Dixie Heritage News – Friday, April 20, 2018


What do Diamond & Silk, Dissident Mama, and Dixie Heritage all have in common?




Attorneys for the State of Alabama and for the City of Birmingham argued in court last week over whether a Confederate memorial at Linn Park should remain covered.


In May, Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey signed into law the Alabama Memorial Preservation Act– a bill to prohibit local governments from moving historical monuments on public property that have been in place for 40 years or more. The law also prohibits renaming buildings and streets with historical names that have been in place at least 40 years.


The new law says moving or renaming a monument or building without a waiver would be subject to daily fines; however, the waiver can only be sought for monuments less than 40 years old.


In August 2017, months after the law was enacted, then-Birmingham mayor William Bell ordered the Confederate Soldiers and Sailors Monument in Linn Park covered with plastic, and later plywood, while lawyers could consider legal options.


The 52-foot memorial at Linn Park was commissioned by the Pelham Chapter of the United Daughters of the Confederacy and dedicated in 1905.


While some called for the statue to be torn down, Bell said he wouldn’t break the law to remove the monument.


The Alabama Attorney General’s Office quickly filed a lawsuit against the city for violating state law. “In accordance with the law, my office has determined that by affixing tarps and placing plywood around the Linn Park memorial such that it is hidden from view, the defendants have ‘altered’ or ‘otherwise disturbed’ the memorial in violation of the letter and spirit of the Alabama Memorial Preservation Act,” Attorney General Steve Marshall said in a statement. “The city of Birmingham does not have the right to violate the law and leaves my office with no choice but to file suit.”


Marshall asked the court to impose a $25,000 per day fine on the city for the covering of the monument. As of April 13, 2018, that fine would be over $6 million.


In its motion asking Jefferson County Circuit Court Judge Michael Graffeo to dismiss the AG’s lawsuit, city attorneys claim the Memorial Preservation Act is “vague and ambiguous and offers no definition for the terms ‘altered’ or ‘otherwise disturbed.'”


A hearing was held last week Friday after both sides filed requests seeking summary judgment in the case. Both sides’ arguments in court focused primarily on part of the law that says protected monuments cannot be “altered or otherwise disturbed.”


Assistant AG Brad Chynoweth said the 12-foot plywood screen does alter the monument, even though the wood doesn’t touch the statue. A monument is defined as a permanent memorial to a part of history, he said, and in the case of the Linn Park statue, “you cannot see what the monument is intended to memorialize.”


He said the wood “substantially changed” and altered the monument, because its intended purpose isn’t visible.


Chynoweth also argued while the state does not necessarily intend to seek the $25,000 per day fine against Birmingham, the AG’s office does ask the judge to make a declaratory judgment giving them the right to seek the fine in other cases.


“It’s not just some random object in Linn Park,” Chynoweth said.


Assistant city attorney Veronica Merritt said Birmingham never intended to break the law by erecting the wood screen, which is why the wood is positioned in a way not to touch the statue. She said the monument is the “exact same,” and said the words “altered” applies to structural changes, and not coverings.


Merritt called the covering unsubstantial.


She mentioned deadly riots in Charlottesville and shootings in Charleston, saying former mayor Bell did not want those types of events to happen in Birmingham. “This would be a prime location for those types of [violent] events,” she said. Merritt said the city did not want the park or monument to “become a location of conflict,” and the wood covering was put up as a protective measure for the public and to “maintain civility.”


She said obstructing view of the monument is not mentioned in the law.


Merritt also said the fine was intended only for criminal actions; not civil actions like the current case.


Alabama Governor Defends Confederate Monuments


Governor Kay Ivey released a campaign ad Tuesday, defending a bill she signed last year to protect her State’s monuments. Ivey called demands to remove the monuments “politically correct nonsense.”


“Up in Washington they always know better…politically correct nonsense I say,” runs the ad. “When special interests wanted to tear down our historical monuments, I said no!”


Ivey’s campaign ad is already drawing heavy criticism on Twitter, but also support from conservatives.




The Legislature in Tennessee voted Tuesday to punish the City of Memphis for illegally removing Confederate monuments by removing $250,000 away from the City that would have been used for a bicentennial celebration next year.


