Letter to the Editor: Special Edition

Below is an email correspondence between a Liberal "South -Hater" and yours truly the editor. I was hoping that facts would persuade him that he was in error, but in the end it appears "Phil" was not interested in facts.

-Clint E. Lacy, Editor

_______________________________________________________________________________________
December 5th, 2004

As a native Missourian, born in Ironton, I find your devotion to the traitorous actions of slave owners who would destroy the Union rather than let all men be free regrettable and frankly pitiful.

You say you are merely preserving your heritage. Being of German descent I suppose I could collect Nazi memorabilia as part of mine. But in some cases, and the Confederacy and Nazi Germany are two such cases, preservation should not mean celebration. I suppose what is needed is a museum of the Confederacy which has the same point of view of Jefferson Davis and his band of traitors that the Holocaust Museum in Washington has of Hitler and his followers.

The Confederate flag is a symbol of oppression and hatred just as much as the Swastika is. It is no surprise, in fact, that white supremacists often associate these two symbols. The notion of "preservation of heritage" is merely a screen for a desire to go back to the days when people were bought, sold, raped, and worked to the bone because of their race.

Be a proud American, and celebrate the preservation of the Union through the blood of true Patriots, not the failed attempt of aristocrats and scalawags to destroy it.
Phil (Last name withheld)

__________________________________________________________________________________

My Response:

Sir,

I mean no disrespect when I say that your letter is one of the best examples I have ever seen for the argument of abolishing the Department of Education and getting the Federal Government out of our schools.

I have helped put up numerous Confederate flags in the Arcadia Valley ever since Governor Holden, took down the Second National Confederate Flag at Pilot Knob. And this may come as a surprise to you, but some of the people that wanted the flags did not agree with the South’s wish to secede, but were greatly angered by the Governor’s attempt to re-write history.

As a matter of fact, I can introduce you to an 80 year old gentleman in Arcadia that wanted one of our flags, because he recognizes the cultural genocide , called political correctness that is killing this country.

The gentleman lives in a Civil War era house made out of stone. Do you know why it is made of stone and not wood?

Because the original owner of the house was building it during the early part of the War of Yankee Agression. The Union Army took the wood that he was using to build the house and used it for a fort that the occupational army was building. Coincidently , the gentleman who now lives there is not only a World War II vet, but found out that his ancestors were Yankees!

Your comparisons between the Confederacy Nazi Germany are not only weak, but laughable.

As a matter of fact, a better comparison can be made between Abraham Lincoln and Hitler.
After all , Lincoln was the one who wanted to erradicate an entire race of people, (the Indians).

In an article entitled "The Feds versus the Indians" by Thomas J. DiLorenzo, you can find a passage which states:

"In July 1865, barely three months after Robert E. Lee’s surrender at Appomattox, General William Tecumseh Sherman was put in charge of the Military Division of the Missouri, which included everything west of the Mississippi. Many historians have sugarcoated Sherman’s actions during this period by writing that his assignment was to help the U.S. achieve its long sought-after "Manifest Destiny."

Mr. Brewer I highly reccomend reading this article which can be read in its entirety by clicking on the link I’ve provided below:

http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=99&sortorder=authorlast

And when your finished with that please read another fine article by DiLorenzo entitled:

"Targeting Civilians" in it you will find the following passage:

"In letters home Sheridan’s troops described themselves as "barn burners" and "destroyers of homes." One soldier wrote home that he had personally set 60 private homes on fire and opined that "it was a hard looking sight to see the women and children turned out of doors at this season of the year." A Sergeant William T. Patterson wrote that "the whole country around is wrapped in flames, the heavens are aglow with the light thereof . . . such mourning, such lamentations, such crying and pleading for mercy

[by defenseless women]… I never saw or want to see again."

