Amos Rucker—A Soldier Remembered

By Calvin E. Johnson, Jr., American History-Writer, Speaker, Author of Book “When America Stood for God, Family and Country and member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

What is your community doing to commemorate the War Between the States Sesquicentennial-150th Anniversary “2011-2015?” See what the Georgia Division Sons of Confederate Veterans is doing at: http://www.150wbts.org/

August 10th marks the 105th anniversary of the death of a Southern soldier who was a friend to many--Amos Rucker.

Black Confederates, why haven't we heard more about them? "I don't want to call it a conspiracy to ignore the role of the Blacks, both above and below the Mason-Dixon Line, but it was definitely a tendency that began around 1910"---Ed Bearss, National Park Service Historian.

In 1905, newspapers led with the opening of Woolworth's stores, the Atlanta, Ga. Terminal Railroad Station dedication with the US Army Band playing “Dixie.”.....And on August 10th Atlanta grieved the loss of a beloved soldier and friend.

The movie "Glory" enlightened people of the role played by African-Americans serving in the Union Army during the War Between the States, 1861-1865.

And books like, "Forgotten Confederates---An Anthology about Black Southerners" by Charles Kelly Barrow, J.H. Segars and R.B. Roseburg, have further enlightened us to the role played by African-Americans serving in the Confederate Armed Forces.

Frederick Douglas, abolitionist and former slave, reported, "There are at present moment many colored men in the Confederate Army doing their duty not only as cooks, but also as real soldiers, having muskets on their shoulders and bullets in their pockets."

Who was Amos Rucker?

Amos Rucker, born in Elbert County, Georgia , was a servant of Alexander "Sandy" Rucker and both of these men joined the 33rd Georgia Regiment of the Confederate Army. Amos got his first taste of battle when a fellow soldier was killed by a Union bullet. Rucker quickly took the dead soldier's rifle and fired back at the enemy.

After the War Between the States, Amos Rucker came back to Atlanta where he met and married Martha and the couple was blessed with many children and grandchildren.

In Atlanta, Amos joined the W.H.T. Walker Camp of the United Confederate Veterans. It was made up of Southern Veterans whose purpose was to remember those who served in the war and help those in need. The meetings were held at 102 Forsyth Street in Atlanta where Amos was responsible for calling the roll of members.

Amos and Martha felt that the members of Walker Camp were like their own family. It is written that Amos would say, "My folks gave me everything I want."

These UCV men helped Amos and his wife buy a house on the west side of Atlanta and John M. Slaton also helped prepare a will for Rucker. Slaton, a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, John B. Gordon Camp, would, as governor of Georgia, commute the death sentence of Leo Frank.

Amos Rucker's last words to members of his UCV Camp were, "Give my love to the boys."

His funeral services were conducted by, preacher and former Confederate General Clement A. Evans. Rucker was buried with his Confederate gray uniform and wrapped in his beloved Confederate Battle Flag. Today, some members of the Martin Luther King family are buried near Amos and Martha at Southview Cemetery.

The Reverend T.P. Cleveland led the prayer and when Captain William T. Harrison read the poem, "When Rucker Called The Roll" there was not a dry eye among the crowd of the many Black and White mourners.

The grave of Amos and Martha Rucker was without a marker for many years until 2006, when the Sons of Confederate Veterans remarked it.

"When you eliminate the Black Confederate soldier, you've eliminated the history of the South."---The late Dr. Leonard Haynes, Professor, Southern University

ANOTHER MEDIA ATTACK

By Bob Hurst

I am writing this month's CONFEDERATE JOURNAL about the Constitution of the Confederate States of America because of a blatantly false statement made about the document by nationally-syndicated radio host and Fox News Channel television host Glenn Beck.

Let me begin by saying that I have listened to the Glenn Beck radio program for more than five years and have watched his TV program two to three times a week since it began on Fox. I must say that 5 PM does not always find me at home in front of my television.

