Wednesday, February 27, 2008

Confederate soldier identified as body in grave

By Tiffany Thompson, Staff Writer

Sunday, February 24, 2008 — After nearly 143 years, a new event can be added to the timeline of Sgt. Ivey Ritchie.The Confederate soldier of the 14th North Carolina Infantry was identified as the inhabitant of grave No. 4824 at Poplar Grove National Cemetery in Dinwiddie County, Va. on Feb. 13 during a mock trial at the historic Dinwiddie Courthouse.Jim Harwood, founder of the Ivey Ritchie Camp 1734 of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, as well as Joel Fesperman, commander, and Anthony Way 2nd Lt. commander of the camp, were the plaintiffs in the trial.“It was like a military tribunal,” said Harwood, “but I was impressed by how the National Park Service treated us. They were very fair.”Chris Calkins, chief interpreter for Petersburg Nation-al Battlefield, served as the defense, and Bob Kirby, superintendent for Peters-burg National Battlefield, was the moderator.“We had an hour to present our evidence and the National Park Service had an hour to provide theirs,” Harwood said.Among several of the arguments Harwood presented was the lack of adequate records.Recordkeeping at the time wasn’t precise and the first body was not buried at Poplar Grove until more than a year after the end of the war. As a result, it would be difficult to know exactly who occupies which grave.The fact that body-retrieval crews, also know as the “burial corps,” were paid only for finding Union Soldiers, which raised the possibility that a Confederate soldier, had been intentionally misidentified.Ritchie’s body was originally buried at Appomattox Courthouse and his brother, Marvel Ritchie, identified the body.Harwood believes Marvel placed an identifying marker on Ivey’s body, which is how the name Ritchie stuck with the body as it was exhumed and reinterred at Poplar Grove.He also believes, as was the custom during the Civil War due to lack of clothing, that Ritchie may have taken a jacket from a fallen Union soldier, which was why he was mistakenly identified.Harwood also presented a letter written by Marvel that showed his tendency to write “I’s” and “J’s” similarly.Also, the 14th New York Infantry, which was the group Richie was associated with and is included on the grave marker, disbanded more than two years earlier in 1863.Despite these facts, Calkins said it was still possible for Ritchie to be interred at Appomattox Courthouse. He also noted that due to the inadequate records, if a J. Richie wasn’t in the grave, it might not be Ivey Ritchie either.After a 90-minute lunch break, each side had 30 minutes to provide rebuttals.Once each side had finished, the three judges — A. Wilson Greene, president of Pamplin Historical and The National Museum of the Civil War; John Latschar, superintendent of Gettysburg National Military Park; and Patrick Schroeder, historian of Appomattox Courthouse National Historical Park — recessed to determine the outcome.“I was sitting on pins and needles,” Harwood said.After the judges returned, they each presented why they made their decision to change the headstone.“I felt the air go out of my body. Fourteen years of hard work and it’s all over and we won,” said Harwood.He also said the courthouse, which was packed with people, burst out in cheers.The change of the headstone will be included in a $2.3 million rehabilitation project at the Cemetery that will take place in 2012.“We’re planning to have a funeral ceremony at the graveside when the marker is changed, but that will be down the road,” said Harwood.In the meantime, a funeral service will be held in April at New Bethel Lutheran Church where a monument is erected in Ritchie’s honor, which is where many of Ritchie’s family members are buried.
Contact Tiffany Thompson at (704) 982-2121 ext. 24 or
© 2006 The Stanly News & Press237 W. North Street; Albemarle, NC 28001(704) 982-2121; Email News tips & feedback

Black Confederates often overlooked in American history

By Pamela Wood and Barbara Parsons / Chronicle contributors

Our nation celebrates Black History Month in February each year. Many African-Americans who contributed to our nation's history are recognized. Probably the most overlooked group of African-Americans is the Black Confederates.Black Confederates served within Confederate regiments alongside their white brothers. Black rebels served as body servants, musicians, teamsters, sentries, cooks, quartermasters, hospital stewards, chaplains, and engineers. An estimated 40,000 served in combat. Seventy-five Black Confederates rode in General Nathan Bedford Forrest’s cavalry, and a number rode with General John Hunt Morgan into Ohio. At least one of the Black Confederates captured with General Morgan was murdered in cold blood as he was brought into the Union Prison. The Union Army did not know how to explain black soldiers in the Confederacy to the people of the north. Capture for a Black Confederate many times was a death sentence.Perhaps you think this story would have no relevance in the Upper Cumberland region of Tennessee. In fact, within the past four years the Highland Brigade of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, and the Captain Sally Tompkins 2123, United Daughters of the Confederacy have marked the graves of two men in our area who received Tennessee Black Confederate pensions from the state of Tennessee.Pvt. Sam Cullom of Overton County (Livingston), a slave of the Cullom family, went to war with his owner's son, Jim Cullom. They were among the first unit to leave for Confederate duty from Overton County. They fought together in numerous campaigns until Jim Cullom was killed in the battles of the Atlanta campaign. Sam Cullom buried Jim and continued to fight with the unit until the end of the war, when he returned to Overton County. Sam Cullom’s application for a Tennessee Black Confederate pension was approved in three days of its arrival at the Confederate Pension Board in Nashville. Sam is buried in the Bethlehem Methodist Church cemetery just outside Livingston, in an area where Sam and his family were major landowners. Land in the area where the Overton County Fairgrounds sits once belonged to Sam Cullom, Black Confederate. There is also a family story that at one time Sam Cullom was threatened by a group of men and the KKK came to rescue him. Four granddaughters of Sam Cullom, three of whom live in the Livingston area, attended the historic grave marking held to honor his service to the Confederate States of America. The fourth granddaughter is a retired college professor, Dr. Althea Armstrong, who lives in Detroit, Michigan.At the age of twelve years, Henry Henderson of North Carolina went to war with his owner, William Henderson. Henry settled in the River Hill community of White County after the war and raised his family there. Upon receiving proper certification of this service to the Confederate Army, Henry Henderson was granted a Tennessee Black Confederate pension. Henry, his wife, and other family members are buried in the Old Union Cemetery in White County. Approximately 50 descendants of Henry Henderson, several from Indiana, attended his historic grave marking. A granddaughter who still lives in Sparta assisted with the arrangements for his grave marking.Benjamin Watson, a free man of color, enlisted in the 25th Tennessee Infantry on Sept. 15, 1861, at Camp Myers (Overton County). At the time he was 55 years of age! No record of Benjamin Watson can be located after the war and it is possible that he died during that time. Churchwell Randalls, another free man of color from White County, also joined the 25th Tennessee Infantry at Camp Myers. The only way to locate the “free men of color” who served in the Confederacy is to research through every single original Confederate service record as their military service was not listed separately. These men’s names are on the rosters with all other regular Confederate soldiers with merely a notation on the bottom of their card that states, “Free Man of Color.”The Confederate Burial Mound at Camp Morton, Indianapolis, Indiana, has bronze tablets which list nearly 1,200 Confederates who died there. Among the names are 26 black Southerners. At a time when they could have walked into the camp commander’s office and taken the Oath of Allegiance at any time they chose instead to stay with their fellow Confederates even unto death.The intent of this article is not to give a complete history of the Black Confederate, but to peak your interest enough in this “politically incorrect” history to urge you to research for yourself. Too long has our national history ignored the service and sacrifices of these forgotten soldiers whose contributions to our country’s history is not only valid but worthy. Dr. Martin Luther King once said, “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.” This certainly extends to the honorable service of the Black Confederate soldiers, sailors, and marines of the War Between the States.

© 2006, Crossville Chronicle125 W Avenue; Crossville, TN 38555(931) 484-5145; Email news tips and feedback

