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

Southern Heritage <br>News and Views

Thursday, October 06, 2016


The United Nations recently recommended that reparations be paid for slavery. I am sure that pertains to the United States only, and most particularly the South.  When I heard this announcement, I was not surprised. I was, however, indignant, to say the least. All that I want to hear from the U.N. is that they are vacating U.S. soil and that they never again receive a solitary American dollar. I would love to hear that we, as a Nation, had resigned. American business is none of their business.
Secondly, I was a little surprised. Have not reparations been in effect for years in the form of welfare, public schools and affirmative action – maybe not?
Thirdly, I was enlightened. I did not know that there were any living slaves left to receive reparations nor living slave holders to shake down. Paying reparations at this late date is as unjust as blaming a son because his father murdered someone.  Do they really think such a move will heal racial relations?  Are they intentionally trying to start a race war?
Even though slavery, in this Country, started in the good ol’ Pilgrim-land of Massachusetts and her haughty sister colony of Rhode Island, the South gets all the blame. It is clearer with each passing day that Southern whites are exceeded only by Jews as the greatest scapegoat in history.

John Wayne Dobson
Macon, GA

Friday, September 30, 2016

My Perspective of the UDC Organization

As I previously stated on this forum I think there are many fine ladies in the UDC but the problem seems to be with the ones they elect to the top leadership positions both state and national.  They appear to want to be only a history group and unwilling to get involved in the defense of our monuments, flags, symbols and all. Just meet-eat-retreat and feel great about themselves while our CSA history, heritage, and culture is under all out Marxist Socialist attack at the national, state, and local levels. 
Marxist Socialism-Communism  uses HUMANITARIANISM as a cloak to shelter their evil agenda of stripping people of their freedom and taking total control. They lure and entice people by offering free financial aid and free goods and services. A socialist is best described as a communist who does NOT YET have enough political power to take everything you have. Progressive and critical thinker are deceptive names used in place of socialist and communist to gain public acceptance. Karl Marx said "people separated from their heritage are easily persuaded" and communist Vladimir Lenin coined the term "useful idiots" to describe those who through ignorance work to help achieve adoption of the socialist communist manifesto.
There is a story-probably fictional- but good enough to be true that explains how the socialist-communist trap operates. In the Okefenokee swamp in southeast Georgia there was a drove of wild hogs that none of the locals had been successful in catching with dogs. One day a stranger! showed up. He built a pen but left the gate open. He put corn out away from the gate. Slowly the young pigs began to come and eat the corn. Finally the older hogs decided if the young pigs were going to eat the corn that they might as well also. The stranger kept placing the corn closer and closer to the pen and gate and eventually inside the pen. Then one night when all the pigs and hogs were inside the pen eating he sat in a tree stand and pulled a rope which sprung the gate shut. 
This upper UDC leadership appears to have been indoctrinated with Marxist political correctness and a desire to be liked and approved of by the liberal socialist left. They seem terrified that their good image will be stained if they defend the Confederacy which is  associated with slavery.  Never mind that the north (New England) who was primarily responsible for the development of American slavery gets a near free pass although attacks on the U.S. flag have now started as us Confederates warned would happen. 
I think the original UDC ladies who accomplished so much in the late 19th and early 20th centuries would be ashamed of this seemingly timid and cowardly group who is now in leadership positions and would deem them unworthy of their sires and fit only for a tyrants yoke. Unfortunately we have some like this in the SCV also.
Four ladies that I know and have tremendous admiration for who are doing all within their ability with the resources they have available to defend our CSA history, heritage, and culture are Mrs Rena Cobb of Preston Georgia, Mrs. Joan Hough (pronounced Huff) of Texas, Mrs.Pat Godwin of Alabama, and Mrs.Susan Hathaway of Virginia. And I am sure there are many many more.Thanks ladies for all you do. 
And two of the many many gentlemen who deserve recognition, appreciation and respect for the work they do are Chuck Demastus in Mississippi who publishes Southern Heritage News and Views (SHNV) and Bernhard Thuersam of North Carolina who publishes info. in SHNV. Mr. Thuersam is chairman of the North Carolina Sesquicentennial Commission. I don't think anyone could have done a better job. He is a native New Yorker who came south in the military, learned the truth, and became a more staunch Confederate than most southerners.

James W. King
SCV Camp 141 Commander
Lt. Col. Thomas Nelsons Rangers
Albany Georgia

Wednesday, September 07, 2016

What Did They Abolish?