I have found Beck to be industrious, sincere and oftentimes bold. He has done some praiseworthy work in identifying (and outing) many Progressives, Socialists and Marxists associated with the current administration in Washington. Especially laudable has been his ongoing effort to recognize and praise those giants of American history, the Founding Fathers. He obviously spent a great deal of time and energy studying the Progressive Movement in this country. Kudos for all this.

I have been perplexed by two horrific blind spots that Beck has concerning this country and its direction. He claims to fear and abhor the concept of a strong, centralized national government (as do I), yet he is a big admirer of Abraham Lincoln. Where does he think our big, centralized government originated? It was certainly in place before his favorite whipping-boy, Woodrow Wilson, came along.

I will not elaborate on Lincoln here as I have written about that tyrant before in this column on several occasions. Suffice to say that it was Mr. Lincoln's War with all its ramifications that destroyed the federal system of limited government that was given to this country by the Founders.

Why did Lincoln ignore a Peace Delegation sent by President Jefferson Davis in early 1861 and continue doggedly with his plans for war? One newspaper, the Providence (RI) DAILY POST, opined the following on April 13, 1861 concerning why there was to be war in America: "Why? We are to have war, if at all, because Abraham Lincoln loves a Party better than he loves his country. Why?". British Foreign Secretary Lord Russell answered that query succinctly: "Not for Union, not for slavery - for power."

Yet Beck persists in his admiration for old Dishonest Abe.

Beck also speaks often on his shows about his disdain for the Progressives and their marching mates - the Socialists and Marxists - who have for years infiltrated the national government. Yet Beck presents himself as a big admirer of Martin Luther King. He seems oblivious to the many Communist connections ( Stanley Levison, Bayard Rustin, et al ) of King and the fact that King was warned by John Kennedy about those associations and was watched by the FBI for years for the same reason. Go figure.

Despite these blind spots I had remained a defender of Beck when members of my several lunchtime discussion groups would criticize him. I just considered Beck a work in progress and believed he would eventually get around to the truth. After all, he speaks incessantly on his programs about bringing the truth to the fore.

I experienced an epiphany about two weeks ago, however. It was a Saturday and I had just arrived at home after working out of town. I turned on the TV to relax a bit and was surprised to see the Beck show. It must have been a rerun of a previously aired show and was being used as a Saturday filler. I had missed the beginning of the show and didn't know what had been discussed.

Beck's first remark was about what he called the "Confederate Constitution". My ears perked up. He stated to his guests that he had visited "that museum in the South" where he had read the entire document. My jaw dropped with his next statement. He looked at his guests and said it was actually "the Slaveholders Constitution" since "the whole thing was about nothing but slavery". I did my best imitation of one of my heroes, South Carolina Congressman Joe Wilson, and yelled at the TV, "You lie!". Allow me to explain.

The Constitution of the Confederate States of America contains a total of 5856 words of text in 7 Articles, 22 Sections and 93 Paragraphs. In this entire document the term "slave" or a derivation ("slaves", "slaveholding", etc.) occurs a grand total of 10 times. By any stretch it is hard to justify saying "the whole thing was about nothing but slavery".

The first mention of the term is in Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 which simply deals with taxes and apportionment (census issues). The next occurrence of the term is in Article 1, Section 9, Paragraph 1 which is approximately 1800 words after the first reference. This section is interesting so I will quote it from the C.S.A. Constitution:

"The importation of Negros of the African race,from any foreign country, other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden, and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same."

Did you get that? The Constitution of the C.S.A. forbade the importation of any black slaves into the Confederate States. I will not discuss the strong feelings in the South during that time that slavery should be gradually fazed out but I will remind you that no slave ship carrying that wretched human cargo ever sailed under a Confederate Flag.

I am not going to quote all the paragraphs containing the words "slave", "slaves", "slaveholding" and the like although there are only 7 such paragraphs in the entire document. By the way, the Constitution printed in standard book form is almost 18 full pages. Other references to the term relate to such issues as the right of a slaveholder to take his slaves into another state of the Confederacy either in transit or for permanent settlement and a prohibition against importation of slaves from any state of the United States not a member of the Confederacy.

