According to documents released Monday that may be exactly what happened?

In addition to the $2.5 million the University of North Carolina paid to have the Sons of Confederate Veterans take the Silent Sam Confederate monument from UNC-Chapel Hill, UNC also paid the group $74,999 for a promise not to meet or engage in any activities on any of the system’s campuses for five years, according to documents released Monday. Also included was a promise that the group’s members would not display Flags on campuses.

So the total amount still to be paid to the SCV is $2,574,999.

This may be why good men in North Carolina such as H. K. Edgerton opposed the deal from the beginning. It may also be why the University is now trying to weasel out of the $2.5 million payment but is not trying to get out of the $74,999 payment. At that price, essentially, the University would be doing away with all “Confederate” activity on their campuses for the cost of a couple guest lectures.


Over the weekend I was informed that Memphis Greenspace was going to transfer the Confederate monuments of statues of Nathan Bedford Forrest, Jefferson Davis and Capt. James Harvey Mathes removed from the park in Memphis and now in storage to the Sons of Confederate Veterans headquarters at Elm Springs, Tennessee.

I think it was Sunday that a national officer in the SCV reached out to me and asked that we NOT run the story. When I asked why I did not receive a reply. To cut to the chase, the Associated Press put the story on the wire on Wednesday and several national outlets have made mention of it. So why should I set on a story that is being run in newspapers world-wide?

There are details of what the SCV plans to do with the statues that I am privy too and will not disclose here because the stories appearing in media outlets do not mention these plans. So for now, I’ll keep that knowledge to myself, partially out of respect for the SCV and partially because I also realize the possibility that the SCV may change its plans.

But in case you didn’t read it in the Memphis, Nashville, or New York newspapers, Memphis Greenspace Inc. has given the Sons of Confederate Veterans the monuments. No money changed hands, and only private donations were used to pay expenses related to the transfer.

The two parties reached the agreement after a series of legal defeats for the Sons of Confederate Veterans, culminating in the Tennessee Supreme Court’s October decision not to hear the SCV’s appeal.

Reports are that the deal could clear the way for the removal of the remains of Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest and wife Mary Ann from Health Sciences Park in Downtown, the park that was home to his equestrian statue until Dec. 20, 2017. I do not know the validity of the reports nor do I have any idea what will happened to General Forrest’s remains after his grave is desecrated. If the SCV stops its opposition to the removal of the General’s remains the only party who might have any standings to do so would be Forrest’s descendants. The problem there is that General Forrest has no direct descendants. After the death of Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest III during WWII only “collateral descendants” remain in the Forrest family. So that could be what clears the path on this matter.

Although the City isn’t an official party to the agreement, Memphis Chief Legal Officer Bruce McMullen tells us that the agreement guarantees the monuments are “permanently removed” from Memphis and Shelby County. He also said the transfer fulfills a promise Turner made to then-Gov. Bill Haslam to preserve and relocate the statues of Forrest, Confederate president Jefferson Davis and Capt. James Harvey Mathes.


According to a new poll by the Wason Center for Public Policy at Christopher Newport University, Virginia voters want stricter gun laws, nonpartisan redistricting, marijuana decriminalization, a minimum-wage increase and passage of the Equal Rights Amendment. – But they oppose giving control over Confederate monuments to local government.

What is unclear is if the opposition to local control is for fear local governments would take the monuments down? Or fear that some local governments might want to keep them in place?


A group of “friends” at West Plains High School in West Plains, Missouri handed out several pride flags at their school last week to show LGBTQ students that they weren’t alone.

But later that day, other students responded by displaying a Confederate Flag in the school cafeteria, sparking debate on social media. The posting on Snapchat had this caption: “If they can fly their queer flags, others can fly their rebel flags. Butt hurt?”

Officials with the West Plains School District said last week that they were investigating the Dec. 9 incident.

