<![CDATA[The Confederate Society of America - The Condederate Society blog]]>Sat, 27 May 2017 08:25:51 -0700Weebly<![CDATA[After the Confederates who's next?]]>Fri, 26 May 2017 15:38:20 GMThttp://deovindice.org/the-condederate-society-blog/after-the-confederates-whos-nextPicture
​By Patrick J. Buchanan

On Sept. 1, 1864, Union forces under Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman, victorious at Jonesborough, burned Atlanta and began the March to the Sea where Sherman’s troops looted and pillaged farms and towns all along the 300-mile road to Savannah.

Captured in the Confederate defeat at Jonesborough was William Martin Buchanan of Okolona, Mississippi, who was transferred by rail to the Union POW stockade at Camp Douglas, Illinois.

By the standards of modernity, my great-grandfather, fighting to prevent the torching of Georgia’s capital, was engaged in a criminal and immoral cause. And “Uncle Billy” Sherman was a liberator.

Under President Grant, Sherman took command of the Union army and ordered Gen. Philip Sheridan, who had burned the Shenandoah Valley to starve Virginia into submission, to corral the Plains Indians on reservations.
It is in dispute as to whether Sheridan said, “The only good Indian is a dead Indian.” There is no dispute as to the contempt Sheridan had for the Indians, killing their buffalo to deprive them of food.

Today, great statues stand in the nation’s capital, along with a Sherman and a Sheridan circle, to honor these most ruthless of generals in that bloodiest of wars that cost 620,000 American lives.
Yet, across the South and even in border states like Kentucky, Maryland and Missouri, one may find statues of Confederate soldiers in town squares to honor the valor and sacrifices of the Southern men and boys who fought and fell in the Lost Cause.

When the Spanish-American War broke out, President McKinley, who as a teenage soldier had fought against “Stonewall” Jackson in the Shenandoah and been at Antietam, bloodiest single-day battle of the Civil War, removed his hat and stood for the singing of “Dixie,” as Southern volunteers and former Confederate soldiers paraded through Atlanta to fight for their united country. My grandfather was in that army.

For a century, Americans lived comfortably with the honoring, North and South, of the men who fought on both sides.
But today’s America is not the magnanimous country we grew up in.

Since the ’60s, there has arisen an ideology that holds that the Confederacy was the moral equivalent of Nazi Germany and those who fought under its battle flag should be regarded as traitors or worse.

Thus, in New Orleans, statues of Jefferson Davis, president of the Confederate States of America, and General Robert E. Lee were just pulled down. And a drive is underway to take down the statue of Andrew Jackson, hero of the Battle of New Orleans and president of the United States, which stands in Jackson Square.

Why? Old Hickory was a slave owner and Indian fighter who used his presidential power to transfer the Indians of Georgia out to the Oklahoma Territory in a tragedy known as the Trail of Tears.

But if Jackson, and James K. Polk, who added the Southwest and California to the United States after the Mexican-American War, were slave owners, so, too, were four of our first five presidents

The list includes the father of our country, George Washington, the author of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, and the author of our Constitution, James Madison.

Not only are the likenesses of Washington and Jefferson carved on Mount Rushmore, the two Virginians are honored with two of the most magnificent monuments and memorials in Washington, D.C.

Behind this remorseless drive to blast the greatest names from America’s past off public buildings, and to tear down their statues and monuments, is an egalitarian extremism rooted in envy and hate.

Among its core convictions is that spreading Christianity was a cover story for rapacious Europeans who, after discovering America, came in masses to dispossess and exterminate native peoples. “The white race,” wrote Susan Sontag, “is the cancer of human history.”

Today, the men we were taught to revere as the great captains, explorers, missionaries and nation-builders are seen by many as part of a racist, imperialist, genocidal enterprise, wicked men who betrayed and eradicated the peace-loving natives who had welcomed them.

What they blindly refuse to see is that while its sins are scarlet, as are those of all civilizations, it is the achievements of the West that are unrivaled. The West ended slavery. Christianity and the West gave birth to the idea of inalienable human rights.

As scholar Charles Murray has written, 97 percent of the world’s most significant figures and 97 percent of the world’s greatest achievements in the arts, architecture, literature, astrology, biology, earth sciences, physics, medicine, mathematics and technology came from the West.
What is disheartening is not that there are haters of our civilization out there, but that there seem to be fewer defenders.
Of these icon-smashers it may be said: Like ISIS and Boko Haram, they can tear down statues, but these people could never build a country.

What happens, one wonders, when these Philistines discover that the seated figure in the statue, right in front of D.C.’s Union Station, is the High Admiral of the Ocean Sea, Christopher Columbus?
Happy Memorial Day!

]]>
<![CDATA[Confederate's (monuments) under continued assault]]>Tue, 23 May 2017 14:52:19 GMThttp://deovindice.org/the-condederate-society-blog/confederates-monuments-under-continued-assaultDear Confederate brothers and sisters:

Myself and others have been "Sounding the Shofar" so to speak - warning about this mess since the NAACP issued their 1991 declaration against all things Confederate. Fact is, the writing was on the wall even before I was born. What we are witnessing today wasn't a matter of "if" but "when."
 
Below is what I submitted to the Salisbury, NC City Council back in 2015 when they were strongly pressed to remove and replace its Confederate Monument. Stonewall Jackson's widow attended the unveiling of that statue back in 1910. -- JW
 
______________________________________________________________________________________________________

​Council Member,
 
The following information is in response to various groups calling for the removal of the Confederate monument on Innes St. When one considers the mountain of issues plaguing Salisbury, sanitizing history that hurts future generations should never be a priority.
 
One remark I read in the Salisbury Post claimed this is about "reconciliation." I submit that not only has reconciliation occurred, laws were passed as the result of nearly a century of reconciliation. I ask that you consider a partial listing of the reconciliation events which led to Congressional and Presidential recognition, as well as the State Legislature currently considering a Monument Protection Bill. I ask that you not succumb to the "flash mob" frenzy sweeping the South. I ask that you not join the likes of Stalin, Hitler, and ISIS in eradicating history. I ask that probity and reason prevail over misguided passion to insure the sacrifice made by so many to achieve collective reconciliation is preserved.
 
Respectfully submitted,
 
James Ward
GySgt / USMC (ret.)
Salisbury, NC
 
______________________________________________________________________________
 
Reconciliation events followed by resulting laws and Presidential Proclamation: 
 
1. Following the Spanish-American War, which saw former Confederates serving under US colors again, the world began to look at us as a "super power."
 
2. Recognizing the need to bind old wounds to achieve this status, the government and the north started giving back flags and other captured equipment.
 
3. President Wilson appointed former disenfranchised Confederates to official posts such as Post Master General.
 
4. Confederate Veterans were enlisted to teach our "doughboys" the Rebel Yell battle cry, though unfortunately, these young troops could not duplicate the three-tone yell.
 
5. After WWI, many military bases were named after Confederate Generals, like Fort Lee, Fort Jackson, and Fort Hood, just to name a few. Again, this was part of the spirit of reconciliation by courting Southern sentiment thus drawing more Southern men as US troops.
 
6. President Roosevelt sent the President's Own Marine Band to play at the only "out of South" United Confederate Veterans Reunion in Colorado. He also gave remarks at the unveiling of the Robert E. Lee memorial statue in Dallas, TX. - recognizing Lee as one of America's greatest Christians and one of America's greatest gentlemen.
 
7. Southern men distinguished themselves in every war following the American Civil War, with more men serving from the South than any other sector of the country.
 
8. US Code 38, passed by the 85th Congress in 1958 and signed into law in 1959 by President Eisenhower, effectively gave all Confederate Veterans the same rights and privileges as US Veterans.
 
9. In 1960, President Eisenhower affixed his seal to a proclamation recognizing 1961-1965 as the Centennial of the American Civil War. Part of the proclamation recognized the "men who became soldiers as good as any who ever fought under any flag."
 
10. Tactics and strategies by Confederate Generals are still studied at Military colleges such as West Point and Virginia Military Institute.
 
11. Possibly the final note regarding reconciliation occurred at Arlington House, Arlington, VA. on Aug. 5th, 1975 when President Ford signed Senate Joint Resolution 23, restoring the citizenship of General Robert Edward Lee. Among the many acknowledgements, President Ford said the following regarding Lee:
 
As a soldier, General Lee left his mark on military strategy. As a man, he stood as the symbol of valor and of duty. As an educator, he appealed to reason and learning to achieve understanding and to build a stronger nation. The course he chose after the war became a symbol to all those who had marched with him in the bitter years towards Appomattox. General Lee's character has been an example to succeeding generations, making the restoration of his citizenship an event in which every American can take pride.
 
This reconciliation period led up to the Congressional Act of 9 March 1906, U.S. Public Law 810 Approved by 17th Congress 26 February 1929, and the final crown of reconciliation with U.S. Public Law 85-425: Sec. 410 Approved 23 May 1958.
 
______________________________________________________________________________
 
Congressional Act of 9 March 1906
We Honor Our Fallen Ancestors
(P.L. 38, 59th Congress, Chap. 631-34 Stat. 56)
Authorized the furnishing of headstones for the graves of Confederates who died, primarily in Union prison camps and were buried in Federal cemeteries.
Remarks: This act formally reaffirmed Confederate soldiers as military combatants with legal standing. It granted recognition to deceased Confederate soldiers commensurate with the status of deceased Union soldiers.
 
U.S. Public Law 810, Approved by 17th Congress 26 February 1929
(45 Stat 1307 – Currently on the books as 38 U.S. Code, Sec. 2306)
This law, passed by the U.S. Congress, authorized the “Secretary of War to erect headstones over the graves of soldiers who served in the Confederate Army and to direct him to preserve in the records of the War Department the names and places of burial of all soldiers for whom such headstones shall have been erected.”
 