Many historians tell us the abolitionists are credited with the abolishment of slavery.  That is the tip of the iceberg.  They also abolished the original intent of the Constitution of the United States, they abolished States Rights, they abolished the Republican form of government, they altered citizenship from State citizenship to National citizenship.  In effect they abolished the “Republican Form of government and replaced it with a Democracy.
Their vendetta of hate against the Southern states forever abolished the foundation of our Republic.  Senator Wade of Ohio, June 25,1862, stated, “I would reduce the (South) to utter poverty… We shall never have peace until we take their (the South) influence away.”  The Hon. G.. W. Julian, of Indiana, Jan. 13 1862, added “Let us convert (the South) into a conquered Provence, and govern them as such is our discretion.  Finally, Wendell Phillips stated, “History shows no precedent of getting rid of an aristocracy like (the South) except by the death of the generation.”
The object of Northern Hate was to destroy the Constitution!  Mr. Garrison in a speech, 1856, declared, “The Union is a lie…a covenant with death and an agreement with Hell.”   Wendell Phillips proclaimed, “The Constitution of our fathers was a mistake! Tear it in pieces and make a better.  I have shown you that our work cannot be done under our Constitution.”
The foundation stone for this evil scheme is the “14th Amendment”, an amendment that was never legally adopted under article five of the constitution.  Under it the provisions of the 9th and 10th amendments were effectively negated. States Rights were abolished and brought under the control of the Federal government.  Voting rights were no longer a State function, but were under the authority of the Federal government. The Republican Form of government was replaced with a theoretical Democracy.  Education, local business, housing, contracts and Religion were taken form the states and deposited in Federal control.
It is interesting to not, the Southern states acceded to union (not joined) in the formative period and in 1860-61 they exercised the right to secede  based on the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.  When  the Congressional radicals acted to prevent Southern Congressmen their rightful seats in congress, 1867, and declared the South was a Conquered Provence, which considered the South to be outside the Union. Remember, the war was fought to preserve the Union, it was not until 1963 that the North fought for emancipation. At this point the South proved the political question of “does a State have the right to secede?” The South won the political objective of the War for Southern Independence, or as the conquers called the Civil War.
The 1950’s and 1960’s brought about what is called “”Reconstruction #2”.  The hatred of the South furthered the destruction of our Constitutional government.  The Supreme Court completed the demolition of the states during the Wilson administration and the passage of the 16th and 17th Amendments, giving States Rights over to the Federal government.
Then in the 1950’s The Warren Court disavowed the Constitution in favor of social engineering, overturning established cases, The Slaughter House case, Plessy V Fugerson, Gong Lum.  These decisions of previous courts upheld States Rights and individual liberties.
May 17, 1954 brought the Warren Courts Brown Case.  This decree by the court was heavily influenced by Gunner Myrdel’s work, An American Dilemma.  In chapter one of this work Myrdel wrote of the “fetish cult of the Constitution.”  He went on to say, “The 150 year old Constitution is in many respects impractical and ill-suited for modern conditions.” He also stated, “The worship of the Constitution also is a most flagrant violation of the American Creed.”  and to conclude, “The Constitution was nearly a plot against the common people.  This is the base on which Constitutional law was changed.  The work by Myrdel was mostly based on writings of authors who were identified as being communist or sympathizers.
Menial minded professors have taught three generations of American students that Mr. Hamilton’s idea of rule by the “best men” is demolished by political correctness and teachings of equality.  These professors teach the change of a Republican Form of government to a democracy.  They ignore the wisdom of our Founding Fathers that you must govern under form not theory. Thus you have a government of men, not laws.
This topic is well worth your study and attention.

Jim Ikerman
Acworth Georgia

Saturday, July 30, 2016


By Jeff Paulk

Maybe I am a bit slower than most folks at noticing things, or maybe I just haven’t seen this until today, but the newly minted 2016 quarter pays tribute to John Brown.  “Who is John Brown?” many will ask.  Well, to give the short and sweet answer, he was America’s first terrorist.  It doesn’t surprise me that this government of ours would honor such a person.  After all, it, and the media, fall all over themselves when it comes to Martin Luther King, Jr. who had communist connections and associations, and was a plagiarist. The truth is not told about him, just as it is not told about Abraham Lincoln due to government control over the curriculum taught in our schools.  But, herein, I shall tell you the truth about John Brown.