This article can be read in its entirety by clicking on the following link:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo8.html

Also please take the time to read an article by Mr. Kirk Grunewald entitled "Two Dictators in Time" which is a comparison between Lincoln and Hitler. It can be read by clicking on the link I have provide below:

http://www.geocities.com/clintlacy1/dictators

And I am also providing the following info about Missouri’s suffering at the hands of the Yankees:

"Missouri was isolated and cut off from the rest of the Confederacy. It was far removed and practically beyond the range of vision of the civilized world. There was a Federal garrison in nearly every town and at nearly every crossroads. Any manifestation of freedom on the part of the people was repressed by bansihment, the destruction of property or death. There was no law. The courts were terrorized, and the nominal officers of the law were puppets of the military power. Fire and sword, rapine and murder, reigned supreme, and the guerrillas, simpy paid back the insults and wrongs to which they and their families and their friends were subjected. They fought in the only way in which they could fight, and they fought to kill"

This quote was taken from the book:

Kentucky and Missouri, Confederate Military History, from page, 188

It is an old and rare book but can still be bought by clicking on:

www.abebooks.com

Just click on "Search" and type in "Confederate Military History, Kentucky and Missouri"

It is an invaluable source for history in Missouri.

It is my most honoured and sincere wish and hope that you don’t receive this email in anger, but use it as a tool. A means , or a resource if you will, that I have provided so that you too may know the truth.

Have a very wonderful, and Merry Christmas. (I say Christmas because I loathe the politically correct term "Happy Holidays". There is no Christ in the term Holidays, and I think you’d agree that the birth of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ is the true reason for our celebration , this time of year)

Best Wishes, and may God Bless the South.

Sincerely,

Clint E. Lacy

Vice Chairman, Missouri League of the South

____________________________________________________________________________________
December 6th, 2004

(This is where "Phil" takes a turn down the "low road" and shows me his artwork:)

Dear Mr. Lacy,
Thank you for your reply, which I do not take in anger at all. We are fortunate to live in one of the many countries which are sufficiently civilized to permit discussions of this type to occur, and I think we each have respect for the other as persons even if our opinions are diametrically opposed.

I am well aware of the arguments which you cite. My view is simply this: The reason for the War of Secession, which is precisely what that war was, i.e. a war by the Northern states to prevent the Southern states from leaving the Union, is stated plainly in the document produced by the South Carolina legislature entitled "Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union," dated December 1860 which may be accessed online at http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/reasons.html#SouthCarolina

was slavery. Slavery, specifically the Northern states’ failure to uphold the property rights of Southern slaveholders, is the only issue mentioned in this document until the very end. The same is trus of sImilar documents from the other seceeding states.

So to support Secession, and thus the Confederacy, is to support slavery. It is impossible to separate the Confederacy from slavery. Protecting slavery was the raison d’etre of the Secession and subsequent formation of the Confederacy. So, going back to the Confederacy/Nazi analogy, being against the glorification of the Confederate flag is not an attempt to "re-write history," as you say. It is an attempt, rather, to suppress an open display of support for a system which was then and is now abhorrent and antithetical to the notion of freedom for all. (How bizarre and ironic that Southern apologists refer to the attempt to preserve the right to own slaves as a fight for "freedom!")

If you persist in putting up Confederate flags, the symbol of a failed and inherently evil cause, at least have the intellectual integrity to acknowledge the origins and purpose of the Confederacy. Perhaps if you were to fly the attached flag……

Merry Christmas to you as well, although YOUR Lord and Savior is not necessarily mine.

Phil
____________________________________________________________________________________

My second response to "Phil":

Mr. Brewer Sir,

I have went to the link in which you have provided. And yes it does mention slavery in the S. C. ordinance of secession.

But I found an article quite fitting for this argument entitled:

ATTACKING THE CONFEDERATE BATTLE FLAG:
An Example of Northern White Hypocrisy
by Joseph E. Fallon


"Under the U.S. Constitution, adopted in 1789, slavery constituted the basis for taxation and representation in the second republic. This new Constitution not only legally recognized and protected the institution of slavery, but that of the slave trade as well. The former was the South’s peculiar institution; the latter was the North’s peculiar institution.

The U.S. Constitution recognized slavery in perpetuity unless the Constitution, itself, was amended, while the existence of the slave trade was guaranteed for, at least, twenty years. Northern States held a monopoly on the lucrative slave trade. Therefore, when the slave trade to the United States was outlawed in 1808, the Northern slave ships, flying "the Stars and Stripes", simply smuggled the slaves into the country. As late as December 1858, a New York City slave ship smuggled several hundred slaves into Georgia. Under the protection of "the Stars and Stripes", Northern slave ships sold slaves to Cuba and Brazil.

