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

Southern Heritage <br>News and Views: July 2011

Wednesday, July 27, 2011


(Atlanta - July 27, 2011) After more than two decades of misinformation about the history of the Confederate Battle Flag, and Southern heritage in general, in Georgia politics and the media, there is a large and growing movement of citizens who are harkening back to their roots and arming themselves with the truth. An audio CD entitled "The Truth About the Confederate Battle Flag" put out by the Georgia Sons of Confederate Veterans is raising eyebrows now that it has sold more than 70,000 copies and orders continue to flood into the Georgia SCV headquarters.

The project began several years ago when a local SCV camp in the Atlanta area, the Chattahoochee Guards, made the decision to "go out on a limb" to have 10,000 of the CD's produced. Since that time the number has continued to climb. While orders for the CD have come from all across the country, the vast majority of the CD's have been distributed throughout the state of Georgia. In addition to the 70,000 CD's which have been sold, a free online version of the CD is available for download at the Georgia SCV website where thousands of additional listeners have heard the presentation online.

"The Truth About the Confederate Battle Flag" is a historically accurate and powerful presentation made by Pastor John Weaver of south Georgia who has served in the ministry for more than 40 years and is a past Chaplain-in-Chief for the SCV national organization. Pastor Weaver is a native Georgian who is one of the most requested revival preachers in America. His presentation on the battle flag incorporates historical information about the creation of the flag and also traces the Christian origins of its design, showing why Southerners have no reason to be ashamed of their flag.

As the CD continues to climb upward to the 100,000 copies sold benchmark, public interest is climbing exponentially. Georgia Division Commander Jack Bridwell of the SCV had this to say about the number of requests for the CD: "It has been amazing to see the interest in young and old alike. So many who hear the CD remark that 'I knew there must be another side to the story. Now I feel like I have the facts that have been left out.' The Georgia Sons of Confederate Veterans are honored to be able to help set the record straight after all of the hate-filled misinformation that has been said about the flag of our veterans." The Georgia Division has just received a new pressing of the CD in order to keep up with the continuing demand.

For more information about the Georgia Division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, or to order copies of the CD "The Truth About the Confederate Battle Flag," visit or email the Chattahoochee Guards directly at either or

When Rucker Called the Roll — A Soldier’s Story

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

The following should be included in American History studies in schools.

Mrs. Daisy Anderson was the last widow of a Black Union soldier whose husband Private Robert Ball Anderson served in the 125th United States Colored Troops. She and Mrs. Alberta Martin, the last widow of a Confederate soldier, met in Gettysburg, Pa. in 1997. Both of these grand ladies have sadly passed over the river to rest in the shade of the trees.

The Confederate flag, which continues to come under attack, was the proud banner of Black, White, Hispanic, Jewish and Native American sons and daughters of Dixie who stood nobly in defense of their homeland and way of life during the War Between the States. Once upon a time neither the Confederate nor the Union Veterans or their blood stained battle flag needed any defense.

The following is one of over 50,000 stories of the Black Confederate Soldier, slave and free, who stood honorably and proudly for Southern Independence, 1861-1865. After the war many of these men attended the reunions of Confederate soldiers including that at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania.

On August 10, 1905, Amos Rucker, an ex-Confederate soldier and proud member of the United Confederate Veterans, died in Atlanta, Georgia. His friends of the UCV had previously bought a grave site and marker for him and his wife Martha who had a limited income.

Amos was a servant and best friend to Sandy Rucker. Both men joined the 33rd Georgia Regiment when the South was invaded. Amos fought as a regular soldier and sustained wounds to his breast and one of his legs that left him permanently crippled.

Amos Rucker joined the W.H.T. Walker Camp of the United Confederates after the war in Atlanta, Georgia. He faithfully attended the meetings that were held on the second Monday of each month at 102 Forsyth Street. He was able to remember the name of every man of his old 33th Regiment and would name them and add whether they were living or dead.

Amos Rucker and wife Martha felt that the men of the United Confederate Veterans were like family. Rucker said that, "My folks gave me everything I want." The UCV men helped Amos and wife Martha with a house on the west side of Atlanta and John M. Slaton helped with his will and care for his wife. Slaton was a member of Atlanta's John B. Gordon Camp 46 Sons of Confederate Veterans and was governor of Georgia when he commuted the death sentence of Leo Frank.

