 |
 |
|
Heritage Defense of the CSA Our Southern Heritage is under constant attack nowadays! Here are some letters, essays information and opinions that will help in the verbal defense of The Cause. Former U.S. president Theodore Roosevelt stated " Those Who Will Not Fight For The Graves Of Their Ancestors Are Beyond Redemption". |
|
|
 |
|
Here is an excellent column by Joe Murray that appeared in thebulletin.us:
Discrediting and Disgracing Dixie
To destroy a people, you must first sever their roots," opined Alexander
Solzhenitzyn. With close to five decades passing since the Woodstock
warriors overran America's societal institutions and declared a war
against tradition, it appears the flower power foot soldiers had
Solzhenitzyn in mind when they did to American history what Sherman did to
Atlanta. |
|
The one common
denominator that all individuals who berate, disparage, and condemn the Old
South and the Confederacy exhibit is ignorance. Slavery is the issue they
concentrate and dwell upon. However, such ignorance is understandable
because American history books written by biased Northern professors have
not presented Southern and Confederate history in a fair and impartial
manner. However, such individuals usually exhibit extreme hardheadedness and
resistance to facts, data, and information that challenges their opinions
which are based on feelings, emotions and biased history. One Man's Reply From: cliftonpalmermclendon@yahoo.com 'Stars and Bars' still used as racist
emblem Rather than being so Cockey-sure of himself, our Mr. Bill needs to get off his Duff and check his facts. The only Confederate Flag I have ever seen used to jeer at people is the Confederate Battle Flag (the one with the red field and the big starry blue X outlined in white). That Flag is sometimes called "The Southern Cross" or "St. Andrew's Cross." "The Stars and Bars" is the nickname of the first National Flag of the Confederate States of America. It had three wide horizontal bars of red-white-red and a blue canton with stars in a circle. (The latest Georgia flag is the Stars and Bars with the Georgia seal added in gold.) RACISM: The assumption that psychocultural traits and capacities are determined by biological race and that races differ decisively from one another which is usually coupled with a belief in the inherent superiority of a particular race and its right to domination over others [from Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of the English Language Unabridged (Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc.; 1981)] Many people believe that the Confederate Battle Flag is a symbol of racism because some groups -- such as the Ku Kluxers and the American Nazi Party -- that make no bones about their belief in the inherent superiority of the Caucasian race and its right to domination over others display that Flag. Such groups also sometimes display the United States Flag. Moreover, other people display the Confederate Battle Flag for other, benign reasons. A flag, or any other symbol, has only such meaning as is assigned to it by those who use it. The Confederate States of America never advocated as a national policy anything resembling a belief in the inherent superiority of a particular race and its right to domination over others. That nation spent its entire four year existence battling for its survival. Moreover, several different ethnic groups contributed to its struggle for survival. While Confederate Flags were not used during the existence of the Confederate States of America to carry out actions designed to further a belief in the inherent superiority of a particular race and its right to domination over others, other flags have been so utilized over the years: The one best example of a flag under which one race asserted its superiority and its right to dominate others is the flag of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, a/k/a the Union Jack. Under this flag, the aboriginal peoples of the Americas, Australia, various islands, and large parts of Africa and Greater Asia were subjugated. Many slaves, African and otherwise, were transported by ships flying this flag or a variation thereof. Under the tricolor of France, various islands and large parts of Africa were “colonized.” Under the flags of India, Mexico, and Turkey, ethnic minorities within those countries’ borders were hunted down and killed. Under the flag of the United States of America, a/k/a Old Glory, various leaders waged aggressive wars of conquest against various nations and peoples during the 1800s. Military commanders under this flag repeatedly encouraged murder, rapine, plunder, and other atrocities against those they attacked. Vast numbers of slaves were transported under this flag (most of them to the West Indies and South America). The aboriginal peoples of no continent or island were subjugated under a Confederate flag. No ethnic group was ever hunted down and killed under a Confederate flag’s authority. No slave ship ever sailed under a Confederate flag. No Confederate flag ever oversaw any attempt