OUR ANTI-CHRISTIAN COURT RULINGS
By Joan Hough
First I must preface here the reason I claim that I am peculiarly equipped to defend the First Amendment rights of free expression of religion in the United States of America. I am not a “Born Againer.” I have not attended any Church service, other than a funeral, in seventeen years. I do not pray five times each day. I do not believe that my personal religious beliefs are important when it comes to making judgements about the way that people of deep religious convictions in American are being treated in our nation today because of the usurpation of “Law Making” by nine black-robed vulture-politicians thinking themselves “the Supremes.” I do not feel compelled to make others believe as do I about God, Jesus Christ, or the Holy Spirit. I do, however, deeply resent the constant attacks on Christians and Christianity that I have observed and continue to observe. I am knowledgeable that the original government of the United States was created by Christians for Christians and that government became great because of Christians.
In the crediting the effect of Christians on our American government, I force myself to ignore the anti-Christian horrors perpetrated on Southerners by the Republican government in the late 1800s. After a century and a half, the effect of the north’s genocidal, anti-Christian attacks has been ameliorated by the sweeping of Southern truths under the historical carpet. Readers doubting the credulity of the existence of “anti-Christian” attacks on the South during “the War of Northern Aggression” should read a chapter entitled the north’s “Infidelity of the Clergy.” Actions of the Yankee Men of God are castigated in a chapter in a book by northerner, Methodist-Episcopal minister Henry Clay Dean. The book is Crimes of the Civil War and Curse of the Funding System. The anti-Southern Christian movements of the north are also revealed in much of it ugliness in two chapters in Northern Opposition to Mr. Lincoln’s War, by D. Jonathan White: Joe Stromberg’s chapter “Blood on the Pulpit: Northern Clergymen, the Kingdom of God on Earth, and the Abolition of the South,” and i Richard M. Gamble’s chapter, “The Warfare of the World in the House of God.” The tragic thing about the north’s attack on Southern religion is that it was perpetrated by Unitarian influenced Christian preachers, fallen away from the belief in the Trinity and anxious to punish and kill the “real” Christians.
Today we are witnessing a greatly similar attack on religion, but on a national level—directly created by an unrestrained by Congress, Supreme Court. I am sickened and revolted by a seemingly national, governmental adoption of the Marxist-Communist-Critical Thinking cabal’s hatred for religions—especially for the Christian one. I am appalled at the sudden special preferences being accorded the Muslim religion by the Supreme Court and by our national and local politicians. A religion requiring the murder and rapes of infidels by its true believers is, for all practical purposes, being given not just protection by the Federal courts and the U.S. Congress, but preferential treatment. One must suspect that a similar treatment would be given any group claiming cannibalism as a religious ritual.
With all of the above in mind, I believe myself perhaps not intellectually equipped to do so—not clever enough to do so, and, perhaps, not allowed by the Court’s reinterpretation of the First Amendment to do so, but, no matter, I do so—I oppose the Supreme Court for their illegal law-making. I do so because I am aware that no matter the opinion of the Supreme Court, I absolutely possess the Constitutional right to cross swords with the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, the U.S. President, the ACLU, the NAACP, the Anti-Poverty folks, the Muslim advocates, the Illegal-Invader Advocates and, in fact, all anti-Christian groups—including the Supreme Court. And yes, I do indeed consider the Court and the U.S. Congress, anti-Christian.
In the reading of a 1996 published book entitled Original Intent: The Courts, the Constitution & Religion, authored by David Barton, I was horrified to read, in case after case after case of ridiculously ludicrous Supreme Court Anti-Constitutional rulings—the most anti-Christianity rulings the world has known since the Dark Ages. Who am I to judge? Someone who is one of those ordinary Americans the writers and men ratifying the U.S. Constitution considered capable of comprehending the U.S. Constitution—one of those people for whom the Constitution was written in words even we only English speaking folks can understand.
Contrary to what the U.S. Congress, lawyers and judges would have us believe, our nation’s Founding Fathers never intended that only judges, lawyers and the wealthy elites would be able to understand the U.S. Constitution.
Upon reviewing an overly large number of the religious cases Barton details—all dealt with by the “El Supremoz,” I can reach no other conclusion, but that the present Supreme Court’s actions demand the judges receive instantaneous replacement. Definitely the “good behavior” clause should be enacted against all of the Supreme Court justices and many, many of the Federal Judges scattered about all over the nation. The Supreme Court justices’’ virtual re-writing of laws –their re-interpreting laws according to their own personal whimsies is unconstitutional. In short, they are all law breakers! A couple of the Supreme Court justices have even attacked the U.S. Constitution in public speeches and advocated junking it and replacing it—thus abjuring their oaths to God to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. These unelected members of the judicial system have joined numerous members of the U.S. Congress and are now the “domestics.” One female justice has even stuck her snooty and biased nose into the current presidential election in an attack on the Republican candidate—her attempt to get a fellow Democrat elected. Such bad behavior requires punishment! Not surprisingly, she was also the one who recommended replacement of the U.S. Constitution with an African one.
The Court’s justices need judgment passed on them. The Supreme Court is most certainly, no longer a court for “we the people.” It has become a lawmaking body—a virtual collection of dictators without any checks and balances, incapable of correctly interpreting the U.S. Constitution, it actually creates laws by redefining words and combining amendments. It does nothing according to the intentions of our nation’s founders. it has become the latest dispenser of the most prejudiced anti-Christian verbiage and laws in American history. It has, without the oversight of any higher authority, created a new law by twisting the old Laws and plopping them into a residue of anti-Christian, Marxist/Critical Thinking excrement. Its judges have reinterpreted and melted together Constitutional Amendments into something so foreign to the intentions of our U.S. Founding Fathers, that the result would be totally unrecognizable to Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Sherman and all of the other brilliant Americans involved in the creation and ratification of the original U.S. Constitution.
There has been no effort by anyone to slap the snooty faces and bloody the ever so superior noses of the judges on the Supreme Court or in the Federal Courts throughout the land. Most of the States, as the results of Abraham Lincoln’s divine redefinition of all things Constitutional, have been so neutered and weakened—their Constitutionally guaranteed states’ rights buried so deep in a mountain of political dung, that they are incapable of bloodying anybody’s noses except those of the police who dare defend themselves against ethnic criminals or forget themselves and happen to arrest an illegal, murderous border jumper. The states can no longer even dump their own garbage, much less that of the all-powerful central government’s “Supremes.” We, the common folks, can only hope that some of our states are sleeping lions we can awaken.
The most numerous rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court are religious ones. If Americans were to become aware of the enormous clump of Supreme Court cases in which truth has suffered under bizarre, figuratively drunken rulings, there would be something that might be termed “a run of the Court.” Nine black garbed effigies might even be wreathed in smoke.
David Barton competently proves that the unelected paltry politicians, whom we honor with the title of “Justices,” now have complete control over how, when, where and if any public religious activities can happen in our America. The discerning eye of any wide awake American has noted that the Supreme Court justices function as if it is a necessity that Christians have all their historical, long possessed traditions and Constitutional rights taken from them and bestowed on Muslims and belligerent atheists.
Just how did the modern Court take control over religion? It did so by trashing the limitations of the religion clause of our Constitution’s First Amendment. The Judges did so, all on their little own, by deciding to add the words “separation of Church and state” to their every consideration of any and all things religious. The initial happening this began in the year 1947 in a Supreme Court decision in Everson vs. Board of Education. It was then that the Court leaped on that wagon so loved by the anti-Christians; the court reinterpreted the First Amendment by including in it the new and incorrect AND ABSOLUTELY UNCONSTITUTIONAL “separation of church and state” metaphor. All judges since then have used that illegal term to justify their anti-Christian rulings. Somewhat later Supreme Court justices finagled a way to combine the First Amendment with the 14th Amendment and since then they’ve pushed us whole hog into the religious slaughter house they operate—but that combination will not be considered here and now.