Remarks: This act broadened the scope of recognition further for all Confederate soldiers to receive burial benefits equivalent to Union soldiers. It authorized the use of U.S. government (public) funds to mark Confederate graves and record their locations.
 
U.S. Public Law 85-425: Sec. 410 Approved 23 May 1958
 
Confederate Iron Cross
(US Statutes at Large Volume 72, Part 1, Page 133-134)
The Administrator shall pay to each person who served in the military or naval forces of the Confederate States of America during the Civil War a monthly pension in the same amounts and subject to the same conditions as would have been applicable to such person under the laws in effect on December 31, 1957, if his service in such forces had been service in the military or naval forces of the United States.
 
Remarks: While this was only a gesture since the last Confederate veteran died in 1958, it is meaningful in that only fifty-seven years ago, the Congress of the United States saw fit to consider Confederate soldiers as equivalent to U.S. soldiers for service benefits. This final act of reconciliation was made almost one hundred years after the beginning of the war and was meant as symbolism more than substantive reward.
 
Additional Note by the Critical History: Under current U.S. Federal Code, Confederate Veterans are equivalent to Union Veterans.
 
__________________________________________________________________
 
By the President of the United States of America
A Proclamation

The years 1961 to 1965 will mark the one-hundredth anniversary of the American Civil War.
That war was America's most tragic experience. But like most truly great tragedies, it carries with it an enduring lesson and a profound inspiration. It was a demonstration of heroism and sacrifice by men and women of both sides who valued principle above life itself and whose devotion to duty is a part of our Nation's noblest tradition.
Both sections of our now magnificently reunited country sent into their armies men who became soldiers as good as any who ever fought under any flag. Military history records nothing finer than the courage and spirit displayed at such battles as Chickamauga, Antietam, Kennesaw Mountain, and Gettysburg. That America could produce men so valiant and so enduring is a matter for deep and abiding pride.

The same spirit on the part of the people at home supported and strengthened those soldiers through four years of great trial. That a Nation which contained hardly more than thirty million people, North and South together, could sustain six hundred thousand deaths without faltering is a lasting testimonial to something unconquerable in the American spirit. And that a transcending sense of unity and larger common purpose could, in the end, cause the men and women who had suffered so greatly to close ranks once the contest ended and to go on together to build a greater, freer, and happier America must be a source of inspiration as long as our country may last.

By a joint resolution approved on September 7, 1957 (71 Stat. 626), the Congress established the Civil War Centennial Commission to prepare plans and programs for the nationwide observances of the one-hundredth anniversary of the Civil War, and requested the President to issue proclamations inviting the people of the United States to participate in those observances.

Now, Therefore, I, Dwight D. Eisenhower, President of the United States of America, do hereby invite all of the people of our country to take a direct and active part in the Centennial of the Civil War.
I request all units and agencies of government--Federal, State, and local--and their officials to encourage, foster, and participate in Centennial observances. And I especially urge our Nation's schools and colleges, its libraries and museums, its churches and religious bodies, its civic, service, and patriotic organizations, its learned and professional societies, its arts, sciences, and industries, and its informational media, to plan and carry out their own appropriate Centennial observances during the years 1961 to 1965; all to the end of enriching our knowledge and appreciation of this momentous chapter in our Nation's history and of making this memorable period truly a Centennial for all Americans.

In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the United States of America to be affixed.
DONE at the City of Washington this sixth day of December in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and sixty, and of the Independence of the United States of America the one hundred and eighty-fifth.

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER
By the President:
CHRISTIAN A. HERTER
Secretary of State]]>
<![CDATA[Good News From Alabama After New Orleans’ Political Correctness]]>Mon, 22 May 2017 14:34:08 GMThttp://deovindice.org/the-condederate-society-blog/good-news-from-alabama-after-new-orleans-political-correctness​by Al Benson Jr.
Many of us have watched, almost dumbstruck, at the rampant cultural genocide being displayed in New Orleans. The cultural Marxists there, from the mayor on down, have simply run amuck, basically doing what they wanted the way they wanted. To label them as culture destroyers is almost too charitable. I am sure that, along with myself, many others would describe their activities and personalities in language that I would hesitate to have reproduced in this article.
Their execrable attempts at the total destruction of Southern and Confederate history and heritage almost border on the insane–but then, they are cultural Marxists, so I guess that is par for the course.
An article on http://constitution.com for May 20th was quite perceptive. It noted: “The left has spent countless decades attempting to vilify the South by publicly shaming them for slavery that ’caused the Civil War’ when, in fact, the war itself was truly and unequivocally a result of northern lawmakers’ attempts to sabotage the sovereignty provided by states’ rights was the nation continued westward in Manifest Destiny.” The fact that all the original thirteen colonies, north and south, had slaves at one point is never mentioned, nor is the fact that some slave states remained in the Union while Lincoln supposedly “fought to free the slaves.” The Establishment, educational and otherwise, does not want us to dwell too much on such facts, and so, in this regard, in our day and age, most “history” books lie to us.
The Constitution article noted: “In this quest to keep Southerners under their thumb, and under the auspices of ‘political correctness’ liberals the nation over have begun demanding that statues, monuments, and celebrations with Confederate subject matter be swept under the rug or destroyed all together. It is the epitome of revisionist history, and it is a menace to our nation’s future.” And don’t think the cultural Marxists are not aware of that. They are, because such is their agenda. Those people want to destroy your culture and your children’s future, and what’s more, they want to enjoy themselves doing it!
So while they have “made hay while the moon shines” in New Orleans, they have not done quite so well in Alabama. The Constitution article tells us: “Alabama lawmakers on Friday approved sweeping protections for Confederate monuments, names and other historic memorials,…The measure ‘would prohibit the relocation, removal, alteration, renaming, or other disturbance of any architecturally significant building, memorial street, or monument that has stood on public property for 40 or more years,’ it reads.”
The article noted that “African-American lawmakers opposed the bill at every step of the legislative process,  saying it solidifies a shameful legacy of slavery.” This line of bull is one of the few weapons the political left has and they have used it so often for so long that the luster is beginning to wear off the sword. One of those opposed to this bill was Hank Sanders, a well-known leftist from Selma. he and his daughter, Rose,  were instrumental in trying to keep the Nathan Bedford Forrest bust on Confederate Circle in Selma from being put back up after someone had stolen it. They were unsuccessful with that effort, too, but it sure wasn’t for lack of trying. If, as the Constitution article said, “African-American lawmakers” opposed this bill, you have to wonder how many of the African-American lawmakers in Alabama are leftists. Maybe someone in Alabama can do some kind of study on that.
It should have occurred to most Southern folks by now that those trying to destroy our monuments and eventually our culture,  are leftists of one stripe or another–liberals who don’t have the guts to become outright communists, as well as socialists, fascists,  and those who are outright communists, along with all manner of “useful idiots” who, in their exalted brilliance, just don’t know the difference and are naive enough to still think, in spite of world history, that communism is actually an expression of “peace and freedom.” Then there are those trying to destroy our heritage who are actually being paid by certain Elitist groups to do it. I won’t mention any names here, but the head of one (or several) of these groups has a last name with only five letters in it and he worked for the Nazis during World War 2.
Folks, we have got to get it through our heads that these are not just ordinary people with a different viewpoint than ours, people you can sit down and dialogue with over your differences. These people have an agenda that calls for your destruction culturally, and eventually probably physically once they feel they have the power. Their agenda will never be dialogue with you–it will always be your ultimate destruction.
This new bill in Alabama is resistance to their program. They understand that. Resistance is one thing they do understand. Praise God that Alabama has done what she did in this instance. The rest of the Southern states, those not thoroughly co-opted by the left and the Deep State, need to start doing the same thing. If their watch-word is “destruction” then ours needs to be “resistance.”
The Constitution article also noted that the monuments in New Orleans are being removed “at the behest of left-leaning groups.” So you and your culture are basically under communist assault. This is not just a batch of local black folks that want equal treatment at the local level–this is a communist assault on our culture and we had better wake up and grasp that fact pretty soon!
]]>
<![CDATA[“Hey, Hey, Ho, Ho” Cultural Marxist Doublespeak]]>Tue, 09 May 2017 15:25:42 GMThttp://deovindice.org/the-condederate-society-blog/hey-hey-ho-ho-cultural-marxist-doublespeak​by Al Benson Jr.

According to http://www.nola.com for May 4th, the Joan of Arc statue on Decatur Street in New Orleans had the phrase Tear it Down sprayed in black paint on its base. The nature of the spray paint job has been thought by some to relate to the ongoing cultural Marxist purge of all things Confederate currently in progress there. Of course there is always the possibility that those who are attacking Confederate heritage don’t even realize that Joan of Arc lived in France in the 15th century and had nothing at all to do with the War of Northern Aggression.

The web article noted here stated: “But the statue of Joan of Arc, a 15th century military leader, martyr and Catholic saint, hasn’t been mentioned in the controversy to this point.” The key words in this sentence are “to this point.” Remember that!
The writer of the article said: “There is no connection between the “Tear it Down” tag and the Take Em Down NOLA organization, one of its leaders said…Malcolm Suber said TED members had nothing to do with the graffiti.”  “Joan of Arc is not on our radar,” Suber said. Well, not yet anyway. But didn’t these same people want the Andrew Jackson statue removed also? Or was that a supposedly “separate” group of cultural Marxists? The groups seem to proliferate so fast it gets hard after awhile to keep track of who wants what torn down. Andy Jackson didn’t have anything to do with the War of Northern Aggression either. He died 15 years before it started. But the folks that wanted (and still want) Jackson’s statue removed claimed taking his statue down would be a major stroke against “white supremacy.” So why wouldn’t the identical critique apply to Joan of Arc? After all, she was white and Christian and, in all honesty, folks, nowadays that’s the only criteria need to be branded as a white supremacist. If you read what some of these rather odd college professors today are spouting, you realize that, in their convoluted thinking, anyone born white is automatically a flaming racist and white supremacist–except them naturally. Somehow they seem to have escaped that malignancy that the entire rest of the white race is afflicted with. Either that or in their traitorous sellout of their race they feel they are exercising the  proper repentance for having been born white.