at colonization. No aggressive war of conquest was ever prosecuted under a Confederate flag. No military commander serving under a Confederate flag ever encouraged atrocities against the enemy. …so how can Confederate flags honestly be called symbols of racism? Mr. Duff has not shown that the people who objected to his choice of home-buyers believed that their race was superior and had the right to rule over others, so he has no grounds to accuse them of racism. All he has shown is that they prefer their own culture to another culture, much as a New Englander might prefer a clambake to an Oktoberfest, or a Texan might prefer a barbecue to an opera. The quality of preferring one’s own culture to another is ETHNOCENTRISM. Mr. Duff goes on to state that the neighbors who agreed with his decision “placed real American (Stars and Stripes) flags around their properties” – thus implying, if not blatantly stating, that the Confederate Battle Flag is neither real nor American. Unless Mr. Duff maintains that the Confederate Battle Flag is imaginary (which statement would be, to say the least, difficult to support), it follows that that Flag is real. As for its not being American, unless Mr. Duff wishes to go on record as stating that the nation whose army used that Flag was located in Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, or Antarctica, or on the isles of the sea (another difficult-to-support statement), it follows that the Flag in question is undoubtedly American. As for the thirteen-stripe Flag’s being “well-understood to stand for liberty and justice for all”: • Take a look at http://pointsouth.com/csanet/kkk.htm. See all of the thirteen-stripe Flags? See who is using them? Do those people’s actions show liberty and justice for all? • Consider the people of Georgia – killed and robbed and raped by soldiers serving under the thirteen-stripe Flag. Did that Flag mean liberty and justice for the people of Georgia? • Consider the Native Americans – forcibly divested of their lands, killed off, and starved into submission by soldiers serving under the thirteen-stripe Flag. Did that Flag mean liberty and justice for the Native Americans? Is it not clear that the thirteen-stripe Flag’s government made it clear that their race (Caucasian) was superior and had the right to rule over the Native Americans – the very definition of “racism?” • Consider many of the prominent men of Maryland in the 1860s – thrown into the dungeon upon the sole whim of the President of the nation flying the thirteen-stripe Flag. Did that Flag mean liberty and justice for those Sons of the Old Line? • Consider the Nisei and Sansei (native-born United States citizens whose parents and grandparents had been born in Japan) in World War II – how they were forcibly removed from their homes and sent to concentration camps where they were crowded into tar-paper shacks. Did that Flag mean liberty and justice for the Nisei and Sansei? • Consider that, until 1948, the military forces of the thirteen-stripe Flag’s nation were segregated by race – while forces serving under the Confederate Battle Flag were composed of a mélange of Caucasians, Negroes, Hispanics, Native Americans, and even some Asians. Remember: No Confederate body -- military or civil -- ever committed atrocities upon enemy noncombatants, or forcibly removed anyone from his homeland based on his ethnicity, or dungenoned anyone for his political beliefs. If anyone can show how the thirteen-stripe Flag which oversaw all of the above unkindnesses symbolizes liberty and justice for all, while the Confederate Battle Flag, which oversaw none of the kind, symbolizes evil, I ask to be instructed at CliftonPalmerMcLendon@yahoo.com. Puttin’ the Skeer on
‘Em! ............................................................ "Brief
History of the Ku Klux Klan, Focusing on Their Use of the Flag" ............................................................. The
Confederate battleflag is undeniably the most recognized symbol of the
South, not only in the South, but in the United States and across the globe.
No other region in the United States has a symbol, much less a symbol so
universally recognized. Until political correctness came along, and the
agenda of social engineers to homogenize the United States, schools across
the South played "Dixie" proudly. If you look at movies made in the 30s through the 60s you
will hear "Dixie" and see the
battleflag as sentimental symbols of regional pride used to stir the martial
attitudes of much of the nation. When the wall fell in Berlin at the end of
the Cold War, the Confederate battleflag was there! Why? Because across the
world, the crimson flag is a symbol of opposition to an oppressive
government! (Kindness of Billy. I am a KA, but
national headquarters has now turned politically correct which is a far cry
from when my brother pledges and I defended the Battle Flag hoisted on a
telephone pole in our house's backyard 24/7 from pledges of other
fraternities during Hell Week. BT) .................................................................