The punishment came in the form of passage of a last-minute amendment attached to the House appropriations bill that triggered heated debate on the House floor.




DeKalb County still hasn’t heard from anyone willing to take on its Confederate monument.


The county initially asked for proposals back in January and then extended the response period two times.


DeKalb Commissioner Jeff Rader said the county is still going to remove the 110-year-old “Lost Cause” statue in Decatur Square despite the fact that Georgia law prohibits the county to do so without having an approved relocation plan.


Technically there is still time for the public to submit detailed plans of their own. The final response period officially ends next week on April 23.




The largest BMX club in Western Australia has finally changed its Confederate Flag logo bowing to government pressure. For the first time since the club was established in 1980, Southside BMX has re-branded and redesigned the logo and uniform. The Bull Creek club is now represented by the same colours, however, the flag now only includes one star.


Southside BMX Club President Sandra Winfield said the family friendly, ‘inclusive’ club didn’t use the Flag to promote racism.


“We had had the flag [on the logo] since 1980 when we were founded and it was sponsored by Southside Mitsubishi – they had a huge [Confederate] flag flying over their grounds in Victoria Park at the time so that’s the reason we had it and of course because we’re south of the river – so that’s where ‘southside’ came from.”


“The Confederate flag, if you look at the history it was not associated with those sorts of things it was just representing the confederate states and unfortunately some groups took hold of it and it became a different symbol.”


Southside BMX launched their new uniform and logo on Saturday. The Government pledged funds to help with the costs associated with the re-brand through a sport and recreation grant.




The University of Florida has tasked a committee that oversees Historic St. Augustine to deliver options for removing a Confederate monument under its care.


The monument to Confederate Gen. William Loring, which is located in the park west of Governor’s House Cultural Center and Museum downtown, is one of several properties that the UF board watches over and preserves as part of state law.


Ed Poppell, the board’s liaison, said at Friday’s board meeting at Governor’s House that the board will be revisiting this issue in the next few months. The board supported putting Poppell in charge of the project.


Poppell said he’s spent the the last several months talking with state, regional and local officials and members of the Loring family about the monument. At public meetings and other forums, people have asked for its removal, while others have rallied to save it.


Meanwhile, the city of St. Augustine voted in October to keep its monument – which lists the names of local men who died serving the Confederacy – in the Plaza de la Constitucion. The Commission also charged a citizen committee to recommend how to add historical context to the site.


The University of Florida’s monument honors Loring, not just his service in the Confederacy. The monument bears the image of Confederate and American flags.


Loring was born in North Carolina and grew up in St. Augustine. Loring joined a militia at 14 years old and had a long military career that included fighting in Second Seminole War and serving in the Egyptian Army, as well as serving in the Confederate forces.


The monument was put up in 1920 on property of the federal government, which transferred the property to the state of Florida in 1966. Because Loring’s ashes are buried there, the site is a cemetery and is covered by a number of Florida statutes.




The county’s addressing of the Confederate War veterans memorial last August left a bad taste in Barbara Hemingway’s mouth.


A 1920s statue outside of the Manatee County Historic Courthouse had largely gone unnoticed until a nationwide conversation of the meaning of Confederate war tributes in the public arena arrived in Bradenton. It was then suddenly thrust into the spotlight.


County commissioners had narrowly decided it should be taken down and put into storage until they could figure out where it should go (not without it breaking during the process).


Largely for this reason, Hemingway, a Realtor, announced her candidacy for the county commission District 6 At-Large seat, currently held by Commissioner Carol Whitmore.


“That was the real start of the concern of how things are handled within our county administration,” she told the Bradenton Herald by phone on Friday.


Hemingway, who is challenging Whitmore in the Republican primary, was originally going to run for District 5 Commissioner Vanessa Baugh’s seat, but the Lakewood Ranch jeweler recently announced she would remain as commissioner and not run for the state House District 73 seat currently held by state Rep. Joe Gruters.


The organization Hemingway co-founded, America First-Team Manatee, supports President Donald Trump and its name echoes a philosophy and catchphrase he uses. Wanting “to see the county go in a better direction for all of its citizens,” the focal points of her campaign are similar to what Trump has honed in on, including infrastructure and jobs.


