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

Southern Heritage <br>News and Views: September 2010

Friday, September 24, 2010


(ATLANTA - 21 September 2010) In conjunction with the launch of events to commemorate the Sesquicentennial of the War Between the States, the Georgia Division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans will be erecting a 100' flagpole with a Confederate battle flag on Saturday, September 25, 2010 at I-75 Exit 71, just north of Tifton.

The flag raising is part of the ongoing Flags Over Georgia project of the Sons of Confederate Veterans here in the state and is designed to increase awareness of the significant role that Georgia played during the War. Due to the current political climate in America, there is more interest today than any other time in the last hundred years regarding our Confederate heritage as people attempt to understand the South's stand against an out-of-control federal government.

Earlier this year, the Florida Division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans received national attention when they, too, raised a large Confederate battle flag alongside a major expressway in their state.

Georgia Division Commander, Jack Bridwell, had this to say about this Saturday's flag raising, "This beautiful Flag signals the start of our celebration of the Sesquicentennial of the War for Southern Independence. We will continue to highlight times, sites, and people over the next 4 years; hopefully the public will join us in this celebration. "

The Sons of Confederate Veterans are also preparing to launch a statewide radio and television campaign with commercials which will educate the public about Georgia's Confederate heritage and role during the War in commemoration of the 150th Anniversary of the War Between the States.

Interviews or more information about the Sons of Confederate Veterans or the flag raising may be obtained by contacting the Georgia Division at
1-888-SCVinGA or online at

Tuesday, September 21, 2010


By Joan Hough

Seekers of the truth have learned that Lincoln's real reason for his invasion of the South had absolutely nothing to do with SLAVERY. They now understand that Lincoln was ABSOLUTELY opposed to equality of blacks with whites. (Thomas J. Dilorenzo. The Real Lincoln.) Lincoln did not begin his war for the purpose of freeing even a single slave. It was the usual kind of war, based solely on greed for money and power. It was not until the middle of the war when Lincoln’s army was losing that Lincoln decided to declare slaves emancipated—only those, of course in the South where he no longer had any authority. Lincoln’s top general, Ulysses Grant, did not even free his own slaves until long after the end of the war. Grant’s excuse that the slaves were his wife’s won’t wash--- husbands had total power over wives back then. (Women were not even allowed to vote.)

Lincoln would best be known as Lincoln, the RELUCTANT EMANCIPATOR, Issuer of an Emancipation Proclamation which could not free blacks but could, he hoped, cause them to murder white women and children who were left defenseless on farms and plantations without their men.

Why did Lincoln refuse to end slavery peacefully as the rest of the world had done? Why did he refuse compensated emancipation? The reason is shocking and most Americans, carefully indoctrinated down through the centuries to believe Lincoln the nation's "greatest" President, will be unable to accept the truth unless there remains within them a remnant of the ability to think independently—outside the little box filled with Socialist-Communist-Marxist-New World Order-, all powerful central government, brainwash.

An absolutely and deliberately false, well-propagandized reason is always presented by politically correct historians as the explanation for Lincoln's largely imported, hired European troops who were brought here through the efforts of the Marxists in Lincoln's Party (Walter Kennedy and Al Benson. Red Republicans and Lincoln's Marxists). These troops invaded the South, destroyed a culture through genocide with Lincoln’s approval and his refusal to concede to the Geneva Convention of 1863 rules for civilized warfare prohibiting war on civilians. (Lincoln's Sherman proved his men's intentions when he declared that to all secessionists--women and children included, "death is mercy" (Dilorenzo. ibid, p. 6).

That other U.S. generals accepted the plan to kill women and children in order to demoralize Confederate soldiers cannot be denied and is testified to by the commander of Lincoln’s Army of Tennessee, known to be a devout church –goer and to oppose drinking and gambling, a General by name of Oliver O. Howard. (Evidently, one doesn’t have to drink and smoke in order to have a good time!) A South Carolinian complained to Howard about the horror perpetrated by Lincoln’s army on Columbus. Howard responded, “It is her [Columbia’s] fit punishment, and if, this does not quiet rebellion, and we have to return, we will do this work thoroughly. We will not leave woman or child” (William Gilmore Sims, quoted by David Aiken in Introduction to A City Laid Waste, p. 3).[emphasis added] Sherman’s kidnapping of over 400 Roswell females adds further to the proof. Most of these women never found their way home again. This appears to have been only the tip of the Sherman atrocities iceberg in Georgia.

“Until we can repopulate Georgia, it is useless to occupy it, but the utter destruction of it's roads, houses, and PEOPLE will cripple their military resources….I can make the march, and make Georgia howl." Gen. W.T. Sherman

The surviving European soldiers were installed as U.S. citizens. Probably some of their descendants happily celebrated Sherman's birthday in 2009 in a celebration reported in the nation’s newspapers. They, no doubt, still worship Abe Lincoln as the one who brought their ancestors to America.

