoonery. Only this year it might even be worse than before, and Heaven only knows, it’s been bad before.

World Net Daily had an article up recently by John Aman dealing with the brainwashing part of this called U.S. History Takes a Drastic Left Turn This Fall.  The article started off with: “High school history teachers nationwide will give their top students a dark retelling of U.S. history this fall, courtesy of the College Board, a nonprofit readiness firm led by Common Core architect David Coleman. The College Board–which administers AP (advanced placement) courses and tests–is rolling out a revised curriculum framework for AP U.S. history, offering the 450,000 students who take AP U.S. history classes a hero-free account of America’s deeply stained past.” The fact that someone affiliated with Common Core is involved with this should tell you where it’s going right off the bat.

The article continued: “Conservative author Stanley Kurtz asserts the College Board is ‘pushing U.S. history as far to the left as it can get away with at the high school level.” John Aman noted that the new “history” leaves out the Pilgrims, John Winthrop, (probably Jamestown, Virginia), Madison, Jefferson, Franklin, and a host of others. The new “history” paints European settlers all as villains who “disrupted ecologically balanced native American society, bringing ‘widespread deadly epidemics,’ a ‘caste system,’ resource exploitation and slavery’…” There’s a grain of truth there, but only a grain, and some of it is downright horse puckey. The American Indians did not have a totally balanced ecological system, there were abuses in some of what they did, it’s just that there were not as many of them so as to make it all that noticeable. As far as Europeans “introducing” slavery into the Americas, some of the Indians already had slaves–other Indians they had captured or stolen from other tribes. The American Indians were no strangers to slavery. And as far as preserving the ecology, some tribes in the West used to run herds of buffalo over cliffs when hunting, and they could never use all the meat they killed that way so they took what they wanted and left the rest to rot.

Aman observed: “Larry Krieger, who has taught U.S. history for 35 years and written numerous widely popular AP and SAT exam prep books, said he reacted with shock and dismay when he read the framework earlier this year.” Krieger said: “It’s relentless left-wing indoctrination, antithetical to everything I believe about teaching and our country’s history…Leaving aside its very leftist bias, it is a very poorly written, unprofessional document…boring and dispiriting.”

And Aman also duly informed us that: “It’s also an anonymous document.  While the College Board convened two committees composed of 27 college professors and teachers to oversee the new curriculum, the actual author or authors and the process used to produce it are unknown.”

So this thing is going to be used for advanced history students in public high schools and we don’t even know who wrote it! Doesn’t that seem a little strange? Nothing to see here folks, just move along! Larry Krieger stated, quite accurately: “When they hired David Coleman, the chief architect of Common Core, they effectively politicized the College Board. The first thing he did was to yoke the SAT to Common Core, and now we’re going to apply Common Core principles to AP courses.” You folks whose kids are going to take SAT tests had better take note of that. If your kids have not yet experienced Common Core (sometimes referred to as Commie Core), they may not do real well on the new SAT tests. Common Core is nothing more than a project to totally standardize all education to fit a government standard, and I mean ALL education. In the end it will affect home schoolers, kids in Christian schools and all others. Unless parents can get their states to renounce this program of total government control of education their kids will be stuck with it forever.

The current Marxist administration, as well as past administrations and future ones, wants to totally control all aspects of our lives and education is one of the biggest of those aspects. If your kids don’t think along the lines the ruling elite desire for them, they might ask embarrassing questions, might even question the right of “authority” to do certain things. Might even become “low-level terrorists” who are guilty of “thought crime.” However, if you are willing to sign on with Commie Core, excuse me, I should have said Common Core, why all that can be avoided and your kids can be educated to become docile little servants of the World System.

If you want to find out just what Common Core and related federal education programs are all about I would recommend a DVD put out by the John Birch Society called “Common Core.” It’s 70 minues long but it’s worth watching if you want to begin to grasp what does on in public schools and what they have in mind to do to your kids. The Birch Society can be contacted at 800-342-6491.

Public “education” in this country as always been leftist and anti-Christian. This is nothing new, but the leftists have now reached a point where they feel they can totally rewrite the history and most of America’s parents won’t know the difference. Over the past 3 years I have had numerous articles on this blog spot that dealt with the continuing leftist slant to public education. And lots of other folks have dealt with it too, not just me. For those that don’t care one way or the other, just go ahead and ignore it all–and lose your kids in the process–but don’t ever come back and say “Why didn’t someone tell us?”

On The Web:   http://revisedhistory.wordpress.com/2014/08/05/thought-us-history-in-public-school-couldnt-get-any-worse-guess-again/

 

16395 ---Park Name Change Ruling Expected --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-08-07 17:44:06 -0400
See related pages and categories



Park Name Change Lawsuit Ruling Expected Soon

Generic park names still in place as replacements for controversial ones.
by Toby Sells

A ruling is expected any day now in a lawsuit that will determine the names of three Memphis parks that were changed a year ago in a controversial move by the Memphis City Council that drew emotional debate, criticism, and a visit by the Ku Klux Klan.


Jefferson Davis Park

The council approved a resolution in February 2013 to change the name of Nathan Bedford Forrest Park to Health Sciences Park, Jefferson Davis Park to Mississippi River Park, and Confederate Park to Memphis Park.

Some residents and a group called Citizens to Save Our Parks filed a lawsuit in May 2013 to block the new names claiming "it is for the benefit of public interest and welfare that these parks retain their historic and true name."

Allan Wade, the City Council's attorney, moved immediately to dismiss the suit and has done so in court motions several times over the past year as the legal action has played out. He claims the groups don't have legal standing to trump the council's action.

"They argue that they have passionate interest in the parks, and they go out there and clean the parks up and that they had all these agreements," Wade said. "But standing is based upon injury. In the absence of a recognizable injury, you don't really have any different standing than anybody else who is interested in a park or street or a building or anything else."

The plaintiffs' attorney, Douglas E. Jones of the Nashville firm Schulman, Leroy, and Jones, has countered those moves by amending their original suit, and added new plaintiffs like the Memphis chapter of the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV).

Jones said his clients do have legal standing, according to a recent court motion. The SCV group installed Civil War replica cannons in all three parks at a cost of $75,000. Also, he said the SCV lost about $56,000 in revenue when the national SCV organization removed Memphis from its list of possible locations for its national convention in 2016.

"Clearly, [the national and local SCV groups] have standing because both have suffered a special injury that was casually connected to the [city's] actions," the motions said. "[The groups] have suffered a distinct and palpable injury because they funded commemorative markers and statues in the parks to preserve history, they suffered a financial loss due to the parks' names being changed, and are actively involved in the upkeep of and maintenance of the parks."

Wade said he expects the ruling soon because Chancellor Kenny W. Armstrong, the judge presiding over the suit in Shelby County Chancery Court, will take the bench at the Tennessee Court of Appeals on September 1st. The ruling could come "any day now," he said, but couldn't say exactly when because "courts do what they do."

Should the suit be dismissed, the names that remain for the parks will be the purposefully bland, place-holding names the council approved to get ahead of a state law that would have banned the name changes.

The council assembled and convened a committee of Memphis citizens to come up with new names for the parks. That committee's meetings hummed with racial tension, but the members agreed to change Nathan Bedford Forrest Park to Civil War Memorial Park, Confederate Park to Promenade Park, and Jefferson Davis Park to Harbor Park. City Councilmember Bill Boyd oversaw those meetings as the chairman of the council's parks committee.

"I was opposed to [changing the names], and I think we should just leave history as it is and move on," Boyd said this last week.

© 1996-2014 Contemporary Media

On The Web:   http://www.memphisflyer.com/memphis/park-name-change-lawsuit-ruling-expected-soon/Content?oid=3713914

 

16394 ---LOS On Lee Chapel Dispute --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-08-07 17:07:08 -0400
See related pages and categories



The League of the South on the Lee Chapel Dispute

29 July 2014

For immediate release

Re: A statement on the situation at Washington and Lee University



The League of the South does not wish to reason nor seek brotherhood with the broad forces responsible for removing the St. Andrews cross from Lee Chapel at Washington and Lee University. Nor will we call them bigots or accuse them of not understanding the South.

Rather we Southern nationalists seek only their destruction as we would any pest that threatens our people and our land. We call them one thing and one thing only: enemy. And we care not one iota whether they understand the South or not. For the South belongs to us and we are here to claim our birthright.

We can promise them and their allies this. That their campaign to destroy our culture and its images will be taken as a campaign to destroy our blood. It is a war they have started but one we will finish, God willing. By the grace of Almighty Providence we will banish them and their godless kind from our land as a householder banishes rats from his steading.

On this they have our solemn promise made under our banner, the Black Cross.

On behalf of the board, staff, and membership of The League of the South,

I am,
Michael Hill, President

 

16393 ---Battle Flags And Moaning Liberals --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-08-07 16:36:07 -0400
See related pages and categories



Confederate Battle Flags – and the Liberals Bitching and Moaning

Monday - August 4, 2014

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

I am smiling today after reading some blogs where some of our neighbors and haters of the Confederate Battle flag and of Southern history, are complaining about having to see the very large and beautiful Confederate Battle flag on their travels up and down I-95 in Virginia and on the  private land adjacent the roadway markers near the battle of Savages Station

I earlier stated that the unfair removal of the (2) small legal Confederate battle flags from the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts- CONFEDERATE MEMORIAL CHAPEL was a mistake for the Liberals in a number of ways.

First, It was an UNFAIR AND ILLEGAL ACTION.

Second, It made it abundantly clear, that all those words of inclusiveness, fairness, diversity, and expression of opinions and ideas is a joke. What these people really mean is the above, only so long as it is done in accordance to the Liberal agenda which is,  anti Confederate history and anything similar,  anti white – pro black, anti Christian – Pro secular humanism and evil, pro Homosexual, Pro Abortion, Pro Illegal drugs being made legal.

Yes, it was clear that we in the citizens of the South, and all Christian supporters, who desire decency, and fairness, and are on the side of traditional America were going to have to take the issue into our own hands, and this meant raising money and constructing our own private flag poles and flags along Americas highways, as well as building our own memorials such as was done in Maryland for our Confederate Prisoners at Point Lookout Maryland POW Camp and some other places over the past ten years. And more and more activities and projects are planned, but guess what, the Liberals are whining, they hate seeing the big beautiful Confederate battle flag, and now they wish like hell they had kept their grimy liberal hands off our memorials and flags, as we will now add more, more flags in our yards at home, more flags and other memorials at various other places where they can do nothing about, unless they wish to start another war like they did in 1861.

It is just amazing that we have such Americans with a total different perspective on fairness, decency, honor, and respect and decency for others, and who will do almost anything to take our rights away. It is downright shameful, and we will not stand for it.

So as a result, we will now hear the bitching and moaning, and more of it as time goes on, and I love it. More flags friends, contribute to the Virginia Flaggers, lets get them flagpoles and flags flying all over the South, I love the sounds the Liberals make when they cannot get their way.

On The Web:  http://jerryd14.wordpress.com/2014/08/04/confederate-battle-flags-and-the-wonderful-bitchin-and-moaning/

 

16392 ---SCV - Call To Action --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-08-07 16:21:57 -0400
See related pages and categories



Sons of Confederate Veterans – CALL TO ACTION

Tuesday - August 5, 2014

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



Compatriots, Sons Of Confederate Veterans, our heritage and Southern symbols, flags, parks, buildings have in recent times most especially the past 10 years been under Liberal political attack.

We have all seen the removal of the Confederate Battle flags from the front entrance of the Museum of the Confederacy, next door to the Confederate WhiteHouse. We have witnessed the two Confederate battle flags forced off the front of the Confederate Chapel on the grounds of the Old Confederate Soldiers home in Richmond Virginia adjacent to the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts.Just a couple of weeks ago the Confederate flags located in the Lee Chapel of Washington and Lee again were forced to be removed. Now Ole Miss is working with the evil from the Museum of the Confederacy, Waite Rawls, a traitor in my opinion to our ancestors and what the SCV stands for, and he is also likely connected to the actions of the VMFA as well as consulting the Ole Miss folks to change the Schools name, and the renaming of some streets to rid the connections to the Confederacy. I am not directly involved, and if what I have stated is not 100% accurate, please advise me and I will print a correction. The Virgina Flaggers, people who are mostly if not all,. decendents of Confederate soldiers and sailors, have been hard at work in protesting the above noted actions at the MOC, VMFA, W&L, and in making visits with encouragement as well as  some members and non members walk the sidewalks weekly with Confederate battle flags at various sites such as the VMFA and other sites in protest of these unfair, discriminatory actions against our heritage and our history. The flaggers and  many silent supporters have been instrumental in getting (3) flagpoles constructed, with Confederate battle flags flying proudly today. (2) along busy Interstate 95 In Virginia, and a third flagpole was raised by a young flagger in Henrico County, Va. on private land in site of state historical markers describing the battles at Savages Station. I also see that the SCV camp #1921 Tallahassee Armory Guards  have constructed a flagpole and the flag is today flying along highway 63 in Alabama. These are commendable actions, but I must now say, I am embarrassed that more from the organized Sons of Confederate Veterans has not done this. Where are you SCV camps, WHY ARE YOU NOT IN THIS FIGHT TO STAND UP IN A TANGIBLE WAY AND TO RAISE CONSTRUCT FLAGPOLES AND FLAGS ON PRIVATE LANDS ALONG HIGHWAYS WHERE THE CONFEDERATE BATTLE FLAG IS TO BE ILLUMINATED BY GODS SUNSHINE IN THE DAY, AND BY BRIGHT LIGHTS AT NIGHT.

I ask, I urge ALL the SCV Camps to begin fund raising and to contact the Virginia flaggers and camp #1921, to make plans to install a 80' to 100 ft. tall flag poles with a 40' or larger Confederate Battle flags at various highways across the South. It is time to get involved. Get the most significant symbol of the CSA, Jefferson F. Davis, Robert E. Lee and all the officers and men, and all the women who were part of the Confederate States of America, a flag they would be proud to see if they were here today, and fly a flag at your house, it is time for guts and backbones, no more surrenders, we must move forward assert ourselves back into the light, and to be proud of our ancestors and all they did and what they stood for.

On The Web:   http://jerryd14.wordpress.com/2014/08/05/sons-of-confederate-veterans-call-to-action/

 

16391 ---Time To Stand Up For The South --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-08-07 16:11:41 -0400
See related pages and categories



Time to stand up for the South and our Confederate History and Heritage

Friday - August 1, 2014

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

This past Wednesday I took my two grand sons target shooting. we used several firearms including a model 1841 Mississippi Rifle, and during this time I could only think of the thousands of similar weapons, cannons, the yelling, the screaming, the pain, tears and fear of many men on both sides of the fighting during the War for Southern Independence. I have lived and visited the blood stained earth of many battlefields in Virginia and other states. As a Virginian I have tried to both visit all the sites where my many ancestors fought as well as relic hunt where it was permitted, ancestors who were in the 3rd. Virginia Reserve force, 18th. Virginia Infantry, 21st. Virginia Infantry, 44th. Virginia Infantry, and the 59th.Virginia Infantry among others. These different regiments and men fought in various battles from Florida to Gettysburg, Pa. And they suffered proportionately, with death, wounds and imprisonment between them. And the reason for all of these and the 600,000 other casualties was due to a Northern mans willingness to go to war, rather than allow various states to have the freedom to run their own states without the control and interference of the Federal government in Washington, DC. that was it. Now as in all things complex, of course their were secondary issues, ideas, opinions, greed, want, and conniving self serving individuals and groups in the rear making demands.

