http://dixieoutfitters.com

SHNV's Supporters for Apr. 2012:
Brock Townsend
Faithful Southron, THANK YOU!!


Southern Heritage <br>News and Views

Wednesday, October 22, 2014

DANVILLE FLAG OUTCOME "A VICTORY FOR COMMON SENSE OVER POLITICAL CORRECTNESS"


In a major victory for Americans of Confederate heritage, the City of Danville today squashed the attempts by The Danville Museum of Fine Arts and History to remove the Third National Flag of the Confederacy from its grounds at the historic Sutherlin mansion.

"This is a huge victory for common sense over political correctness," said Kelly Barrow, the Commander in Chief of the 30,000 member Sons of Confederate Veterans, a heritage organization made up of direct descendants of those who fought for the Confederate States of America.

"The Sutherlin Mansion is called the Last Capital of the Confederacy because Jefferson Davis and his Cabinet stayed there after Richmond fell in 1865," said Barrow. "That flag flies there as a very significant part of American history. What the museum was proposing was nothing less than an unthinking insult to the more than 70 million Americans whose ancestors fought for the Southern cause. It amounts to an attempt to whitewash American and Virginian history."

In a brief statement, the City of Danville acknowledged that Virginia law prevents the removal of the flag. Attorney Fred Taylor, who represented individual citizens of Danville, said, "I am pleased to hear of the decision by the Danville City Council. Virginia state law is clear regarding the protection of the monument and the memorial, and it is reassuring to see the City Council honor its original 7994 agreement with the Heritage Preservation Association and the citizens of Danville, avoiding what could have been a needless and costly legal battle."

Ben L. Jones
Chief of Heritage Operations
Sons of Confederate Veterans

Monday, October 20, 2014

A TRULY HISTORIC DAY, A STIRRING TRIBUTE TO A BEAUTIFUL SOUL, AND A MEDIA BLACKOUT


By Ben Jones, SCV Chief of Heritage Operations 

This past Saturday, at the Hillcrest Cemetery in Monroe, North Carolina a memorial service of major historic importance took place. The ashes of Mrs. Mattie Clyburn Rice were placed next to the grave of her father, Weary Clyburn. Mr. Clyburn was born in 1841 and was a combatant in the American Civil War and passed away in 1932. His daughter, Mrs. Rice, passed on September 1st of this year, two weeks before what would have been her 91st birthday. The service was to remember "Miss Mattie" and to dedicate to her a permanent memorial.

The memorial service was a day of tears and laughter, and a day of reflection, pageantry, music, and praise. It was a memorable occasion for a beautiful soul.

Between them, the lives of father and daughter encompassed the greater part of the American Experience. When Weary Clyburn was born, there were still many alive who had fought in the American Revolution. When his daughter died, the space age had taken men to the moon and beyond, and the digital revolution had enabled the entire planet to instantly connect. During this Sesquicentennial of the War Between the States, one would have expected such a memorial tribute as this to gain the attention of the major television networks, the cable news networks, and the major regional and national newspapers.

Certainly serious historians of the era would be there to mark the occasion, for
this wonderful lady had heard of the war first hand from the stories of her beloved father, and she had honored his heritage with devotion and courage.

But the event took place in a virtual blackout of media coverage. There were, to my knowledge, two reporters from the Monroe area there, but nothing beyond that. The nation did not get to hear about "Miss Mattie" and her devotion to her father's memory. The historic importance of this family went virtually unnoticed by the media.

There was, however, an Associated Press story about the Memorial on the day before the service. And that nationally distributed story is indicative of the "mainstream media's" approach to what can only be called "political correctness". Nothing else can explain the "hatchet job" on the passing of this beautiful soul. For you see, Weary Clyburn was a slave, and he served for the Confederacy, and he received a pension for his service to the Southern Army. But the story told to the nation by the Associated Press says that he was surely forced into service by his master.

And that, according to Weary and his daughter Mattie, is a lie.

According to "Miss Mattie", her father went into the war with his friend, Frank Weary, and served as his bodyguard for four years. In one battle, Weary saved the wounded Frank's life by carrying him over his shoulders to safety. A granddaughter of Frank Weary spoke heartfelt thanks for this act to Weary's descendants at the Memorial Service.