Oh yes, there is included an almost carbon copy of the Fugitive Slave Act from the laws of the United States. In fact, if Glenn Beck had taken the time to study it, he would have realized that the Constitution of the Confederate States very closely paralleled the Constitution of the United States. If he doesn't like one he should not like the other.

It is puzzling to me why Beck, who otherwise seems to research his topics well, would make such an inane and stupid statement about the C.S.A. Constitution. I am left with only three possible explanations:

1) he deliberately misspoke because of an anti-Southern, anti-Confederate bias;

2) he was incapable of understanding what he read (this seems unlikely); or

3) he never read the document.

Whatever the reason, I am very disappointed in Glenn Beck and have lost a degree of confidence in the accuracy and truthfulness of other statements he has made or will make in the future. I hate this because I have had such confidence in his truthfulness and admire his courage in revealing many of his findings about powerful people and potentially explosive situations.

When will Glenn Beck realize that it was the South that was fighting for the concept of limited government, not the Federal leviathan. Does he not know that the Northern sentiment toward slavery was summed up in that famous statement from Union general Ulysses Grant who said after the issuing of the Emancipation Proclamation (that actually freed no one) that if he thought the war was about freeing the slaves he would resign his commission and offer his sword to the other side? Does he know nothing of the Corwin Amendment which was passed by the U.S. Congress (minus the elected representatives of the seven states that had already seceded) just the week before Lincoln's inauguration and Lincoln strongly endorsed the amendment in his inaugural address?

If you are unaware of the Corwin Amendment (it's one of those secrets of history that the national education establishment likes to keep a secret) , or the First 13th Amendment as it is sometimes called, its purpose was to prohibit the U.S. Congress from trying to ban slavery in whatever states still permitted it. It was introduced in the House by Rep. Thomas Corwin of Ohio and in the Senate by Sen. William Seward of New York. It passed the House on February 28, 1861, by a vote of 133 to 65 and the Senate on March 2, 1861, by a vote of 24 to 12. Lincoln approved it and even lobbied for its passage.

The Northern politicians mistakenly thought that by protecting slavery constitutionally and in perpetuity that the seven seceded Southern states would return to the Union and no other states would secede. They did not realize that slavery was not the primary issue for the Southern States and, in actuality, the South was seceding because the various states were committed to independence. After its passage in Congress, the Southern States ignored the Corwin Amendment.

As I mentioned earlier, I think Glenn Beck is still a work in progress (as are so many other Americans who are historically-ignorant). I hope and pray that he will eventually learn the truth about the South, the Confederacy, the Constitution of the C.S.A. and so many other issues generally ignored or lied about by the government-influenced media.

Beck has done a fine job in identifying individuals who can assist him in developing his knowledge of the American pageant. He found David Barton to bolster his knowledge of the Founding Fathers. A good choice for that but Barton is certainly not a scholar when it comes to the Great War of 1861-65. Beck also found the magnificent Stanton Evans to instruct him about the middle part of the 20th Century.

I only hope that Beck will eventually discover such outstanding scholars and people as Marshall DeRosa, Thomas DiLorenzo, Chuck Baldwin, Clyde Wilson, Donald Livingston and many others who can teach him the truth about that delicate period in the middle of the 19th Century when this country lost its way and also lost the Republic that Ben Franklin had spoken of after the ratification of the United States Constitution.

DEO VINDICE

Bob Hurst is a Southern Patriot who belongs to a number of heritage, historical and ideological organizations. His particular areas of interest are Confederate history and the architecture of the antebellum South. He is Commander of Col. David Lang Camp, Sons of Confederate Veterans, in Tallahassee and 2nd Lt. Commander of the Florida Division, SCV. You can contact him at confederatedad1@yahoo.com or 850-878-7010.

An Open Letter to Glenn Beck

Mr. Beck

I have reviewed the transcripts of your June 25th show on “Black Founding Fathers” and I have a few thoughts and comments for you.