The biggest single issue was the great loss of wealth to the U.S. economy that would occur if the Southern states left the Union. Slavery was not the reason, slavery was a lost cause from day one and was deteriorating, and with the steam engine coming to agriculture it would have replaced slaves in the fields and elsewhere. Slavery WAS NOT WHY LINCOLN WENT TO WAR, SOUTHERN INDEPENDENCE WAS THE REASON, AND LINCOLN WAS DETERMINED TO STOP IT FROM HAPPENING.

Now, we have the great divide over this today between those like me who are in my opinion, honest, and armed with many, personal second and third hand conversations that came from people in the war and from civilians impacted by it. From many letters from soldiers and from families of soldiers, from accurate first and second party books written by and or for the participants. The other group seem to fall into a category of what I generally call, unreasonable, and dishonest people, many of are obvious liberals whose aim is to erase the facts and to replace the facts with myths they have created or myths and lies created and stated by others. When one refuses to agree that Lincoln had the option of war or no war, and yet he had stated that he would never fight over slavery or slaves, and has stated his wish that the black man in America be removed to another country, and  I am and if I were alive then, was/am in agreement with him as far as, ” at that time and place in America “, today I would not be for this action, but in 1861 it would have been a great benefit to America.

So, when these people deny the above actions buy Lincoln, and denies the fact about the Invasion of the South, and denies the facts about Lincolns allowing a total war of personal attacks against civilians in the South, the arson, looting, robbing stealing, destruction of public property, the harm to food and croplands, the destruction of fences, barns, stables, stores, bridges, railroad tracks, warehouses, the murder of many civilians, the rape of many Southern women, then yes WE ARE AT A DIVIDE OVER THIS.

Today the liberals, the political correct, the heathens and imps from Satan’s Hell are working hard to destroy, remove and erase all things Southern so far as it was related to our Confederate Military and government, and or our heritage.



In Richmond Virginia, more than 50 years ago as a school boy I visited the White House of the Confederacy, and the building was hosted by numerous ladies from Southern states and some men, who knew the history of the war, and who had the knowledge and the grace and hospitality of Southern ladies and gentlemen. In that building there were tables and glass display cases full of hundreds if not thousands of muskets, rifles, swords, knives, sabers, uniforms, belts, canteens, bullets, letters, books, flags, bugles, tents, boots, and all manner of items both personal an general in nature. It was a grand experience. I visited many times. In the 1970’s the new building unfortunately was built and opened, and the consequences like many things were unintended.

New people, ” Professionals ” were hired and brought in, and soon, the old Southern host and hostesses were gone, replaced by people who could care less, and who were mostly Northern Carpet baggers who came South to ruin our states as they have done to theirs up in Yankee hellholes. They have step by step removed, replaced objects that many Southern family had donated to a Southern run, Southern owned museum, and today when you visit you can barely see 10 guns, and a minute amount of the many objects that were once there, WHY, WHERE ARE THESE OBJECTS.??

Then, out in front of the Museum building flew all the Confederate flags, but for the past several years the new bunch of liberals have removed the Confederate battle flag from the front of the museum. This is in order to slowly transform our Confederate Museum into a lets make this a multicultural Black history museum. Have you noticed the flag colors of the gays, the rainbow, all inclusive, sounds nice does it not, but this is all part of our new generation of mixed races, mixed sex, man with man, woman with woman, black man white woman and soon man and boy, woman and girls, a continual move into sin and perversion.

The museum was to be a CONFEDERATE MUSEUM, that is really simple, slaves, or blacks, or Indians, or animals can build themselves a museum, or in the case of animals a zoo, but they should not be revising the Confederate Museum into such as they are.

In Richmond, some of the very same individuals who are involved in the Museum of the Confederacy treachery are also involved in the forced removal of Confederate battle flags from the Confederate Memorial chapel next to the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts, this again is wrong and shameful and nothing less than a liberal attack on our Southern Confederate heritage and history.

Recently the University that Confederate General Robert E. Lee honorably ran as president, Washington College, later named Washington and Lee University, removed Confederate Battle flags that were in the Lee Chapel, another slap in our face and I and others are protesting this and so should you.

In Mississippi, the president of ole Miss in discussions with , guess who, Waite Rawls, the traitor at the Museum of the Confederacy, is assisting Ole Miss in a name change and some street name changes from Confederate Ave. to some more lite in the loafer name, similar to Burger Kings new Queer Burger called the Rainbow Whopper or similar name. Can you believe this, these are the perverted people we are dealing with, this is why America is disrespected today, gutless men, more feminine than masculine, more Satanic and less or no Christianity among them. This is our America in 2014, and I say we should stand up, fight these things, oppose all of this, write letters, make phone calls, withhold visits, memberships and money, and ask your friends to do the same.

We can and should make it our immediate goal to join all the Southern groups and organizations we can, the Sons Of Confederate Veterans, The Virginia Flaggers, go online and join and support these groups and several other groups with your time and money, this is the answer, and e mail state and federal legislators  and protest these anti Southern heritage issues and only support those leaders who are friendly to us. We can turn this around, PLEASE DO THIS.

On The Web:   http://jerryd14.wordpress.com/2014/08/01/time-to-stand-up-for-the-south-and-our-confederate-history-and-heritage/

 

16390 ---Jacob Alson Long, Confederate Artilleryman --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-08-06 17:40:13 -0400
See related pages and categories



Jacob Alson Long of Alamance – Confederate Artilleryman, Educator, Attorney, Legislator and Klan Leader
 
The son of Jacob and Jane Stuart Stockard Long, he was born 6 April 1846 at the old Long place near Graham, North Carolina.  Grandfather John Stockard served in the War of 1812 and represented Orange County in the General Assembly nearly continuously from 1826 to 1846.
 
Jacob was schooled at Alexander Wilson’s academy near Graham and another at Hyco, Virginia, leaving school in 1864 to join Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia, serving in the artillery until the end came at Appomattox.
 
Returning to the family farm after the war, he studied law under William K. Ruffin (son of Chief Justice Thomas Ruffin) in Hillsborough and was licensed to practice in 1870.  In the turbulence of the immediate postwar, he established a branch of the Ku Klux Klan in Alamance County and quickly organized ten orders in Alamance and Caswell counties with many prominent area men on the rosters.
 
The Klan was organized to counter the radical Union League of the Republican party which was indoctrinating freedmen to vote Republican and against their white neighbors, as well as encouraging them to intimidate white residents with violence to keep them from the polls.  Long’s Klan, like others, was intended to “get armed blacks off the streets of Graham” and restore law and order.  He abruptly left for Arkansas after Reconstruction authorities became aware of the Klan activity, but returned to Graham six months later in 1871.  He was arrested as an accessory in the 26 February 1870 hanging of Wyatt Outlaw, leader of the Union League in Alamance County.  Outlaw was reported to have ordered local blacks to “Put to fire mills, barns and houses” of white residents.
 
Though he had no evidence to convict Long or others, Carpetbag Judge Albion Tourgee offered a bribe of immunity and immediate release if he would implicate leaders of the Klan.  The grand jury refused to act upon Tourgee’s bill of indictment and subsequently all charges against Long were dismissed.  On 20 December 1871, while under arrest but free on bond, he married Esta Teague. Their union produced six children, of which son Jacob Elmer Long served as lieutenant-governor from 1925 to 1929. 
 
Long opened a law office in Graham until 1872, then served as a railroad conductor until 1873, and taught school for one year.  Relocating to Yanceyville, he practiced law for ten years, and eventually returned for good to Graham.  He was nominated in 1886 by Democrats for Solicitor of the Fifth District, but was defeated; in 1893 he was a successful candidate for the General Assembly and served one term.
 
Jacob A. Long died on 4 October 1923.
 
(Sources: Biography of Jacob Alson Long, Carolina Long Avery, Dictionary of North Carolina Biography, William S. Powell, editor, UNC Press, 1987, pp. 91-92; Reconstruction in North Carolina, J.G. Hamilton, 1914) 

North Carolina War Between the States Sesquicentennial
“Unsurpassed Valor, Courage, and devotion to liberty”    
www.ncwbts150.com
“The Official Website of the North Carolina War Between the States Sesquicentennial Commission”
 
 

16389 ---No Evil Can Equal Return To Control --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-08-06 17:23:17 -0400
See related pages and categories



"No Evil Can Equal a Return to Federal Control"
 
From: bernhard1848@gmail.com
 
Despite General Joe Johnston’s capitulation in May 1865, the War Between the States still raged until 1877 when Northern troops finally were withdrawn in exchange for the unopposed ascendance of “His Fraudulency,” President Rutherford B. Hayes.  General Wade Hampton argued below that surrendering to the North in 1865 would not preclude further suffering of the Southern people.
 
Bernhard Thuersam, Chairman
North Carolina War Between the States Sesquicentennial Commission
"Unsurpassed Valor, Courage and Devotion to Liberty"
www.ncwbts150.com
"The Official Website of the North Carolina WBTS Sesquicentennial"
 
“No Evil Can Equal a Return to Federal Control”


 
“On April 19, Hampton, seeking a way to avoid surrender of a remnant of the Confederate forces, wrote a letter to [President Jefferson] Davis:
 
“My Dear Sir:  Having seen the terms upon which it is proposed to negotiate [for capitulation], I trust that I may be pardoned for writing to you in relation to them . . . There are now not less than 40,000 to 50,000 men in arms on this side of the Mississippi [River].  On the other side are many more . . . If we keep any organization, however small in the field we give Europe the opportunity of aiding us.  The main reason urged for negotiation is to spare the infliction of any further suffering on the people.
 
Nothing can be more fallacious than this reasoning. No suffering which can be inflicted by the passage over the [Confederacy] of the [Federal] armies can equal what would fall on us if we return to [Federal control].
 
We shall have to pay the debt incurred by the [Federal Government] in this [invasion], and we shall live under a base and vulgar tyranny.  No sacrifice would be too great to escape this train of horrors, and I think it far better for us to fight to the extreme limit of [the Confederacy], rather than to reconstruct the [Southern States] upon any terms.
 
If I had 20,000 mounted men here I could force Sherman to retreat in twenty days.  Give me a good force of cavalry and I will take them across the Mississippi [River] – and if you desire me to go in that direction it will give me great pleasure to escort you.  I am sorry that we paused to negotiate, for to my apprehension, no evil can equal that of a return to [Federal control].  If you allow me to do so, I can bring to your support many men strong arms and brave hearts – Men who will fight to Texas, and will seek refuge in Mexico, rather than in the [conquered States].  Very Respectively Yours, Wade Hampton.”
 
Hampton wrote a second letter to Jeff Davis on April 22, making the same plea, and adding, “Wish to see you as soon as convenient.” On April 22Hampton and [General] Joe Wheeler traveled to Charlotte by train.  Biographer Edward Longacre would describe the meeting:
 
“The President and his generals thrashed out the details of the [plan Hampton had proposed, which Wheeler supported and which the President viewed as the only way to keep alive the dream of Southern (States] independence. Late in the afternoon, when Hampton and Wheeler left to rejoin their commands, they carried authorization from Davis to form an escort not only by recruiting volunteers, but by impressing horses, weapons and other needed resources.”
 
(Bloodstains, Volume 4, Political Reconstruction and the Struggle for Healing, Howard Ray White, Howard Ray White Publishing, 2012, pp. 34-35) 
 
 

16388 ---Edwin Osborne - Colonel, Minister --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-08-06 17:10:36 -0400
See related pages and categories



Edwin A. Osborne, Confederate Colonel, Minister and Humanitarian
 
From: bernhard1848@gmail.com
 
Colonel Edwin A. Osborne distinguished himself in the Fourth Regiment, North Carolina Troops, serving with George Burgwyn Anderson and Bryan Grimes.  Colonel Osborne epitomized the patriotism, high character, chivalry, and humanitarianism of Southern leaders, in civilian life and war.
 
Bernhard Thuersam, Chairman
North Carolina War Between the States Sesquicentennial Commission
"Unsurpassed Valor, Courage and Devotion to Liberty"
www.ncwbts150.com
"The Official Website of the North Carolina WBTS Sesquicentennial"
 
Edwin Augustus Osborne: Confederate Colonel, Minister and Humanitarian
 
Born in a Moulton, Alabama log house on 6 May 1837, he was one of eleven children of Ephraim Brevard and Nancy Smith Osborne and named for his paternal uncle Edwin, and for General John Augustus Young.  Osborne’s great-grandfather Alexander was born in New Jersey but moved to Salisbury, North Carolina about 1754 and later in Iredell County.
 
Edwin’s grandfather Adlai was one of the first trustees of the University of North Carolina, his father was a physician who fought with General Andrew Jackson – one of the few to escape from Indian massacre at Fort Mims and with Jackson at New Orleans.
 
Edwin returned to North Carolina to live with his widowed Aunt Peggy on her Mecklenburg County plantation, and she arranged for his schooling at the Statesville Military Academy in 1859.  After enlisting for Confederate service with the northern Iredell County “Hunting Creek Guard” in June 1861, he was elected captain of Company H, Fourth Regiment, North Carolina Troops and fought at Yorktown, Williamsburg and Seven Pines, where he was wounded in 1862.  Here, while his company was unsupported and facing certain destruction form enemy fire, he ordered a charge which drove the enemy and captured six pieces of artillery.
 
He saw further action at South Mountain and Sharpsburg, where he was wounded again, then to Chancellorsville, Gettysburg, Spottsylvania and the Wilderness which left him injured again, and with Lee at Appomattox. During his time in action he was promoted to major, lieutenant-colonel, and eventually colonel, leaving his regiment only to recover from the frequent wounds.
 
Returning home suffering from fever and nothing but his horse and missing two fingers on one hand, he joined his wife and mother in law at the latter’s home in Statesville.
 
Edwin taught school in Statesville and later in Charlotte, where he studied law and was admitted to the bar.  Appointed Clerk of Superior Court in 1867 and re-elected twice, he held the position for ten years.  He joined his wife’s Protestant Episcopal church in 1874 and soon decided to enter the ministry, being ordained deacon on 3 June 1877 and named rector of Calvary Church in Fletcher.
 