The judicial men and women are, of course, not stupid—they well comprehend the meanings of words and fully realize that separation of state and religion is not now,, has never been, and should never be a part of the U.S. Constitution. They know that the First Amendment says precisely what the nation’s Founding Fathers and all Americans believed when the Constitution was ratified—CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF. It, of course, was clearly understood by all Americans that only Congress has the power to make laws—the Supreme Court cannot and the President cannot.
The Court has, in essence, written and installed a new anti-Christian law and propagandized their personal belief that there should be a separation of Church and state in all things, even the bright and beautiful. They have propagandized so successfully that even most ordinary Americans now accept the lie that the Founding Fathers believed in the separation of church and state. THEY DID NOT! THEY INSISTED THAT THE GOVERNMENT STAY COMPLETELY OUT OF ANY ASPECT OF RELIGION.
Practically since the ratification of the Constitution until recent years, the Court did not mention the “separation” idea in its decisions. All of a sudden, a recent judicial adoption. Barton informs us that in actual cases, it has since been cited in seemingly countless cases:
“In fact, in actual cases filed under the First Amendment’s religion clauses in recent decades, the First Amendment was cited by courts in less than three thousand cases while the separation metaphor was cited in over four thousand. Strikingly, in examining First Amendment controversies, courts are more likely to cite the separation metaphor than they are the First Amendment itself.”
Americans would be absolutely flabbergasted and dumbstruck if they ceased for a few hours assuming a potato-like, couch-football watching position and actually read a list of the cases the Supreme Justices have misjudged. The decisions the Justices have rendered are too bizarre to be anything other than the direct result of personal religious biases
Barton presents for our edification a lengthy listing of many of these very cases. He n provides for us a list of 38 unprecedented Court decisions that are mind-boggling to any American with e a smidgeon of “walking around” good sense and even a modicum of knowledge concerning the contents of the U.S. Constitution. For the details of these cases, consult Barton’s text.
It must be understood, that even for the most innocuous of things the court calls a crime, if one resists the arresting authorities, one can be killed. Barton reports the results (court rulings) of some most interesting cases criminalizing actions which Americans have always known as being our right. Those actions can now get us arrested.
1. While riding a public bus, we can be arrested for performing a Constitutionally illegal act, if we give a fellow rider a book containing Bible stories.
2. We can be arrested if our organization uses the word “seminary” or give a Bible degree unless the state pre-approves our Bible curriculum, your teachers, etc.
3. We can be arrested if we install a historic memorial for the dead that contains a cross—or if we continue to display such a memorial no matter if it is a hundred or so years of age.
4. We can be arrested if we display the Ten Commandments in a public courthouse or government building—no matter that it is so displayed throughout the U.S. Supreme Court and in other federal buildings. (Six Supreme Court rulings behind this arrest.)
5. We can be arrested if we display the Ten Commandments in a collection of other historic documents related to American law. (There are Four Supreme Cases creating this law.)
6. We can be arrested if our public cemetery has a planter in the shape of a cross, for if someone views that cross, it can cause emotional “distress.”
7. We can be arrested if our city seal includes one that depicts a religious element. (Six cases so declare this.)
8. We can be arrested if our nativity scene on public property is not “sufficiently” surrounded by non-religious secular displays able to make our religious one look less religious. (Judges for Five cases say so.)
9. We can be arrested if we or some other Christian, prays a public prayer that reflects personal faith and beliefs. (Judges say so in seven cases) [of course it is ok for Muslims to take over public streets in Yankee cities and blare their prayers and call to prayers over loud speakers, is it not?]
10. Even though a bill’s wording may be entirely constitutional, it the legislator’s INTENT is a religious one with a religious activity in mind, this is unconstitutional and somebody can be arrested. (Judges ruled so in one case.- Mind reading is evidently also a judicial skill.)
Riding the same judicial horse, we see judges scattered all over America telling us we are to be arrested if we:
1. Park on a state parking lot with a religious sticker on our bumper.
2. While presenting a military flag to the family of a fallen warrior say—even at the request of the family- God bless you and this family, and God bless the United States of America.”
3. Fail to obey the order of a Judge who in a DeFuniak Springs, Florida case, ordered that a copy of the Ten Commandments in the courthouse be covered so jurors will not be prejudiced against the defendant when they read “Do not Kill.”
4. If you are a senior citizen in Balch Spring, Texas eating in a community center and say a prayer over your food.
5. If you are a school employee and wear a small cross on a necklace in Russellville, Kentucky.
6. You can be arrested in Texas, Indiana, Ohio, Georgia and Nebraska for handing out religious literature on a public sidewalk or for preaching in public areas.
7. Saying words from the Bible can cause you trouble. In York, Pennsylvania, a jury sentence was overturned for a man who brutally clubbed to death a woman in her seventies because the prosecuting attorney mentioned seven words from the Bible.
8. You are a criminal, a law breaker if you, a student, include a religious image in your artwork. (Four judges so decreed this in different cases concerning Schuylerville, Jefferson County, and Baldwinsville.)
9. In Palm Beach County, student artists whose artwork containing symbols such as a cross or a Bible are to be treated as supporter of gang symbols, profanity and satanic signs.
10. Odd, indeed, is that fact that courts have ruled in NINE WESTERN STATES that public school must REQUIRE THREE WEEKS OF INDOCTRINATION IN THE ISLAMIC FAITH. All students MUST PRETEND THEY ARE MUSLIMS AND PRAY TO ALLAH. They are to be encouraged to take Islamic names, call each other by those names, wear Muslim garb, participate in JIHAD GAMES and read the Koran throughout the three weeks. The same Court ruled it unconstitutional for those students voluntarily to say “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance. (Two cases support these two laws.)
11. You can be arrested if you use a school PA system during a national crisis and ask students to pray for victims, or if you allow students to engage in student initiated and led classroom discussions concerning religion. A federally appointed monitor must be provided to ensure religious speech prohibition compliance. (One case determined this.)
12. Just forget fine art in historic paintings, If they depict anything religious, they must not be publically exhibited. You can be arrested for exhibiting them. (Two cases on this. [ I do remember when there was a infamous painting of Jesus Christ that was exhibited and despite public complaints was not removed from the exhibit despite the fact that it was openly declared to have been painted with urine.]
13. Ten Commandments may not be displayed in school because students on their own might read, mediate upon, respect or my goodness gracious me- obey them. [Five cases on this- ACLU is good at winning!]
14. Somebody can be arrested if a valedictorian mentions his own faith in his speech. That’s unconstitutional! That speech must be read and censored before it is presented (Four cases – four judges so order) .
15. No public school official can attend a Baccalaureate meeting in a religious building. (One case behind this law.)
16. No praying allowed in the opening or closing of a school graduation ceremony. (Six cases, six judges so ruled.
17. You can be arrested if you present to students the Declaration of Independence and other writings’ mentioning of the Creator. (Five judges have so ruled in five cases).
18. You can be arrested if you allow a classroom library to contain Christian books or a teacher to be seen with his personal Bible. (One judge so ruled in one case.)
19. It is unconstitutional for advertisers to include religious content in paid advertisements seen in school settings. (Three cases, three judges.)
20. It is illegal—unconstitutional—for anyone known as a Christian to deliver a secular speech in a public school—even if it an anti-drug speech and the speaker is a member of the President’s Drug Task Force.
21. It is illegal—unconstitutional—for a Kindergarten kid to ask what birthday is celebrated on Christmas. (Sioux Falls case- judge so ruled.)
22. You can be arrested if you display Christian holiday symbols. IT IS CONSTITUTIONAL FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS TO DISPLAY ISLAMIC AND JEWISH RELIGIOUS HOLDAY SYMBOLS, BUT NOT CHRISTIAN ONES. (SKOROS VS. CITY OF NEW YORK, 2006). [The Christmas tree, centuries back, was made popular by a Christian monk. Guess the judge in this case is ignorant of that truth or Christmas trees would also be banned. Jewish merchants, knowingly or unknowingly, certainly display the Christmas tree in their stores.]