In an absolute distortion of truth and because of a creation in his own imagination, Lincoln declared the Union legally indivisible and declared it had been so since the secession from England. He denied the truth that the Articles of Confederation (occurring before the U.S. Constitution) followed the installation of the individual Constitutions of each state in which each state declared itself "independent"-- and sovereign. He ignored the fact that the word “state,” in that time, meant “nation.” He denied the fact that each state in its state constitution acknowledged that it was an independent nation, just as were Germany, England, and France, etc. (Remember that the majority of European states were actually smaller than most of America's "states." A trip up the Rhine proves this still true.)

The Articles of Confederation, preceding the Constitution, did indeed declare "perpetual union," and did so FIVE TIMES. But the Constitution did not include that term even once! The Constitution thus deliberately allowed its own termination (Frank Conner. The South Under Siege, p. 110).

If that deliberate omission of the word "Perpetual" in the Constitution does not convince you that there was no intention for the "foreverness” of the Union, think upon this: during that time in the history of the world, the word "perpetual" did not mean what Lincoln decided it must mean. It did not mean "FOREVER." Its definition has been thoroughly discussed as meaning “until altered." It was a “sunset" clause rather than a "forever" statement. Nevertheless, regardless of its meaning, when the states decided to become a real Union, their representatives signed a U.S. Constitution which held absolutely no mention of "Perpetual" anything. The states, as fully sovereign unities, refused to sign anything using a word so easily misinterpreted by idiots and would be power grabbers. The word "perpetual" was deliberated erased from the minds of literate Americans then and there! Only after fifteen presidents, did our nation get one who declared he knew what the others did not--that the Union was permanent.

It is imperative that we not forget that the Great Emancipator's words, declaring his government "indivisible,” contradict his earlier ones in which he boldly declared:

"Any people, any where, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable and most sacred right. A right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to causes in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize and make their own of so many of the territory they inhabit." Abraham Lincoln January 12, 1848

We must recognize that the South made no effort to terminate the U.S. Constitution or to destroy the Union. Southern states merely halted association with northern states, leaving the Union intact (Frank Conner, ibid).

There should be a carefully planned effort on the part of all of us to have the word
"indivisible" erased from the Pledge of Allegiance so often recited by most of us--the Pledge we now know was written by a Baptist minister--"defrocked" that is, kicked out of his pulpit because of his blatant SOCIALISM. As a great admirer of Lincoln's and as a Socialist, Francis Bellamy (author of the Pledge) desired to indoctrinate (brainwash) all American children into believing that an all powerful central government was not only to be desired and admired, but to be worshipped to the point that citizens' bodies should be sacrificed at their central government’s leaders' whims. States had absolutely no rights--the Constitution necessarily ignored.

Adolph Hitler so admired the Pledge and Lincoln that he had his folks imitate the Bellamy hand-salute. This adoption by Hitler enraged loyal Americans, forcing alteration of the hand salute to a placement of a hand over the heart used today by Americans except Mr. Obama.

Yes, the truth can be learned if one takes the time and the effort required to learn it. The author of our Pledge of Allegiance had a Socialist’s purpose for its creation. Think upon that. The Constitution said not a word about a perpetual union. Lincoln had many dealings with Marxist newcomers to America and with the ignorant of the history of the Constitution--soldiers they lured to our land during the middle of the war—brought here, actually, to fight to further the purposes of imperialism, but told, all the while, they were fighting to free slaves and against people out to destroy the Constitution. Lincoln’s war was waged not only against Southern men, but against the women and children of the South. His plan for the South was based on Genocide.

Sunday, September 19, 2010

Was it worth it?

By David Ware

The Yankee takes delight in celebrating the War to Prevent Southern Independence as the time when the slaves were set free, yet his defense of freedom takes a dive when it comes to extending freedom to Southerners to establish their own country and to the establishment of martial law in the South during reconstruction..

In this month’s (Sept-Oct 2010) Confederate Veteran magazine, there is a wonderful article about slavery by Don Livingstone. Hopefully, all of you will read it. Also, Compatriot Bill Vallante has written a rather compelling article much about the same situation available here:

It seems to me that there is another less explored aspect of the idea that this war was all about slavery. As this time period is discussed in the coming months and years, as we commemorate the sesquicentennial, we will not be given equal time to state our case. Instead, we will be shouted over and shouted down in the style of a Fox news or CNN debate. For the ten or so seconds we might get, our response might well be: “Then, was it worth it?”

An affirmative reply to the question would imply, at least the idea that the killing, burning, looting and destruction of our region was necessary and just. That all those that died and were wounded, on both sides, had to endure this ordeal to resolve the issue of slavery. That the issuance of statehood to West Virginia, the period of Reconstruction which followed, including the unconstitutional adoption of the 14th Amendment was all necessary and “worth it.”

At a deeper level, the idea that it was “worth it” would imply that the “ends justify the means.” The is one of the most vile and corrupt principles fostered on the civilized world. If the cause can be marketed as just, then any means to achieve it, is also just. Just causes include: making the world safe for democracy, weapons of mass destruction, possession of nuclear weapons, getting rid of unfavorable rulers (others, not those of the United States unfortunately), diversity, health, education, defense, old age, retirement, the environment, energy, oil rights, human rights, civil rights, woman’s rights, general welfare, wealth redistribution , good nutrition, East Germany, the Soviet Union, Viet Nam, Korea, Iran, Iraq, Cuba, Haiti, Grenada, Philippines, war on drugs and so on.