Equal Status for Confederate Veterans
Confederate veterans were afforded status
equal to that of United States
The Civil War produced at least two important outcomes. First, although it was not President Lincoln's intent, it freed slaves in the Confederate States. Second, it settled, through the force of arms, the question of whether states could secede from the Union. The causes of and the issues surrounding America's most costly war, in terms of battlefield casualties, are still controversial. Even its name the - Civil War - is in dispute, and plausibly so. A civil war is a struggle between two or more factions seeking to control the central government. Modern examples of civil wars are the conflicts we see in Lebanon, Liberia and Angola. In 1861, Jefferson Davis, the President of the Confederate States, no more wanted to take over Washington, D.C. than George Washington wanted to take over London in 1776. George Washington and the Continental Congress were fighting for independence from Great Britain. Similarly, the Confederate States were fighting for independence from the Union. Whether one's sentiments lie with the Confederacy or with the Union, a more accurate characterization of the war is that it was a war for southern independence; a frequently heard southern reference is that it was the War of Northern Aggression. History books most often say the war was fought to free the slaves. But that idea is brought into serious question considering what Abraham Lincoln had to say in his typical speeches: "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Slavery makes for great moral cause celebre for the War Between the States but the real causes had more to do with problems similar to those the nation faces today - a federal government that has escaped the limits the Framers of the Constitution envisioned. South Carolina Senator John C Calhoun expressed that concern in his famous Fort Hill Address July 26, 1831, at a time when he was Andrew Jackson's vice-president. Calhoun said, "Stripped of all its covering, the naked question is, whether ours is a federal or consolidated government; a constitutional or absolute one; a government resting solidly on the basis of the sovereignty of the States, or on the unrestrained will of a majority; a form of government, as in all other unlimited ones, in which injustice, violence, and force must ultimately prevail." Calhoun's fear, as well as that of Thomas Jefferson, was Washington's usurpation of powers constitutionally held by the people and the states, typically referred to as consolidation in their day. A significant bone of contention were tariffs enacted to protect northern manufacturing interests. Referring to those tariffs, Calhoun said, "The North has adopted a system of revenue and disbursements, in which an undue proportion of the burden of taxation has been imposed on the South, and an undue proportion of its proceeds appropriated to the North." The fact of the matter was that the South exported a large percentage of its output, mainly agricultural products; therefore, import duties on foreign products extracted far more from the South than the North. Southerners complained of having to pay either high prices for northern-made goods or high tariffs on foreign-made goods. They complained about federal laws not that dissimilar to Navigation Acts that angered the Founders and contributed to the 1776 war for independence. Speaking before the Georgia legislature, in November 1860, Senator Robert Toombs said, ". . . They [Northern interests] demanded a monopoly of the business of shipbuilding, and got a prohibition against the sale of foreign ships to the citizens of the United States. . . . They demanded a monopoly of the coasting trade, in order to get higher freight prices than they could get in open competition with the carriers of the world. . . . And now, today, if a foreign vessel in Savannah offer [sic] to take your rice, cotton, grain or lumber to New York, or any other American port, for nothing, your laws prohibit it, in order that Northern ship-owners may get enhanced prices for doing your carrying." A precursor for the War Between the States came in 1832. South Carolina called a convention to nullify new tariff acts of 1828 and 1832 they referred to as "the tariffs of abomination." The duties were multiples of previous duties and the convention declared them unconstitutional and authorized the governor to resist federal government efforts to enforce and collect them. After reaching the brink of armed conflict with Washington, a settlement calling for a stepped reduction in tariffs was reached - called the Great Compromise of 1833. South Carolinians believed there was precedence for the nullification of unconstitutional federal laws. Both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison suggested the doctrine in 1798. The nullification doctrine was used to nullify federal laws in Georgia, Alabama, Pennsylvania and New England States. The reasoning was that the federal government was created by, and hence the agent of, the states. When Congress enacted the Morrill Act (1861), raising tariffs to unprecedented levels, the South Carolina convention unanimously adopted and Ordinance of Secession declaring "We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused for years past to fulfill their constitutional obligations. . . . Thus the constitutional compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the nonslaveholding States; and the consequence follows is that South Carolina is released from her obligation. . . ." Continuing, the Ordinance declared, "We, therefore the people of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America is dissolved and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State, with the full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce and to do other things which independent States may of right do." Next year war started when South Carolinians fired on Fort Sumter, an island in the harbor of Charleston, South Carolina. The principle-agent relationship between the states and federal government was not an idea invented by South Carolina in 1861; it was a relation taken for granted. At Virginia's convention to ratify the U.S. Constitution, the delegates said, "We delegates of the people of Virginia, . . . do in the name and on the behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known, that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the people of the United States, may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them, and at their will. That therefore no right, of any denomination, can be canceled, abridged, restrained or modified by the Congress, by the Senate, or House of Representatives, acting in any capacity, by the President, or any department or officer of the United States, except in those instances where power is given by the Constitution for those purposes." The clear and key message was: the powers granted the federal government, by the people of Virginia, "may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression" and every power not granted to the federal government by the Constitution resides with the people of Virginia. The people of Virginia, through their delegates, set up a contractual agreement, along with the several sovereign states (emerging out of the 1783 Treaty of Paris ending the war with Great Britain), created the federal government as their agent. They enumerated the powers their agent shall have. When the federal government violates their grant of power, then the people of Virginia have the right to take back the power they granted the federal government, in other words, fire their agent. The War Between the States, having settled the issue of secession, means the federal government can do anything it wishes and the states have little or no recourse. A derelict U.S. Supreme Court refuses to do its duty of interpreting both the letter and spirit of the Constitution. That has translated into the 70,000 federal regulations and mandates that controls the lives of our citizens. It also translates into interpretation of the "commerce" and "welfare" clauses of our Constitution in ways the Framers could not have possibly envisioned. Today, it is difficult to think of one elected official with the statesman foresight of a Jefferson, Madison or Calhoun who can articulate the dangers to liberty presented by a run amuck federal government. Because of that, prospects for liberty appear dim. The supreme tragedy is that if liberty dies in America it is destined to die everywhere. Walter E. Williams ........................................... 1. That Confederate soldiers fought for states rights guaranteed under the Constitution. 2. That the people of the South seceded in order to preserve their rights. 3. That the North (i.e., the Union) resorted to coercion. 4. That the South fought against overwhelming odds.