So you will have to pardon me if I can’t quite buy the collegiate swill they sprinkle over our kids while we pay big bucks to let them do it. Sure they hate Confederate flags, symbols, monuments, etc. But these people hate anything white and/or Christian.

When they holler “Hey, Hey, Ho, Ho, Western Civ. has got to go” what they are really saying is that white, Christian civilization needs to be gotten rid of. That is their ultimate target. The fact that many of them from overseas would still be living in grass huts somewhere, were it not for Christian civilization,  seems to escape them. Without western Christian civilization they would not be here and would not have the opportunity to get foundation money to carry on their anti-white war games.

As far as “racism” goes, the old saying applies–“it takes one to know one.”

They all want to celebrate their cultures while destroying ours, and those white folks that feel guilty about being white and are willing to go along with this ethnic cleansing of their own race are not even up to the level of being reprehensible.
The whole cultural Marxist agenda is about the destruction of western, Christian civilization. Give those people the chance and that is what they will do to you. What do you tell your children then–when they ask you why didn’t you stand up and do something? You need to begin to realize where these people are coming from. Sure they want to demolish Confederate and Southern culture. That’s the first step. And you folks who won’t stand up and help us defend our Confederate heritage will one day find that, when the cultural Marxists have gotten rid of us, they will come after you–and there won’t be anyone left to help you. What will you do then???
]]>
<![CDATA[The Hard Hand of War]]>Fri, 05 May 2017 15:42:29 GMThttp://deovindice.org/the-condederate-society-blog/the-hard-hand-of-war
By Brion McClanahan
The Abbeville Institute

On Easter Sunday, April 16, 1865, Union forces under the command of General James Harrison Wilson attacked, captured, and sacked Columbus, GA in the last major battle of the War east of the Mississippi. Wilson’s campaign began in North Alabama and quickly moved South.
By this point in the War, Alabama could offer little resistance. Even the great Forrest could not stop Wilson at Selma. The “army” defending Columbus–like Forrest’s army at Selma–was little more than young boys and old men. Hastily constructed forts on the Alabama side of the Chattahoochee River were unmanned.

The Battle of Columbus began well enough for the Confederate defenders. They duped the Union cavalry into trying to cross a bridge packed with oil soaked cotton bales. As the Union charged the position, a Confederate battery overlooking the bridge opened fire and the bales were set ablaze. This temporarily halted the assault, but when the rest of the cavalry showed up later that day, Wilson decided on a night attack.
The Union army ultimately overwhelmed their disoriented and disorganized foes and the occupied the city. Much has been made of Sherman’s “March to the Sea” in 1865, but very few are aware of Wilson’s Alabama campaign and the “hard hand of war” in the Yellowhammer State or the Battle of Columbus.
Historians Joseph Danielson and Charles Misulia have brought this little-known companion to Sherman’s swath of destruction to light.

Danielson begins his narrative in of the Union occupation of North Alabama in 1862. His picture of defiant Southern belles and recalcitrant civilians meshes nicely with Gary Gallagher’s portrayal of Southern nationalism and morale in his Confederate War. Daielson explains that while the Union army initially adopted a conciliatory policy in relation to Southern property and civil liberties, that soon gave way to tough measures after Southern civilians bristled at “Lincoln’s hordes.” Union soldiers began ransacking houses, stealing goods, and confiscating food. By 1864, one North Alabama woman remarked that Union soldiers had left her “poor children [with] nothing but a little piece of fried middling, and bread and water.” Fall harvests were seized while many Union soldiers walked away with clothes and shoes from helpless Southern women.

This story was repeated many times across the hills of North Alabama. Southern women who believed that a chivalric code would protect them from attack soon found out that Union soldiers did not subscribe to the same standards as their Southern men. “Lincoln’s hordes” took liberties with Southern women, burned their homes, and subjected them to physical violence. Their crime: supporting their men in the cause of independence. Their resolve was so strong that Union soldiers often marveled that it was the women, not the men, who were the most ardent patriots in North Alabama. If anyone were to read Drew Gilpin Faust’s nonsensical The Creation of Confederate Nationalism, they would believe that Southern women failed to support the cause and instead took to rioting across the South to find bread that had been confiscated by the Confederate government. Danielson has done much to dispel that myth.
Danielson concludes that “For a region where no major battle had occurred, the Confederate people, towns, and countryside suffered greatly.” Women chided their men for surrendering, took to bed out of grief, and refused to write in their journals for months after the war was over.

The hard hand of Union military occupation eventually transitioned to a punishing campaign across the State which culminated in the Battle of Columbus on Easter Sunday 1865.
Misulia provides a thorough blow by blow narrative of the event and its aftermath. Once the Confederate army failed in its defense of the city, the Union cavalry proceeded to loot and destroy anything of value, including almost every mill and factory in town. The only exception was the city’s grist mill. Wilson and his men occupied the finest homes in town, destroyed several bank vaults to steal now worthless Confederate money, tore apart storefronts in an effort to secure jewelry and clothing, and walked off with livestock and other valuables. The great conflagration of the city began when careless soldiers began detonating the thousands of pounds of munitions they captured in the raid. Some raiding also took place in the surrounding areas. Present day Phenix City was looted while many slaves looked on in horror as “ugly haired” men raided their plantations. One slave recalled, “they just rambled through the house a-cussin’ an’ a-carryin’ on, an’ breakin’ up all the dishes. The ole master, he run away.”

Alcohol fueled much of this thuggish behavior, and while Misulia argues that most of the soldiers behaved themselves, the simple fact that so much destruction was leveled on the city says more about Union command that the Union soldiers themselves. Wilson not only condoned their behavior, he encouraged it, as did General Ormsby M. Mitchel who oversaw Union occupation of North Alabama. The plundering began at the top.

These crimes are often brushed aside as a regrettable but necessary part of war. George W. Bush era crony Karl Rove praised the Union war effort in a review of Danielson’s book, calling the Confederate soldier the “enemy.”
Rove’s opinion is indicative of a larger problem, one that a careful reading of both Danielson’s and Misulia’s books can correct. Danielson is not pro-South, far from it, but he honestly portrayed Union actions in North Alabama. Misulia is not a professional historian which gives him an advantage over the academic crowd: he does not have to answer to the overlords of acceptable opinion in American history departments. Both books correct the notion that Southerners were traitors who deserved the beating they took, that the Union army was a virtuous band of moral crusaders, and that the majority of Southerners were duped by the plantation oligarchy into fighting and supporting a war they did not want. Certainly Rove did not gather this from the book, but his Republican colored glasses hid the real tragedy of the conflict.
Antebellum Southerners were Americans who had a different vision of American government and society, and the War set the South back both physically and economically for decades. Did any group of Americans deserve that? And if not, could there have been another way? Perhaps the “hard hand of war” imposed upon the South by “Lincoln’s hordes” was unnecessary. At the very least, Americans should consider it barbaric, but that would require a reassessment of the modern American historical narrative.
]]>
<![CDATA[Is Secession a Solution to Cultural War?]]>Fri, 05 May 2017 15:33:05 GMThttp://deovindice.org/the-condederate-society-blog/is-secession-a-solution-to-cultural-warPicture









By 
Patrick J. Buchanan

reprinted from Lew Rockwell.com
As the culture war is about irreconcilable beliefs about God and man, right and wrong, good and evil, and is at root a religious war, it will be with us so long as men are free to act on their beliefs.
Yet, given the divisions among us, deeper and wider than ever, it is an open question as to how, and how long, we will endure as one people.
After World War II, our judicial dictatorship began a purge of public manifestations of the “Christian nation” that Harry Truman said we were.
In 2009, Barack Obama retorted, “We do not consider ourselves to be a Christian nation.” Secularism had been enthroned as our established religion, with only the most feeble of protests.

