<![CDATA[The Confederate Society of America - The Condederate Society blog]]>Mon, 18 Sep 2017 07:21:20 -0700Weebly<![CDATA[Adding a Label to Houston’s Confederate Monuments?]]>Mon, 18 Sep 2017 14:17:44 GMThttp://deovindice.org/the-condederate-society-blog/adding-a-label-to-houstons-confederate-monumentsBy: Joan Hough

In a recent meeting concerning Confederate monuments (statues) in Houston, the council and mayor asked Texans appearing before them two questions: about the monuments 1) “would you be OK with us removing them and putting them a museum? and 2) “would you be OK if there was a second placard added in front of the statue to tell about the ‘slavery aspect.” 
 
It has been reported that “Our folks answered with a resounding “NO” on question #1 but an “OK” for question #2.”   
 
So now Southerners have declared that it will be ok for the enemies of truth to add a label to our Confederate statues
 
 People agreeing to that have no idea as to the mud they are throwing over truth in history and truth in art. Any addition to our statues concerning the  Yankee’s ‘slavery aspect”— will be a horror of political correctness— the content of those “labels” will  make our cause look like the cause of demons from Hell.— will result in precisely the same thing that has occurred on all of our national Battle grounds now wrapped in US parks—Each national park now teaches to millions of visitors—that the noble purpose of the noble Yankees who fought  the evil Southerners was to free the poor, raped and boiled regularly in oil,  black slaves of horrible white planters. The War was the only way these blacks could be freed. Southern women and their babies had to be murdered for justice to prevail—for the downtrodden to become equal and vote in America!  --so, hurrah! Hurrah! Hurrah!
 
 Folks who think the labeling or our Confederate monuments will be with any form of truth are childishly naive—are totally lacking in the understanding of the power and goals of Yankee propaganda. They are unaware that Marxist created propaganda ( poured forth from the fine brains of  journalists Carl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Horace Greeley, Charles Dana, and those of Edwin Stanton, Secretary of War)  were a major reason the South lost the war of Northern Aggression -- that Marxist-propaganda,  splattered the north over by Republican Party, inflamed hatred and rage in northerners to a level of such intensity that even the north’s  preachers from their pulpits, bellowed curses against Southern ministers and demanded that after the war all Southern preachers and priests be hung by their necks until dead. Marxist propaganda kept aid from flowing to our South from England and France. Marxist propaganda kept an innocent man, Jefferson Davis, imprisoned incommunicado, sans habeas corpus—tortured for two long, hungry years. Marxist propaganda caused a trial of Davis to be refused by a US-- in fear that the truth would out that any state had the right to secede and the United States would lose in court what it had won by marching through Georgia.  
 
  No treason was committed—at least not by Southerners—but WAS BY NORTHERNERS!  Propaganda concealed this truth from northerners.
 
  Don’t take my word about propaganda, read Frank Conner’s text, The South Under Siege.
 
Any Southerner agreeing to having the Enemies of Truth label our statues is either unknowingly, or knowingly, a contributor to the death of truth.
 
I would call everyone’s attention to the “Ugly Rock,” THE LABEL PLACED RIGHT IN FRONT OF the monument honoring our tortured to death heroes at CAMP DOUGLAS in Chicago. That monument is the only proof that once a mighty Hell hole of a prison existed in Chicago wherein were tortured to death thousands upon thousands of Southern boys. This torture was “legally administered” under the command of the US Congress, Secretary of War Edwin Stanton and His Majesty, Abe Lincoln. The roster was not even kept for months at Douglas. My own cousin died there, yet has no name on the monument- or on the rosters.
 
 In front of that lonely memorial monument, the South’s lying haters placed a nice, lie-filled, propagandizing Yankee LABEL in the form of AN ENORMOUS STONE on which is engraved:
 
"Cenotaph - To those unknown heroic men, once resident in the Southern states, martyrs for human freedom, who at the breaking out of the civil war refused to be traitors to the Union; who, without moral or material support, stood alone among ruthless enemies, and, after unspeakable suffering, either died at their post of duty, or, abandoning home and possessions, sought refuge, and scant bread for their families, among strangers at the North; to those pure patriots who, without bounty, without pay, without pension, without honor, went to their graves without recognition even by their country, this stone is raised and inscribed, after thirty years waiting, by one of themselves, an exiled abolitionist.”
 
STEVE SCROGGINS tells us the truth about the ugly rock.  Read all about it in his article
http://scvcamp1399.org/uglyrock.php
 
As a member of a family of the so-called “ruthless enemies” who committed not one speck of treason, but only defended, the dirt under their houses, the food in their smoke houses, the vegetables in their gardens, the roofs over their families’ heads and THEIR GOD-GIVEN RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM A TYRANNICAL, SECTIONAL GOVERNMENT RULED BY NORTHERN MARXIST-RADICAL REPUBLICANS, I demand my right of free speech—I demand that my Confederate truths be acknowledged and my South’s cause honored. I demand that the truth be acknowledged that Slavery was not the cause of the war! Slavery was nothing more than a Yankee afterthought presented in the middle of the war when the north was losing—presented as white wash for the horrific multitude of war crimes committed by men in the Republican army, the Republican Controlled Congress and the Republican Controlled Oval Office. The fact that a couple of Southern states mentioned slavery as their reason for secession does not mean it was their reason for fighting a war.
 
I am sick of brainwashed Americans’ prattling on and on— of their babbling of never-ending lies! I am sick of Southerners who ought to know better supporting in any fashion the content of those lies!  
 
Yankee labels “IN FRONT OF” our statues insult every Confederate. —Labels placed “BEHIND THEM” — would still be an insult to truth. 
 
 In the spirit of free speech, I would consider, however, allowing the groups of Hate the White folks—Hate the Southerners—Hate the South’s Christian flag—Hate the Monuments-- to create, using their own money—and not one cent of taxes-- any statues they wish to create—and to place them one mile away from one of our South’s heroes.  And they should feel eternally grateful that I will allow the air of liberty to be polluted with such a revolting lie of a creation. –They can even put their statues in their museums!  
 
Hail the continuation of brave men and women in our world!  Long may they live!  Long may they breathe the air of freedom and of truth!  Long may their enemies know disappointments! And here’s hoping someday to see ALL the anti-South lies SMASHED TO SMITHEREENS and all HATE THE SOUTH LIARS get their just deserts.  
 
To those wishing to call me “bigot,” I say: “If loving truth, if refusing to toady to the New World Order Leaders and sycophants financing all the current Hate the South Pogroms justifies that term, call me “BIGOT, call me PROUD BIGOT.”  If identifying the group spearheading the renewal of hate the South pogroms earns me the label, “Racist.”  So be it. My black friends all know otherwise. Not surprising is the truth –they are pleased their ancestors were not forced to remain in Africa or sent back there by Lincoln, as he desired. They recognize the hands stirring the racial hate kettle and associate them with the correct white faces—and those faces are not Southern ones.   
]]>
<![CDATA[A Eulogy for a Confederate sister]]>Wed, 13 Sep 2017 17:24:52 GMThttp://deovindice.org/the-condederate-society-blog/a-eulogy-for-a-confederate-sisterPicture


  The Confederate Society of America has lost one of its valued Directors, Ms. Carolyn Saunders Walters.
 
  Carolyn embodied and represented the grace and beauty associated with a land called Dixie that is quickly fading into oblivion thanks to the ascetic efforts resulting from a diseased government which, like much of the world today, is as clueless as is the body of autocrats and demagogues who control it.
 
  She was a Lady of the Confederacy.
  She did NOT represent ANY of those characteristics or names that the Far-Left Mutants would have anyone believe is what folks like she and we are about.
 
  QUITE the CONTRARY!
 
  Her warmth was like a breath of fresh air in a country consumed by THEIR HATE resulting from the political contamination of THEIR making that is DESTROYING EVERYTHING!
 
  She was ELOQUENCE in every sense of the word and reflected and represented what was once the Old South that is being shredded and falsely portrayed by every free-loading malcontent using the guise of ‘Civil Rights’ to achieve and further their dais of hate!
 
  ‘Civil Rights’ today is an EXCUSE!
  It is an adjutant for bad behavior whose accompanying double standard allows the racial hordes of deceit to attack anything and everything ever associated with History, Origin and Character with an impunity bourne from rank ignorance whose theatrics is but the by-product of a Barbarism created from life on Washington’s Federal Plantation.
 
Carolyn was a Lady who understood all this only too well and is why she fought alongside her Brothers and Sisters in the Confederate Society with a temerity that is sadly missing with many so-called ‘Men of the South’.
 
  She stood by those Values and Virtues of old that were once common place in America.
  Today those Values and Virtues are nearly gone thanks to a Political Pestilence that has rendered this once Proud Republic all but a mere reflection of its former self.
  It has become a gaunt vestige of its former self thanks to the degenerative emasculation rendered unto to it by a slime who hide behind their colour to effect changes that would address their and only theirs ‘progressive’ agenda at the expense of ALL OTHERS!
 
  Their ‘virtue’ is that of a disease ridden Ideology who would make subordinate any and all who resist THEM thanks to an AMORAL station risen from the ashes of a concocted War that has redesigned the American landscape to THEIR satisfaction….. resulting in a dais whose EVIL knows NO ends and has NO boundaries.
  Only through and with a Precognitive Spirit CAN WE EVER AGAIN HOPE TO Restore ALL that has been taken from us!
 
  Finding people such as Carolyn who could see the ‘Forest from the Trees’, thanks to her religious beliefs, is NOT easy.
  To dispel WRONG today and to challenge it openly has become nearly impossible because of what a conglomeration of what “Those People”, et al, have combined to do over the last 15 decades and the last 5 in particular.
 
  Carolyn was of a breed that is sadly disappearing while being replaced by an intangible group of malcontents who are as clueless as a bag of rocks.

  They all demand much but give nothing in return resulting in an Altered American Landscape whose History they prostitute daily History with an abhorrence for the TRUTH while receiving the sanctioning & ‘blessings’ of those purveyors of deceit who reside in Washington whose mandates and Marshalls provide the cover for their carnage!

  The Eternal said to keep things simple because, in Simplicity, one can more easily see the Truth that otherwise would be difficult to see!

  Today the American people are becoming almost as feckless as the worthless body of goons in Washington whose Oligarchy runs this Corporation.

  They will capitulate with ANYONE and cede to ANYONE anything that insures the dogma of their Ideology whose Perpetuation is critical.

  We were likewise warned of their Evil by our Founding Fathers but today, the Founding Fathers have been likewise TARGETED just as we.
 
 Carolyn was a loving and CARING person.

  However,  those so-called Black ‘Reverends’ would depict her Confederate person as being tantamount to a Nazi.
  This is what Washington has turned a blind eye to and as a result, these Evil Clerics spew their venomous verbiage of false description peddling their Hateful Race Card as a ruse to shield their true identity and agenda while describing people like her and ANY such as she as an evil and worthless lot.
 
 DAMN them and DAMN the Spawn who created them.

The  TRUTH is what shall set us free as the Eternal has told us numerous times over…. just as he has told us how HE will personally handle the False Clerics who use HIM falsely as a bridgework to advance their own agenda & selves.
 
  She has crossed the River and now resides in a far better place resplendent with those who REPRESENTED the Flags of Our Fathers that ‘others’ wish to destroy thanks to THEIR own self-created VERSION & INTERPRETATION of a History that has been so corrupted THAT HAS ALLOWED FOR THEIR HEINOUS IDEOLOGY to endure bourne from Satan himself.
 
  Rest in Peace my Confederate Sister.

  You are in the company of MANY who others have hence described as Irredeemable who would rather Run for Their Bibles and Guns & who Fell Where They Stood rather than to submit and become Reconstructed!
 
THANK YOU for standing with us over many a long and difficult year in which our Confederate Society WARNED of this coming day and for watching my back when we engaged the Enemy many times over for a Cause that has NEVER died!
 
  You will NOT be forgotten and with God’s Blessing, may we ALL one day Break Bread across that River where upon…. Beauty and Tranquility reside and can be seen once more!
 
God Bless Sis,
Brer Craig… your Confederate Brother.
 


]]>
<![CDATA[The So-Called Civil War Was Not Over Slavery]]>Sat, 09 Sep 2017 16:04:48 GMThttp://deovindice.org/the-condederate-society-blog/the-so-called-civil-war-was-not-over-slaveryPicture
By Paul Craig Roberts

When I read Professor Thomas DiLorenzo’s article the question that lept to mind was, “How come the South is said to have fought for slavery when the North wasn’t fighting against slavery?”