“Overall, I just feel that there is a need for responsible and responsive county government,” she said.




The statue of a Confederate soldier in a major Kentucky city has been vandalized for the third time in less than a year.


The Courier Journal reports that the words “racist” and “traitor” were emblazoned on the base of Louisville’s John B. Castleman statue. Crews have placed signs informing residents of the previous vandalism.


The statue was first vandalized with orange paint in August. It was cleaned for $8,200. Another can of orange paint was thrown at it in February.


City workers are testing methods to remove the writing, but will not remove the paint from February.




Last month, we reported that during a City Council meeting, Dallas City Manager Joey Zapata told the Council that the Confederate War monument, situated cozily between City Hall and the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center, should stay up. Rather than spending the $430,000 it would cost to tear the statue down, Zapata said the City should add a series of plaques to give the statue “context.” We also reported that Dallas Mayor Mike Rawlings, was planing to leave the memorial up.


But there are certain activists and members of the Council who simply will not let this go. So on April 25, the council will vote on what to do with the monument, in addition to several streets in the city named after Confederate generals.


Judging from the language of the proposed ordinance placed on the agenda by T.C Broadnax – and counting the heads of those who stood for and against the statue last month – it looks like the memorial is coming down.


Here’s the full text that will be voted on next week:


A resolution:


(1) directing the City Manager to form a working group to recommend the scope for adding a full historical context to Fair Park, commemorating the Hall of Negro Life, and for a proper memorial of the lynching of Allen Brooks;


(2) providing that streets with names linked to the Confederacy shall not be renamed;


(3) directing the City Manager to procure a fine auction house for the sale of the Alexander Phimister Proctor sculpture, Robert E. Lee and Confederate Soldier; and


(4) directing the City Manager to procure services for the demolition and removal of The Confederate Monument located in Pioneer Cemetery; to obtain a Certificate of Demolition from the Landmark Commission; and authorizing the City Manager to transfer funds or appropriate funds from excess revenue or contingency funds, as necessary, to remove The Confederate Monument and the Robert E. Lee and Confederate Soldier sculpture plinth and seating area, and to create a proper memorial of the lynching of Allen Brooks, subject to future City Council approval.


Broadnax did not return a request for a comment about the change in language and tone from March’s briefing to the upcoming proposal.


In addition to taking down the memorial, the resolution calls for adding historical context to Fair Park and planning a memorial in downtown Dallas for Allen Brooks, the victim of a notorious lynching in 1910. The council will also vote on whether or not to sell the Robert E. Lee statue removed from Oak Lawn Park in September.




Defying trends elsewhere, Hanover County’s school board voted 5-2 Tuesday night to preserve Lee-Davis High School and its Confederate mascot, as well as Stonewall Jackson Middle School and its Rebel mascot. The made this decision because more than 75 percent of more than 13,000 people surveyed wanted no change in names.




The St. Clair County Commission on Tuesday declared April as Confederate History and Heritage Month.


Pictured, front row, from left, are 1st Lt. Cmdr. Paul Vaughn, commission Chairman Paul Manning, St. Clair Camp #308 Cmdr. Bill Watkins and Thelma Watkins. In back are Commissioners Ricky Parker, Jeff Brown, Tommy Bowers and Jimmy Roberts.




Republicans now seem resigned to losing their majority in The House in November’s midterms. They are turning their focus, resources and dollars to ensure they hold – if not bolster – their Senate majority.


The Democrats are the ones playing defense in the Senate, and Republicans are throwing big dollars and big names at the opportunity with a message to voters – a GOP-held Senate means continued confirmation of federal judges and possibly the Supreme Court.


“If I had to bet right now, I’d say we lose the House,” major GOP fundraiser Dan Eberhart told the Washington Post, adding that it’s “galactically important” that Republicans hold onto the Senate.


Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is hanging his and the party’s hat on confirming conservative judges to the federal bench, calling his holding out to ultimately get Neil Gorsuch on the Supreme Court “the most consequential decision I’ve made in my entire public career.”