............................................ Secession was NOT "treason! "If you bring these leaders to trial, it will condemn the North, for by the Constitution, secession is not a rebellion. His [Jefferson Davis] capture was a mistake. His trial will be a greater one. We cannot convict him of treason." -- Salmon P. Chase, Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, 1867
In this
modern era, one may read that the great Southern leaders were "traitors."
However, Robert E. Lee, Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson and Jefferson Davis,
all heroes of the Mexican War, were no more and no less traitors than
Washington, Adams and Jefferson were traitors to Great Britain. At the U. S.
Military Academy, the constitutional law book studied, "A View of the
Constitution of the United States" by William Rawle, a Philadelphia
abolitionist and Supreme Court Justice, taught that states had a right to
secede: "To deny this right would be inconsistent with the principle on
which all our political systems are founded, which is, that the people have
in all cases, a right to determine how they will be governed." West Virginia’s secession was probably unconstitutional. See "Texas v White" (1869). I happen to think that, given that the country was founded on a claim of right to revolution, 'a fortiori' an empirical social contract like the US Constitution and its 10th Amendment give rise to a right of secession, morally and legally. For a good scholarly piece
on the matter, see: ....................................... Which Side Was Right? Some Simple Questions Q: Which side sought
peaceful relations based on peaceful coexistence and a mutual respect for
the other's sovereignty? Q: Which side sent out
peace feelers and expressed a desire for peace even when it was winning on
the battlefield? Q: Which side wanted to
make the other side its largest trading partner? Q: Which side refused to
even discuss peaceful separation, peaceful coexistence, diplomatic
recognition, and good trade relations? Q: Which side was willing
to let the other live under a government of its own choosing and merely
wanted the freedom to do the same? Q. Which side sent an
invasion force into the other's territory? Q: Which side refused to
sell the other medicine, even though the medicine was to be used for the
other side's POWs? Q: Which side deliberately
allowed thousands of the other side's POWs to freeze and/or starve to death,
even though it had ample supplies to keep the POWs alive? Q: Which side had to
imprison over 20,000 to 30,000 of its own citizens, shut down two of its
state legislatures, suspend habeas corpus by executive order, shut down over
300 newspapers, imprison dozens of newspaper editors, and expel members of
its own House and Senate in order to suppress domestic opposition to its war
policies? Q: Which side resorted to
large-scale warfare on the other side's civilian population and by this
warfare killed some 50,000 of the other side's civilians? Q: Which side tried to
assassinate the other side's president and cabinet? .................................. "No other war (Civil War) started so many controversies and
for no other do they flourish so vigorously. Every step in the conflict,
every major political decision, every campaign, almost every battle, has
its own proud set of controversies, and of all the military figures only
Lee stands above argument and debate. Recent years, however, have seen a
new kind of nastiness emerge in these disputes. Even the venerable Robert
E. Lee has taken some vicious hits, as dishonest or misinformed advocates
among political interest groups and in academia attempt to twist
yesterday's America into a fantasy that might better serve the political
issues of today. The greatest disservice on this count has been the
attempt by these revisionist politicians and academics to defame the entire
Confederate Army in a move that can only be termed the Nazification of the
Confederacy. Often cloaked in the argument over the public display of the
Confederate battle flag, the syllogism goes something like this: If Lincoln did not threaten slavery, why,
then, did the Deep South secede? Answer: by 1861, America had become two
nations and two peoples. The South had evolved into a separate civilization
and wished to be a separate country. While moderates like Lee did not
support secession, Southern militants concluded that, with the election of
Lincoln, the North had won the great struggle for control of the national
destiny; the South would never again determine the nation's direction. "The American people, North and South,
went into the War as citizens of their respective states, they came out as
subjects... what they thus lost they have never got back." ~H.L. Mencken "It is said slavery is all we are fight
for, and if we give it up we give up all. Even if this were true, which we
deny, slavery is not all our enemies are fighting for. It is merely the
pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of
government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties." ~Major General
Patrick R. Cleburne, CSA (2 January 1864) McClellan sought to avoid bringing slavery
into the conflict. Shortly after his appointment as general-in-chief he
informed his political friends in Washington of his true outlook: “Help me
to dodge the n_____ -- we want nothing to do with him. I am fighting to
preserve the integrity of the Union & power of the Government -- on no other
issue.” ~General George B. McClellan (1862). ............................. Slavery existed in the colonies under the
English flag for 150 years before the American Revolution and for many years
after the Revolution under the United States flag. If there is any
contrition it should be with those ultimately responsible: In 1807, the British Parliament passed the Abolition of the Slave Trade Act. The King of Bonny (now in Nigeria) was horrified: "We think this trade must go on. That is the verdict of our oracle and the priests. They say that your country, however great, can never stop a trade ordained by God himself." Wilmot, explained to King Gelele: "England
has been doing her utmost to stop the slave trade in this country. Much
money has been spent, and many lives sacrificed to obtain this desirable
end, but hitherto without success. I have come to ask you to put an end to
this traffic and to enter into some treaty with me." ............................. Compatriots and Brothers in the Cause: The South Under Siege 1830-2000 - http://collards.phantacom.net ......................................... For many years now I have questioned the antics of
modern-day civil rights groups who have fulfilled their stated purpose &
mission of winning civil rights for their people. They won the same rights
as every other American with the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Mission accomplished and mission completed or so one would have thought.