Two days before Lincoln’s inauguration as the 16th President, Congress, consisting only of the Northern states, passed overwhelmingly on March 2, 1861, the Corwin Amendment that gave constitutional protection to slavery. Lincoln endorsed the amendment in his inaugural address, saying “I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.”

Quite clearly, the North was not prepared to go to war in order to end slavery when on the very eve of war the US Congress and incoming president were in the process of making it unconstitutional to abolish slavery.

Here we have absolute total proof that the North wanted the South kept in the Union far more than the North wanted to abolish slavery.

If the South’s real concern was maintaining slavery, the South would not have turned down the constitutional protection of slavery offered them on a silver platter by Congress and the President. Clearly, for the South also the issue was not slavery.

The real issue between North and South could not be reconciled on the basis of accommodating slavery. The real issue was economic as DiLorenzo, Charles Beard and other historians have documented. The North offered to preserve slavery irrevocably, but the North did not offer to give up the high tariffs and economic policies that the South saw as inimical to its interests.

Blaming the war on slavery was the way the northern court historians used morality to cover up Lincoln’s naked aggression and the war crimes of his generals. Demonizing the enemy with moral language works for the victor. And it is still ongoing. We see in the destruction of statues the determination to shove remaining symbols of the Confederacy down the Memory Hole.

Today the ignorant morons, thoroughly brainwashed by Identity Politics, are demanding removal of memorials to Robert E. Lee, an alleged racist toward whom they express violent hatred. This presents a massive paradox. Robert E. Lee was the first person offered command of the Union armies. How can it be that a “Southern racist” was offered command of the Union Army if the Union was going to war to free black slaves?

Virginia did not secede until April 17, 1861, two days after Lincoln called up troops for the invasion of the South.

Surely there must be some hook somewhere that the dishonest court historians can use on which to hang an explanation that the war was about slavery. It is not an easy task. Only a small minority of southerners owned slaves. Slaves were brought to the New World by Europeans as a labor force long prior to the existence of the US and the Southern states in order that the abundant land could be exploited. For the South slavery was an inherited institution that pre-dated the South. Diaries and letters of soldiers fighting for the Confederacy and those fighting for the Union provide no evidence that the soldiers were fighting for or against slavery. Princeton historian, Pulitzer Prize winner, Lincoln Prize winner, president of the American Historical Association, and member of the editorial board of Encyclopedia Britannica, James M. McPherson, in his book based on the correspondence of one thousand soldiers from both sides, What They Fought For, 1861-1865, reports that they fought for two different understandings of the Constitution.

As for the Emancipation Proclamation, on the Union side, military officers were concerned that the Union troops would desert if the Emancipation Proclamation gave them the impression that they were being killed and maimed for the sake of blacks. That is why Lincoln stressed that the proclamation was a “war measure” to provoke an internal slave rebellion that would draw Southern troops off the front lines.

If we look carefully we can find a phony hook in the South Carolina Declaration of Causes of Secession (December 20, 1860) as long as we ignore the reasoning of the document. Lincoln’s election caused South Carolina to secede. During his campaign for president Lincoln used rhetoric aimed at the abolitionist vote. (Abolitionists did want slavery abolished for moral reasons, though it is sometimes hard to see their morality through their hate, but they never controlled the government.)

South Carolina saw in Lincoln’s election rhetoric intent to violate the US Constitution, which was a voluntary agreement, and which recognized each state as a free and independent state. After providing a history that supported South Carolina’s position, the document says that to remove all doubt about the sovereignty of states “an amendment was added, which declared that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.”

South Carolina saw slavery as the issue being used by the North to violate the sovereignty of states and to further centralize power in Washington. The secession document makes the case that the North, which controlled the US government, had broken the compact on which the Union rested and, therefore, had made the Union null and void. For example, South Carolina pointed to Article 4 of the US Constitution, which reads: “No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.” Northern states had passed laws that nullified federal laws that upheld this article of the compact. Thus, the northern states had deliberately broken the compact on which the union was formed.

The obvious implication was that every aspect of states’ rights protected by the 10th Amendment could now be violated. And as time passed they were, so South Carolina’s reading of the situation was correct.

The secession document reads as a defense of the powers of states and not as a defense of slavery. Here is the document.
Read it and see what you decide.

A court historian, who is determined to focus attention away from the North’s destruction of the US Constitution and the war crimes that accompanied the Constitution’s destruction, will seize on South Carolina’s use of slavery as the example of the issue the North used to subvert the Constitution. The court historian’s reasoning is that as South Carolina makes a to-do about slavery, slavery must have been the cause of the war.

As South Carolina was the first to secede, its secession document probably was the model for other states. If so, this is the avenue by which court historians, that is, those who replace real history with fake history, turn the war into a war over slavery.
Once people become brainwashed, especially if it is by propaganda that serves power, they are more or less lost forever. It is extremely difficult to bring them to truth. Just look at the pain and suffering inflicted on historian David Irving for documenting the truth about the war crimes committed by the allies against the Germans. There is no doubt that he is correct, but the truth is unacceptable.

The same is the case with the War of Northern Aggression. Lies masquerading as history have been institutionalized for 150 years. An institutionalized lie is highly resistant to truth.

Education has so deteriorated in the US that many people can no longer tell the difference between an explanation and an excuse or justification. In the US denunciation of an orchestrated hate object is a safer path for a writer than explanation. Truth is the casualty.

That truth is so rare everywhere in the Western World is why the West is doomed. The United States, for example, has an entire population that is completely ignorant of its own history.

As George Orwell said, the best way to destroy a people is to destroy their history.


Paul Craig Roberts, a former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, has been reporting shocking cases of prosecutorial abuse for two decades. A new edition of his book, The Tyranny of Good Intentions, co-authored with Lawrence Stratton, a documented account of how americans lost the protection of law, has been released by Random House. Visit his website.

reprinted from Lew Rockwell.com

]]>
<![CDATA[If We Erase Our History, Who Are We?]]>Mon, 04 Sep 2017 19:09:26 GMThttp://deovindice.org/the-condederate-society-blog/if-we-erase-our-history-who-are-weBy Patrick J. Buchanan

When the Dodge Charger of 20-year-old Nazi sympathizer James Alex Fields Jr., plunged into that crowd of protesters Saturday, killing 32-year-old Heather Heyer, Fields put Charlottesville on the map of modernity alongside Ferguson.
Before Fields ran down the protesters, and then backed up, running down more, what was happening seemed but a bloody brawl between extremists on both sides of the issue of whether Robert E. Lee’s statue should be removed from Emancipation Park, formerly Lee Park.

With Heyer’s death, the brawl was elevated to a moral issue. And President Donald Trump’s initial failure to denounce the neo-Nazi and Klan presence was declared a moral failure.

How did we get here, and where are we going?

In June of 2015, 21-year-old Dylann Roof gunned down nine Christians at an evening Bible study in Charleston’s Emanuel AME Church. A review of Roof’s selfies and website showed him posing with the Confederate battle flag.

Gov. Nikki Haley, five years in office, instantly pivoted and called for removal of the battle flag from the Confederate war memorial on the State House grounds, as a “deeply offensive symbol of a brutally offensive past.”

This ignited a national clamor to purge all statues that lionize Confederate soldiers and statesmen.

In Maryland, demands have come for removing statues and busts of Chief Justice Roger Taney, the author of the Dred Scott decision. Statues of Gen. “Stonewall” Jackson, President Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee have been pulled down in New Orleans.

After Charlottesville, pressure is building for removal of the statues of Lee, Jackson, Davis and Gen. “Jeb” Stuart from historic Monument Avenue in Richmond, capital of the Confederacy.

Many Southern towns, including Alexandria, Virginia, have statues of Confederate soldiers looking to the South. Shall we pull them all down? And once all the Southern Civil War monuments are gone, should we go after the statues of the slave owners whom we Americans have heroized?

Gen. George Washington and his subordinate, “Light Horse Harry” Lee, father of Robert E. Lee, were slave owners, as was Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe and Andrew Jackson. Five of our first seven presidents owned slaves, as did James K. Polk, who invaded and annexed the northern half of Mexico, including California.

Jefferson, with his exploitation of Sally Hemings and neglect of their children, presents a particular problem. While he wrote in the Declaration of Independence of his belief that “all men are created equal,” his life and his depiction of Indians in that document belie this.

And Jefferson is both on the face of Mount Rushmore and has a memorial in the U.S. capital.

Another term applied to the “Unite the Right” gathering in Charlottesville is that they are “white supremacists,” a mortal sin to modernity. But here we encounter an even greater problem.

Looking back over the history of a Western Civilization, which we call great, were not the explorers who came out of Spain, Portugal, France, Holland and England all white supremacists?

They conquered in the name of the mother countries all the lands they discovered, imposed their rule upon the indigenous peoples, and vanquished and eradicated the native-born who stood in their way.

Who, during the centuries-long discovery and conquest of the New World, really believed that the lives of the indigenous peoples were of equal worth with those of the colonizers?

They believed European Man had the right to rule the world.

Beginning in the 16th century, Western imperialists ruled much of what was called the civilized world. Was not the British Empire, one of the great civilizing forces in human history, a manifestation of British racial superiority?

And if being a segregationist disqualifies one from being venerated in our brave new world, what do we do with Woodrow Wilson, who thought “Birth of a Nation” a splendid film and who re-segregated the U.S. government?

In 1955, Prime Minister Churchill, imperialist to the core, urged his Cabinet to consider the slogan, “Keep England White.”

Nor is a belief in the superiority of one’s race, religion, tribe and culture unique to the West. What is unique, what is an experiment without precedent, is what we are about today.

We have condemned and renounced the scarlet sins of the men who made America and embraced diversity, inclusivity and equality.

Our new America is to be a land where all races, tribes, creeds and cultures congregate, all are treated equally, and all move ever closer to an equality of results through the regular redistribution of opportunity, wealth and power.
We are going to become “the first universal nation.”

“All men are created equal” is an ideological statement. Where is the scientific or historic proof for it? Are we building our utopia on a sandpile of ideology and hope?

Nevertheless, on to Richmond!


reprinted from Lew Rockwell.com

]]>
<![CDATA[Lincoln Unmasked]]>Mon, 04 Sep 2017 18:58:37 GMThttp://deovindice.org/the-condederate-society-blog/lincoln-unmaskedBy Tom Woods

Thomas DiLorenzo’s The Real Lincoln (2002) was as much an event as it was a book. Here was a brutally frank treatment of a political figure we are all expected to treat with a quiet awe, and certainly not with the kind of serious and sustained scrutiny reserved for mere mortals. With every major aspect of the standard narrative that students are taught about Lincoln laughably and grotesquely false, this book was a shocking reminder of suppressed truths. It sold extremely well, managing the truly astonishing feat of reaching number two in Amazon sales rank in the face of (surprise!) a complete media blackout. That kind of success, in the absence of a major marketing and publicity campaign, is almost completely unheard of.

In the wake of his last book, How Capitalism Saved America, DiLorenzo has returned to Lincoln once more in the brand new Lincoln Unmasked. Although readers should without a doubt read both books, Lincoln Unmasked is in some ways even more incisive and relentless than The Real Lincoln. To get an idea of this latest book’s breadth, consider just some of its chapter titles: “The Lincoln Myths — Exposed,” “Fake Lincoln Quotes,” “The Myth of the Morally Superior u2018Yankee,’” “An Abolitionist Who Despised Lincoln,” “The Truth about States’ Rights,” “Lincoln’s Big Lie,” “A u2018Great Crime’: The Arrest Warrant for the Chief Justice of the United States,” “The Great Railroad Lobbyist,” “The Great Protectionist,” “The Great Inflationist,” “Lincolnite Totalitarians,” “The Lincoln Cult on Imprisoning War Opponents,” and “Contra the Lincoln Cult.”

The reader of Lincoln Unmasked is in for a great many mischievous pleasures. Consider: Harry Jaffa, the dean of what DiLorenzo calls the “Lincoln cultists,” has more than once compared the Southern cause to that of Nazi Germany. DiLorenzo embarrasses Jaffa in this book by pointing out passages in Hitler’s Mein Kampf in which the German leader expressed his unwavering opposition to the cause of states’ rights and political decentralization (which, as a dictator seeking absolute power, he naturally sought to overturn in Germany). Hitler even adopted Lincoln’s fanciful retelling of American history in which the states were creatures of the Union rather than vice versa.