But, it will be argued by Northern whites that the United States, or at least the Northern States, evolved. They became "free" States outlawing slavery, and, thereby, converting "the Stars and Stripes" into a Northern symbol of opposition to slavery and affirmation that "all men are created equal". Really?

What were the conditions of blacks in the Northern States of the United States? Alexis de Tocqueville wrote: "[T]he prejudice of the race appears stronger in the States that have abolished slaves than in the States where slavery still exists. White carpenters, white bricklayers, and white painters will not work side by side with the blacks in the North but do it in almost every Southern State…"

You can read the article by clicking the following link:

http://www.vdare.com/fallon/confederate.htm

You also still try to make comparisons between the Confederacy and Nazi Germany, when I have given you proof that the Government of Lincoln was more like that of Hitler. Under Lincolns leadership, Genocide was committed against Native American Indians, and in many cases, Southern Civilians.

But since this argument started off about Missouri History Please read the ordinance of Secession of the State of Missouri by clicking the following link:

http://knowsouthernhistory.net/History/missouri_ordinance_of_secession.htm

In it you will not find one reference to slavery being the reason for the secession. In fact it states that:

"Whereas the Government of the United States, in the possession and under the control of a sectional party, has wantonly violated the compact originally made between said Government and the State of Missouri, by invading with hostile armies the soil of the State, attacking and making prisoners the militia while legally assembled under the State laws, forcibly occupying the State capitol, and attempting through the instrumentality of domestic traitors to usurp the State government, seizing and destroying private property, and murdering with fiendish malignity peaceable citizens, men, women, and children, together with other acts of atrocity, indicating a deep-settled hostility toward the people of Missouri and their institutions"

Again, further proof that the Union army deliberately harmed civilians, including women and children.

I hate to disappoint you, but 5 more flags went up this week. And no I will not say that they represent slavery when they do not. They represent a group of people , in this case Missourians who bent over backwards to avoid war and live peaceful lives, only to have the federal government invade their state, and literally conduct "regime change" on the state government, simply because it would not take up arms against other Southern states.

Those flags stand for men who fought to drive an invading army out of their state. In this case the invading army were mostly German immigrants. The overwhelming number of Missourians who fought for the South did not fight for slavery, but in fact freedom.

"In fact, it can and will be argued here that the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860 was made possible by communists and socialists, most of them German immigrants in the Midwest, and indeed the prosecution of the War depended in large part on those same alien people. Consider, for example, the following.

Union General Franz Sigel had been a leader in the communist Revolution of 1848, a revolution fought to destroy the individual state governments of Germany, and forciby unite them under an all-powerful central, socialist government. Thanks to some inept l eadership, part of it provided by the young Sigel, that revolution failed and Sigel, along with thousands of other “forty-eighters,” fled Europe for America, bringing their revolutionary socialist ideas with them."

From the article entitled "The Lincoln Putsch: America’s Bolshevik Revolution" which can be read by clicking the link below:

http://www.civilwarhistory.com/_/lincoln/American%20Bolshevik.htm

You might also benefit from reading a History of the Confederate Battle Flag, which is a symbol of freedom and a symbol against tyranny around the world.

www.missouricsa.com/flyer

I find it more than ironic that around the world people know what the Confederate Battle Flag stands for, and yet so many people in this country do not.

Again I blame the public school system and the federal control exercised over the schools for the "dumbing down" of the American public.

I do take issue with you fabricating a fake flag to emphasize your argument.

Perhaps you will enjoy real , factual pictures of Klan rallies of the past. Tell me Phil, what flag is prominent in all of these pictures?

Really , Mr. Brewer, given the Stars and Stripes controversial history of being used as a symbol of hate, how can you defend it? Aren’t you worried about "offending" others?

And if you don’t mind me asking, you made a bit of an odd statement in your last response, you said:

"Merry Christmas to you as well, although YOUR Lord and Savior is not necessarily mine."