In 1884 he was appointed to St. Mark’s and St. Paul’s missions in Mecklenburg County where under his leadership both received new church buildings.  He also added a black congregation, St. Michael’s and All Angels, in Charlotte.  In addition, his concern for orphans led to the opening of Thompson Orphanage and Training Institution on 10 May 1887.
 
When war broke out with Spain in 1898, Osborne resigned from the orphanage to serve a Chaplain of the Second Regiment of North Carolina Volunteers and remained on active duty for the duration of the war.
 
Osborne was “Noted for his gentle spirit, chivalry, bravery, and idealism.  Very much affected by his [War] experiences, he wrote poetry in a diary he had kept during the war.  Years later he reflected that one year, on the first day of July, he had noticed a feeling of sadness coming over him, then remembered that it was the anniversary of Gettysburg.  For a time Osborne was the chaplain of  the Mecklenburg Camp of Confederate Veterans.
 
Edwin Augustus Osborne died at age eighty-nine after a period of declining health, and was buried in Charlotte’s Elmwood Cemetery.”
 
(Source: Biography of Edwin Augustus Osborne, Dorothy H. Osborne, Dictionary of North Carolina Biography, William S. Powell, editor, UNC Press, 1987, pp. 401-402) 
 
 

16387 ---How Can God Permit Such Villains? --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-08-06 17:00:09 -0400
See related pages and categories



How Can God Permit Such Villains to Wander Over the Country?
 
From: bernhard1848@gmail.com
 
English-born Captain Henry W. Feilden was appointed assistant adjutant general by President Jefferson Davis in early 1863 and assigned to General P.G.T. Beauregard’s staff at Charleston. After the fall of Savannah and South Carolina threatened with invasion in early 1865, he departed the city with General William J. Hardee’s forces bound for North Carolina and described the chaos in letters to his wife.
 
Bernhard Thuersam, Chairman
North Carolina War Between the States Sesquicentennial Commission
"Unsurpassed Valor, Courage and Devotion to Liberty"
www.ncwbts150.com
"The Official Website of the North Carolina WBTS Sesquicentennial"
 
How Can God Permit Such Villains to Wander Over the Country?
 
“Henry W. Feilden to Mrs. Julia Feilden, c/o J.K. Sass
 
Charleston, S.C., February 14, 1865
 
“ . . . I am afraid the enemy are moving rapidly on Columbia.  Things are culminating here, rapidly, to a crisis, and our exit from here cannot be long delayed. I expect we are going to see hard times.  I hope you, and all in Greenville, will be mercifully preserved.”
 
Florence, S.C., February 28, 1865
 
“We evacuated Charleston on Saturday morning the 18th.  I have just seen a gentleman from [Columbia].  He tells me that Columbia is burnt to the ground and that it is an awful scene of desolation, the population starving.  Sherman then moved to Camden burning a large portion of that town.  His army is now moving on Cheraw. Genl Hardee and our army are there.
 
I am distressed of course at the amount of misery that I see around me. I am staggered when I think how God can permit such villains as these Yankees to wander over the country, burn our cities and turn out our women and children to perish of starvation. I hope and pray the day of retribution may come.
 
I hear the Yankees have stripped the inhabitants of everything even to their dresses.  I do not know how much more we have to endure but as far as I am concerned I am a stronger Southern man at this moment that I ever was before, and I shall not give in till the very last moment.”
 
Camp near Fayetteville, N.C., March 12, 1865
 
“ . . . [W]e have been running from Sherman ever since we left Charleston and will continue to do so until we can join with Bragg & Beauregard then I suppose we can turn and give fight.  We were driven out of Cheraw on the third by the enemy. We had a little skirmish there as were burning the bridge behind us.  Ned Parker had his mare killed under him there; 6 shots put through her.
 
The day before yesterday [General Wade] Hampton (who is with us) surprised Kilpatrick and captured his camp taking over 450 prisoners, releasing 150 of our men and damaging the enemy considerably. Our troops are in good spirits and will make a good fight at the first opportunity we have of confronting the enemy.
 
I do hope the Yankees will not come to Greenville. All the reports I have from the rear of Sherman’s army agree in saying that he leaves a howling wilderness behind him.  Every horse & mule and all [live]stock and particle of food are taken and the house robbed of everything, frequently burnt down. I can only hope that [P]rovidence will vouchsafe to us a victory over him & that we may run him from here to the sea coast.  I should like to see that day.”
 
(A Confederate Englishman, the Civil War Letters of Henry Wemyss Feilden, W. Eric Emerson and Karen Stokes, editors, USC Press, 2013, pp. 104-108)
 
 

16386 ---Mark Levin (lbhgfhg) --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-08-06 16:48:20 -0400
See related pages and categories

 
 
Mark Levin
 
From: lbhgfhg@hotmail.com
 
Greetings Sir
 
Thank you for your continued uplifting of the noble Confederate cause. May the Lord lift up more who will correct the modern re-writing of history, set forth the truth and stop the mouths of those who belittle what the Confederacy stood for
 
You might already be aware: Mark Levin radio talk show host had some other jerk on with him who tried to defame the modern "Neo-Confederates" as they are called and said the movement is basically started and maintained by "two professors" (unnamed). They went down a list o what they say us Neo-confederates believe and tried to "debunk" each point.
 
I do hope someone can respond - publically to their garbage.
 
And thank you again for your fine work on the Freedom page
 
Greg
 
 

16385 ---Memorial Battle Flags Projects Update --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-08-06 16:34:45 -0400
See related pages and categories



Va Flaggers: Memorial Battle Flags Projects Update
 
Letter-to-the-Editor - Writer frightened by the Confederate Flag
 
August 3, 2014
Editor, Richmond Times-Dispatch
300 East Franklin Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
 
Dear Sir:


 
Another "born and bred Northerner," indoctrinated by a colossal propaganda mill, is frightened by the "divisive" Confederate Flag, adding that (yawn) the War was fought to end slavery. Please pay attention here. The War was waged by the North against Southern secession. The Confederacy was the American Empire's first conquest.
 
H. V. Traywick, Jr.
Richmond, VA
 
The final week of July was a very exciting one for us in MANY ways, including several new and thrilling developments in the Memorial Battle Flags Projects.  In addition to the new pole and flag installed last week at Savage's Station, we received word of the possibility of acquiring several additional large poles at bargain pricing, and are encouraged and hopeful that we will likely be able to move forward much sooner than expected with one or more of the additional properties available and waiting for Memorial Battle Flag installations.
 
Meanwhile, we are one step closer to having the Fredericksburg flag lit at night, as our crews were busy last week, putting the finishing touches on the electrical work...
 
ALSO last week, FOX News picked up a Washington Post interview with Va Flagger Barry Isenhour, and it was highlighted on its main news page.  Each time an article like this is published, we have the opportunity to present the true history and honor of our flags and the men who fought and died beneath them, and the exposure serves to recruit new supporters and foot soldiers in the Cause. 
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/08/03/confederate-flag-at-center-battle-between-group-naacp/
 
From the Washington Post report:
 
Aston Haughton, president of the Stafford County chapter of the NAACP, sees it differently. The flag, Haughton said, “symbolizes racism, oppression. It reminds people of the days of slavery.”
 
When he drove past the flag, he was upset. So were a lot of people he knew, both black and white, he said. They pulled together a group to see what they could do about it. But the permits are legal, the property is private.
 
“We have to see if we can work it from another angle,” he said. “Our mission now is to make sure they don’t keep going county to county and keep putting these flags up.”
 
Even so, and perhaps with even more determination, OUR mission has not changed. We plan to continue to raise these flags and memorials...across the Commonwealth and beyond.
 
Many thanks to each of you, whose generous support makes these flags and all of our heritage defense projects possible.
 
Please watch for more updates soon!
 
God bless you all, and God Save the South!
 
Susan Hathaway
Va Flaggers
 
Gifts* to the I-95 Memorial Battle Flag projects may be mailed to:
 
Va Flaggers
P.O. Box 547
Sandston VA 23150
Payable to Va Flaggers
 
or through PayPal:
http://www.vaflaggers.com/i95flagdonate.html
 
*Although we are NOT a registered 501c3 entity, we are absolutely a "not for profit" organization, and every gift goes directly toward expenses for our Interstate Battle Flag and Heritage Defense projects. There are no salaries or benefits paid to any member(s) of our organization, most of whom work full-time jobs, and give freely of their time, talents, and resources to further the Cause for which we stand.
 
Virginia Flaggers
P.O. Box 547
Sandston VA 23150
info@vaflaggers.com
 
 

16384 ---Plan To Keep History Visible --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-08-06 16:22:10 -0400
See related pages and categories



From: cscitizen@windstream.net 
 
To All:


           
As talking to those in academia at colleges like Washington & Lee or at Ole Miss will most likely be unproductive how does this sound as a plan to keep Confederate history & symbols visible in those places. Buy private land as close to these campuses as possible & install our own statues, memorials, plaques, etc. with the correct & true history about the soldiers & people of those colleges that played a role in our Southern history.
  
If those places find our history, heritage & symbols offensive to some then perhaps, they would not mind turning them over to us, ridding themselves of them so we can install them in prominent places of honor where they will be seen & can be cherished by the majority.
  
The Sons of Confederate Veterans, United Daughters of the Confederacy, Order of the Confederate Rose & all like-minded organizations & people could & should work jointly to see that this is achieved. This would at least keep these institutions from erasing from public view & memory the sacrifices of our ancestors.
  
Last but, not least I would place the largest flag pole & Confederate Battleflag money can buy in highly visible places on or as near those colleges as possible. They might remove them from these campuses but, this would ensure all of them had to see our flags & symbols every day. This would take a little time, money & effort but over a period of time it would be worth it to keep them from being scrubbed from these places.
  
The best part is there is nothing they could do about it as they would be on private land except, keep up their continual gnashing of teeth & wailing in outer darkness.
 
Billy E. Price
Ashville Alabama 
 
 

16383 ---Ole Miss To Change School Name --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-08-06 16:11:28 -0400
See related pages and categories



Va Flaggers: Heritage Violation Alert - Ole Miss To Change School Name and History
 
From: info@vaflaggers.com
 
When we say our enemies are out to wipe every trace of the Confederacy from the face of the earth, this is what we mean...
http://hottytoddy.com/2014/08/01/chancellor-jones-announces-plan-for-leadership-on-race-issues-and-diversity/


 
The banning of "Colonel Reb" was just the tip of the iceberg at the University soon to be "formerly known as Ole' Miss".  Chancellor Jones announced a new program today, that, among other things, will rename "Confederate Avenue" and place plaques at the Confederate monuments and markers on campus, (or what he calls "racially divisive sites") in order to "add modern context to their symbolism."
 
The name "Ole Miss" will be gradually phased out, as apparently “Some faculty are uncomfortable with (the term “Ole Miss”) — either because they see it as a nickname or because they believe it has racial overtones", says Jones.
 
Please note that Ed Ayers, with whom Waite Rawls (of the museum formerly known as the Museum of the Confederacy) has worked closely over the last several years, and Christie Coleman, who runs the American Civil War Center at Tredegar, to whom Rawls sold out our museum, were named among those influential in helping Chancellor Jones to construct this program to eradicate our history and dishonor our Veterans.
 
Mr. Rawls remains a member in good standing of the Virginia Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans... while our Confederate treasures, so lovingly donated and collected "in eternal memory" of our Confederate ancestors, are now subject to the same revisionist "modern interpretation" that is already found at Tredegar, and is soon to be nailed to our Confederate monuments and markers on the campus of "The University of Mississippi".
 
“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, religious preference, country of origin, ability, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation or gender expression.”, says Jones.
 
Apparently,  that warm welcome extends to everyone...except those of Confederate ancestry.
 
Grayson Jennings
Va Flaggers
 
 

16382 ---Tallassee Armory Guards Raise Flag --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-08-06 11:35:23 -0400
See related pages and categories



From: Virginia Flagger <info@vaflaggers.com>
Date: Tue, Aug 5, 2014
Subject: Va Flaggers: Tallassee Armory Guards Camp 1921 Raise Interstate Battle Flag!



Congratulations to the Tallassee Armory Guards Camp #1921, SCV, who raised a Battle Flag on Highway 63 in Alabama  this past Saturday, August 2nd.

(See PDF link below for photos and details)

I first heard of the plans for this flag when I visited with the camp last year, and am so excited to hear that the project is completed.  I can't wait to get back down there and see her flying!

God bless the men of the Tallassee Armory Guards!

Susan Hathaway
Va Flaggers

http://dixieoutfitters.com/uploads/Image/dixie_news/Tallassee-Armory-Guards-Camp-1921-Battle-Flag.pdf

 

16381 ---All About In Ten Words --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-08-02 18:49:05 -0400
See related pages and categories



Wednesday, July 30, 2014
WHAT IT WAS ALL ABOUT IN TEN WORDS

By Valerie Protopapas

On August 24th, 1864, President Abraham Lincoln wrote to politician and editor Henry J. Raymond that Raymond might seek a conference with Jefferson Davis and to tell him that hostility would cease “upon the restoration of the Union and the national authority.” In other words, three plus years of hideous bloodshed and war crimes would simply be ended on the above mentioned conditions.

But there is so much more in those ten words than might be seen by the casual observer. Of course, Jefferson Davis was hardly “a casual observer!” He understood the conditions under which his nation and his people would be spared further torture and destruction but he chose not to follow the path of abject slavery. It is interesting to note that a war many people declare solemnly was fought “to abolish slavery” among blacks was in fact fought to institute slavery among all Americans.

As for the first of Lincoln’s demands; that is, the “restoration of the Union:” the simple fact is that for many years participation in that “Union” had been a kind of economic and cultural slavery for the States of the South. Despised and attacked by fellow members of the “glorious Union,” they found that their wealth was not despised but, indeed, desired and as a result, year by year found its way into the coffers of those who could not be considered anything but their implacable enemies.

But this was not the foremost reason that Lincoln wanted the eleven Confederate States back under the thumb of the North. It is the second demand that makes clear why Lincoln launched his war against the States of the South in the first place; that is, they had refused to observe “the national authority.” To what “national authority” does Lincoln refer? Again, it is simple. Lincoln was going—and indeed already had—nullified the Constitution and the Union of the Founders by replacing the sovereignty of the States and the People with a now national rather than federal government. Of course, this was not just Lincoln’s desire. Many in the North and in the South of both parties no longer wished to maintain the limited federal government as created by the Constitution. Both before and during the War, Lincoln spoke endlessly of “saving”  not the nation or the Union but the government! The “national authority” which he wished to “restore”—although it had not existed at least openly before the War—was an all-powerful central government with himself at its head.

To this very day, those who seek what Lincoln desired infest the Constitution with “amendments” and “legal interpretations” assuring that both of his demands would be institutionalized in perpetuity and that is why we have what we have today: an all powerful “national authority.” At least the People of the South can take some comfort in knowing that their ancestors did not willingly or even grudgingly accept Lincoln’s slavery while they could still lift their swords to resist it. That they failed in that effort does not detract from the effort.