Coming off this fresh victory & up until the present day these groups keep
making phrases like, "the dream is not finished," & "we still have along
way to go!" A long way to go to reach what? Why doesn't Senator Clinton call for the banning of the New York state flag, which features two slave ships in the center? The state seal, which is the state flag, was adopted in 1798 when New Yorkers were making money hand over first importing slaves into both New York City and The South. In 1798 New York City was the second largest destination for importation of slaves, second only to Charleston, S.C. Senator Clinton should read up on her history before condemning The South. ............................................... Don't blame the South for Abe Lincoln's war I have four comments concerning Daniel Augustine's letter to the editor ["Let's not misrepresent Abraham Lincoln, OK?" Feb. 20]. First of all, there was not an insurrection in the South. The Southern states simply seceded and wished to be left alone, as Jefferson Davis so eloquently stated. Second, Lincoln's armies did indeed "lay waste to our land," as the burned houses and barns throughout the Shenandoah Valley well attested. On top of that, approximately 50,000 Southern civilians of all colors died because of this invasion. Next, his statement that the Civil War was fought over slavery is best rebutted by the following two quotes from Dickens and Marx. "The Northern onslaught upon slavery was no more than a piece of specious humbug designed to conceal its desire for economic control of the Southern states."--Charles Dickens. "The war between the North and the South is a tariff war. The war is further not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery, and in fact turns on the Northern lust for sovereignty."--Karl Marx
Finally, although the South did fire first, this was cleverly induced by Lincoln, as this quote will show. "You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result."--Lincoln, in a letter to Gustavus Fox on May 1, 1861. Brock Townsend ................................................ To those who yet contend that Lincoln and the Union went to war "to make men free," how do they respond to the fact that when the war began, with the firing on Fort Sumter, there were more slave states inside the Union (8) than in the Confederacy (7)? Four Southern states, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas, had remained loyal. They did not wish to secede; they did so only after Lincoln put out a call for 75,000 volunteers for any army to invade and subjugate the Deep South. ................................................ An Understanding of Southern Men Sen. Hoar of Massachusetts, speaking of the South on the
floor of the U. S . Senate on the 23rd of February, 1889. Sen. Hoar did not
understand the South and its problems before, during and after
Reconstruction, nor was he unbiased toward the South, but he sure did have a
good understanding of Southern men. ..........................................
In
Defense of Gen. Forrest
Gen. Forrest is the subject of a very old hoax that has been around since the War. There is no truth to the rumor that he was ever a 'leader of the kkk' or that he was a racist. When he was called to appear at the 1871 US Congressional Committee that investigated the charges of his rumored involvement with that group, he was building a railroad with most of his workers being blacks, whom he paid better wages than other companies were paying whites. He worked to promote civil rights for blacks, and for all men; his speech to the Pole Bearers is proof of that. That 1871 Committee cleared Forrest of all charges. Here's part of the transcript of Forrest's testimony to that
1871 hearing: The transcript of the 1871 Congressional Committee can be
found
here. One of the best and most accurate published accounts of the Fort Pillow battle was reprinted by the Parks Service in 1973. It is titled "Victories At Fort Pillow". More on Gen. Forrest: mash here Here is a pretty good analysis of the Fort Pillow battle. Another good article telling the truth about Fort Pillow ........................................................................... It is a largely untold, ignored story of
American history that thousands of Southern blacks fought for the
Confederacy. This is documented in Union army reports, in letters written by
Union soldiers, and in Northern and Southern newspapers, among other
sources. Some were Free Blacks; most were slaves. Slaves fought for two
reasons: (1) they were offered freedom in exchange for their military
service, and (2) they were loyal to their masters and/or to the South. Amazingly, though there were more than
three million slaves in a nation of nine million (and most of the white male
population was away fighting, leaving behind women, children and old men),
there were no slave revolts. If Lincoln had hoped that the Emancipation
Proclamation would foment a slave rebellion in the South he had to have been
sorely disappointed. Here is a good source for information about Black Confederates More info on H.K. Edgerton's site. ............................................................................ From a letter: The thing that I find most offensive and disgusting is that
the wrong side moralizes about the atrocities of the war - the side that
committed most of them! Lee would not let his soldiers take anything
when he went north. He insisted that they pay for what they took even if it
was in Confederate money. The Yankees were damned thieves from the beginning
and only got worse as time went on. Yet it is the "Union side" that does all
the moralizing about badly treated prisoners and atrocities committed by
"guerrillas" and "bushwhackers". ....................................................... The
Year Was 1790 ............................................................................. Defending The Flag
The flag that we know as
the Confederate Battle Flag was used by many (but by no means all)
Confederate military units during the War for Southern Independence
(1861-1865). It was their flag, and they alone had the right to interpret
its meaning. Anyone who attempts to
impart false meanings of the Confederate Battle Flag is therefore out of
order.