Tuesday, February 26, 2008


By Judge J. M Dickinson
Judge J. M Dickinson, a Tennessean, but now residing in Chicago, refers to some interesting history set forth in Erwin's "History of Williamson County, Ill." Some extracts are as follows, beginning on page 257:
But among the old liners a strong sympathy for the South was felt. By the 1st of April, 1861, the parties were nearly equally divided, and excitement was running very high. Our leading men were in trouble, and some were noisy and clamorous for Southern rights. In a few days after the inauguration, Peter Keifer made a speech in the courthouse, in which lie said, "Our country must be saved;" but it was understood that "our country" meant the South, by the motion of his hand. Sympathy for "our Southern brethren" became stronger and stronger every day. Propositions for organizing the people into companies and regiments were made. Secession was openly talked of until the 9th day of April, 1861, when it began to take shape. It was just after the fall of Fort Sumter that a party of ten or fifteen men got together in a saloon, in Marion, and agreed to call a public meeting to pass ordinances of secession. They appointed a Committee on Resolutions, who were to report at the public meeting. The call was made for a meeting to be held in the courthouse on Monday, April 15, 1861, to provide for the "public safety." A large crowd came in, and the meeting was called to order, and James D. Manier elected President. He then appointed G. W. Goddard, James M. Washburn, Henry C. Hopper, John M. Cunningham, and William R. Scurlock a comÆmittee to draft resolutions of secession. The saloon committee had the resolutions already prepared, and they were reported and passed with but one dissenting voice, and that was A. T. Benson, and were as follows:
"Resolved: 1. That we, the citizens of Williamson County, firmly believing, from the distracted condition of our county---the same being brought about by the elevation to power of a strictly sectional party---the coercive policy of which toward the seceded States will drive all the border slave States from the Federal Union, and cause them to join the Southern Confederacy.
"2. That, in such event, the interest of the citizens of Southern Illinois imperatively demands at their hands a division of the State. We æhereby pledge ourselves to use all means in our power to effect the same, and attach ourselves to the Southern Confederacy.
"3. That, in our opinion, it is the duty of the present administration to withdraw all the troops of the Federal government that may be stationed in Southern forts, and acknowledge the independence of the Southern Confederacy, believing that such a course would he calculated to restore peace and harmony to our distracted country.
"4. That in view of the fact that it is probable that the present Governor of the State of Illinois will call upon the citizens of the same to take up arms for the purpose of subjecting the people of the South, we hereby enter our protest against such a course, and, as loyal citizens, will refuse, frown down, and forever oppose the same."
These resolutions were written by Henry C. Hopper. The news of this meeting spread rapidly, and by the next morning it had reached Carbondale, and had been telegraphed to Gen. Prentiss, at Cairo. The people of Carbondale, seeing the trouble our people were bringing themselves, sent J. M. Campbell up to Marion on the i6th of April to tell the people to revoke the resolutions. He said they must be repealed, or war would be brought on our own soil and at our own doors. The people were excited badly. A meeting was called to repeal the resolutions, and to meet instanter, but not by the same men who were in the meeting of the 15th. W. J. Allen was called in to address the meeting, which he did at some length. He said that he was for repealing the resolutions, and that others could do as they pleased, but as for him and his house, they would stand still and see the salvation of the Lord.
The resolutions were repealed, and A. T. Benson appointed as a committee of one to convey a copy of the proceedings to Gen. Prentiss. When he arrived at Cairo he found Gen. Prentiss reading the resolutions. He gave him a copy of the proceedings of the meeting of the 16th, and Prentiss said: "I am glad to see them. The resolutions of secession would have caused your folks trouble; but now I hope all will be right."
Those men who held the meeting of the 15th contended that the meeting of the 16th had no right to repeal the resolutions, and that they were not repealed, and that the people must organize. So a meeting. was called for the 27th of April, pursuant to the one of the 15th. The meeting was called to order, and a motion made to"seize the money in the hands of the sheriff to defray the expenses of arming and equipping soldiers for the Southern Army." The fever for organizing into military companies had cooled-off. so that this motion was lost, and the meeting broke up in a row.
Gen. Prentiss had dropped off a company of men at Big Muddy bridge as he was going to Cairo. This was intolerable to our people. The whole country was in a flame. Thorndike Brooks and Harvey Hays raised the whoop in Marion; runners were sent all over the country to tell the people to come into town next morning wit 11 their guns. Next morning a great many people came into town with guns, anxious to know what was wanted with them, when they were told that "the men at the bridge must be whipped away." Most of them turned and went home. Some objected, and said they had no guns, and that the soldiers had good guns: but some few went on to Carbondale. and others tried to get them not to go. At Carbondale they found a noisy crowd assembled for the same purpose. Soon after they met they sent Isaiah Harris up to the bridge, which was four miles north of Carbondale, to spy around. When lie got in sight of the soldiers he saw a cannon, and returned and told them that they could not whip the soldiers. News of these proceedings having reached Gen. Prentiss, at Cairo, an hour before, he sent up another compamy, with more cannon. The train stopped at Carbondale, when the crowd was at its highest and most clam3rous condition. After staying there awhile, she pulled on up to the bridge. At this crisis Gov. Dougherty, W. Tiecker, of Cairo, and Gen. I. N. Hannie, made speeches to the people, and told them to stand by the Union.
Gov. Dougherty said that "the speeches and guns persuaded the people not to attack the bridge." The people of Marion were standing listening for a bloody battle, but they were disappointed. A few straggling crowds came back from Carbondahe, cursing and frothing like wild men. William Cram swore that he could have taken his boys and cleaned out the soldiers, and Brooks and Wheeler called the people cowards and slaves.
On the 24th day of May, 1861, Col. Brooks and Harvey Hayes, despairing of raising an army here, or organizing the .county, formed the design of raising a company and going South. They sent a man to Carbondale to recruit, and they commenced at home. By the next evening they had about thirty names on their list, and had given orders for them to rendezvous at the "Delaware Crossing," on the Saline, six miles south of Marion. They all got to the place about two hours by sun on the 25th day of May, 1861, and the few that came from Carbondale swelled the number to thirty or thirty-five men, mostly under the age of twenty-three years. They started on to Paducah on foot, and walked all night; and next day in the afternoon Robert Kelly went on to Linn's Hotel to have supper prepared for the boys. Their number had now increased to about forty men. Their feet became sore, and all of them laggud behind but six, who went on to get supper, where they were surrounded by one hundred and thirty-five home guards and taken prisoners. A friend to the boys got on his horse, knowing that they were coming into the same trap, and went tip the road to let them know. The home guards left a guard with the six boys and came on up the road to meet the others from Marion, but when they came to the forks of the road, north of Linn's Hotel, supposing the boys had taken the one leading to Brooklyn, started down to the river. The boys went on until they came to the forks of the road, and, seeing by the tracks that the guards had gone the left-hand, they went on rapidly to Linn's Hotel, where they recaptured their six companions, and went on to the river opposite Paducah. Here Kelly had prepared a ferryboat for them, but it had laid there twenty-four hours and the boilers had cooled off. They were in a critical condition; but just then they saw a steamboat, the Old Kentucky, rounding up to Paducah out of the mouth of the Tennessee. and pretty soon she was heading across the Ohio. They hoarded her, and crossed over. They went to Mayfield, Ky.. and joined Company G, One Hundred and Fifty-Fourth Regiment of Tennessee Volunteers, and were in Gen. Cheatham's command.
At the close of the war about half of them returned home. Brooks got to be a lieutenant colonel, and is now a wealthy merchant in Baltimore, Md.

John Salling and William J Boush Confederate Veterans 1951

Poker Run 2007


By Charlie Wells
Ex-Sheriff Charlie Wells tells a remarkable story of what occurred while the Seventh Georgia Regiment was campaigning in the Valley of Virginia. The hero of the wonderful feat is Capt. James L. Bell, a popular conductor who daily takes his train in and out of Atlanta on the West Point road. The story is strictly true, and is known to all the surviving members 'of the Seventh Georgia regiment. It illustrates how whole bodies of well-disciplined men are liable to sudden and uncontrollable panics.
During Gen. Grant's advance on Richmond the Seventh Georgia regiment, after a day of hard and almost incessant fighting, found itself on the confines of a large field, across the center of which ran a straight deep ravine. The exigencies of the battle had, in a measure, separated the regiment from other commands on either flank, and, although the firing was incessant about them, no enemy was visible in their front. They had just repulsed an attack made by the Nineteenth Wisconsin regiment and a portion of a New York regiment. The latter had fallen back through the field and were lost to view. Dusk was fast gathering. The men of the Seventh were weary with a long day's fighting and were taking a needed rest. It was with these surroundings that Sergt. Bell thought he would reconnoiter, and, climbing over the works, he moved stealthily across the field and obliqued so as to meet the ravine at its head. Here he beheld a sight which almost paralyzed him. The ravine was full of Federals, and he had run full upon them. To retreat would have been dangerous. It was one man against hundreds, and Sergt. Bell determined in a moment to capture the regiment and take the colors with his own hands. Without a moment's pause he dashed boldly forward, firing his musket full into the ranks of the enemy, crying: "Surrender! Throw down your arms!" The Seventh Georgia heard the cries and shot, and dashed across the field, but too late to rob the gallant Bell of the honor achieved by his daring act. Bell had captured them single-handed, and had in his possession the colors of the Nineteenth Wisconsin Regiment. The captured regiment was sent to the rear amid great laughter, and Sergt. Bell became the hero of the hour.
It was the opinion of many that had the regiment appeared across the field it would have been saluted with a volley and an obstinate fight would have ensued; but the sudden apparition of a single wild figure darting out of the gloom, yelling and firing into their midst, so disconcerted them that they yielded to a genuine panic and were prisoners almost before they knew it. When Sergt. Bell dashed at them at the end of the ravine one man arose up and surrendered, then another and another, and in less than two minutes they were all prisoners.
Capt. Bell is a hale, handsome man of about fifty-five, with grizzled hair and mustache. He is as modest as he is brave, and this story comes from the lips of his comrades who were with him and who witnessed the remarkable feat on that October day. In 1884, in conversation with a friend, Capt. Bell expressed a great desire to know the fate of the gallant color bearer whom he had met on the field of battle so long ago.
The friend, without informing him of his intention, inserted in a Wisconsin paper a little notice to the effect that the color bearer of the Nineteenth Wisconsin regiment, if still alive, would please confer with James L. Bell, Atlanta, Ga. The notice brought from Barraboo, Wis., the following, by Phillips Cheek, Jr.:
"Your card received, and I should have replied ere this, but was at Minneapolis at the National Encampment of the G. A. R., in command of the Department of Wisconsin; hence the delay. John Fallen, sometimes called Fowler, was color bearer of Company A, Nineteenth Wisconsin Infantry. He was captured with his regiment at Fair Oaks, Va, From there he was sent to Libby and Belle Isle, afterwards to Salisbury, N. C., where he remained until they were all released. By the aid of comrades he got home, but was so reduced that his friends did not recognize him, and was mentally an imbecile. He remained so for two months before he was able to recognize his mother. From that time, as a farmer, he did what he could to support his family. The people were very kind to him, and elected him Treasurer of the town of Freedom, Wis., each year for five years, which helped him financially. In May, 1881, he was attacked by a disease which carried him to the other shore. As evidence that he was esteemed, the G. A. R. post of Freedom, Wis., is called 'John Fallen Post.' His early death was the result of imprisonment in the Confederacy. My only brother was a member of this company, and was killed in August, 1864, in the trenches before Petersburg. It is a source of gratification to us, his relatives and friends, to have testimony of his gallant foe of the Seventh Georgia regiment to his gallantry as a soldier. His officers all speak of him as one that could be trusted under the most trying circumstances. I have often heard him tell of the capture of his regiment, and that 'there was no getting out of it.'"
Capt. Bell, whose feelings were deeply aroused by this unexpected reminder of the thrilling episode of Fair Oaks, replied from Atlanta, Ga, August 30, 1884, to Mr. Cheek as follows:
'The bravery of John Fallen is indelibly stamped on my memory. I met him once and spoke to him only to learn his name, but the flight of years can never efface the gallantry he displayed at his capture. He says 'there was no getting out of it,' which was true; but that made no difference; he was game all the same. I never doubted but that John Fallen would come to the front, for he was made of the right kind of stuff. To the Western soldiers credit belongs for the hardest and best fighting of the war. . . . It is with pleasure that I learn that his name is to be perpetuated by having a G. A. R. post named for him. Please tell the members of that post of a Confederate soldier's admiration for the bravery of their honored namesake."
Application was made for a furlough for Sergt. James L. Bell, Company K, Seventh Georgia Regiment, dated at Fair Oaks, Va., November 30, 1864, in the following language:
"This is to ask leave of absence for thirty days on behalf of Sergt. James L. Bell, Company K, Seventh Georgia Regiment, to visit his home in Atlanta, Ga, because of his having advanced four hundred yards in front of his command, capturing the colors of the Nineteenth Wisconsin regiment, and causing the surrender of many officers and men. For this and other acts of gallantry I respectfully ask that this application be granted.
"THOMAS WILSON, Lieut. Commanding Co. K.
This application was indorsed as follows: "J. F. Kiser, Major Commanding Seventh Georgia Regiment; G. T. Anderson, Brigadier General; C. W. Fields, Major General Commanding Division; Respectfully approved and forwarded for special gallantry-James B. Longstreet, General Commanding Corps."
"Respectfully approved and returned."
Confederate Veteran, Vol. VII, No. 1 Nashville, Tenn., January, 1899.