Could you please explain?

Sincerely,
Clint E. Lacy

Note: As of yet, no response from "Phil"

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

The first email "Phil" sent was on Dec. 5th, 2004, the Second Dec. 6th, 2004. I replied to both posts the day that I received them.

Today, Dec. 8th brings the following correspondence from "Phil". He reveals a bit more about himself. At the end of this correspondence he signs " Phil"_________ , MD.

But note he is still strangely vague about the comments he made about the differences we might have religiously.

So I bring you the 3’rd response from Phil. (Note he has abandoned his initial strategy of trying to prove the Battle Flag is a hate symbol).

Following "Phil’s" correspondence is , as usual, my response.

-Clint Lacy, Editor
______________________________________________

Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 16:56:15 -0800 (PST)


Mr. Lacy,

Thanks for the reply. You stated, "Those flags stand for men who fought to drive an invading army out of their state."

My question to you is the following: Is Missouri still under occupation by an invading force?

If so, then where does you allegiance lie: with that of the United States Government, or with some other government?

If not, then at which point did the Army of the United States of America cease being "an invading army" vis-a-vis the State of Missouri?

The closing comment in my previous e-mail seems pretty straightforward. I would not presume with regards to a stranger that he shares my religious convictions, as such an assumption might be incorrect, and indeed is incorrect.

Phil Brewer, MD

PS. I would again like to express my appreciation of the mutually respectful direction this dialogue has taken.
_________________________________________________

My response, which was sent the same day I received "Phil’s" latest correspondence :

Mr. Brewer,

You ask some very interesting questions, and I will do my best to answer them.

In a sense, yes Missouri is still under an occupation so to speak. Although when I say this, there is no longer an occupational army here.

You see, after the defeat of the Confederacy the Confederate States (including Missouri) underwent an "occupation" and a "Reconstruction"

An article entitled "Faulty Foundation" and found by clicking the link below states:

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/682976/posts


"In July of 1866, the U.S. Congress, controlled by a radical Republican majority, voted in favor of the 14th Amendment to act as a protection of civil rights. It must be noted that all 22 U.S. Senators from the Southern States were unseated and denied the privilege to vote on this Amendment. This action, denying Southern Senators their seats in Congress, directly violates Article Five of the Constitution where the States are guaranteed the right to equal suffrage in the U.S. Senate.

However, before any amendment becomes law, at least three-fourths of the States are required to ratify the proposed amendment in State conventions. Yet when the 14th Amendment went to the States for ratification, the southern States, with the exception of Tennessee, refused to sign signifying that many citizens opposed it.

Nevertheless, those in the U.S. Congress did not give up. They quickly passed “The Reconstruction Act” of March 1867, which divided the Southern States into five districts. Andrew Johnson, who was the U.S. President at the time, vetoed the “Reconstruction Act.” Congress, undeterred, voted to override the veto, and later decided to impeach Johnson because of his opposition to the Act.

In this way, the Federal Congress abolished the State governments in each of these districts, and sent a large military force to the region, effectively placing the Southern States under military dictatorship. This Act required that each State set up a new government by hosting a Convention whose duty it was to draft a State Constitution. Prior to a Convention, delegates to the Convention would have to be elected.

However, due to the military dictatorship now in control, the only people allowed to vote for the delegates were males, 21 years and older, who had taken an oath to support the Federal Government. Thus, in most cases, the delegates’ chosen were federalists, not Constitutionalists. The people of the South had lost all forms of true representation, leaving the common Southerner an outcast to the political system"

You ask where my allegience lies and I can honestly tell you that my allegiance lies with Missouri and the Constitution.

Before the War of Yankee Agression, there was no such thing as a "United States" citizen. A person was a citizen of the state in which they resided. Also there were no "federal elections".

The Constitution Party probably does the best job in explaining the election process. On their website they state:

" Constitution Party seeks the restoration of an electoral process which is controlled at the state and local level and is beyond manipulation by federal judges and bureaucrats. The federal government has unconstitutionally and unwisely preempted control in matters of district boundaries, electoral procedures, and campaign activities"

More info on this subject can be found by clicking the following link:

http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php#Election Reform

Now back to the subject in which you enquired about…

The U.S. Army (Yankee Occupational Army) ceased being an occupational army at the end of Reconstruction. This is because there was no more need for an occuaptional army. Abraham Lincoln’s dream of having a strong central government that dicated to the states, (as opposed to the federal government deriving its power from the states as the Founding Fathers envisioned) had been achieved.