John Brown was a radical abolitionist who envisioned violent slave uprisings in which slaves would murder their masters.  In Aug. 1855 he followed 5 of his sons to Kansas to help make the state a haven for anti-slavery settlers.  He led attacks on people who had moved to Kansas from Southern states. On the evening of 23 May 1856, he and 6 followers, including 4 of his sons, visited the homes of Southern men along Pottawatomie Creek, dragged their unarmed inhabitants into the night, and hacked them to death with long-edged swords, in front of their wives and children.  At once, "Old Brown of Osawatomie" became a feared and hated target of Southern transplants.  It did not matter that these people were not slave-owners, they were from the South and needed exterminating, just as General Sherman proceeded to do a few years later in Lincoln’s illegal war. 
In autumn 1856, temporarily defeated but still committed to his vision of a slave insurrection, Brown returned to Ohio. There and during 2 subsequent trips to Kansas, he developed a grandiose plan to free slaves throughout the South. Provided with moral and financial support from prominent New England abolitionists, Brown began by raiding plantations in Missouri but accomplished little. In the summer of 1859 he transferred his operations to western Virginia, collected an army of 21 men, including 5 blacks, and on the night of October 16th raided the government armory and arsenal at Harpers Ferry.  From there he planned to arm the thousands of chattels who, learning of his crusade, would flock to his side. Instead, numerous bands of militia and a company of U.S. Marines under Bvt. Col. Robert E. Lee hastened to the river village, where they trapped the raiders inside the fire-engine house and on the 18th stormed the building. The fighting ended with 10 of Brown's people killed and 7 captured, Brown among them.
After a sensational trial, he was found guilty of treason against Virginia and was hanged at Charlestown, amid much fanfare,  Dec. 2, 1859. The stately, fearless, unrepentant manner in which he comported himself in court and on the gallows made him a martyr in parts of the North.
Source: "Historical Times Encyclopedia of the Civil War" Edited by Patricia L. Faust
If John Brown was so determined to put an end to slavery, why didn’t he start by trying to end it in the North?  Child slave labor was quite common in the northern factories, but that doesn’t get taught in our schools. What an upside down country we live in.  We have monuments, schools, and streets dedicated to people who have done their best to destroy what our Founding Fathers established, and at the same time, we have people trying to destroy the history, culture, and heritage of one specific group of people, Southerners, but if the same deeds were perpetrated upon any other group in this country, we would see the media and the government howling like a run over dog.  Now we have a newly minted coin to honor America’s first terrorist, who, by the way, in case you were not aware, is the subject of the famous song, “Battle Hymn of the Republic”, written by Julia Ward Howe, which is blasphemy in song. But that’s another topic for another time.

Friday, July 08, 2016


As we have stated in the last two week's letters, our response to the condemnation of the Confederate Battle Flag by the Southern Baptist Convention, "will be ongoing."

In the Baptist churches of the antebellum South, blacks and whites usually worshiped together. This was not the case in most of the churches in the North.

Fast forward to our modern era, and in the last 15 years or so a new generation of Southern Baptists have arisen. They have been told by the liberals in their leadership that the convention was established as a byproduct of the Civil War by evil slaveholders in the South whose primary missionary enterprise was to promote slavery and whip black people while quoting scripture verses about slaves obeying their master.

The result:

Just as their has been a push throughout our nation to purge our history of its founding fathers, so in the SBC there is a movement to purge the convention of any reference to the fact that its founders and early leaders were Southern.

The reality, the history, is a totally different story. As the organizational developments and formal establishment of the Southern Baptist Convention predates the War by a decade and the divisions between Baptists of the South and their brethren in the North a few decades prior even to that.

There were a LOT of things dividing the Baptists of the North from the Baptists of the South. In his history of the Southern Baptist Convention, W. W. Barnes expressed the view that these differences between northern and southern Baptists would have brought separation even had there not been a political division in the country that ultimately resulted in the WBTS.

With all that divided them, believe it or not, the one thing that Baptists, both North and South actually shared as common ground in about equal numbers, was slavery. That is because for every Baptist in the South who wanted to own slaves or run their plantation or mill with slave labor, guess what? There was a Baptist in the North who was in the business of human trafficking, eager to sell slaves.

A minority of Northern Baptist merchants sought the profit involved in importing slaves from Africa while a minority of Southern Baptist planters, the only ones able to use large numbers of unskilled laborers on large plantations in a relatively warm climate, were their customers. At the height of this system, however, two-thirds of the white families of the South owned no slaves at all, and Baptists (who were generally of the lower economic status) owned even fewer slaves than their wealthier Episcopal and Presbyterian neighbors. The number of slave owners in the Southern Baptist churches was about equal to the number of slave sellers in the Northern churches. Likewise, the number of abolitionists in the Southern churches was about equal to the number in the Northern churches too.

So the Southern Baptist Convention, despite all of the revisionist propaganda to the contrary, was not established by slaveholders for the purpose of promoting and expanding slavery. Here is the real story of the establishment and development of what is arguably the greatest missionary enterprise the world has ever seen - The Southern Baptist Convention:

Most early Baptists in America arrived from England in the seventeenth century where the King and the State Church persecuted them for their separatist religious views. Baptists like Roger Williams and John Clarke migrated to New England in the 1630s; Elias Keach and others entered the Middle Colonies in the 1680s; and still others purchased land in the Southern Colonies in the 1680s and 1690s.