A negative response would require that further examination be done to discern other possible remedies for what this war and all wars since, “accomplished.” It was also challenge the doctrine of the ends justify the means.

Sometimes the best questions are the shortest.

Friday, September 17, 2010

Hispanic Month Tribute to Moses Ezekiel

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

September through October is Hispanic History Month!

The Georgia Division Sons of Confederate Veterans is commemorating the 150th Anniversary “Sesquicentennial” of the War Between the States. See information at:

"The death of Moses Ezekiel, the distinguished and greatly loved American sculptor, who lived in Rome for more than forty years, caused universal regret here----1921, The New York Times Dispatch from Rome.

Arlington National Cemetery is located in the shadow of the Custis-Lee Mansion (Arlington House) that was home to General Robert E. Lee and his family until 1861, and the beginning of the War Between the States. This cemetery was first used in 1864, for the burial of Union soldiers.

Tours, through this famous burial place of President Kennedy, General Wainwright and Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, are conducted daily.

On June 4, 1914, the President of the U.S., Woodrow Wilson spoke at the dedication of a new Confederate memorial at section 16. The monument, to those Confederate soldiers who were re-interred there in 1900, has been called by some people as both striking and unique. This monument was trusted into safe keeping to the U.S. War Department by the United Daughters of the Confederacy in 1914.

Dr. Edward Smith, Professor of History at American University, has described this monument as probably the first to honor the Black Confederate soldiers. This monument includes a depiction of a Black Confederate marching in step with the white soldiers.

The United Daughters of the Confederacy commissioned a Jewish-Confederate Veteran, Sir Moses J. Ezekiel, to do the work on this monument. Some people say that he might have been the first Jewish-American to do this type of sculpture. It is written that the UDC was pleased with his work which depicts the multi-cultural makeup of the Confederate States of America.

Moses J. Ezekiel was born on October 28, 1844, in Richmond, Va. He was one of fourteen children born to Jacob and Catherine de Castro Ezekiel. He was born in a house on “Old Market Street” that is said to have been in the poorer side of town. His grandparents came to America from Holland in 1808, and were of Jewish-Spanish Heritage.

Ezekiel talked his parents into letting him attend Virginia Military Institute and he did enroll on September 17, 1862. Some people say, he was the first Jewish-American to enter there at this the school of General Stonewall Jackson.

After three years at VMI, Ezekiel saw military service during the War Between the States. The Cadets, of Virginia Military Institute, were called to support Confederate General John C. Breckenridge at the Battle of New Market, Virginia. Ezekiel joined his fellow cadets in the charge upon the Union lines.

Ezekiel, after the war, went on to finish his education at VMI. It was during this time that he had the fortune to meet General Robert E. Lee who was president of Washington College. Lee gave him the following words of encouragement in his quest to be an artist:

"I hope you will be an artist, as it seems to me that you are cut out for one. But, whatever you do, try to prove to the world that, even if we did not succeed in our struggle, we are worthy of success and do earn a reputation to whatever profession you undertake."

Ezekiel would travel to Italy to study and work as an artist and would become known worldwide. He was honored by King Emmanuel who knighted him and gave him the distinction of "Sir Moses Jacob Ezekiel."

It was Ezekiel's wish to return to his native Virginia but World War I kept him for doing so. He spent his final days in Italy where he died in 1917. His remains were not brought back to the United States until 1921.

Among his many great works are: "Christ Bound for the Cross", "The Martyr", and "David Singing his Song of Glory."

His funeral service was held at the amphitheater at Arlington National Cemetery. Cadets, of the Virginia Military Institute, stood by his casket that was draped with a flag of the United States. Ezekiel was buried at the base of the Confederate monument. Also buried around the monument are 450 Confederate soldiers, wives and civilians.

Read about the National Sons of Confederate Veterans War Between the States Sesquicentennial plans at:

Tuesday, September 07, 2010


It began as a snickering idea put forth by a blogger known as “Jesus’ General”
( – a har-de-har-har proposal urging folks to burn Confederate flags at the various Tea Party rallies scheduled for September 12. As is characteristic of many amateur humorists, the good General apparently doesn’t care that his satire is a bit fuzzy – he manages to cram Confederate heritage, the TEA party platform and racism into a single muddled object of his sophomoric jeering. This doesn’t bother his audience a bit – blog comments indicate Jesus’ General is adored by children of all ages. And since the General thoughtfully includes specific instructions for a Confederate flag-burning demonstration, there will inevitably be those who will act on that information.

Let ‘em, says the SLRC. And while their handful of techno-vandals do their thing, what would happen if every single owner of a Confederate flag quietly but prominently displayed it come Sunday? There would be an awful lot of Confederate flags across the landscape. Enough, perhaps, to give pause to the merry pranksters of Jesus’ General, and to others of their persuasion as well.

Sunday, September 05, 2010


The Commander-in-Chief of the Sons of Confederate Veterans has fired a volley at the proposed casino and hotel complex at the Gettysburg Battlefield.

In a statement released today Commander Michael Givens said "The consideration of placing a casino and entertainment complex at the very edge of the Gettysburg Battlefield is not only unbelievable, it is an affront to all Americans who believe that, in this era of commercialization, there are some unique areas that are so historically hallowed that they must be protected and preserved at all cost in perpetuity."