On The Web:   http://shnv.blogspot.com/2014/07/what-it-was-all-about-in-ten-words.html

 

16380 ---Following The Money At W&L --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-08-02 18:26:38 -0400
See related pages and categories



Following the Money at Washington and Lee

by Al Benson Jr.

After the culturally genocidal move of Washington and Lee University to ban all Confederate symbols, uniforms, flags, whatever, from the Washington and Lee campus, someone on my email list sent me a message in which he wondered where Washington and Lee got some of its funding. I thought that was a legitimate question and I hadn't seen anyplace where that was dealt with, not that I am surprised at that. So I did a bit of "huntin' and peckin" on the Internet, as my daughter calls it to see what I could find.

The six black students who were so uncomfortable with Confederate symbols are all law students, at least according to the news accounts I've read and they want everything Confederate removed from the campus and they've threatened "civil disobedience" if no one paid attention to their demands. That the school administration grovelled before them doesn't surprise me in the least. In the experience I've had with colleges they always seem to bend over backwards to cow-tow to the deviations of the leftist politically correct. No one else matters to them. That the majority of their students may not be politically correct and may not agree to the deviations of the left makes no difference whatever. The squeaky wheel always get the grease.

In scrounging around on the Internet I came across a couple things of interest. There was an article posted on April 30, 2014 by a Peter Jetton, the headline for which was: "W and L Tax Clinic Receives IRS Grant for Seventh Straight Year." The article started off: "The Tax Clinic at the Washington and Lee University School of Law has been awarded a matching grant from the Internal Revenue Service's Low-Income Taxpayer Clinic Program (LITC). This is the seventh straight year that the Tax Clinic has received federal dollars to support its efforts. The grant of $75,000, the largest in the Clinic's history, will help fund the Clinic for the 2014 calendar year."

According to another article, the clinic is directed by Michelle Lyon Drumbl, a former IRS attorney who is an assistant clinical professor of law at Washington and Lee University. The article went on to note that the Tax Clinic is "independent of the IRS and the federal government." That may be so, but they still take money from the IRS.

Back in August of 2010, in an article by Jeff Hanna, which appeared on http://www.wlu.edu  it was noted that: "Affordable high-speed Internet access will be extended to Rockbridge County residents and a new shared data center will be built at Washington and Lee University, both as a result of a $6.9 million federal grant announced on Wednesday, Aug 18." I submit that $6.9 million ain't chump change. It seems that the university has done pretty well with federal grants over the years.

I don't know if any of this federal money has had any influence on how quickly the university sought to purge its campus of anything Confederate or not. I can't say for sure. But, with my suspicious mind it does make me wonder. Had the university leadership had the intestinal fortitude to at least look at the other side of this issue and consider how people on both sides felt, would further federal funding have been withheld? Again, we don't know, but it would be nice if we did. Is federal money used to blackmail institutions into doing what the feds want done? It wouldn't be the first time. They tried the same game at Hillsdale College in Michigan several years ago now and the way the Hillsdale administration got around it was to end up flat-out refusing to accept any students that took federal aid in any form. Based on what I have read about the leadership at Washington and Lee, I doubt they would be willing to do that. Cultural genocide against Christian whites and their history and heritage is much less expensive.

On The Web:  http://thecopperhead.blogspot.com/2014/07/following-money-at-washington-and-lee.html

 

16379 ---Apology Demanded From W&L --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-08-02 18:03:48 -0400
See related pages and categories



Sons of Confederate Veterans demand apology from Washington & Lee
Jul 28, 2014
By WSLS Staff



UPDATE July 29, 12:30 p.m.: Washington and Lee University issued a statement Tuesday regarding the alleged incident of a 15-year-old boy being asked to remove or hide images of confederate flags on his clothes before entering the area around Lee Chapel over the weekend. The statement says there were four recorded interactions between officers and individuals participating in the July 26 rally sponsored by the Sons of Confederate Veterans where officers asked people not to carry or wear Confederate flags or emblems on the campus.

The statement also says officers did not record the names or ages of the people with whom they interacted. The full statement from Washington and Lee is below:

According to our Office of Public Safety, our officers reported four occasions when they interacted with individuals who were participating in the July 26 rally sponsored by the Sons of Confederate Veterans in downtown Lexington.
 
The officers characterized all of these interactions as respectful. They did not record names or ages of any of the individuals.
 
In each instance, the officers requested individuals not to carry Confederate flags or to wear attire with Confederate emblems on the campus. The individuals all complied with these requests.
 
The University chose to take these extraordinary steps — and the equally extraordinary step of closing Lee Chapel for the weekend — to avoid potential incidents. The decision to implement these procedures was based on the extreme nature of many communications that we received in the days leading up to the event.
 
Our primary concern will always be for the safety and security of our campus community and all its members, including the many visitors that we have throughout the year. At the same time, we have been clear that we will not allow outside groups to use the campus as a platform.
 
Given the tenor of the communications and without knowing what we might expect on Saturday, we had no choice but to employ these measures that day. We appreciate the manner in which our public safety officers performed their duties and the polite cooperation of those with whom they interacted. We hope that this will not be necessary in the future. We will continue to take whatever steps we think are prudent in order to keep the community and our facilities safe.

Lexington (WSLS) -  The Stonewall Brigade, Sons of Confederate Veterans Camp #1296 is calling upon Washington & Lee University President, Kenneth P. Ruscio, to apologize for what it calls the school's mistreatment of a 15-year-old boy over the weekend.

Meanwhile, university officials deny the allegations being brought against it. Brian Eckert, the spokesperson for Washington and Lee, stated there is no indication the incident took place. He also denied an on-camera interview.

According to the SCV, the boy attended the group's rally on Saturday, July 26 and gave the following account of his mistreatment in his own words:

"Since it was my first time in Lexington I wanted to see the Lee Chapel and the grave of Lee's horse Traveller. As I began to head for the Lee Chapel, a [campus] Police Officer stopped me and said that I could not enter the campus property with my Battle Flag or any images of Confederate Flags on any of my possessions including my clothing. I really wanted to pay my respects to General Lee and Traveller so I had to turn my shirt inside-out, take off my hat, and take off my badge." SVC said it's questioning if this is the reception thousands of visitors to Lexington and Lee Chapel can expect to receive in the future. The group said the majority of visitors are Civil War history enthusiasts and many can be expected to wear items with flags or other images related to the Confederacy.

The group also says the university improperly blocked the main access road to Virginia Military Institute and made it nearly impossible for visitors to get to the VMI Museum, George C. Marshall Museum and VMI Post to find their way onto that campus.

The SVC is asking Washington & Lee to issue an apology, abide by its own mission statement and not obstruct freedom of expression and thought and respect others viewpoints.

The university temporarily closed Lee Chapel this weekend citing safety concerns over the SVC's Confederate battle flag rally. The rally was in response to the school's decision to remove Confederate battle flags from Lee Chapel.

© 2014, WSHM; Springfield, MA

On The Web:   http://www.cbs3springfield.com/story/26129469/sons-of-confederate-veterans-demand-apology-from-washington-lee

 

16378 ---University Accused Of Narrow Minded Prejudice --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-08-02 17:53:24 -0400
See related pages and categories



Wednesday, July 30, 2014

Sons of Confederate Veterans Accuse University Of "Narrow Minded Prejudice"

WASHINGTON, Va., July 29, 2014 /PRNewswire/ -- The Sons of Confederate Veterans, a heritage organization which represents approximately 30,000 male descendants of the Confederate States Army, has accused officials of Washington and Lee University in Lexington, Virginia of "exhibiting the same kind of narrow minded prejudice and knee-jerk bias that has always been the enemy of brotherhood and understanding."



The group, known as the SCV, was created in 1896 and is based in Columbia, Tennessee. According to a statement released by the SCV's Chief of Heritage Operations Ben Jones, the recent removal of Confederate symbols from the burial place of General Robert E. Lee was a "breaking point for us. Our patience with this 'new McCarthyism' is exhausted."

Here is the complete statement:

"The New Bigots"

A recent event at Washington and Lee University has underscored the growing phenomenon of "South-bashing" in the media and in academia. At the behest of several young law students, that school's President made a decision to remove two St. Andrews Cross battle flags from the Lee Chapel on the campus. Lee Chapel is the burial place of Robert E. Lee, who led the Army of Northern Virginia. General Lee became President of what was then Washington College after the War Between the States and is generally credited with saving the school. The Chapel is a beloved and honored place to the more than 65 million Americans who are descended from those who fought for the South in that conflict.

The law students, who call themselves "The Committee", delivered an ultimatum to President Kenneth Ruscio threatening civil disobedience unless certain demands were met. One of those demands was the removal of Confederate symbols from the Chapel, saying that the Christian Cross flags made them feel "unwelcome". On July 8th, Ruscio announced that the flags would be removed from the Lee Chapel. We cannot fathom why anyone would attend a school named after Robert E. Lee and then say they were offended by the St. Andrews Cross flag. Nor we cannot fathom how anyone could take them seriously and cave in to their threats. But in the current climate of 'South bashing', such a radical act as this seems to be accepted as some sort of litmus test for the "politically correct police".

It appears that those who have a very simplistic view of American history have decided that the 150th anniversary of The Civil War is the right time to demonize the Southern culture, to intensify their vilification of Confederate heritage, and to continue to act as if their actions are some sort of moral crusade.

We who are of Confederate heritage honor our ancestors for their sacrifice, their perseverance and their astonishing courage against overwhelming odds. These men were our family, our kinfolks, and their blood runs in our veins. But the new bigots of political correctness are exhibiting the same kind of narrow minded prejudice and knee-jerk bias that has always been the enemy of brotherhood and understanding. This latest example is the breaking point for us. Our patience with this new McCarthyism is exhausted. These mean spirited attacks upon us come from the same sad place as do all racial, religious, and regional prejudices. They are rooted in an ignorance combined with a sense of superiority.

Over 50 years ago, that courageous Southerner Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said, "I have a dream that someday on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to dine together at the table of brotherhood." And that has happened. We have done that for decades now in the South, in great part because Dr. King did not qualify that dream or put asterisks on it. He did not say that we would dine together in brotherhood only if we dishonored our ancestors or if our family could routinely be called bigots, traitors, and racists. He was a far better and wiser man than that. He meant that we would dine together by accepting our past as it is and that we would understand each other by our shared culture of work and weather and food and music and memory. That way we could strive together to heal the wounds of the past and thus build a proud and loving South, where folks are judged only by the content of their characters.

Slavery was not the sin of the South, but of the Nation. Chattel slavery existed throughout every colony and state for almost two centuries. Slavery was funded mainly by the Northern banks. The greatest profits went to the North. The North built the slave ships and manned them. The cotton also went North, to the vast textile mills in New England. The North's complicity in prolonging and profiting from slavery is one of the best kept secrets of American history. The work of the slaves helped to build America, both North and South. And yet the South has long been the scapegoat of these attacks from academia and the media.

The South is the fastest growing economic region in our nation. African-Americans are returning to the South in record numbers, finding a more traditional way of life here and according to many, better race relations.

It is long past the time for the new bigots of political correctness to get over their condescending sanctimony and to enter into the real world of brotherhood and fellowship. And it is time they understand that insulting our heritage is not the way to build bridges of progress.

Ben Jones
Chief of Heritage Operations
Sons of Confederate Veterans
SOURCE Sons of Confederate Veterans

On The Web:   http://shnv.blogspot.com/2014/07/sons-of-confederate-veterans-accuse.html

 

16377 ---Florida Confederate Memorial Wall --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-08-01 16:55:46 -0400
See related pages and categories



Florida Confederate Memorial Wall
 
To all,
 
After nearly four months of planning and development we are proud to introduce the unveiling debut for the Florida Confederate Memorial Wall in Tampa August 9 at 10 AM. General Jubal A. Early Camp 556 will host the event on the grounds of Confederate Memorial Park.
 
The wall consist of 10 panels which list 4,265 soldiers who served in regiments from Florida. The appearance resembles the Viet Nam Memorial in DC but with a distinct Confederate flavor which honours every volunteer who gave his life during the War for Southern Independence 1861-1865
 
We plan to host all guest from 10 AM to 12 PM so bring your cameras and enjoy a few hours of history as never been seen before. Order of Confederate Rose Bell Chapter #20 will provide refreshments and the Board of Directors for the project will answer questions throughout the morning.
 
Visit the Early Camp web site for directions to the park and feel free to contact myself or the chairman for details.
 
Forward the Colours
 
Mike Herring Camp 556......813 681 6922
Robert Stemple Chairman..863 291 3190  
www.tampascv.org
 
 

16376 ---Government Policy Of Genocide --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-08-01 16:40:55 -0400
See related pages and categories



Government Policy of Genocide
 
From: bernhard1848@gmail.com
 
The basic strategy of the US government, as explained to Red Cloud in 1871, was for “the Great Father to put war-houses all through the Indian country.” The idea was to make the Yankee soldiers highly visible to tribes for deterrent effect, and it “demoralizes them more than anything else except money and whiskey.”  Sherman’s genocidal policy was learned by his young Spanish attaché, Valeriano Weyler, who practiced it on Cubans in the 1890s.
 
Bernhard Thuersam, Chairman
North Carolina War Between the States Sesquicentennial Commission
"Unsurpassed Valor, Courage and Devotion to Liberty"
www.ncwbts150.com
"The Official Website of the North Carolina WBTS Sesquicentennial"
 
Government Policy of Genocide
 
“The surprise attack on the [Indian] village was total war.  In such encounters women and children were nearly always present.  They mingled with the fighting men, often participated in the fighting, and in the confusion and excitement were difficult to identify as noncombatants.  In engagement after engagement women and children fell victim to army bullets or were cast upon a hostile country, often in winter, without food or shelter.
 
Total war raised disturbing moral questions, not only for the eastern humanitarians who shrilly protested military butchery, but for the army as well.  Some officers openly acknowledged the surprise attack to be indiscriminate killing.  “The confessed aim was to exterminate everyone,” concluded Colonel de Trobriand, “for this is the only advantage of making the expedition; if extermination were not achieved, just another burden would be added – prisoners.”
 
But what of the morality of a strategy aimed at finding and destroying Indian villages where women and children would unquestionably be present and suffer death or injury?  Whether, as General Sherman contended, such warfare is in the end more humane because it is more speedily and definitely ended may be argued.  The significant point is that Sherman’s strategy for the conquest of the Indians was as moral, or immoral, as his march across Georgia . . .
 
Humanitarians, appalled by the killing of women and children, scored the army for practicing extermination.  Some pronouncements of Sherman, Sheridan, and others sound like exterminationism . . . [and] Extermination – a later generation would call it genocide – is the systematic obliteration of a whole people.
 