A funeral service for Amos Rucker was conducted by former Confederate General and Reverend Clement A. Evans. An article about the funeral related that Rucker was clothed in a gray Confederate uniform and a Confederate flag covered his casket. It is written that both white and black friends of Rucker came to pay their last respects. There was not a dry eye in the church when Captain William Harrison read a poem, entitled, "When Rucker called the roll."

A grave marker was placed in 1909 by the United Confederate Veterans that for many years marked the graves of Amos and Martha Rucker but some say it was taken many years ago. A few years ago the Sons of Confederate Veterans remarked Rucker’s grave.

The Georgia Division Sons of Confederate Veterans joins our nation in remembering the 150th Anniversary “Sesquicentennial” of the American War Between the States. See additional information at: htttp://

Information for this story came from the book "Forgotten Confederates- A Anthology about Black Confederates" compiled by Kelly Barrow, J.H. Segars and R.B. Rosenburg."


Tampa – 150 Years ago, 100 of the “Darling” sons of Tampa Town, with patriotic ferver, organized themselves into an infantry company known as the “Sunny South Guards” for the defense of Tampa and Florida.

Descendants of these men are sought for recognition at an historical re-enactment commemorating a Military Flag Presentation by the citizens of Tampa Town to these brave men who joined the armed forces of the State of Florida.

The date is planned on September 17, 2011 just steps from the actual event, which occurred at Fort Brooke.

Assigned to the Army of Tennessee, Hardee’s Corps, the Guards were assigned the unit designation of 4th Florida Infantry, Co. K. The 4th was engaged at Murfreesboro and Jackson, participated in the Campaigns of the Army from Chickamauga to Nashville and saw action in North Carolina. Some of these men will killed in the line of duty, some were held as prisoners of war, while others returned home to help re-build the war-ravaged South.

The names of the soldiers being honored are:





Descendants are requested to register online at or email or call Lunelle Siegel at 813-727-3920 with the Tampa Bay Sesquicentennial Commission. The Tampa Bay Sesquicentennial Commission was formed to observe the 150th anniversary of the Tampa Bay area of Florida's role in the Confederate States of America. Our members and sponsors are historical re-enactors, genealogists, and descendants of Tampa's pioneer families, as well as other civic-minded individuals and organizations to understand the importance of remembering our history.

Tuesday, July 26, 2011


The 1848ers: Communists Then Helped Set the Stage for War and the New World Order

by Joan Hough

Part I of a Critique of Hochbruck’s “Actundvierziger”

Appearing now on the free pages of genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry is a genealogy article written by Professor Wolfgang Hochbruck entitled: “Achtundvierziger” in den Armeen der Union: Eine vorlaufige Liste” (“Forty-eighters in the Union Armies: A Preliminary Checklist”)

Hochbruck’s article publicizing the military activities of his fellow Germans—and surprisingly, some of their Communist connections—can be found translated into English at

Hochbruck declares that his purpose for publicizing the activities of the 48ers is to resurrect the German reputation for bravery. He presents an impressive listing of 142 German U.S. Union soldiers, mostly Generals and Colonels, together with brief histories of these men. Concluding that all were very brave men and deserve accolades, Hochbruck contends that the presence of these Germans in America, in the Republican Party, and in the Civil War is greatly underrated and vastly unappreciated by American historians and journalists.

Before proceeding with the reading of this critique of Hochbruck’s work, it should be noted that Hochbruck presents only a one sided German story. He fails to mention that there were many, many wonderful American citizens of German lineage who fought with the greatest of bravery for the righteous cause of the Confederacy. In addition, there were Germans who came directly from Germany to fight for the South. Hochbruck either does not know of these valiant German-American warriors or refused to accord them the honors they deserve, perhaps because they did not possess the Communist-Marxist ideology of those he chose to eulogize.

The Germans who came directly from Germany to the South just to fight for Confederate liberty, unlike those who went to the north, did not come to swap their battle skills for three meals a day and the promise of loot, citizenship, and Southern land. They were not released from some European jail and forced to leave their native land. Instead, they braved Union blockades to reach the Confederate States, while knowing that they would not be fighting in regiments with thousands of other Germans who spoke their language. They fought skillfully, bravely, and with great zeal. They fought because they believed THE SOUTH WAS RIGHT.