And with speculation swirling that Justice Anthony Kennedy might retire this summer, it is imperative that Republicans hold their nine Senate incumbents in November and flip a few Democrats – defending 26 seats – along the way, too.


This is complicated by Florida Gov. Rick Scott’s entry into the Florida Senate race to take on Democratic incumbent Sen. Bill Nelson. This is because Scott is one RINO who would be worse than his democrat counterpart.


President Donald Trump helped to coax Rep. Kevin Cramer to take on Democratic incumbent Sen. Heidi Heitkamp in North Dakota.


Conservative Rep. Marsha Blackburn is a star in Tennessee running for Sen. Bob Corker’s seat, ditto for Rep. Martha McSally running for Sen. Jeff Flake’s seat in Arizona.


Sen. Dean Heller is seen as the most vulnerable Republican incumbent in Nevada, but Trump cleared the decks to avoid a costly primary, and Vice President Mike Pence will stump and raise money for Heller this week.


“Our donors will often say we need to do everything we can to hold onto the Senate, because there’s a chance we may not be able to hold the House,” Steven Law, head of the Senate Leadership Fund, told the Washington Post.




Vermont Congressman Peter Welch, along with Pennsylvania Republican Charlie Dent, have introduced legislation that would require judicial review of any decision to fire special counsel.


The bill is in connection with other bi-partisan legislation introduced earlier in the week also pertaining the firing of special counsel.


This essentially amounts to a Congressional accusation against the President of obstruction of justice.


Bill of Rights: Nine Apply to the Individual but One Does Not? (originally appeared in World Net Daily)
By Brent Smith


Brent Smith is a constitutional conservative who is just an average Joe with no formal journalism background. Rather than simply complain about the state of our nation, he took to the Internet to battle the left.


It recently dawned on me what should be the most obvious argument for the individualright to “keep and bear arms.”


The primary purpose of the 10 Amendments that form the Bill of Rights is to protect the natural rights of the individual from an encroaching federal government function. The only way someone would not know this is if they have not read them.


In fact, each of the Bill of Right’s 10 Amendments – there were originally 17 – states this by use of the words person, people, owner, or accused. The only two that do not expressly state the individual are the Seventh and Eighth. They do, however, use inference to make the point that both pertain to the individual.


So when a leftist begins to spout off about the Second Amendment, that it applies only to militias, we must remind him of this. If necessary, review each of the 10, and it will become clear that the founders did not intend for nine of the 10 to pertain primarily to the individual and yet single out just the Second as not having any individual-protection component. It defies logic. But then so does liberalism.


Rather than take my word for it – let’s do just that. Let’squickly review all 10 of the Amendments to see that they are in fact meant to protect the individual.


The First is obvious. Most people are familiar with it, andit is quoted by the left quite often. It’s clearly anindividual right. Again – we are looking for the key words: people, person, owner, accused or an inference. All these terms equal the individual.


Amendment I


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


Inference and “people.”


Number 2 I will skip for now and deal with it at the end.


Amendment III


No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.




Amendment IV


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


“People” and “persons.”


Amendment V is a bit more lengthy, so I will summarize. A person can’t be compelled to testify against him or herself, can’t be tried for the same crime twice (doublejeopardy) and cannot be convicted without due process. This again is a clear individual right. See a pattern forming – the positive rights of the individual against government encroachment.


Amendment VI


In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury …


“Accused,” which can mean person or people.


Amendment VII


In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.


Inference of the individual.


Amendment VIII


Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.


Again, inference of the individual.


Amendment IX


The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


“People.” This is an important Amendment as it explainsthat the people retain natural rights beyond what are expressed in the Bill of Rights.


Amendment X


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.




And of course, the center of controversy and leftist consternation: the Second Amendment.


A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


Oh look. There’s that pesky word “people” again, that is separated from militia by use of a comma, which indicates two or more independent thoughts or clauses.




As I stated in the beginning, it is preposterous to think that the founders crafted nine of the 10 Amendments in the Bill of Rights to protect the individual, but expressly forbade that protection in the Second.