For that Associated Press story, the reporter, Martha Waggoner, interviewed a man identified as a "blogger", a man who is a high school teacher from New Jersey who lives in Massachusetts. Claiming to be a "historian", this blogger has said that Mrs. Rice had promulgated a hoax, and that it was not true that men like Weary Clyburn had supported the Confederacy because Weary Clyburn was a slave. Never mind what the man Weary Clyburn himself said. The blogger, a man named Kevin Levin, thinks he knows the minds of Southern people who lived in the 1840's better than they knew it. In choosing to interview a blogger who is best known as an avowed anti-Southern propagandist, the A.P. reporter has insulted the memory of Mrs. Rice and her father and brought great pain to her family and to the many friends who knew this wonderful lady.

Of course, the "reporter" did not bother to cover the actual event and talk to Mrs. Rice's children and grandchildren. She and her colleagues were nowhere in sight. She had "covered" the story with a phone call to a self-obsessed Massachusetts blogger.

It is an outrageous and disturbing piece of "reporting". How anyone could slander this father and daughter is beyond comprehension, but that is exactly what "reporter" Martha Waggoner and "blogger" Kevin Levin managed to do.

Ms. Waggoner could have easily contacted any number of serious, respected historians of the American Civil War in North Carolina. Instead she seemed to "cherry-pick" a blogger devoted to attacking Southern heritage and gave him the final word.

But we can speak up for Weary Clyburn and "Miss Mattie" just as she spoke up for us.

Please e-mail Ms. Waggoner at MWaggoner@ap.org and tell her politely that her story was clearly biased and insulting to the memory of Mattie Clyburn Rice and her family. Tell her, as nicely as possible, that she should apologize to every one of "Miss Mattie's" family members, and especially to the memory of Weary Clyburn and his indomitable daughter, Mattie Clyburn Rice.

Monday, October 13, 2014

A NEW GUARD STANDS AT THE MARIETTA CONFEDERATE CEMETERY

(Atlanta - October 13, 2014) The Georgia Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans is honored to announce the unveiling of a new Bronze Soldier Confederate Monument at the Marietta Confederate Cemetery where over 3,000 Confederate soldiers rest in peace. Georgia Division Adjutant Tim Pilgrim, who is heading up the project, stated, "This was a project made possible by the joint cooperation of the Marietta Confederate Cemetery Foundation and the local Sons of Confederate camps in the area. 

Pilgrim indicated that most of the funding for the new monument came from the Georgia Division's specialty tag funds and from donations by the local Sons of Confederate Veterans camp. "It's part of our on-going recognition of the 150th Anniversary of the War Between the States," said Pilgrim, "in honor of more than 3,000 Southern Heroes who rest in these hallowed grounds that made the ultimate sacrifice to protect their family and homes from an invading army."  

The Bronze Confederate Soldier is (5) five foot (10) ten inches tall in full military regalia and gear, holding his musket. He will be place atop a (5) five foot high granite pedestal centered in a new paver plaza. The octagon pavers will be true to historical period style with granite knee walls on three sides of the plaza. The engravings in front of the granite pedestal will include the Great Seal of the Confederate States of America with the Confederate motto of "Deo Vindice" -- Latin for "God is our Vindicator."  The East side will have the Marietta Confederate Cemetery Logo and the West side lists the (14) fourteen States that have Soldiers buried in the Marietta Confederate Cemetery.  


Wax mold for the casting of the new Bronze Confederate Soldier

Marietta Confederate Cemetery is the largest Confederate cemetery South of Richmond and is located at 395 Powder Springs St, Marietta, GA 30064. The Marietta Confederate Cemetery is one of the largest burial grounds for Confederate dead.

The City of Marietta and Friends of Brown Park will also be unveiling two new sections to the existing memorial walls. The new section will list 350 additional names of Confederate soldiers buried as "Unknowns" in the Confederate Cemetery. Brown Park now has four granite walls commemorating 1,150 Confederate soldiers buried in the adjacent Marietta Confederate Cemetery after two new memorial walls were installed recently.

The Bronze Confederate Soldier Monument as well as the two new memorial walls will be unveiled to the public at an unveiling ceremony this Sunday, October 19 at 1 p.m.
 