On Monday the 16th a district spokesperson told BuzzFeed News that they did not take disciplinary actions against any students and had chosen to deal with the incident as a “learning experience.”


The House of Representatives plans to ban the sale of tobacco products to people under 21 in part of a new health care reform sweep,


President Trump on Monday said that he is considering skipping 2020 general election debates sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates, the body historically responsible for organizing the presidential election forums. The president accused the nonprofit organization of bias and of “modulating” his microphone during a 2016 debate against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. In a statement, the commission said that its record is “one of fairness, balance and non-partisanship.”


Federal judge to sentence former Trump national security adviser in January

On Monday, a federal judge rejected calls by an attorney for former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn for additional evidence from prosecutors. US District Judge Emmet Sullivan offered a point-by-point rebuttal to Flynn’s motion, and set a sentencing date for January 28.

Flynn pleaded guilty in December 2017 for lying to the FBI about communications with Russian officials.


After two hung juries, four overturned verdicts and decades in prison, Curtis Flowers who has spent the last 23 years in prison and been through six trials for the same murder case is released.

Multiple guilty verdicts were thrown out by higher courts for prosecutorial misconduct, finally resulting in Flowers’ release on bail. Yet, the Mississippi district attorney can still waste a few million more tax-dollars and harrass this poor man yet again trying the case for a seventh time, if he so chooses. When will the madness end?


Al Benson, Jr. , is the Editor-in-Chief of The Copperhead Chronicle .

He is also a regular feature writer for The Southern Patriot , The Dixie Heritage Letter , and other pro-Southern publications.

He is a proud member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, the Confederate Society of America, and the League of the South.

Back in 2015 when Dylan Roof shot those black folks in their church in Charleston, South Carolina no one was quicker to denounce the Confederate flag than the governor of South Carolina, Nimrata Haley.

Almost instantaneously she had the Confederate Battle Flag removed from the capital grounds in Columbia, and she said: “I think the more important part is it should never have been there. These grounds are a place that everybody should feel a part of. What I realized now more than ever is people were driving by and felt hurt and pain . No one should feel pain.” Sounded nice and sentimental back in 2015. No one should feel pain.

What about those people who had ancestors that fought under that flag, not for slavery, but for the rights of their states? It would seem as thought it’s okay if they feel pain. Their pain did not matter. It still doesn’t.

Ms. Haley’s actions in Columbia started a mad binge of anti-Southern and anti-Confederate bigotry and hatred that has continued until this very day. How many Confederate flags, monuments, and plaques have been taken down in the past four years, all under the noble-sounding euphemism of “fighting racism” when all this has really accomplished is fostering the birth of a virulent new racism–only this new birth of racism is all okay–because it is anti-Confederate. And that makes all the difference in the world. You see, racism is perfectly permissible as long as it is anti-Confederate racism.

The fact that Confederate monuments and plaques had nothing whatever to do with racism is just lost in the shuffle. What the far left prays for (if they ever pray for anything) is that you never discover that fact.

None of this makes any difference to Ms. Haley. Her ancestry is East Indian Sikh, so Confederate history and heritage are meaningless for her. None of it makes any difference to her and, hence, she probably can’t understand why it makes any difference to the rest of us.

We had a governor here in Louisiana, Bobby Jindal, who also had East Indian ancestry. He was a decent governor, but he never seemed to grasp the idea that Southern history and heritage meant something to us here in Louisiana. He was never willing to issue a proclamation noting Confederate heritage month here, no doubt because such heritage was meaningless to him. It was not part of his heritage so it didn’t affect him.

Anyway, for all the damage to our history and heritage Ms. Haley caused, now, four years later, she seems to be back peddling a bit where the Confederate Flag is concerned. In an article that appeared on The Hill, written by Marty Johnson, on December 6th, it was noted:: “Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations and South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley says that Dylan Roof, who shot and killed nine black Americans in a Charleston church in 2015, ‘hijacked’ the meaning of the Confederate flag…People saw it as service and sacrifice and heritage, but once he did that, there was no way to overcome it.” Well, Ms. Haley, that’s a little bit too late. The damage was done. Too bad you didn’t have a little more foresight back then, you might have avoided some of the misery your actions have put us all through in the last four years as we have seen our heritage and history thoroughly trashed not only by the far left but by lots of other folks who should have known better.