After by sheer numbers, imported Socialists, and vast amounts of munitions, the U.S.A. won its war by killing the majority of Southern males and murdering Southern women and children, some of the South’s own warrior-Germans returned to Germany. Among these noble men was Johann Heinrich Heros von Boreke, recognized by Confederates for his great valor.[i] [i] Boreke was General Jeb Stuart’s chief of Staff. Having been shot in his throat and lungs before Gettysburg, Boreke did not participate in his General’s final battle at Yellow Tavern. Later, with tears in his eyes, Johann stood beside the bed of Jeb Stuart and said good-bye to his dying friend. Then, saddled with a lifetime injury, Boreke returned home to Germany and, with great pride and a heavy heart, placed the beautiful Confederate battle flag in front of his house. [ii] [II]

Baron Maximilian von Meulnier was another German who had a deep devotion to the Confederacy. Other Germans also came to America to risk their lives for the Southern cause. [iii] These gifted warriors were few in number compared with the thousands upon thousands direct from Germany to the north, but the new Germans for the South fought as valiantly as once had their Viking ancestors. After the South’s defeat, they returned to their native lands, taking with them—so different from the north’s imported hired guns, not a single stolen wedding band, or a single earring torn from a ripped away woman’s ear. Union soldiers’ propensity for and manner of acquiring such loot was recorded in sworn testimony taken in Louisiana. [iv][IV]

In his genealogy article, Hochbruck presents the records of Union soldiers who came to America from Germany and other states in Europe after the failure of their Socialist Revolution. He reports: “During the American Civil War, more than 180,000 German-born men fought in the Union armies East and West, plus tens of thousands of Austrians, Poles, Hungarians, and Czechs. Out of this number possibly up to an estimated five thousand had previously served in the revolutionary armies and insurrections in Baden, the Palatinate, in Hungary, the Rhineland, Transylvania, Poland, Bohemia, Berlin, or Saxony.”

Hochbruck declares that these soldiers fought in Europe “to free people from oppression.” According to Hochbruck, as revolutionaries, these Germans joined in the Europe-wide movement of “republican revolutionism.” He continues, “After the last of the European revolutions had been subjugated, many of these early internationalists fled or emigrated to the United States.” He asserts, “The failure of their revolutionary hopes in Europe did not prevent them from taking arms again in 1861 to defend the very principles they had fought for in 1848 and 1849: Union, freedom and democracy.” Hochbruck contends, “Many of them made conscious connection between the two wars.” [Emphasis added.]

The word “Union” is interesting as a German 1800s concept — if Hochbruck is correct in assuming that word was actually in use in Europe by the revolutionaries during that time. But even more interesting is the use of the word “Democracy.” Democracy and Socialism were both scorned as types of government by the U.S. founding fathers that created the United States government as a Republic. Democracy was seen as “mobocracy” destined to turn into Socialism—a progression noted by Frederic Bastiat in his The Law.

Hochbruck considers American impressions of German 48ers totally false. He concludes that such impressions issue from an Anglo-American press comprised of writers with “neo-Confederate” sympathies. He declares that a “tainted image” of Germans (the “Dutch”) as cowardly soldiers has been held and presented by “every generation of American scholars.” He wrote his article with the intention of correcting all of these prejudiced impressions. He finds nothing whatsoever objectionable, but all highly laudatory, about the actions of the 48ers whom he calls "Internationalists. (Americans today might term those same 48ers as New World Order proponents or as COMMUNISTS or Marxists.)

Among the almost two hundred Revolutionary Germans in the Republican Union Army, whose bravery Hochbruck is determined to substantiate, are men identified as Socialists/Marxists not only by Hochbruck but also by noted “truth sayer-historians” Walter D. Kennedy and Al Benson in their book which exposes Communism’s actions under Mr. Lincoln’s scepter. [v] Although only two of Hochbruck’s valiant Germans are mentioned in Part I of the present Critique, in Part II will be found a brief look at a larger number of the socialists/communists clearly identified as such by Hochbruck . Part II also contains additional information concerning these Germans—information made available by Kennedy and Benson.