Many officers believed that extinction was the Indian’s preordained fate . . . [rather] it was an impulse to civilize the Indian that dominated military attitudes as it dominated public sentiment and government policy – and that belies the charge that the United States pursued a policy of genocide.
 
[General George Crook] turned to the very tribe against which his operations were directed [for Indian allies and discovered] the psychological impact of the enemy finding his own people arrayed against him.  {Crook said in 1886:] “Nothing breaks them up like turning their own people against them . . . [and it has a] broader and more enduring aim – their disintegration.”
 
(Frontier Regulars: The US Army and the Indian, 1866-1891, Robert M. Utley, Macmillan Publishing, 1971, pp. 52-55)
 
 

16375 ---Ivy Hill Vandalized Cemetery --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-08-01 16:10:58 -0400
See related pages and categories



Ivy Hill Vandalized Cemetery
 
Gentlemen,
 
Ivy Hill Cemetery in Smithfield has almost 70 Confederate Veterans in it. All but a couple of their graves have Iron Crosses or small aluminum crosses on them. It appears that someone went in last night and knocked over 17 of the Iron Crosses and broke several of their stakes off in the process. I was called and met the cemetery director up there to survey the damage.  We got some more assistance from the cemetery directors and my Camp and put the unbroken ones back in place and took out the others for repair.
 
A police report was filed by the director and he said the police told him that they considered it a hate crime. I hope they catch the miscreants especially if they go back to finish the job.
 
Nothing is sacred anymore.
 
Totally disgusted,
 
Tony Griffin
Commander - Isle of Wight Avengers Camp #14
Lt Commander - Virginia Division SCV
 
 

16374 ---Letter To The Editor (cscitizen) --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-08-01 16:00:41 -0400
See related pages and categories



LTE
 
From: cscitizen@windstream.net
To: bhamletters@al.com
 
To the Editor:
                      
So going after Confederate flags, monuments, statues & symbols were not enough for liberal yankees & the minorities they have brainwashed with 150 years of continued Reconstruction & counting. Now the yankees who work at Oak Ridge Tennessee want to change the accents of native Southerners who work there & live in the area.
  
It would seem that since those yankees now live & work in the South it is they who do not fit in & should do some changing. When I served in the military all that I ever tried to do was my duty & to mind my own business. However, busy body, meddling yankees are not content to do the same & live & let live. They try to tell you how they did everything up nawth & why everyone else should do the same.
  
They are forever on what they view as their God given right to change everyone & everything into their own image. Perhaps, their mentality is why America has been in one war after another for the past 150 years, they cannot leave other people alone to live their lives as they choose to do.
  
In the movie Braveheart the English king said, “the only thing wrong with Scotland is that its full of Scots.” Today’s yankee translation is, “the only thing wrong with the South is that its full of Southerners.” But, liberal yankees just cannot imagine or figure out why they are hated even though its self-inflicted.
  
This might come as a shock to yankees but, you are not always right & others are not always wrong.
 
Billy E. Price
Ashville, Al.
 
 

16373 ---The War Is Begun --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-08-01 15:47:06 -0400
See related pages and categories



THE WAR IS BEGUN
 
By Joan Hough
 
I thank with a grateful heart my precious new Confederate friends Elaine and Doug Collings who surprised me with a subscription to the wonderful “Confederate Veteran” magazine.   A moment ago I stole the time and managed to read just a little bit in the “Confederate Veteran” July/August issue and I began reading the Report of R. Michael Givens, the Commander-In-Chief of the CIC@SCF.org .  His essay is a marvelous “lalapalooza” of an article entitled “THE TRUTH.” And does that guy tell it!  He begins by quoting George Orwell: “During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.”
 
With those words Givens informed me that I would not just like, but would value what I was about to read.
 
I was greatly intrigued when I read Givens’ statement, “Marxian revolution is Jacobin, as are many forms of contemporary political criticism,” He continued,  “The revolution we, the SCV, are engaged in is akin to the Glorious Revolution of 1688.  He added that our enemies are “invested in the total transformation of society into a victim state.” Cogently connecting the dots from the present right back to the past, he then clearly defines our present situation:   “The enemies of the South are undeniably waging a Jacobin revolution”
 
His recognition of the Marxian machinations rates a hurrah.  He is well aware who tainted historical truth—who taught out and out lies to generations of Americans and who remains the hidden causative factor in America’s present chaos.   Givens’ and the Sons decision to take up arms in the sea of trouble, so to speak, appears to indicate this is not to be a mere “defense,” but also an “attack!”
 
Givens declares that the members of the SCV “are seriously at war for the truthful recognition of our forefathers’ deeds” and that the War is a serious war for the minds and hearts of Americans.  He stated, “It is for this reason that I have “instituted what some have called the most important steps the SCV has taken since the inception of our revered organization in 1896.”
 
He is referring to a two part program of the SCV’s which includes the transformation of the CONFEDERATE VETERAN magazine into an “educational journal with the purpose of presenting essays designed to increase the knowledge of the truthful events leading up to and during the War for Southern Independence and how they affect us today and our children in the future.”
 
Translated, the good Commander is saying that now the Sons are going to fight in earnest for the PRINCIPLES of our Confederate family members and their leaders.  The Sons are now totally dedicating themselves to the fight for TRUTH!  The battle is begun! The true motives that caused the South to secede –the principles—go far, far beyond the slavery that the Jacobin-convinced folks have fastened on it –and used as brainwash.   The hatred sown against our beloved Battle flag is another of the clever propaganda techniques making it absolutely necessary that the enemies of truth receive their comeuppance.
 
I am greatly anticipating reading the Commander’s essay in its entirety.   For now I say Hurrah and Hurrah again!
 
And while I wait to read, I am ruminating over the horror that The Victors of the War of Northern Aggression have tried to make us all think like Yankees, act like Yankees and worst of all--talk just like Yankees—telling us that we sound stupid with our Southern accents—that only stupid folks hold on to worn out memories of a north that did the South wrong and a flag that only a Simon Legree could be proud of!  (They seem to have conveniently forgotten that Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Simon was, just like them, a Yankee—and that for the years in its beginning the nation was governed by men speaking with beautiful Southern dialects.  And they forget that the renowned public speaker, Winston Churchill said that in his opinion the best speech in the world included the “melody of the South, ” and that the most beautiful speech in the world was that of an educated Southern lady.)
 
 

16372 ---Confederate Ukrainian Tank --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-08-01 15:37:46 -0400
See related pages and categories



From: Phil Walters <gatorstick@tampabay.rr.com>
Date: Tue, Jul 29, 2014
Subject: FW: Confederate Ukrainian Tank
To: David McCallister <drmmystery1881@gmail.com>
Cc: Lunelle Seigel <Siegels1@mindspring.com>

Subject: Ukrainian Tank

Does this look out of place to you?  Just 150 years and 5000 miles apart.



{This is a photograph, not a doctored picture, from the FoxNews web page…}

From George Washington to Robert E. Lee to Elvis to Forrest Gump to Lynyrd Skynyrd, it’s the SOUTHERNERS that the world most admires & wishes to emulate.

God bless the Ukrainians in their battle for national sovereignty against a lawless, brutal, tyrannical, LEFTIST invaders from their NORTH. And of course, with no help or support from our own imperial & lawless government.

Another instance of the world’s non PC view of the history of our Southern homeland not honestly depicted in America today.

Please forward and utilize this international message. I’m sure it will end up on the Judah P. Benjamin camp’s website.

Rally to the Colors!

Capt. Phil Walters
GatorGuides.com
Dixie Gator Trappers
Sponsor: Capt. JJ Dickison (CS)  "Grey Ghost" 1971 AMC Javelin
1st Lt Commander J.P. Benjamin camp 2210 SCV
National Rifle Association-Life member
Safari Club International-Life member
Sons of Confederate Veterans--Life member

 

16371 ---W&L Denies, Then Admits Incident --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-08-01 15:26:01 -0400
See related pages and categories



From: Virginia Flagger <info@vaflaggers.com>
Date: Tue, Jul 29, 2014
Subject: Va Flaggers: W&L Denies, then Admits Incident with 15 Year Old DID Take Place...

Almost as soon as the story broke of the 15 year old boy who was forced to remove his shirt, cap, and name badge because they contained images of the Confederate flag before being allowed to visit the LEE Chapel Saturday, several amateur historians/bloggers immediately called his story false, labeled it a "publicity stunt",  and used it to continue their campaign of slander and false attacks against the Va Flaggers and the SCV.



At the same time, when asked for a statement by the press, W&L officials DENIED THE INCIDENT EVER TOOK PLACE, effectively joining the bloggers in their chorus of hate, and calling the boy a liar.

"Meanwhile, university officials initially denied the allegations being brought against it. Brian Eckert, the spokesperson for Washington and Lee, stated there is no indication the incident took place."

http://www.wsls.com/story/26129469/sons-of-confederate-veterans-demand-apology-from-washington-lee

However, on Tuesday the University admitted that because of "safety" reasons they forced 4 people "not to carry or wear Confederate flags or emblems on the campus."

We never ONCE doubted the honesty or integrity of this young man! SHAME ON Washington & Lee for trying to cover up their misconduct, and for impugning the character of a 15 year old boy! HE told the truth.  THEY did not.  Is it any wonder such men have no regard for the honor and integrity of Robert E. Lee?

http://vaflaggers.blogspot.com/2014/07/update-washington-leelee-chapel-flags.html

CALL TO ACTION!

Please contact University officials and request the University end its discriminatory, random, undefined policy and apologize for its mistreatment of persons of Confederate ancestry.  Please, write, phone or e-mail:

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)

Brian Eckert
Executive Director of Communications and Public Affairs
540.458.8459
beckert@wlu.edu

Julie S. Cline
Office Manager
540.458.8954
jcline@wlu.edu

Mailing Address:

Washington and Lee University
Lexington, Virginia 24450-2116

We MUST keep the skeer on...will you help?

Grayson Jennings

Virginia Flaggers
P.O. Box 547
Sandston VA 23150
info@vaflaggers.com

 

16370 ---Confederate Flag At Savage's Station --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-08-01 15:11:25 -0400
See related pages and categories



From: Virginia Flagger <info@vaflaggers.com>
Date: Wed, Jul 30, 2014
Subject: Fwd: Va Flaggers: A Confederate Flag at Savage's Station!



A Confederate flag for Savage's Station!

On June 29th, the anniversary of the battle of Savage's Station, a young man placed a single stick battle flag at the marker commemorating the event, and in honor and memory of his 8 Confederate ancestors who fought there to defend hearth and home from unwarranted invasion.

He was dishearened when the flag was removed just a few short days later. Over the course of the next few weeks, he replaced the flag several times, and each time, it was stolen. He then began placing flags on all five markers, and labeling them with a note listing the name of his ancestor, explaining that flag was left in his memory, and asking them not to be removed. Again, the flags were stolen.

After replacing them several times, over several weeks, the young man contacted the owner of the land, adjacent to the markers, and the very land on which the battle was fought, and acquired permission to erect a pole and Confederate flag on his property, just a few feet behind the markers.

A pole was quickly acquired by donation, and a flag was raised TODAY... a living breathing, 24/7/365 reminder to all who visit the battle field, of the honor and valor of the Confederate soldiers who fought and died there. Special 54 x 54 ANV flags are on order, and will be installed by the end of the week.

This young flagger says he got his inspiration when he saw the Confederate flag that was erected on private land just behind the Federal Monument at Point Lookout. We cannot express our pride and gratitude for his dedication and perseverance, and the fact that instead of giving up, he found a way to turn his anger, and the misconduct of others ,into a true victory for the Confederate soldier!

God bless this young Fire-Eater, and GOD SAVE THE SOUTH!

Susan Hathaway

Virginia Flaggers
P.O. Box 547
Sandston VA 23150
info@vaflaggers.com

Wednesday, June 30:  4:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. - Flagging the VMFA, 200 N. Boulevard

Saturday, August 2nd:  9:00 a.m. - 1:00 p.m. - Flagging the VMFA, 200 N. Boulevard

Saturday, August 2nd:  10:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. - Flagging Washington & Lee University - Meet on sidewalk in front of LEE Chapel

Wednesday, June 30 - Sunday, August 3rd:  Sesquicentennial of the Battle of the Crater

Saturday, August 23rd:  2:00 p.m. Re-dedication of the Hanover County Confederate Monument, Hanover County Courthouse.

Saturday, September 20th:  11:30 a.m. Dick Poplar Day
http://www.petersburgexpress.com/Petersburg_Events.html

Sunday, September 28th:  3:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. Save the Date!  Va Flaggers' Third Anniversary Picnic. More details to follow.  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.

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

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

 

16369 ---Confederate Burial - 150 Years After The War --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-07-29 16:24:37 -0400
See related pages and categories



Confederate burial conducted in Nolanville, 150 years after end of Civil War

Posted: Sunday, July 27, 2014
James Harper | Herald staff writer

NOLANVILLE — It was almost surreal.

Confederate soldiers, flags and traditions were on full display at a 2014 funeral. But the full Confederacy burial is exactly what Margaret Sprott, 93, asked for before she died July 20, and her request was granted Saturday afternoon at the Pleasant Hill Cemetery.

Sprott was a proud member of the Confederate Rose, which is the auxiliary to the Sons of Confederate Veterans, a group that volunteers and helps people learn about the true spirit of the confederacy.

According to her son, Rocky Jim Sprott, a first sergeant in the Sons of the Confederacy, his mother spent much of her life honoring the Confederate veterans of the Civil War — some of whom were directly related to her.

“We had about 12 family members who fought for the South during the war,” Sprott said. “Her father, uncles and cousins — so many.”

To see such a burial is rare, just ask Chris McClure.

“I have over 25 years experience in this field,” said the funeral director of Heartfield Funeral Home in Belton. “I have never seen anything like this.”

There was a 21-gun salute, fairly standard for a military funeral, but rather than taps, tattoo was played — the Confederate version of taps — and the Black Rose Ceremony was displayed, where yellow roses were placed on the deceased’s casket.

It’s strictly a Confederate ceremony, according to Rocky Jim Sprott — as well as the folding of the flag into a square, rather than the triangle fold that is today’s American military tradition.

It was important to Margaret Sprott that Confederate veterans were honored, and recognized, not for a defense of slavery, but in defense of state’s rights. An issue that is ever present.

“A lot of people think that the soldiers fought for slavery, but you have to remember that most of those who fought didn’t own slaves themselves,” said James P. Kinnear, camp commander of Brigadier General J.C. Moore Camp 578. “They were fighting because their home was invaded. They fought for state’s rights.”

Sprott was active in her community, church and with the Confederate Rose.

© Copyright 2014, The Killeen Daily Herald, Killeen, TX

On The Web:   http://kdhnews.com/news/confederate-burial-conducted-in-nolanville-years-after-end-of-civil/article_c2532ed0-1513-11e4-921a-001a4bcf6878.html

 

16368 ---Problem With Anti-Confederate Floggers --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-07-29 16:03:26 -0400
See related pages and categories



Saturday, July 26, 2014

The Problem with Anti-Confederate Floggers...