But at that point, you were not overly concerned. You were pursuing a political spot higher in the Republican Establishment pecking order and trashing our Southern heritage was an easy price to pay for that, wasn’t it? Didn’t cost you a thing! The only ones it cost were those who had Confederate ancestors–who your actions branded as automatically racist. No skin off your nose!

And now, here you are, back four years later with a bit of literary legerdemain, telling us now that Roof only “hijacked” the Confederate flag instead of it representing him and what he did. Why the sudden burst of generosity toward our flag on your part now?

It couldn’t be, perchance, that you now have a new book out that you are seeking publicity for, could it? And it couldn’t be that you are hoping for some healthy book sales for your new book here in the South that you so thoroughly trashed four years ago could it? I’m jus guessing, mind you, but it seems like a pretty fair country guess.

Us poor rubes here in the rural South are supposed to have forgotten what you did to our heritage four years ago and we are all supposed to now run out and buy your new book because you have backed off just a bit on your thoughts about our flags and heritage–just a bit–but not enough!!!

After what you started with your actions regarding our flag and our heritage, I have to be honest with you. I would not spend a thin dime for your book and I don’t think a lot of Southern folks will either. Your pious commentary about not wanting people to be hurt does not seem to extend to those who love and cherish their Southern heritage and the memory of their Confederate ancestors, the vast majority of which never owned a slave or supported slavery. It’s obvious to us that, to you, we don’t really count–and that being the case–you should not count on the dollars we won’t spend for your new book.


Bob Livingston is an American lobbyist and politician who served as a U.S. Representative from Louisiana from 1977 to 1999.

A Republican, he was chosen as Newt Gingrich’s successor as Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, a position he declined. He is now a political consultant and syndicated columnist.

The U.S. Constitution was a document designed to place restraints on the federal government the Founders were creating, not a document to restrain the people or the states. This is an important distinction.

The Constitution would not have been ratified if not for the promise of a bill of rights to further check the federal government. That’s because most of the Founders — particularly the Anti-Federalists — feared the Constitution wasn’t strong enough to prevent the federal government from stealing power from the states.

It was commonly understood prior to 1861 that the states reserved the right to secede. There had been talk of secession by the New England states many times. They called it “disunion.”

New England Federalists in the early 1800s feared that Virginia was gaining too much power and would act against the interests of New England states and in the interests of Southern ones. Many of them also opposed the War of 1812. After Thomas Jefferson’s election, Federalist Stephen Higgenson claimed the federal government “had fallen into the hands of infidel, anti-commercial, anti-New England Southerners” who would “govern and depress New England.”

The complaints of New England Federalists essentially mirrored those later made by Southerners advocating for secession in the 1860s. And in fact, in the 1830s and 1840s, abolitionists, chief among them William Lloyd Garrison, called for “disunion” over the slavery issue. A New England Anti-Slavery Convention was held and attendees voted in favor of secession by a margin of 250-24.

So we see that secession was not a wholly Southern construct. Even Abraham Lincoln, as a representative, recognized the states had the right to secede — he only changed his mind after became president. To “save the Union” — which Lincoln stated at the outset was his goal in prosecuting the war, whether he had to preserve slavery or abolish it to do so – Lincoln trampled on the rule of law when he sent federal troops to occupy the seceding states and force them back into the union. The natural result of Lincoln’s actions is the imperial presidency we have today.

On Nov. 19, 1863, at the dedication of the military cemetery at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, Lincoln spoke these words:

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate — we can not consecrate — we can not hallow — this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

It’s curious that he took the phrase “that all men are created equal” from the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, but stopped there rather than continue with the words, “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of those ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it and institute a new Government.”