Let’s start with the title of the show itself - “Black Founders.” FYI, the men who conceived, founded and in the first 50 years at least, built this country, were white men of Anglo-Celtic descent. They gave to their posterity, as well as to all of us who are not descended from their bloodlines, their language, their culture, their political philosophy and laws, and their belief in liberty. As an American of Italian descent, I am thankful for that, though secretly at least, I do wish that somewhere I could find, in the Declaration of Independence, a signature with a name like, Russo, Cabelli, or even Vallante. At the very least, I would be thrilled to no end if I could find such a name somewhere among the names of those men who built America in those first 50 years. But the reality of it is that I could look all day long and never find such a signature or such a person. I accept what is and I do not try to make up fables and fantasies to pretend that something existed which in fact did not. I am simply happy to be who I am, and happy to have inherited the fruits of the labor of those men, whether or not my ancestors came from the same shores as theirs or not. Stop trying to pander to your black audience. Their ancestors were certainly a part of this country’s history, but they did not “found” anything any more than mine did.

There is nothing “revisionist” about history as it used to be told. And the former Confederates did not re-write the History books nor did the things they wrote try to “hide the black man under the stairwell,” as you put it. They simply wrote rebuttals of books authored by northern historians. Those northern historians, in many cases, demonized the South and blamed the war on Southerners. There is nothing wrong with defending oneself, whether it is against physical attack or slander. Southerners lost the war militarily. They surrendered and gave up their dreams of independence, returned to the Union, and promised to be good citizens, a promise they have lived up to for 145 years – as demonstrated by the fact that they are usually the first to volunteer whenever America gets itself into a scrape and needs men to go get killed in some far off land. Nowhere however, in the terms of that surrender did it say that they had to sit on their thumbs and accept slander, blame and degradation without defending themselves. No one hid anything and no one revised anything.

It is people like you and David Barton who are doing the revisions. It is people like you who are distorting - by taking people who are historical footnotes and raising them to the level of iconic status, while telling the unknowing public that our problems were all caused by a bunch of bad guys. That is not history, it is fantasy, it is a lie and that lie is being told by you, Barton and others like you in order to further your own ends.

About the Confederate Constitution – I have read it several times and have even seen a photo reproduction of the original document. Nowhere does it say in the title, “The Slaveholding Confederate States of America.” To put it bluntly, “YOU LIE!” And so does Mr. Barton. I guess Obama has some company, eh?

Nor did a state have to be a slaveholding state in order to join the Confederacy. During the Confederacy’s Constitutional Convention, the proposal was made that only slave states be allowed to join. It was never adopted. Consult Marshall DeRosa’s book, “The Confederate Constitution of 1861.” Professor DeRosa is a scholar and an expert on this matter. You are not and neither is Barton. Once again, “YOU LIE!” And so does Barton.

I might also point out that while the Confederate Constitution prohibits the Confederacy’s federal government from abolishing slavery, that it does NOT prohibit individual states from doing so. Article 1, Section 9, Point Number 4 states, “No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.” This prohibition, along with everything else in the “Confederate Constitution,” unless otherwise specified, applies to the federal government of the Confederacy, not the state governments. Once again, so that you get it straight this time, this Constitution was not written for the governments of the individual states, as those states had their own constitutions. It was written for the Confederacy’s central government.

Next - regarding the abolition of the slave trade. Here’s a little something that you left out. At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, most delegates were in agreement that the importation of slaves from Africa needed to stop. The original date for the stoppage of slave importation was initially set as January 1, 1800. It is a matter of record that General Pinckney, a delegate from South Carolina, (a slave state), made the initial motion to extend that date to 1808. It is also a matter of record that Mr. Gorham, delegate from Massachusetts, (a “free” state), seconded that motion. It isn’t so surprising that Massachusetts would second such a motion, for though a “free state”, she was, like her sister states in New England, heavily involved in the international slave trade at that time. It was ships sailing from her ports that sailed to Africa, purchased slaves from Africans, and brought them to America to sell at a huge profit. It is a pity that I see nothing about this in the transcripts of your show. But why would I? It would get in the way of your storytelling.