The oldest Baptist church in the South, First Baptist Church, Charleston, South Carolina, was organized in Kittery, Maine, in 1682, under the leadership of William Screven. The church moved to South Carolina a few years later. A Baptist church was formed in the Virginia colony in 1715 through the preaching of Robert Norden, and one in North Carolina in 1727 through the ministry of Paul Palmer. By 1740, there were just eight Baptist churches in the southern colonies.

The Great Awakening swept through the American colonies about 1740. Shortly thereafter, Baptists in the South began a period of rapid growth. As George Whitfield, the Anglican evangelist who led the revival lamented, "Woe is me, all of my chickens have become ducks." This was in reference to his converts seeking baptism and membership in Baptist churches.

The principal Baptist leaders in the Great Awakening were Shubal Steams and Daniel Marshall, who were called Separate Baptists. In 1755, these two Baptist preachers from Connecticut and a few of their followers organized a church at Sandy Creek, North Carolina. During the next few years they preached zealously in all the southern colonies, stormed the new western frontier, and provided patterns of church life that Southern Baptists still follow. This rapid spread of Baptists in the South was strongly opposed by the churches in the North because the northern churches were primarilt State churches and were supported by public taxes.

In Virginia Baptist preachers were whipped and imprisoned in the decade before the American Revolution.

When the Declaration of Independence was signed it was against the law to be a Baptist in 12 of the 13 colonies.

Baptists soon became active patriots in the Revolutionary War. With their demands for religious liberty, they included a cry for political liberty. They loyally supported patriots like Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and George Washington, and received their praise. Baptists in the South played an important role in securing the adoption of religious liberty in Virginia. Like their fellow Baptists in the North, they helped lay foundations for the national Bill of Rights which guaranteed religious liberty for all in the new Constitution of the United States.

After the close of the Revolutionary War, Baptists in the southern states grew steadily during the remainder of the 1700s. A second Great Awakening broke out among several denominations west of the Allegheny Mountains just at the turn of the century. Baptist churches in the South gained many new members as a result of this revival.

Baptists in America, like their English Baptist brethren, desired the larger fellowship and combined ability for missions that comes from associational work. In 1707, Baptists around Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, organized the first Baptist association in America by sending messengers from nearby churches. The second association, a daughter of the first, was formed in Charleston, South Carolina, in 1751. After this, the number of associations began to increase rapidly.

At first the associations provided a larger fellowship and to allow counsel concerning common problems facing the churches. Associations had no authority over the churches which affiliated with them.

Some Baptists, however, were not willing to relate to an association for fear that their churches might lose some of their freedom and authority. When the Philadelphia Association began a home missions program in 1755, many churches viewed this as another way in which the associations might rob them of their freedom. They began to consider other ways to do mission work which would safeguard the authority of the churches.

One of these new methods came into being in 1792 when William Carey led in the formation of the Baptist Missionary Society in England. This kind of missionary body would make it possible for individuals to work together in missions or any other Christian task without surrendering any church authority. Called the society method, it differed from the older associational method by removing the churches from the supervision of the associations in missionary activity. Under this new plan, any Baptists interested in foreign missions could organize an independent society for foreign missions whose membership would consist of those who would make a financial gift for foreign missions. Similarly, those Baptists interested in home missions could organize another independent society for that purpose, or another society could be organized in this way for any kind of Christian work. Massachusetts Baptists adopted such a plan in 1802. Within a decade, most of the associations had turned their missionary programs over to independent missionary societies.

In 1812, Adoniram and Ann Judson and Luther Rice sailed to India as missionaries for another denomination. En route, they studied the Bible and other books carefully, concluding that Baptist beliefs were closer to the New Testament teachings than their former views. All three sought out baptism as Baptists in India. They informed their denomination of this and were stripped of their standing. They sought to become missionaries for Baptist churches in the United States, but there was no Baptist foreign mission society in the nation. So local societies were formed in the North and the South to meet the immediate needs of these new Baptist foreign missionaries.

May 18, 1814, thirty-three messengers representing Baptist churches throughout America met at Philadelphia and formed a national foreign mission society called the General Missionary Convention. Meeting only once every three years, this body was sometimes called the Triennial Convention. The Convention was organized on the society pattern (that is, organizing a separate society for each Christian ministry), although southern leaders sought for several years to change it into the associational type (that is, one denominational body fostering several different Christian ministries). Baptists in America formed a second society in 1824 for tract publication and distribution. In 1832, they organized a home mission society. Seemingly, these Baptists had permanently united on the society model for Christian work.