For more information about the Sons of Confederate Veterans or any of this year's planned events to commemorate the Sesquicentennial of the War, contact the Georgia SCV at 404-456-3393 or online at www.GeorgiaSCV.org    

Friday, October 10, 2014

Buchanan and Black – The Final Word on the Constitutionality of Secession


Kenneth Bachand

According to Buchanan biographer George Ticknor Curtis, Among the Buchanan Papers of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania, in a box labeled "Buchanan Papers-Nahum Capen, Black, & Brewster," there is a paper in the handwriting of Attorney General Judge Jeremiah Black, dated November 17, 1860, and endorsed by President Buchanan, that lists certain questions propounded to him by the president in respect to the situation involving the Southern states. (Source: George Ticknor Curtis, Life of Buchanan, Fifteenth President of the United States, Vol. II, (Harper, 1883), p. 319) 

At that time, President Buchanan wrote,
“17 November, 1860. SIR, The excitement in the Southern States caused by the recent presidential election and by the previous expressions in the North of hostility to Southern people and their domestic institutions may produce in some places resistance to the laws of the Union. As I desire to be guided in this emergency solely by the Constitution, and as there are several important points obscure enough to need some exposition, I have to require your opinion in writing on the following questions:
1. In case of a conflict between the authorities of any State and those of the United States, can there be any doubt that the laws of the Federal Government, if constitutionally passed, are supreme?
2. What is the extent of my official power to collect the duties on imports at a port where the revenue laws are resisted by a force which drives the collector from the custom house?
3. What right have I to defend the public property (for instance, a fort, arsenal and navy yard), in case it should be assaulted?
4. What are the legal means at my disposal for executing those laws of the United States which are usually administered through the courts and their officers?
5. Can a military force be used for any purpose whatever under the Acts of 1795 and 1807, within the limits of a State where there are no Judges, marshal or other civil officers?
I will thank you to give this subject your early attention and let me have your opinion without loss of time.”

Judge Black's opinion bears the date November 20, 1860, one month to the day prior to South Carolina declaring independence from the United States. And ironically, although secession was being talked about everywhere from farmers in their fields to politicians in the houses of Congress, none of Buchanan’s five questions was focused specifically on that subject. So much of the opinion as includes the points which are specially controverted and criticised is here given—about one-half of the entire document.
(Source: Curtis, ibid., Pp. 319–324.  See also “Opinion of Judge Black, November 20, 1860,” James G. Blaine, Twenty Years of Congress: From Lincoln to Garfield, with a review of the events which led to the political revolution of 1860, Vol. I, (The Henry Bill Publishing Company, 1884), pp. 603–605; THE WORKS OF JAMES BUCHANAN, Comprising his Speeches, State Papers, and Private Correspondence Collected and Edited By JOHN BASSETT MOORE, Vol. XI, (Philadelphia & London, J. B. Lippincott Company, 1910), pp. 860–868, as found in the Dickinson College Digital Collection; and 9 Opinions of the Attorneys General, 517–526.)