...is the blatant and egregious double standard they use. Take, for example, the efforts to protect Ulysses S. Grant from the term "slave owner" with this (from Al Mackey, but it's a common defense) "Grant did free the only slave he ever owned, William Jones, in 1859 at a time when he needed money and could have gotten upwards of $1,000 if he sold Jones."

So if you own a slave and free him instead of selling him, that nullifies and neutralizes your slave-ownership? Well, if you're barbaric Union army general, I guess so.

But then Mackey notes this, "Julia Dent Grant, though, never owned 18 slaves.  There is no evidence she ever owned any slaves.  The best we can establish is that she had the use of four of her father’s slaves."

So Grant and his wife Julia were members of a slave-owning family.... hummmm....

In my blog post, "Cookin' the Books on Slave Ownership," I noted that critics of the South frequently wave away the number of slave owners -- people who actually held title to slaves (393,975 persons, according to the 1860 census) -- and focus instead of slave holding families.

I had asked about this on Facebook (basically asking how the number of slave holding families was arrived at) with a link to information about it on the website of James Epperson, an anti-Confederate professor. I was surprised when I got a private message from Mr. Epperson about it.

Epperson: "Each slaveholder in the census is assumed to represent his own family. Some of these would be individuals, some would be extended families (patriarch/ matriarch, children and spouses, etc.), some would be nuclear families. I don't see a problem with this." (Emphasis mine. CW  So Julia would be the child of a slave holder and Grant the spouse of the child of a slave holder -- and thus counted as one who was affected by, benefited from slavery, etc., which is implied as the same thing as slave-ownership by anti-Confederate floggers.)

Me: "It seems to me that a figure of 26% looks much more weighty and impressive than 13.8% -- particularly to people who won't take the time to discern the difference in what the two figures represent. The term "slave holding families" could be construed by some to mean all members of the family were slaveholders; to such people, that means 26% of the Southern population, not 13.8%, owned slaves. I think it gives a false impression."

Epperson: "The point of the exercise is to discern how many people were affected by or benefitting (sic) from or exposed to slavery. It would be more than the individuals who legally owned the slaves---it would include their wives and children. I am not the originator of this, it is the standard metric used by historians."

Unless they're flogger historians, and unless one member of the slave-owning family was Ulysses S. Grant. Then the idea is to distance him as far as possible from slave-ownership and benefit.

This is by no means the only example of the flogger application of a blatant double standard. I've blogged about it before and you can read about it here. This is just the latest example of it.

A lot of things substantiate the flogger hatred of white Southerners, and their efforts to evilize them, past and present. The wielding of their despicable double standard is just one.

On The Web:   http://mybacksass.blogspot.com/2014/07/the-problem-with-anti-confederate.html?spref=fb

 

16367 ---Petition For Rebel Man Mascot Return --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-07-29 15:46:55 -0400
See related pages and categories



Hundreds sign petition for ‘Rebel Man’ mascot’s return at Freeman High

July 21, 2014
by Melissa Hipolit

HENRICO COUNTY, Va. — Hundreds of students and alumni from Douglas Freeman High School have signed a petition to express support for a “Rebel Man” mascot for the West End school.

Rising Freeman senior Alecsys Brown, who started the petition, said there is a lot of confusion among her classmates about why the school surveyed students asking them what the school’s mascot should look like and what the mascot will be.

She said the confusion compelled her to take a stand in favor of the school’s original “Rebel Man” mascot.

“Our school is named after Douglas Southall Freeman who was the biographer of General Robert E. Lee who was a southern general,” Brown said. “So, I think rightfully our mascot should be a southern soldier or the Rebel Man.”

Henrico County Public Schools stopped using the school’s original Freeman “Rebel Man” mascot years ago, but the school’s competitive name remains the Freeman Rebels.

“I know at one point the Rebel Man had a musket and a Confederate flag, but those things have been taken away, so now he’s just this harmless man running around in gray and blue at football games,” Brown said.

But, apparently not everyone thinks he is harmless.

According to Al Ciarochi, Henrico County Schools Assistant Superintendent for Operations, some students expressed interest in a new representation of a Freeman Rebel hoping for something inclusive that was more reflective of a contemporary Freeman High School.

If a new mascot comes to fruition, student Jamie Lockwood said she wanted to dress up in the mascot costume at Freeman games, but she is conflicted about what the mascot should look like.

“I, in no way, want to be linked to the Confederacy, southern pride, the South will rise again,” Lockwood said.

Still, she said it seemed most students wanted the Rebel Man, but she was told her costume will be a lion (Rebel Lion aka rebellion).

“We just don’t identify with a lion,” Lockwood said.

Ciarochi said no decisions have been made yet about what Freeman’s mascot would look like. However, he also said there were no plans to reinstate the original Rebel Man mascot.

His statement in full:

“The original Freeman Rebel mascot’s use was discontinued many years ago.  The school’s competitive name remains the Freeman Rebels.  Last school year, some of the student body expressed interest in creating a new representation of what personifies a Freeman Rebel and the student government sought feedback through a student survey on what that might look like. No decisions have been made in this regard, nor are there plans to reinstate the original mascot. It is believed that the effort was intended to create a rebel character that is inclusive and reflects a contemporary Freeman.”

Copyright © 2014, WTVR

On The Web:   http://wtvr.com/2014/07/21/hundreds-sign-petition-in-favor-of-rebel-man-mascot-at-freeman-high-school/

 

16366 ---What's Being Left Out Of The Debate --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-07-29 15:34:57 -0400
See related pages and categories



The Elephant in the Room or What is Being Left Out of the Confederate Flag Debate

There are very few human symbols that find absolute approval or, in the alternative, disapproval. Symbols are called that because they represent something far larger than themselves. An unknown symbol is an oxymoron. At present, the symbol that is seemingly most under attack in this country is the Confederate battle flag albeit other flags that represented that short-lived, tragic nation, the Confederate States of America are also under assault—especially those which contain the battle flag in their star field.

But the battle flag in particular is under attack by the politically correct because they say that it is a symbol of “racism”—a Trotskyite term invented to sew discord between the races in the United States. Because of the power of political correctness these days, the claim of racism is far stronger than any claim that the flag represented a standard for treason. That claim together with the claim of the flag being “racist” are untrue. The battle flag represented neither racism nor treason, but a struggle by the People of the South for independence from a tyrannous central government, a struggle that was little different from that waged eighty-five years earlier against the British Empire. From that struggle came the American flag against which a claim might be made regarding the institution of slavery. For no flag of the Confederate States of America ever flew over a slave ship but the Stars and Stripes most certainly did.

It is not my intention to go over once more this debate about the battle flag. That is at this point irrelevant. What I do intend is to point out something that is so large in this debate that people cannot see it. For the “elephant in the room” in the battle flag debate is not the flag or the reasons that the flag is both condemned and upheld, but the means by which the debate is resolved. From the onset of the so-called “civil rights movement,” Southern heritage—including the battle flag—went from being an honored piece of American history to an example of bigotry and violence. The flag hadn’t changed neither had its place in history. What had changed was history itself. What before had been a fairly honest interpretation of the ante-bellum period and the War that ended it, became an effort by academia and the heritage establishment to turn the people and the States of the South into villains whose only desire was the preservation of slavery and the destruction of that glorious Union of the Founders! But it is not my intention to go into this debate either. It, too, has been well covered and only the ignorant can claim to be unaware of the facts that have been brought forward to counter this unjust and mendacious claim.

No, there is something else that must be brought forward here, something that nobody seems to feel the need to demand from those concerned before the flag poles are emptied and the monuments ploughed under. Most people in this country today identify the United States as a “democracy.” We aren’t—or at least we’re not supposed to be. We are a representative republic—or, as noted, we are supposed to be one such. Of course, we are not. We are, alas, a democracy, a form of government that is one step removed from tyranny. Benjamin Franklin defined a democracy as two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch! Of course, in this country we have believed in the will of the majority prevailing, but only so long as that will did not trample on the rights of the minority. In other words, the wolfish majority cannot vote to eat the sheepish minority! But, still, the will of the majority is supposed to prevail. And that’s what makes this particular “elephant” so difficult to explain. For the consignment of Confederate symbols, including the battle flag!—never seems to come to a vote to determine the will of the majority! Indeed, flags that have been censored, removed and otherwise consigned to oblivion along with monuments, heroes, icons and even music(!) attributable to the CSA have found themselves excised from the culture at the behest of a very small minority of people who demand their extinction because they supposedly, “offend” this “sensitive” minority. Furthermore, all efforts to address these concerns have met with rejection on the part of the chronically offended. History means nothing. Facts mean nothing. The rights of the majority of their fellow citizens mean nothing. All that matters is that small minority (white and black) who are “personally offended” by a symbol and a heritage about which they either know or care nothing is carried out and the hell with everybody else!

One cannot imagine anything less American than a small coterie of ideologues and race-mongers who inflict their agenda upon their fellow citizens virtually unopposed. It is also interesting to note that when these matters have been brought to the people in various referendums, the flags have remained! Equally interesting is the fact that the votes to retain them cross racial lines! Thus, those who reject a referendum with the claim it tramples on the rights of a particular race are proven wrong. On the other hand, removing them absent the opportunity for the people to speak certainly does trample on the rights of the majority!

Supporters of the battle flag and other Confederate symbols, heroes and history have brought the facts forward. Those of good will and objectivity can learn those facts if they so desire. Those who are neither, will not be swayed by them anyway. Therefore to continue to debate this matter as if it were one of ignorance is futile. We must look not at what is being done, but who is doing it and how it is being done! We must put a stop to a small coterie of ideologues with an agenda from robbing the people of a voice in their own culture. At this point in time, the removal of any Southern symbol from a place of honor should be determined democratically—that is by a vote of ALL of those involved and not just a chosen few. If the symbol is publicly displayed, any attempt to remove it should be on the ballot. If it is privately displayed, all those who are part of the institution involved should have a voice in the decision. The time has come to stop the destruction of a culture at the hands of an elite few. Yes, the lamb does not wish to be eaten, but the wolves don’t wish to be rendered voiceless either.

Lady Val Protopapas
Huntington Station, New York

 

16365 ---Cultural Genocide In Lexington --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-07-29 15:19:10 -0400
See related pages and categories



Cultural Genocide in Lexington, Virginia--what else is new?
by Al Benson Jr.

Cultural genocide against white Christians has almost become so commonplace that most folks don't even notice it anymore and it's just as bad in the South, if not worse, than in many other places. The cultural genocide promoters are beginning to feel at this point, with the leftist political slant so obvious now in Washington, that they have it within their grasp to completely eradicate Confederate and Southern culture if they just push a little harder, just get rid of a few more Confederate statues, change the names of a few more streets from Stonewall Jackson Blvd. to Malcolm X Avenue, and get rid of any Confederate flags or symbols in any and all institutions of learning, then they can erase all memory of Confederate and Southern history--all except for the slavery issue. That one has to be kept alive because the hope for some sort of future reparations is still down the road. All they have to do is to promote a little more white guilt and the silver will start to flow--right into their pockets. You have to realize that if there are ever any reparations paid they will not go to ordinary black folks, they will be paid to the race-baiters and those who know how to deal the race card off the bottom of the deck. That's really what it's all about for them--fleecing whitey!

Recently, at Washington and Lee University, several black students entered the chapel and felt "uncomfortable" with the Confederate flag, with its St. Andrews Cross hanging in there. I don't know what their agenda was (I can guess) but they went to the head of the school and complained.

The president of the school, Mr. Kenneth Ruscio, apparently is even beyond being politically correct. I get the impression from what I've read that he almost tripped over his own feet getting over to the chapel to get those "evil" Confederate flags out of there. Needless to say, there has been considerable protest against his eager willingness to play the politically correct "fearless leader." Not that he cares, because, like most of those in leadership positions in colleges and universities nowadays he has been so imbued with the "white guilt" syndrome that he can't wait to do the bidding of the leftist black radicals. He's their boy, all the way!

I wish I had a dollar for every letter that Mr. Ruscio has gotten about this situation from Southern patriots. I could probably take a trip to Mexico and back--if I could ever fight my way through the hoards of illegal immigrants to get there, or somehow manage to get through the Border Patrol checkpoints which seem more interested in harassing American citizens than in catching illegals. But I digress.

At Washington and Lee University you can tell the agenda is definitely Cultural Genocide. A 15-year old youngster, who had come with some people that were protesting what the university had done in removing Confederate flags, assayed to go into the chapel at the university because he just wanted to see the chapel and the grave of Lee's horse, Traveler. The youngster observed: "As I began to head for the Lee Chapel, a police officer stopped me and said that I could not enter the campus property with my Battle Flag or any images of Confederate flags on any of my possessions including my clothing. I really wanted to pay my respects to General Lee and Traveler so I had to turn my shirt inside out, take off my hat, and take off my badge. When I finally arrived at the chapel there was a sign on the front door saying that the Lee Chapel was closed for the weekend."

Folks, I ask, isn't that just a bit extreme? But, then, leftist cultural genocide is never anything but extreme--after all, when your agenda is the destruction of white, Christian culture, you can't afford to do it by half-way measures--you've got to go all the way, and if you can't get it buried deep enough, it might just rise up and haunt you.

Understand, when these black radicals prattle about "love and diversity" and "multiculturalism" there is no room for you in all that. You are supposed to be gone, eliminated, or at least marginalized to the point where you don't dare say anything. That this is part and parcel of the agenda of most schools nowadays should be evident from what has gone on at Washington and Lee University recently. The Marxist radicals feel they are in the ascendancy so there's no room for you. Since this is the position that Washington and Lee University has taken, I'd suggest that anyone planning to send their kids to that school might want to think twice and possibly choose another school--unless you are prepared to surrender your cultural identity for a mess of "racist" pottage.

On The Web:   http://thecopperhead.blogspot.com/2014/07/cultural-genocide-in-lexington-virginia.html

 

16364 ---Slavery Was Not The Cause Of The War --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-07-29 14:58:13 -0400
See related pages and categories



Slavery Was Not the Cause of the War Between the States, The Irrefutable Argument. - by Gene Kizer, Jr.
 