There has been a major transformation in the practice of traditional Christian behaviors –causing the punishment of little school children for saying a prayer over lunch, or wearing a shirt that has “Jesus Christ” on it, or bringing a Bible to school. In Texas Children and their parents were threatened with having the kid picked up by Child Protective Services --because the kids had Ten Commandments book covers. Even valentines are declared illegal if they have a Christian message. Students in Dickson, Tennessee high school can write a paper on any topic-witchcraft, the occult, etc., but not about Jesus Christ unless they desire a 0 grade.
Anything Christian is now unconstitutional—according to the Supreme Court lawmaking politicians. Their now politically correct wishes have had an almost allegoric bomb-burst into being since the Everson decision in 1947. Brought full steam ahead from Europe to the United States in 1848 was the Hate the Religion plan to kill Christianity. The Supreme Court justices are making sure, at long last, that plan is fully implemented. Will Christians and all Americans who believe in the U.S. Constitution sit passively by and let nine black scavengers murder Christianity—kill Jesus again in America? If so, then get ready for the circuses wherein the Christians are thrown to the lions in order to entertain the voters while our great Republican-Democratic One World Order leaders lead our sovereign U.S. into extinction via membership in their New World Order.
by Al Benson Jr.
Recently a good friend of mine in New England sent me a copy of a new book just out, written by Arthur R. Thompson, present CEO of the John Birch Society. I am still working my way through the introduction after skimming several pages here and there throughout the book.
While I think there might be a couple of areas Mr. Thompson and I might disagree about, over all, this looks to me like a book worth reading and as I go, I will probably end up doing an article or two on what he brings out.
What immediately struck me when I got the book was the title, To The Victors Go The Myths and Monuments. In light of the cultural Marxist assault on our faith, flags, monuments and history here in the South over the past several years, especially in the last year or so, the title of the book sounded almost prophetic.
Over the years we’ve all heard the old remark that “the winners get to write the history books” and that’s true. No argument there. Problem is, that’s not as far as it goes. Not only do the winners get to write and promote their narrative of what happened, if they are vindictive enough (and the Yankee/Marxist IS a vindictive animal) they will try to change your whole culture, mindset, worldview, and not only yours, but also your children’s. If they are successful in erasing your unique culture from the minds and consciousness of your children, then your children, in a very real sense, become “their” children because they have conditioned them in regard to how they should think and reason. So most people in this situation end up losing more than they think.
The heinous onslaught against literally everything Confederate or Southern that started back in June of 2015 shocked so many Southern folks that they literally sat benumbed as it occurred, not sure what to make of it or do about it. The cultural Marxists had a field day before most Southern folks woke up. When some did awaken, they started to push back, and, all things considered, did a pretty good job for awhile. There were Confederate flag rallies and Confederate flag caravans on some major highways in the South, and Confederate flags went up all over the place. More in my area than ever I’d seen before and I have to admit they sure were pretty to look at.
However, the cultural Marxists, being if nothing else, keen students of human nature, anticipated all this. They realized that, after a certain point, their agenda would get pushback, and when it got to that point they stopped, sat down, and took a breather for the rest of the year. They knew what they were going to do. Their opposition mostly didn’t have a clue, so when the cultural Marxists backed off so did their opposition. The flags came down, the caravans ceased, the rallies ceased, and lots of Southern folks, thinking they’d won a victory of sorts, went home and rested on their laurels. The cultural Marxists had only stopped to take a breather, not to quit. The average Southerner where he was involved at all, went home, turned on the television and went back to sleep.
Guess what? This Spring it started all over again and if you are prone to watch the “news” on television or in what we laughingly refer to as the “newspapers” you can see, if you are perceptive at all, that this year is going to be a repeat performance of last year–only worse! The cultural Marxists she shifting into high gear again and most of the rest of us have yet to bestir ourselves. Always takes longer to get up and going on the second go-round. Takes longer to get psyched up to do it all over again, and some just never quite seem to make it. So the boob tube and the reality shows claim yet more cultural victims!
Much of this ran through my mind when I saw the title of Mr. Thompson’s new book. It was like I could hear the cultural Marxists telling us all “We’ve got you on the run now, and we WILL take down your flags, your monuments, rewrite your history, change your place names and street names, and when we get through, you won’t recognize anything anymore. Your culture and the memory of it will be erased and you will have no futurebecause you have allowed us to rewrite your past.”
So we need to ask ourselves–is this the legacy we want to leave our grandchildren? Only we can answer that question–and how we answer it will determine how much of what the Lord has given us we are willing to fight to preserve. So think about it. Pray about it–and do what the Lord would have you to do. And then get out and DO it!
By Thomas DiLorenzo
Re-posted from Lew Rockwell.com with Professor DiLorenzo's permission.
The problem with Hillary Clinton as a presidential candidate is not that she is a corrupt and dishonest politician, as her critics have charged. No, the problem with Hillary is that she is just as big a socialist as Bernie Sanders is. “We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good,” she announced to a San Francisco audience in 2004, echoing the Communist Manifesto
mantra, “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” “We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society,” she once proclaimed as First Lady. Such statements are a defining characteristic of the socialist philosophy: attacks on individualism in the name of the “common good” of “society” – always defined and enforced by politicians
, never by society as a whole. And like Sanders, she threatens “the rich” with even more onerous taxes to be used to subsidize the working class (“working families” in the neo-Marxist language of one of her television ads).
Hillary Clinton demonstrated her socialist credentials during the Democratic primary debates with the proud, self-described socialist Bernie Sanders. Whenever Sanders would excite the audiences of Democrats with Santa Claus-like promises of “free” healthcare, education, housing, welfare payments, and much else, Hillary’s response was to agree with him, promising to increase federal spending by more than $1 trillion over the next ten years. There was no disagreement over the principles of socialism, only the details.
A current fad among the socialists of Europe is to propose some kind of “basic” government-defined income for the entire population. Switzerland just voted down this latest money-for-nothing scheme. Naturally, Hillary is all on board with it, having proposed giving every baby born in America a $5000 account that would be invested and given to the child upon reaching the voting age of eighteen. George McGovern proposed a similar, $1000 “demogrant” in 1972, which was dismissed and ridiculed as socialistic nonsense and may well have caused him to lose the election to Richard Nixon.
In other words, Hillary is just as much a socialist as Bernie Sanders, only she doesn’t use the “S” word for marketing purposes. She prefers “progressive Democrat” instead, but that is not very convincing, even to many of her supporters. During a televised interview
with Chris Mathews, she was asked repeatedly what the difference was between a Democrat and a socialist. She refused to answer the question, implying to many that she probably believes that there is
no significant difference.
In the early 1990s Hillary Clinton was the main architect of what came to be known as “Hillarycare” – the Clinton administration plan to impose Soviet-style central planning on America’s healthcare sector. This gives us great insight into her vision of the role of government in the economy, and how she would like to see more and more American industries run – by dictates issued by thousands of anonymous bureaucrats paid for by the biggest tax increases in history and enforced by the heavy hand of the state.
Socialist central planning, as such, has always been a perfect recipe for the impoverishment of entire societies while at the same time enriching and empowering a small political ruling class elite. How else could the thirty-five-year-old daughter of the late Hugo Chavez, the onetime socialist ruler of Venezuela, become the wealthiest person in that country with a reported net worth of over $4 billion?
Hillarycare was a bureaucratic nightmare that would have forced most Americans to cancel their health insurance and obtain it from a government bureaucracy. It would have forced everyone to purchase a full array of government-defined benefits; it would have been managed from Washington by a board of seven presidential appointees and thousands of bureaucrats; access to physicians would have been restricted and controlled by bureaucrats, not patients; and all outside insurance plans would have been illegal.
Price controls on everything from doctors’ salaries to MRI machines would have caused pervasive shortages; the plan would have required massive tax increases, mostly on the lower and middle classes, causing huge job losses (600,000 in the first few years alone according to the Clinton administration itself at the time); 59 new federal bureaucracies would have been created with 20 others expanded; and hundreds of new regulatory mandates would have been imposed on healthcare providers.
Insurers would have been required to charge the same rates to everyone regardless of age or health, making a mockery of the very word “insurance.” Costly employer mandates would have forced employers to lower wages and benefits and/or lay off workers; and state governments would have been forced to become “purchasing alliances” for the federal bureaucracy’s central planning scheme.