The specific portions of the militia acts of 1795 and 1807 referred to by Judge Black follow here and precede his opinions.
The Militia Act of 1795:
An Act to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress insurrection and repel invasions, and to repeal the act now in force for those purposes.  [The act to be repealed being the Militia Act of 1792]
Be it enacted, &c., That whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth such number of the militia of the State or States most convenient to the place of danger or scene of action, as he may judge necessary to repel such invasion, and to issue his orders for that purpose to such officer or officers of the militia as he shall think proper. And, in case of an insurrection in any State against the Government thereof, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, on application of the Legislature of such State, or of the Executive, (when the Legislature cannot be convened,) to call forth such number of the militia of any other State or States as may be applied for, as he may judge sufficient to suppress such insurrection.
Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed, or the execution thereof obstructed in any State, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the Marshals by this act, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia of such State, or of any other State or States, as may be necessary to suppress such combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed; and the use of militia so to be called forth, may be continued, if necessary, until the expiration of thirty days after the commencement of the then next session of Congress.
The Militia Act of 1807:
ANNALS OF CONGRESS NINTH CONGRESS. SESS. II. CH. 39, 1807. Page 443 STATUTE II. March 3, 1807. CHAP. IX. - An Act authorizing the  employment of the land and naval forces of the United States, in cases of insurrections.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That in all cases of insurrection, or obstruction to the laws, either of the United States, or of any individual state, or territory, where it is lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia for the purpose of suppressing such insurrection, or of causing the laws to be duly executed, it shall be lawful for him to employ, for the same purposes, such part of the land or naval force of the United States, as shall be judged necessary, having first observed all the pre-requisites of the law in that respect.
APPROVED, March 3, 1807. 
Judge Black’s opinion (unedited)
(Note: The paragraphs have been numbered to facilitate referencing in the notes that follow.)
“(1) I come now to the point in your letter which is probably of the greatest practical importance. By the Act of 1807 you may employ such parts of the land and naval forces as you may judge necessary for the purpose of causing the laws to be duly executed, in all cases where it is lawful to use the militia for the same purpose. By the Act of 1795 the militia may be called forth 'whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed, or the execution thereof obstructed, in any State by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of Judicial proceedings, or by the power vested in the marshals.' This imposes upon the President the sole responsibility of deciding whether the exigency has arisen which requires the use of military force, and in proportion to the magnitude of that responsibility will be his care not to overstep the limits of his legal and just authority.
(2) The laws referred to in the Act of 1795 are manifestly those which are administered by the judges, and executed by the ministerial officers of the courts for the punishment of crime against the United States, for the protection of rights claimed under the Federal Constitution and laws, and for the enforcement of such obligations as come within the cognizance of the Federal Judiciary. To compel obedience to these laws, the courts have authority to punish all who obstruct their regular administration, and the marshals and their deputies have the same powers as sheriffs and their deputies in the several States in executing the laws of the States. These are the ordinary means provided for the execution of the laws; and the whole spirit of our system is opposed to the employment of any other, except in cases of extreme necessity arising out of great and unusual combinations against them. Their agency must continue to be used until their incapacity to cope with the power opposed to them shall be plainly demonstrated. It is only upon clear evidence to that effect that a military force can be called into the field. Even then its operations must be purely defensive. It can suppress only such combinations as are found directly opposing the laws and obstructing the execution thereof. It can do no more than what might and ought to be done by a civil posse, if a civil posse could be raised large enough to meet the same opposition. On such occasions, especially, the military power must be kept in strict subordination to the civil authority, since it is only in aid of the latter that the former can act at all.
(3) But what if the feeling in any State against the United States should become so universal that the Federal officers themselves (including judges, district attorneys, and marshals) would be reached by the same influences, and resign their places? Of course, the first step would be to appoint others in their stead, if others could be got to serve. But in such an event, it is more than probable that great difficulty would be found in filling the offices. We can easily conceive how it might become altogether impossible. We are therefore obliged to consider what can be done in case we have no courts to issue judicial process, and no ministerial officers to execute it. In that event troops would certainly be out of place, and their use wholly illegal. If they are sent to aid the courts and marshals, there must be courts and marshals to be aided. Without the exercise of those functions which belong exclusively to the civil service, the laws cannot be executed in any event, no matter what may be the physical strength which the Government has at its command. Under such circumstances to send a military force into any State, with orders to act against the people, would be simply making war upon them.
(4) The existing laws put and keep the Federal Government strictly on the defensive. You can use force only to repel an assault on the public property and aid the Courts in the performance of their duty. If the means given you to collect the revenue and execute the other laws be insufficient for that purpose, Congress may extend and make them more effectual to those ends.
(5) If one of the States should declare her independence, your action cannot depend on the rightfulness of the cause upon which such declaration is based. Whether the retirement of the State from the Union be the exercise of a right reserved in the Constitution, or a revolutionary movement, it is certain that you have not in either case the authority to recognize her independence or to absolve her from her Federal obligations. Congress, or the other States in Convention assembled, must take such measures as may be necessary and proper. In such an event, I see no course for you but to go straight onward in the path you have hitherto trodden — that is, execute the laws to the extent of the defensive means placed in your hands, and act generally upon the assumption that the present constitutional relations between the States and the Federal Government continue to exist, until a new code of things shall be established either by law or force.
(6) Whether Congress has the constitutional right to make war against one or more States, and require the Executive of the Federal Government to carry it on by means of force to be drawn from the other States, is a question for Congress itself to consider. It must be admitted that no such power is expressly given; nor are there any words in the Constitution which imply it. Among the powers enumerated in Article 1, Section 8 is that 'to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and to make rules concerning captures on land and water.' This certainly means nothing more than the power to commence and carry on hostilities against the foreign enemies of the nation. Another clause in the same section gives Congress the power 'to provide for calling forth the militia,' and to use them within the limits of the State. But this power is so restricted by the words which immediately follow that it can be exercised only for one of the following purposes: To execute the laws of the Union; that is, to aid the Federal officers in the performance of their regular duties. To suppress insurrections against the State; but this is confined by Article 4, Section 4, to cases in which the State herself shall apply for assistance against her own people. To repel the invasion of a State by enemies who come from abroad to assail her in her own territory. All these provisions are made to protect the States, not to authorize an attack by one part of the country upon another; to preserve the peace, and not to plunge them into civil war. Our forefathers do not seem to have thought that war was calculated 'to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.' There was undoubtedly a strong and universal conviction among the men who framed and ratified the Constitution, that military force would not only be useless, but pernicious, as a means of holding the States together.
(7) If it be true that war cannot be declared, nor a system of general hostilities carried on by the Central Government against a State, then it seems to follow that an attempt to do so would be ipso facto an expulsion of such State from the Union. Being treated as an alien and an enemy, she would be compelled to act accordingly. And if Congress shall break up the present Union by unconstitutionally putting strife and enmity and armed hostility between different sections of the country, instead of the domestic tranquility which the Constitution was meant to insure, will not all the States be absolved from their Federal obligations? Is any portion of the people bound to contribute their money or their blood to carry on a contest like that?
(8) The right of the General Government to preserve itself in its whole constitutional vigor by repelling a direct and positive aggression upon its property or its officers cannot be denied. But this is a totally different thing from an offensive war to punish the people for the political misdeeds of their State Government, or to enforce an acknowledgment that the Government of the United States is supreme. The States are colleagues of one another, and if some of them shall conquer the rest, and hold them as subjugated provinces, it would totally destroy the whole theory upon which they are now connected.
(9) If this view of the subject be correct, as I think it is, then the Union must utterly perish at the moment when Congress shall arm one part of the people against another for any purpose beyond that of merely protecting the General Government in the exercise of its proper constitutional functions.
I am, very respectfully, yours, etc.,”
J. S. BLACK.