The Civil War was not fought to create “a new birth of freedom,” as Lincoln suggested. Nor did it create a “government of the people, by the people and for the people.” It did quite the opposite.

As H.L. Menken later wrote about the Gettysburg Address in “Smart Set” in 1920:

[I]t is poetry, not logic; beauty, not sense. Think of the argument in it. Put it into the cold words of everyday. The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination — “that government of the people, by the people, for the people,” should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in that battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves. What was the practical effect of the battle of Gettysburg? What else than the destruction of the old sovereignty of the States, i.e., of the people of the States?

The Confederates went into battle free; they came out with their freedom subject to the supervision and veto of the rest of the country — and for nearly twenty years that veto was so effective that they enjoyed scarcely more liberty, in the political sense, than so many convicts in the penitentiary.

The states that left the Union to join the Confederacy did so in the true sense of the Jeffersonian principle of self-government, as stated in the Declaration. Lincoln’s invasion of the Confederate States stood that idea on its head.

The threat of secession was a check on federal power that both New England and Southern states invoked between the ratification of the Constitution and beginning of the Civil War. It was generally understood that, because the Constitution was silent on the issue, secession was a viable alternative to checking federal power.

In fact, when during the Constitutional Convention a proposal was made to allow the federal government to suppress a seceding state, James Madison proclaimed: “A Union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a State, would look more like a declaration of war, than an infliction of punishment, and would be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound.” The proposal was removed.

Lincoln’s claims in his address “that government of the people, by the people, for the people ” would somehow “perish from the earth” if the Union lost the war was hogwash. Representative democracy would have continued in the Union and in the Confederacy regardless of the outcome. The Union and the Confederacy could have existed side by side as trading partners an allies, just as Mexico and Canada do today.

And remember, neither side entered the war over the issue of slavery. Lincoln’s stated purpose for invading the Confederacy was “preserving the Union.”

Finally, the final outcome of the Civil War did not usher in “a new birth of freedom.” It did quite the opposite. It consolidated federal power, neutered the 9th and 10th Amendments and gave birth to the fascist system and the imperial presidency under which we now suffer. There is no check on federal power, the states are essentially meaningless and the political class is running roughshod over the Constitution and our traditional institutions.

Do Republicans really want to think of themselves as belonging to the party of Lincoln?


Mike Scruggs is the author of The Un-Civil War: Shattering the Historical Myths , and Lessons from the Vietnam War: Truths the Media Never Told You .

As a nationally syndicated newspaper columnist he has written and published over 600 articles on military history, national security, immigration, current political affairs, Islam, and the Middle East.

Slavery is part of world history, and it is an important part of American history. But slavery is one of the subjects Americans cannot have a frank discussion about. It is too wrapped in emotional, political, and ideological chains.

On the subject of slavery, many Americans, especially in the media, academia, and politics, have succumbed to a form of ignorant hysteria comparable to the Salem Witch Trials. If you say anything that contradicts the usual, required extreme image of Southern slavery, you are likely to be shouted down without any consideration of the facts.

If you say anything that contradicts the heroic image of the “abolitionist” movement in pre-Civil War and Reconstruction America, you are also likely to be shouted down without regard to the facts. This leaves us in a dangerous intellectual, moral, and political straightjacket. But if we value truth and freedom, we need to look at unadulterated and un-whitewashed truth no matter how loud the screaming. The tremendous trauma and loss of human life during the American Civil War dramatically influenced our perception of slavery issues.

Civil War Casualties

After the Civil War, Union officers estimated that military deaths from all causes for both sides totaled 620,000. Many Confederate records, however, were lost or incomplete. In 2011, Dr. J. David Hacker of Binghamton University in New York revisited that estimate by comparing population changes from 1860 to 1870.