One can only imagine how Iranians or Afghans would deal with unelected judges moving to de-Islamicize their nations. Heads would roll, literally.
Which bring us to the first culture war skirmish of the Trump era.
Taking sides with Attorney General Jeff Sessions against Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, the president rescinded the Obama directive that gave transgender students the right to use the bathroom of their choice in public schools. President Donald Trump sent the issue back to the states and locales to decide.
While treated by the media and left as the civil rights cause of our era, the “bathroom debate” calls to mind Marx’s observation, “History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce.”
Can anyone seriously contend that whether a 14-year-old boy, who thinks he is a girl, gets to use the girls’ bathroom is a civil rights issue comparable to whether African-Americans get the right to vote?
Remarkably, there was vigorous dissent, from DeVos to returning this issue to where it belongs, with state and local officials.
After yielding on the bathroom question, she put out a statement declaring that every school in America has a “moral obligation” to protect children from bullying, and directed her Office of Civil Rights to investigate all claims of bullying or harassment “against those who are most vulnerable in our schools.”
Now, bullying is bad behavior, and it may be horrible behavior.
But when did a Republican Party that believes in states rights decide this was a responsibility of a bureaucracy Ronald Reagan promised but failed to shut down? When did the GOP become nanny-staters?
Bullying is something every kid in public, parochial or private school has witnessed by graduation. While unfortunate, it is part of growing up.
But what kind of society, what kind of people have we become when we start to rely on federal bureaucrats to stop big kids from harassing and beating up smaller or weaker kids?
While the bathroom debate is a skirmish in the culture war, Trump’s solution — send the issue back to the states and the people there to work it out — may point the way to a truce — assuming Americans still want a truce.
For Trump’s solution is rooted in the principle of subsidiarity, first advanced in the 1891 encyclical Rerum Novarum by Pope Leo XIII — those social problems are best resolved by the smallest unit of society with the ability to resolve them.
In brief, bullying is a problem for parents, teachers, principals to deal with, and local cops and the school district if it becomes widespread.
This idea is consistent with the Republican idea of federalism — that the national government should undertake those duties — securing the borders, fighting the nation’s wars, creating a continental road and rail system — that states alone cannot do.
Indeed, the nationalization of decision-making, the imposition of one-size-fits-all solutions to social problems, the court orders emanating from the ideology of judges — to which there is no appeal — that is behind the culture wars that may yet bring an end to this experiment in democratic rule.
Those factors are also among the primary causes of the fever of secession-ism that is spreading all across Europe and is now visible here.
Consider California. Democrats hold every state office, both Senate seats, two-thirds of both houses of the state legislature, 3 in 4 of the congressional seats. Hillary Clinton beat Trump 2-to-1 in California, with her margin in excess of 4 million votes.
Suddenly, California knows exactly how Marine Le Pen feels.
And as she wants to “Let France Be France,” and leave the EU, as Brits did with Brexit, a movement is afoot in California to secede from the United States and form a separate nation.
California seceding sounds like a cause that could bring San Francisco Democrats into a grand alliance with Breitbart.
A new federalism — a devolution of power and resources away from Washington and back to states, cities, towns and citizens, to let them resolve their problems their own way and according to their own principles — may be the price of retention of the American Union.
Let California be California; let red state America be red state America.


]]>
<![CDATA[Pass Confederate History Month in Georgia and Other Southern States]]>Mon, 24 Apr 2017 14:56:08 GMThttp://deovindice.org/the-condederate-society-blog/pass-confederate-history-month-in-georgia-and-other-southern-statesPicture
Savannah Rep. Jesse Petrea and the other sponsors of a bill to create Confederate History Month in Georgia should do so post haste in the name of historical truth. Other Southern States should do so as well.

Not only should the Georgia legislature pass Petrea's bill, they should guarantee that the Southern view of the War Between the States is presented unashamedly in Confederate History Month because it has not been told fairly or truthfully in a long time.

What has been taught for the past few decades is a politically correct fraud that supports the racist identity politics of the Democrat Party. It nowhere resembles truth.

One of the most prominent American historians to ever live, Eugene Genovese (Roll, Jordan, Roll, et al.) said in 1994:

"The history of the Old South is now often taught at leading universities, when it is taught at all, as a prolonged guilt-trip, not to say a prologue to the history of Nazi Germany. . . . To speak positively about any part of this Southern tradition is to invite charges of being a racist and an apologist for slavery and segregation. We are witnessing a cultural and political atrocity."

Dr. Genovese goes on to say that this cultural and political atrocity is being forced on us by "the media and an academic elite."

The Savannah Morning News just proved Dr. Genovese correct in their editorial of March 26, 2017 entitled "Teach more than myth on the Confederacy".

I am going to expose some of the deceit of the Savannah Morning News below but first, let me mention that my book, Slavery Was Not the Cause of the War Between the States, The Irrefutable Argument. (218 footnotes, 207 sources in the bibliography, 86 sample pages on www.BonnieBluePublishing.com) makes the "conclusive case" that slavery was not the cause of the war.

Dr. Clyde N. Wilson, Emeritus Distinguished Professor of History of the University of South Carolina and primary editor of the Papers of John C. Calhoun writes about my book:

"Historians used to know - and it was not too long ago - that the War Between the States had more to do with economics than it did with slavery. The current obsession with slavery as the “cause” of the war rests not on evidence but on ideological considerations of the present day. Gene Kizer has provided us with the conclusive case that the invasion of the Southern States by Lincoln and his party (a minority of the American people) was due to an agenda of economic domination and not to some benevolent concern for slaves. This book is rich in evidence and telling quotations and ought to be on every Southern bookshelf."

Please buy my book and get it into the hands of legislators across the South who can craft legislation to get historical truth out there and stop the PC fraud parading as history today.

When these bills are crafted, they must guarantee that the Southern view of the causes of the War Between the States is presented. This history can not be told by academia and the news media, which have proven themselves to be complete frauds out for their own political advantage and not the truth of history.

These bills should guarantee that organizations such as the Sons of Confederate Veterans oversee the history or at least have significant input. The Sons of Confederate Veterans is descended from the United Confederate Veterans founded in the 1890s by soldiers who fought for the South: doctors, lawyers, generals, legislators, the most brilliant people in the South including legions of average soldiers whom I might remind people are AMERICAN VETERANS.

The Confederacy was the Confederate States of AMERICA.

Confederate soldiers are American soldiers whose ancestors fought the British in the American Revolution and won our independence. They deserve the same respect as all American soldiers.

I gave a radio interview that was broadcast live March 21st on iHeart station WHO in Des Moines, Iowa with Jan Mickelson. Just click this link which Mickelson entitled:

"Was the Civil War about Slavery?"

The condescending Savannah Morning News warns Rep. Petrea and the other sponsors of Confederate History Month in Georgia that they must preach the version of history promoted by the Savannah Morning News, and if they don't, they "should be ashamed of themselves for trying to perpetuate a distorted view of history with no care for the ignorance they spread or the pain they cause million of Georgians who wish the Confederacy would die, once and for all, or at least not be glorified."

The Savannah Morning News wishes the Confederacy would die once and for all.

The Southern history which they hate belongs to 80,000,000 Americans alive today who are descended from people who endured the invasion and destruction of the South by the Union Army for no reason except that the South wanted to govern itself.

Maybe the Savannah Morning News should read its own pages from the time period of the War Between the States. The Savannah Morning News was founded in 1850. There is no question that the Savannah Morning News of the 1850s to the 1970s would tell a far more truthful story of Southern history than its politically correct iteration of today.

In fact, Georgians should do research and publish the words of the Savannah Morning News when it was more truthful, and contrast those words with the politically correct Savannah Morning News of today.

It is provable beyond the shadow of a doubt that the North did not go to war to end slavery or free the slaves. They went to war to preserve the Union as Abraham Lincoln said over and over. The Union was essential to the North because their economy was dependent on manufacturing for the South and shipping Southern cotton. They became rich and powerful doing so. Without the South, the North was dead.

Without the North, the South was in great shape with control of the most demanded commodity on the planet: cotton.

Southerners seceded because they were fed up with Northern hate and terrorism such as promoted by John Brown and lauded in the North, as well as the Republican Party's adoption of Hinton Helper's The Impending Crisis which called for the throats of white Southerners to be cut. The Republican Party printed hundreds of thousands of The Impending Crisis and distributed them to all corners of the country.

Southerners were not about to be ruled over by terrorists who hated them and wanted their throats cut.

That was a far more motivational factor than slavery, which was totally protected by the Constitution and in no danger in the Union.

The no-extension-of-slavery-in-the-West argument makes the North look moral but it was not moral, it was racist. Northerners did not want slavery in the West because they did not want blacks in the West. There is overwhelming proof to this effect. Northern anti-slavery included mostly people who wanted tariffs, bounties and subsidies for their business, or free land in the West. Historian Charles P. Roland said "There was a significant economic dimension in the Northern antislavery sentiment" and "a racial factor contributed to the Northern attitude" because:

"Many Northerners objected to the presence of slavery in their midst, in part, because they objected to the presence of blacks there."

Most Northern and Western states including Lincoln's Illinois had laws on the books forbidding free blacks from living there or even being there longer than a few days. Historian David M. Potter states that Northern anti-slavery was "not in any clear-cut sense a pro-Negro movement but actually had an anti-Negro aspect and was designed to get rid of the Negro."

So, let's look closer at the Savannah Morning News editorial.

They cherry-pick that tired old Cornerstone quote of Alexander Stephens, who, by the way, was a Unionist who did not even want to secede. People should read that entire speech because it is as brilliant as any ever written in American history on our foundation, constitution, etc.

The Savannah Morning News states:

"The Confederacy's 'cornerstone rests upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man. Slavery - subordination to the superior race - is his natural and normal condition,' the newly named vice president of the Confederacy, Alexander H. Stephens of Georgia, explained in an 1861 speech in Savannah."

Abraham Lincoln states:

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause] - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."

This comes from Lincoln's Charleston, Illinois speech of Saturday, September 18, 1858, as quoted in black scholar Lerone Bennett's great book: Forced Into Glory: Abraham Lincoln's White Dream (Chicago: Johnson Publishing Company, 2000), 208.

What is the difference in Lincoln and Stephens? There isn't any, but nobody wants to stop studying Lincoln or tear his monuments down.

Lincoln strongly favored the Corwin Amendment which left black people in slavery forever, in places where slavery existed, even beyond the reach of Congress.

And Lincoln favored recolonizing blacks back to Africa his whole life. He wrote in the Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation of September, 1862 that "recolonization efforts would continue." This was three months before the actual Emancipation Proclamation, and speaking of the Emancipation Proclamation, it freed no slaves or few.

The Emancipation Proclamation deliberately left almost a million blacks in slavery in the five Union slave states - YES, I said UNION SLAVE STATES because when the guns of Fort Sumter sounded, there were more slave states in the Union (eight, soon to be nine) than in the Confederacy (seven).