On this same matter, I thought you might be interested to see who voted for the extension motion, and who voted against it. The final voting tally does not break down along North/South lines, and it puts a crimp in your effort to make the Southern states look like the villains in all this:

“New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, North Carolina and South Carolina, voting in the affirmative, and New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware and Virginia in the negative……..”

Next, regarding your celebration of Republican Senator Matthew Gaines of Texas – Gaines was a former slave who became a State Senator after the war during the time known as “Reconstruction,” a time in our history where most of the white people in the Southern states who had supported the Confederacy were disenfranchised, and when most of the newly freed slaves (called “freedmen,” who, for the most part, were illiterate), were given the franchise and organized politically by the Union League, an organization closely affiliated with the Republican Party. During your celebration of this “black founder,” you neglected to mention that in the years that the Republican Party controlled Texas after the “Civil War” (during Mr. Gaines’ tenure), the state’s tax rate went up 400%. As one who frequently complains about Democrats raising taxes, I thought you might find this piece of information enlightening. This was also not an isolated incident. You think someone is hiding history? In some ways you might be right, but not in the way you think. Contemporary historians usually fail to mention that, to cite some examples, Georgia’s state debt went from “0” in 1865 to 50 million dollars in 1872, that Louisiana’s 1871 legislative session cost 9 ½ times what a pre-war session cost, that in 5 years of Reconstruction, Mississippi’s tax rate went up 14-fold….. I could go on and on but I’ll stop here for the sake of brevity. And all these things happened under the watch of people like Gaines and their white radical allies who were - REPUBLICANS!

Finally, I had to laugh at your childish attempt to convince your audience that somewhere, way back when, a bunch of bad guys changed history, turned it “upside down” and caused us to “hate” one another. Actually, I stopped laughing when I realized that a large segment of your audience is stupid enough to have believed you.

It wasn’t a covert bunch of bad guys that caused Americans of different races and ethnic groups to “hate” one another. In part, this type of strife was and still is caused by fear and ignorance. Not all of it is, however. Some of it is reality based. “Diversity” is not a “blessing”, as some modern day demagogues would have us believe. Read a world history book or simply pick up a newspaper, read them with open eyes and an open mind and you will quickly see that “diverse” societies are the ones which are most often fraught with conflict. Human history is in large part, a history of sometimes violent competition and strife between groups of people who are different from one another in some way, racially, ethnically, religiously, tribally, philosophically, politically, or other. This strife, sadly, is part of the human condition and there is no quick fix for it - especially not by telling your audience that you magically uncovered the reason or the solution for it. Your contentions are as both childish and false, not to mention misleading. If you or even those who perpetrate the lie that “diversity is a strength” really wanted to make this diverse society of ours work, you wouldn’t start off by telling lies - you’d start by admitting the truth, namely, that making a diverse society work is a difficult task at best, and then moving from there. You wouldn’t be promoting easy answers because you would realize that there are no easy answers. Telling lies and fables about American history to your unknowing audience isn’t going to “bring us together.” Bringing people together is not accomplished by creating fables and demonizing the dead, who are not here to defend themselves. It can only be done if we recognize our failings as human beings and we all try to live the words spoken by that Jewish carpenter some 2000 years ago – “Love your neighbor as yourself” and “do unto him as you would have him do unto you.”