When Baptists in this country formed the first of their three national societies in 1814, many of their leaders recognized that there were numerous social, cultural, economic, and political differences between the businessmen of the North, the farmers of the West, and the planters of the South. These differences had already brought much political rivalry between the several sections of the new nation. Each section continued to revive old colonial disagreements and wrestled with questions about how the new constitution should be interpreted, what constituted the final legal power, and similar problems.

So naturally, the meetings of the three Baptist national societies in the 1840s brought angry debates between Northerners and Southerners. These debates concerned the interpretation of both the constitutions of the missionary societies and also the Constitution of the United States.

The Northerners in the societies often rejected the appointment of Southerners to receive missionary appointments. The Northern churches also wanted to extend the authority of the denominational body to discipline church members in violation of local church autonomy. The stage was set for separation.

In 1844, Georgia Baptists asked the Home Mission Society to appoint a missionary to guide church planting efforts in Georgia. The appointment was declined. A few months later, the Alabama Baptist Convention asked the Foreign Mission Society to appoint one of their preachers as a missionary. When the society said no, Virginia Baptists called for Baptists of the South to meet at Augusta, Georgia, in May, 1845, for the purpose of consulting "on the best means of promoting the Foreign Mission cause, and other interests of the Baptist denomination in the South."

May 8, 1845, about 293 Baptist leaders of the South gathered at the First Baptist Church, Augusta, Georgia, representing over 365,000 Baptists. They concluded, with expressions of regret from their own leaders and from distinguished northern Baptist leaders, that more could be accomplished in Christian work by the organization in the South of a separate Baptist body for missionary work. The Methodists in the South had already separated from their northern brethren and formed their own denominational body and southern Presbyterians were in the process of doing so too.

Southern Baptist leaders noted that Paul and Barnabas had disagreed over the use of John Mark in mission service, and "two lines of service were opened for the benefit of the churches." These leaders hoped that "with no sharpness of contention, with no bitterness of spirit, . . . we may part asunder and open two lines of service to the heathen and the destitute."

10, 1845, the Southern Baptist Convention was provisionally organized under a new constitution, which was ratified the following year in Richmond, Virginia. In their address to the public, Convention president William B. Johnson and other Southern Baptist leaders pointed out that Baptists, North and South, were still brethren; that separation involved only the home and foreign mission societies and did not include the third national society for tract publication; and that this new organization would permit them to have a body that would be willing to appoint Southerners to home and foreign mission fields without the objection of the northern churches.

At the 1845 meeting, Southern Baptists were faced not only with the question of whether to organize a separate body but also with the problem of what kind. Baptists, like other denominations which give final authority to the local churches, have had difficulty in trying to form an effective general body without threatening the local church's autonomy. This was the reason that the association-type plan had been viewed with suspicion by some churches, resulting in the adoption of the society plan for missionary and other Christian work.In safeguarding the authority of the churches, however, the society plan made it difficult to secure unity and effectiveness in denominational work.

Southern Baptists, at their meeting in 1845, deliberately rejected the method of having a separate society for each kind of Christian service. They chose instead to follow the more centralized pattern of the older associational plan to form only one general convention closely related to the churches for all Christian ministries. They felt that they could provide safeguards in Convention operation that would protect the autonomy of the local churches. Rather than form independent societies for Christian ministries, Southern Baptists elected a board of managers to supervise foreign missions and another to supervise home missions, both under the authority of the Convention. Other boards for additional Christian ministries would be formed later by the Convention.

After 1845, Northern Baptists moved even farther toward the society type of organization until 1907-08, after which they began experimenting with a modified associational type of convention. Southern Baptists continued to move toward an associational-type body until 1931 when, by constitutional action, practically all of the remaining society-type characteristics were eliminated from their convention.

Toward the end of the 1850's and especially into the 1860's the northern invasion of the Southern States and its resultant War Against the South; followed by reconstruction; continued sectional rivalry, depressions and inflation, internal doctrinal conflicts, perplexing organizational questions, and - despite these things - remarkable growth and expansion in Christian ministries made up the story of Southern Baptists until 1891.

The War Between the States totally disrupted all of the programs of the Convention. Reconstruction (until 1877) delayed the return to normalcy. Political / sectional differences in other forms continued to mar the fellowship and cooperation of Southern Baptists with Northern Baptists. While the question of reunion was raised by Northern Baptists after the WBTS had ended, Southern Baptists declined to return to the society-type denominational bodies they had left in 1845. Despite this, the Home Mission Society of the North carried on a fruitful program of missions, education, and church, assistance among both blacks and whites in the South during this period. This active work in the South by the northern society provided a formidable rival for the Southern Baptist Convention. Not until the 1880s was the Southern Baptist Home Mission Board able to claim the southern field as its base.