Attesting to the Communism of Union Colonel FRITZ ANNEKE, Hochbruck goes against the politically correct historians’ zeitgeist by telling the truth that ANNEKE was a member of the “Deutscher Kommunisten, Marx/Engels circle,” however, he relates this membership, not to censor, but to praise. Hochbruck elaborates: “FRITZ ANNEKE published a book under the title Der Zweite Freiheitskampf (the Second War for Liberty).” (Anneke was NOT writing about the successful American Revolution as the First War but about the failed Socialist Revolution in Europe. His “second war” was that of Mr. Lincoln’s.)

Hochbruck recognizes and admires Anneke’s personal relationship with Karl Marx. As all know, Marx and his friend Engels collaborated and produced the COMMUNIST MANIFESTO, a document which commanded many things, including the creation of public education [VI] as an ideal method of distributing their all-powerful government’s brainwash to the masses. Communists were encouraged to foment racial hatred and create a compulsory and progressive Income tax. (The U.S. had no income tax in its history until after Marx’s Manifesto.) Upon the completion of the Communist Manifesto, the group that paid for it relinquished the name of Illuminati and renamed themselves “Communists.”[VII]

Abe Lincoln made Communist Fritz Anneke a Colonel of the Wisconsin Volunteers in the Republican Union Army. Hochbruck tells us this but does not tell us that Anneke was given a court-martial and dismissed in 1863. [VIII] (Something decidedly unusual had to be involved for one of Lincoln’s favorites to receive such treatment.)
Something else Hochbruck fails to share with us is that after FRIEDRICH (Fritz) ANNEKE fled to America, he was tried in absentia in Europe and “condemned to death in ’contumacia’ for his role in leading the Baden rebellion.”[IX]

Hochbruck praises the efforts of the Marxists and informs the reader: “The fact is that these veterans of the European revolutions were an early ‘International Brigade,’ and that their effort bridges the gap between European failures and American success of the world-wide democratic project, has been all but ignored.”

Historical truth shines forth in Hochbruck’s words—perhaps for the first time for some readers. There can be no denying that Communist goals helped create a victorious Republican army. The evidence is strong that these goals were prime movers in the invasion of the South by Lincoln and in the bringing to America of vast numbers of foreigners, especially Germans, to win Mr. Lincoln’s war. No stone was left unturned in Europe by these Marxists, including the emptying of Europe’s jails and the exporting of the prisoners to serve in the Union army.( Present-day descendents have enshrined their Marxist U.S. soldier ancestors with golden memories of magnificent deeds accomplished—all for the good of America, of course.)

Hochbruck declares that in 1848 the new-to-America Germans had fought in Europe for “Union, freedom, and democracy.”(The word “Democracy” appears nowhere in the Declaration of Independence, the State Constitutions, the Articles of Confederation, or the U.S. Constitution. One can only wonder where the word became so popular. Perhaps in Germany?)

From a careful reading of the works of new, politically incorrect historians and government analysts, and of the actual words of President Jeff Davis and President Abraham Lincoln and the Corwin Amendment passed by both houses of Congress
(ratified rather rapidly by Ohio and Maryland and still on the books), it becomes evident that eliminating slavery was not the real reason Lincoln’s army invaded the South and began the war.

Lincoln contended his war was simply to hold the Union together by force, but, in reality, it was to stop the South from resisting the conversion of the United States into a Socialist State via the creation of its requisite, an all powerful central government.

The Hochbruck Ancestry article should be desired reading for anyone with an eagerness to know the real motives behind the so-called “Civil” War. It presents a view of the war seen through the eyes of a great admirer of the high ranking German Marxist-Socialist soldiers who served in the army of the United States of America. There may, however, be somewhat of a shock when the reader discovers that Hochbruck, the great admirer, declares honestly and sincerely that the “Civil War” was a welcomed continuation of the Socialist Revolution in Europe.