Having had to walk, at least during some times in my life prior to retirement, through fields of bullsh**, (I’m speaking figuratively), I find that my nose has become keenly attuned to the smell of it. Whenever I turn on any of the major networks these days, I find myself having to open the windows to air out my house. Your network and you, do not, unfortunately, provide an exception. But then again, what else should I expect from you and your handlers? The network you work for is well known for being nothing more than a shill for the Republican Party, a party which, in its early days, made itself a political force, not only by launching an illegal invasion of sovereign states, but by afterward pandering to the black man, who it claimed to be trying to help. Ever since Obama and his gang got elected, you people at Fox have been heroically portraying yourselves as defenders of the Constitution and limited government. The truth is, however, that Fox is no more interested in having a government of limited and defined powers than the King of Saudi Arabia is interested in attending Midnight Mass. It wasn’t Obama who referred to the Constitution as a “scrap of paper,” it was George Bush. It wasn’t Obama who pushed through the egregious “Patriot Act,” it was George Bush and his cronies. And other than Judge Andrew Napolitano, no one on your network seemed to have a problem with it. You people love “big government” as much as anyone, just as long as it’s the Republicans that are running it.

And as far as you yourself are concerned, you worked for the nauseatingly liberal CNN for years and now, all of sudden, you’re a hot shot on an opposing network, passing yourself off as a history teacher and a guardian of the Constitution? Wow! Sounds like a remake of “Saul on the Road to Damascus!” Did you get hit by a lightning bolt perchance? Talk about a fantasy!? Do you think I was born yesterday? Did you really think that some of us would be so blind as to be unable to see through your charade? Do you really believe that I am so blind as to be unable to see past those crocodile tears that you occasionally shed on your show? You are worse than ill-informed. You sir, are a liar, and your behavior is as transparent as a g-string on a stripper – though, not nearly as appealing.

Bill Vallante
Commack NY

The Untold Story

by David Ware
dware4dixie@gmail.com

As the Sesquicentennial unfolds, we will be indoctrinated with stories of how blacks deserted the South and flocked to the Union army to fight for their freedom. Nothing will be said about the majority millions who stayed behind in loyalty, friendship and patriotic devotion to their southern homeland.

Blacks came to this continent in Virginia at Jamestown in 1619. During the first war of Revolution, some 8,000 blacks served in George Washington’s army. Many made the trip with Washington from Mount Vernon to Boston. Despite the offer of emancipation to any slave who served the cause of Britain, few left the colonies. Blacks also served in the War of 1812.

In 1822, Liberia was created for American free blacks. Fewer than 3000 left for the new country, for by this time they were not Africans, they were Americans.

By 1860, it was clear that slavery was a dying issue. It was possible for those that desired their freedom to achieve it and it was happening. In 1800, for example, the black population of Washington, D. C. was 746 of which 123 were free. In 1860 there were 10,983 of which 9,209 were free.

The Confederate States of America in 1861 contained 500,000 free blacks of which 60,000 were in Virginia alone. There was no mass black migration from the South to the North. By and large, southern slaves and ex-slaves viewed the south as their home.

Slaves and free blacks fought for the first Confederacy in 1776 and in the second Confederacy in 1861 because they were fighting for their home. A federal observer of Stonewall Jackson’s Army on the way to Antietam estimated 3,000 black soldiers mixed in with what he called “the Rebel horde.” One half of the people that worked at Tredegar Iron Works and Chimborazo Hospital were black.

The greatest contribution that black patriots made to the Confederacy, however, was in shoring up and maintaining the home front. The Confederate army had the highest conscription rate of any army ever assembled on the face of the Earth. Upwards of some 90% of eligible white men served the cause, leaving no young men to look after things back home. To my knowledge of all the letters that survived the war not one of them indicated that any soldier had to go home because of concern for the safety and welfare of their farms and families because of any actions by Southern blacks.

The Yankee does not understand the social intimacy between Southern blacks and whites. As a boy, I thought nothing of the fact that the children I played with while their mothers and fathers worked in our fields had to eat in a different place than we did, but were right in the front row at our family funerals and weddings. After getting his PhD from Boston University, Martin Luther King was asked to describe Boston: “Boston is the Birmingham of the north but Birmingham will change for the better, Boston won’t.” Undoubtedly, loyal blacks enabled the Confederate States of America to exist for four years instead of four weeks. To them, true patriotism was the belief that their descendants would benefit from their actions. The deeds of these loyal, noble people should not ever be forgotten or swept into a corner by political correctness.