Monday, February 25, 2008

Delta is Ready

If y'all don't like Dixie, Delta is ready
By Lewis Grizzard
I don't care what they do to the Georgia state flag. They can put a big peach on the thing as far as I'm concerned. They can put Deion Sanders's smiling face on it.
And let it be known that the opponents of the flag, with its reminiscence of the Confederate banner, will bring down that flag.
One way or the other, color it red, white, blue and gone. It's politically incorrect and all the things that are deemed such have no future in this country.
We elected Hillary Rodham Clinton and the ban on the gays in the military will be lifted. It's a done deal. Like it or not, the Georgia state flag has no chance either.
The issue on my mind is white Southerners like myself.
They don't like us. They don't trust us. They want to tell us why we're wrong. They want to tell us how we should change.
They is practically every s.o.b. who isn't one of us.
I read a piece on the op-ed page of the Constitution written by somebody who in the jargon of my past "ain't from around here."
He wrote white Southerners are always looking back and that we should look forward. He said that about me.
I'm looking back? I live in one of the most progressive cities in the world. We built a subway to make Yankees feel at home. And I live in a region the rest of the country can't wait to move to.
A friend, also a native Southerner, who shares my anger about the constant belittling of our kind and our place in this world, put it this way: "Nobody is going into an Atlanta bar tonight celebrating because they've just been transferred to New Jersey."
Damn straight.
I was having lunch at an Atlanta golf club recently. I was talking with friends.
A man sitting at another table heard me speaking and asked, "Where are you all from?" He was mocking me. He was mocking my Southern accent. He was sitting in Atlanta, Ga., and was making fun of the way I speak.
He was from Toledo. He had been transferred to Atlanta. If I hadn't have been 46 years old, skinny and a basic coward with a bad heart, I'd have punched him. I did, however, give him a severe verbal dressing down.
I was in my doctor's office in Atlanta. One of the women who works there, a transplanted Northerner, asked how I pronounced the world "siren."
I said I pronounced it "si-reen." I was half kidding, but that is the way I heard the word pronounced when I was a child.
The woman laughed and said, "You Southerners really crack me up. You have a language all your own."
Yeah we do. If you don't like it, go back home and stick your head in a snow bank.
They want to tell us how to speak, how to live, what to eat, what to think and they also want to tell us how they used to do it back in Buffalo.
Buffalo? What was the score? A hundred and ten to Zip.
The man writing on the op-ed page was writing about that bumper sticker that shows the old Confederate soldier and he's saying, "FERGIT HELL!" I don't go around sulking about the fact the South lost the Civil War. But I am aware that once upon a long time ago, a group of Americans saw fit to rebel against what they thought was an overbearing federal government. There is no record anywhere that indicates anybody in my family living in 1861 owned slaves. As a matter of fact, I come from a long line of sharecroppers, horse thieves and used car dealers. But a few of them fought anyway -- not to keep their slaves, because they didn't have any. I guess they simply thought it was the right thing to do at the time.
Whatever the reason, there was a citizenry that once saw fit to fight and die and I come from all that, and I look at those people as brave and gallant, and a frightful force until their hearts and their lands were burnt away.
I will never turn my back on that heritage.
But know this: I'm a white man and I'm a Southerner. And I'm sick of being told what is wrong with me from outside critics, and I'm tired of being stereotyped as a refugee from "God's Little Acre."
If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times, and I'll probably have to say it a thousand times again.
Delta may be hurting financially, but it's still ready to take you back to Toledo when you are ready to go.
Published Feb. 5, 1993

Brigadier General Joseph B. Palmer

Brigadier-General Joseph B. Palmer, at the beginning of the war, was a prominent lawyer of Murfreesboro, Tenn. He opposed secession, and insisted that the South should make her fight in the Union. But like the vast majority of Southern Union men, he believed that his first allegiance was due to his State. So when Tennessee resolved upon secession, he obeyed her voice and raised a company for the defense of the South. Of this company he was elected captain, and when it, with nine other companies, was formed into the Eighteenth Tennessee regiment of infantry, Captain Palmer was unanimously elected colonel. This regiment was assigned to the army commanded by Gen. Albert Sidney Johnston. It formed a part of the army at Fort Donelson, sharing in the glories and disasters of that fierce conflict. When the fort was surrendered, February 16, 1862, Colonel Palmer and his men found themselves prisoners of war. He was kept in prison at Fort Warren until his exchange in August, 1862, then joined his regiment, which had also been just exchanged at Vicksburg. Shortly afterward the regiment was reorganized at Jackson, Miss., and re-elected Palmer as its colonel. In Breckinridge's brilliant, though unsuccessful charge at Murfreesboro on the 2d day of January, 1863, Palmer's regiment suffered heavily, and Palmer was himself badly wounded in three places. These wounds incapacitated him for service for about four months, but he returned to his regiment in time for the battle of Chickamauga, where, while leading his command in one of the headlong charges of that hotly-contested field, he received another dangerous wound in the shoulder, which bled so profusely as to threaten death before help could come. It was not until the army reached Atlanta that he was in condition to resume his duties. Here he was appointed to the command of his brigade, and commissioned brigadier-general November 15, 1864. His brigade, formerly commanded by John C. Brown, comprised the Third, Eighteenth, Thirty-second, and Forty-fifth Tennessee regiments. In the campaign of Hood into Tennessee, this brigade was detached from the army at Nashville and send to co- operate with Bate and Forrest in a movement against Murfreesboro. On the retreat of the army, Palmer's brigade formed part of the force under Walthall and Forrest which brought up the rear, and did its duty so bravely as to win the applause of even the enemy. During the North Carolina campaign of 1865, all the decimated infantry regiments of Tennessee then serving under Johnston were consolidated into four regiments and placed in a brigade commanded by General Palmer. Mr. G. N. Baskette, of Nashville, Tenn. (Confederate Veteran, November 1897), relates a remarkable exploit of Palmer's brigade at the battle of Bentonville, the last one fought by the gallant army of Tennessee. On this occasion, "part of Palmer's brigade charged through the enemy's line and kept on to the rear of the Federal army, capturing a number of prisoners, and by a detour, after a long and painful march of about a week, rejoined the brigade." The same writer, summing up the character of General Palmer, says:
[H]e was ever courteous to his subordinate officers and men in the line, and while maintaining proper discipline had always a warm sympathy for the boys in the trenches or on the march. On the battlefield he was cool and collected, bearing himself always as a leader who felt the weight of his responsibility, and yet was ever ready to brave any danger which promised to benefit the cause of which he was devoted.
At the close of the war, General Palmer proved himself as good a citizen as he had been a soldier. He died on the 4th of November, 1890, mourned by his many friends and countrymen.
Source: Evans, Clement, ed. Confederate Military History, Vol. XII, Confederate Publishing Company, Atlanta, GA, 1899

Funeral Notice Born Nov. 1, 1825. Died Nov. 4, 1890. The friends and acquaintances of Gen’l J. B. Palmer are invited to attend his funeral at the M. E. Church, South, at 10 o’clock A. M. tomorrow. Service by Revs. J. B. West and J. E. Harrison. Burial at Evergreen Cemetery, conducted by Knights Templar. Murfreesboro, Tenn, Nov. 5, 1890

Tribute of Respect
At a meeting of Dibrell Bivouac, No. 12, called to take action on the death of Gen. Joseph B. Palmer, the committee on resolutions reported the following, which were unanimously adopted:
Whereas, it has pleased Almighty God to suddenly take from our midst Gen. Joseph B. Palmer, of Murfreesboro, Tennessee, it is with deep sorrow that we, his old comrades in arms, meet to pay our last sincere respects to his memory, and his great worth as a soldier, citizen and patriot.
Whereas, we personally bear testimony to his superb gallantry and bravery on the field of battle, his efficiency as an officer in the late Confederate army, both as a colonel of the 18th Tennessee Infantry and afterwards as Brigadier General, and have personally witnessed his magnificent bearing on many hard-fought battle fields, and have witnessed his uniform kindness to his soldiers in camp, his tried and true fidelity to the “Lost Cause” he so warmly espoused and to his great worth as a citizen since the close of the war; that he has both in war and peace, ever exhibited that lofty patriotism, both in moral and physical, so-characteristic of every Southern man, and especially of every true Tennessean. That he was faithful to his friends and magnanimous to his enemies, manly and dignified on all occasions; one in whose heart there was no guile, an eminent lawyer, true and faithful to his clients, and
Whereas, we bear testimony to the fact that his immediate family and friends have sustained irreparable loss, that his county and the whole state have lost a useful, good man.,
Therefore, be it resolved by Dibrell Bivouac, that we greatly lament his untimely and unexpected death; that we sincerely and deeply sympathize with his family in their great and irreparable loss and bereavement, and tender to them our heartfelt condolence.
Resolved further, that the members of Dibrell Bivouac be requested to wear the usual badge of mourning for thirty days.
Resolved further, that the papers of Marshall county be requested to publish these resolutions and that those of Murfreesboro be furnished with the same for publication, and that a copy of these resolutions be furnished Horace E. Palmer, the son of the deceased.
W. W. Walker,
C. C. McKinney,
C. T. Swanson,
J. B. Neil,
J. H. Lewis