[I] “Prussian Confederate Veteran Receives Stone Marker and the Southern Cross of Honor,” Palmetto Partisan: The Official Journal of the South Carolina Division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, February 2009.
[II] Ibid.
[III] Ibid.
[IV] David C. Edmonds, ed., The Conduct of Federal Troops in Louisiana During the Invasions of 1863 and 1864: Official Report, 1988: (Lafayette, Louisiana, Acadiana Press), p. 40.
[V] Walter d. Kennedy and Al Benson, Jr., Red Republicans and Lincoln’s Marxists: Marxism in the Civil War (New York: iUniverse, Inc., 2007).
[VI] Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto (New York: New American Library, 1998).
[VII] William H. Mcllhany, “A Primer on the Illuminati,” New American, June 22, 2009. pp. 231-36.
[VIII] Kennedy and Benson, Ibid, p. 123.
[IX] ibid

Monday, July 25, 2011


Thousands of reenactors have descended on Manassas to recreate the first major ground battle of the War Between the States.

The authentic reproduction marks the beginning of observances of the Sesqui-Centennial of America's most devastating war. It will be followed by hundreds of events during the next four and a half years.

Still at issue is the name of the battle which is known by Union standards as the Battle of Bull Run. Confederates have always labeled it as First Manassas. This ties into the contention that still remains between the two sides. Northerners generally call the war the Civil War. Southerners call it the War Between the States.

The reenactment is taking place on land near the hallowed ground where the actual
battle took place on July 2l, 1861. The actual battle ground was acquired by the Sons of Confederate Veterans and donated to the U. S. Park Service in 1938 as a gift to the American people in honor of the soldiers of both armies that fought in the historic battle which was won by the Confederates.

The donation of 130 acres include the Henry Farm and the site of the Visitors
Center. A plaque at the visitors Center describes the donation and land transfer for thousands of visitors annually.

Included in the transfer agreement is the following: "the strictest observance of the accuracy and fairness of the markers and monuments and there will be no development or markers or inscriptions
which detract in any way from the glory due Confederate heroes."

In a special message to all members of the Sons of Confederate Veterans Commander-in-Chief Michael Givens stated "Let us on this 150th anniversary of the First Battle of Manassas observe it as a day of consecration."

Now 115 years old the Sons of Confederate Veterans continue its patriotic mission of education, philanthropy. Its 30,000 members in the United States and several other nations are dedicated to community service in the localities where their camps are located.

Sunday, July 24, 2011

Family Conflicts...and not


War is unlike any other event of humankind. There are those who try to equate politics, business, athletic competition and other endeavors to war but there is no comparison. War can bring out the absolute best in some individuals and the horrific worst in others. The expression "war is hell" best describes this most visceral of human interactions so it is not surprising that war can tear families apart and can also create unique and ever-firm bonds.

The great American epoch, the War Between the States, has sometimes been described as a conflict of brother against brother. This can be interpreted several ways. Since individuals from the several states had banded together to defeat the British in the American Revolutionary War of 1775 to 1783, it could be said, and has, that they fought as "brothers". That conflict did result in independence for the thirteen individual states that comprised the America of that time.To me, it is difficult to apply this broader interpretation of "brother" (people whose forebears had banded together to fight the British) to those individuals who fought in the War for Southern Independence from 1861 to 1865. The differences in worldview, religion, politics, origin and other areas were too great to not consider the people of the North and the people of the South as different entities.

There certainly were, though, instances where families were split by the loyalties of individual members to the Cause of either the South or the North and this did indeed result in war between family members and even brothers by blood. One of the most interesting of these family splits, to me, involves the legendary Confederate cavalry hero, General J.E.B. Stuart.

James Ewell Brown Stuart was a son of Virginia. Like many other young men from good families in the South, he entered the United States Military Academy at West Point to pursue a military career. He graduated in the Class of 1854. In the summer of 1855, while serving as a lieutenant in the U.S. Military, he was stationed at Fort Leavenworth in the Kansas Territory. It was here that he met a young lady, Flora Cooke, who stole his heart.

Although she had been born in Missouri, Flora's family had deep roots in Virginia. Her father, Colonel Philip St.George Cooke, was a military man who had a long and distinguished career in the U.S. Army. Jeb and Flora were married and the next four years were spent primarily on the frontier.