Anyone who has read these Amendments and still believes this is either a liar or a moron. This may seem a bit harsh,but frankly I’m getting tired of having to defend the clearindividual right contained in the Second Amendment.


by Commander James W. King


James W. King is the Commander of Sons of Confederate Veterans Camp #141 in Albany, Georgia. he was one of the first subscribers to Dixie Heritage.


In 2009 the Georgia Legislature passed Senate Bill 27 which officially and permanently designates April each year as Confederate History and Heritage Month. In 1874 the legislature designated April 26 as Confederate Memorial Day. Not to be outdone in the political correctness insanity that is sweeping America, Georgia governor Nathan Deal removed the name Confederate Memorial Day and that date now remains a state holiday without an official name. In all Southern states CSA history and heritage are celebrated each April and proclamations are signed by governors, county commissioners, and other officials.


The Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) organization is leading and in the forefront of ceremonies, memorial services, and reenactments to honor and remember the fallen nation and the veterans who fought for independence. SCV has 3 primary purposes 1. Preservation of the memory of CSA veterans and civilians, 2. Preservation of CSA monuments, memorials, mementos, flags, and graves. 3. Presentation of true, accurate, and correct Southern Confederate history.


The War for Southern Independence (Civil War) was a noble effort to form a new Southern nation free from Northern tyranny, despotism, dictatorship, and aggression. The industrial North was treating the Agricultural South as an agricultural colony. The South was being forced to pay 75 to 85% of the money to operate the federal government via an unfair sectional tariff and the upcoming Morrill tariff raised the tariff tax rate to 50%. Eighty to 90% of that tax money was being kept and spent in the North. Under this system of financial extortion, the South had, in effect, been reduced to a dependent colonial condition, almost as abject as that of the Roman provinces under their proconsuls 2000 years ago.


All wars are fought over money, resources, land, and power. In the entire history of the world there has never been a war fought to free slaves.Slavery was already a dying institution and most educated Southerners supported gradual orderly emancipation. The great English author Charles Dickens summed up the situation: “The Northern onslaught against Southern slavery is a specious piece of humbug designed to mask their desire for the economic control of the Southern states”.


After a long series of abuses by England the American colonies seceded and was successful in achieving independence. Likewise after a long series of abuses the Southern states seceded from the USA but failed to achieve independence. There are many parallels of the causes of both secession movements. In both cases the secessionists were promptly invaded. The American Revolution could be considered a war to keep slavery because England offered freedom to slaves who fought against the American colonies. In 1776 slavery existed in all colonies except perhaps Vermont. Claims that the CSA wanted to destroy the USA are absurd. Jefferson Davis had no more desire to conquer and control Washington DC and the Northern states than George Washington had to conquer and control London and all of England. The goal was peaceful separation and the formation of new nations controlled by citizens of those nations.


Abraham Lincoln was both a Socialist and Atheist and was coached and encouraged by his pen pal, the infamous European Socialist Karl Marx who sent about 2000 Socialists to America after the failed 1848 Socialist revolution in Europe. They joined with American Socialists and formed the Republican Party in 1854. Marx sent many thousands of mercenaries to fight for the Union under Lincoln. The goal was to overthrow the Republic,established by America’s founding fathers who were primarily Southern gentlemen from Virginia, and convert America to a Socialist Democracy. Fort Sumter was a setup to provoke the South into firing the 1st shot so it could be blamed for starting the war. Lincoln was a tyrant, despot and dictator. He imprisoned about 200,000 Northern citizens,38,000 for the duration of the war,without warrant or trial simply because they expressed opposition to his criminal, immoral, and unconstitutional war. Those incarcerated included newspaper editor Francis Key Howard the grandson of Francis Scott Key who wrote the song “Star Spangled Banner”. Lincoln had federal troops burn and shut down about 300 Northern newspapers.


Socialism in America has occurred in 3 stages. Political- 1865 the Republic was converted to a Socialist Democracy, Economic-1913-1917 Federal Income Tax, Federal Reserve, and Direct Election of State Senators. Cultural-1960 to current-Welfare and Nanny State. All the dots connect back to the election of Lincoln in 1860. The Declaration of Independence and the U.S.Constitution and Bill of Rights do not include the word “Democracy.”