"The Gettysburg Battlefield is no playground. Every inch of that ground, including the proposed casino site which is on the road within yards of the battlefield is a priceless American treasure. This road was the path taken to mount one of the most crucial battles in world history. It is part of the legacy left to all Americans today, particularly those whose ancestors were participants, North and South."

Commander Givens concluded"To gauge the importance of this sacred ground, consider the casualties on both sides of this single three day battle were greater than the total casualties of the entire duration of the Viet Nam War."

"We, the descendants of those old veterans urge the Pennsylvania Gaming Board and the citizens of Gettysburg to just say no to the playground plans while continuing to protect and preserve one of America's most treasured landmarks."

Saturday, September 04, 2010

VI. “The Myth of the Myth of the Lost Cause” (continued)

The History Field Today….“Houston, we have a problem….”

By Bill Vallante

Yes, a very big problem indeed. I can’t say that I learned a whole lot of history itself when I majored in it as an undergraduate. Most of my historical knowledge came years later doing reading and research on my own. One thing I did learn in school however was that historians were seldom in agreement on anything. An event takes place, and for a decade or two, it falls into the category of a “current event.” As time goes on, it passes into the history books and its history and significance begin to be interpreted by those who call themselves historians. This interpretation itself is what constitutes the study of history, and human nature being what it is it should come as no surprise that the interpretations often vary.

However, in the case of the “Civil War” and its causes there seems to be little or no variation in opinion, at least not these days. It would appear that the vast majority of historians (save a handful of courageous souls who occasionally speak out and whose integrity comes under fire when they do), are in complete agreement on these issues. It sure is peaceful in the history field these days - it is peace of the dead. Where has the variety in interpretation gone? Where has the debate gone? The lack of diverse opinions and the lack of debate on these issues should raise eyebrows, but they fail to. I would conclude that - “Houston, we have a problem….”

In the case of Reconstruction for example, our contemporary experts claim that it was a wonderful experiment in social progress that was sabotaged by white supremacists. They claim that the “Dunning School,” a school of thought on the subject headed by historian William Archibald Dunning which maintained that Reconstruction was a terrible time in America’s history, has been officially “debunked.” Of course, nowhere do I see them offering up any facts to justify their claims. Dunning cites facts such as those which I cited and no contemporary historian has been able to prove that Dunning made those things up. If you don’t see a problem with the facts that I cited, (and they are facts), or, if you choose to ignore them, as our contemporary experts seem to be doing, well then, I’d have to say that - “Houston, we have a problem…..”

In the case of the Sesquicentennial, most of the planners on the various state committees are those same contemporary experts - our “Myth of the Lost Cause Mythologists.” Some events have already been held and I could not help notice that the ones that have already taken place didn’t draw very big crowds. Events held in the Richmond area recently are indicative, I believe, of the lack of interest that the stories told by such experts hold for most of us, even if few of us are willing to say such things aloud. The highly touted Tredegar museum in Richmond, for example, a museum which touts slavery as a cause of the war and which was designed and run by “Myth of the Lost Cause Mythologists” draws an average of 50 visitors/day. [47] I’ve seen more activity than that in a cemetery. If the states are hoping that museums like Tredegar, or events like “The Future of Richmond’s Past” are going to draw in tourist dollars, think again. Northerners aren’t going to drive hundreds of miles and spend hundreds of dollars to see a “diversity” dog and pony show. They can stay home, save the money, and attend such shows where they live, because such shows are a dime a dozen these days. I have no doubt that as the Sesquicentennial progresses and states begin to see that the tourist dollars are not materializing, we are going to hear those states crying - “Houston, we have a problem…”

Of even greater concern is what may be called a lack of academic freedom within academia itself. The expression of free thought and honest discussion seem to have gone right out the window.

During the 2000 South Carolina flag controversy, about 100 academics from various fields and disciplines, led by a professor whose field of expertise was “African American folklore”, issued a very public statement which proclaimed, in no uncertain terms, that slavery was the cause of the “civil war,” that there should be no arguments to the contrary, and that there was nothing honorable about “the Confederate flag.” A short time later, a smaller group of academics issued a contradictory public statement which took strong issue with the first group’s contentions. So what’s the problem here? There are two:

First, while the press thoroughly covered the first group’s press release, it was noticeably absent for the second group’s release, and -

Second, the people who gathered the signatures for the second group’s press release reported that a number of people expressed a desire to sign the petition but declined due to “fear of future professional reprisals.” Further, some signatures of younger, untenured professors who did volunteer to sign were not used for exactly that very reason – possible future professional reprisals. [48]

“Houston, we do indeed have a problem….”

When academics and self-proclaimed experts announce themselves to be “Professors of Memory Studies” and then hijack America’s historical memory, and no one questions the lunacy of such statements or says, “Hey! You can’t do that!”…..we have a problem.

When academics proudly proclaim they are busting myths and that their myth busting constitutes historical study, but at the same time they tip toe around other potential myths out of fear, ignorance or something else….. we have a problem.