By early 1861 it was obvious that the Union was dissolving although Virginia had not yet followed the lead of other Southern states and passed an Ordinance of Secession. Jeb knew it was inevitable that his state would eventually leave the Union and wrote to several officials informing them that as soon as Virginia seceded he was casting his lot with his native state. Jeb's brother-in-law, John Rogers Cooke, made the same decision and would eventually rise to the rank of brigadier general in the Confederate Army.

The family problem, though, was that Philip St. George Cooke would not leave the U.S. Army despite the fact that he was a Virginian and his son and son-in-law had given their allegiances to the Confederacy. In addition, his nephew, John Esten Cooke, was one of the great writers of the South and a solid Confederate. This situation constantly bothered Jeb Stuart and he declared often to Flora that he had a great desire to capture her father (who, by now, had been promoted to the rank of general) and put him out of the War. Sadly, General Stuart was killed in the War before he had the opportunity to fulfill his goal.

Another interesting conflict arose in the Terrill family of Virginia when one son, James Barbour Terrill, sided with the Confederacy and another, William Terrill, decided to stay with the Union army. This resulted in their father disowning William. Both brothers achieved the rank of general in their respective armies. An interesting sidebar here is that William Terrill's mother-in-law appealed to General Winfield Scott, head of the Union army, to have William Terrill transferred out West to eliminate the possibility that he might meet his brother on the battlefield.

Another case of divided loyalties involved Confederate general Ben Hardin Helm of Kentucky and his brother-in-law, Abraham Lincoln. Yes, THAT Abraham Lincoln. Brigadier General Helm was married to Emily Todd who was the half-sister of Mary Todd Lincoln. It was reported that when General Helm was killed at Chickamauga, a moment of silence was observed at the White House and that Lincoln sent a note of condolence to the family. I have also read that a senate special committee considered bringing charges of treason against Mary Todd Lincoln because four of her family members were serving in the Confederate Army. War can certainly bring out the emotions in some people.

Brigadier General Thomas Drayton of South Carolina was the commanding officer at Fort Walker on Hilton Head Island in November 1861 when the fort was subjected to a fierce bombardment by a Union naval squadron. The U.S.S. POCHAHONTAS did much of the damage. The ship was under the command of Commander Percival Drayton, brother of General Drayton. Percival Drayton was a native South Carolinian who had strayed from his roots. I doubt that General Drayton invited his brother to a Thanksgiving dinner at his farm any time after the War.

I would also imagine that family relations were a bit strained in the Buford family of Kentucky. Abraham Buford not only chose to serve in the Confederate Army but also rose to the rank of brigadier general and spent much of his war service attached to Nathan Bedford Forrest's cavalry corps. The magnificent Forrest was unquestionably the most hated by the North of all Confederate generals. This certainly did not set well with General Buford's cousins, John Buford and N.B. Buford, who were each generals in the Union Army.

Another family feud over allegiances involved the Crittenden family of Kentucky. The family patriarch, John J. Crittenden, had been a U.S. senator, governor of Kentucky and Attorney General of the United States.He was also a close friend of Henry Clay. He proposed a compromise early in the War that he thought might stop the fighting and end the bloodshed. Not only was his compromise not adopted but his own sons could not reach a compromise. His oldest son, George, sided strongly with the Confederacy and eventually reached the rank of major general. A younger son, Thomas, would reach the rank of major general in the Union Army. Again, one has to wonder what their relationship was after the War.

While these are a few examples of split allegiances involving Southern families, the stories of Southern families supplying multiple members to wear the sacred gray are legion. There are some well-known examples that deserve mentioning which involve some of the better-known Confederate leaders.

An example that stands out is that of the Lee family of Virginia. Robert E. Lee, of course, was the greatest hero of the Confederacy and served as the commander of the Army of Northern Virginia, one of the three major elements of the Confederate Army. He was also one of only eight Confederate generals to attain the rank of full general. Two of his sons, George Washington Custis Lee and William Henry Fitzhugh "Rooney" Lee,reached the rank of major general as did his nephew, Fitzhugh "Fitz" Lee. Fitz Lee was also a nephew on his mother's side of General Samuel Cooper, the senior ranking Confederate general.

John Hunt Morgan, the legendary cavalry leader, had a family just full of Confederate generals. His fellow Kentuckian, Brigadier General Basil Duke, was married to a sister of Morgan and Lieutenant General A.P. Hill of Virginia was married to another sister. Sadly, Basil Duke was the only one of the three generals in the family to survive the War.