Members of Congress and all federal employees were to be exempted from Hillarycare, however. Only the little people (i.e., everyone else) were to be corralled into socialized medicine.
The bizarre thing about “Hillarycare” is that it was an absurdly bureaucratic, Soviet-style central planning program that was promoted by the Clintons barely three years after the final collapse of socialism in the Soviet empire – a collapse caused primarily by the futility of attempting to centrally plan an economy through government “planning” instead of markets – just like “Hillarycare.”
Perhaps “Obamacare,” which has resurrected parts of “Hillarycare,” has been imposed on the American public because so much of it – primarily the younger generation – is unaware of the grotesque failures of twentieth-century socialism. They should look at the current economic implosion of Venezuela – the latest darling-of-the-Left “socialist paradise” – to learn some important lessons.
by Al Benson Jr.
After observing (and commenting) on this trend for several years now, I have been forced to draw the conclusion that what has loosely been described as “Civil Rights” has become nothing more than a Marxist vehicle for blatant discrimination against white folks. It is particularly insidious on college campuses, which many of our conservative and patriotic people spend big bucks sending their kids to–so they can be thoroughly indoctrinated in various leftist “isms” that they have spent much of their lives fighting against. We spend treasure and blood fighting against that which we realize is totally evil and then willingly hand our kids over to it for “educational” purposes and then we are shocked at the results. I would like to think that, at some point, our patriotic folks would start to “get it” but, increasingly, I am beginning to wonder if and when that will happen.
I read a brief but interesting article on http://www.truthandaction.org
about a black professor who has said we need to “dismantle and demolish whitness.” The article noted that: “The leftist bias of America’s university system is a well documented problem but people often overlook our country’s community colleges when critiquing the stranglehold liberalism has on higher education.” The article raises a point we need to consider.I have talked for years on and off to folks who sent their kids to community colleges because, often not only were they less expensive, but the kids came home at night instead of existing in a dormitory situation, so parents got at least some inkling of what went on. It seems that even that possibility is becoming out of date now.
The article observed that often, professors who can’t get or hold a job at regular four-year colleges end up at community colleges. The article stated: “If you thought liberal propaganda at universities was bad, at community colleges it’s even worse-if you can believe it. Take, for instance, Portland Community College’s James Harrison who is teaching our students that whites are somehow to blame for the sky-high crime rates committed by blacks. This is delusional anti-white bigotry at its finest, and it’s being taught at American schools as fact.” Are you even mildly surprised? Parents really need to start looking at where they send their kids to be “educated.” You need to do some homework regarding the faculty and where they are at and what courses they teach. That would be the shock of a lifetime for lots of folks.
So how does the black college professor plan to “dismantle and demolish” whiteness? I’m sure he has an agenda guaranteed to radicalize the students that are forced to sit under his leftist propaganda without their parents’ knowledge. Further, will he dismantle and cease using all the white inventions that help him in the preparation of his anti-white diatribes every day? Will he quit driving an automobile because it was invented by whites, or will he quit flying because Wilbur and Orville Wright were not black? What about the appliances in his home–his electric stove, his microwave oven, his television, his DVD player and all that other stuff invented by nasty white folks? In order to be consistent with his plan to “demolish” whiteness he really should quit using all this stuff and go back to what his illustrious ancestors used–right? Actually it doesn’t seem to quite work out that way. I know lots of black folks that constantly bemuse themselves with cell phones, phones that let them take “selfies” of themselves, and all manner of electronic bric-a-brac, all invented by white folks or oriental folks–none of it invented by black folks. I supposed that’s “whitey’s fault” too, along with those high black crime rates. In actuality, what these folks, most of them leftists, unintentionally or otherwise, really want is all the good things whites have invented and produced–if they could just get rid of us whites in the process!
I have often wondered, who do they think will invent, or repair all this good stuff when we are gone? Ive watched countries like Zimbabwe (formerly Rhodesia). When they had a white government the country had surplus food to export. Admittedly the white government wasn’t perfect. No government run by sinful humans of any color is. But are the people there better off now? Since Zimbabwe became a black dictatorship (and let’s don’t kid ourselves, that’s what it is) it, they have chased just about all the white farmers out and “redistributed” the land in classic Marxist fashion, to Mugabe’s good buddies, who don’t bother farming. The country is going hungry and they can’t figure out what the problem is. I submit it shouldn’t take a rocket scientist to figure it out, but then, why bother? Lots easier to just blame the white folks for all your problems and if you can’t, or won’t work at feeding yourselves, why it has to be “whiteys’ fault” even if blacks control all the farmland, right?
Same situation starting to occur in this country in cities like Baltimore and Ferguson. How many of the places we have had riots in recently that it’s claimed are due to “white privilege” have black governments, mayors and police chiefs? How do you blame whites for the mess that is now Detroit when they have had a black government for years? Well, all you have to do is to parrot that anti-white drivel to the complaint lapdog media and they will pick it up and run with it.
When we lived up in the abolitionist paradise that was New England years ago there was one city near us that practiced what they called “urban renewal.” They condemned a whole batch of property and took it over and put up all new housing for “the poor.” It was really nice looking when they got finished with it, but unfortunately, “the poor” totally trashed it within five years and it was back to being nothing more than a more modern version of the slum they had torn down to put it up. All “whitey’s” fault I’m sure!
I can see that it will take another article to finish this–there’s just too much material to deal with in one article, but you get the picture. White folks have invented most of the modern conveniences blacks can’t live without anymore but all their problems are are white mens faults.
It seems that most blacks have unknowingly bought into the Marxist class struggle agenda big time, at least since the start of the “Civil Rights” Movement. There is such a thing as personal responsibility and most haven’t seemed to learn that yet. There are black folks that do work hard and make a go of it and make a place for themselves in the world as Booker T. Washington advocated. I’m not talking about them. My concern is the ones who continue to play the “Civil Rights” blame game and have, in recent years, taken it to new heights, and my concern also is with white folks who are gullible enough to buy into this Marxist twaddle. You’ve had a black Marxist president for two terms now. How much better off is the country? Please don’t all answer at once–the silence would be deafening!
On May 19, the House of Reprehensibles passed a proposal that would essentially ban the display of Confederate flags from national cemeteries. The amendment was added to a Veteran Affairs spending bill.
Not surprisingly, House Speaker Paul Ryan allowed the measure to be voted upon in hopes of not disrupting the appropriations process. Yes, by all means Paul, the redistribution of taxpayers’ confiscated wealth should take precedent over a draconian attempt to eradicate a heroic symbol of the country’s past. Hopefully, Ryan will be ousted this November as both Speaker and Congressman for not only his consistent sell out to Obummer and the Democrats on the budget, but his lack of understanding and appreciation of what is arguably the most important period of American history.
In a certain sense, the Confederate flag should not be displayed in national cemeteries or for that matter flown alongside those of the Union. The two are representations of dramatically opposed political ideologies. Liberals and political opportunists of all sorts have deliberately smeared the South’s attempt at secession as being entirely over the issue of slavery. The “Civil War” (which that struggle has become known by) is now seen through Politically Correct hindsight.
A civil war, in the truest sense, is a conflict between factions attempting to gain control of a government typically for their own aggrandizement. The bloody conflict between the North and South was not that, nor was it solely over slavery although the institution played a role in it.
The Confederacy wanted no part of the Washington establishment at the time, which it believed had become too tyrannical, and attempted to secede from it. The remaining states of the North, under the “leadership” of Abraham Lincoln, prevented this at the cost of more than 600,000 lives, the vast destruction of property, and the impoverishment of a people who simply sought to rule themselves.
The South’s action was nearly identical to what the colonies, North and
South, did some 80 years previously in breaking away from the British Empire and becoming free and independent states under the benign rule of the Articles of Confederation.
As America’s Founding Fathers saw their liberties violated by King and Parliament, Southerners witnessed similar tyrannies and wisely anticipated more federal oppression with the election of Lincoln.