I
LIKE THE CONFEDERATE FLAG AND EQUALITY OF THE RACES .................................................................................................... Charley Reese It's important to study nation's history
April is Confederate History month. Before the pall of political correctness descended on the country and drained politicians of what little courage they had, Southern governors routinely proclaimed the month. These days, I suspect few will. Nevertheless, there are only two really important events in American history. One is the American Revolution, and the other is the War Between the States and Reconstruction. The latter has been called America's second revolution and, by some, America's French Revolution. Sad to say, the America we live in today comes from that second revolution, not the first. Contrary to the politically correct version of history, Confederates saw themselves as defenders of the first revolution, not as defenders of slavery - though, to be sure, slavery played a part in the conflict. It came to symbolize all the other differences. It was not a civil war because the South never aspired to overthrow the government of the United States. The Southern states simply withdrew peacefully from what they believed, and in earlier years all Americans believed, was a voluntary union. The U.S. remained and the government in Washington remained. No Confederate official or military officer was ever tried for treason because no treason had been committed. The war was a conflict between nationalism and federalism. Regardless of which side you agree with, the events are so important to understanding America today you owe it to yourself to get up to speed on what really happened, as opposed to the Hollywood version. I've chosen four short books that will help. The best short overall history of the politics and the war is "North Against South," by Ludwell H. Johnson, published by the Foundation for American Education. A more recent book, "The Real Lincoln," by Thomas 1. DiLorenzo, published by Prima Publishing, is a devastating critique of the man who literally destroyed constitutional government in America and foreshadowed the modem Machiavellian politicians. "When in the Course of Human Events," by Charles Adams, a Northern historian, will disavow you of the notion the war was about freeing slaves and preserving the union. It was about money and control of territory and resources. The publisher is Rowman and Littlefield. Finally, Eric Foner's "A Short History of Recon-struction" will show you how the modem world and many of its problems were created. The publisher is Harper Perennial, and the author is no friend of the South, but he is honest and keeps to the facts, no matter how unflattering to any side of the issue. Naturally, there are tons of books on the war and Reconstruction, but I deliberately chose well-written short histories. If you wish to read Shelby Foote's novelized history in three volumes, you will need a long summer. You would need another long summer to read "The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government," by Jefferson Davis. I think you will like these shorter volumes better. I also would recommend you consider, if your ancestors fought in either army, two fine organizations, Sons of Confederate Veterans and Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War. Both are full of people interested in history and genealogy and I find such people to be mighty good company. Real veterans of the two armies founded both organizations. Through these organizations you can find re-enactors, who are people who replicate the equipment and uniforms of the two armies and replay the battles. The Web addresses are SUVCW.org and SCV.org. I would hope all Americans would develop an interest in our country's history. The more you know about America, warts and all, the more you will love it. ............................................................
America IS a Christian Nation!
“Our laws and institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of The Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise, and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian… This is a religious people. This is historically true.” -The Supreme Court Decision 1892 -Church of the Holy Trinity vs. The United States.