There were a number of sets of brothers who served as Confederate generals. Among these are Thomas and Howell Cobb of Georgia, William Wirt Adams and Daniel Weisiger Adams of Kentucky, William Henry and John Forney of Alabama and James E. and Thomas Harrison of Texas.

A loyal Southern family indeed was that of Reverend R.H. Morrison. No less than three Confederate generals - Daniel Harvey Hill, Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson and Rufus Barringer - each married one of the six pretty daughters of the Reverend.

This exercise could continue much farther but I must conclude now. I do want to mention before ending, though, that Brigadier General Joseph Robert Davis was the nephew of President Jefferson Davis. His confirmation by the Confederate Senate came only after an exhaustive discussion concerning nepotism was settled.

This article has dealt almost entirely with general officers and their family relationships (and not all the generals that could have been included). It would take volumes to detail all the familial relationships within the Confederate Army. Included within this study would have been my great, great grandfather (on my mother's side) Edmund Hooker Ogletree and his five brothers from Talladega County, Alabama. Of the six going off to war to wear the sacred gray, only four returned . This story was repeated in families throughout the South. God bless them all.

While I admire and revere those brave men who fought for independence and self-determination for the South, it always angers me to realize how many died before their time and how many Southern civilians lost everything because of Mr. Lincoln's War. This is why I believe, and always will, that Abe Lincoln is the worst war criminal ever produced in this country. It's painfully obvious that he never read the opening paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. The reprobate would just not allow the Southern States to live in peace. How sad.


Note: All the articles from the early years of CONFEDERATE JOURNAL are now available in book form. These can be ordered online. To order Volume 1 (2005-2007)go to and to order Volume 2 (2008-2009) go to

Bob Hurst is a Southern Patriot who has a strong interest in Southern history and the antebellum architecture of the Old South. He is Commander of Col. David Lang Camp, Sons of Confederate Veterans, in Tallahassee and 2nd Lieutenant Commander of the Florida Division, SCV. He can be contacted at or 850-878-7010.

Wednesday, July 20, 2011

Heritage Defense - A New View

For many years heritage defense was understood to be a reactionary activity where Southern patriots, through the Sons of Confederate Veterans engaged lawyers to file law suits to battle for issues and beliefs under attack by our political and philosophical enemies, or by those without an understanding of Southern heritage, symbols and history. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars have been spent to battle in an arena unfriendly to the Cause of the South.

Through the focus of our efforts into the Court room, the membership has been removed from most of the other avenues of political discourse used in this nation. By allowing our concerns to be corralled in the Court House, we have been silenced at the table of public opinion, and we have been distracted from other activities which would establish our flag in communities across the South. Each time we move the debate into the Courtroom we move to an environment unfriendly to our Cause, we expend precious resources in an arena where we have seen little success.

I would like to offer the idea of an expanded view of heritage defense. It is not a view which centers on our reaction to attacks, but includes a positive view of all we do to educate our friends and neighbors about who we (the South) are. Heritage defense is about vindicating the Cause. We do that with every breath, every beat of our hearts.

In my view, the greatest vindication of the Cause are the members of this Texas Division. The great blessing of being a state officer is travelling around the state and meeting all the truly magnificent men who are members of this organization. The hearts are pure, the motives selfless, the pure joy of sharing southern greatness literally blazes in the eyes and smiles of so many of our men. And Christ is with us, there every step of the way. Life is worth living when you embrace all that is Southern.

Reenactments, living history, visiting classrooms all of these activities are good, wholesome, effective ways to reach out to the general public to tell our story. And these activities are being supplemented with programs like Flags Across Texas, and the great memorial Commander Granvel Block is constructing down on Interstate Ten will be a real testament to our heritage, and to the present day Sons of Confederate Veterans. I believe Granvel’s work is the most important project we are currently involved in. Granvel’s efforts will exist for decades, if not centuries, and be a daily reminder to tens of thousands of travellers of the nation that was the Confederate States of America.

In the past, these type activities have been seen more as heritage promotion than heritage defense. But in my view, activities like these sustain our presence in the public mind, spread the word and introduce the idea of the Southern Cause.