This interpretation has been ably supported by scholarship, though the view is rarely acknowledged in academia or in the mainstream media. In an essay from an insightful collection titled Secession, State and Liberty
, Donald Livingston persuasively describes the ideological content of the Declaration of Independence, the revolution it inspired, and its influence on the South’s leadership.
He writes: “Overall, the Declaration is an argument designed to justify the secession of the new self-proclaimed American states from the British state. . . [It] is a document justifying the territorial dismemberment of a modern state in the name of the moral right of a people to self-government.”*
The South, imbued with such logic and the example of the Revolutionary generation’s break with Great Britain, attempted to separate from the Union on similar grounds and, in Livingston’s view, had a much stronger claim than the Founding Fathers had for independence:
[T]he colonies were not and never had been recognized as sovereign states, either by others or even by themselves. At the time of the Civil War, however, the southern states had been and still were sovereign states, and so they could mount not only a moral argument but a legal one as well. And it was the legal argument they primarily insisted upon. Each state used the same legal form to secede from the Union that it has used to enter, namely, ratification in a convention of people.**
Although slavery was a part of the South’s final break with the North, the Confederacy could never have been built on such a narrow foundation. Those who seek to paint Southern secession as a movement solely designed to protect their “peculiar institution” have either misunderstood the genesis of that struggle or do so for political gain.
While Southern secession is mercilessly condemned by the Establishment, scholars like Professor Livingston see it and the War for Southern Independence in a much different and far nobler light: “With the orderly, legal secession of the southern states, the American genius for self-government reached its highest moral expression.”***
The Northern and Southern flags which fly in national cemeteries across the land are indeed representative of different traditions, but not what the Politically Correct crowd would have everyone to believe.
The defenders of Dixie and the flags that commemorate their courageous actions have long since been morally justified. The Union flag, on the other hand, has been one of aggression and domination, at first, brutally directed at its fellow countrymen who simply sought self-determination, and afterwards against millions of peoples from Vietnam to Iraq.
Hopefully, in the not too distant future as economic conditions worsen and American hegemony can no longer be maintained, the Union flag and the empire in which it represents will receive greater vitriol than the Confederate flag has gotten for its innumerable mass murders, destruction, crimes, and chaos which it has wantonly brought to every corner of the planet.
*David Gordon, ed., Secession, State & Liberty
. Donald W. Livingston, “The Secession Tradition in America.” New Brunswick (U.S.A.), Transaction Publishers, 1997, p. 7
By William J. Watkins Jr.
The media call it Brexit – a catchy term for the recent vote by citizens of the United Kingdom to leave the European Union. What actually happened was secession, and therein lies a lesson for the United States.
Americans are taught that political unions are everlasting and that secessionists are rebels and traitors who ought to be despised. Supreme Court Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase’s description in Texas v. White (1869) of the union as complete, perpetual and indissoluble is accepted constitutional dogma. Legal authorities, however, do not view secession in pejorative terms.
“Black’s Law Dictionary,” for example, defines secession as “the act of withdrawing from membership in a group.” In essence, a people simply remove themselves from the jurisdiction of a government or power. Britain did just that in the historic referendum of June 23, 2016.
Attitudes toward secession change over time as people find themselves in new and different circumstances. Two-hundred and forty years ago, British leaders waged war to prevent 13 North American colonies from leaving the empire and forming their own government. The colonists were described as “spoilt children” needing a good spanking from His Majesty’s armed forces.
This effort at discipline, for all practical purposes, ended at the Battle of Yorktown when Lord Cornwallis surrendered to George Washington. The united colonies successfully seceded from the British Empire and established the independence that had been declared in 1776. The American grievances that led to secession are remarkably similar to those expressed by Brexit proponents.
For example, Americans protested that a distant parliament passed laws governing the internal affairs of the colonies rather than leaving such matters to colonial legislatures. The British feel the same way about the EU’s central government in Brussels regulating such minutiae as the length of imported bananas and the electric conductivity of honey.
Americans complained about judiciary laws that required the accused to be tried in London rather than at home by a jury of his peers. Brexiters inveighed against the European Court of Justice adjudicating cases on principles alien to the ancient British constitution.
Americans resented mercantilist economic policies that enriched the Mother Country at the expense of her colonies. The British voters resented sending millions of pounds to Brussels to be used to prop up the ailing economies of various Eurozone countries.
President Obama took the exceptional step of meddling in British internal affairs by urging a vote to remain in the EU. He further threatened that if the United Kingdom did leave, it should not expect the U.S. to rush negotiating a trade treaty or to provide any other form of aid.
President Obama likely opposed Brexit because he prefers centralization and fears that one or more of the states in the American union might rediscover the principles of self-determination. Indeed, several American states, upon ratifying the Constitution of 1787, declared that the powers delegated to the national government would be recalled if the new government became oppressive.
For instance, the Virginia ratifying convention averred that “the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness.” According to Dumas Malone, an American historian and Pulitzer Prize winner, in the early republic “there was nothing particularly startling in the idea that the Union was dissoluble, and threats against it were common.”
The case made by the Brexiters against the EU could easily be made by a state against the national government in Washington, D.C. Congressional statutes and regulations issued by administrative agencies govern the most mundane and local matters.
The Supreme Court claims final say on the Constitution and even forbids states from defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman – the accepted definition for millennia. The people of the states are taxed to help fund a wasteful welfare-warfare state that has accumulated a debt of $19 trillion.
Brexit is yet another reminder that secession is not a dirty word. A people have the fundamental right to remove themselves from the jurisdiction of a political authority and to establish their own government. It is a principle we would do well to remember as our national government becomes more incompetent, intrusive and domineering.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/07/why-secession-is-not-a-dirty-word/#jLUPb0TTQ55CCpwB.99
by Al Benson Jr.
You can tell that the history destroyers had a busy couple weeks during the end of May, and it didn’t all happen in Dixie.
I read three separate articles yesterday (June 1st) about vandalism in cemeteries–all in the North. In Dixie we have grown used to this sort of thing. There are ugly people down here that, in some twisted way, seem to think they are doing humanity a service if they vandalize and destroy anything they remotely perceive as being “Confederate.” They remind me of those that Jesus spoke of in Scripture when he talked about those that would kill Christians and think they were doing God a service. Such is their “contribution” to humanity–it’s all they really know how to do. Should they somehow end up holding an intelligent position on anything they really can’t debate it with any genuine opposition, so they destroy what they hate because they can’t legitimately defend what they love–which in many cases, is indefensible.
As it turns out, the North also has some of these history destroyers. The three articles I read dealt with vandalism in cemeteries in Massachusetts, New York, and Michigan–not exactly the heart of Dixie! In Hartwick, New York they damaged lights and more the 50 headstones, many of them more than a century old.
In Uxbridge, Massachusetts police are looking for vandals that damaged headstones in a town cemetery. Many were toppled and others broken into pieces. The police think they may have a photo of the two involved, probably young males, both with darker hair.
And in Michigan, in Flat Rock, south of Detroit, there were headstones broken in a cemetery that was the original burial site of a Revolutionary War soldier and his family, but other family descendants who fought in other wars are also buried there. I did see a photo of this one and some of those broken headstones are old ones and they don’t look like they were easy to break. Someone went to a lot of effort to create this destruction.
So you have to wonder, what sort of hatred motivates people to this sort of wanton destruction? Do they hate history, any history at all, and those remembrances of it? In the South that’s usually the way it is. The history destroyers hate our history, faith, and culture, all of which they would dearly love to change and obliterate so they can replace it with their version of “history” which is really a perversion of what actually happened. The Marxist class struggle agenda has been played like a fiddle here in the South, thanks to much of what has passed for “history” in institutions of public “learning.” Blacks have been taught to hate everything white (except white Marxists), via the “Civil Rights” Movement and their own leadership has betrayed them by selling out to the white Marxists for whatever they could get. Rather then helping their people to get a leg up economically and learn skills that would help them prosper in the world, they have concentrated their efforts on denigrating and destroying anything white or, Heaven forbid, Confederate. Lots easier to destroy than it is to build and it gets better headlines from the “news” media too.