The Elder Sibling is Watching You
By Al Benson, Jr.


Al Benson, Jr., is the editor of the Copperhead Chronicle, and a regular contributor to Southern Patriot and the Sierra Times. He is a member of the Confederate Society of America, League of the South; the Friends of the Sons of Confederate Veterans; and other patriotic groups.


Around thirty years ago, a man who followed the political scene in this country told me that the Central Intelligence Agency owned or controlled the National Enquirer newspaper. Somehow, the thought didn’t surprise me. Now I can’t say if he was accurate or not. At that time I had no way of checking that out. However, other things he told me did pan out as he said. So let’s just leave it at that.


Recently, I watched a video of a speech by Jerome Corsi. Many of you probably know who Mr. Corsi is. He used to work for World Net Daily and he has written several books over the years. At present, he is a correspondent for http://www.infowars.com  and he has a new book out called Killing the Deep State-the Fight to Save President Trump. Check it out. Mr. Corsi is a good journalist and researcher.


Anyway, in this video I watched, Mr. Corsi mentioned Facebook, Twitter, Google, and one other entity (I’m not sure if it was Amazon or not) and he said that these had all been, in their origins, creatures of the CIA. I think his speech was on You Tube, so if it hasn’t been removed by now you can probably find it with a little “huntin’ and peckin.” I usually agree with most of what Mr. Corsi says because he is such a good researcher, with lots of good sources.


I wouldn’t have thought all that much about his speech except, that on the same day I heard it, I chanced to read an article by Luis P. Almeida that had originally been on http://www.LewRockwell.com and had been picked up by https://flyoverpress.wordpress.com  I don’t know much about Mr. Almeida, but parts of his article caught my attention after having listened to Mr. Corsi’s speech.


Mr. Almeida wrote: “…but I was aware of the privacy issue since Sun Microsystem’s Scott McNealy warned us about it way back in 1999. I have been aware for years that Facebook was funded by the CIA’s venture capital arm called In-Q-Tel and that the NSA had tapped into our telecommunications network and was sucking up all voice and date traffic for analysis. In the 80s Brzezinski stated in his book, that soon the government would have a database containing everything there is to know about each and every one of us. I did not need a congressional hearing to make me aware that the day he spoke of had long arrived.” And incidentally, the Brzezinski he is referring to, a longtime member of the Trilateral Commission, who passed away recently, was the father of Mika Brzezinski who is a “news” anchor for CNN.


So what Mr Almeida is telling us is that Facebook is basically in the business of gathering any and all info they can on all of us. When confronted with this their usual reply is that this is strictly for “commercial” purposes-advertising, etc. That’s a pile of cow chips, to use a polite term. These people are gathering intelligence on all Americans of all ages that use social media. They want to make sure they have the goods on any and all Americans who might, someday, become “persons of interest” to the feds. Whether this is warranted or not makes not an iota of difference. They do it because they can!


And if you should be naive enough to ask about your First, Fourth, and Sixth Amendment rights I would have to reply-“Surely you jest!”


1871 congressional investigation of the Klan: A clash of radical Republicans and conservative Democrats
by Mike Scruggs


Mike Scruggs is a retired combat pilot and a Vietnam War veteran. He is also a retired stock broker. Currently he writes as a columnist for the Tribune newspapers.


On December 5, 1870, President Grant declared that black voters were being denied the exercise of their voting rights by intimidation and violence in several states “lately in rebellion.” He was principally influenced by North Carolina Governor William Holden’s clamoring for Federal Government assistance, alleging that the Ku Klux Klan was holding North Carolina in a state of terror. Actually, since Confederate veterans had been disenfranchised by the February 1867 Reconstruction Act, as much as 85 percent of the native white Southern vote was still substantially suppressed, and voting was under the control of carpet-bagger governments and Federal Army troops. Governor Holden also had an armed and constantly drilled Union League force of 80,000 predominantly black militia spread across most of the state burning barns and threatening and terrorizing both white and black. A major goal of Reconstruction, the Freedman’s Bureau, and especially the Union League was to make blacks Republican voters.