We may summarize Judge Black’s Arguments as follows:
1. The president must not overstep the limits of his legal and just authority. 
2. The operations of any military force must be purely defensive. 
3. To send a military force into any State to act against the people would be to make war upon them. 
4. The laws put the Federal Government strictly on the defensive, and force can be used only to repel an assault on public property. 
5. In the event of the secession of any state, the president must execute the laws to the extent of the defensive means. 
6. The Constitution does not  give Congress the right to make war against any State or to require the president to carry it on except when the State applies for assistance against her own people or to repel an invasion of a State by enemies from abroad, not to plunge them into civil war. 
7. A declaration of war or hostilities by the Central Government against any State or states would absolve all the States from their Federal obligations. 
8. The General Government may not engage in a war to punish the people for the political misdeeds of their State Governments or to force them to acknowledge  the supremacy of the central Government.  Some conquering others  and holding them as “subjugated provinces” would destroy the theory upon which they were united. 
9. The arming of any portion of the people against another save for “protecting the General Government in the exercise of its constitutional functions” would constitute an end of the Union.

Seventeen years earlier, Justice Joseph Story of the U.S. Supreme Court, though not an advocate of secession, quoted legal scholar George Tucker, saying in reference to Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution: “It may not be amiss further to observe, (in the language of another commentator,) ‘that every pretext for intermeddling with the domestic concerns of any state, under colour of protecting it against domestic violence, is taken away by that part of the provision, which renders an application from the legislature, or executive authority of the state endangered necessary to be made to the general government, before its interference can be at all proper.’"  (Source: Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833, volume 3, sections 1808, 1819)