Don Brown for President

Originally published February 25, 2008Lawmaker whistles Dixie for Confederate tag
By Bill Cotterell Florida Capital Bureau Political Editor

A Panhandle legislator with a proud disdain for political correctness and no fear of bucking Gov. Charlie Crist or the state Republican Party wants Florida to issue license tags honoring "Confederate Heritage" -- complete with images of Dixie flags and buttons from Rebel uniforms.
"It’s a part of our history, whether we like it or not," Rep. Don Brown, R-DeFuniak Springs, said in an interview. "I appreciate the heritage and the good things that people feel about our past."
Motorists could pay $25 for the tag, with proceeds going to education programs run by Sons of Confederate Veterans, graveyard location and maintenance, museum exhibits and other cultural activities. The current version of Brown’s bill (HB 1007) also provides a specialty tag for the Choctaw tribe, but an aide said the issues will be separated into two stand-alone bills.Bob Hurst, second lieutenant commander of the Sons of Confederate Veterans’ Florida organization and head of its Tallahassee camp, said the state group paid a $60,000 filing fee and gathered more than 30,000 signatures from drivers ready to buy a Confederate Heritage tag if the Legislature authorizes it."We’ve done everything required of us," said Hurst. "All we’re asking for is to be treated fairly and equally. There are 108 specialty tags now and six before the Legislature this year. I hope the governor and Legislature will play by the rules; if not, I think it speaks poorly of the Florida Legislature."But state Sen. Al Lawson, D-Tallahassee, said tag supporters have a lost cause. Lawson, who served 18 years in the House, said Crist and Florida GOP leaders won’t want the state embroiled in the kind of controversy the flag has sparked in South Carolina, Mississippi and Georgia."I would not let the bill go through with that on it, if it comes over from the House," said Lawson, who chairs the Governmental Operations Committee. "I’m really surprised Rep. Brown would even consider doing it. It doesn’t make sense to create this kind of divisiveness in the legislative session."Proceeds from tag sales would be used "to fund educational programs in schools, cemetery location and restoration, educational scholarship programs and other projects within the state promoting Florida’s history and heritage."Brown has clashed with his party's leadership in the past -- he lost his leadership position last year when he voted against insurance reform legislation. He said he is not worried about political sensitivites regarding the flag."I can’t be responsible for what the political climate may be," he said. "But I can be responsible for doing what I think is right."

Sunday, February 24, 2008

First official monument honoring Tennessee Confederates unveiled at Shiloh

First official monument honoring Tennessee Confederates unveiled at Shiloh
By Ed Hooper
SAVANNAH, Tenn. – More than 2,000 people from across Tennessee and the south gathered at Shiloh National Military Park for the official unveiling of the first official Tennessee memorial to Tennessee Confederates who fought and died at Shiloh. The event, which included a banquet the night before in Jackson, TN, also marked the first time in more than 80 years that a state had erected a monument of this size in a national park.
The 14-foot tall $250,000 bronze sculpture called “Passing of Honor” was created by Pampa, Texas artist G. L. Sanders. The sculpture depicts a sergeant taking a Confederate flag from the hands of a dying soldier while another stands guard over them. The artwork also features eleven stainless steel stars representing the states of the Confederacy. It sits on a black granite base and is adorned with bronze plaques naming the Tennessee units that participated in the battle.
“I can’t tell you what an honor and privilege it was to be able to do this monument,” said G.L. Sanders. “And I hope it will always mean something to those who see it here at Shiloh.”
The unveiling ended what has been a 15-year project to erect a monument to Tennessee’s Confederate soldiers. The project was a joint effort between the Tennessee Division of the United Daughters of the Confederacy, the Sons of Confederate Veterans, state and federal officials. Jackson’s John Ingram Camp is credited with finally pushing it forward and getting the project off the drawing board and underway. Past Camp Commander Jerry Lessenberry was one of the driving forces behind the campaign and fought back tears as he finally saw the monument unveiled.
“This has been a tremendous project for us,” said Lessenberry. “I started on this 15 years ago and it has taken the efforts and patience of a lot of people to see that the sacrifices of Tennessee’s Confederate soldiers are finally honored in a proper way. This is a beautiful monument and we couldn’t have asked for a better artist to do it. This should be in every National Military Park where Tennesseans fought and served. I can’t tell you how overwhelming it is to finally see it sitting in this park and know that the memories of these brave men are not forgotten.”
Representatives from the Tennessee National Guard Adjutant General’s Office, the legislature, members of Congress and the state’s historical commission were on hand for the unveiling ceremony, which was done by park officials and local children.
Shiloh officials were surprised by the turnout for the event.
“I wish we had printed more programs and planned for this number,” said Shiloh NMP Superintendent Woody Harrell. “I was told Rangers ran out of them within a few minutes of handing them out. This was something I have been working on since I first arrived here and am glad that it is finally accomplished. I think the turnout today by people and public officials shows how much and how many care about Tennessee’s history and heritage as a state.”
The Tennessee Division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, reenactors and the Tennessee National Guard provided honor guards for the ceremonies that marked Confederate Memorial Day at the park. Reenactors kept a 24-7 vigil at the statue until the tarp was removed.
During the ceremony, Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen and U.S. Representative Marsha Blackburn (R-Franklin) officially transferred the title of the monument over to the national park service.
Governor Bredesen said it was an honor to be a part of the ceremony adding that people need to remember what happened during the Civil War by visiting and learning from parks like Shiloh.
“This is a beautiful monument and I was proud to be able to do this in my term as Governor. It is sad that it’s a hundred years too late, but this is a fitting tribute to the men who fought and served the state of Tennessee. During my tour, the most surprising thing I learned is the fact this battle was not fought on open fields as most people with would assume from what they see and hear. This was more like a “Vietnam” in the Civil War with the dense forests and ponds.”
Tennessee National Guard Brigadier General David Greer from the Adjutant Generals Office was among the officials in attendance and revealed the monument bore a personal meaning to him.
“I remember visiting this park when I was 12 and saw all these monuments and wondered why there wasn’t any for Tennessee’s soldiers. My great-great grandfather fought and was wounded here at Shiloh and to see him and those brave Tennesseans properly honored for the first time is a great thing. This was long overdue. I was just looking over the program of the units here and found another grandfather’s unit that was here, which was something I didn’t know and will have to check out.” General Greer said.
The Passing of Honor monument is located off of Corinth-Pittsburg Landing Road between the Confederate Burial Trenches. For more information, you can contact Shiloh National Military Park at 731-689-5275.

Confederate Memorial, Mt. Olivet Cemetery - Nashville, Tennessee

In 1869, the Ladies’ Memorial Society of Nashville purchased a circular burial ground at the highest point in Mt. Olivet Cemetery. Confederate Circle became the final resting place for more the 1,500 Confederate Soldiers who died in battles that took place in the Nashville Area. The Ladies’ Memorial Society included such prominent citizens as Mrs. James K. Polk, and Felicia Grundy Porter. The association reserved a large center section for a monument that they hope to build later. Thirteen Rows of grave encircle the central square. The first six rows contain the graves of Confederate soldier who were from outside of Tennessee. The seventh row contains the graves of the Unknown and the remaining rows contain the grave of the Confederate Soldiers from Tennessee. Seven Confederate generals are buried in or around the circle. They are William B. Bate, William N.R, Bealle, Benjamin Franklin Cheatham, William H. Jackson, George E. Maney, James E. Rains, and Thomas Benton Smith. Other prominent Nashville Confederates, Colonels Adolphus Heiman and Randall McGavock, lie nearby.
On May 16, 1889, a 45-foot high monument of Vermont Granite was dedicated at the center of Confederate Circle. At the top of the monument stands a 9-foot statue of a Confederate Soldier. More than 10,000 people attended the dedication ceremony, including Colonel John Overton and Confederate General William H. Jackson.Source/Credit: A Walking Tour of Mt. Olivet Cemetery by W. Riley Willis II (1993)