Based on hastily prepared data, Grant submitted a report on January 12, 1871, of 5,000 disorders, outrages, and homicides occurring in North Carolina and nearby states. A Senate Committee was sent to North Carolina to investigate and reported on March 10. The unanimous Republican majority reported that the Ku Klux Klan was indeed active and was “indulging in a carnival of murders, intimidation and violence of all kinds.” The unanimous Democrat minority report claimed that both the President’s January report and the March report of the Republican majority had been “grossly and willfully exaggerated.” Congress responded by passing the famous “Ku Klux Klan Law,” officially entitled “An Act of Congress to Enforce the Provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and for Other Purposes.” I leave the reader to consider why “and for Other Purposes” was added to the title. On April 7, Congress passed a resolution appointing a Joint Select Committee “to inquire into the condition of the late insurrectionary states.” The Committee consisted of thirteen Republicans and eight Democrats.


At the first meeting of the Committee, Senator Bayard (D, DE), later Secretary of State under President Grover Cleveland, introduced a resolution providing that the examination of witnesses would be governed by the legal rules of evidence prevailing in the courts. Rep. Van Trump (D, OH) submitted a proposal that in taking testimony mere rumors and hearsay should be excluded. Senator Bayard also proposed that witness testimonies be limited to facts existing at the time or which had occurred since the enactment of the law providing for the Committee and its investigation. These precautionary proposals were rejected. Thus facts sought were buried in a mass of material of very doubtful credibility and suspiciously partisan bias.


Once again, I must warn readers that the Democrats of that era had almost nothing in common with the Democrat Party of today. In those days, Democrat and conservative were close political synonyms. Democrats North and South might have differed on how to handle slavery issues, preserve the Union, or execute War policies, but they tended to be Jeffersonian Constitutional conservatives. Moreover, the Republican Party of that day was still largely a Whig party with majority sympathies more inclined to big industrial, railroad, shipping, and banking interests and consolidated national power. The Radical Republicans that dominated the Republican Party for more than a decade after Lincoln’s assassination were dedicated to ruthlessly preserving their own power and prosperity with only nominal lip service to the common good. Lincoln was a big-business-big-government “moderate,” who the Radicals did not trust to smash any possibility of Southern cultural or Jeffersonian political recovery.


The political standards of the Radical Republicans can be seen in the unbelievably dishonest, despotic, and unconstitutional means they used to pass the Fourteenth Amendment. [See my book: The Un-civil War: Shattering the Historical Myths, Chapter 20: Passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, pp 183-190.] The Radical Republicans also tried to impeach President Andrew Johnson, because he was implementing Lincoln’s relatively generous policy of bringing Southern States back into the Union, because he opposed the harsh and oppressive Reconstruction plan of the Radical Republicans.


In July, a special sub-committee of three-Senator Scott (R, PA), Rep. Stevenson (R, OH), and Rep. Van Trump (D, OH) went to South Carolina to examine witnesses. On July 29, Senator Scott, also the Chairman of the full Joint Committee, wrote a letter to President Grant setting forth the “revolutionary conditions” in South Carolina and urging prompt Presidential action. Rep. Van Trump, however, issued a minority report expressing a firm conviction that the disorders in South Carolina were “the clearest natural offspring of as corrupt and oppressive a system of local state government as ever disgraced humanity, and utterly unparalleled in the history of civilization.” He further stated that “No modern instance of wrong and oppression, of robbery and usurpation can approach it in wickedness and infamy….No fair-minded man, we care not what may be his prejudices or his party ties, can go down to South Carolina and see the practical workings of the system there without being driven to the admission that the policy…is one of the most terrible blunders ever committed, one of the most reckless and unwise political movements ever inaugurated in a government of fixed laws and constitutions.”


The Radicals, however, increased their pressure on President Grant to act against the Klan in South Carolina by placing nine, mostly Upstate counties, under martial law, which the President did on October 12. Meanwhile, this was stirring great interest in the Northern press. The many correspondents sent by most of the leading metropolitan newspapers sent back the lurid and shocking details expected to sell the most copies. Some, however, made a sincere effort at unbiased reporting and analysis. The New York Herald, moreover, frequently carried stories about the vicious barn-burnings, threats, and terrors to which South Carolina’s white citizens were being subjected by their own state government. One pointed out that many illicit distillers of whiskey used the Ku Klux as a cloak for their private crimes and misdemeanors.