He estimated that the total was 750,000 and possibly higher. In addition, Dr. James McPherson has estimated that Southern free civilian deaths were about 50,000. Moreover, Professor Jim Downs of Connecticut College found documentation that 60,000 displaced Southern slaves died of malnutrition and disease following Emancipation and the collapse of the Southern economy following the war and estimated that the total was about 80,000.

Dr Downs documented this little known medical calamity in his 2012 book, Sick from Freedom. That brings the total deaths caused by the war to 880,000 or higher, considerably more than the total deaths of all other American wars. In addition, the seriously wounded, many of them permanently disabled, probably exceeded 500,000. There were at least 35,000 surviving amputees.

Union forces serving during the war totaled 2.2 million. The Confederate estimate is 750,000 to one million. These figures tend to confirm the estimate that one in four white Southern men died in the war. Moreover, over 40 percent of private property in the South was destroyed including homes, businesses, livestock, and crops. This devastation and Reconstruction (No Marshall Plan for Southern recovery) and tariff policies harmful to Southern agricultural exports impoverished the South for generations.

Such appalling suffering demands a morally and politically acceptable cause—which victors tend to distort in their favor. Thus the economic burdens and Constitutional issues that led Southern states to seek their independence and resist Northern coercion to prevent that independence have been dismissed or buried, and to the Northern Union attributed a more inspiring and glorious cause. Yet contrary to common assertions by uninformed politicians and media, the American Civil War was not a Northern crusade to free Southern slaves or to end slavery, although there were many North-South issues over slavery.

The Emancipation Proclamation did not occur until the middle of the war, and Lincoln admitted this was primarily a military strategy with possible political and diplomatic benefits. Actually, the proclamation only applied to slaves in Confederate held territory; thus no slaves were actually freed. Fortunately, slavery did end after the war under a more orderly Constitutional form—the 13th Amendment. However, five years after the war, prominent Northern abolitionist and legal scholar, Lysander Spooner, stated the political reality:

“All these cries of having ‘abolished slavery,’ of having ‘saved the country,’ of having ‘preserved the Union,’ of establishing a ‘government of consent,’ and of ‘maintaining the national honor’ are all gross, shameless, transparent cheats—so transparent that they ought to deceive no one.”

In 1861, the major British newspapers, The Times, The Economist, and the Saturday Review, believed that the war between North and South was over protectionist Northern tariffs that benefited the North but imposed severe economic hardships on the South and did not touch the question of slavery. It was a struggle for sectional economic and political power. In December 1861, the celebrated English author Charles Dickens, a strong opponent of slavery, wrote in a London weekly publication:

“The northern onslaught upon slavery is no more than a specious humbug disguised to conceal its desire for economic control of the United States.”

Politically correct history has nearly buried the memory of such economic sectionalist atrocities as the Morrill Tariff and the Northern drift away from Constitutionally guaranteed States Rights to powerful centralized government. But it has also attempted to bury a major controversy and struggle over the Authority of Scripture.

In the Appeal of 95 Southern Clergymen addressed to Christians throughout the world in April 1863, they stated that “The practicable plan for benefiting the African Race must be the Providential Plan—the Scriptural plan.” [As opposed to the violent self-righteous urgency of the ultra-abolitionists]

In the notes appended to the “Appeal” they gave evidence of God’s gracious Providence in bringing large numbers of African-American slaves to Christ’s Church. Of the approximately 8.0 million whites in the South in 1860, about 4.0 million were age 18 or over. Of these, 1.55 million or 39 percent were communicants of Christian churches. The actual church attendance would have been higher. [In addition, Confederate Chaplains recorded 150,000 conversions during the war.]

In 1860, there were 3,953,760 slaves in the South. Approximately 2.0 million of these would have been of communicant age, and 500,000 were communicant members of Christian churches, representing about 25 percent of the total. This 500,000 was twice the number converted by Protestant missions in the entire pagan world. To which the 95 ministers signing the “Appeal” agreed. “Thus has God blessed us in gathering into his Church from the children of Africa.”