John Remington Graham said of  the use of federal troops within a state: "It is an historical fact that, on two occasions during their deliberations, the framers in the Philadelphia Convention voted to deny Congress the power of calling forth military forces of the Union to compel obedience of a state, and on two further occasions they voted to deny Congress the power of sending the Federal army or navy into the territory of any state, except as allowed under Article IV, Section 4 of the United States Constitution—to repel a foreign invasion or at the request of its legislature or governor to deal with domestic violence." (Source: Graham, op. cit., p. 287)

The most pertinent words from Judge Black’s opinion relative to the subject of this treatise are found in section 6 where he says, “There was undoubtedly a strong and universal conviction among the men who framed and ratified the Constitution, that military force would not only be useless, but pernicious, as a means of holding the States together.”  As the secession of Southern states in 1860 and 1861 was neither un-Constitutional nor illegal; and as the Confederate States of America did not invade the United States of America, the right of the government to use the military to defend itself against an invasion by a foreign power cannot justify Lincoln’s call for 75,000 troops to force the seceded states back into the union.

It is interesting to note that in December, shortly after receiving Judge Black’s opinions, Buchanan promoted him from Attorney General to Secretary of State.  Two months later, in February of 1861, John Moncure Daniel, after seven years as  chargé d'affaires to Sardinia, returned home, met with the new Secretary of State, and reported him to have said, “Sir, slavery is but an accident in this quarrel. Slavery is only the John Doe and Richard Doe case, in which this mooted question is to be decided—whether your States shall continue their sovereignty and self-government, or the Northern majorities shall govern you and all of you as they please and according to their own separate interest. If they had not the point of slavery convenient, they would try it on other points just the same.”
(Source: Pen of Fire, John Moncure Daniel, Peter Bridges, Kent State University Press, 2002, p. 161)

Tuesday, September 23, 2014

Abbeville and Scottish Secession


Friends of the Abbeville Institute:

Scotland voted "No" to independence.  The media will have you believe this was a crushing victory.  After all, only 45 percent of the Scottish people voted for secession.  We should flip that on its head.  45 percent of the nearly 90 percent of eligible voters voted FOR self-determination.  The "No" vote barely won, and the aftermath is going to be dramatic.  Several European secession movements have used the publicity of the Scottish referendum to push their own cause. Among these are the Flemish in Belgium, Catalonia in Spain, the Veneto and Lombardy in Italy, Bavaria in Germany, and many more.

The time of the large "indivisible" unitary state is over. A new demand for self-government has emerged either in the form of political independence or for "quasi-independence" in the form of greater state or provincial autonomy. Quebec failed to secede in 1995 in a close vote of 51-49.  As a consequence, Quebec received sufficient autonomy so that, for the moment, there is little interest in secession.

Scotland will certainly gain in self-government because of this referendum. Indeed, they were promised a "devolution revolution" in exchange for a "no" vote. Whether that will satisfy the discontents that forced the referendum or whether the expanded exercise of self government will simply spark a greater desire for independence remains to be seen. Westminster gave Scotland its parliament in 1998. That was supposed to satisfy secessionist discontents. But this expanded exercise of self government only strengthened them.

The referendum was a peaceful assertion of the natural right of self-determination.  No bullets were fired.  No Molotov-cocktails were lobbed at police.  No teargas canisters or dogs were deployed. Independence lost, but it will be back, and not just in Scotland. British prime minister David Cameron should be commended for allowing the referendum. I should add that the Canadian supreme court has ruled that every Canadian province has the right to a referendum on secession at public expense whenever it pleases.

The Drudge Report recently ran an article from REUTERS which "shockingly" exposed increasing American acceptance of secession. Twenty-five percent of Americans, on both the Left and the Right, support the idea of secession for their State.  This is an important and growing trend.

State nullification and secession are fundamental principles in the Constitution as understood by the Jeffersonians who, more or less, dominated the Union from Jefferson's election in 1800 to South Carolina's secession December 20, 1861. Of the New England secession movements (1804-1814), Jefferson said in 1816: "If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation ... to a continuance in union ... I have no hesitation in saying, 'let us separate.'"

If anyone is an American,Jefferson is.That State secession from the first has been a vital part of the American tradition has been suppressed by mainline historians since 1865 as a "Southern heresy." It is true Southerners acted upon it, but there is nothing especially "Southern" or "Confederate" about it.