When nearly the whole of academia stops arguing both sides of an issue, and when those few who would like to provide another side to that issue stay silent for fear of “reprisals”….we most assuredly have a problem.

When Congress, at the urging of a race-baiting demagogue who most fear to publicly label as such, deigns itself fit to pass legislative mandates using taxpayer monies in order to promote an official version of an important event in America’s history, an event which, until the last 20 or 30 years was a story that had two sides….we have a problem.

Most of all, when the American public sits silently on its haunches and says nothing about these things, we most certainly have a problem. Maybe we have reached the point that Bruce Catton mentioned – the point where the American people no longer “care to remember anything about the American past.”



[47] (The Richmond Times Dispatch on 4.28/10 reported that the museum received 21000 visitors in 2009)

[48] “The Southern Partisan,” Volume XX Second Quarter, 2000, pp. 17=21

Thursday, September 02, 2010

V. “The Myth of the Myth of the Lost Cause” (continued)

Reconstruction – the quaint little experiment in social progress

By Bill Vallante

Years ago I was reading a National Park Service E-book entitled, “Rally on the High Ground.” The E-book, on the park service website, was not really a book, but rather a transcription of a 2000 seminar of the same name that was attended by Dept of the Interior and Park Service officials, a gaggle of contemporary historians, and at least one politician, Jesse Jackson Jr. Jackson’s 2000 legislation mandated that the Park Service include slavery as a cause of the war in all its national battlefield parks, and place all those battles “in the larger context of both the causes of the war and the consequences--most notably--the issue of African slavery and its woeful legacy of racism and discrimination, which continues to this day.”

Then Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbit opened with an address that touched upon Reconstruction. He spoke specifically of that period as it related to African Americans and the elective franchise:

“….They went to the polls in extraordinary numbers, elected black officials to county governments, to state legislatures, to state offices, to the House of Representatives, and to the United States Senate. Many of these figures are mostly forgotten, but, in their time, they were eloquent, productive leaders who in many states laid foundations for the first time for public education in their states. They were the leaders in anti-discrimination legislation, public housing accommodations, and social services.” [30]

Until that time I had never explored the Reconstruction period in depth and consequently knew little about it. Nevertheless, a question occurred to me as I was reading Babbit’s babbling. Given the fact that most blacks in the South at that time were newly freed slaves, who, not more than 2 or 3 years earlier had been living on a farm or plantation, and given the fact that most of them were still illiterate, how is it that they could make such an outstanding leap of progress in so short a time so as to be able to know what they were doing when they wielded the elective franchise? More importantly, how is it that so many of them could find their way into political office and become great “productive leaders”? Such a leap of progress in such a short time is unknown in recorded human history! So then, who waved their magic wand and turned a simple, untutored people into a bunch of Henry Kissingers?

I once posed this question to former Gettysburg Park Superintendent John Latschar (before he got snagged for surfing porn on his work computer). I had just been to the new visitor’s center at Gettysburg and had seen that the Park Service’s presentation there extended far beyond the battle itself. Not only was the slavery issue highlighted, but Reconstruction and civil rights as well. And of course, the alleged accomplishments of these black “productive leaders” were touted. I asked Mr. Latschar how it was that so many of these people could manage to hold political office when most of them had been picking cotton only a few years before. Latschar cited two black politicians, Hiram Revels and Francis Cardozo, who actually were not only literate but highly educated as well. I replied by sending him numerous examples which clearly demonstrated that these two men were the exceptions and not the rule. In any case, I never heard from Latschar again. Maybe he was too busy surfing porn?

The Wikipedia description of those who contributed to the literary movement known as the “Lost Cause,” reads in part, “they also tended to condemn Reconstruction.” That, in case you haven’t guessed, is supposed to be a criticism. The mantra today is that Reconstruction was a wonderful experiment in “interracial democracy” that was shot down by those evil, nasty white supremacists. I’ve learned a lot about the period since reading “Rally on the High Ground,” and it was anything but wonderful. Yes, it was “interracial” in nature, but simply sticking that adjective in front of a word does not necessarily make that word a good thing.

Yes, it was indeed a form of “interracial democracy.”

It was an “interracial democracy” which excluded most of the native Southern white population. As per the 14th amendment - anyone who had engaged in “participation in any rebellion or civil war against the United States” was disenfranchised, thereby leaving state governments in the hands of Yankee transplants, ex-slaves and a few compliant Southerners who were willing to “swallow the dog,” [31]

It was an “interracial democracy” administrated, in part, by a people who had been slaves not more than 3 years before. This mysterious, and unbelievable leap of progress in so brief a time, unequaled in all of human history, has never been fully explained by anyone who has anything positive to say about the period. Yet, its incongruity was noted, even by Northerners of the period, who wondered at the curious nature of the Freedmen’s bill…namely that - “It took the blacks under the protection of the Federal Government as if they were not able to take care of themselves, while the same persons who urged…the measure are the most clamorous to give this same dependent population a large share in the government of the country.’” [32]

The incongruity in question is easily explained however. If one wants to know the real motivation behind the Party of Lincoln and its drive to gain the elective franchise for the newly freed slave, one need only consult one of the chief architects of the Congressional Reconstruction policy, Rep. Thaddeus Stevens of Pennsylvania. In Stevens’ own words, the purpose of giving this “dependent population” the vote in the South was to “insure perpetual ascendancy to the party of the union.” [33] Since when does one-party rule constitute a democracy, interracial or otherwise?