Landmarkism, another important movement in Southern Baptist history, developed in the 1850s led by a preacher, Dr.  J. R. Graves. He migrated from Vermont to the South bringing with him the typical New England Baptist fear of conventions. His leadership ensured that the Southern convention would respect the autonomy of its churches for generations to come. I

In 1846, after the first year of operation, the Foreign Mission Board reported that only two missionaries had been appointed to one field (China) and that receipts had totaled only $11,735. By 1891, however, the board had raised a total of almost $2,000,000 and had increased the number of missionaries to ninety-one serving in six fields: China, Africa, Italy, Mexico, Brazil, and Japan.

One of these missionaries in China was Lottie Moon. In 1887, she appealed to Southern Baptist women to make a special Christmas offering for foreign missions. In the following year, the newly-organized Woman's Missionary Union set a goal of $2,000 for this cause and raised $3,315. This was the small beginning of an annual Christmas offering that has raised more than $1,000,000,000 for foreign missions.

The Home Mission Board encountered many problems in its first half century of life. Despite adverse conditions, this board made excellent progress. In its first year, it reported seven missionaries and receipts of $1,824, but by 1891 the number of missionaries had increased to 407 and the receipts for that year to $199,251.

In addition to these two original boards, the Convention elected two other boards during this period, neither of which survived. In 1851, a Bible Board was formed at Nashville, Tennessee, but it was dissolved during the War. From 1863 to 1873, the Convention fostered the first Sunday School Board at Greenville, South Carolina, but it was a casualty of the postwar financial crisis in 1873.

Some Southern Baptists desired to carry on ministries which the Convention preferred not to include as boards. Four society-type bodies were organized outside of the Convention between 1845 and 1891 to support these ministries. A Southern Baptist Publication Society was organized in 1847 and a Southern Baptist Sunday School Union in 1857, but neither survived the War. In 1859, an Education Convention opened the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary at Greenville, South Carolina. Forced to close during the War, the seminary resumed classes at the close of hostilities, moving to Louisville, Kentucky, in 1877.

The fourth organization developed outside of the board structure was Woman's Missionary Union, Auxiliary to the Southern Baptist Convention. After many years of activity on the local and state levels, in 1888 Southern Baptist women formed a southwide organization, with Annie W. Armstrong as the first executive secretary.

The close of this period of Southern Baptist beginnings occurred in 1891. Southern Baptists did not separate from the American Baptist Publication Society of Philadelphia at the time the Southern Baptist Convention was formed. This northern society continued to publish books for Southern Baptist writers, provide tracts, and furnish Southern Baptists with Sunday School quarterlies, supplies, and helps for Sunday School teachers. It had many friends among Southern Baptists. When southern leaders in the 1880s proposed the formation of a separate Southern Baptist Sunday School Board, there was immediate resistance from many Southern Baptist leaders. When J. M. Frost, a Virginia pastor, declared in an article in Baptist papers in 1890 that he intended to push for a separate Sunday School Board, he was opposed by a large majority of southern leaders and editors. Nevertheless, after many debates and some sensitive confrontations, Southern Baptists formed their present Sunday School Board [now LifeWay Christian Resources] in 1891 with headquarters at Nashville, Tennessee. The formation of this board marked a new era for Southern Baptists. It signaled the move of the Convention toward becoming a truly denominational body. Through its promotion and financing of many ministries, its development of effective methods for church growth and training, and its unifying effect by providing a common literature for all Southern Baptists, the Sunday School Board rapidly fostered a strong denominational unity that became an important factor in the geographical expansion of Southern Baptists in the twentieth century.

The growth of the Southern Baptist Convention between 1845 and 1891 was substantial. From 365,346 members in 4,395 churches in 1845, Convention affiliation increased to 1,282,220 members in 16,654 churches by 1891. Scores of new ministries had been undertaken by the Convention, and a developing denominational unity gave the promise of effective cooperation through the years ahead.

Southern Baptists have absolutely NO reason to be ashamed of their ancestors, of their Fathers in the Faith, those who established their convention. Likewise, it is the duty of Southern Baptists, and of all Southerners, to make sure that their ancestors would have no reason to be ashamed of their descendants.