From: SouthernHistory2@bonniebluepublishing.com
 
Southrons,
 
I am proud to announce a powerful new 250-page softcover book with citation, using over 140 sources that are listed in a bibliography. There are 56 sample pages on www.BonnieBluePublishing.com and a PDF file of sample pages that can be saved and emailed.
http://www.bonniebluepublishing.com/
 
ISBN: 978-0-9853632-7-7 (softcover print)
ISBN: 978-0-9853632-6-0 (eBook)
 
Published by Charleston Athenaeum Press
Publication Date
August 26, 2014
 
6 x 9" with illustrations
 
Softcover print: $17.95
 
eBook: $8.95
 
Includes the famous treatise Lincoln and Fort Sumter
by Charles W. Ramsdell
 
Includes "The Right of Secession" and detailed chronology of the secession debate in the South with speeches, convention dates, documents, ratification votes, etc.,  amidst the national drama leading up to the war
 
The plan is to start shipping ASAP but no later than the author's birthday,August 26, 2014
 
Author Bio
 
Pre-Publication Promotion for the softcover print edition
 
$15.95
(plus shipping)
 
The first thousand copies will be numbered and signed by the author
 
Now you will know why Abraham Lincoln insisted that the war was about preserving the Union. He had to preserve the Union or the Northern economy would be annihilated because its success was based on manufacturing and shipping for the South. Without the South, the North was dead, bankrupt, millions unemployed, etc., and that's why Mr. Lincoln started his war.
 
I also prove, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that the North did not go to war to end slavery or free the slaves.
 
For example, if the North had gone to war to free the slaves, it would have started by passing a constitutional amendment abolishing slavery since there were more slave states in the Union (8) than in the Confederacy (7) when the war started.
 
The Northern Congress did the opposite. It overwhelmingly passed the Corwin Amendment leaving black people in slavery forever, even beyond the reach of Congress. This alone proves, unequivocally, that the North did not go to war to end slavery or free the slaves.
 
There is much much more in a fast-paced, well-documented, compelling argument that shows clearly why slavery was not the cause of the War Between the States.
 
Thank You!
 
Magna est veritas et praevalet
(Great is truth and it prevails)
 
Gene Kizer, Jr.
Charleston Athenaeum Press
www.BonnieBluePublishing.com
P.O. Box 13012
Charleston, SC 29422-3012

 

16363 ---...Peace Will Come Of Itself --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-07-29 14:06:55 -0400
See related pages and categories



"Let Us Alone and Peace Will Come of Itself"
 
From: bernhard1848@gmail.com
 
As many as six peace initiatives occurred before and during the war, nearly all emanating from the South and ending in failure due to Northern Republican intransigence. “[Lincoln] offered us nothing but unconditional surrender,” said Vice President Alexander Stephens on his return from the Hampton Roads Peace Conference of 3 February 1865, calling the meeting “fruitless and inadequate.”
 
Bernhard Thuersam, Chairman
North Carolina War Between the States Sesquicentennial Commission
"Unsurpassed Valor, Courage and Devotion to Liberty"
www.ncwbts150.com
"The Official Website of the North Carolina WBTS Sesquicentennial"
 
“Let Us Alone and Peace Will Come of Itself”
 
“Lincoln was quietly sponsoring a peace initiative of his own [in July 1864 when he] sent Col. James F. Jaquess, a Methodist minister [of an Illinois Regiment] . . . and [writer] James R. Gilmore . . . on a mission to Richmond.  Gilmore and Jaquess had a political motive to help Lincoln’s faltering bid for reelection.
 
They wanted to prove that the Confederate’s peace overtures were really concocted to embarrass Lincoln’s government, to throw upon it the odium of continuing the war and thus secure the triumph of the “peace-traitors” in the November election.
 
With a personal note from Lincoln to General Grant, the two travelers crossed the battles lines at City Point, Virginia and entered Richmond . . . On Sunday evening, July 17, Jaquess and Gilmore encountered President [Jefferson] Davis, “a spare, thin featured man with iron gray hair and beard and a clear gray eye full of life and vigor,” as Gilmore later described him.
 
“Our people want peace,” Jaquess told Davis. “We have come to ask how it can be brought about.”
 
In a very simple way,” responded Davis. “Withdraw your armies from our territory, and peace will come of itself. We do not seek to subjugate you. We are not waging an offensive war . . . Let us alone and peace will come at once.”
 
“But we cannot let you alone as long as you repudiate the Union.  That is one thing the Northern people will not surrender.”
 
“I know.  You would deny to us the one thing you exact for yourselves – the right of self- government,” Davis retorted. “You have sown so much bitterness at the South, you have put such an ocean of blood between the two sections, that I despair of seeing nay harmony in my time. Our children may forget this war, but we cannot.”
 
“We are both Christian men,” the minister said, “Can you, as a Christian man, leave untried any means that may lead to peace?”
 
“No, I cannot,” said Davis. “I desire peace as much as you do. I deplore bloodshed as much as you do; but I feel that no one drop of the blood shed in this war is upon my hands – I can look up to my God and say this.”
 
“I tried all in my power to avert this war.  I saw it coming, and for twelve years I worked night and day to prevent it but could not. The North was mad and blind; it would not let us govern ourselves, and so the war came . . . It is with your own people you should labor [to end the war]. It is they who desolate our homes, burn our wheat fields, break the wheels of our wagons carrying away our women and children and destroy supplies meant for our sick and wounded. At your door lies all the misery and crime of this war – and it is a fearful, fearful account.”
 
“And slavery, you say, is no longer an element in the contest?” Gilmore asked.
 
“No, it is not,” Davis replied. “ . . . You have already emancipated two million of our slaves – and if you will take care of them, you may emancipate the rest . . . you many emancipate every Negro in the Confederacy but we will be free!  We will govern ourselves.  We will do it if we have to see every Southern plantation sacked, and every Southern city in flames.”
 
As the interview ended, [Davis] said: “Say to Mr. Lincoln from me, that I shall at any time be pleased to receive proposals for peace on the basis of our independence.  It will be useless to approach me with any other.”
 
(The Dark Intrigue, The True Story of a Civil War Conspiracy, Frank van der Linden, Fulcrum Publishing, 2007, pp. 145-148)
 
 

16362 ---No Sacrificing Convictions To Expediency --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-07-29 12:55:28 -0400
See related pages and categories



No Sacrificing Convictions to Expediency
 
From: bernhard1848@gmail.com
 
After the fall of his government, Jefferson Davis only asked of his captors a fair trial on the merits of his case.  This he was denied after being held in close confinement and torture for two years, his tormentors “vaunted their clemency in not executing their victim.”
 
Bernhard Thuersam, Chairman
North Carolina War Between the States Sesquicentennial Commission
"Unsurpassed Valor, Courage and Devotion to Liberty"
www.ncwbts150.com
"The Official Website of the North Carolina WBTS Sesquicentennial"
 
No Sacrificing Convictions to Expediency
 
“The policy of Reconstruction devised by the victors of the North, was that the men of the Confederacy should pursue no vocation until a pardon had been asked of the President of the United States and granted by him.  Our men considered it a form instituted merely for their humiliation, and as such complied with it as the means of feeding their helpless families, already spent with hardships they had endured.
 
Necessitas non habet legem is a maxim acceded to by mankind, and [Jefferson Davis] felt that the men who asked pardon did it for a holy and legitimate end.  My husband, even in his letters from prison, combated the idea of our people expatriating themselves, and since they could not en masse move out of the country . . . they must do the only thing left for them, try to forget in toil and the care of their families the misery which had settled over them and their people.
 
Throughout this period Mr. Davis had endeavored to preserve silence about everything political, though letters came by hundreds asking his opinion on all political subjects. As he had not asked pardon for an offence he had not committed, he was disenfranchised, and as he could not be held responsible for acts in which he was forbidden by law to participate, his opinion, if given, was perfunctory.  So far, however, from being wounded by his disenfranchisement, he felt rather proud that Congress had testified to the steady faith he had kept with his own people.
 
He had not changed his beliefs in the least degree . . . So to the end, he who had served his country in tented field, and in the halls of legislation, and merited and received the acclaim of soldiers and the esteem of statesmen and legislators throughout the United States, kept the dignified tenor of his way, unheeding the sectional clamor when his own conscience approved.
 
His asking for pardon as the leader of the Confederacy would have been more significant than the petition of one who had held a less high position, and he would not sacrifice his convictions to expediency, even in seeming.
 
The people of Mississippi, kind and trusting as of old to the man they had honored with their confidence, wished Mr. Davis to allow his name to be used for the Senate.  They said: “The franchise is yours here, and the Congress can but refuse you admission, and your exclusion will be a test question.”
 
Mr. Davis responded: “I remained in prison two years and hoped in vain for a trial, and now scenes of insult and violence, producing alienation between the sections, would be the only result of attempting another test. I am too old to serve you as I once did, and too much enfeebled by suffering to maintain your cause.”
 
(Jefferson Davis, A Memoir by His Wife, Varina, Volume II, N&A Company, 1990, (original 1890), pp. 816-818)
 
 

16361 ---Core Of Anti-Republican Argument --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-07-29 12:43:58 -0400
See related pages and categories



The Core of the Anti-Republican Argument
 
From: bernhard1848@gmail.com
 
Republican leaders bent upon pushing the South to war effectively scuttled the Crittenden compromise plan as they feared a national referendum would welcome peaceful compromise. Before and throughout the war, efforts to avoid and end the bloodshed came almost entirely from the South.
 
Bernhard Thuersam, Chairman
North Carolina War Between the States Sesquicentennial Commission
"Unsurpassed Valor, Courage and Devotion to Liberty"
www.ncwbts150.com
"The Official Website of the North Carolina WBTS Sesquicentennial"
 
The Core of the Anti-Republican Argument
 
“Thurlow Weed had been predicting since November [1860] that if the Republicans could make the Union rather than slavery the central issue of the [sectional] crisis, a united North would rally behind him.  He . . . did not hesitate to urge Lincoln to take advantage of the sudden outburst of patriotic fervor.  From New York he told the president-elect, “We shall have a United north – a condition about which I have been filled with solicitude.”
 
[But] the imminence of war stirred a desperation for peace . . . and conciliationist leaders launched another offensive, spearheaded once more by Senators Crittenden and [Stephen] Douglas. Despite Republican opposition . . . the encouragement they had had been receiving across the North and Upper South convinced them that Northern public sentiment was behind compromise, particularly the Crittenden plan.
 
With that support in mind, the two senators issued a joint letter assuring concerned Southerners that their rights could be secured in the Union. On January 3, citing numerous reports of massive public sympathy for a peaceful resolution to the crisis, Crittenden asked the Senate to refer his amendments to the people, to be decided upon in national convention. He also sought to attract Republican support by adding two propositions drawn from Douglas’s failed proposal: a national ban on black voting and officeholding, and federal subsidization of black colonization to Africa.
 
[Douglas] charged the [uncompromising] Republicans with “attempt[ing] to manufacture partisan capital out of a question involving the peace and safety of the country.” Worse, they refused to help resolve the horrific crisis even though it was their own actions that had caused it . . . [and attacked them] for being naïve ideologues: for all their talk of upholding the Constitution and enforcing the laws, he stormed, they had to deal with the basic fact that “the revolution is complete.”
 
“In my opinion South Carolina has no right to secede,” he declared, “but she has done it.” The question now was not how to prevent disunion but how to reverse it – by force of arms or by a peaceful resolution of sectional differences? Here Douglas reached the core of the anti-Republican argument.
 
“Are we prepared in our hearts for war with our own brethren and kindred?” he demanded. “I confess I am not . . . I will not meditate war, nor tolerate the idea, until every effort at peaceful adjustment has been exhausted . . . I am for peace to save the Union.”
 
(Lincoln and the Decision for War, the Northern Response to Secession, Russell McClintock, UNC Press, 2008, pp. 111; 115)
 
 

16360 ---Who Funds W&L? --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-07-29 12:31:09 -0400
See related pages and categories



Who funds W&L?
 
From: cscitizen@windstream.net
 
To All:


          
I googled, “Funding Washington & Lee” & if I read it correctly it seems some departments at W&L have received some government funding in the past. This means if they have took public taxpayer money then it seems the people of the State of Virginia, students & alums should get to vote on whether or not the Confederate Battleflag gets to remain over Lee`s Tomb & every other matter involving this college.
  
At any rate, I agree with Lady Val on this <http://freenorthcarolina.blogspot.com/2014/07/the-elephant-in-room-or-what-is-being.html>, it might be the angle needed to force a vote instead of the majority being dictated to by a committee of the few. This is if the faculty at W&L still believe we live in a democracy. Some of you leaders of our Southern organizations might want to look into this; it might be the ammunition you need to force a vote.
 
Billy Price
 
 

16359 ---Confederates Under Attack --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-07-29 12:19:37 -0400
See related pages and categories



Confederates Under Attack
 
From: cscitizen@windstream.net
 
To All:
           
With all the places anything Confederate comes under attack, Confederate, flags, monuments, statues, cemeteries, etc. We need to respond by comparing those things in colonial America to those same things & parallels as those in the South 1861 – 1865 because, they were & are. If the excuse of slavery by a few is all it takes to get Confederate Flags & the rest of it removed from places like the chapel & tomb of Gen. Lee at Washington & Lee University. Then why are the symbols of colonial America not attacked? I suspect that after the Confederate ones are erased they will be.
  
And this is why, President George Washington & Martha owned slaves, why isn`t this period of history considered racist & offensive as well? Why not remove all Revolutionary War Flags as America had slaves in every colony then as well? Some Northern States still had slaves in 1860 – 1865 until congress freed them, well after the war. Gen. Grants excuse for still having slaves was: good help is hard to find.” I imagine Southern planters felt the same way about their slaves.
  
So, why is it alright to honor & revere the first 80 years of America`s history, people & symbols when it was a mirror image of those things that are now considered bad in the South? Doing away with Confederate flags because 5% or less of the Southern population owned slaves makes as little sense as refusing to let colonial period flags fly at the grave, monument, statues etc. of the founding fathers of America.
  
There is not one difference between the two time periods & people both allowed & had slaves. Were this not so the founding fathers would have included in the Declaration of Independence or U.S. Constitution that all slaves were immediately free. However, they did not & for the same reasons as the South did not in the 1860`s.
  
When defending the South remember to use this comparison of the South to colonial America. Ask reporters, teachers & everyone else to please explain why one is good & the other bad as both allowed slavery. You will baffle them every time as there is no difference.
 
Billy E. Price
Ashville Alabama
 
 

16358 ---Georgia Division SCV News - 7/28/2014 --- Released: about 1 month Ago. ---- 2014-07-28 12:29:31 -0400
See related pages and categories



Sons of Confederate Veterans   
July 28, 2014    
 
GEORGIA DIVISION NEWS 


 
ACTION REPORT FOR THE GEORGIA DIVISION   
 
Men of the Georgia Division and friends,

Thanks to the Sons of Confederate Veterans, the battle to preserve our Southern Heritage is alive and well!  Like the Georgia Division, our compatriots in other Divisions are engaging the enemies of our heritage in their own efforts.  It is, indeed, a good day to be a member of the SCV!