It was an “interracial democracy” that even Frederick Douglass found, at least in part, appalling, as he commented on the white portion of Alabama’s 1869 Reconstruction state government - “Well, I would be a Democrat if I was a white man and had to herd with that cattle.” [34]

It was an “interracial democracy” that caused Georgia’s debt to go from “0” in 1865 to 50 million dollars in 1872 [35], whose budgetary practices in Louisiana caused the cost of the 1871 legislative session to be 9 ½ times the average cost of a pre-Reconstruction session [36], and whose budgetary practices in the South Carolina legislature caused the total cost of 6 years of Reconstruction for that not-so-august body to total $2,339,000, (when the average cost of a pre-Reconstruction session of the legislature had been $20,000/year!) [37].

This wonderful “interracial democracy” resulted in the tax rate in Mississippi increasing 14 fold during its 5 year tenure in that state and caused 1/5 of all privately owned land in that state to be put up for sale on the tax auction block [38].

In Texas, this wonderful “interracial” experiment resulted in a 400% tax increase, while at the same time, another Southern state, Tennessee, saw its state debt inflated by 16 million dollars. [39].

It was an “interracial democracy” which saw ¼ of all the property in Little Rock Arkansas in the hands of former Union General Schenck, who had purchased said property at bargain basement prices after those properties had been confiscated for non-payment of taxes. [40].

It was a “interracial democracy” which saw, in South Carolina, the expenditure by the legislature, “of $200,000 - all of which was spent in furnishing the state capitol with costly plate glass mirrors, lounges, arm chairs, a free bar and other luxurious appointments for the use of the legislators.” [41]

It was an “interracial democracy” in South Carolina composed of black men like Beverly Nash, who admitted to taking a $2500 bribe, and who defended his actions with the words, “I merely took the money because I thought I might as well have it and invest it here as for them to carry it outside the state”. [42]. That same type of government, in that very same state, also produced the likes of State Representative John Patterson, a white Pennsylvania transplant, who, when questioned about corruption flippantly replied, “Why there are still 5 good years of stealing left in South Carolina”. [43] In Mississippi, it produced the likes of William Gray, a black State Senator, who proclaim “that he would win [the 1874 election] if he had to kill every white man, woman and child in the county, which was predominantly black.” [44]

It was an “interracial democracy” which demanded that the black man have his vote, but which also mandated that the black man vote the way he was told! Black men contemplating a vote for the Democratic ticket (or the Conservative Ticket), were warned off with “Death to Colored Democrat” signs in polling places, and with banners proclaiming “Every man that don’t vote the Radical ticket this is the way we want to serve him – hang him by the neck.” [45]

Finally, that “interracial democracy” produced a financial house of cards which collapsed upon the head of the freedman in 1874 when the Freedman’s Bureau Savings and Trust went belly-up. Those freedmen who had worked hard to build an economic base for themselves (instead of feeding at the public trough), and who had trusted in their Yankee benefactors, lost all they had, a grand total of 3 1/3 million dollars – a huge sum for that time belonging to relatively poor people who could ill afford to lose it. And the government whose soldiers allegedly “died to make men free” did nothing to compensate them. [46] No bailouts in 1874 I guess?!

But it’s all ok you see -because it was all “interracial.” So sayeth our “Myth of the Lost Cause Mythologists.”

(to be continued)


[30] “Rally on the High Ground” – opening address by Bruce Babbit.

[31} See the 14th Amendment

[32] Ralph Seth Henry, “The Story of Reconstruction February, 1866 Page 160 (Konecky & Koncekcy, 150 Fifth Ave. New York, NY, 10011)

[33] ibid, PP. 210- 211

[34] “Brooklyn Eagle,” copied in “Montgomery Advertiser”, Feb 19, 1869)

[35] Mildred Lewis Rutherford, “The Truths of History,” Pages 128-129, Daniel Voorhees, Representative from Indiana, “Plunder of Eleven States”, a speech made in the House of Representatives March 23, 1872:

[36] Ella Lonn, “Reconstruction in Louisiana after 1868,” New York, 1918, P. 78

[37] “Republican Governor Daniel Chamberlain’s Reflections” 1901, in the Atlantic Monthly

[38] John S. Tilley, “The Coming of the Glory,” page 256, Copyright 1949, (Bill Coats, Ltd., 1406 Grandview, Nashville, TN, 37215-3030, 1995)

[39] ibid, page 259

[40] “Albany Argues”, copied “Montgomery Advertiser,” November 29, 1868

[41] Mildred Lewis Rutherford, “The Truths of History,” Page 127, Copyright, 1920, Southern Lion Books Inc., PO Box 347163, Atlanta, Ga., 30334, 1998, (as quoted in Muzzey’s “American History”, page 486)

[42] John S. Tilley, “The Coming of the Glory,” page 241, Copyright 1949, (Bill Coats, Ltd., 1406 Grandview, Nashville, TN, 37215-3030, 1995)

[43] ibid, page 232

[44] Claude G. Bowers, “The Tragic Era,” Page 453
Simon Publications, PO 321, Safety Harbor, Fl., 2001, c 1929

[45] “The Southern Argus,” August 25, 1869

[46] House- Misc Doc No. 16, 39, Cong 2 Sess.,, pp 61, 91

Wednesday, September 01, 2010

IV. “The Myth of the Myth of the Lost Cause” (continued)

Rebels Without a Cause?