In Germany, Hitler promised that the Nazis “would totally eliminate states’ rights altogether: Since for us the state as such is only a form, but the essential is its content, the nation, the people, it is clear that everything else must be subordinated to its sovereign interests. In particular we cannot grant to any individual state within the nation and the state representing it state sovereignty and sovereignty in point of political power.” Thus the “mischief of individual federated states…must cease and will some day cease…. National Socialism as a matter of principle must lay claim to the right to force its principles on the whole German nation without consideration of previous federated state boundaries.” Which side was the Nazi one again, Professor Jaffa?

DiLorenzo punctures all the typical Lincoln myths (about slavery, the war, and so on) and then some. One example will have to suffice: Lincoln’s admirers then and now, anxious to show him to be a convinced Christian, claim that Lincoln exclaimed, after viewing the graves at Gettysburg: “I then and there consecrated myself to Christ. Yes, I do love Jesus!” The trouble is, the quotation is phony: Lincoln never said anything like it. By all accounts a skeptic, Lincoln had to be transformed by his supporters into a respectable, pious Christian. No wonder one astute clergyman observed that Lincoln became a Christian “six months after his death.”

One of the most important contributions of Lincoln Unmasked is its treatment of how the Lincoln myth is employed today. The Lincoln legacy can be and has been cited on behalf of all manner of political atrocities, from the decimation of civil liberties to the waging of war against civilian populations. The religious veneer of Lincoln’s political rhetoric seared into the American consciousness the idea of the U.S. government as an instrument of God’s will, to be employed without mercy against any force so impious as to resist it. This conception of the federal government works even for politicians who might feel uncomfortable with openly religious language: the idea of a righteous central authority steamrolling all opposition — ipso facto wicked and perverse, of course — as part of the inevitable forward march of history fits quite nicely into just about any nationalist agenda, left or right. This is why the Lincoln myth is so stubborn, so resistant to evidence, and so difficult to overturn: the entire American political class has a vital stake in its preservation.

Eric Foner, the Marxist professor of history who has spent much of his career at Columbia University, has even cited Lincoln on behalf of the preservation of the Soviet Union. DiLorenzo cites a February 1991 article in The Nation called “Lincoln’s Lesson,” in which Foner denounced the secession movements in Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, and Georgia, and called upon Mikhail Gorbachev to suppress them with the same ruthlessness Lincoln showed the South. According to Foner, no “leader of a powerful nation” should tolerate “the dismemberment of the Soviet Union.” “The Civil War,” he explained with approval, “was a central step in the consolidation of national authority in the United States.” And then: “The Union, Lincoln passionately believed, was a permanent government. Gorbachev would surely agree.” For all the talk about slavery, there it is in a nutshell: the “Civil War” and Lincoln’s legacy involved the violent suppression of independence, exactly what Foner wanted to see in the Soviet Union. What better condemnation of Lincoln could we ask for?

With Christmas now on the horizon, I urge readers not merely to buy and read this book. Buy ten copies and give them as gifts. Our political and intellectual establishments thrive on lies and propaganda, and they hate nothing more than someone who exposes them, revealing them for the liars and ignoramuses they are. That is why they hate Thomas DiLorenzo and why we owe him our respect, and our thanks.


Reprinted from Lew Rockwell.com

]]>
<![CDATA[How We Know The So-Called “Civil War” Was Not Over Slavery]]>Sat, 26 Aug 2017 14:05:16 GMThttp://deovindice.org/the-condederate-society-blog/how-we-know-the-so-called-civil-war-was-not-over-slaveryBy: Paul Craig Roberts

When I read Professor Thomas DiLorenzo’s article ( http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/08/21/lincoln-myth-ideological-cornerstone-america-empire/ ) the question that lept to mind was, “How come the South is said to have fought for slavery when the North wasn’t fighting against slavery?”

Two days before Lincoln’s inauguration as the 16th President, Congress, consisting only of the Northern states, passed overwhelmingly on March 2, 1861, the Corwin Amendment that gave constitutional protection to slavery. Lincoln endorsed the amendment in his inaugural address, saying “I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.”

Quite clearly, the North was not prepared to go to war in order to end slavery when on the very eve of war the US Congress and incoming president were in the process of making it unconstitutional to abolish slavery.

Here we have absolute total proof that the North wanted the South kept in the Union far more than the North wanted to abolish slavery.

If the South’s real concern was maintaining slavery, the South would not have turned down the constitutional protection of slavery offered them on a silver platter by Congress and the President. Clearly, for the South also the issue was not slavery.

The real issue between North and South could not be reconciled on the basis of accommodating slavery. The real issue was economic as DiLorenzo, Charles Beard and other historians have documented. The North offered to preserve slavery irrevocably, but the North did not offer to give up the high tariffs and economic policies that the South saw as inimical to its interests.

Blaming the war on slavery was the way the northern court historians used morality to cover up Lincoln’s naked aggression and the war crimes of his generals. Demonizing the enemy with moral language works for the victor. And it is still ongoing. We see in the destruction of statues the determination to shove remaining symbols of the Confederacy down the Memory Hole.

Today the ignorant morons, thoroughly brainwashed by Identity Politics, are demanding removal of memorials to Robert E. Lee, an alleged racist toward whom they express violent hatred. This presents a massive paradox. Robert E. Lee was the first person offered command of the Union armies. How can it be that a “Southern racist” was offered command of the Union Army if the Union was going to war to free black slaves?

Virginia did not secede until April 17, 1861, two days after Lincoln called up troops for the invasion of the South.

Surely there must be some hook somewhere that the dishonest court historians can use on which to hang an explanation that the war was about slavery. It is not an easy task. Only a small minority of southerners owned slaves. Slaves were brought to the New World by Europeans as a labor force long prior to the existence of the US and the Southern states in order that the abundant land could be exploited. For the South slavery was an inherited institution that pre-dated the South. Diaries and letters of soldiers fighting for the Confederacy and those fighting for the Union provide no evidence that the soldiers were fighting for or against slavery. Princeton historian, Pulitzer Prize winner, Lincoln Prize winner, president of the American Historical Association, and member of the editorial board of Encyclopedia Britannica, James M. McPherson, in his book based on the correspondence of one thousand soldiers from both sides, What They Fought For, 1861-1865, reports that they fought for two different understandings of the Constitution.

As for the Emancipation Proclamation, on the Union side, military officers were concerned that the Union troops would desert if the Emancipation Proclamation gave them the impression that they were being killed and maimed for the sake of blacks. That is why Lincoln stressed that the proclamation was a “war measure” to provoke an internal slave rebellion that would draw Southern troops off the front lines.

If we look carefully we can find a phony hook in the South Carolina Declaration of Causes of Secession (December 20, 1860) as long as we ignore the reasoning of the document. Lincoln’s election caused South Carolina to secede. During his campaign for president Lincoln used rhetoric aimed at the abolitionist vote. (Abolitionists did want slavery abolished for moral reasons, though it is sometimes hard to see their morality through their hate, but they never controlled the government.)
South Carolina saw in Lincoln’s election rhetoric intent to violate the US Constitution, which was a voluntary agreement, and which recognized each state as a free and independent state. After providing a history that supported South Carolina’s position, the document says that to remove all doubt about the sovereignty of states “an amendment was added, which declared that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.”

South Carolina saw slavery as the issue being used by the North to violate the sovereignty of states and to further centralize power in Washington. The secession document makes the case that the North, which controlled the US government, had broken the compact on which the Union rested and, therefore, had made the Union null and void. For example, South Carolina pointed to Article 4 of the US Constitution, which reads: “No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.” Northern states had passed laws that nullified federal laws that upheld this article of the compact. Thus, the northern states had deliberately broken the compact on which the union was formed.

The obvious implication was that every aspect of states’ rights protected by the 10th Amendment could now be violated. And as time passed they were, so South Carolina’s reading of the situation was correct.

The secession document reads as a defense of the powers of states and not as a defense of slavery. Here is the document: http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/south-carolina-declaration-of-causes-of-secession/
Read it and see what you decide.

A court historian, who is determined to focus attention away from the North’s destruction of the US Constitution and the war crimes that accompanied the Constitution’s destruction, will seize on South Carolina’s use of slavery as the example of the issue the North used to subvert the Constitution. The court historian’s reasoning is that as South Carolina makes a to-do about slavery, slavery must have been the cause of the war.

As South Carolina was the first to secede, its secession document probably was the model for other states. If so, this is the avenue by which court historians, that is, those who replace real history with fake history, turn the war into a war over slavery.
Once people become brainwashed, especially if it is by propaganda that serves power, they are more or less lost forever. It is extremely difficult to bring them to truth. Just look at the pain and suffering inflicted on historian David Irving for documenting the truth about the war crimes committed by the allies against the Germans. There is no doubt that he is correct, but the truth is unacceptable.

The same is the case with the War of Northern Aggression. Lies masquerading as history have been institutionalized for 150 years. An institutionalized lie is highly resistant to truth.
Education has so deteriorated in the US that many people can no longer tell the difference between an explanation and an excuse or justification. In the US denunciation of an orchestrated hate object is a safer path for a writer than explanation. Truth is the casualty.

That truth is so rare everywhere in the Western World is why the West is doomed. The United States, for example, has an entire population that is completely ignorant of its own history.

As George Orwell said, the best way to destroy a people is to destroy their history.

Apparently Even Asians Can Be White Supremacists If They Are Named Robert Lee
ESPN has pulled an Asian-American named Robert Lee (Lee is a common name among Asians, for example, Bruce Lee) from announcing the University of Virginia/Wiliam & Mary footbal game in Charlottesville this Saturday because of his name.


FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share]]>
<![CDATA[The Lincoln Myth: Ideological Cornerstone of the America Empire]]>Fri, 25 Aug 2017 14:18:44 GMThttp://deovindice.org/the-condederate-society-blog/the-lincoln-myth-ideological-cornerstone-of-the-america-empireBy Thomas DiLorenzo
reposted from Lew Rockwell.com


“Lincoln is theology, not historiology. He is a faith, he is a church, he is a religion, and he has his own priests and acolytes, most of whom . . . are passionately opposed to anybody telling the truth about him . . . with rare exceptions, you can’t believe what any major Lincoln scholar tells you about Abraham Lincoln and race.”–Lerone Bennett, Jr., Forced into Glory, p. 114.

The author of the above quotation, Lerone Bennett, Jr., was the executive editor of Ebony magazine for several decades, beginning in 1958. He is a distinguished African-American author of numerous books, including a biography of Martin Luther King, Jr. He spent twenty years researching and writing his book, Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincoln’s White Dream, from which he drew the above conclusion about the so-called Lincoln scholars and how they have lied about Lincoln for generations. For obvious reasons, Mr. Bennett is incensed over how so many lies have been told about Lincoln and race.
Few Americans have ever been taught the truth about Lincoln and race, but it is all right there in The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln (CW), and in his actions and behavior throughout his life. For example, he said the following:

“Free them [i.e. the slaves] and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this . . . . We cannot then make them equals” (CW, vol. II, p. 256.) “What I would most desire would be the separation of the white and black races” (CW, vol. II, p. 521).
“I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races . . . . I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong, having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary” (CW, vol. III, p, 16). (Has there ever been a clearer definition of “white supremacist”?).
“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 . . . . 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” (CW, vol. III, pp. 145-146).
“I will to the very last stand by the law of this state [Illinois], which forbids the marrying of white people with negroes” (CW, vol. III, p. 146).
“Senator Douglas remarked . . . that . . . this government was made for the white people and not for the negroes. Why, in point of mere fact, I think so too” (CW, vol. II, p. 281)

Lincoln was also a lifelong advocate of “colonization,” or the deportation of black people from America. He was a “manager” of the Illinois Colonization Society, which procured tax funding to deport the small number of free blacks residing in the state. He also supported the Illinois constitution, which in 1848 was amended to prohibit the immigration of black people into the state. He made numerous speeches about “colonization.” “I have said that the separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation . . . . such separation must be effected by colonization” (CW, vol. II, p. 409). And, “Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and . . . favorable to . . . our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime” (CW, vol. II, p. 409). Note how Lincoln referred to black people as “the African,” as though they were alien creatures. “The place I am thinking about having for a colony,” he said, “is in Central America. It is nearer to us than Liberia” (CW, vol. V, pp. 373-374).
Bennett also documents how Lincoln so habitually used the N word that his cabinet members – and many others – were shocked by his crudeness, even during a time of pervasive white supremacy, North and South. He was also a very big fan of “black face” minstrel shows, writes Bennett.