I’m sure lots of white folks in the North whose historical knowledge is zilch have looked at what has happened down here with the attempted destruction of our culture and said “Well, serves those redneck racists right.” Only problem is that they are starting to get some of the same treatment up there and they’re not real happy about that. All these cemetery vandalism accounts I’ve mentioned took place during the latter half of the month of May this year. You almost begin to wonder if they put something in the water up there along with the fluoride. What happened during the last half of May that turned these history destroyers loose? I think you are going to start to see more of this in the North, just like you are going to see more of it here in the South as the year moves on. The cultural Marxist ethnic cleansing agenda is far, far from over, and anyone that took his Confederate flag down last year because he thought it was all over when the cold weather came should maybe consider putting it back up again. Maybe some of the patriotic folks in the North should start trying to find some pre-War Between the States flags and start flying them to commemorate their history. It is a given that if our history and heritage in the South is to be under attack, then they day will come, soon or late, when the same thing will happen up North. It’s already beginning if you take the trouble to look.
The day may even come when Northern patriots, with their heritage under siege, would like to get some assistance from the folks in the South in defending their pre-War history. We in the South would have appreciated some understanding and assistance from Northern folks last year, but we’ve learned to do mostly without. And here again, I’m not talking about the good Northern folks who do have some appreciation for the South and what it stood for (not slavery, you had that in the North, too. You just got rid of it a little earlier than we did).
Before all this history and culture destruction is done all areas of the country will be under cultural Marxist siege, the intent of which is to totally destroy our history, faith, and heritage as both Northerners and Confederates. They want it all gone and the day is coming when they will savage Revolutionary War monuments and flags every bit as much as they are not doing to Confederate flags and monuments. All of us are, or will be, under attack from the cultural Marxists because the destruction of our culture is a main part of their agenda, be it done from New York, Washington, or Atlanta. We are in a culture war and we had better wake up to that fact! The history destroyers are out to cut all our historic and cultural throats and we had better wake up and start learning how to deflect the knife
by Al Benson Jr.
Last June after that “useful idiot” in Charleston shot those black folks in their church the country erupted in a “spontaneous” attack on all things Southern and Confederate. It was like a gigantic psy-ops campaign nationwide and I’m sorry, but spontaneous it wasn’t. It was only spontaneous if you believed the “news” (what a laugh) media.
At any rate, Southern folks resisted, fought back, and there was a whole batch of Confederate flag rallies around the South and flag caravans on some major highways, like I-20 right here in Louisiana and others. Confederate flags went up all over the place, in places you’d never seen one before, and the backs of pickup trucks carried them and it was great to see them all because they represented resistance to the cultural Marxist agenda.
But then things quieted down, the cultural Marxists backed off a little as the summer wore on and by the time autumn was upon us most of the Confederate flags had come back down and the pickup trucks didn’t sport them anymore. Things went back to normal, whatever that is anymore, and people went back to political slumber. What most people don’t realize is that this is a classic Marxist tactic–attack until you meet significant resistance and at that point back down because you’ve gone as far as you can, so back off and throw your adversaries off guard. And it usually works. It worked last year. It works because once people get stirred up about something and resist it you can throw them off guard by just quitting for awhile and letting them quit and take a breather. You know you will be back and they don’t. Once they go back to sleep you slap them in the face with round two and it’s that much harder for them to get remobilized and back to resistance and so you make hay while they are picking themselves off the couch. I noted last year that this is what would happen and it did. The cultural Marxists have come out of their corner fighting and our side is just now beginning to wake up and realize that this isn’t over. Eternal vigilance is something we are not conditioned to practice anymore.
Just this week our side has gotten slammed with something almost every day and from what I can see, we’ve barely started to respond yet.
I read an article on http://www.wdrb.com
about a petition being circulated to remove a statue of Jefferson Davis from the Capitol Rotunda in Kentucky and replacing him with a monument or statue of Muhammad Ali. Former State Treasurer Jonathan Miller is pushing this agenda and he wants Davis gone and Ali in. So he wants to replace a statue of a practicing Christian with a monument to a Muslim. Whether you realize it or not, this changes the history your kids get to view. One less statue of a Christian Southerner and one more monument to a Muslim. Washington, D.C. has to love it!
On the heels of this there was another article about the National Cathedral in Washington preparing to remove part of some of their stained glass windows because they have Confederate flags on them and they feel they can no longer have windows that portray “racist” symbols. The Confederate flags will be replaced with plain glass. I’m a little surprised they don’t want a Hammer & Sickle up there. The National Cathedral is run by the Episcopal Church. Now I grew up in the Episcopal Church and my wife and I attended it until 1971 when they started giving money to the Black Panthers and we decided we could no longer put money in the collection plate on Sunday that financed what we were opposed to the other six days of the week. We felt, at that point, that the Church had been taken over by liberals. Little did we realize at the time that it was really cultural Marxism and that it had been going on for decades. That knowledge came later. And, as we are talking about “racist” symbols, what about all those slave ships from New England that flew “Old Glory” when they went to Africa to buy slaves off black African chieftains? What about the Episcopalians in New England that made big bucks off the slave trade? Were they “racist?”
Then someone sent me a photo on Face Book this week of a man on a motorcycle in a parade in Saratoga Springs, New York on Memorial Day. The man had a big Confederate flag on the back of his motorcycle. I don’t know how he got into the parade, but from some of the comments in the article with the photo I almost got the impression that the folks that saw it were scared stiff at seeing a Confederate flag. You could almost, from their comments, see them running for home so they could lock themselves in and that nasty old flag couldn’t get in and scare them. I mean, my heavens, folks, it’s a flag. It will not do you bodily harm. It must take massive doses of propaganda to make people afraid of a piece of cloth! This is almost the Twilight Zone anymore.
There was another article about the cultural Marxists trying to get a Confederate monument somewhere in Maryland taken down. They tried last year and the town council voted against it and so they were back this year again and again the town council voted to leave the monument alone. You can bet the cultural Marxists will be back next year and they may even try running someone for the town council that will vote their way, because they don’t quit. We do. They don’t.
Those that wish to keep at least some of their history and culture have got to start learning to fight back and to keep on fighting back. I know I’ve said this all before but it’s no less true now than it was last year. Had we managed to keep up our resistance last year we may well have blunted some of their efforts this year because when they came out for round two we would already have been there, ready for them instead of asleep. We have to learn how they think and we have to learn how to resist them on a continual basis. Until we do that they will keep on winning and we will continue to fight a rear-guard action that eventually loses us our history, faith, culture and heritage. So wake up, get your Confederate flags back up and learn to resist because, as I’ve said before, the history and heritage you save may be your grandchildren’s.
By Francie Latour - September 26, 2010
In the year 1755, a black slave named Mark Codman plotted to kill his abusive master. A God-fearing man, Codman had resolved to use poison, reasoning that if he could kill without shedding blood, it would be no sin. Arsenic in hand, he and two female slaves poisoned the tea and porridge of John Codman repeatedly. The plan worked — but like so many stories of slave rebellion, this one ended in brutal death for the slaves as well. After a trial by jury, Mark Codman was hanged, tarred, and then suspended in a metal gibbet on the main road to town, where his body remained for more than 20 years.
It sounds like a classic account of Southern slavery. But Codman’s body didn’t hang in Savannah, Ga.; it hung in present-day Somerville, Mass. And the reason we know just how long Mark the slave was left on view is that Paul Revere passed it on his midnight ride. In a fleeting mention from Revere’s account, the horseman described galloping past “Charlestown Neck, and got nearly opposite where Mark was hung in chains.” When it comes to slavery, the story that New England has long told itself goes like this: Slavery happened in the South, and it ended thanks to the North. Maybe we had a little slavery, early on. But it wasn’t real slavery. We never had many slaves, and the ones we did have were practically family. We let them marry, we taught them to read, and soon enough, we freed them. New England is the home of abolitionists and underground railroads. In the story of slavery—and by extension, the story of race and racism in modern-day America—we’re the heroes. Aren’t we?