Running from the PC Police

By Claire McNear
Tue Feb 19 02:14:00 -0600 2008

The year before I arrived at my high school in California, there was a notable incident. Until that year, the Honors U.S. History class had performed an annual Civil War battle reenactment on the field, divided between the opposing “troops” of the Confederacy and the Union. During the year in question, the teacher attempted to raise awareness of the event by having several of his students march across the gymnasium during an all-school assembly, one group with a Union flag and the other with a Confederate one. The assembly passed peaceably enough, but within days the school was in an uproar: How dare they show the Confederate flag to the community without proper warning?
The display of the Confederate flag, the critics argued, was excessively upsetting to black students because of the association between slavery and the Confederacy. These critics, composed primarily of groups that classified themselves as “multicultural,” demanded an apology from the instructor. The teacher’s supporters countered that it was a preview of a historical reenactment, and that history should not be prefaced with apologies for its more negative facets. Speeches were made and special meetings were held, culminating in an apology by the teacher. Most of the student body remained quiet and watched the controversy from the backseat.
I recognize that this is an extreme example and that California is a very different place from Illinois. But it serves to illustrate a greater point: Political correctness is a powerful tool.
The goal of political correctness is, ultimately, to avoid offending anyone. While one cannot be asked not to be offended by something, there is a point at which one must ask what another’s intentions are. Did the history instructor wish to upset black members of the community? No—he sought only to recount a past battle. Be they jokes, old-fashioned phrases, or un-qualified histories of darker epochs, most things deemed politically incorrect are not intended to wound feelings. Yet it is exceedingly rare that those caught in the sweeping tide of political correctness take such things into account in the final reckoning of perceived offenses.
Every day it seems that more things are christened offensive and, therefore, intolerable; the distinction between offensive and unjust is becoming increasingly blurred. Political correctness has the horrible tendency to snowball, accumulating more and more terms on its blacklist, something that I saw firsthand in high school.
Each year, without fail, several political correctness controversies arise: a salsa dancer wearing a sombrero and a poncho at an assembly, a “punks versus thugs” spirit day, a clip from the movie Dodgeball that included a tongue-in-cheek slur referring to the Chinese—all potentially offensive, but none intended as such, and all, if viewed with a certain sense of humor, at the very least easily forgivable. But at every turn there were more controversies and a larger, increasingly verbose field of eggshells to tiptoe across.
The worst part was that those who most opposed the ruckus made about these “scandals” were afraid to speak up, convinced that if they did, they would be branded as racist, sexist, or ignorant. This fear grew overwhelming as careless students who did not heed the precedent of completely avoiding anything that might offend anyone were defamed and, on occasion, ordered by the administration to apologize in front of the school. To avoid this, there was only one easy solution: silence. And this is where it became most troubling, as students bowed to a forced silence—a de facto censorship.
Things that are offensive are not necessarily wrong; that which upsets should inspire, rather than stifle, discussion. Yet political correctness advocates often find that it is a useful weapon against things they simply do not like: Few will fight back when faced with the threat of villification.
My high school may be unusual in the degree to which it pursued its hypersensitive doctrine, but it is by no means an exception, nor was it always as fiercely unaccommodating as it became during my years there. Each controversy bellowed by an angry minority to a mute majority threw a log upon the fire.
There is a fine line between polite sensitivity and oppression. It is hard to say when something is an overreaction or when the point of excess and oversensitivity is breached, but there is undoubtedly such a point. Perhaps it is when people begin to be afraid to express their thought for fear of punishment. The lesson to be learned from my high school is this: It is crucial to stop political correctness before it becomes censorship, and though it may not yet have become so here, it is a threat that must always be watched.
Claire McNear is a first-year in the College majoring in international studies and economics. Her column appears on alternateTuesdays.
© 1995-2008 Chicago Maroon

Wednesday, February 20, 2008

I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races-- Abraham Lincoln

Gen. Donn Piatt re: Lincoln
I hear of him and read of him in eulogies and biographies, and fail to recognize the man I encountered for the first time in the canvass that called him from private life to be President of the United States. Piatt then goes on to describe a conference that he and General Schenck had with Lincoln in his home in Springfield. "I soon discovered that this strange and strangely gifted man, while not at all cynical, was a skeptic; his view of human nature was low; . . . he unconsciously accepted for himself and his party the same low line that he awarded the South. Expressing no sympathy for the slave, he laughed at the Abolitionists as a disturbing element easily controlled, without showing any dislike to the slave-holders. . . . We were not at a loss to get at the fact and the reason for it, in the man before us. Descended from the poor-whites of a slave State, through many generations, he inherited the contempt, if not the hatred, held by that class for the negroes. A self-made man, . . . his strong nature was built on what he inherited, and he could no more feel a sympathy with the abolition of slavery, but held fanatics, as Abolitionists were called, in utter abhorrence. While it seemed a cheap philanthropy, and therefore popular, to free another man's slave, the unrequited toil of the slave was more valuable to the North than to the South. *
Lincoln's white supremacist ideas are a well-kept secret. (Let it be known at this point that these views are Lincoln's and not the opinions of the authors.) In an 1858 debate Lincoln made the following statements**:
I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races -- that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races. . . .I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.***
Some of the lesser known facts about the"great emancipator":
To silence his critics in the North, Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus. The political prisoner count from this move was estimated by some to be as high as forty thousand.
Violated the First Amendment right to freedom of the press by shutting down 300-plus newspapers and journals by executive order.
Promoted Colonel John B. Turchin to the rank of Brigadier General of the United States Volunteers even though he was under a court-martial for crimes against civilians (and later convicted).

*The Real Lincoln, by L.C. Minor, copyrighted 1928,by Atkins-Rankin Co., Sprinkle PublicationsP.O. Box 1094 Harrisonburg, Virginia 22801
**The South was Right!, by James and Ronald Kennedyand Walter Donald Kennedy, Gretna, LA: PelicanPublishing Company, 1994, 431 pages, hardcover.
***Abraham Lincoln, as cited in The Lincoln-DouglasDebates of 1858, edited by R.W. Johannsen (OxfordUniversity Press, New York, NY: 1965), pp. 162-63
The Lincoln Legacy Revisited
Feb 17, 2006by Mark M. Alexander

"If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it." --Thomas Jefferson
Our national icons are often held in such high esteem as to eclipse the fact they were fallible -- as all men are. For this reason, it is important that we occasionally take a look with a critical eye upon these larger-than-life figures. Cultural myth, after all, can cloud historical truth.
In keeping with our motto, Veritas Vos Liberabit ("the truth shall set you free"), and our mission, to remain true to the word of our nation's principal legal compact, our Constitution, The Patriot has challenged the actions of political icons where their popular persona does not reconcile with the historical record.
It is in this spirit that we revisit Abraham Lincoln's statesmanship status, not just the man credited with preserving the Union, 'emancipating slaves', and founding the Republican Party, but the man who presided over the most grievous Constitutional contravention in American history.
Needless to say, when one dares tread upon the record of such an iconic figure as Lincoln, one risks all manner of ridicule from devoted loyalists. That notwithstanding, Patriots should be willing to look at Lincoln's whole record, though it may not please our sentiments, or comport with the common folklore of most history books.
On our "About The Patriot" page, we assert that "the Constitutional federalism envisioned by our Founders and outlined by our Constitution's Bill of Rights was GROSSLY violated" by our 16th President (Lincoln) -- and many of his successors to the present day.
We are sometimes asked why we head that list of violators with Lincoln. It is fitting, then, in this week when the nation recognizes the anniversary of his birth, that we answer this question -- albeit at great peril to the sensibilities of some of our friends and colleagues.

The first of Lincoln's two most oft-noted achievements was the preservation of the Union. It is, we believe, a blessing that we are still the USA, one nation united, though it has been argued eloquently that Southern states would likely have reunited with Northern states before the end of the 19th century, had Lincoln allowed for a peaceful and Constitutionally accorded secession - but he did not. Everything was done by FORCE with Lincoln.
The Founding Fathers established the Constitutional Union as a VOLUNTARY agreement among the several states, subordinate to The Declaration of Independence, which NEVER mentions the nation as a singular entity, but instead repeatedly references the states as INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGN bodies, unanimously asserting THEIR independence.
The states, in ratifying the Constitution, established the Federal Government as their agent -- not the other way around. THE Government is SUPPOSE TO BE the SERVANT OF THE PEOPLE ! At Virginia's ratification convention, for example, the delegates affirmed "that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the PEOPLE of the United States MAY BE RESUMED BY THEM whensoever the same shall be perverted to injury or OPPRESSION." Were this not true, the Federal Government would not have been established as "Federal", but instead a national, unitary, and unlimited authority. Notably, and in large measure as a consequence of the War between the States, the "Federal" government has grown to become an all - but unitary and unlimited authority.
Our Founders upheld the individual sovereignty of the states, even though the wisdom of secessionist movements was a source of great tension and debate from the day the Constitution was ratified. Tellingly, Hamilton, the greatest proponent of 'centralization' among the Founders, noted in Federalist No. 81 that waging war against the states "would be altogether forced and unwarranted." At the Constitutional Convention, Hamilton argued, "Can any reasonable man be well disposed toward a government which makes war and carnage the only means of supporting itself?"
Yet Lincoln threatened the use of force to maintain the Union in his First Inaugural Address, saying, "In [preserving the Union] there needs to be no bloodshed or violence; and there shall be none, unless it be forced upon the 'national authority'." [And he DID DELIBERATELY use VIOLENT FORCE !]
Lincoln may have preserved the Union geographically (at GREAT COST to the Constitution), but politically and philosophically, the concept of a voluntary union was shredded by sword, rifle and cannon. [In the Civil War].
In his Gettysburg Address, Lincoln employed lofty rhetoric to conceal the truth of our nation's most costly war -- a war that resulted in the deaths of some 600,000 Americans and the severe disabling of over 400,000 more. He claimed to be fighting so that "this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth." In fact, Lincoln was ensuring just the opposite by waging an appallingly bloody war while ignoring calls for negotiated peace. It was the "rebels" who were intent on self-government, and it was Lincoln who rejected their right to that end, despite our Founders' clear admonition to the contrary in the Declaration.
Moreover, had Lincoln's actions been subjected to the terms of the Fourth Geneva Convention (the first being codified in 1864), he and his principal military commanders, Gen. William T. Sherman heading the list, would have been tried for war crimes ! This included waging "total war" against not just combatants, but the entire civilian population ! It is estimated that Sherman's march to the sea was responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians. (Continuing their legacy, after the war, Sherman and Gen. Philip Sheridan waged unprecedented genocide against Native Americans.)