1. Washington & Lee University.  Most of you undoubtedly have already heard that the current president of W&L ordered the removal of the Confederate flags from Lee Chapel in response to the "demands" of six students who hate Southern symbols.  Initial investigations indicate that the students may have enrolled at W&L for the express purpose of soliciting attacks upon Confederate connections with the school.  This weekend, the SCV sponsored a rally at the University with plenty of Confederate flags to protest the removal and to demand that they be restored.  The call has also been put out for those who wish to see the flags returned to call and email the leadership at the University; apparently school officials have commented that they expect the disapproval to die out and go away shortly.  If you'd like to voice your opinion to the contrary, below are the contacts that would like to hear from you as often as you have time to communicate with them.

2.  Texas SCV License Plates.  In case you missed our press release from this past week, the Texas Division was denied their request for their own specialty plate like we have here in Georgia by the Texas DMV; and a federal judge handed down a decision against them in their court case. Fortunately, though, a judge on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the federal district judge's decision and has ruled in favour of the Texas SCV.  The current attorney general in Texas has said that he intends to appeal the appeal (yes, that's right); he is a Republican candidate for governor and seems to believe that it will win him votes with minorities who hate Southern heritage in Texas.  Nevertheless, the outcome of the appeal court decision means that the SCV has won the right to have a specialty plate in every single state where a court battle has ensued.  Rebel yells to the Texas Division!

3.  Ringgold Battleflag Lawsuit.  It has been six long years ago since the Georgia Division and local then-commander Tom Poteet filed suit against the City of Ringgold to have the Confederate battle flag returned to the Depot as part of the memorial to the soldiers from the War, just as it was originally designed and put in place at its inception.  The city had voted to replace the battle flag with the Hardee Corp flag, which was one of the flags at the Battle of Ringgold Gap, after some of the usual suspects complained about our battle flag. The case was scheduled to have been heard this past Friday but has been delayed likely until the first week of November.  I joined Tom Poteet at the city council meeting two weeks ago as he proposed a settlement agreement that was both reasonable and should have been acceptable to both parties; he proposed that since the 34-star federal flag flies opposite the Confederate flag pole at the memorial, the Second National flag of the Confederacy (our national flag at the time) should fly.  I spoke on behalf of the Division after Tom and stated that it is the desire of the Division to have the battle flag of the common soldier, represented by the St. Andrews Cross, returned to the memorial but that we felt that Tom's suggestion was something that we could accept if the City agreed as well.  The City Council may still decide to accept the proposed settlement before our court date; otherwise we will be going to court to demand the return of the battle flag.  After making a Freedom of Information Act records request, we discovered that the taxpayers of Ringgold have now been forced to pay in excess of $45,000 in legal fees for the decision of the city council.  It is quite possible that once enough taxpayers in Ringgold find out how much of their money is being spent in legal fees to defend an already unpopular act anyway, the city council may change their mind.  Hats off  and many thanks to SCV member and attorney Martin O'Toole for the many hours that he has spent on this case on behalf of the Division, most for which he has never even billed us.  Thanks to the efforts of our local camp commanders near Ringgold, I have had the opportunity to conduct two media interviews for us this past week, one with the Catoosa Times and one with the Chattanooga Times.

4. Online Grave Registry.  Our Division online grave registry is now up and ready for us to add the graves of your Confederate soldiers in the counties served by each of our camps.  Please email your date, preferably in an Excel spreadsheet to your brigade commander or directly to myself at RayMcBerry@aol.com.  Since getting our registry online, we have received an offer from a compatriot in another Division to possibly build a website for our data which is more appealing to the eye; we hope to have something new for you to see soon.

5. Communications.  Camp commanders and adjutants, please begin at once preparing a spreadsheet to send your brigade commander which will include a roster of all your members, plus their phone numbers and email addresses for everyone that has one.  We are working to modernize and make more efficient our ability to communicate with all of our members. Your help is essential in this effort to make us a more effective organisation in the fight for our Southern Heritage.

6.  Renewal Time.  You should receive your renewal forms sent out in the mail within the next week or two.  Please assist your camp adjutant by getting them turned in as soon as possible.  Division Adjutant Tim Pilgrim has spent a great deal of time making sure that these go out to help with our retention; let's make good use of it.  The Georgia Division is working hard for the Cause of our heritage; it is impossible to continue without YOU!

7. Georgia Division Youth Camp.  The EC will begin comparing potential sites for next summer's youth camp here in Georgia at our meeting in September.  We are inviting ALL MEMBERS to send the names and locations of potential camps for us to rent for a week to Brigade Commander Don Newman who is collecting and collating the information.  Please let him know of any possible camps near you even if you don't have any details about them.  Don's email address is donnewman0601@comcast.net

There are a lot of positive things going on in your Division.
I challenge everyone to jump in and find something to do!

For Georgia First,

Ray McBerry, Division Commander
Georgia Sons of Confederate Veterans

 

16356 ---W&L/Lee Chapel Flags Rally Report --- Released: 2 months Ago. ---- 2014-07-28 12:10:06 -0400
See related pages and categories



From: Virginia Flagger <info@vaflaggers.com>
Date: Sun, Jul 27, 2014
Subject: Va Flaggers Update: Washington & Lee/Lee Chapel Flags Rally Report



The Va Flaggers were honored to forward the colors in three different parts of the Commonwealth yesterday, with representatives in Norfolk, Richmond, and Lexington.  After sharing a few pics and brief mentions, we are going to let one of the 15 year old attendees share his reflections of the day in Lexington, through his young eyes, and from a report he submitted yesterday evening.

The Virginia Flaggers arrived at the LEE Chapel entrance to Washington & Lee University at 10:00 a.m., to find that our Tar Heel brothers had been first to have boots on the ground.  The men of the Old North State had a GREAT representation on the front lines, and joined us for most of the day...

We also arrived to find that W&L Security had barricaded off the entrance to the Chapel parking lot.  It was not long, however, before the Flaggers realized that traffic cones make GREAT flag stands!

Foot and auto traffic was heavy around the Chapel all day, and feedback was almost 100% positive and in support of our efforts to return the Confederate Battle Flags to the RE LEE Chapel.

There were many great conversations, and opportunities to educate the public.   As promised, here is one young man's Story...

"We started off the day flagging in front of Washington and Lee. We flagged for 20 minutes or so until a friend and I decided to go see VMI.

On the way to VMI , we got many honks, waves, and signs of support for the Battle Flags we were carrying. We got to VMI and walked all around the campus until we found the statue of "Stonewall" Jackson. We took a picture of me in front of Jackson with my Battle Flag.

We left VMI and went to the Stonewall Jackson Memorial Cemetery. There I got to visit the General and talk to a nice family from Pennsylvania. I told them about the history of the Battle Flag and Washington and Lee's decision to remove the flags from the Lee Chapel. They were very understanding and nice.

After I visited Stonewall we went to the SCV rally in Hopkins Green Park. There I had conversations with Wayne Jones and Rev Herman White.

We left the rally early to go back to flagging in front of Washington and Lee. Since it was my first time in Lexington I wanted to see the Lee Chapel and the grave of Lee's horse Traveller. As I began to head for the Lee Chapel, a Police Officer stopped me and said that I could not enter the campus property with my Battle Flag or any images of Confederate Flags on any of my possessions including my clothing. I really wanted to pay my respects to General Lee and Traveller so I had to turn my shirt inside-out, take off my hat, and take off my badge.

When I finally arrived to the Chapel there was a sign on the front door saying that the Lee Chapel was closed for the weekend. I took a picture of the Lee Chapel and then went to see Traveller. I was glad to see that I had access to the grave of Traveller.

I talked to 3 different couples while I was on the campus and they were all very supportive. I told each couple why I was there and why my shirt was inside-out.

When I got off of the campus and back on to the sidewalk I flagged for the rest of the day. At least 2 out of every 3 cars would wave, honk, or salute us. One man who was walking down the sidewalk gave me a "Confederate fist-bump" to show his support for the Flaggers.

We had two interesting conversations while we were on our way to the car. The first was with a family from the great state of Missouri. They were very supporting of our efforts and were against the removal of the flags that were in the Lee Chapel. The second was a man from the Richmond Times-Dispatch who asked why I was out there, my name, and if I was related to any Confederate soldiers. He took my picture with my Battle Flag and said that I should be in the paper tomorrow!

Fred talked to the owner of a local ice cream shop. At the end of there conversation the owner gave Fred free Ice Cream to show his support for our efforts.

Overall it was a VERY successful day for the Virginia Flaggers."

This young man, a 15 year old member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, and proud descendant of several Confederate Ancestors was told he could not enter the campus of Washington and LEE University without removing his "offensive" apparel, which consisted of:

- A Lee-Davis High School cap

-  A Sons of Confederate Veterans Sesquicentennial Commemorative T-Shirt

-  And a name badge on a lanyard which had Confederate Battle Flags printed on it

The implications of these restrictions are far reaching and mind-boggling.  Is the Confederate Battle Flag now prohibited in any form at the campus?  Are students prohibited from wearing a label pin, or t-shirt, or cap, if it has a Confederate Battle Flag on it?  Are students prohibited from possessing or displaying a Confederate flag?  Is a vehicle with a government issued SCV license plate prohibited access to the campus?

We find it the worst kind of intolerance and bigotry that the University administration has chosen to openly discriminate against those of Confederate Ancestry...on the campus of a school that owes its very existence to the Gen. Robert E Lee, and the Confederate Veterans who helped save the institution. 

The rally and gathering in Lexington this weekend was a good start, but it must be just that...a kick off for a campaign that may be long fought, and demand much of our time and resources.

Please take a moment to contact University officials AGAIN this week, and express your outrage at their decision to remove flags, CLOSE the RE LEE chapel for the weekend, and force visitors to remove any representations of their Confederate ancestry before stepping foot on University property.

Washington & Lee University Contact Information:

President
Mr. Kenneth Ruscio
Washington and Lee University
204 West Washington Street
Lexington,Virginia 24450
(540) 458-8700
president@wlu.edu

Provost
Daniel Wubah
Washington and Lee University
Washington Hall 214
Lexington,Virginia 24450
(540)458-8418
dwubah@wlu.edu

BOARD OF TRUSTEES

Secretary of the University:
James D. Farrar, Jr.
Washington & Lee University
203 Washington Hall
Lexington,VA 24450
(540)458-8465
jdfarrar@wlu.edu

Executive Assistant to the Board of Trustees:
Katherine Brinkley
Washington & Lee University
202 Washington Hall
Lexington,VA 24450
(540)458-8417
kbrinkley@wlu.edu

Thank you for your continued support.  Please look for more updates soon, with additional opportunities to join us in Lexington, and/or support our continuing efforts.

Sincerely,

Grayson Jennings
Virginia Flaggers
P.O. Box 547
Sandston VA 23150
info@vaflaggers.com

 

16355 ---Marker Dedication: Samuel Dawson Bell --- Released: 2 months Ago. ---- 2014-07-28 11:54:27 -0400
See related pages and categories



From: Virginia Flagger <info@vaflaggers.com>
Date: Sun, Jul 27, 2014
Subject: Va Flaggers Update: Marker Dedication Service for Samuel Dawson Bell

The Virginia Flaggers were thrilled to receive an invitation to attend the marker dedication service for Samuel Hawkins Bell, Hankins Co., Virginia Light Artillery, CSA, held yesterday, July 26th.  We headed out to Elwood Cemetery in Norfolk Saturday morning, on a very warm July day.

As far as the family knows, Bell's grave has been unmarked since his death.  Through the efforts of his family, and with the assistance of Kenny Harris and the Princess Anne Camp #484, SCV,  a Confederate marker was obtained and installed.

The ceremony was planned and carried out by the family and was a very moving and fitting tribute.

The Princess Anne Camp provided an honor guard and family members traveled from as far away as Arkansas to pay tribute to their ancestor.

I was honored to be asked to share a poem, and we all appreciated the opportunity to be present at such a wonderful ceremony.

Afterwards, we talked with family members and attendees.  At one point, we walked over to the new headstone to get a closer look and take a photo.  As we were standing there, talking about the ceremony and learning more about the family, a man who was walking down the public sidewalk, which was only a few feet away, left the sidewalk and started walking toward us and the marker, at a brisk pace and with a very serious expression.  When he reached us, I greeted him and he immediately inquired "What soldier are we honoring today?"  Admittedly a bit surprised, I pointed to the marker and explained that Samuel Dawson Bell was a Confederate soldier and that his family had gathered here to honor him.

He immediately turned toward the marker and proceeded to salute and stand at attention, for what seemed like at least 60 seconds.  We all stood quietly, in awe and appreciation of this remarkable expression of respect and honor, one soldier to another.  It turns out the gentleman was a U.S. Marine Corp Veteran.

When he broke from attention, he reached out and shook hands with each of us and we thanked him for stopping to pay respects.  He seemed a bit agitated and we understood why when he pointed to a battle flag that was leaning against a vehicle, in preparation for packing it up to leave, which had slipped from its position, unnoticed, allowing the tip of the flag to touch the ground.  "Please have someone get that flag off of the ground, ma'am.  A soldier's flag must NEVER touch the ground."

As he walked away, we thanked him again, and were left standing there in amazement and in awe of what we had just witnessed.  All present were deeply touched by the scene that had unfolded, and it was the perfect ending to an absolutely wonderful event.

We would like to thank the Bell family, especially Anna Bell and Chris Xantos for the kind invitation and warm welcome, and the men of the Princes Anne Camp who helped make the marker and ceremony possible.

God bless the memory of Samuel Dawson Bell...and God save the South!

Susan Hathaway
Va Flaggers
P.O. Box 547
Sandston VA 23150
info@vaflaggers.com

Monday, July 28th:  6:30 p.m. Susan will be speaking at the July meeting of the Princess Anne Camp #484, SCV.  Gus & George's Spaghetti & Steak House, 4312 Virginia Beach Blvd., Virginia Beach, VA 23452

Saturday, August 23rd:  2:00 p.m. Re-dedication of the Hanover County Confederate Monument, Hanover County Courthouse.

Sunday, September 28th:  3:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. Save the Date!  Va Flaggers' Third Anniversary Picnic. More details to follow.  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.

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

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

 

16354 ---Va Flaggers Report - 7-26-2014 --- Released: 2 months Ago. ---- 2014-07-28 11:38:40 -0400
See related pages and categories



From: Virginia Flagger <info@vaflaggers.com>
Date: Sat, Jul 26, 2014
Subject: Va Flaggers Report from the Front Lines: Lexington, VA

Va Flaggers Report from the Front Lines: Lexington, VA, July 26, 2014, 2:00 p.m.



“This unscheduled closing is based on concerns for the safety of the facility and its staff on the day that the Sons of Confederate Veterans have scheduled a rally in Lexington." - Washington & LEE University

Just thought we would share a photo of the sign on the door of the Lee Chapel...along with one of the "very scary" rally participants that Washington and Lee claimed would be a threat to the "safety of the facility and its staff."

SERIOUSLY, Washington & Lee?

RETURN the flags!
RESTORE the honor!

Grayson Jennings
Va Flaggers
P.O. Box 547
Sandston VA 23150
info@vaflaggers.com