As the nation prepares to mark the 150th anniversary of the American Civil War in 2011, with commemorations that reinforce the North/South divide, researchers are offering uncomfortable answers to that question, unearthing more and more of the hidden stories of New England slavery—it’s brutality, its staying power, and its silent presence in the very places that have become synonymous with freedom. With the markers of slavery forgotten even as they lurk beneath our feet—from graveyards to historic homes, from Lexington and Concord to the halls of Harvard University—historians say it is time to radically rewrite America’s slavery story to include its buried history in New England.
“The story of slavery in New England is like a landscape that you learn to see,” said Anne Farrow, who co-wrote “Complicity: How the North Promoted, Prolonged, and Profited From Slavery” and who is researching a new book about slavery and memory. “Once you begin to see these great seaports and these great historic houses, everywhere you look, you can follow it back to the agricultural trade of the West Indies, to the trade of bodies in Africa, to the unpaid labor of black people.” It was the 1991 discovery of an African burial ground in New York City that first revived the study of Northern slavery. Since then, fueled by educators, preservationists, and others, momentum has been building to recognize histories hidden in plain sight. Last year, Connecticut became the first New England state to formally apologize for slavery. In classrooms across the country, popularity has soared for educational programs on New England slavery designed at Brown University. In February, Emory University will hold a major conference on the role slavery’s profits played in establishing American colleges and universities, including in New England. And in Brookline, Mass., a program called Hidden Brookline is designing a virtual walking tour to illuminate its little-known slavery history: At one time, nearly half the town’s land was held by slave owners.
“What people need to understand is that, here in the North, while there were not the large plantations of the South or the Caribbean islands, there were families who owned slaves,” said Stephen Bressler, director of Brookline’s Human Relations-Youth Resources Commission. “There were businesses actively involved in the slave trade, either directly in the importation or selling of slaves on our shores, or in the shipbuilding, insurance, manufacturing of shackles, processing of sugar into rum, and so on. Slavery was a major stimulus to the Northern economy.” Turning over the stones to find those histories isn’t just a matter of correcting the record, he and others say. It’s crucial to our understanding of the New England we live in now.
“The absolute amnesia about slavery here on the one hand, and the gradualness of slavery ending on the other, work together to make race a very distinctive thing in New England,” said Joanne Pope Melish, who teaches history at the University of Kentucky and wrote the book “Disowning Slavery: Gradual Emancipation and ‘Race’ in New England, 1780-1860.” “If you have obliterated the historical memory of actual slavery—because we’re the free states, right?—that makes it possible to turn around and look at a population that is disproportionately poor and say, it must be their own inferiority. That is where New England’s particular brand of racism comes from.” Dismantling the myths of slavery doesn’t mean ignoring New England’s role in ending it. In the 1830s and ’40s, an entire network of white Connecticut abolitionists emerged to house, feed, clothe, and aid in the legal defense of Africans from the slave ship Amistad, a legendary case that went all the way to the US Supreme Court and helped mobilize the fight against slavery. Perhaps nowhere were abolition leaders more diehard than in Massachusetts: Pacifist William Lloyd Garrison and writer Henry David Thoreau were engines of the antislavery movement. Thoreau famously refused to pay his taxes in protest of slavery, part of a philosophy of civil disobedience that would later influence Martin Luther King Jr. But Thoreau was tame compared to Garrison, a flame-thrower known for shocking audiences. Founder of the New England Anti-Slavery Society and the newspaper The Liberator, Garrison once burned a copy of the US Constitution at a July Fourth rally, calling it “a covenant with death.” His cry for total, immediate emancipation made him a target of death threats and kept the slavery question at a perpetual boil, fueling the moral argument that, in time, would come to frame the Civil War.
But to focus on crusaders like Garrison is to ignore ugly truths about how unwillingly New England as a whole turned the page on slavery. Across the region, scholars have found, slavery here died a painfully gradual death, with emancipation laws and judicial rulings that either were unclear, poorly enforced, or written with provisions that kept slaves and the children born to them in bondage for years. Meanwhile, whites who had trained slaves to do skilled work refused to hire the same blacks who were now free, driving an emerging class of skilled workers back to the lowest rungs of unskilled labor. Many whites, driven by reward money and racial hatred, continued to capture and return runaway Southern slaves; some even sent free New England blacks south, knowing no questions about identity would be asked at the other end. And as surely as there was abolition, there was “bobalition” — the mocking name given to graphic, racist broadsides printed through the 1830s, ridiculing free blacks with characters like Cezar Blubberlip and Mungo Mufflechops. Plastered around Boston, the posters had a subtext that seemed to boil down to this: Who do these people think they are? Citizens?
“Is Garrison important? Yes. Is it dangerous to be an abolitionist at that time? Absolutely,” said Melish. “What is conveniently forgotten is the number of people making a living snagging free black people in a dark alley and shipping them south.” Growing up in Lincoln, Mass., historian Elise Lemire vividly remembers learning of the horrors of a slaveocracy far, far away. “You knew, for example, that families were split up, that people were broken psychologically and kept compliant by the fear of your husband or wife being sold away, or your children being sold away,” said Lemire, author of the 2009 book “Black Walden,” who became fascinated with former slaves banished to squatter communities in Walden Woods. As she peeled back the layers, Lemire discovered a history rarely seen by the generations of tourists and schoolchildren who have learned to see Concord as a hotbed of antislavery activism. “Slaves [here] were split up in the same way,” she said. “You didn’t have any rights over your children. Slave children were given away all the time, sometimes when they were very young.”
In Lemire’s Concord, slave owners once filled half of town government seats, and in one episode town residents rose up to chase down a runaway slave. Some women remained enslaved into the 1820s, more than 30 years after census figures recorded no existing slaves in Massachusetts. According to one account, a former slave named Brister Freeman, for whom Brister’s Hill in Walden Woods is named, was locked inside a slaughterhouse shed with an enraged bull as his white tormentors laughed outside the door. And in Concord, Lemire argues, black families were not so much liberated as they were abandoned to their freedom, released by masters increasingly fearful their slaves would side with the British enemy. With freedom, she said, came immediate poverty: Blacks were forced to squat on small plots of the town’s least arable land, and eventually pushed out of Concord altogether—a precursor to the geographic segregation that continues to divide black and white in New England. “This may be the birthplace of a certain kind of liberty,” Lemire said, “but Concord was a slave town. That’s what it was.”
If Concord was a slave town, historians say, Connecticut was a slave state. It didn’t abolish slavery until 1848, a little more than a decade before the Civil War. (A judge’s ruling ended legal slavery in Massachusetts in 1783, though the date is still hotly debated by historians.) It’s a history Connecticut author and former Hartford Courant journalist Anne Farrow knew nothing about—until she got drawn into an assignment to find the untold story of one local slave. Once she started pulling the thread, Farrow said, countless histories unfurled: accounts of thousand-acre slave plantations and a livestock industry that bred the horses that turned the giant turnstiles of West Indian sugar mills. Each discovery punctured another slavery myth. “A mentor of mine has said New England really democratized slavery,” said Farrow. “Where in the South a few people owned so many slaves, here in the North, many people owned a few. There was a widespread ownership of black people.” Perhaps no New England colony or state profited more from the unpaid labor of blacks than Rhode Island: Following the Revolution, scholars estimate, slave traders in the tiny Ocean State controlled between two-thirds and 90 percent of America’s trade in enslaved Africans. On the rolling farms of Narragansett, nearly one-third of the population was black—a proportion not much different from Southern plantations. In 2003, the push to reckon with that legacy hit a turning point when Brown University, led by its first African-American president, launched a highly controversial effort to account for its ties to Rhode Island’s slave trade. Today, that ongoing effort includes the CHOICES program, an education initiative whose curriculum on New England slavery is now taught in over 2,000 classrooms.