Chaplain Ed

Friday, July 01, 2016

The Battle Hymn Refuted

by David O. Jones

The “Battle Hymn of the Republic” occupies a prominent position not only within the program of nearly every nationalistic celebration, but also has become a part of many Christian services. Admittedly, the anthem sounds good, but it is far from being a “hymn” in the traditional sense of the word. Many Christians understand its stirring words to provide an image of a victorious Church, but that is just not so! The connotations of a spiritualized patriotism which have endeared it to many, result from a mistaken and cursory reading of the song.

By definition, a hymn is a song which incorporates theological truth into its text. Wonderful examples of Christian hymns are “A Mighty Fortress Is Our God,” “Great Is Thy Faithfulness” and “How Firm a Foundation.” But despite its author’s use of biblical phrasing, the “Battle Hymn of the Republic” is not about Christ “marching” against sin and the Church being “victorious” over evil. The theological truths which it expresses are anti-Christian and anti-biblical, thus it should never be sung by a Christian congregation.

The “Battle Hymn of the Republic” was written in the fall of 1861. While in Washington, D.C. with her husband, Mrs. Julia Ward Howe watched troops marching off to war singing “John Brown’s Body.”She determined to write a more inspiring war song to what was a good melody. First published in the Atlantic Monthly, she received five dollars for her literary effort.

Born into a prominent New York City family, Julia Ward was raised in a conservative, Christian home. As a young woman she rebelled against her parents’ strong Calvinism and ultimately married the Boston reformer, Dr. Samuel G. Howe. She adopted the tenants of Transcendentalism, then Unitarianism, and it was in that light that the “Battle Hymn” was written.

The Transcendentalists became the core of the radical abolitionist movement. Dr. Howe, as well as their Boston pastor, the Reverend Theodore Parker were two members of the “Secret Six” who financed and armed the anti-slavery terrorist John Brown. After his murderous rampage in Kansas and at Harper’s Ferry, Mrs. Howe lamented, “John Brown’s death will be holy and glorious. John Brown will glorify the gallows like Jesus glorified the cross.”

The “Battle Hymn of the Republic” can only be understood within the framework of the Transcendentalist-Unitarian creed. The first verse reads:

Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord.

He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored;

He has loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword.

His truth is marching on.

Mrs. Howe applied the apocalyptic judgment of the Revelation (14:17-20 & 19:15) to the Confederate nation. She pictured the Union army not only as that instrument which would cause Southern blood to flow out upon the earth, but also the Union army as the very expression of His Word (sword) itself. The Transcendentalist-Unitarians believed that the evil in man could be rooted out by governmental action. The South was evil and was thus deserving of judgment of the most extreme nature—its own Armageddon.

The second verse follows the same theme by presenting the Union army as the abode of their vengeful God.

I have seen Him in the watch fires of a hundred circling camps;

They have builded Him an altar in the evening dews and damps;

I can read His righteous sentence by the dim and flaring lamps.

His day is marching on.

The third verse is so contrary of the Gospel of Jesus Christ that many hymnals leave it out altogether.

I have read the fiery gospel writ in burnished rows of steel.

As ye deal with My contempters, so with you My grace shall deal;

Let the hero born of woman crush the serpent with his heel.

Since God is marching on.

Mrs. Howe proclaimed a gospel of judgment pictured by rows of affixed bayonets. Taking God’s promise of deliverance from Genesis 3:15, she applied it not to Christ, but to the Union soldier who would receive God’s grace by killing Southerners. This was certainly a different gospel; the kind of which the Apostle Paul said, “But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.” (Galatians 1:8)

Verse four returns to the prose of the Apocalypse with trumpet and judgment seat imagery:

He has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never sound retreat;

He is sifting out the hearts of men before His judgment seat.

O be swift, my soul, to answer Him! Be jubilant, my feet!

Our God is marching on.

The problem again is that civil warfare was the instrument being promoted for determining the hearts of men. A man’s positive response to the call for enlistment in the Union army was the action which would reveal their standing before God.

The fifth and final verse gives the ultimate expression of the warped and anti-biblical theology which possessed the radical abolitionists.

In the beauty of the lilies, Christ was born across the sea,

With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me.

As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free,

While God is marching on.

To Julia Ward Howe the work of Christ was incomplete. It was up to men through civil government to bring about a utopian society. She was quoted in her biography, “Not until the Civil War did I officially join the Unitarian church and accept the fact the Christ was merely a great teacher with no higher claim to preeminence in wisdom, goodness, and power than any other man.” (emphasis mine)

The “Battle Hymn” theme has nothing to do with Christianity or God. It is a political-patriotic song about the destruction of the South, written in religious terminology. It is a clever product. Howe deliberately created the idea that the North was doing God’s work. It paints a picture of a vengeful God destroying His enemies—the South, and elevating the North’s cause to that of a “holy war.” In doing so, Howe portrayed the South and its people as evil and the enemy of God. Outrageous, but it worked.