Is America a Christian nation? Posted: September 17,
2007
Is America a Christian nation? Did our country's Founders build a nation upon the bedrock of Christian belief and practice? Or was their republic irreligious or a secular state, embedded within a dominantly deistic worldview? i The coup de grace of secular evidence? For those who find our country's Christian origins both implausible and untenable, the greatest alleged witness and support they cite is Amendment XI in the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, in which we find the words, "?the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion?" But do those words prove what they so plainly are quoted to proclaim? In my last article, I shared how we can learn a "200-year-old lesson on 9/11" from the treaties with Tripoli and the other Barbary Powers. However, we can also learn something about the Islamic worldview of our nation and Christianity, then and now. The religious context of the treaty of Tripoli To properly understand the alleged rejection clause of America's Christian foundation in Amendment XI, one must understand the historical, diplomatic and religious contexts in which the treaty was given. The former two I already addressed in last article ? now I will discuss the religious one. One of the errors of the Barbary States was that they considered America a Christian nation in the lineage of its European predecessors. The way they understood Christianity was through the lens of the Crusades, and so perceived any Christian country as a militant threat to their existence. So prevalent was this warlike view of Christianity that, in his April 8, 1805 journal entry, even Gen. William Eaton said of Muslim radicals, "We find it almost impossible to inspire these wild bigots with confidence in us or to persuade them that, being Christians, we can be otherwise than enemies to [Muslims]. We have a difficult undertaking!" With that grave Islamic misunderstanding of Christianity, how would and should a Christian nation's delegates answer the question, "Are you a Christian nation?" If you answer "yes," you are quickly categorized into a Crusade-form of Christianity and an enemy. If you answer "no," then you appear to be denying the basis upon which you were founded. Add to the mix that you are negotiating in a time of war, have very limited naval resources, are in recovery from another (Revolutionary) war, and that "yes, with an explanation" is not exactly the answer that is going to bail your seamen, cargo and ships out of Muslim extremist captivity. In that context, there was simply no way that America was going to align itself with European-Christian countries. U.S. leaders believed, as Noah Webster later elaborated, "The ecclesiastical establishments of Europe which serve to support tyrannical governments are not the Christian religion but abuses and corruptions of it." The perception, however, that the U.S. did support a Euro-brand of Christianity had already exacerbated the holy war and caused the enslavement of thousands of our citizens. But America simply had no might, right or fight to pick with Muslims and the Barbary Powers. After months of deliberation over the treaty, from before its inception Nov. 4, 1796, in Tripoli to its further discussions in the Senate from May 29-30 and June 7, 1797, it was accepted and ratified, because our government leaders understood its context, meaning, and the strategic, diplomatic and expedient nature of this negotiation. The full context of Article XI clearly reveals that American leaders wanted Muslims to know that the U.S. rejected the Muslim pejorative understanding of Christianity, which was nothing more than an anti-Islamic, European-Crusade religion. As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] and as the said [United] States have never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Islamic] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. [Italics mine] Amendment XI in the Treaty of Tripoli is not a simple historical declaration of national non-Christian origins or denial of America's religious roots, but a diplomatic negotiation intended to free U.S. seamen and ships and to avert further international (Muslim) attacks and warfare on the very young and war-torn United States. Other declarations of national Christian identity It's amazing that antagonists who disavow America's founding as a Christian nation will quote (out of context) complex war-time negotiations and yet avoid the explicit words of our Founders during times of peace. Why don't skeptics ever cite any of the following governmental leaders from the same period as the Barbary Wars? John Jay, the first chief justice of the United States, appointed by George Washington, wrote to Jedidiah Morse Feb. 28, 1797 (the same year the Treaty of Tripoli was ratified), "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers. And it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of a Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." John Adams, America's second president and the same one who signed and sent the Treaty of Tripoli to the Senate, just one year later delivered these words in a military address Oct. 11, 1798, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." And to what religion is Adams referring? He gave us an answer when he wrote Thomas Jefferson June 28, 1813, "The general principles on which the Fathers achieved independence were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite. ... And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all these Sects were united." Patrick Henry wrote to Archibald Blair Jan. 8, 1799,"The greatest pillars of all government and of social life: I mean virtue, morality and religion. This is the armor, my friend, and this alone, that renders us invincible." Charles Carroll, a signer of the Constitution, wrote to James McHenry Nov. 4, 1800, "Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion whose morality is so sublime and pure. ? are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments." John Quincy Adams, America's sixth president, spoke at an Independence Day celebration in 1837, "Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth? That it laid the corner stone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity?? Andrew Jackson, our seventh president, pointed to a Bible as
he lay sick near death in 1845 and said, "That book, sir, is the rock on