For generations, the so-called Lincoln scholars claimed without any documentation that Lincoln suddenly gave up on his “dream” of deporting all the black people sometime in the middle of the war, even though he allocated millions of dollars for a “colonization” program in Liberia during his administration. But the book Colonization After Emancipation by Phillip Magness and Sebastian Page, drawing on documents from the British and American national archives, proved that Lincoln was hard at work until his dying day plotting with Secretary of State William Seward the deportation of all the freed slaves. The documents produced in this book show Lincoln’s negotiations with European governments to purchase land in Central America and elsewhere for “colonization.” They were even counting how many ships it would take to complete the task.

Lincoln’s first inaugural address, delivered on March 4, 1861, is probably the most powerful defense of slavery ever made by an American politician. In the speech Lincoln denies having any intention to interfere with Southern slavery; supports the federal Fugitive Slave Clause of the Constitution, which compelled citizens of non-slave states to capture runaway slaves; and also supported a constitutional amendment known as the Corwin Amendment that would have prohibited the federal government from ever interfering in Southern slavery, thereby enshrining it explicitly in the text of the U.S. Constitution.

Lincoln stated at the outset of his first inaugural address that “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.” Furthermore, “Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the [Republican Party] platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read: Resolved, that the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each state to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to the balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend . . .” By “domestic institutions” Lincoln meant slavery.

Lincoln also strongly supported the Fugitive Slave Clause and the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act in his first inaugural address by reminding his audience that the Clause is a part of the Constitution that he, and all members of Congress, swore to defend. In fact, the Fugitive Slave Act was strongly enforced all during the Lincoln administration, as documented by the scholarly book, The Slave Catchers, by historian Stanley Campbell (University of North Carolina Press, 2011). “The Fugitive Slave Law remained in force and was executed by federal marshals” all during the Lincoln regime, writes Campbell. For example, he writes that “the docket for the [Superior] Court [of the District of Columbia] listed the claims of twenty-eight different slave owners for 101 runaway slaves. In the two months following the court’s decision [that the law was applicable to the District], 26 fugitive slaves were returned to their owners . . .” This was in Washington, D.C., Lincoln’s own residence.

Near the end of his first inaugural address (seven paragraphs from the end) Lincoln makes his most powerful defense of slavery by saying: “I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution . . . has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service [i.e., slaves]. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable” (emphasis added).

The Corwin Amendment, named for Rep. Thomas Corwin of Ohio, said:“No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which shall authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any state, the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor [i.e., slaves] or service by the laws of said State.
After all the Southern members of Congress had left, the exclusively-Northern U.S. Congress voted in favor of the Corwin Amendment by a vote of 133-65 in the House of Representatives on February 28, 1861, and by a vote of 24-12 in the U.S. Senate on March 2, two days before Lincoln’s inauguration.

Lincoln lied in his first inaugural address when he said that he had not seen the Corwin Amendment. Not only did he support the amendment in his speech; it was his idea, as documented by Doris Kearns-Goodwin in her worshipful book on Lincoln entitled Team of Rivals. Based on primary sources, Goodwin writes on page 296 that after he was elected and before he was inaugurated Lincoln “instructed Seward to introduce these proposals in the Senate Committee of Thirteen without indicating they issued from Springfield.” “These proposals” were 1) the Corwin Amendment; and 2) a federal law to nullify personal liberty laws created by several states to allow them to nullify the Fugitive Slave Act.

In 1860-61 Lincoln and the Republican Party fiercely defended Southern slavery while only opposing the extension of slavery into the new territories. They gave three reasons for this:

(1) “Many northern whites . . . wanted to keep slaves out of the [new territories] in order to keep blacks out. The North was a pervasively racist society . . . . Bigots, they sought to bar African-American slaves from the West,” wrote University of Virginia historian Michael Holt in his book, The Fate of Their Country (p. 27).

(2) Northerners did not want to have to compete for jobs with black people, free or slave. Lincoln himself said that “we” want to preserve the territories for “free white labor”.

(3) If slaves were brought into the territories it could inflate the congressional representation of the Democratic Party once a territory became a state because of the three-fifths clause of the Constitution that counted five slaves as three persons for purposes of determining how many congressional representatives each state would have. The Republican Party feared that this might further block their economic policy agenda of high protectionist tariffs to protect Northern manufacturers from competition; corporate welfare for road, canal, and railroad-building corporations; a national bank; and a giving away, rather than selling, of federal land (mostly to mining, timber, and railroad corporations). Professor Holt quotes Ohio Congressman Joshua Giddings explaining: “To give the south the preponderance of political power would be itself to surrender our tariff, our internal improvements [a.k.a. corporate welfare], our distribution of proceeds of public lands . . .” (p. 28).

Lincoln called the Emancipation Proclamation a “war measure,” which meant that if the war ended the next day, it would become null and void. It only applied to “rebel territory” and specifically exempted by name areas of the South that were under Union Army control at the time, such as most of the parishes of Louisiana; and entire states like West Virginia, the last slave state to enter the union, having been created during the war by the Republican Party. That is why historian James Randall wrote that it “freed no one.” The apparent purpose was to incite slave rebellions, which it failed to do. Slavery was finally ended in 1866 by the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, with virtually no assistance from Lincoln, as described by Pulitzer prize-winning Lincoln biographer David Donald in his book, Lincoln. On page 545 of his magnum opus David Donald writes of how Lincoln refused to lift a finger to help the genuine abolitionists accumulate votes in Congress for the Thirteenth Amendment. Stories that he did help, such as the false tale told in Steven Spielberg’s movie about Lincoln, are based on pure “gossip,” not documented history, wrote Donald.

Lincoln Promises War Over Tax Collection

In contrast to his compromising stance on slavery, Lincoln was totally and completely uncompromising on the issue of tax collection in his first inaugural address, literally threatening war over it. For decades, Northerners had been attempting to plunder Southerners (and others) with high protectionist tariffs. There was almost a war of secession in the late 1820s over the “Tariff of Abominations” of 1828 that increased the average tariff rate (essentially a sales tax in imports) to 45%. The agricultural South would have been forced to pay higher prices for clothing, farm tools, shoes, and myriad other manufactured products that they purchased mostly from Northern businesses. South Carolina nullified the tariff, refusing to collect it, and a compromise was eventually reached to reduce the tariff rate over a ten-year period.

By 1857 the average tariff rate had declined to about 15%, and tariff revenues accounted for at least 90% of all federal tax revenue. This was the high water mark of free trade in the nineteenth century. Then, with the Republican Party in control of Congress and the White House, the average tariff rate was increased, by 1863, back up to 47%, starting with the Morrill Tariff, which was signed into law on March 2, 1861, two days before Lincoln’s inauguration by Pennsylvania steel industry protectionist President James Buchanan. (It had first passed in the House of Representatives during the 1859-60 session).

Understanding that the Southern states that had seceded and had no intention of continuing to send tariff revenues to Washington, D.C., Lincoln threatened war over it. “[T]here needs to be no bloodshed or violence,” he said in his first inaugural address, “and there shall be none unless it is forced upon the national authority.”

And what could “force” the “national authority” to commit acts of “violence” and “bloodshed”? Lincoln explained in the next sentence: “The power confided in me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere.” “Pay up or die; the American union is no longer voluntary” was his principal message. In Lincoln’s mind, the union was more like what would become the Soviet union than the original, voluntary union of the founding fathers. He kept his promise by invading the Southern states with an initial 75,000 troops after duping South Carolinian's into firing upon Fort Sumter (where no one was harmed, let alone killed).

The Stated Purpose of the War

The U.S. Senate issued a War Aims Resolution that said: “[T]his war is not waged . . . in any spirit of oppression, or for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, or purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those [Southern] states, but to defend . . . the Constitution, and to preserve the Union . . .” By “established institutions” of the Southern states they meant slavery.

Like the U.S. Senate, Lincoln also clearly stated that the purpose of the war was to “save the union” and not to interfere with Southern slavery. In a famous August 22, 1862 letter to New York Tribune editor Horace Greeley, he wrote that:
“My paramount objective in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.” Of course, Lincoln’s war destroyed the voluntary union of the founding fathers and replaced it with an involuntary union held together by threat of invasion, bloodshed, conquest, and subjugation.

The Very Definition of Treason

Treason is defined by Article 3, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution as follows: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” The most important word here is “them.” As in all the founding documents, “United States” is always in the plural, signifying that the “free and independent states,” as they are called in the Declaration of Independence, are united in forming a compact or confederacy with other states. Levying war against “them” means levying war against individual states, not something called “the United States government.” Therefore, Lincoln’s invasion and levying of war upon the Southern states is the very definition of treason in the Constitution.

Lincoln took it upon himself to arbitrarily redefine treason, not by amending the Constitution, but by using brute military force. His new definition was any criticism of himself, his administration, and his policies. He illegally suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus (illegal according to this own attorney general, Robert Bates) and had the military arrest and imprison without due process tens of thousands of Northern-state citizens, including newspaper editors, the Maryland legislature, the mayor of Baltimore, the grandson of Francis Scott Key who was a Baltimore newspaper editor, Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham of Ohio, his chief critic in the U.S. Congress, and essentially anyone overheard criticizing the government. (See Freedom Under Lincoln by Dean Sprague and Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln by James Randall).

More than 300 Northern newspapers were shut down for criticizing the Lincoln regime as documented by James Randall, the preeminent Lincoln scholar of the twentieth century.

Lincoln’s Real Agenda: A Mercantilism Empire

Lincoln began his political career in 1832 as a Whig. Northern Whigs like Lincoln were the party of the corporate plutocracy who wanted to use the coercive powers of government to line the pockets of their big business benefactors (and of themselves). They proclaimed to stand for what their political predecessor, Alexander Hamilton, called the “American System.” This was really an Americanized version of the rotten, corrupt system of British “mercantilism” that the colonists had rebelled against. Its planks included protectionist tariffs to benefit Northern manufacturers and their banking and insurance industry business associates; a government-run national bank to provide cheap credit to politically-connected businesses; and “internal improvement subsidies,” which we today would call “corporate welfare,” for canal-, road-, and railroad-building corporations. So when Lincoln first ran for political office in Illinois in 1832 he announced: “I am humble Abraham Lincoln. I have been solicited by many friends to become a candidate for the legislature. My politics are short and sweet, like the old woman’s dance. I am in favor of a national bank . . . in favor of the internal improvements system and a high protective tariff.” He would devote his entire political career for the next twenty-nine years on that agenda.

The major opposition to Lincoln’s agenda of a mercantilism empire modeled after the British empire had always been from the South, as Presidents Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, and Tyler, among others, vetoed or obstructed Whig and later, Republican, legislation. There were Southern supporters of this agenda, and Northern, Jeffersonian opponents of it, but it is nevertheless true that the overwhelming opposition to this Northern, Hamiltonian scheme came from the Jeffersonian South.

Henry Clay was the leader of the Whigs until his death in 1852, and Lincoln once claimed that he got all of his political ideas from Clay, who he eulogized as “the beau ideal of a statesman.” In reality, the Hamilton/Clay/Lincoln “American System” was best described by Edgar Lee Masters, who was Clarence Darrow’s law partner and a renowned playwright (author of The Spoon River Anthology). In his book, Lincoln the Man (p. 27), Masters wrote that:“Henry clay was the champion of that political system which doles favors to the strong in order to win and to keep their adherence to the government. His system offered shelter to devious schemes and corrupt enterprises . . . He was the beloved son of Alexander Hamilton with his corrupt funding schemes, his superstitions concerning the advantage of a public debt, and a people taxed to make profits for enterprises that cannot stand alone. His example and his doctrines led to the creation of a party that had not platform to announce, because its principles were plunder and nothing else.