By Bill Vallante

260,000 Southern fighting men fell in that war, along with nearly 50,000 Southern civilians. Until recently, their struggle, albeit a losing one, was admired world-wide ….

“The Southerners have shown every characteristic that can mark an independent people. They have made the costliest sacrifices that men can make to assure their freedom from foreign rule, and they have fought for it with a gallantry that has not been surpassed in all the wars of liberation the world has seen….” (“The Quarterly Review,” “The Confederate Struggle,” London, July – October, 1862, vol. 112, pp. 535 – 564)

Go to, type in “U.S. Civil War,” scan the thousands of book titles and you will be hard pressed to find anyone holding an opinion like the Quarterly Review’s. Among the more contemporary ones are books which maintain that the planters led the South into war but they let the poor man do the fighting, that the women of the South complained bitterly of the war and urged their men to desert, that the Confederate soldier was a frequent deserter and that he often times donned blue to fight for the Union, and that the South’s population did not have its heart in the fight. The author of one such book even claimed that Southern women were against the war because they were tired of being “second class citizens.” [20]

There is even a book on “The Free State of Jones,” a county in Mississippi which allegedly revolted against the Confederate government, and which was the subject of a very old movie called “Tap Roots.” As I said in the beginning of this paper, if they keep increasing the number of Southerners who fought for the Union, there will be no Southerners left to fight for the Confederacy, and eventually people will begin to wonder who it was that put those 360,000 Yankees into the “Southern dust?”

Yes, the Confederate army was plagued by desertions late in the war. Of course, late in the war there was this fellow named Sherman, whose army was pillaging its way through Georgia and South Carolina virtually unopposed, targeting civilians as it went. What would you do if you were a Georgian, or a South Carolinian soldier in front of Petersburg and you knew that your family was in the path of these thugs? Tough call, isn’t it?!

Desertions plagued both sides actually. No one wants to come home maimed, or worse, in a body bag and sometimes men simply decided that they had had enough and could take no more. It does appear however, desertions aside, that there were more than enough Confederates left to shoot down hordes of Yankees – a cursory look at the casualty figures late in the war would be enough to tell you that!

And while it has become all the rage among wack-ademics these days to “prove” that it was the South and the (allegedly) shabby cause for which it was fighting that caused its downfall and not overwhelming size and power of the Union army, one cannot escape the fact that the North had 4 times the South’s manpower and 10 times its industrial capacity. No, you can’t escape it no matter how many theses you write about how flawed the South was. You can’t escape it because even the South’s opponents noticed it themselves and spoke openly about it.

Union General Samuel Howe, in February 1862 made the following observations: “Look at the opposing armies and you will see two striking truths. First, the Northern men are superior in numbers, virtue, intelligence, bodily strength, and real pluck; and yet on the whole they have been outgeneraled and badly beaten. Second, the Northern army is better equipped, better clad, fed and lodged; and is in a far more comfortable condition, not only than the Southern army, but any other in the world; and yet, if the pay were stopped in both, the Northern army would probably mutiny at once, or crumble rapidly; while the Southern army would probably hold together for a long time, in some shape, if their cause seemed to demand it. The animating spirit of the Southern soldier is rather moral than pecuniary; of the Northern soldier it is rather pecuniary than moral.” [21]

Yes, Howe was a Union general. But respect for one’s enemy was not at all unheard of in those days. In a Memorial Day, 1884 speech, Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., himself a union veteran said, “We believed that it was most desirable that the North should win…But we equally believed that those who stood against us held just as sacred convictions that were the opposite of ours, and we respected them as every man must respect those who give all for their belief…” [22]

Visiting British Colonel Arthur Freemantle, in his 1863 tour of the Southern states, might take issue with the contentions of our mythologists. After seeing first hand the determination of both the Southern soldier and civilian he remarked, “but the more I think of all that I have seen in the Confederate States, of the devotion of the whole population, the more I feel inclined to say with General Polk – “How can you subjugate a people such as this?”” [23]

Southern women brought down the war effort because they were sore about being second class citizens? The bimbo who wrote this either doesn’t get out much or she’s never met a Southern woman. She also ignores the fact that the women of the north faced the same kind of “second class citizenship.” Colonel Arthur Freemantle, who, unlike the author, actually visited the South during the war, had this to say about Southern women….