As a Unitarian, Julia Ward Howe believed the Unitarian doctrine that man is characteristically good and he can redeem himself by his own merits without any help from a saviour. She rejected basic biblical truths such as a literal hell—“I threw away, once and forever, the thought of the terrible hell which appears to me impossible.”

Mrs. Howe also refuted the exclusive claim of Jesus, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.” (John 14:6) by saying, “Having rejected the exclusive doctrine that made Christianity and special forms of it the only way of spiritual redemption, I now accept the belief that not only Christians but all human beings, no matter what their religion, are capable of redemption. Christianity was but one of God’s plans for bringing all of humanity to a state of ultimate perfection.”

Our challenge is to bring a proper understanding of the nature of this battle anthem to the leadership of the Christian church. No Christian church would intentionally sing a song of praise to Satan’s doctrines, nor would any pastor or elder lead their flock into rebellion against true biblical doctrine. Yet by ignorance, is has been done on a regular basis in the American church. The “Battle Hymn of the Republic” is apostasy. It promotes hatred and vengeful destruction. It has no place in a worship service.

Sunday, June 26, 2016

Political Correctness Is Tied To Basic Ignorance

LtCol (ret) Edwin L. Kennedy, Jr

I have concluded that political correctness is tied to basic ignorance.  Basic ignorance is endemic in our society as is political correctness.  Jay Leno’s “Jaywalking” video clips; “Watter’s World” video clips, and numerous YouTube clips showing interviews of supposedly educated people prove my point. 

I retired from the Army almost 20 years ago and ran a large high school Army JROTC program.  In 2002 I successfully sued our school district in Leavenworth, Kansas for trying to illegally fire me just for asking if my son could wear his Dixie Outfitter t-shirt.  Kansas City Federal District Court handled the settlement requested by the district before they literally lost their shirts.  My son got to wear his shirt.  That did not end the retribution so I left and returned to teaching at the Army’s Command and General Staff College in 2004 where I frequently encounter ignorance as stunning as I did when working at the high school.

I taught graduate history at the staff college prior to retiring and, as a certified Army historian, continue to integrate history into all of my instruction.  I now teach executive-level leadership.  Our course continues to take our students to study at War Between the States battlefields and Chickamauga, Georgia is one of my favorites that we frequent.  Because our leadership course uses a case study centered on the movie “12 O’Clock High”, I tie my other course instruction to the case study.  For example, a direct tie to the 8th USAAF in WWII (“12 O’Clock High”) and the battle of Chickamauga is that the grandson of a famous cavalry division commander at Chickamauga was the first U.S. general killed in action in Europe during WWII. 

In order to illustrate my instruction, I obtained three large glass display cases and populated them with historical military displays related directly to leadership instruction.  For “12 O’Clock High”, I emplaced an extensive collection of uniforms and equipment used by USAAF bomber crews.  Behind the exhibit I put posters showing the ties to our instruction and some historical facts.  For three years one of the posters had a photo of the general whose grandfather was a Confederate cavalry division commander at Chickamauga with an annotation that he was KIA over Germany in June 1943 leading bombers on a mission to Kiel.

One of my fellow instructors, retired Army officer, Joe Judge filed a complaint against me.  For three years he never looked at the display.  He was not interested.  Not only did I receive a formal counseling from my supervisor for emplacing this photo in the exhibit, I was threatened with punishment if it was not removed ---- effectively censoring factual history.  Judge, who has no history knowledge, was responsible for the censoring and banning of any display with the photo in the future.  His ignorance was solely based on his “feelings” that the photo and caption explaining who the general was might “offend” our black students.  Rather than educate our students, Judge decided that their potential feelings were more important than historical facts.

Because of this, I was forced to remove the display of Brigadier General Nathan Forrest, III in his USAAF uniform.  This was done despite the fact that Forrest, III was KIA and is now buried in Arlington National Cemetery.  I have taken the entire exhibit down and will no longer emplace any exhibits as censorship is the antitheses of intellectual freedom and education.  I know of other instances with fellow instructors of this type of political correctness over-riding common sense.  It is a sad effect of political correctness that is assisting in the dumbing-down of our culture ---- in this case our Army officers.  Thanks to Joe Judge, our students will wallow in ignorance because Joe had no clue that Brigadier General Nathan Forrest, the Confederate general, fought at Chickamauga and we certainly don’t want our officers to know the fact that his grandson fought honorably for the U.S., losing his life doing so.

The case in the exhibit showing BrigGen Forrest, III’s photo is below:

Please LIKE my
Freedom Watch
Facebook page
share it with friends

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