"Reconstruction" followed the war, and with it an additional period of Southern 'probation', plunder and misery, leading General Robert E. Lee to conclude, "If I had foreseen the use those people designed to make of their victory, there would have been NO surrender at Appomattox Courthouse; no sir, not by me. Had I foreseen these results of subjugation, I would have preferred to die at Appomattox with my brave men, my sword in my right hand."
The second of Lincoln's two most oft-noted achievements was 'ending the abomination of slavery'. It has come to be understood that this calamitous war was the necessary cost of ridding our nation of slavery, yet no other nation at the time required war to do so. In fact, the cost of the war itself would have more than paid for compensatory emancipation, giving each slave 40 acres and a mule -- all without bloodshed.
Note: However, what has never been allowed into the history books, is that Lincoln could care less about slavery or the blacks, called negroes at that time. He hated the blacks ! Lincoln was the first bonifide racist ! His actions and approval of the most horrid POW camp of the entire Civil War (CAMP DOUGLAS IN CHICAGO) further proved this. Blacks who were Confederate soldiers who were brought to Camp Douglas, were usually shot dead on the spot.
"Freeing the slaves" was just a political ploy used by a very sly, smooth-talking Lincoln to manipulate the northern soldiers to fight against their own American Southern brothers, and to make himself 'look good'. But the strengthening and expansion of the Federal Union Government and the gaining of power and territory for him to rule over, was always his real goal and aim ! So slavery was NOT the real reason for the Civil War, it was states' rights.
However, Lincoln's own words undermine his hallowed status as the "Great Emancipator". For example, in his fourth debate with Stephen Douglas, Lincoln argued:
"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races -- that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race." ....Lincoln
Originally, of course, the War between the States was not predicated on 'freeing slaves', but preserving the Union -- or, as the South saw it, preserving the sovereignty of the several states.
States' rights are most aptly understood through the words and actions of Gen. Lee, who detested slavery and opposed secession. In 1860, however, Gen. Lee declined Lincoln's request that he take command of the Army of the Potomac, saying that his first allegiance was to his home state of Virginia: "I have, therefore, resigned my commission in the army, and save in defense of my native state...I hope I may never be called on to draw my sword." He would, soon thereafter, take command of the Army of Northern Virginia, rallying his officers with these words: "Let each man resolve to be victorious, and that the right of self-government, liberty, and peace shall find him a defender."
As for 'delivering slaves from bondage', it was two years after the commencement of hostilities that Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation -- to protests from free laborers in the North, who didn't want emancipated slaves migrating north and competing for their jobs.
In truth, not a single slave was emancipated by the stroke of Lincoln's pen. Slaves were "freed" in Confederate states, excluding the territory occupied by the Federal Union army. Slaves in Kentucky, Missouri, Delaware and Maryland were also left in bondage. With his Proclamation, Lincoln succeeded in politicizing the issue and short-circuiting the moral solution to slavery, thus leaving the scourge of racial inequality to fester to this day -- in every state of the Union. In fact, there is evidence now of more ethnic tension in Boston than in Birmingham, in Los Angeles than in Atlanta and in Chicago than in Charleston.
Little is reported and usually lightly regarded in our history books is the way Lincoln abused and discarded the individual rights of Northern citizens as well. Tens of thousands of citizens were imprisoned (most without trial) for political opposition, or "treason," and their property confiscated. Habeas corpus and, in effect, the entire Bill of Rights were suspended.
In fact, the Declaration of Independence details remarkably similar abuses by King George to those committed by Lincoln: the "Military [became] independent of, and superior to, the Civil power"; he imposed taxes without consent; citizens were deprived "in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury"; state legislatures were suspended in order to prevent more secessions; he "plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people...scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation." (In short, Lincoln was a tyrant !)
Chief among the spoils of victory is the privilege of writing the history (that would be read - and *believed* - by posterity).
Thus, the Lincoln most Americans know as the one who : preserved the Union, 'freed the slaves', and founded the Republican Party (a third party at the time). A more thorough and dispassionate reading of history, however, reveals that these were silver linings within a VERY dark cloud of complete Constitutional abuse !
Finally, while the War between the States concluded in 1865, the battle for states' rights -- the struggle to restore Constitutional Federalism -- remains to this day, spirited, particularly in the ranks of our Patriot readers.
Quote of the week...
"Stripped of all its covering, the naked question is, whether ours is a federal or consolidated government; a Constitutional or absolute one; a government resting solidly on the basis of the sovereignty of the States, or on the unrestrained will of a majority; a form of government, as in all other unlimited ones, in which injustice, violence, and force must ultimately prevail." --South Carolina Senator John Calhoun, 1831
On cross-examination...
"The War between the States...produced the foundation for the kind of government we have today: consolidated and absolute, based on the unrestrained will of the 'majority', with force, threats, and intimidation being the order of the day. Today's Federal Government is considerably at odds with that envisioned by the Framers of the Constitution. ... [The Civil War] also laid to rest the great principle enunciated in the Declaration of Independence that 'Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed'." --Walter Williams
Open query...
"What kind of democracy can exist where tens of thousands of political opponents are jailed, opposition newspapers shut down by the hundreds, telegraph communication is censored, elections are rigged, and new states are created illegally to add to the incumbent government's electoral-college vote count? And what kind of 'democracy' is it where 10 percent of the population is appointed by ONE man to rule over the other 90 percent, as was Lincoln's plan for 'reconstruction'? It's 'Lincolnian democracy,' of course, but not the kind of 'democracy' that most Americans would be familiar with or apparently recognize today, since it is very close to that today." --Thomas DiLorenzo, Lincoln scholar and author of The Real Lincoln, an excellent resource.

So the 'history' that we have been continually fed, is anything but the actual truth or events as they REALLY transpired ! One of the perks of being the one in power, is that you get to be the one who says what 'history' would be written. Lincoln took full advantage of this perk !! In truth, if the REAL Lincoln were the one we knew about, read about, and had in our history books, instead of the invented one, he would NOT be so honored, praised, and well respected as the Lincoln we are told of today and that has been in our public school history books.

Tuesday, February 19, 2008

Sunday, February 17, 2008

The Inimitable Zebulon B. Vance

When Northern cavalry General Kilpatrick claimed to have captured Zeb Vance at the end of the war and proclaimed it in Pennsylvania and New York newspapers, Vance insisted on correcting the vainglorious General's memory, and then some.Bernhard Thuersam"Vance never quailed nor bowed to the knee to power. When he was down, when his enemies were in control and his future seemed darkest he wrote the following letter:To The Editor of the New York World:I see by the public prints that General Kilpatrick has decorated me with his disapprobation before the public of Pennsylvania. He informs them, substantially, that he tamed me by capturing me and riding me 200 miles on a bareback mule. I will do him the justice to say that he knew that was a lie when he uttered it. I surrendered to General Schofield at Greensboro, North Carolina on the 2nd day of May, 1865, who told me to go to my home and remain there, saying that if he got any orders to arrest me he would send for there for me.Accordingly I went home and there remained until I was arrested on the 13th of May by a detachment of 300 cavalry under Major Porter, of Harrisburg, from whom I received nothing but kindness and courtesy. I came in a buggy to Salisbury, where we took the cars. I saw no mule on the trip, yet I thought I saw an ass at the general's headquarters; this impression has since been confirmed.Respectfully yours,Z.B. Vance(Address of Honorable Locke Craig at the unveiling of the Zebulon Baird Vance Statue in Statuary Hall at the US Capitol, Government Printing Office, 1917)

Rewriting History

The following is an excerpt from a 1946 pamphlet dedicated to the Public Schools of North Carolina by the Anson Chapter, United Daughters of the Confederacy in honor of its author, Dr. Harry Tucker Graham of Florence, South Carolina. Dr. Graham was the former president of Hampton-Sidney College and for twenty years the beloved pastor of the First Presbyterian Church of Florence, South Carolina. The cleansing of the vanquished peoples history reminds one of the Japanese subjugation of Korea in 1910, which incidentally had the blessing of Teddy Roosevelt. The Korean language was forbidden and history rewritten to glorify the Japanese conqueror. Bernhard Thuersam, Executive DirectorCape Fear Historical Institute Rewriting History: "There is grave danger that our school children are learning much more about Massachusetts than about the Carolinas, and hearing more often of northern leaders than of the splendid men who led the Southern hosts alike in peace and war. Not many years ago the High School in an important South Carolina town devoted much time to the celebration of Lincoln's Birthday---while Lee, Jackson, Hampton and George Washington received no mention. You have all heard of Paul Revere's ride made famous by the skillful pen of a New England writer. He rode 7 miles out of Boston, ran into a squadron of British horsemen and was back in a British dungeon before daybreak. But how many of you have heard of Jack Jouitte's successful and daring ride of forty miles from a wayside tavern to Charlottesville to warn Governor Jefferson and the Legislature of the coming of a British squadron bent upon their capture? You have heard of the Boston Tea Party, but how many know of the Wilmington, North Carolina Tea Party? At Boston they disguised themselves as Indians and under cover of darkness threw tea overboard. At Wilmington they did the same thing without disguise and in broad daylight.With the utter disregard of the facts they blandly claim that the republic was founded at Plymouth Rock while all informed persons know that Plymouth was 13-1/2 years behind the times, and when its colony was reduced to a handful of half-starved immigrants on the bleak shores of Massachusetts, there was a prosperous colony of 2,000 people along the James (River) under the sunlit skies of the South. The fact is that New England has been so busy writing history that it hasn't had time to make it. While the South has been so busy making history that it hasn't had time to write it.
(Some Things For Which The South Did Not Fight, in the War Between the States." Dr. Harry Tucker Graham, 1946)
Zack #33

Jim Maddox, A man of Honor, Courage and Conviction

Murfreesboro Camp33 salutes you
Another brave soldier has gone home
God bless you Jim