Four slave states fought for the North throughout the war (Maryland, Delaware, Missouri and Kentucky), and West Virginia came into the Union as a slave state during the war. This alone proves that ending slavery was not the mission of the North or cause of the war. If it had been, the North would have freed the slaves in its own country before worrying about the South.

Maybe the Savannah Morning News should talk about why the Emancipation Proclamation did not free any slaves and indeed left almost a million black people in slavery in the Union slave states. The EP specifically exempted the Union slave states and other areas from freeing their slaves. It freed only the slaves in places where Lincoln had no control. Charles Dickens laughed at Lincoln as did his own secretary of state, William H. Seward, who said "We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free."

The Savannah Morning News talks about Georgia's Declaration of the Causes of Secession:

"That's a lengthy discourse of complaints, mostly related to the North's attempts to curtail slavery. When the document gets around to a simple list of reasons, the first is this: Northern "rulers. . . have outlawed $3,000,000,000 of our property," meaning slaves."

That's fake history to go along with SMN's fake news.

The Georgia Declaration of Causes of Secession is talking about slavery in the West and the whole statement is "they have outlawed $3,000,000,000 of our property in the common territories of the Union;".

Outlawing slavery in the West was an insult to Southerners because the states are supposed to be equal, and arguably, more Southern than Northern blood and treasure had been spent winning the Western lands, where slavery was legal.

As stated, the North was not trying to curtail slavery so they could help black people but because they were racists, by today's standard, who did not want slavery in the West because they did not want blacks in the West.

The Savannah Morning News should mention that too.

Besides, slavery was not extending into the West. One historians called it a bogus issue because it was about an imaginary Negro in an impossible place. The West had been open to slavery for 10 years and there were 24 slaves in one territory and 29 in the other. Slavery was not expanding. It only worked on rich cotton soil, usually along rivers, where cotton could be transported.

The Industrial Revolution would have destroyed slavery without 800,000 men being killed and another million wounded on battlefields all over the country. Technological advances in farm machinery within 20 years of the end of the war would have enabled cotton planters to pick cotton much faster at a fraction of the cost of slavery.

Many historians agree that the War Between the States was a completely unnecessary war, and I am one of them.

Georgia's Declaration of the Causes of Secession is mostly concerned with Northern terrorism and how Southerners were not going to be ruled over by terrorists, though there is not a single word about that by the Savannah Morning News. The SMN left this out:

"For twenty years past the abolitionists and their allies in the Northern States have been engaged in constant efforts to subvert our institutions and to excite insurrection and servile war among us. They have sent emissaries among us for the accomplishment of these purposes. Some of these effort have received the public sanction of a majority of the leading men of the Republican Party in the national councils, the same men who are now proposed as our rulers. These efforts have in one instance led to the actual invasion of one of the slave-holding States, and those of the murderers and incendiaries who escaped public justice by flight have found fraternal protection among our Northern confederates."

And it ends:

"Their [Republican Party] avowed purpose is to subvert our society and subject us not only to the loss of our property but the destruction of ourselves, our wives, our children, and the desolation of our homes, our altars, and our firesides. To avoid these evils we resume the powers which our fathers delegated to the Government of the United States, and henceforth will seek new safeguards for our liberty, equality, security, and tranquility. [Approved, Tuesday, January 29, 1861]"

There is also much in Georgia's Declaration of Causes of Secession on the economic unfairness in the Union, again ignored by the Savannah Morning News:

"The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day."

The Savannah Morning News with their PC slavery red herring does not mention any of this and to make matters worse, 3/4th of the federal treasury was paid by the South, yet 3/4ths of the tax money in the treasury was spent in the North.

How long do you think Northerners would pay 3/4ths of the taxes if 3/4ths of the tax money was being spent in the South?

Other proof abounds of the economic unfairness of the Union. Texas Representative John H. Reagan told Northern representatives in Congress in early 1861: "You are not content with the vast millions of tribute we pay you annually under the operation of our revenue law, our navigation laws, your fishing bounties, and by making your people our manufacturers, our merchants, our shippers."

Two other famous Georgians chimed in. Senator Robert Toombs called it a suction pump sucking wealth out of the South and depositing it in the North, and it was made up of:

"Bounties and protection to every interest and every pursuit in the North, to the extent of at least fifty millions per annum, besides the expenditure of at least sixty millions out of every seventy of the public expenditure among them, thus making the treasury a perpetual fertilizing stream to them and their industry, and a suction-pump to drain away our substance and parch up our lands."

Henry L. Benning, one of Robert E. Lee's most able brigadier generals and for whom Fort Benning, Georgia is named, said $85,000,000, a gargantuan sum in those days, was the amount flowing continually through Robert Toombs's suction pump: "Eighty-five millions is the amount of the drains from the South to the North in one year, - drains in return for which the South receives nothing." The prescient Benning also said:

"The North cut off from Southern cotton, rice, tobacco, and other Southern products would lose three fourths of her commerce, and a very large proportion of her manufactures. And thus those great fountains of finance would sink very low. . . . Would the North in such a condition as that declare war against the South?"

The Savannah Morning Fake News with its fake half-history really cheats Georgians who are glad to take their share of blame for slavery but will no longer tolerate their ancestors insulted by the politically correct liberal fraud in academia and the media.

The Savannah Morning Fake News does get one thing right. They state:

"To be sure, many of the brave Georgians who fought for the Confederacy did so not to preserve slavery but to defend the dignity of the South against an arrogant North" [and also to defend Georgia against the bloody invasion of the Union Army].

"Most of the CSA's soldiers owned no slaves . . . ."

Another thing proves slavery was not the cause of the war. When the seven cotton states seceded and formed the Confederacy, four states initially rejected secession: Virginia, North Carolina, Arkansas and Tennessee. They did not secede until after Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteers to invade the South, and their reason for seceding was federal coercion. They did not believe the federal government had a right to invade a sovereign state.

In Virginia, North Carolina, Arkansas and Tennessee lived 52.4% of white Southerners, which means a majority of Southerners in power in 1861 seceded over federal coercion and NOT slavery.

Please buy my book and get it into the hands of legislators across the South and other leaders. It is time to strike a hard blow against the fake news and fake history promoted by PC liberals in academia and the media.

Gene Kizer, Jr. 
Author 
Slavery Was Not the Cause of the War Between the States 
The Irrefutable Argument.



]]>
<![CDATA[April Is Confederate History Month–but the gutless will never proclaim it!]]>Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:17:26 GMThttp://deovindice.org/the-condederate-society-blog/april-is-confederate-history-monthbut-the-gutless-will-never-proclaimitPicture
by Al Benson Jr.

February was black history month and if you are like me, you heard about it until it was coming out your ears. The “fake news” media never ceased to deliver unto us some little tidbit that had to do with some aspect of black history. And it didn’t all cease on the 28th of the month either.

April is Confederate History Month and I’d be willing to bet you haven’t heard the first word about it from the “fake news” media. This is one of those things that they, in their unending wisdom, have deemed you don’t need to know anything about and so the MSM will do as much as possible to make sure you remain totally unaware of this. It’s called “selective reporting 101.”

There was a time when some Southern governors would issue proclamations noting the observation of Confederate history month. However, in the past few years, most Southern governors seem to have developed a severe case of political intestinal discharge when it comes to acknowledging that anything Southern or Confederate is even fit to exst.

The governor of Mississippi seems to have been the one exception to this rule, for which I applaud him. If there are others that have issued proclamations that I am not aware of, I apologize to them for omitting mention of them.

Confederate and Southern history and heritage groups usually have various events during the month of April to mark Confederate history month. Their having such events and observations has become even more critical and important in a day when the cultural Marxists are busily trying to tear down any remembrance of Confederate history, from our flags to our monuments, even to school and street names. I have said it before (maybe some have grown tired of hearing me say it) but it still needs to be said. “Those people” (the cultural Marxists) want us all gone and forgotten and they are prepared to labor to make that happen. If you have observed the blatant cultural genocide being practiced upon us in the past couple years, you have to be aware of that.

I can’t speak too much for what goes on in other states, except possibly for Virginia, with the Virginia Flaggers. Those folks fight the good fight every month of the year and they must be doing something right because they get lots of flack. Here in Louisiana, the Sons of Confederate Veterans, as well as others who believe in preserving their heritage from the Leftist onslaught, take part in several events in April that highlight their preservation efforts.

A couple weeks ago there was a big Confederate flag caravan that drove all the way from Shreveport, Louisiana to Vicksburg, Mississippi and back again. This was on a Saturday afternoon and lots of folks on Route 20 saw all those cars, motorcycles and Confederate flags–going and coming. I understand another group did the exact same thing on Route 10 in South Louisiana.

Another event that occurs on a yearly basis here in North Louisiana is one called Flags Across the Ouachita. Those who support Confederate heritage and history gather on the Lea Joyner Bridge over the Ouachita River, with all manner of Confederate flags at rush hour on a Friday afternoon You cross over this bridge to get to West Monroe, Louisiana from Monroe, Louisiana, and it’s pretty busy during rush hour on a Friday, so lots of commuters get to see all those folks with their Confederate flags. And lots of folks honk their horns and give us a “thumbs up” to show their appreciation–which shows that, in spite of all the cultural Marxist efforts in this area, a goodly number of folks just haven’t bought into that agenda. These, and other efforts, let the cultural Marxists know that “we ain’t goin’ away easy.”

This year, a lady reporter and a cameraman from a local TV station happened by and stopped to talk to several of us and interviewed a couple of us. I let her know that all of us standing there holding Confederate flags were not native Southerners. I told her I was originally from New England and the next man up from me was from Ohio. This seemed to surprise her somewhat, but as we talked to her, we tried to convey the truth that this was, at root, more than a North-South issue–this is a cultural issue, and good sincere folks from the North who understand that, almost inevitably end up supporting the Southern right to celebrate and promote their culture.