This was the agenda that Abraham Lincoln devoted his entire political life to. The “American System” was finally fully enacted with Lincoln’s Pacific Railroad Bill, which led to historic corruption during the Grant administration with its gargantuan subsidies to railroad corporations and others; fifty years of high, protectionist tariffs that continued to plunder Agricultural America, especially the South and the Mid-West, for the benefit of the industrial North; the nationalization of the money supply with the National Currency Acts and Legal Tender Acts; and the beginnings of a welfare state with veterans’ pensions. Most importantly, the system of federalism that was established by the founding fathers was all but destroyed with a massive shift in political power to Washington, D.C. and away from the people, due to the abolition (at gunpoint) of the rights of nullification and secession.

Lincoln’ Biggest Failure

Slavery was ended peacefully everywhere else in the world during the nineteenth century. This includes Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New York, where slaves were once used to build slave ships that sailed out of New York, Providence, Hartford, Providence, and Boston harbors. There were still slaves in New York City as late as 1853.

Nobel prize-winning economist Robert Fogel and co-author Stanley Engerman, in their book, Time on the Cross, describe how the British, Spanish, and French empires, as well as the Swedes, Danes, and Dutch, ended slavery peacefully during the nineteenth century. Whenever slaves did participate in wars in Central America and elsewhere, it was because they were promised freedom by one side in the war; the purpose of the wars, however, was never to free the slaves.

The British simply used tax dollars to purchase the freedom of the slaves and then legally ended the practice. The cost of the “Civil War” to Northern taxpayers alone would have been sufficient to achieve the same thing in the U.S. Instead, the slaves were used as political pawns in a war that ended with the death of as many as 850,000 Americans according to the latest research (the number was 620,000 for the past 100 years or so), with more than double that amount maimed for life, physically and psychologically. (Lincoln did make a speech in favor of “compensated emancipation” in the border states but insisted that it be accompanied by deportation of any emancipated slaves. He never used his “legendary” political skills, however, to achieve any such outcome, as a real statesman would have done – minus the deportation).

The Glory of the Coming of the Lord?

By the mid nineteenth century the world had evolved such that international law and the laws of war condemned the waging of war on civilians. It was widely recognized that civilians would always become casualties in any war, but to intentionally target them was a war crime.

The Lincoln regime reversed that progress and paved the way for all the gross wartime atrocities of the twentieth century by waging war on Southern civilians for four long years. Rape, pillage, plunder, the bombing and burning of entire cities populated only by civilians was the Lincolnian way of waging war – not on foreign invaders but on his own fellow American citizens. (Lincoln did not consider secession to be legal; therefore, he thought of all citizens of the Southern states to be American citizens, not citizens of the Confederate government).

General Sherman said in a letter to his wife that his purpose was “extermination, not of soldiers alone, that is the least part of the trouble, but the people” (Letter from Sherman to Mrs. Sherman, July 31, 1862). Two years later, he would order his artillery officers to use the homes of Atlanta occupied by women and children as target practice for four days, while much of the rest of the city was a conflagration. The remaining residents were then kicked out of their homes – in November with the onset of winter. Ninety percent of Atlanta was demolished after the Confederate army had left the city.

General Philip Sheridan similarly terrorized the civilians of the Shenandoah Valley in Virginia. All of this led historian Lee Kennett, in his biography of Sherman, to honestly state that “had the Confederates somehow won, had their victory put them in position to bring their chief opponents before some sort of tribunal, they would have found themselves justified . . . in stringing up President Lincoln and the entire Union high command for violation of the laws of war, specifically for waging war against noncombatants” (Lee Kennett, Marching Through Georgia: The Story of Soldiers and Civilians During Sherman’s Campaign, p. 286).

About All Those Statues

Professor Murray N. Rothbard (1926-1995) was perhaps the most famous academic libertarian in the world during the last half of the twentieth century. A renowned Austrian School economist, he also wrote widely on historical topics, especially war and foreign policy. In a 1994 essay entitled “Just War” (online at https://mises.org/library/just-war), Rothbard argued that the only two American wars that would qualify as just wars (defined as wars to ward off a threat of coercive domination) were the American Revolution and the South’s side in the American “Civil War.” Without getting into his detailed explanation of this, his conclusion is especially relevant and worth quoting at length:

“[I]n this War Between the States, the South may have fought for its sacred honor, but the Northern war was the very opposite of honorable. We remember the care with which the civilized nations had developed classical international law. Above all, civilians must not be targeted; wars must be limited. But the North insisted on creating a conscript army, a nation in arms, and broke the 19th-century rules of war by specifically plundering and slaughtering civilians, by destroying civilian life and institutions so as to reduce the South to submission. Sherman’s famous march through Georgia was one of the great war crimes, and crimes against humanity, of the past century-and-a-half. Because by targeting and butchering civilians, Lincoln and Grant and Sherman paved the way for all the genocidal horrors of the monstrous 20th century. . . . As Lord Acton, the great libertarian historian, put it, the historian, in the last analysis, must be a moral judge. The muse of the historian, he wrote, is not Clio but Rhadamanthus, the legendary avenger of innocent blood. In that spirit, we must always remember, we must never forget, we must put in the dock and hang higher than Haman, those who, in modern times, opened the Pandora’s Box of genocide and the extermination of civilians: Sherman, Grant, and Lincoln.

Perhaps, some day, their statues will be toppled and melted down; their insignias and battle flag will be desecrated, and their war songs tossed into the fire.

Perhaps, some day. But in the meantime, and for the past 150 years, the mountain of lies that has concocted the Lincoln Myth has been invoked over and over again to “justify” war after war, all disguised as some great moral crusade, but in reality merely a tool to enrich the already wealthy-beyond-their-wildest-dreams military/industrial complex and its political promoter class. As Robert Penn Warren wrote in his 1960 book, The Legacy of the Civil War, the Lincoln Myth, painstakingly fabricated by the Republican Party, long ago created a “psychological heritage” that contends that “the Northerner, with his Treasury of Virtue” caused by his victory in the “Civil War,” feels as though he has “an indulgence, a plenary indulgence, for all sins past, present, and future.” This “indulgence,” wrote Warren, “is the justification for our crusades of 1917-1918 and 1941-1945 and our diplomacy of righteousness, with the slogan of unconditional surrender and universal rehabilitation for others” (emphasis added). Robert Penn Warren believed that most Americans were content with all of these lies about their own history, the work of what he called “the manipulations of propaganda specialists,” referring to those who describe themselves as “Lincoln scholars.”]]>
<![CDATA[“The Worst Elements of Society”: America’s Bolshevik Wannabes]]>Thu, 24 Aug 2017 14:18:01 GMThttp://deovindice.org/the-condederate-society-blog/the-worst-elements-of-society-americas-bolshevik-wannabes
​By 
Thomas DiLorenzo
reprinted from Lew Rockwell.com

They’ve attacked and beat up elderly people attempting to attend Trump-for-President rallies; attacked people with solid iron bicycle locks, bike racks, clubs, rocks, mace, baseball bats, and bottles filled with urine and feces.  They threw cement blocks through storefront windows in D.C. on inauguration day, claiming it to be a protest against capitalism.  They’ve set police cars, civilian cars, and buildings on fire to interrupt campus speeches by conservatives.  They hospitalized a female university professor for the “crime” of inviting conservative political scientist Charles Murray to speak at Middlebury College.

They organize a riot whenever a conservative or libertarian is invited (by students, never by faculty) to speak at a university.  They gather by the hundreds to scream F-bombs at those with whom they suspect they disagree on issues related to politics and government. They’ve firebombed Republican Party offices; shut down college campuses; thrown eggs at and spit on Trump supporters; fired gunshots at and punctured tires of cars with Trump bumper stickers.  One of them shot a congressman at a baseball practice in D.C.  Another shot several people at the Family Research Council headquarters in D.C. after being informed by the Southern Poverty Law Center, the preeminent purveyor of politically-inspired hate, that the pro-family organization, like so many other conservative and libertarian organizations, was supposedly a “hate group.”  They often cover their faces with masks, wear helmets, and show up at public events armed with clubs, baseball bats, and guns.

They believe that the ends justify the means, the opposite of traditional morality, because they are self-proclaimed socialists and communists.  They carry signs identifying themselves with Socialist International, Democratic Socialists of America, and other far-left communistic groups.  When they vandalized the 225-year-old memorial to Christopher Columbus in Baltimore they videotaped the scene with a message condemning Columbus for bringing “European capitalism” to America, the greatest of all crimes.

They are clamoring for the demolition of the Washington Monument, Jefferson Memorial, and Mount Rushmore.  Like the Taliban that has destroyed hundreds of religious monuments, they seek to destroy all monuments to Western civilization, which they have been taught is the root of all worldly evil.  They are defended by their ideological brethren at CNN, which has declared in fine Orwellian fashion that these violent criminals “seek peace through violence”.

Many of them are extreme bigots and ignoramuses, loudly proclaiming that all white people, regardless of their character and behavior, are “Nazis,” “white supremacists,” or worse.  They call for nothing less than genocide of “white European civilization.”  For the past several decades, they have claimed that heir guiding philosophy is the philosophy of “inclusion.”  Of course, by “inclusion” these totalitarian-minded professional rioters mean using force and violence to impose their will on all of society.  The vast majority of them, according to television and internet images, appear to be young twentysomethings or “millennials.”

They are a perfect example of what Nobel prize-winning economist F.A. Hayek called “the worst elements of any society” in the chapter of his classic book, The Road to Serfdom, entitled “Why the Worst Get on Top.”   The chapter is a discussion of how societies that become more totalitarian are inevitably led by the most immoral among them, followed by a large mob of “the worst elements of society.”

Hayek’s Recipe for Totalitarian Mobs
The main objective of all socialists is to use the coercive powers of the state to force some kind of societal “plan” or plans on the entire society, replacing all the individual plans that people normally make for their own lives.  It is about totalitarian control.  The problem, wrote Hayek, is how to organize a mob large enough to be able to enforce the views of the behind-the-scenes architects of the totalitarian scheme.  An example would be leftist billionaire George Soros, who reportedly finances much of the above-mentioned criminal activity.  The Democratic National Committee was also “outed” by “Project Veritas” investigative reporters as a financing and organizing vehicle for thuggish violence against Trump supporters during the 2016 presidential campaign.

One “principle” of mob selection, said Hayek, is that the largest mobs will be comprised of “the least original and independent [minded].”  The “lowest common denominator” in terms of morals and intelligence, in other words.

A second “negative principle of selection” is “the support of all the docile and gullible, who have no strong convictions of their own but are prepared to accept a ready-made system of values if it is only drummed into their ears sufficiently loudly and frequently” (p. 160).  It is these who will “swell the ranks of the totalitarian party.”  This of course sounds very similar to the thousands of young “protesters” who, whenever they are interviewed on the spot by a reporter, seem unintelligible when asked about what, exactly, they are protesting.  They seem only capable of shouting a few slogans like “Nazis!”  “White supremacists!!”

Third, the “skillful demagogue” will understand that “it is easier for people to agree on a negative program – on the hatred of an enemy, on the enemy of those better off – than on any positive task.”  If the leftist Bolshevik “protesters” in America today are about anything, it is about a psychotic hatred of just about everything to do with American (and Western) civilization.  They have been taught to be filled with hatred of their own society as “racist, sexist, and homophobic” since grade school.
When Hayek was writing The Road to Serfdom it was “the Jew” who “had come to be regarded as the representative of capitalism” and was therefore the object of the intense hatred of socialist totalitarians (Nazis) in Europe (p. 161).  In today’s America it is the “one percenters,” capitalism in general, and white heterosexual males, who are said to “oppress” just about everyone else.

Hayek’s characteristics of a totalitarian mob seem to fit today’s American Bolshevik wannebes like a glove.  In a recent survey of self-described socialists, 95 percent of whom were under the age of thirty, 48% were unemployed; 61% still lived with their parents; 69% were “uneducated”; only 14% supported free speech; while more than three times that number, 46%, supported riots as a means of advancing their cause.
]]>
<![CDATA[America's Second Civil War]]>Mon, 21 Aug 2017 15:37:02 GMThttp://deovindice.org/the-condederate-society-blog/americas-second-civil-warPicture

By 
Patrick J. Buchanan

“They had found a leader, Robert E. Lee — and what a leader! … No military leader since Napoleon has aroused such enthusiastic devotion among troops as did Lee when he reviewed them on his horse Traveller.”

So wrote Samuel Eliot Morison in his magisterial “The Oxford History of the American People” in 1965.