Confederate Veterans from Nashville

A few good Rebs
God bless them

Saturday, February 16, 2008

Yankee Atrocities During the War

Everyone should visit this web site

Black Confederates

Vignettes of Black Confederates
Chris Schlect

Recently I ran across this startling remark by a prominent scholar: "Surely, before making assumptions . . . one ought to examine the sources very carefully. . . . Yet I can find no single scholar who has even tried to do this--a sad indication of the general slovenliness of modern scholarship in this field." Such language is rare in specialized, sober works of scholarship. I then wondered what other fields it could apply to. An obvious candidate is in the history of the black Confederates. Below I offer a few vignettes to help correct our memories.
Historian Richard Rollins has undertaken a study of an interesting file kept at the Tennessee State Archives in Nashville. In 1921, that state's legislature passed an act providing pensions for blacks who had worked as servants to white Confederate officers during the war. Between 1921 and 1936, 285 applications were filed; of 248 we can verify actual service. Not many applicants noted their specific duties; of those who did, 37 said they had been cooks. Others were hospital workers, general servants, and drivers, to list a few. From the information on these applications, we can be sure that at least thirteen applicants were combatants in battle, two of which were wounded. An additional fourteen reported being wounded by hostile fire. Seventeen reported being captured; of these, six escaped to rejoin Southern forces. The pension applications required none of this information. We are left to wonder how many other applicants could have offered similar reports. We also wonder how many others were eligible but didn't apply, and more importantly, since the pension was offered 56 years after the war's end, we wonder how many stories passed away with the lives of those who would have told them. And remember, this is just for Tennessee!
Blacks were prominent as musicians in the Confederate army. They were buglers, fifers, and drummers, many of whom we could mention by name. One Northerner remarked, upon observing Confederate troops on the march, "the only real music in their column today was from a bugle blown by a Negro." So common were black musicians in the Confederate ranks that the Confederate Congress passed a law in 1862 stating that "whenever colored persons are employed as musicians in any regiment or company, they shall be entitled to the same pay now allowed by law to musicians regularly enlisted." (This act was passed by the legislature of the same "racist" Confederate States of America whose Constitution outlawed the slave trade.)
General Nathan Bedford Forrest was notoriously good to his slaves, and a number of blacks fought under his command. That this was well-known even among the northern ranks is evidenced in the following episode. Shortly after the war, in August 1866, Federal cavalry rode onto Forrest's plantation. As they approached the house, Forrest's old war horse, King Phillip, charged at them. When they struck at the animal, Jerry, Forrest's valet and body servant (one of his many former slaves who, though freed in 1863 by Forrest himself, returned with him to his plantation) rushed out to defend the horse. The Federal captain said, "General, now I can account for your success. Your negroes fight for you, and your horse fights for you." The Northerners who fought against General Forrest knew that Blacks were on his side.
An Indiana soldier wrote a letter to his hometown newspaper recounting his unit's run-in with black Confederates in the fall of 1861. The story was reprinted throughout the North:
a body of seven hundred Negro infantry opened fire on our men, wounding two lieutenants and two privates. The wounded men testify positively that they were shot by Negroes, and that not less than seven hundred were present, armed with muskets. This is, indeed, a new feature in the war. We have heard of a regiment of Negroes at Manassas, and another at Memphis, and still another at New Orleans, but did not believe it till it came so near home and attacked our men. . . . One of the lieutenants was shot in the back of the neck and is not expected to live.
The New Orleans regiment referred to may have been that which began with the May 12, 1861 proclamation of Louisiana Governor Thomas O. Moore. The proclamation called for the enrollment of blacks to form an all-black regiment with black officers for the defense of New Orleans. By early 1862, over 3,000 men had joined this regiment, and other black units had been formed as well.
Historian Thomas Y. Cartwright notes how effectively the Confederate blacks were able to dupe unsuspecting Northerners. "Using black Southerners as couriers was a favorite Confederate trick. They deceived the Federals into thinking they were dumb or pro-union (which of course the Northerners assumed anyway, not being willing to believe that black Southerners could be pro-Confederate), and thus manipulated unsuspecting Federals." During the war, the Yankees' false assumptions about Blacks in the South opened themselves to manipulation. Sadly, these Yankee false assumptions still persist today. Yankees are still duped by false caricatures of Blacks in the South, and worse, Confederate Blacks are not remembered as they should be. This will continue so long as we persist in our unwillingness to believe that "black Southerners could be pro-Confederate."
Credenda/Agenda Vol. 9, No. 1

Annual Murfreesboro Camp33 Turkey Shoot

Getting ready for the next round

Our Turkey, I mean Tom is in the middle
A great fund raiser for the camp thanks to all who helped