So, folks, keep your ear to the ground. You just may find out that more of such events go on than you are aware of–and we don’t do them just in April That would give the cultural Marxists the other eleven months of free time to work at destroying our culture. So these events will take place when and where needed. One final thought–don’t depend on the MSM to enlighten you about such things. They have a vested interest in keeping you in the dark.


]]>
<![CDATA[HURRAH FOR THE MOON SISTERS]]>Wed, 12 Apr 2017 15:54:33 GMThttp://deovindice.org/the-condederate-society-blog/hurrah-for-the-moon-sistersby: Joan Hough

The most flamboyantly successful of all Confederate Female spies

 were two, born in Virginia, moved to Ohio, sisters known for bedazzling Yankee soldiers

with girly sighs and clever, mesmerizing Southern lies,

Daughters of Dr. Robert S. Moon and Cynthia Ann Sullivan, they were named Virginia Bethel Moon and Cynthia Charlotte Moon, and called Ginnie and Lottie.

By today’s standards they were nothing more, nothing less, than

two fabulous, totally scintillating and amazing, Confederate hotties!

Their Virginia Daddy, Robert Moon’s passion for the South was undiluted when they all moved to Ohio.

It ignited in his daughters a form of Southern devotion, achieving the level of oh, my oh!

The daughters became Copperhead Confederates from the tips of pretty toes to the tops of lovely heads of hair.

For them, aiding the South was never an Oh, oh, no, but always a go, go, go!  

During the War, while message and medicine transporting, and nursing wounded soldiers, the Moon sisters collected Yankee and Southerner hearts in beau after beau.

Harkening to Yankee whispers on starlit nights, they passed on Yankee secrets to Southern Generals in broad daylight.

They glowed. They gleamed. They fulfilled Confederacy-loaded dreams in such a manner

 legends of them today are coated in pure, unadulterated Scarlet O’Hara glamor.

They made masterful uses of their figures and faces, ruffles and laces, personalities and Intellectual skills.

They tantalized with teasing eyes, and veiled suggestions of creations of future situations involving intimate relations and romantic thrills.

 Without question, superior equestrians, they were honed, deadly Copperhead weapons in skirts, and as masterful at gun handling as they were flirts

Lottie, at thirty, though less pulchritudinous than fifteen-year-old Ginnie,

hurled ever as many Cupid’s darts—broke ever as many Yankee hearts.

It is said, Lottie did not falter at leaving a future Yankee General at the altar.

After Lottie wedded James Clark of the Knights of the Golden Circle,

 her smuggling of medicine and messages, her espionage expertise

leaped in a remarkable increase.

Disguised as an Irish washerwoman hurrying through Kentucky to a sick hubby,

she gained rides with Union soldiers, by shedding a few Moon tears

 on ready here and there Yankee shoulders.

And thus, an urgent Confederate message was conveyed

from General Sterling Price to General Edmund Kirby Smith

 in another of those “Moon actions” now mistakenly labeled a myth.

While returning home on a train, Lottie acquired Union General Leslie Coombs as a new

Yankee swain. 

Later, Lottie was in Canada where the Knights turned her around,

With messages to President Davis, Lottie was soon Southern bound.

Disguised as an ill Brit seeking treatment at Warm Springs,

Zooming through Union lines, Lottie had to work hard to avoid smiling at many things.

 Edwin Stanton, deeming her a Republican fan, had set a military passport in her hand.

He’d placed Lottie in Mr. Lincoln’s own military inspection group and thus, stupidly joined the rank of Moon dupes,

Soon Lottie, busy with Lincoln, thanks to Stanton, was reviewing McClellan’s troops.

 Feigning sleep in Lincoln’s own carriage, Lottie heard men’s secrets on topics ranging from strategies for battles to strategies for marriage.

Much later, Lottie’s role of espionage uncovered, Stanton, under stress, announced a 10,000$ reward for her arrest

Eventually Lottie was captured by men in blue. As for the severity of her sentence, well here’s a clue: Lottie, declared a dangerous Rebel spy, served her time in surprising style,

—Her jail? A fine hotel.  Her sentence time?  Just a little while!  For soon she was led through an open door and, gleeful as could be, was set completely free.

Messages—50, Morphine filled bottles—40, Opium—7 pounds!  All found

when sister, Ginnie and Mama Moon were Yankee accosted and Yankee arrested.

Oddly, when Mama was freed and Ginnie’s custody given to a dear Yankee soldier friend, not a single Yankee contested.  Yankees learned nothing on that day—nothing  

of that extremely important communiqué, the one to Nathan Bedford Forrest.

Swallowed in its written form, it caused Ginnie not a speck of harm.

Quite obviously, it was noted that Ginnie’s sentence was sugar coated.

Her indulgent treatment and speedy freedom, was certainly no

secret to boys in blue,

 Acknowledging she had flirted her way to freedom after

her transfer to General Hurlbut for the “trial that never was, “

some Union soldiers were heard simply to say,” Ginnie did as Ginnie does.”

http://www.trishkaufmann.com/CP20164QKaufmann3-FINAL.pdf  The Confederate

Philatelist: Confederate Collectanea.                

http://civilwarwomenblog.com/lottie-and-ginnie-moon-confederate-spies/]]>
<![CDATA["Racist Cows"]]>Tue, 11 Apr 2017 15:37:55 GMThttp://deovindice.org/the-condederate-society-blog/racist-cowsPicture
by Al Benson Jr.

We have been duly informed by the politically correct, the cultural Marxists among us, that anyone politically to the right of Ho Chi Minh or Fidel Castro is a “deplorable” racist. Evidence  for this accusation?  Well, who needs evidence? Just say it long enough and loud enough and people will believe it. The Social Justice warriors way over on the Far Left fringe have decreed it. Ain’t that enough? After all, who would even think of questioning “social justice” or its  provocateurs?

However, in recent days the social justice campaign seems to have reached new and more glorious  heights. According to the website Intellihub the animal rights group PETA has continued to add to its list of “unusual” claims, and this time they have put out a video that literally claims that drinking milk just might mean you are a closet racist. Intellihub recently said: “The group posted the video on Friday in a Tweet that reads, ‘Did you know that milk has long been a symbol used by white supremacists?”

Wow, I didn’t know that did you? Well, they say you learn something new every day (even if it is slightly off the wall). So now we have had the ultimate tool of the Far Right white supremacy crowd exposed for what it really is–Milk, white milk! Well, if it’s white it must be “racist” right?  I mean, everything white is racist isn’t it? Makes you wonder about snow doesn’t it?

So I thought, in view of this startling revelation that we ought to take this whole racist scenario one step further and expose yet another layer of deep-rooted racism–Cows!

I mean, after all, the brown cow eats green grass but she gives white milk, so it stands to reason, at least among the progressive Left, that the cow is racist too. Doesn’t it? What other logical conclusion could a devout cultural Marxist come up with? If she wasn’t racist couldn’t we, at least once in awhile, depend on chocolate milk from her? The fact that she continually provides only white milk must indicate that the cow, knowingly or not, has deep racist tendencies.  And what about her owner? He has to be a flaming racist too. Do we dare ask how many cows he has that only give white milk? Is there a right-wing conspiracy here among the agricultural set to flood the country with white milk? If so, this needs to be exposed. The Communist News Network should send out some hot-shot reporter, have him sneak around the dairy farm and get some samples of that white milk. Then he could have them tested for the amount of inherent racism they might contain. Anything over 50 grams per udderful would be enough to seal his journalistic career forever.

We must realize that this is a serious problem!  Racist milk from racist cows is flooding the country. Valiant anti-racists just can’t obtain brown, yellow, red, or black milk–all these miserable bovines today provide for us is this insipid, racist white stuff. Why it’s enough to gag a maggot!

The social justice folks need to start scratching around under the rocks and barrels to see if they can find a friend somewhere in Congress, one who might be ready to expose all this. Once they produce such a specimen he could introduce mandatory legislation nationwide that would force all daily farmers to inoculate their cows with something approved by the FDA that would turn the color of the milk given by cows into something besides white. I imagine, to the Flakes over on the leftist fringe, that would seem to be a reasonable solution to this horrible problem.

Seem to me I have seen an article or two in the local LameStream Media outlets that discussed in depth the traumatic experiences undergone by those that were forced to drink white milk. Having to drink white milk was more traumatic for them than someone having tipped over their little red wagons when they were three years old.

I know you can get chocolate and strawberry milk flavorings at the local super market, but even if you buy and use them, somehow it just isn’t the same when you realize the milk was white to begin with.

So there has to be some solution that could be introduced that would call for more federal regulation and at least one more layer of bureaucracy to ease the unemployment problems that Obama’s stimulus packages didn’t quite take care of.

I can see it now–pre-planned spontaneous street demonstrations all across the country, with people marching and carrying signs that say “White is Right; Strawberry is Red; and Chocolate is—whatever!” And you thought Trump’s Russian scenario was something!  Brother, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet!


]]>
<![CDATA[Sunday April 9, 1865.]]>Sun, 09 Apr 2017 23:24:57 GMThttp://deovindice.org/the-condederate-society-blog/sunday-april-9-1865Picture






From Hisotry.com:
On April 9, 1865, near Appomattox Court House, Virginia, Confederate General Robert E. Lee surrendered his Army of Northern Virginia to Union General Ulysses S. Grant. Days earlier, Lee had abandoned the Confederate capital of Richmond and the city of Petersburg; his goal was to rally the remnants of his beleaguered troops, meet Confederate reinforcements in North Carolina and resume fighting. The resulting Battle of Appomattox Court House, which lasted only a few hours, effectively brought the four-year Civil War to an end
. Editors note: The Confederate Government however did not surrender and went into exile. President Davis would not yield in his imprisonment and the Union Government dare not risk in a trial what was won on the battlefield. 