First in his class at West Point, hero of the Mexican War, Lee was the man to whom President Lincoln turned to lead his army. But when Virginia seceded, Lee would not lift up his sword against his own people, and chose to defend his home state rather than wage war upon her.

This veneration of Lee, wrote Richard Weaver, “appears in the saying attributed to a Confederate soldier, ‘The rest of us may have … descended from monkeys, but it took a God to make Marse Robert.'”

Growing up after World War II, this was accepted history.

Yet, on the militant left today, the name Lee evokes raw hatred and howls of “racist and traitor.” A clamor has arisen to have all statues of him and all Confederate soldiers and statesmen pulled down from their pedestals and put in museums or tossed onto trash piles.

What has changed since 1965?

It is not history. There have been no great new discoveries about Lee.

What has changed is America herself. She is not the same country. We have passed through a great social, cultural and moral revolution that has left us irretrievably divided on separate shores.

And the politicians are in panic.

Two years ago, Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe called the giant statues of Lee and “Stonewall” Jackson on Richmond’s Monument Avenue “parts of our heritage.” After Charlottesville, New York-born-and-bred McAuliffe, entertaining higher ambitions, went full scalawag, demanding the statues be pulled down as “flashpoints for hatred, division, and violence.”
Who hates the statues, Terry? Who’s going to cause the violence? Answer: The Democratic left whom Terry must now appease.

McAuliffe is echoed by Lt. Gov. Ralph Northam, the Democratic candidate in November to succeed McAuliffe. GOP nominee Ed Gillespie wants Monument Avenue left alone.

The election is the place to decide this, but the left will not wait.

In Durham, North Carolina, our Taliban smashed the statue of a Confederate soldier. Near the entrance of Duke University Chapel, a statue of Lee has been defaced, the nose broken off.

Wednesday at dawn, Baltimore carried out a cultural cleansing by taking down statues of Lee and Maryland Chief Justice Roger Taney who wrote the Dred Scott decision and opposed Lincoln’s suspension of the right of habeas corpus.

Like ISIS, which smashed the storied ruins of Palmyra, and the al-Qaida rebels who ravaged the fabled Saharan city of Timbuktu, the new barbarism has come to America. This is going to become a blazing issue, not only between but within the parties.

For there are 10 Confederates in Statuary Hall in the Capitol, among them Lee, Georgia’s Alexander Stephens, vice president to Jefferson Davis, and Davis himself. The Black Caucus wants them gone.

Mount Rushmore-sized carvings of Lee, Jackson and Davis are on Stone Mountain, Georgia. Are they to be blasted off?
There are countless universities, colleges and high schools like Washington & Lee named for Confederate statesmen and soldiers. Across the Potomac from D.C. are Jefferson Davis Highway and Leesburg Pike to Leesburg itself, 25 miles north. Are all highways, streets, towns and counties named for Confederates to be renamed? What about Fort Bragg?

On every Civil War battlefield, there are monuments to the Southern fallen. Gettysburg has hundreds of memorials, statues and markers. But if, as the left insists we accept, the Confederates were traitors trying to tear America apart to preserve an evil system, upon what ground do Democrats stand to resist the radical left’s demands?

What do we do with those battlefields where Confederates were victorious: Bull Run, Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville?

“Where does this all end?” President Trump asked.

It doesn’t. Not until America’s histories and biographies are burned and new texts written to Nazify Lee, Jackson, Davis and all the rest, will a newly indoctrinated generation of Americans accede to this demand to tear down and destroy what their fathers cherished.

And once all the Confederates are gone, one must begin with the explorers, and then the slave owners like Presidents Washington, Jefferson and Madison, who seceded from slave-free Britain. White supremacists all.

Andrew Jackson, Henry Clay of Kentucky and John Calhoun must swiftly follow.

Then there are all those segregationists. From 1865 to 1965, virtually all of the great Southern senators were white supremacists.

In the first half of the 20th century, Woodrow Wilson and FDR carried all 11 states of a rigidly segregationist South all six times they ran, and FDR rewarded Dixie by putting a Klansman on the Supreme Court.

While easy for Republicans to wash their hands of such odious elements as Nazis in Charlottesville, will they take up the defense of the monuments and statues that have defined our history, or capitulate to the icon-smashers?

In this Second American Civil War, whose side are you on?

]]>
<![CDATA[Saturday in Charlotesville]]>Wed, 16 Aug 2017 15:09:58 GMThttp://deovindice.org/the-condederate-society-blog/saturday-in-charlotesvilleBy Paul Gottfried
reprinted from Lew Rockwell.com

Looking at a French nationalist website Boulevard Voltaire this morning, I notice a repetition of the conventional American media account of what occurred in Charlottesville on Saturday. The news commentary explained that a white racist had run down and killed with a vehicle a thirty-two-year-old “anti-racist” demonstrator, Heather Heyer, while injuring other anti-racists who were protesting a “Unite the Right” rally in downtown Charlottesville. The supposed occasion for the demonstration, the removal of a twenty-six foot statue of Robert E. Lee, did not seem to interest the French commentator, although presumably if French anti-fascists were calling for dismantling statues of Charles de Gaulle or Joan of Arc all over France, the writer might have reacted differently. As an American observer of these events, who makes no bones about his utter revulsion for contemporary American “liberal” and “conservative” commentaries (which I find mostly indistinguishable), I think there’s more to the story of what went on in Charlottesville on Saturday than our authorized political sides want us to believe.

First of all, I find no heroes emerging from these events. The police showed no ability or perhaps no willingness to keep the two sides separated; and when they met it was inevitable that these armed partisans who hated each other’s guts would clash. Although the dismantling of Lee’s statue (in May a judge placed a six-month stay on this outrage) may have been only the pretext for obnoxious youth to raise holy Hell, the removal of Confederate statues and the renaming of parks and streets commemorating Confederate commanders is sheer lunacy. It should be opposed by all possible legal means. The NAACP and leftist cranks like Max Boot who push this agenda are the American equivalent of the Taliban. Are we supposed to do the PC cringe again when the usual pests demand that we remove the names of Jefferson, Madison and Washington from every city in this country because our country’s Founders owned slaves?

As for the bloody clash in Charlottesville, it’s impossible for me to read the account provided by neocon princeling John Podhoretz in the New York Post this morning without losing my breakfast.  The villain for Podhoretz (as it always is these days when’s he’s not attacking critics of the Likud Party) is Donald Trump who refused “to denounce Nazis and white supremacists unqualifiedly and by name.” It seems that Trump had the “shamelessness” to suggest that there were two sides involved in the clash in Charlottesville. (Donald Trump has since unloaded all his fire on Pod’s target.)  The anti-fascist and BLM protestors, according to Podhoretz’s doctored narrative, were merely “responding” to hate; and the president whom Podhoretz wouldn’t back against Hillary and whom he continues to denounce “refused to name the evil in our midst,” thereby showing “the behavior of a man whose moral sense is stunted.” On Saturday evening, Fox-news offered an interview by Julie Banderas of a Weekly Standard senior editor who scolded Trump for not treating the Altright in the same denunciatory manner as ISIS. Both, according to Ms. Torrance, were equally dangerous terrorist organizations.

Needless to say, I’ve never heard our authorized conservative opposition vent the same ferocious denunciations they’re now showing on anti-fascist vandals or on the Bernie Sanders supporter who tried to kill a crew of Republican Congressmen while practicing for a baseball game in Arlington, Virginia. Nor did the authorized leftist media agonize in the same way about left-wing extremism as Fox-news commentators did when they began screeching on Saturday night about right-wing dangers that are comparable to ISIS. The Left acted according to script, when their commentators tried to blame the attempted annihilation of Republican Congressmen on our right-wing extremist president.

But our bogus Right couldn’t leave their pandering to the Left with calls for special vigilance against a pervasive right-wing danger. On Fox’s Judge Jeanine segment we had the pleasure of listening to various Republican Congressmen from Virginia defining their “conservatism” as some kind of diversitarian globalist fantasy. One Latino Republican Congressman described the US as the world’s greatest multicultural success. All the Republican interviewees gave the impression that Charlottesville had been a sleepy serene college town, like a throwback to Monty Wooly’s “Halls of Ivy,” before it was invaded by neo-Nazis.  These saccharine comments revealed little about the reality of life in an area controlled by the PC Left and led by a bona fide leftist radical from New York City, Mayor Mike Signer.

I’ve also come to doubt that the group organized by Richard Spencer et al was more responsible for violence than the anti-fascist side. From the film I’ve just seen it seems conclusive that leftist thugs were at least as ready to rumble as were the white nationalists and neo-Nazis. Whether or not the Left initiated the fisticuffs (and there’s a high probability that it did) those who led it were far from naïve humanitarians who were “shocked” by white racists.  Moreover, both sides, including the white nationalists, integrated into their demonstrations basically decent people, who were simply reacting against something they found intolerable, such as a PC police state or neo-Nazi symbols. Such people were used by others on both sides who were looking for trouble. And the police did little to prevent it.

Finally I would observe as a representative of the independent Right that Richard Spencer and his friends did us a horrible disservice by contributing to the confrontation that took place on Saturday. Much of what Richard and other members of the Altright say about the growing indistinguishability of our authorized Right and authorized Left is entirely on the mark. But the way to combat this deplorable situation is not to team up with Nazis and encourage demonstrators to come armed to Charlottesville to protest the leftist Taliban. One has to create a counter-media to what our shared enemies have done and be willing to accept decent people, whatever their race, to combat left-wing totalitarians and fake conservative enablers.

The war for civilization is almost entirely between groups of whites, in fact mostly white Christians. The white Left has drawn in other groups, but mostly as auxiliary forces. The same battle would be going on, as it has been in much of Europe, if we were only dealing with white opponents. None of the multiculturalists I have known has been black; and calling white multicultural fanatics “race traitors” is a gross oversimplification because the object of leftist hate goes well beyond their own racial group. It now includes all normal people who have not been reconstructed by the managerial therapeutic state or are fighting the scourge of Political Correctness.  At the very least, Richard and his comrades have diverted us from this fight and compounded this injury by playing a role in the violence that should not have occurred.

I can’t help asking this rhetorical question, at least parenthetically at the end. According to white nationalist protocol, am I supposed to ally with white cultural leftists against the very black African Cardinal Robert Sarah, who spoke yesterday in Brittany? The good cardinal affirmed his reverence for the Vendean martyrs who fought for their king and church against the evil French Revolution. Needless to say the ideology that Cardinal Sarah decried was far less radically leftist than what our fake conservatives proclaim as their global democratic agenda. The struggle to restore a decent society that we’re in cannot and should not be reduced to racial differences.]]>
<![CDATA[Not a vanquished flag]]>Tue, 15 Aug 2017 15:05:18 GMThttp://deovindice.org/the-condederate-society-blog/not-a-vanquished-flag​To: G.T. Bynum
Mayor of Tulsa

Dear Mayor Bynum,

I wish to reply to your comments concerning the violence in Charlottesville, VA.

First let me state that those of us who hold dear our Confederate history and heritage do not condone the KKK, Nazis, or any other hate group who have hijacked our flag, but who also are against the cultural genocide of our history and monuments. Those groups do more damage to our cause than any “help” they might believe they are rendering.

Your comment about the flag being “a vanquished flag” is a left-wing, anti-Southern, bigoted comment. Those who make such statements, and those who are foaming at the mouth to erase ALL things Southern and Confederate are grossly ignorant of our TRUE history. The myth that the War of Northern Aggression was about “freeing the slaves” is beyond ludicrous and absurd, and is very easily debunked with facts. Besides Lincoln himself stating that slavery was not the issue (even though he did make it an issue halfway through the war as the North was losing), the proposed Corwin Amendment and the Crittendon-Johnson Resolution prove the war was NOT about slavery. The Corwin Amendment, proposed by Congressman Thomas Corwin of Ohio, would have FOREVER made it illegal to abolish slavery if the seceded states would just return to the union and ratify it. They rejected it. Why? Because slavery was not the issue. Excessive tariffs and an overgrown tyrannical government were the problems. The Crittendon-Johnson Resolution stated that the war was not about interfering “with the rights or established institutions of those states”. IF slavery was the issue, why didn’t Lincoln free the more than 420,000 slaves who were in the union AFTER the Southern states seceded? In fact, he countermanded General Fremont’s order in Missouri and ordered emancipated slaves to be returned to their masters. No sir, it was NOT about slavery.