United Confederate Veterans 1927

A Proud Band of Brothers

From the photo album

Billy taking a break

Robert standing guard

Sorry Brian

What a great crowd

Abraham Lincoln on Race

Abraham Lincoln, the consumate political manipulator, often spoke out of both sides of his mouth on the subject of race, depending on who he was speaking to. Much the same was true of his utterances on politics. Here are some samples of each. Judge for yourself the words versus the reality of Lincoln's actions.ON POLITICS:"This country with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it.""Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world."With statements like these one wonders how Lincoln could have opposed Southern secession. Could it be that Lincoln was a liar? Did his words depend on who he was speaking to? Actions speak louder than words, and Lincoln's actions brought about the deaths of over 600,000 Americans. Was Lincoln a liar and a murderer as well?ON RACE:"What I would most desire would be the separation of the white and black races."— Spoken at Springfield, Illinois on July 17th, 1858; from ABRAHAM LINCOLN: COMPLETE WORKS, 1894, Vol. 1, page 273"See our present condition---the country engaged in war! Our White men cutting one another's throats! And then consider what we know to be the truth. But for your race among us there could not be war, although many men engaged on either side do not care for you one way or another. "Why should the people of your race be colonized, and where? Why should they leave this country? This is, perhaps, the first question for proper consideration. You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffer very greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffer from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this be admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated. It is better for both, therefore, to be separated." — Spoken at the White House to a group of black community leaders, August 14th, 1862, from COLLECTED WORKS OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN, Vol 5, page 371"I will say, then, that I AM NOT NOR HAVE EVER BEEN in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the black and white races---that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making votersor jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with White people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the White and black races which will ever FORBID the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the White race." — 4th Lincoln-Douglas debate, September 18th, 1858; COLLECTED WORKS Vol. 3, pp. 145-146
Lincoln the Racialist? NOT.An answer to yet another Lincoln lover"There is a rancor in our hearts you little dream. We hate you sir."— Gen. Henry A. Wise, CSA, to a Union officer at Appomattox It is with some considerable measure of sorrow that I pen this response to Richard McCulloch's article praising Abraham Lincoln and Mr. McCulloch's native North for their putative once-upon-a-time belief in "racial purity" ("The Open Wound", February 1997). Unlike Moriarity—who first raised the subject of Lincoln, but who is unknown to me—Richard McCulloch is a friend. We have spoken and corresponded over the years, and I have the greatest respect for the contribution he has made to racial awareness with his books. I keep a stack of The Nordish Quest at hand for whites awakening to the realities of race.However, his apologia for Lincoln and the North in provoking and prosecuting their fratricidal war against the Confederate States of America is so divergent from historical reality and so utterly devoid of understanding of the Puritanical political climate of the mid-19th century as to be laughable. It demands reply despite ties of friendship or consideration of past service to our common cause.Briefly, Mr. McCulloch's thesis is that Lincoln was really a racialist at heart. He and the saintly Northern people wanted nothing less than an all-white Nordic nation. But those nasty, selfish Southerners just wouldn't give up their slaves. Lincoln was forced to call out the army and invade the South for the greater good of whites everywhere. Had he not been assassinated, after he finished killing a few hundred thousand recalcitrant Southerners he would have magically whisked away America's blacks. We few survivors of his benevolence would have then lived happily ever after, with nary a black in sight to spoil our Nordic paradise. No doubt this would have, in time, assuaged our anger over our wrecked nation and our grief over our 260,000 dead fathers, sons, uncles, nephews and cousins.Thus, according to Mr. McCulloch, Abraham Lincoln's war was really fought to create an all-white America. Those evil Southerners fought to preserve multi-racialism— and so they and their country had to be destroyed in order to save whites from their folly. As evidence, Mr. McCulloch cites the sometimes reluctance of Northern states to admit blacks and Lincoln's occasional statements supposedly voicing a desire to expel blacks. Conveniently ignored, of course, is the historical fact that during the war Lincoln emancipated all those slaves he did not control and kept as slaves all those he could have himself sent back to Africa.Mr. McCulloch makes much of Lincoln statements defaming blacks. However, he has made the mistake of believing what Lincoln said and ignoring what Lincoln actually did. Since Lincoln was a consummate liar, telling each audience what it wanted to hear in order to advance his political career, it is easy to find pretty much anything one wants in Lincoln's utterances. For example, Lincoln, often cited for his atheism by close associates—so much the atheist that he wrote a book in his youth parodying Christianity—cynically invoked America's religious values in public as a means of gaining a political following.His 1848 Congressional speech for self-determination ("Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better.") led many European statesmen to believe Lincoln could not, on principle, oppose Southern secession. What Europeans did not account for was Lincoln's duplicity. In reality, 1848 was the year communist revolutions broke out all over Europe. Lincoln's speech gave encouragement to those revolutionaries, many of whom later served as officers in his Union invasion army. However, closer to home, where Anglo-Saxon America was engaged in wresting the Southwest away from mestizo Mexico, he bitterly opposed the Mexican-American war as immoral.Lincoln carefully targeted his speeches to fit the audience. While campaigning for the U.S. Senate against Stephen Douglas in southern Illinois, an area sympathetic to the South, he said "I will say, then, that I am not nor have ever been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the black and white races. . .and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the White race."However, in northern Illinois—filled by that time with German and other non-Anglo-Saxon immigrants—he glorified Negro equality: "In the right to eat the bread his own hands have earned he is the equal of Judge Douglas, or of myself, or any living man." Carl Sandburg's adulatory biography quotes a private statement written during the debate, belittling "inferior race" and "Negro equality" abolition opponents. This pro-abolition paean ends as follows: "I am proud, in my passing speck of time, to contribute an humble mite to that glorious consummation, which my own poor eyes may not last to see." Nowhere in this private confession is black separatism to be found. His famous "house divided against itself cannot stand" speech was universally seen both in the North and the South as a harbinger of emancipation, not of separatism.Racialist sentiments undoubtedly existed in the North, as they certainly did in the South—a region that lived day and night with the terrifying possibility of racially motivated massacres. But it was not the majority opinion. Northern politics was dominated by outrage at the "immorality" of slavery and not by "racism." Set against this backdrop, it seems likely that Lincoln's flirtation with "black separatism" was a ploy designed to appease a racialist minority while allowing prosecution of the war to continue. His refusal to free slaves in Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware with the Emancipation proclamation fits the same mold. He needed these states to sustain the war effort. And so, as the eternally opportunistic politician, he took whatever actions required to achieve his objective, no matter how bizarre they might appear to an objective observer.It is a historical fact that in 1860 Lincoln was the candidate of the abolitionist Republican Party. As their candidate, he inevitably reflected their viewpoint. Not without reason were they called "Black Republicans", hardly the sobriquet one would apply to white separatists. Black Republicans did not advocate removal of blacks to Africa. They wanted not only black emancipation but social and political equality as well, a status they enforced with a vengeance as soon as the war was over—a predictable outcome that is utterly at odds with Mr. McCulloch's thesis.Also conveniently ignored is the historical fact that a black repatriation movement had existed since the 1820s. The American Colonization Society, founded by Southerner James Monroe, never attracted a politically significant (i.e. vote-getting) following in the supposedly white separatist North. Monrovia, the African city created for black repatriation, received only a few thousand blacks, most of whom settled there voluntarily rather than by forcible removal. If the North was determined to create an all-white nation, the vehicle had been available for decades. Since this option languished, one suspects that Northern motives were somewhat less racialist than Mr. McCulloch contends.Also conveniently ignored is the historical fact that Lincoln never publicly offered the South a separatist solution to the race crisis. If he wanted an all-white America, he could have, at any time—either before the War or after it began—proposed a plan to purchase and repatriate all slaves from federal tax revenues, thus obviating Southern concern over financial loss. If the Northern people really supported such a solution, it would have cost him nothing politically. If refused, it would have put the South in the untenable position of renouncing an ideal solution to the crisis. (Southerners might have been excused if they had objected—well over half of all U.S. tax revenues came from tariffs on Southern imports and exports.) But Lincoln never made such an offer—for the very good reason that he neither truly believed in it himself nor judged that the Northern electorate would accept it. In his 1860 inaugural address, Lincoln said that he had no intention to interfere with slavery because he had no legal right to do so. When this ploy failed to bring undeceived Southern states back into his clutches, he then proceeded with armed conquest, his 1848 speech affirming the right of self-determination notwithstanding. Lincoln soon put the lie to his words professing respect for law by his actions. He arrested Maryland's legislature on the eve of their secession vote, installing fiat legislators who then voted as he directed. This initiated a long bout of constitutional mayhem. When informed that the Supreme Court had ruled that he had no constitutional authority to wage war against Americans, he asked derisively if the Supreme Court had an army to enforce its ruling. And, of course, the utterly illegal Emancipation Proclamation stood the constitution on its head, making Lincoln solely culpable for destruction of the Founders' creation.The Emancipation Proclamation—an expedient designed to keep Britain and France out of the war, and not, as Mr. McCulloch suggests, to give "meaning, dignity and noble purpose to the traumatic suffering"—is the ultimate refutation of Mr. McCulloch's "Lincoln-as-racialist" thesis. Had Lincoln really wanted to remove blacks from America, surely he realized that, once blacks were freed, equality would be impossible to prevent—exactly the outcome that did occur after the war? Had the North really wanted to expel blacks, would they not have removed Lincoln from office in the 1864 election for freeing blacks rather than expelling them? Would not the Northern states have refused to ratify the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments after the War? No, the simpler explanation—and the correct one—is that the Northern majority saw slavery as a moral issue and not a racialist one. They approved of emancipation, never dreaming that one day their grandchildren would reap the whirlwind they had so foolishly sowed with their pious moralizing.Evidence of this permeates the historical record. Northerners operated the notorious Underground Railroad. Northerners—by refusing to return escaped slaves to their owners as the Constitution required—provoked the crisis that drove the South from the union. Northerners—such as Harriet Beecher Stowe, author of the scurrilous Uncle Tom's Cabin—fanned the flames of race war, emitting a veritable flood of provocative lies in order to inflame opinion against the South. Northerners financed atrocities such as John Brown's raid on the federal arsenal at Harper's Ferry—the purpose of which was to arm Virginia's slaves for massacre of Virginia's white population. Finally, a Northern Congress whitewashed Brown and the abolitionists who backed his murderous ambition. The late Revilo Oliver, an Illinois "Yankee"—and one of the foremost racialist intellects of the 20th century—nailed Brown and his admirers in America's Decline:". . .Americans have been taught to venerate a particularly vicious homicidal maniac named John Brown, who, after a long series of murders in Kansas, appointed himself President of the United States and slipped into Virginia in the hope that he could enjoy seeing white men, mutilated but alive, hanging by their heels from trees while their intestines were pulled out of their bodies and torches were used to ignite their hair, and he yearned to see white women blinded and herded together in pigpens, but kept alive for the amusement of black beasts."Oliver adds: "Of Brown's purposes and plans there can be no possible doubt, for he openly boasted that he would model his work on the great slave revolt in Hispaniola, which, after the extermination of the Aryans by the procedures I have mentioned, eventually produced the fetid pest-hole now called Haiti." It is this same John Brown that Northerners eulogized as a holy martyr after Virginia hung him for murder. Oliver concludes his skewering of Brown's admirers thus:"[T]hose facts were, of course, well known to the liars, chiefly of degenerate Puritan stock, who started the canonization of Brown and publicly compared him to Jesus Christ as they labored to arouse enthusiasm for an invasion of the more civilized states in the southern half of the nation—enthusiasm for the war that they greatly enjoyed, to say nothing of its aftermath, when they so richly appeased their sadistic lusts with the suffering they inflicted on the conquered white population."Also conveniently ignored is the historical fact that miscegenation between blacks and whites was far more prevalent in the North than in the South. In his 1867 book, A Defense of Virginia and the South, Robert L. Dabney, chaplain to Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson, analyzed pre- war census records. Prior to the war, census-takers noted the race of each person counted, a record that included mixed-race mulattos. Dabney found that the greatest percentage of mulattos lived in the North. In many Northern states, mulattos exceeded half the non-white population. On the other hand, Southern Negroes were largely pure African. Contending that the same people who bred so freely with their few blacks were in reality frothing white separatists is simply a case of wish replacing reality.Dabney's book lays bare the hypocrisy of Northern commercial interests and political leaders on the issue of slavery. Forgotten is the fact that slavery was at first legal in Northern states as well as Southern. Slave ships were exclusively of Northern registry. Virginia efforts to eliminate slavery in the early 1770s were opposed by Northern slave trading interests. As Northern slavery was phased out— due to climate and unsuitability of African labor in a rapidly industrializing North—laws allowed sale of slaves out of state but did not require repatriation. Northerners cynically sold their "problem" to the South. Only after they had recouped their own investments did they begin self- righteously beating the drums for emancipation—and let the South's financial interests be damned.Finally, also conveniently ignored is the historical fact that it was the South that—after the horror of Reconstruction was thrown off—imposed a virtually air-tight political and social apartheid on its blacks. Northern attitudes toward blacks in the intervening century have unquestionably been more tolerant than those of Southerners. It took two 20th century invasions by the United States Army to defeat Southern segregationist resolve—one by Midwesterner Dwight Eisenhower (he of German descent, a fact that will not be lost on Mr. McCulloch), and a second by that self-absorbed son of an Irish bootlegger, John F. Kennedy. Are we to believe that, up until the War, Northerners were rabid white separatists, but that by some mysterious Vulcan mind-meld they suddenly became ardent pro-integrationists—while racially tolerant Southerners simultaneously underwent an equally miraculous reverse transformation? This tortured explanation defies the bounds of credibility.No, the North's acts were not those of noble idealists, intent on creating an all-white America. They were the acts of venal, self-serving, holier-than-thou zealots—the kind of people who always know what is best for everyone else but who never get around to applying their pious drivel to their own lives. The word that describes them is "liberals", and nothing has changed in 130 years—as is amply attested by current Northern voting patterns.Perhaps the saddest point of all is Mr. McCulloch's plea for acceptance of Lincoln as "one of our own." We are asked to embrace a genetic defective, an illegitimate bastard, an inveterate liar, a delusional egotist, a homosexual deviant, a communist sympathizer, an emancipator of 4 million Africans, and a man whose war caused as many white deaths as all other American wars combined. Think, for a moment, about who one allies oneself with in bowing to Lincoln. Shall we lick the tyrant's hand, thus dancing as puppets for our Marxist adversaries' amusement? The effrontery of this boggles the mind.Finally, why is it "highly partisan" to criticize a man who killed one-quarter of the South's military-age men—but "non-partisan" to praise him? No wonder the white race is in trouble. If racialists are unable to ascertain truth and to accurately assess self-interest—even when it smacks them in the face with the force and stench of a dead fish—where is our hope of victory? I cannot say what others may think about this self-abasing homage to Lincoln. But I can tell you that this son of Scottish and Scotch-Irish pioneers and Confederate veterans knows who the enemy is—and eagerly awaits the coming day when the redemption of the destiny of our people begins.