The right of secession is a timeless principle, memorably asserted in the Declaration of Independence, and is as applicable to an American state today as it is to Scotland, Catalonia, or the Veneto; or as it was to Norway which seceded from Sweden in 1905, or to Singapore which seceded from the Malaysian federation in 1967, or as it was to the 15 states that seceded from the Soviet Union in 1991. Whether it would be good for a State to secede is a practical question for the future. But the question can no longer be suppressed by the fiction that the American federation of States is "indivisible."

Though secession is not a Southern heresy, as presented by main stream scholars, it is true that the Southern tradition alone has preserved this Jeffersonian part of the American tradition. The Abbeville Institute is the keeper of the Jeffersonian tradition. If you value that tradition and wish to have a deeper intellectual grasp of it and its place in the broader American tradition, please lend your support to the Abbeville Institute.

Our goal is to explore what is true and valuable in the Southern tradition, including the Jeffersonian principle of secession. George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson were secessionists.  Southerners were the last Americans to attempt independence.  A loss by force of arms does not invalidate the natural right of political self-government.  People all over the world are realizing this.

For as little as an annual gift of $50, you can help in our effort to gain a deeper understanding of the Southern tradition and what that tradition intimates for us today. All donations to the Abbeville Institute are tax deductible to the full extent of the law. They will be used to maintain our website and provide educational programs for college students, scholars in higher education, and the general public. Please go to www.abbevilleinstitute.org,click the link for donations and choose a sponsorship level. Or mail check to Abbeville Instittute, P.O.Box 10, McClellanville, SC 29458.

Sincerely,

Donald W. Livingston
President, The Abbeville Institute
donlivingston45@gmail.com

Sunday, September 21, 2014

CMDs McCallister & Walters along with Compatriot Freddy Walters Ride with the Hard Core Confederates for Charity


Tampa, Fl.  Saturday Sept 20, 2014

On a wet & overcast morning 3 Compatriots of the Judah P. Benjamin camp 2210 SCV joined ranks with fellow Southerners of  the 301 chapter Hard Core Confederates to raise money for a stricken family. While the Benjamin camp’s Bonnie Blue Vette was not able to venture out into threatening  weather, greatly disappointing CMD McCallister, the Capt Dickerson Gray Ghost Javelin with its Dixie horns a blazing carried the Benjamin members during the 75 mile round trip Poker Run event.

We visited a number of local “refreshment” stops during this Poker Run between east Tampa and Zephyrhills with 50/50 raffles, poker hands and drawings at each stop, offering a chance to win cash and prizes, with the cash winners donating their prizes back to the pot to benefit the recipient. As a camp, we donated 3 “gator tails,” strips of gator leather consisting of the end of the tagged tail,  a couple of finished alligator leather items and 8lbs of fresh Alabama gator meat (Mobile Bay gator), raising about $75 for the cause.

The recipient of the fundraising is Stephanie Swartz, a young lady of 21 who suffers from psychogenic seizures as a result of Epilepsy and other related maladies including autism. To add to her woes, her stepfather was recently diagnosed with cancer & is undergoing radiation treatment creating a financial strain upon the family, inducing the band of Brothers of the Hard Core Confederates to organize a day of fun and relief. Our best wishes goes out to the Swartz family and a thank you to J.D. Spivey and the Hard Core Confederates for organizing this mission.

Anyone wishing to donate to this worthy family may do so by visiting the Hard Core Confederates website at: http://hardcoreconfederates.com/page_1opening.html 

Capt. Phil Walters

Thursday, September 18, 2014

Ole Miss and the New Bigots


By Ben Jones

The brilliant editor H.L. Mencken had a way of being succinct that sparkled with wit. "There is no idea so stupid that you can't find a professor who will believe it," he remarked.  Mencken would have a field day with the recent actions of the University of Mississippi. If you have ever wondered why academia is often the butt of ridicule and humor, you need only to read the report from Ole Miss President Dan Jones entitled, "Action Plan on Consultant Reports and Update on the Work of the Sensitivity and Respect Committee."

We are told that the Extended Sensitivity and Respect Committee has decided that the new Vice Chancellor for Diversity and Inclusion will work with the Institute for Racial Diversity and the new Center for Inclusion and Cross Cultural Engagement.