Our history has been rewritten and force-fed to America for 150 years. No wonder so many are ignorant of the truth. If everyone knew the truth about our history, about how the Northern armies burned, raped, and looted their way across the South and robbed it of it’s natural resources, and trampled the Constitution in the process, and that the problems we have today stem directly from the tyrannical actions of Lincoln and his cronies who created a strong, centralized government and virtually erased state’s rights, the cultural genocide we see taking place today would not be occurring. But we are a divided people because the government has been lying for 150 years about our history and brainwashed generations of people, yet there are millions of us who have done the reading and research and know the truth. We can back up all we say with the facts, and many of them are found in the "Official Records: War of the Rebellion". Not one word in there mentions the war being about slavery. And speaking of slavery, just who do you supposed brought the slaves to America? Not Southerners. It was the New England slave traders who built the ships and brought their cargoes of human flesh to this continent. Not one slave ship ever flew a flag from the CSA, but many flew Old Glory. Now which is the racist flag? Old Glory flew over slavery for 87 years. The Confederate Flag for four years.

Yet the South gets all the blame for slavery and our heroes, who were good Christian men, are slandered and their monuments taken down. This would not be tolerated if it were being done to any other group of people; blacks, Muslims, Indians, etc. But since it is against the South, all the left-wingers and communist media are on board with it. We even have a local “historian” in Tulsa who has a plaque at Crystal City in West Tulsa which has the erroneous and blasphemous phrase “War of Southern Aggression” engraved on it. Our history is being erased, our brave dead slandered, street and school names changed, and our monuments and flags removed because those “offended” call them racist and hateful, which only describes the perpetrators of this genocide. Let me assure you sir, that the Confederate Flag is NOT a “vanquished” flag. It has flown in my yard since the day it was removed from the State Grounds in South Carolina by that scalawag of a governor, who, by the way, celebrates her culture from India, but denied those descendants of Confederate soldiers in her state to do the same. The sale of Confederate flags has gone through the roof. I have to replace mine every six months due to it becoming weather-worn, and I will continue to do so. My ancestors fought an illegal invasion to defend their families and homes from the monstrous federal armies, and I will continue to honor all Confederate dead, black and white, Indian and Jew. It is time for the leaders of our communities, states, and in the federal government to grow a pair, stand up, and tell the truth about our history instead of joining in with the cultural genocide crowd, Hollywood, and the mythical media in furthering the slander and propaganda aimed at our Southern and Confederate history, symbols, and soldiers. This has got to stop. Political correctness is going to destroy this country. Don't be a participant in that. Get a clue, learn the truth, and stand up for what is right. Hint: The cultural genocide of our Southern history is the wrong side, and those who do it and support it are of the same mold as Hitler, Stalin, and ISIS.

Respectfully,

Jeff Paulk
Tulsa, OK

]]>
<![CDATA[Charlottesville aftermath]]>Sun, 13 Aug 2017 17:18:22 GMThttp://deovindice.org/the-condederate-society-blog/charlottesville-aftermathPicture


Editor's note: The Confederate Society does not condone the violence that took place at Chancellorsville this weekend, nor is it in league with the LoS or other hate based organizations. The Society is an independent Confederate organization that seeks to educate and advance the cause of the Confederate soldier who fought to defend his State, homestead and family from Yankee oppression and invasion. It see's the WTBS as an immoral and illegal invasion of the Southern States cloaked in the false narrative of emancipating slaves. The rejection of the Corwin Amendment, the testimony of Alexander Stephens after the failed peace conference of February 1865, as well as other direct accounts of Lincoln's own words give ample credence to the fact that the North fought to preserve the Union at all costs whereas the South fought for its own determination. This website is full of these facts and accounts if anyone from the Marxist left or Media would bother to learn the other side. 

The violence at Charlottesville was condemned by all the MSM, but not a single one of them bothered to learn the cause of the protest. A vial Marxist council member, Wes Bellemy, (image below) whose tweets include the exploitation and rape of white women while they sleep, instigated the removal of General Robert E. Lee's statute, that had been standing on donated land for over 100 years. That land was donated by a true Confederate who wished that statue to stand as a memorial to the Christian leader that General Lee was. It's very desecration led to the protest spinning out of control as leftist Marxist groups such as antifa and BLM stormed onto the protest grounds and began to assault the protesters. The protesters responded in kind with violence and the MSM got what they wanted, another distraction to call white Southerners and nationalists racists and nazi's all the while giving a free pass to the Marxist's and joyfully changing the term terrorist from a Jihadi based group to anyone associated with States rights, conservative right or white in general. 

I am sure General's Lee and Grant are rolling over in their graves at what a farce this country has become. 





By JD Montes: 

​ANTIFA and BLM are pretextual names for movements better known as Marxist-Communists. They pick "low-hanging fruit" causes such as Confederate memorials to incense their base and draw support in preparation for an intentional bait-and-switch. In reality they are Anti-American, anti-liberty, unilateralists, pro-violence, pro-revenge and antithetical to the historical American experience.

Their goal is cultural revisionism and erasure of history like the NAZI ideology they falsely oppose. They are the modern American "NAZI" movement. Intent on tearing down our great Constitutional- Republic with fake causes intending to rebuild under their communist umbrella of suppression of the people, not freedom for people. They are fakes who will pivot from Confederate memorials to taking down images of US Founding Fathers. They already want to take down President Andrew Jacksons statue in Jacksonville Fl and they have a movement afoot to take down Thomas Jefferson on the Columbia University campus.

Make no mistake; their soil is Marxism under the disguise of opposing racism and bigotry only to grow cultural and ideological revisionism upon an unsuspecting citizenry. They are like Greek sirens calling people with their trumpets only to mislead them to more evil and insidious anti-americanism.

Sadly the American MSM is part of that movement; fully lying to the public while plotting their eventual takeover. They cannot take America by force from the outside, so they choose to take America from the inside. US President Abraham Lincoln was right about one thing: "“America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.” So it is today.

The ACLU and the and other civil liberty organizations supported yesterday's rally in the name of free speech. The Federal court granted permit to the organizers only to have a city council attempt to force them to move their lawful assembly miles outside of town due to (you guessed it: ANTIFA and BLM dissent). But real liberty, Liberals argue, does not recognize only speech with which you agree. It recognizes and protects that speech with which you do not agree. So what have we here?
We have the suppression of a rally only because of disagreement with their message of keeping the memorials standing while the real "haters" spread their divisive message of tearing down veterans memorials across this land to serve their false intent.

If history is to record the past, then let it record the past for the good of the future. Should we erase history because it does not comport with our sensitivities, taste or flavor. Maybe we should outlaw all ice cream except chocolate. But frankly taste and opinion are personal. So if sensitivity and opinions are a fluid concept in the liberal mind, why would a political party like Democrats buy into Marxism leading to Communism? Because it suits their political agenda, all the while unknowingly (or maybe knowingly) selling out American ideals of capitalism and individual liberty to movements like ANTIFA and BLM.

These memorials, these monuments were gifts to Southern states who fought for a cause that was self-preservation. The rally cry of the Marxists is that it's all about slavery. But to say that 'slavery' was the primary cause in and of itself is too easy, too simple, too unthinking. Rather a pervasive examination of the American political and economic machine in the early days of this nation is required to truly understand "The Cause". The American war between the states was no more solely about slavery than just being solely about battles and men, but moreso, that slavery was merely a singular sub-element of broader reasons of self government and true constitutionalism. That, my friends, is truly American? Where is George Washington when I need him?

I am not justifying slavery, but I am stating that slavery was not the primary cause of any "civil war". It is but a convenient term given to us by the victors because its sounds moral, holy and worthy in a war that the North was losing until Lincoln's self-reluctant Emancipation Proclamation made it a moral battle. This war was about keeping the Union together at all costs in his eyes. So sound bites, digitized words, photos, and singularly defined negative words do no justice to the history of this nation's greatest internal conflict. It does no justice to the sons, fathers and families that gave the ultimate sacrifice to their state when duty called. These monuments are to dead veterans who fought for their homeland states --- something we cannot today truly understand politically and know little about without deeper examination in a historical context. Frankly, they are all veterans...AMERICAN veterans as declared by the US Congress in the 1950s. They were brothers vs brothers and fathers vs fathers. These memorials should be protected and embraced like the prodigal son; not eschewed and reviled.

In the end, this isn't about racism or bigotry from an inanimate object standing silently in a park or courthouse lawn. It is about whether this nation will live up to its constitutional principles and ideals of free speech or do we embrace the false and darker path of allowing unilateral opinion to destroy Southern history which is really an American history.
Do we really believe in our Constitution? Or are we just lapdogs for every PC movement that comes along with faux causes disguised in pretty verbiage that really intend to attack our Constitutional form of government under false pretense of defying racism and bigotry?

So if only one side is allowed to protest...if only one brother in a war is to be revered...if only one mother is allowed to weep for her dead child...if only one father is permitted to honor his lost son at war...if only one side receives justice because of past wrongs...if the media relates one opinion and not just the facts...then are BLM, MSM and ANTIFA honestly against Facism? Or are they for it?

Better yet, are WE for it? If yes, then this social experiment built on individual liberty and freedom...it wont last much longer.
I say, Joseph Goebbels would be proud of these intentionally fake movements.

]]>
<![CDATA[Can Germany Be Made Great Again?]]>Sat, 12 Aug 2017 14:30:48 GMThttp://deovindice.org/the-condederate-society-blog/can-germany-be-made-great-againPicture

Antonius Aquinas@AntoniusAquinas

Ever since the start of the deliberately conceived “migrant crisis,” orchestrated by NWO elites, the news out of Germany has been, to say the least, horrific.  Right before the eyes of the world, a country is being demographically destroyed through a coercive plan of mass migration.  The intended consequences of this – financial strain, widespread crime and property destruction, the breakdown of German culture – will continue to worsen if things are not turned around.

Opposition to the societal destruction within Germany have been harassed and persecuted by the authorities and labeled by the mass media with the usual epithets: “far right,” neo-Nazi, “haters,” and heaven forbid, “separatists.”  Because of this and other factors, there has been no mass movement, as of yet, that has coalesce to challenge the German political establishment.

A possible reversal of German fortunes, however, has come from a recent poll of Bavarians.*
A survey conducted by YouGov, a market research company, found that 32% of Bavarians agreed with the statement that Bavaria “should be independent from Germany.”  This percentage has increased from 25% of secession-minded Bavarians when polled in 2011.

Of the some 2000 surveyed between June 24 and July 5, most supporters of  independence come from the southern portions of the country.

Whether Bavarians or their fellow German separatists realize it or not, the only “political” solution to the migrant crisis is secession.  This is not only true for Germany, but for all Western nation states swamped with unwanted migrants.  Once free from the domination of the national government (and just as important the EU), each jurisdiction could make its own immigration policy and would be better able to control population influx at the local level.

Historically, Germany’s past has much more in common with a decentralized political landscape than with a unitary state.  From the disintegration of the Roman Empire until Napoleon wantonly abolished the Holy Roman Empire in 1806, Germany was an amalgam of different political units – kingdoms, duchies, confederacies, free cities, etc.  With no grand central state, there was considerable freedom and economic growth as each sovereign entity was largely able to conduct its affairs on its own terms.

Decentralized political power is also conducive for the advancement of culture.  Music, the highest art form, found some of its greatest expression from the German peoples.  And, the monumental figures of Western music were financed in large measure by German princes, kings, and emperors.  Johann Sebastian Bach’s sublime Brandenburg concertos were underwritten, so to speak, by Christian Ludwig, Margrave of Brandenburg while Beethoven received support from Archduke Rudolph.  Mozart was funded no less by the Austrian emperor himself, Joseph II.

Political decentralization provides an important mechanism as a check on state power.

  A multitude of governments prevents individual state aggrandizement as oppressed populations can “vote with their feet” and move to safer and less repressive regimes.  A unitary state, or just a few, throughout the world would negate such an advantage.

Naturally, if nation states are a constant threat to the liberties and economic well being of their citizens, global organizations and states are that much more of a danger and should always and everywhere be opposed.  The European Union, largely based on the principles of the US Constitution, has pressured nations under their sway, such as Germany, to accept the migrants and has threatened members such as Hungary and Poland with penalties if they do not do their fair share.