As Brown’s decision made national headlines, Katrina Browne, a Boston filmmaker, was on a more private journey through New England slavery, tracing her bloodlines back to her Rhode Island forebears, the DeWolf family. As it turned out, the DeWolfs were the biggest slave-trading family in the nation’s biggest slave-trading state. Browne’s journey, which she chronicled in the acclaimed documentary “Traces of the Trade: A Story from the Deep North,” led her to a trove of records of the family’s business at every point in slavery’s triangle trade. Interspersed among the canceled checks and ship logs, Browne said, she caught glimpses into everyday life under slavery, like the diary entry by an overseer in Cuba that began, “I hit my first Negro today for laughing at prayers.” Today, Browne runs the Tracing Center, a nonprofit to foster education about the North’s complicity in slavery. “I recently picked up a middle school textbook at an independent school in Philadelphia, and it had sub-chapter headings for the Colonial period that said ‘New England,’ and then ‘The South and Slavery,’” said Browne, who has trained park rangers to talk about Northern complicity in tours of sites like Philadelphia’s Liberty Bell. “Since learning about my family and the whole North’s role in slavery, I now consider these things to be my problem in a way that I didn’t before.”
If New England’s amnesia has been pervasive, it has also been willful, argues C.S. Manegold, author of the new book “Ten Hills Farm: The Forgotten History of Slavery in the North.” That’s because many of slavery’s markers aren’t hidden or buried. In New England, one need look no further than a symbol that graces welcome mats, door knockers, bedposts, and all manner of household decor: the pineapple. That exotic fruit, said Manegold, is as intertwined with slavery as the Confederate flag: When New England ships came to port, captains would impale pineapples on a fence post, a sign to everyone that they were home and open for business, bearing the bounty of slave labor and sometimes slaves themselves. “It’s a symbol everyone knows the benign version of—the happy story that pineapples signify hospitality and welcome,” said Manegold, whose book centers on five generations of slaveholders tied to one Colonial era estate, the Royall House and Slave Quarters in Medford, Mass., now a museum. The house features two carved pineapples at its gateposts. By Manegold’s account, pineapples were just the beginning at this particular Massachusetts farm: Generation after generation, history at the Royall House collides with myths of freedom in New England—starting with one of the most mythical figures of all, John Winthrop. Author of the celebrated “City Upon a Hill” sermon and first governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, Winthrop not only owned slaves at Ten Hills Farm, but in 1641, he helped pass one of the first laws making chattel slavery legal in North America.
When the house passed to the Royalls, Manegold said, it entered a family line whose massive fortune came from slave plantations in Antigua. Members of the Royall family would eventually give land and money that helped establish Harvard Law School. To this day, the law school bears a seal borrowed from the Royall family crest, and for years the Royall Professorship of Law remained the school’s most prestigious faculty post, almost always occupied by the law school dean. It wasn’t until 2003 that an incoming dean—now Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan—now turned the title down. Kagan didn’t publicly explain her decision. But her actions speak to something Manegold and others say could happen more broadly: not just inserting footnotes to New England heritage tours and history books, but truly recasting that heritage in all its painful complexity.
“In Concord,” Lemire said, “the Minutemen clashed with the British at the Old North Bridge within sight of a man enslaved in the local minister’s house. The fact that there was slavery in the town that helped birth American liberty doesn’t mean we shouldn’t celebrate the sacrifices made by the Minutemen. But it does mean New England has to catch up with the rest of the country, in much of which residents have already wrestled with their dual legacies of freedom and slavery.”
Francie Latour is an associate editor at Wellesley magazine and a former Globe reporter.
Uncle Seth Fought the Yankees by James Ronald Kennedy. Stories not previously published—Uncle Seth’s stories are taken from actual accounts of individuals who witnessed or participated in the adventures.
It was late winter and Uncle Seth and the boys were out at the barn getting some nubbins and larger ears of corn out of the corn crib to feed to the mules. Winters in south-central Mississippi were generally mild. The farm animals usually did not need too much extra feeding to get through the winter. Farmers in the area would usually keep an eye on their mules and cattle to make sure their “fat layer” was sufficient to keep them warm and carry them through until the spring grass emerged. Uncle Seth and the boys were feeding the mules and milk cows—milch cows as Uncle Seth correctly referred to them. All they really needed was a small amount just to make sure they would come in to the stomp-lot every evening. Uncle Seth and the boys would inspect each animal; mules and milk the cows; and if they had work that required a mule the next day they would close the gate in order to keep the mules in the stomp-lot overnight. “Now boys,” Uncle Seth shouted, “you all make sure that you break those large ears of corn in half before you give them to the mules—they can handle the nubbins alright but those darn fool mules will chock themselves to death trying to eat one of those ears of corn whole.” Uncle Seth had found a cozy place to sit in the corn crib. The boys came in and began climbing on the huge mound of corn pilled high in the crib. Uncle Seth eyed the pill of corn thinking to himself that there should be enough corn to last through ‘til next fall’s corn harvest. “Boys,” the old Confederate veteran announced, “I remember a fight we had in a corn crib in February of 1864 up in Lake Village, Arkansas—just a little ways up river from Vicksburg, Mississippi.” The boys slid down from the top of the corn coming to rest next to Uncle Seth and waited for him to begin his story. “I was with a group of Missourians who were a part of Captain Tuck Thorp’s Company E. Elliot’s Battalion, of Joe Shelby’s brigade. About twenty-four of us had been detailed to a small town in southeast Arkansas about twenty-five miles from the Louisiana state line. The town was Lake Village, I believe it is in Chicot County.” “The Yankees under General Grant were attacking Vicksburg, Mississippi and were busy shelling Confederate military positions as well as civilian population areas. It was so bad the people in Vicksburg had to leave their homes and dig bomb-proofs into the side of the hills to avoid being killed in their homes by the United States navy on the river and the United States army on the hills surrounding Vicksburg.” “Things were rather boring for us—we could hear the bombardment at Vicksburg but there were no action for us. Then on Valentine Day some citizens came in and reported to Captain Thorp that some of the Yankees who had been attacking Vicksburg had steamed up river and landed troops at the Tecumseh plantation owned by Joe Johnson. Joe was well known in that part of Arkansas for his Indian War adventures. The Yankees were looking for forage and were planning to empty the three corn cribs on the plantation before burning the house and barns. Captain Thorp called us together and told us that we would be outnumbered and it was up to us to decide to go or not go—to a man we all voted to go!” (continued on page 7) Uncle Seth Fought the Yankees by James Ronald Kennedy Stories not previously published—Uncle Seth’s stories are taken from actual accounts of individuals who witnessed or participated in the adventures. Chasing Yankees Out of the Corn Crib 7 “The plantation had three corn cribs and we did not know which one they would be in or if they would be in all three when we arrived. We traveled through three miles of canebrakes and then came out on a well-traveled road that took us by the slave quarters and a cotton gin. As we turned the corner we came face to face with a Yankee carrying a bushel basket full of corn. A Yankee standing next to him immediately raised his Enfield and fired at us and we immediately returned the fire but no one, Yankee or Confederate, was hit on that initial exchange but every Yankee there knew the Confederates had crashed their looting party. Several of us dismounted, drew our navy revolvers and rushed into the corn crib. Before the Yankees could grab their weapons we cut them down—all except a few who jumped out of the crib window. The other Yankees came a-running and formed into a small battle line in the stomp-lot—almost ready to do battle. Before they could get completely organized one of our boys, Ben Krigler, opened the gate to the stomp-lot and the rest of the Missourians charged down on the Yankees. Our boys were using their Colt navy pistols with effect, Yankees dropped right and left as they rode through the invaders. In less than two minutes after clearing the gate the Yankees were dead, wounded, or surrendered.” “Every soldier there did their duty that day—the Missourians were hundreds of miles from home but they never hesitated to do their duty in defense of our country’s freedom. Neither a man nor horse on our side was killed or wounded. Just shows that numbers are not always the determining factor in a fight,” Uncle Seth said in conclusion. The old Confederate veteran always liked to point out to the young generation of Southerners the fact that numbers alone are not always the deciding factor. He hoped that one day new generations of Southerners would realize that even though the Yankee Empire was larger than the South—the South still deserved to be free—and numbers alone could not prevent the rise of freedom if the people truly believed in themselves and their right to be free.