Fellow compatriots, I am not making this up. This is not a satire, this is what the taxpayers of Mississippi are dishing out their hard-earned money to pay for.

President Jones further stated, "It is my hope that the steps outlined here reflecting the hard work of University committees and our consultants will prove valuable in making us a stronger and healthier university, bringing us closer to our goal of being a warm and welcoming place for every person, every day, regardless of race, religion, preference, country of origin, ability, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation or gender expression."

In my opinion, this is an as astounding a demonstration of politically correct, "feel-good", unadulterated hogwash as has ever been uttered by a man on the public payroll. And having spent four years in the United States Congress, I have heard some world-class hogwash in my day.

President Jones, sounding a lot like Mr. Rogers Neighborhood, has listed every possible group that might be sensitive to not being "included" in this unlimited "diversity", even one I've never heard of: "gender expression." Well, whatever that means, I figure it is o.k. if one expresses their gender at Ole Miss.

There is one very large group that is not included, however. It is those of us whose ancestors fought for the Confederacy during the War Between the States. There are over 70 million of us, but it is as if we do not exist, or have deep feelings toward our forefathers.

In fact, without a straightforward explanation, the famous Oxford street named Confederate Drive is being renamed by these academics in the name of "inclusion". That intentional insult puts the lie to any pretense of "inclusion" or of respect or of diversity on the part of the University of Mississippi.

The Confederacy existed. Thousands of young Mississippians died for it. That conflict has been the crucible event of American history. Everything before led up to it. Everything after has been influenced by it.

The entire student body of the University of Mississippi enlisted in the Confederate Army and those young men suffered 100% casualties. That war is an historical reality and we do not flinch from that reality and its consequences. Those men and their descendants built the University and kept it going through good times and bad, and through the social changes of the past 150 years.

That street was named for those brave young students. The University, in its narrow-minded rush to be politically correct, has banished that little bit of respect by renaming Confederate Drive. In their sanctimonious zeal, they have demeaned the honor and reputation of our ancestors.

In the last fifty years or so we have witnessed a truly remarkable revolution in race relations in the South. Where once there was Jim Crow and strict segregation, there is now a multi-cultural society that has the fastest growing economy in the United States. Men and women of good hearts have come together in brotherhood and cooperation to enjoy racial relations that are an exemplar for other regions. This "bridge-building" has been built on an acceptance of the past and the promise of a shared future, not the divisive finger-pointing of the academics and the politicians.

These politically correct crusaders are practicing a new kind of bigotry. It is a movement that demonizes the Confederacy and lays the sins of America entirely upon the South. If they continue to have their way, they would eradicate every vestige of our cultural history. They ask for respect but give none.

Once again, we must make our voices heard in every way possible. We must demand the respect that our families deserve. We are the last line of defense for the dignity that our ancestors earned.

SCV Telegraph

Christmas in Fayetteville, 1864 – A Sesquicentennial Observance


The North Carolina War Between the States Sesquicentennial Commission Presents:

“Christmas in Fayetteville, 1864  A Sesquicentennial Observance”

Saturday, 13 December 2014 Heritage Square
225 Dick Street, Fayetteville

1PM-4:30PM; 6:30PM-9PM

General Admission $5 at the door

Special Evening Candlelight tours - $10; Children $5


Enjoy a special day of north carolina-focused living history displays and exhibits!

north carolina infantry and artillery reenactors/interpreters in static display 1864 mayor archibald mclean of Fayetteville will preside over the occasion antebellum north carolina christmas traditions interpreted by reenactor kelly hinson the war on the home front interpreted by acclaimed north carolina author brenda mckean wartime hospital exhibit and medical treatment interpreters period north Carolina civilian & military attire encouraged hot cider, eggnog and warm cornbread

unique narrated evening candlelight tours of heritage square historic buildings!

Our two-hour supper break will enable all to enjoy the hay street restaurants!

Corporate sponsorships of the event are still available contact e.kennebeck@aol.com

For more information bernhard1848@gmail.com
Please LIKE my
Freedom Watch
Facebook page
share it with friends


Please LIKE my
Southern Heritage News
& Views Facebook page
share it with friends.