The empirical evidence is overwhelming in regard to political decentralization and economic growth.  Since the level of taxation and government regulation are crucial factors in an economy’s ability to produce, the limitation on taxation and government oversight tend to be significantly lower if there are numerous states since there would be amble opportunities for producers to go to more conducive areas to set up shop.  This can be seen in the US as thousands of oppressed businesses and firms have left California to lower tax and restrictive climes such as Texas and Nevada.

If Germany is ever to get a handle on the migration crisis before the country is completely demographically dismembered, its only hope is to return to its decentralized political roots.  Let Bavaria lead the way!

]]>
<![CDATA['Nations Substitution': Witnessing the 'Biological Extinction' of Europeans]]>Wed, 09 Aug 2017 16:51:44 GMThttp://deovindice.org/the-condederate-society-blog/nations-substitution-witnessing-the-biological-extinction-of-europeansEditor's note: The Society  has been warning about this danger for years and it is well that other media groups are starting to notice the impact from open borders immigration. America has the benefit of two large oceans on either coast making it difficult to reach her by sea but Europe is another matter altogether. Please check out the gum ball video on Connecting the Dots to help draw some semblance of reality to what awaits those who support and tolerate open immigration. 
The Muslim invasion on Europe goes on unabated, and in fact aided, by political hacks who care less about their people, society and customs, preferring their gravitous, greed and power. They have never studied their own history, much like the liberals in this country and need to be expunged from governance before they destroy themselves from within. 

In 732 A.D., the Muslim Army, which was moving on Paris, was Defeated and turned back at Tours, France, by Charles Martell.

In 1571 A.D., the Muslim Army/Navy was defeated by the Italians and Austrians as they tried to cross the Mediterranean to Attack Southern Europe in the Battle of Lepanto.

In 1683 A.D.,the Turkish Muslim Army, 
Attacking Eastern Europe, was finally Defeated in the Battle of Vienna by German and Polish Christian Armies.

In 2016 European leaders welcomed with open arms millions of Muslim immigrants (invaders) with open arms and joyful hearts. Not a shot was fired nor was a sword raised - that will  come when the Muslim's gain control and expunge the land of the infidels. 



Reprinted from Sputnik news:

Some European countries, namely Italy, Germany, France and the UK, are facing the so-called “substitution of nations,” where the national ethnical majority is disappearing physically and biologically, and is being substituted by migrants, according to a recent report. Sputnik Italy discussed the issue with Daniele Scalea, the author of the report.

The recent report of the Italian-based Machiavelli Center of Political and Strategic Studies (Centro studi politici e strategici Machiavelli), “How immigration is changing Italian demographics” has revealed that a number of European countries are facing the “biological and physical extinction” of their national ethnicities.

Ethnic majorities in such countries as Italy, Germany, France and the UK, are gradually turning into ethnic minorities, while being “substituted” by incoming migrants.

Sputnik Italy discussed the issue with Daniele Scalea, an analyst at the center and the author of the report.
Migration is drastically changing the habitual course of life in Italy, he told Sputnik. The reason for the influx of African migrants into Europe is not wars or catastrophes, but an explosive demographic increase on the African continent, from 9 percent to 25 percent of the global population throughout the last century.

While Europe, which accounted for over a fifth of the entire world population in 1950 (22 percent), is expected to make up just 7 percent of the world population in the year 2050, the percentage of the African population will make a sweeping rise from 9 percent to 40 percent.

Italy’s fertility rate is less than half of what it was in 1964, the analyst explained in his report. It has dropped from 2.7 children per woman to just 1.5 children per woman currently, a figure well below the replacement level for zero population growth of roughly 2.1 children per woman.As of the first half of this year, Italy had over 5 million foreigners living as residents, a remarkable 25 percent growth relative to 2012 and a whopping 270 percent since 2002. At that time, foreigners made up just 2.38 percent of the population while 15 years later the figure has nearly trebled to 8.33 percent of the population.

Moreover, even the children being born in Italy are over-represented by immigrants, whose birthrate is considerably higher than native Italians, the study revealed. It is “unsurprising,” therefore, that Italian regions with the highest fertility rates are no longer in the south, as was usual the case, but in the Italian north and in the Lazio region, where there is a higher concentration of immigrants.

If current trends continue, by 2065, first- and second-generation immigrants will exceed 22 million persons, or more than 40 percent of Italy’s total population.

By comparison, it was only in the not far-off 2001 that the percentage of foreigners living in Italy crossed the low threshold of 1 percent, which reveals the speed and magnitude of demographic change occurring in Italy, a phenomenon “without precedent” in Italy’s history, the study asserts.

An added concern brought forward by the report is the high concentration of immigrant populations from just a few countries of origin, which has often resulted elsewhere in the formation of “closed, homogeneous communities that fail to integrate with their host society,” or what Pope Francis has termed “ghettoization.”

“Traditionally, African migration took place only within the continent, in other words, Africans have been migrating from one African country to another. However for the past decade, there has been a tendency to migrate outside the continent,” Daniele Scalea told Sputnik.

He further explained that it happens due to sweeping demographic growth on the continent (from 9 percent to 25 percent of the global population.) The migrants have more financial (money for long-distance travel) and cultural (ability to evaluate their chances and become participants of more developed economies) opportunities, which enable them to search for a better life in Europe and not in a neighboring African country.

There are certain reasons why the streams of migrants are pouring into Europe: Europe is rich, it is easy to reach and its population is aging fast, thus young Africans are able to find their place among aging Europeans with low fertility rates.

Unfortunately, Italy is not alone in its demographic turmoil. Extrapolating from current trends, British citizens will no longer be the majority of the population in the United Kingdom around 2065.

In Germany today, 36 percent of children under five are born to immigrant parents, which presages a significant demographic shift in the next generation in that country as well. France is also in a similar situation.

“We are witnessing what I would call a “substitution of nations.” Ethnic majorities are becoming minorities in their own countries, physically disappearing, and it disturbs the native population,” Daniele Scalea told Sputnik.

“The European peoples will soon get anxious about this issue, as we are currently witnessing their physical and biological extinction. Europeans don’t have many children, and thus there are more and more people of other nationalities in Europe,” he explained.

The idea of multiculturalism partially facilitates this process. Migration has always been welcomed in Italy and it was hard to find a community where all the people had come from the same country. The situation, however, is changing now. The top 10 foreign ethnicities in Italy make up more than 60 percent if the total number of migrants.

France, Germany and the UK are in a similar situation. Turkish migrants dominate in Germany, Pakistanis – in the UK, Algerians – in France. The Italian society will soon consist of different communities, each with its own culture, rules and ways of existence. It will ruin the Italian society.

“There are only two ways of development. If we continue with the policies of the leftists, by viewing as positive the idea of multiculturalism and the erosion of national native ethnicities, the European civilization will cease to exist and Europe will become a territory, occupied by various ethnicities, which belong to various civilizations,” the analyst explained to Sputnik.

However there is another way: radically reconsider the migration policy, ban the entrance of migrants into Europe and toughen the assimilation of those who have already come.

This will prevent migrants from residing only with their compatriots and speaking only their native language, without assimilating into the European society. Migrants should learn the language of their country of residence and acknowledge the fundamental European values. This will enable them to become real Italians, Germans and French, Daniele Scalea concluded.]]>
<![CDATA[Rabbi Miller's article insults Southerners and especially Jewish Confederates]]>Mon, 31 Jul 2017 16:44:11 GMThttp://deovindice.org/the-condederate-society-blog/rabbi-millers-article-insults-southerners-and-especially-jewish-confederatesPicture
By: ​Lewis Regenstein
Atlanta, GA

​As a descendant of Jewish Confederate soldiers who fired the last shots in defense of Mobile at the end of the War Between the States, I found Rabbi Jonathan Miller's 27 July attack on the South to be highly ignorant and offensive. He certainly does not speak for my People, and I would appreciate the opportunity "to tell the other side of this story".

Rabbi Miller's article is insulting to the millions of decent Southerners whose ancestors fought for their homeland, especially those of us whose families fought for the South. Confederate soldiers overwhelmingly served their country with honor, courage, and valor, sacrificing much, sometimes their lives, and all they owned, defending their people and cities that were under attack by the North.

Some 3,500 to 5,000 Jews fought honorably and loyally for the Confederacy, including its Secretary of War and later State, Judah Benjamin. My then 16 year old great grandfather (Andrew Jackson Moses) served, as did his four brothers, their uncle, his three sons, and some two dozen other members of my Mother’s extended family (the Moses’ of South Carolina and Georgia). More than half a dozen of them fell in battle, largely teenagers, including the first and last Confederate Jews to die in battle (Albert Moses Luria and Joshua Lazarus Moses).

We know first hand, from their letters, diaries, and memoirs, that they and their comrades-in-arms were not fighting for slavery, but rather to defend themselves, their families, homes, and country from an often brutal invading army that was trying with great success to kill them, burn their homes and cities, and destroy everything they had.

Three of the Moses brothers fought with Culpeper's Battery, which on the last real day of the War, 9 April, 1865, the day General Lee surrendered, at the battle of Fort Blakeley, fired the last artillery barrages in defense of the Fort and Mobile, finally being overrun by a Union force outnumering theirs by twelve to one. At this, the last large infantry battle of the War, the eldest brother, Joshua, was killed; Horace was captured laying land mines (returning home from Union captivity "a skeleton" in his Mother's words); and Perry was wounded earlier and evacuated to New Orleans.
On that same day, a unit of Sherman’s army, which had just burned nearby Columbia, South Carolina, headed towards my family’s hometown of Sumter, presumably to do the same to it. My great grandfather rode out to fight Potter’s Raiders, along with some other teenagers, old men, and the wounded and invalids from the local hospital, a mission as hopeless as it was valiant. And with their families and homes and their own lives in mortal danger, defending slavery was the last thing on their minds.

It is strange to see a rabbi praising the Union army as if it were some human rights organization, and comparing Confederate memorials to the Nazi swastika. .It was the top Union General, Ulysses S. Grant, who on 17 December, 1862 issued the infamous General Order # 11 expelling all Jews "as a class" from his area of operations, including parts of Tennessee, Mississippi, and Kentucky. Union commanders also forbade Jews from riding on trains (November, 1862), and wrongly blamed them for whatever economic troubles the North encountered.

In contrast, Confederate Commander General Lee respected his Jewish soldiers and did his best to accommodate their religious observances and holidays.

It was this same Union Army (led by many of the same Civil War generals, including Sherman, Grant, Sheridan, and Custer)) that engaged in virtual genocide against the Native Americans in what we euphemistically call "the Indian Wars," often massacring harmless, defenseless old men, women, and children in their villages.

Other war crimes specifically committed by Grant include:

Ordering the destruction of an entire agricultural area to deny food to the South (the Shenandoah Valley, 5 August, 1864);
Leading the mass murder of the Plains Indians to make land available for the western railroads (the eradication of the Plains Indians, 1865-66);

Overseeing the complete destruction of defenseless Southern cities, and conducting such warfare against unarmed women and children (e.g., the razing of Meridien, and other cities in Mississippi, spring, 1863).

Contrast these atrocities (and many others too numerous to list) with the gentlemanly policies and behavior of the Confederate forces. My ancestor Major Raphael Jacob Moses, who was General James Longstreet’s chief commissary officer and is credited with carrying out the Last Order of the Confederate Government, was forbidden by General Robert E. Lee from even entering private homes in their raids into the North, such as the famous incursion into Pennsylvania. Moses was forced to obtain his supplies from businesses and farms, and he always paid for what he requisitioned, albeit in Confederate tender.

Moses and his Confederate colleagues never engaged in the type of warfare waged by the Union forces, especially that of General William T. Sherman on his infamous "March to the Sea" through Georgia and the Carolinas, in which his troops routinely burned, looted, and destroyed libraries, courthouses, churches, homes, and cities full of defenseless civilians, including my hometown of Atlanta.

It was not the South but rather the other side that engaged in genocide and other war crimes. While our ancestors may have lost the War, they never lost their honor, or engaged in anything that could justify the vilification that is so often directed at them nowadays .

We honor our ancestors and their military leaders with memorials because they showed amazing courage and valor, enduring incredible hardships against overwhelming and often hopeless odds, in fighting for their homeland. Rabbi Miller sort of acknowledges some of this towards the end of his article, but he is apparently unaware of most of this history.

Perhaps this letter will help educate him a bit about the proud history of Our People here in our beloved Southland..

Thank you for taking the time to consider these facts.



]]>