“…no Confederate soldier is given his discharge from the army, however badly he may be wounded; but he is employed at such labor in the public service as he may be capable of performing, and his place in the ranks is taken by a sound man hitherto exempted. The slightly wounded are cured as quickly as possible, and are sent back at once to their regiments. THEIR WOMEN TAKE CARE OF THIS…..” [24]

Indeed, the attitudes of the Southern women that I know mirror that of the woman whose fiancé declined on volunteering for the army. She sent him a package of women’s underwear with a note which read, “Wear these or volunteer!” Needless to say, he volunteered. [25]

And as far as the planters and the old “rich man’s war, poor man’s fight” hooey is concerned, it is common knowledge that the ranks of the South’s aristocracy provided, for the most part, the bulk of the leadership in the Confederate army, and that most of the time these men led from the front. It was the planters who had the most to lose in the South’s bid for freedom and lose they did. They lost their fortunes, they lost their way of life, and oftentimes, they lost life itself. Their words have indeed been recorded and they are in the history books if you’re not too lazy to look for them:

After leading a charge at Gettysburg and falling at the head of his troops, mortally wounded General William Barksdale, a wealthy planter by the way, asked his Yankee captors to give his wife a message as he lay dying - “Tell my wife I am shot, but we fought like hell!” [26]

17 year old David O. Dodd, a rich man’s son, was executed for being a spy by Union troops on January 8, 1864, and was eulogized by one of his captors - “His quiet and heroic bearing stamped him as not only one of the bravest of the brave, but not one of us doubted that he met his fate with the same lofty feeling of patriotism that sustained, in his last hours, Nathan Hale, the immortal spy of the Revolution.” [27]

Colonel William Peleg Rogers of the 2nd Texas Infantry, a planter’ son, who fell at the battle at Battery Robinette, Corinth Miss., 1862, was eulogized by none other than Union General Rosecrans - “He was one of the bravest men that ever led a charge. Bury him with military honors and mark his grave so his friends can claim him. The time will come when there will be a monument here to commemorate his bravery.” [28] (I wonder how General Rosecrans might respond to the current craze of tearing down Confederate monuments?)

Private Charlie Jackson, a young teenager, barely 16 and a rich man’s son killed, April, 1862,

His dying words to his father - “…Father, tell the boys when you get back how I died – just as a soldier ought to! Tell them to fight the Yankees as long as there is one left in the country, and never give up! Whenever you fill up the company with new men, let them know that besides their country there’s a little boy in heaven who will watch them and pray for them as they go into battle!” [29]

I could go on and on in this vein. I could also ask why it is that our myth busters seem to focus heavily on Southern discontent but ignore the same, if not greater discontent that existed in the North. In November 1864, with the war going heavily in the North’s favor, 1.8 million out of 4 million northern voters were courageous enough to go to the polls and vote against Lincoln. I say “courageous” because in those days you did not go into a booth, close the curtain and vote in secret. You marked a ballot in front of everyone. Everyone knew how you voted, including the Union government which had, to that point, imprisoned thousands of its own citizens for speaking out against the war. Any perceived opposition to the war or to the government and its policies could easily earn you a trip to jail (minus any writ of habeas corpus) or an unpleasant home visit from “The Loyal League.” Where are our myth busters on the subject of Northern discontent I wonder? And why is it that all the myths busted are Southern ones?

There was a time when historians were less partisan than they are now and I’m old enough to remember such times. One particular historian, very well respected in his day was Bruce Catton, certainly no Lost Cause apologist by any stretch of the imagination. I’ll close this section with his words on the subject of the Confederate soldier:

“There is no legend quite like that of the Confederate fighting man. He reached the end of his haunted road long ago. He fought for a star-crossed cause and in the end he was beaten, but as he carried his slashed red battle flag into the dusty twilight of the Lost Cause, he walked straight into a legend that will last as long as the American people care to remember anything about the American past.” Bruce Catton

(to be continued)



[21] Gen. Samuel Howe, US Army, February 20, 1862, Confederate Veteran Magazine, July, 1930, page 251

[22] “Let Us Die Like Brave Men, Behind the Dying Words of Confederate Warriors,” By Daniel W. Barefoot, Copyright 2005, John F. Blair Publisher, Winston-Salem, North Carolina
Preface, page x

[23] “Three Months in the Southern States,” Colonel Arthur Freemantle, copyright, 1991, University of Nebraska Press, pp 308-309

[24] “Three Months in the Southern States,” Colonel Arthur Freemantle, copyright, 1991, University of Nebraska Press, Page 306

[25] “The Quarterly Review”, “The American War”, London, January – April, 1863, vol. 113, pp. 322 – 353

[26] “Let Us Die Like Brave Men, Behind the Dying Words of Confederate Warriors,” By Daniel W. Barefoot, Copyright 2005, John F. Blair Publisher, Winston-Salem, North Carolina p. 116

[27] “Let Us Die Like Brave Men, Behind the Dying Words of Confederate Warriors,” By Daniel W. Barefoot, Copyright 2005, John F. Blair Publisher, Winston-Salem, North Carolina p. 171

[28] “Let Us Die Like Brave Men, Behind the Dying Words of Confederate Warriors,” By Daniel W. Barefoot, Copyright 2005, John F. Blair Publisher, Winston-Salem, North Carolina p. 61

[29] “Let Us Die Like Brave Men, Behind the Dying Words of Confederate Warriors,” By Daniel W. Barefoot, Copyright 2005, John F. Blair Publisher, Winston-Salem, North Carolina p. 23
Please LIKE my
Freedom Watch
Facebook page
share it with friends

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