On January 4, 1861, Rev. George D. Cummings of St. Peter’s Church in Baltimore gave a sermon that eloquently expressed the Providential outlook of most Southern clergy, entitled: “The African, a Trust from God to the American,” in which he called his congregation and wider audience:

“To regard the African race in bondage (and in freedom, too) as a solemn trust committed to this people from God, and that He has given us the great mission of working out His purposes of mercy and love towards them.”

The memory of the largely North-South aligned struggle over the Authority of Scripture versus placing popular humanistic values above Scripture has also been suppressed. The struggle to maintain the Authority of Scripture was not exclusive to the South, however. Presbyterian theologian Charles Hodge, an ardent unionist, refused to condemn slavery per se outright, because the Bible did not. The Episcopal Bishop of Vermont John Henry Hopkins took the same position and sympathized with Southern clergy defending the Authority of Scripture on slavery issues.

According to Mark Noll, author of The Civil War as a Theological Crisis, not a single well-known American Catholic fully supported the abolitionists before 1862.

American Catholics tended to hold traditionalist or moderate emancipationist views similar to many Southern Protestant pastors and avoided any connection to abolitionists. Pope Pius IX did not take a partisan position in the Civil War but called for peace. He developed a warm relationship by correspondence with Confederate President Jefferson Davis and sent him a “crown of thorns,” which he had weaved himself, during the two years Davis was in prison awaiting a trial that was eventually cancelled. This crown of thorns can be seen at the New Orleans Civil War Museum.

The slave trade was abolished in 1808 and had been roundly condemned by all because of its extreme hardship and high death rate. All American slave-trading ships were based in New England and flew American flags. New England industry was built on profits from the slave trade. The South Carolina legislature voted to end all further importation of slaves in 1749, but King George II disallowed it and reprimanded the governor for having assented to it.

The modern disadvantages of slavery are obvious. The extent of power over people that slavery gives is great and too easy to abuse and can limit human potential to the disadvantage of everyone. We can be thankful that slavery is in our past.

However, it is well documented by New Testament Apostolic teachings and Old Testament law that although Scripture does not promote slavery, it allowed it and regulated it to soften it. Neither slavery per se nor being a master of slaves are prohibited or counted as sin—and certainly not “heinous sin.” But the abuse or mistreatment of slaves was prohibited and its penalties were enforced. Masters and slaves were urged to act with mutual understanding and good will.

So what grounds do politicians, media pundits, or anyone else have to stir up historical grievances about slavery, especially when they are largely ignorant—even willfully ignorant—of the facts? They are on dangerous grounds. To what purpose is their equally misinformed and arrogant virtue-signaling? It has aspects of both bullying and obsequious groveling and generates politically driven self-righteous animosities and division. We are marching toward political hysteria and social destruction similar to the Salem Witch Trials but on a grand scale.


Dr. Ed is a pastor, college president, historian, the author of over 30 books, an in-demand public speaker, and the host of two radio shows.

He is an active lobbyist, tirelessly petitioning city, county, state, and federal officials on behalf of our Southern monuments and heritage.

He started Dixie Heritage in March of 2015.

Normally this issue would have gone out at 6 am this morning. Please forgive the delay. But we wanted to report the outcome of the Impeachment vote.

Just in time for the Holiday the House of Representatives has impeached President Trump.

Since our mailing list is bigger than the SCV’s If someone from the SCV would like to respond to the news items above regarding the “deals” we have reported with UNC and Memphis we will be happy to publish them.

I have heard reports that a group of black High School near Ashville, North Carolina students staged a protest in their school gym opposing the Battle Flag. If you have info on this let us know and we may report those details next week.

Next week is going to be busy for us all – Merry Christmas!

Until Next Week,
Deo Vindice!
Chaplain Ed