which our republic rests." America was founded as a Christian nation. .................................................................................................. "As to my own position, I hope to see the Union preserved by granting the South the full measure of her constitutional rights. If this can not be done, I hope to see all the Southern States united in a new confederation and that we can effect a peaceable separation. If both of these are denied us, I am with Arkansas in weal or woe. I have been elected and hold a commission of captain of the Volunteer Rifle Company of this place and I can say for my company that if the Stars and Stripes become the standard of a tyrannical majority, the ensign of a violated league, it will no longer command our love or respect but will command our best efforts to drive them from our state. I am with the South in life or in death, in victory or in defeat...... I believe the North is about to wage a brutal and unholy war on a people who have done them no wrong, in violation of the Constitution and the fundamental principles of government. They no longer acknowledge that all government derives its validity from the consent of the governed. They are about to invade our peaceful homes, destroy our property, and inaugurate a servile insurrection, murder our men and dishonor our women. We propose no invasion of the North, no attack on them, and only ask to be left alone." -- Major General Patrick Cleburne ............................................................................. "The Gettysburg speech was at once the shortest and the most famous oration in American history... the highest emotion reduced to a few poetical phrases. Lincoln himself never even remotely approached it. It is genuinely stupendous. But let us not forget that it 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 the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves." ~ H. L. Mencken ................................................................................................. Ever wonder what the world would be like if the Confederate States of American had succeeded in preserving our independence? Most likely we would have expanded west and the United States would have been confined to the northeastern quarter of what we now call the lower 48. The Confederate States would have become the global powerhouse, the super power. The United States would have been to the Confederate States what England is now to the United States. They might have even fallen to another invasion from England and reverted back to part of the British Empire, or annexed by Canada. Lincoln knew that. He needed the wealth and resources of the South. That is why he fought the War of Northern Aggression, what he said was to preserve the Union. ................................................................................................. The fact that American Education has been written in a manner that disenfranchises Confederate Americans and perpetuates hate for their descendants, is proof enough that Southerners continue to be victimized after a 150 years. That generally the mainstream media, along with certain Abolitionist and Lincoln supporters, biased "Scholars", certain African American groups, NAACP, ACLU, and Politician's continue to perpetuate propaganda that the war was over Slavery, neglecting the Rule of Greed for Power, and gain, upon which all wars are founded is hypocritical. The Northern United States profited from Slavery as much as the Southern States. The South did not invade the North, it defended itself from invasion. The continued assault by the NAACP, ACLU-biased "Scholars", African Americans, and Politician's continue to perpetuate hate towards Confederate Americans. Confederate Americans do not hate African Americans, but they despise anyone who perpetuates the continued distortion of their Ancestry, what they think and who they are. Civil Rights are supposedly for all people. . . ................................................................................................ I have been a student of history and a Civil War buff my entire life. One thing I have learned is that it is impossible to honor anyone or celebrate anything concerning that war without offending someone else. As far as the celebration in Charleston goes, I'd like to point out two facts. First, there is no difference between the signers of the Declaration of Independence and the South Carolina men that voted to leave the Union 150 years ago. Had the American Revolution failed, the signers of the Declaration would have been captured and hung as traitors. The motives each group of men had to dissolve the relationships between them and England or the US makes no difference. Treason is still treason. Second, the Civil War is a result of the Continental Congress' failure to adequately deal with slavery at that point in time. That congress outlawed the import of slaves thinking that law would allow slavery to die out on its own rather than outlawing slavery altogether. It was the expansion of slavery westward that fueled the start of the Civil War, more so than the fact that the South was keeping slaves as the US Constitution allowed them to do from the very beginning. Those against the celebration in Charleston ask yourself this: Had the American Revolution failed, would you as subjects of the Crown now celebrate and honor those that fought and lost that war, or would you be ashamed of those traitors and want to erase that part of our past? The Secession is an important part of our states history and heritage. You can't change that. Our ancestors believed they were protecting their rights and their homes from invasion. ............................................................................................... In my opinion it's the NAACP that won't let the Civil War go. For the most part white people have moved on, but every time a person of color gets looked at wrong here comes the mighty NAACP to remind us that we had slaves and that whites owe the blacks something because of it. Guess what? That was over 150 years ago. I think its time to stop griping to us because our great-great-grandparents may or may not have had slaves. .............................................................................................. Why does no one do a Norman Conquest reenactment? I know I had relatives involved in that (probably both sides) and I'll bet anything one of them was killed, and oh boy am I angry! (well, maybe I'm not, since it was over a while back). Besides, it was a very important event. Well, okay, maybe it's history. Oh. Like the Civil War! Southerner that I am - a South Carolinian, no less - I think it is time to move on. If you would like to dress up in antebellum southern clothes, go for it - who needs a bloody (as all wars) war? Ick. Let's use our energy to LEARN history, and try to make the world a better place.
............................................................................................. You should look at some unbiased history books pertaining to Reconstruction. Not only did the Northern "liberators" come in and destroy, rape, and pillage most of the land in the south, they also set up puppet governments that hindered our state and many others in areas of educational and industrial development for many generations. Not to mention that there are many families, black and white, that live in "squalor" because of the unjust treatment of our state during Reconstruction. This, not the issue of slavery, is why many Southerners still resent the Northern aggressors. I do believe that all men are created equal, but the for anyone to believe that the north took the higher moral ground in the Civil War is ridiculous. The still restricted many activities of Blacks, and not to mention the treatment of women and children. Let the people have a party. ......................................................................................... Oh no! The NAACP is protesting and boycotting and raising hell and whining and crying and............ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.
|