BATTLE OF APPOMATTOX COURT HOUSE:In retreat from the Union army’s Appomattox campaign, which began in March 1865, the Army of Northern Virginia, stumbled westward through the Virginia countryside stripped of food and supplies. At one point, Union cavalry forces under General Philip Sheridan had outrun Lee’s troops, blocking their retreat and taking approximately 6,000 prisoners at Sayler’s Creek.

Confederate desertions were mounting daily, and by April 8 the Rebels were almost completely surrounded. Nonetheless, early on the morning of April 9, Confederate troops led by Major General John B. Gordon mounted a last-ditch offensive that was initially successful. Soon, however, the Confederates saw that they were hopelessly outnumbered by two corps of Union soldiers who had marched all night to cut off the Confederate advance.

Later that morning, Lee—cut off from all provisions and all support—famously declared that “there is nothing left me to do but to go and see Gen. Grant, and I would rather die a thousand deaths.” But Lee also knew his remaining troops, numbering about 28,000, would quickly turn to pillaging the countryside in order to survive.

With no remaining options, Lee sent a message to General Ulysses Grant announcing his willingness to surrender the Army of Northern Virginia. The two war-weary generals met in the front parlor of Wilmer McLean’s home at one o’clock that afternoon.

Lee asked for the terms of surrender, and Grant hurriedly wrote them out. Generously, all officers and men were to be pardoned, and they would be sent home with their private property–most important to the men were the horses, which could be used for a late spring planting. Officers would keep their side arms, and Lee’s starving men would be given Union rations.

Quieting a band that had begun to play in celebration, Grant told his officers, “The war is over. The Rebels are our countrymen again.” Although scattered resistance continued for several weeks—the final skirmish of the Civil War occurred on May 12 and 13 at the Battle of Palmito Ranch near Brownsville, Texas—for all practical purposes the Civil War had come to an end.



]]>
<![CDATA[The American Empire and Economic Collapse]]>Sat, 08 Apr 2017 16:21:59 GMThttp://deovindice.org/the-condederate-society-blog/the-american-empire-and-economiccollapsePicture
Despite the widespread hope among libertarians, classical liberals, non-interventionists, progressive peaceniks, and all those opposed to the US Empire that it may have some of its murderous reins pulled in with the election of Donald Trump, it appears that such optimism has now been dashed.  While the hope for a less meddlesome US foreign policy is not completely extinguished and would never have existed had the Wicked Witch of Chappaqua been elected, a number of President Trump’s foreign policy actions, so far, have been little different than his recent predecessors.

President Trump’s biggest blunder was his acquiesce to the Deep State’s coup of General Michael Flynn, the most Russian friendly among Trump’s foreign policy entourage.  Since Flynn’s abrupt departure, there has been little talk of a rapprochement with Russia, but instead there has been continued saber rattling by the war mongers that Trump has, unfortunately, chosen to surround himself with.

The most recent Russian badgering has come from Secretary of Defense, James “Mad Dog” Mattis who wrongly accused it of “bad behavior:” “Russia’s violations of international law are now a matter of record from what happened with Crimea to other aspects of their behavior in mucking around other people’s elections and that sort of thing.”* Of course, the US has never tried to influence the outcomes of elections or “mucked around” in the affairs of sovereign countries, heaven forbid!

While candidate Trump correctly spoke of the Iraqi War as a disaster and US Middle Eastern policy as a failure, he has done little to alter course in the region, but continues to follow and has, in some instances, escalated tensions.  Some ominous examples:

Bombing raids of Mosul killing over 200 civilians

The deployment of another 1,000 ground troops to Syria

Additional US ground troops “expected” to be deployed to Afghanistan

Continuous threats to Iran – “put on notice”

In the Far East, President Trump has done little to alleviate hostilities.  In a belligerent March tweet during Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson’s trip to the region, he wrote: “North Korea is behaving very badly.  They have been ‘playing’ the United States for years.  China has done little to help.”**

A number of perceptive commentators think otherwise and have shown that it has been the US over the years that has acted disingenuously.  “Despite Western media demonization of North Korea as some kind of crazy rogue state,” Finian Cunningham points out, “the people there are not fools.  They know from family histories the atrocious cost of American war.  And they know that any nation perceived as weak by Washington will be bombed back to the Stone Age.”***

These trends, and the President’s unnecessary request for increased “defense spending,” all point to more of the same for US overseas relations.  In fact, there will most likely be continued military escalation if the likes of General “Mad Dog” Mattis get their way.

It is now apparent that the only way in which significant change will come about in American foreign affairs will be if there is a severe financial crisis which impairs the nation enough so that it can no longer bankroll its military adventurism.  History has a number of examples of this.

Great Britain, who the US Empire is largely patterned after, lost its empire when it became financially exhausted due, in large part, to its insane decision to enter the two World Wars of the past century.  To fight in those conflagrations drained Britain of its wealth and devastated it demographically which it, and the rest of Europe, has never recovered.

The US is heading down a similar path of decline as it has squandered its wealth and treasure in the maintenance of an overseas empire while it has expanded its welfare state at home, meaning less wealth which can be tapped from an increasingly unproductive and parasitic populace.  Couple this with an onerous tax burden, an inflationist monetary policy which has destroyed the purchasing power of the dollar, and gargantuan public debt and you have primed the country for a financial cataclysm.

Despite the dramatic fall in the standard of living and the immense social strife and unrest that an economic collapse would bring about, there is a silver lining.  Like Great Britain before it, a financial crisis and/or the loss of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency would force the US to abandon its overseas empire – closing bases, bringing troops home, and stopping intervention in the myriad of arenas across the planet.

A defunct US Empire would also be bad news and mean grisly retribution for all those lackeys and puppets who have been supported and propped up by American might: another positive aspect to the end of the Empire.

The collapse will mean America, too, will face reprisals from all those who have suffered under its hegemony.  The payback will come from both economic warfare as the US has used through its “Dollar Diplomacy” to control and manipulate foreign economies and by some sort of military humiliation.

The impact of an economic collapse could be mitigated somewhat if the US abandoned its role as global policeman as resources squandered abroad could be then available for the rebuilding of the domestic economy while, at the same time, hostility with America’s adversaries would be reduced.

Unless President Trump replaces the warmongers and interventionists which he has unwisely surrounded himself with and return to his wildly popular campaign promise of an American First foreign policy, the US Empire will remain the greatest threat to world peace that currently exists.  If things continue as such, it will only be through the comeuppance of Economic Mother Nature when She bursts the American bubble economy that the Empire upon which it rests will, at long last, come to a fitting and much needed end!

*Ellen Mitchell, “Mattis Says Response Coming Soon on Russia Arms Treaty Violation.”  The Hill.  31 March 2017.

**Pamela Engel, “Trump: North Korea is ‘Behaing Very Badly,’ and China ‘Has Done Little to Help.'”  Business Insider.  17 March 2017.

***Finian Cunningham, “Only a Fool Would Trust Rogue State USA.”  Sputnik Internaional.  19 March 2017.

Antonius Aquinas@AntoniusAquinas


]]>
<![CDATA[What Are the Republicans Waiting For?]]>Tue, 04 Apr 2017 15:15:21 GMThttp://deovindice.org/the-condederate-society-blog/what-are-the-republicans-waiting-forPicture
Editors note: This article could also be called the political duopoly- 2 sides of the same coin- Republicans and Democrats. 

By Laurence M. Vance

Reprinted from Lew Rockwell.com

It’s déjà vu all over again.

The inauguration of Donald Trump on January 20 means that, once again, the Republicans have absolute control of the government. The Republicans regained control of the Congress that they had lost during the last two years of the presidency of George W. Bush when House Republicans won a majority of seats in the 2010 midyear elections and Senate Republicans won a majority of seats in the 2014 midyear elections. Just like when the Republicans held a majority in both Houses of Congress during the last six years of Bill Clinton’s presidency, all that was lacking was a Republican president “to make America great again.”

This happened two other times in recent history. Republicans had a majority in Congress for the first two years of Dwight Eisenhower’s presidency (1953-1955). They also had a majority in Congress for over four years under George W. Bush. Here is why it was not for an even four or six years. At the time of Bush’s inauguration in 2001, the Republicans controlled both Houses of Congress. The Republicans held on to their majority in the Senate until May 24, 2001, when Republican senator Jim Jeffords switched from Republican to Independent and ended Republican control of the Senate. Republicans regained control of the Senate in the 2002 midterm elections, and then remained in control of both Houses of Congress until their defeat in the 2006 midterm elections.

And what did the Republicans do when they were in charge?

If ever Roosevelt’s New Deal could have been repealed in its entirety, it was when the Republicans had absolute control of the government under President Eisenhower. They, of course, did nothing. And even if the Republicans in Congress had tried to do something, it would have been squelched by Eisenhower, who wrote in a 1954 letter:

Now it is true that I believe this country is following a dangerous trend when it permits too great a degree of centralization of governmental functions. I oppose this — in some instances the fight is a rather desperate one. But to attain any success it is quite clear that the Federal government cannot avoid or escape responsibilities which the mass of the people firmly believe should be undertaken by it. The political processes of our country are such that if a rule of reason is not applied in this effort, we will lose everything — even to a possible and drastic change in the Constitution. This is what I mean by my constant insistence upon “moderation” in government. Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H.L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.