This had been attempted before by both Hamilton and Clay (whom Lincoln admired greatly). However; both were unsuccessful because they followed the law (Lincoln achieved his goals by brute force). A good example of Lincolns total disregard for the rule of law and the Constitution can be found in your current state of Maryland’s history:

"In May 1861 the Civil War was already raging. President Abraham Lincoln called on Maryland to send four regiments to fight for the Union cause. But the state was bitterly divided over the war.

Most Marylanders didn’t want their state to secede, but neither did they favor war. It is widely forgotten that a large body of American opinion held that the Confederate States had every right to secede from the Union and thought they should be allowed to go in peace. But to Lincoln, this view was “treason.” By Lincoln’s definition, most Americans, not just Southerners, probably qualified as traitors.

The Maryland state legislature replied to Lincoln’s summons for troops with a resolution condemning the war as “unconstitutional and repugnant to civilization,” adding that “for the sake of humanity we are for peace and reconciliation, and solemnly protest against this war, and will take no part in it.” The legislature also called “the present military occupation of Maryland” a “flagrant violation of the Constitution.”

Lincoln was infuriated. He sent informers to determine which members of the legislature were “disloyal” —i.e., opposed to war. On the night of September 12 he had federal troops arrest dozens of legislators and other prominent citizens (including the mayor of Baltimore and a Maryland congressman) he suspected of Southern sympathies. Since Lincoln had also suspended the right of habeas corpus, he claimed the power to arrest anyone arbitrarily, without specific charges and without a trial. When the chief justice of the United States, Roger Taney, had ruled that Lincoln had no constitutional power to do this, Lincoln had not only ignored the ruling but ordered Taney’s arrest too! (If he had gone through with this outrage, he might well have been impeached and removed from
office.)

Having depleted the Maryland legislature, Lincoln moved to refill it with reliable Unionists. He stationed thousands of federal troops in the state and used them to crush dissent "

The above info was found at the following link:

http://groups.msn.com/OURGRANDPASCIVILWAR/6blincolnsactionsinviolationoftheconstitution.msnw

Years after the fact the blueprint that our nation’s founding fathers layed out for our country, which were the principles that Southerners from Missouri , Maryland and every Southern state were fighting for, have been forgotten.

Remember that the victors write the history, and the War of Yankee Agression’s history is written in "Blue Ink" so to speak.

Even today there are clear violations of Constitutional Law. The best example is the Patriot Act

(Read Gun Owners of America summary by clicking the link I have provided below)

http://www.gunowners.org/fs0307.htm

The occupation also continues today. Home School advocate Al Benson in a recent article "The Theology of the Government School System" writes that:

"If you have read any of the politically correct "history" books in recent decades you’ve been told that public schools were created so that illiteracy could be wiped out and that the average man would be able to read and write. We are told that only the wealthy had that option before the beneficent government school system came along. Sorry folks, but that’s a lie, pure and simple. Mr. Ludlow has informed us that "…state-controlled schools are not a natural phenomenon. Instead they represent a government takeover of vibrant, private-sector initiatives that were voluntarily funded by parents…Furthermore, the state takeover of schooling, which began in Massachusetts during the 1850s, failed to improve the quality of learning. Even Senator Edward Kennedy admits as much. In a paper released by his office, he acknowledged that the literacy rate in Massachusetts was 98% before compulsory education became law. Since that time the literacy rate has fallen–never to exceed 91% again."

The article can be read in its entirety by clicking the link below:

http://www.sierratimes.com/04/12/07/albenson.htm

I hope this information answers the questions that you have felt compelled to ask and has dispelled some of the myths that you have been taught. I too have enjoyed the civility of this debate, (although I thought the flag you created was in poor taste)

Best Wishes,

For A Free and Independent South,

Clint E. Lacy