A New York Herald correspondent, after investigating conditions in Spartanburg County, published a summary of his findings.


First. Federal officials admitted that there had been no Ku Klux outrages in the last four months.


Second. The KKK was originally formed for the self-preservation of its members, and not for any special political purpose.


Third. That men of infamous character entered some KKK organizations and perpetrated a series of gross outrages upon individuals.


Fourth. In many instances white and black Radicals imitated the disguise of the Ku Klux and outraged their neighbors, knowing that the blame would not be laid upon them.


Fifth. That if the state government of South Carolina had not been in the hands of corrupt and infamous political adventurers, and had the laws of the state been fairly and impartially administered, public sentiment would have crushed the KKK in its incipiency.


Sixth. There was no necessity for a suspension of the writ of habeas corpus.


Seventh. The KKK, while formidable in numbers, never entertained the idea of resisting the United States Government. If its designs were treasonable, it could in a single night, have over-powered and annihilated the entire military force in Spartanburg County.


Eighth. The effect of the present movement [Radical Republican Reconstruction policies and actions] is dangerous to the future of the Union. It has revived old animosities, reawakened slumbering sentiments, and embittered the whites, not only in nine counties, but throughout South Carolina and the South generally.


Former Confederate General John B. Gordon, later Governor and U.S. Senator from Georgia, testified to the Joint Committee that “Even the burning of Atlanta and the devastation of Georgia during the War did not create a tenth of the animosity created by the Union League’s treatment of the Southern people.”


“The abuses under which the American colonies of England revolted in 1776 were mere child’s play compared to those borne by the South during the period of Reconstruction…”
-Thomas W. Gregory, Attorney General of the United States 1914-1919.




April 28 & 29, 2018


Confederate Memorial Day will be observed at Landmark Baptist Church in Archer, Florida.


You are invited to attend all or any of the festivities.


See here for details: http://libcfl.org/invite/




Dr. Ed is a pastor, author, public speaker, radio personality, lobbyist, re-enactor, and the Director of Dixie Heritage.


Lynnette Hardaway and Rochelle Richardson, also known as the hilarious duo of Diamond and Silk noticed about six months ago that their popular Facebook page was dropping in engagement.


Fans who “liked” the page were no longer receiving notifications of new content.
So they persistently wrote to and called Facebook to find out why.


Recently they posted on their page, “after several emails, chats, phone calls, appeals, beating around the bush, lies and giving us the run around, Facebook gave us another bogus reason.”


Finally, Facebook has officially responded in writing with this statement: “The Policy team has come to the conclusion that your content and your brand has been determined unsafe to the community.”


Guess what else Facebook said: “This decision is final and it is not appealable in any way.”


Nevertheless, Diamond and Silk still have a few question they posted publicly to Mark Zucherberg, the founder and chief executive officer of Facebook. Here they are:


1. What is unsafe about two Blk-women supporting the President Donald J. Trump?


2. Our FB page has been created since December 2014, when exactly did the content and the brand become unsafe to the community?


3. When you say “community” are you referring to the Millions who liked and followed our page?


4. What content on our page was in violation?


5. If our content and brand was so unsafe to the community, why is the option for us to boost our content and spend money with FB to enhance our brand page still available? Maybe FB should give us a refund since FB censored our reach.


6. Lastly, didn’t FB violate their own policy when FB stopped sending notifications to the Millions of people who liked and followed our brand page?


I bring this to your attention because Facebook has been doing the same things to Dixie Heritage and to other Conservative voices.


Every week I get eMails from readers saying that facebook no longer send them notifications of our page updates. Many weeks, Facebook censors our photo postings. I could give you a laundry list. My point being that we absolutely need your help in getting the word out each and every week – because without it, well, like Diamond and Silk have now discovered, without the help of our supporters, the word just won’t get out!


Until Next Week,
Deo Vindice!
Chaplain Ed


Dixie Heritage
P.O. Box 618
Lowell, FL 32663