It was even worse when Republicans were in charge under Bush. They practically doubled the budget and the national debt and as they massively increased government spending. They created the monstrous Department of Homeland Security with its groping TSA goons.They crippled corporations with the arcane Sarbanes-Oxley Act. They destroyed the Fourth Amendment and civil liberties with the draconian Patriot Act. They allowed the NSA to begin spying on every American. They increased farm subsidies and foreign aid. They greatly expanded the Department of Education. They gave us the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act, the No Child Left Behind Act, and the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act. Bush started two unjust, immoral, and senseless wars—accompanied by assassinations, torture, and drone strikes—with hardly a peep out of Republicans in Congress.  Bush claimed that he “abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system” with his bailout and stimulus programs “to make sure the economy doesn’t collapse.”

It has now been two months since the Trump inauguration. The Republican-controlled Congress has only sent eighteen bills to President Trump, none of them of much substance. He has signed nine of them into law:

PL 115-2, S.84, A bill to provide for an exception to a limitation against appointment of persons as Secretary of Defense within seven years of relief from active duty as a regular commissioned officer of the Armed Forces.

PL 115-3, H.R.72, GAO Access and Oversight Act of 2017

PL 115-4, H.J.Res.41, Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of a rule submitted by the Securities and Exchange Commission relating to “Disclosure of Payments by Resource Extraction Issuers.”

PL 115-5, H.J.Res.38, Disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of the Interior known as the Stream Protection Rule.

PL 115-6, H.R.255, Promoting Women in Entrepreneurship Act.War, Empire, and the M...Laurence M. VanceBest Price: $16.00Buy New $13.54

PL 115-7, H.R.321, Inspiring the Next Space Pioneers, Innovators, Researchers, and Explorers (INSPIRE) Women Act.

PL 115-8, H.J.Res.40, Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Social Security Administration relating to Implementation of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007.

PL 115-9, H.R.609, To designate the Department of Veterans Affairs health care center in Center Township, Butler County, Pennsylvania, as the “Abie Abraham VA Clinic.”

PL 115-10, S.442, National Aeronautics and Space Administration Transition Authorization Act of 2017.

(PL 115-1, H.R.39, Tested Ability to Leverage Exceptional National Talent Act of 2017 or the TALENT Act of 2017, was signed into law by President Obama before he left office.)

What are the Republicans waiting for?

The Republicans claim they are the party of the Constitution, limited government, fiscal conservatism, and free markets. So what are they waiting for? Christmas?

We have a bloated, invasive, intrusive, destructive monstrosity called the U.S. federal government that is out of control. When are the Republicans going to do something about it? We have a welfare state that LBJ could only have dreamed of. When are the Republicans going to do something about it? We have a national debt approaching $20 trillion. When are the Republicans going to do something about it? We have a federal budget of $4 trillion. When are the Republicans going to do something about it? The Constitution is violated on a daily basis. When are the Republicans going to do something about it? We have massive government intervention in the economy and society. When are the Republicans going to do something about it? We have a warfare state that makes terrorists, widows, and orphans. When are the Republicans going to do something about it? We have a myriad of government departments, agencies, and bureaus that most Americans have never even heard of. When are the Republicans going to do something about it? We live in a police state that is anything but a free society. When are the Republicans going to do something about it?

When are the Republicans going to do something to end income redistribution and crony capitalism? When are the Republicans going to do anything? Give them time, you say. They have had plenty of time and plenty of opportunities. And what have they done? Nothing but waste time and opportunities. They neither deserve nor need any more time.

The problem is not that Republicans need more time. They are not waiting for the right time to change any of these things. The problem is that Republicans are the architects and/or supporters of these nefarious things.


]]>
<![CDATA[Back When There Were THREE Branches of Government (Not to Mention “The States Respectively, or the People)]]>Sun, 26 Mar 2017 21:08:48 GMThttp://deovindice.org/the-condederate-society-blog/back-when-there-were-three-branches-of-government-not-to-mention-the-states-respectively-or-the-peoplePicture
By Thomas DiLorenzo

Reprinted from Lew Rockwell.com

Americans are ruled by a lawyereaucracy.   Most of our “citizen legislature” (i.e. Congress) is comprised of lawyers; executive branch agencies are crawling with them; and the federal judiciary is dominated by left-wing politicians posing as objective “judges.”  This last point was demonstrated once again when, after President Trump issued his revised “travel ban” executive order an old law school pal of Obama’s from Hawaii, who is now an Obama-nominated federal judge, issued another one of those lawyerly Decrees From Upon High declaring  the executive order null and void everywhere – not just in Hawaii.

This is a very old story:  Congress passes a law that the hardcore left-wing lawyereaucracy disapproves of; a leftist lawyer cherry picks a left-wing extremist judge somewhere, anywhere, to issue a decree invalidating Congress; and Congress (and everyone else) genuflects to the leftist lawyereaucracy’s wishes.

It wasn’t always that way in America.  As “progressive” icon Woodrow Wilson wrote triumphantly in his bookConstitutional Government in the United States (p. 178), “The War between the States established . . . this principle, that the federal government is, through its courts, the final judge of its own powers.”  No longer could the people of the “free and independent states,” as they are called in the Declaration of Independence, nullify a federal law that they thought was unconstitutional, as was very common prior to 1865.  No longer could a president or Congress even challenge the constitutional monopoly of the lawyereaucracy.

Prior to 1865 there were many instances of presidents, Congress, and the people of the free, independent, and sovereign states simply ignoring the opinions of the black-robed deities of the Supreme Court, under the quaint belief  that there are three branches of government, not just the judiciary branch, and on top of that, the people of the states also had and equal voice, as articulated in the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution.  New England states nullified the Jefferson/Madison trade embargo; Wisconsin and other states nullified the federal Fugitive Slave Act; Jefferson and Madison wrote articles of nullification regarding the suppression of free speech under the Sedition Act (the Virginia and Kentucky Resolves of 1798); South Carolina nullified the 1828 Tariff of Abominations; the New England states relied on the idea of state interposition or nullification to not participate in the War of 1812; and so on.

The words “judicial review” do not appear in the U.S. Constitution.  This was an invention of the Hamiltonian lawyer John Marshall when he was the chief justice of the U.S.  Judicial review existed, but it was not considered to be any more important than executive branch review, congressional review, or the review of the constitutionality of federal laws by the people of the free and independent states.  Perhaps the most famous example of this truth is how President Andrew Jackson responded to Marshall’s personal opinion that a bank run by politicians out of the nation’s capital, primarily for the benefit of politically-connected private stockholders in the government-subsidized bank, was constitutional.  In his veto message regarding the re-chartering of the Second Bank of the United States in 1832, Jackson wrote that “To this conclusion I can not assent.”  The states were opposed to the existence of such a bank by a four-to-one margin, he pointed out, and that carries more weight than the opinion of one man, John Marshall.

The opinions of the Supreme Court “ought not to control the coordinate authorities of this Government,” he wrote.  Furthermore:

The Congress, the Executive, and the Court must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution.  Each public officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others.  It is as much the duty of the House of Representatives, of the Senate, and the President to decide upon the constitutionality of any bill or resolution which may be presented to them for passage or approval as it is of the supreme judges when it may be brought before them for judicial decision.  The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point  the President is independent of both.  The authority of the Supreme Court must not, therefore, be permitted to control the Congress or the Executive when acting in their legislative capacities . . .

If President Trump were to begin defying the left-wing lawereaucracy, beginning with the absurd and ridiculously –worded ruling by Obama’s Hawaiian pal, he would be in sync with the man he looks up to as his presidential role model, Andrew Jackson.


]]>
<![CDATA[An Ode to a Southern Heroine ]]>Fri, 24 Mar 2017 15:27:22 GMThttp://deovindice.org/the-condederate-society-blog/an-ode-to-a-southern-heroinePicture
by Joan Hough

Hear now our story.

What a story! Of a heroine.

What a heroine.

She won fame; She won glory.

Our heroine, Our heroine.

When darkened was our land

by the cloud of Yankee war,

at just seventeen,

Maria Isabella Boyd

became a Dazzling Southern star.

When the music of her life changed from “home sweet home,”

When happy, wondrous dreams of bright tomorrows

were ruined by bugle blasts of battle, ugly groans of death

and heart paining sobs of sorrows,

Maria Isabella Boyd, by name, decided SPYING ON YANKEES

WAS HER DEDICATED GAME.

Her life soon changed—was fraught with dangers

and filled with strangers.

Much to the enemies’ great regret

our young girl was not one to suspect.

And thus, our Belle became our Southern pride,

our Southern joy.

Like all Confederates in our South,

she believed in the Republican

form of government our Southern 

Fathers in 1776 had conceived.

She knew each state was sovereign,

possessing the absolute right of secession,

And the right to defend itself against

the Republican army’s invasion

and the north’s oppression.

As a Southern bell,

Isabella rang, as a Maryland girl,

Isabella sang, melodiously, loudly, clearly.

Ever so sweetly she supported the South’s defense of itself

completely!

Our belle rang for Southern liberty,

rang for obedience to Constitutional laws,

 Our belle rang, our belle sang

 with the sweetest voice, the truth

 of our Confederate cause.

Death, she did not fear it,

Warrior heroes in her lineage

gave wings to the daredevil in her spirit.

  Belle was a patriot, not a traitor,

And so, her story is one of glory.

We began at its beginning,

We take you now to its ending.

In Wisconsin at age 56,

while on a stage, as she

told her tale of secrecy and stealth—

Those blue gray eyes closed in death,

ending her tale of Hell and shell and war.

And the Heavens gained

another bright and shining Confederate star.

Our Rebel Joan of Arc was

carried to her grave by stalwart, grieving Yankee vets

who knew her as the bravest of the brave.

Ah, yes! Yankee men

remained enchanted

by a Southern belle whose love for our South

she never recanted



]]>