Our involvements in major and minor parades around the state are also important heritage activities. The men who keep us in the bigger parades in the Dallas – Ft. Worth area, Houston and San Antonio are keeping us in the eyes of the public. Tens of thousands of people see us in these parades are reminded of Southern pride and our regional identity. In the smaller towns, our involvement in parades keeps our neighbors and friends aware of our continued commitment to the Cause.

I would like to suggest there are other heritage defense operations which need to be engaged in. These operations are more aggressive, more dependent on an advanced knowledge of our ante bellum and political history, and more reliant on funds.

As I have visited camps around Texas I have discovered two things. First, that our camps are filled with dedicated, talented men. Many of the camps have talented communicators, both speakers and writers. And second, that in the hugeness of the Texas, local towns and communities each have their own history, heroes, and stories. These unique heritage aspects need to be developed and written into stories. To defend our heritage people must know what our heritage is. Not just the big issue, big question stories, but the local heritage.

I propose camps should work to research their local areas. Try to find the militia and company rosters. If you have them, try to get local newspapers to publish those rosters. Maybe write a brief story of the unit’s history, but the key is getting the roster published. I believe once the roster is published locals will look to see if their family was involved. This could lead recruiting opportunities. Recently a few senior officers in the Texas Division attempted to estimate how many Confederate descendants there are. I thought there might 10 to 30 million. But it seems, I may be wrong, by a lot. One conservative estimate was 80 million! As many as 80 million Americans living today are of Confederate blood. I doubt many Americans realize that more than 25% of today’s population is of Southern blood.

But back to heritage defense. Write down the histories of your local area. If enough of the 80 camps did that, we might be able to produce a unique Texas history, and publish it as Division book! We are presently working on publishing The Road to Secession which will hopefully generate revenues for the division.

And on a totally separate path, we need to become active in the world of governance in the state of Texas. Our Constitution prohibits us from becoming involved in the election of officers of the state and local governments. That is not an unusual restraint on a not-for-profit organization. However, our Constitution does not prohibit us from contacting local and state officials to lobby for decisions in our favor. In fact, we already do that to some extent. We communicate with the Land Office and Historical Commission. We even have a Legislative Day in Austin where we are encouraged to spend money to travel to Austin to walk the halls.

What we have not done is work as individuals, camps, brigades and as a division to organize politically to influence the decisions of the government. This is an absolutely legal and proper activity. The means of doing this can be as simple as writing letters to your elected state senator and representative, to contacting state departments and County Court Houses about issues, to organizing rallies and working to our needs and wants to the general public.

Gentlemen, I do not promise that if we do conduct the type of activities I outlined above the state of Texas would immediately change it deals with the Sons of Confederate Veterans. But I can promise that it is our complete impotence with respect to how America government works that has led to the present situation where the Sons of Confederate Veterans is treated no better than a nuisance. Recently I wrote an article which discussed the potential size of the number of Confederate descendants nationally. That figure was conservatively estimated at somewhere between 50 and 80 million citizens. Using the same formula, with respect to Texas, (and assuming 30,000 veterans) the number of possible descendants would be well over ten million! That’s a lot of folks.

A strong civic minded effort could also reap recruiting results as people learned more about our organization through our efforts to encourage their own citizen participation in government.

Lastly, each meeting we stand and recommit ourselves to vindicate the Cause of our ancestors. Civic participation is at the very core of the Cause.

I look forward to hearing the views of the general membership, camp and brigade leadership concerning this view of heritage defense. One thing is certain, our past strategies have failed. Reliance on the Court has proven to be an expensive folly.

I wish for each compatriot a great summer, filled with the memories of family. I am, I remain available to camps or brigades to make presentations at camps, or to participate in meetings. I enjoy so much being with you all.

Your Obedient Servant,

Mark Vogl, Lt. Commander
Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans

Monday, July 11, 2011

Revisionist History? Or Correcting History?

"It has been truthfully said that "history as written, if accepted in future years, will consign the South to infamy;" and only by refusing to acquiesce in it as it is written can we possibly prevent future generations from so accepting it. By keeping these politically dead issues alive as questions of history, freely discussing them, and reiterating the truth in regard to them, we may possibly counteract to some extent the effect of the misrepresentations found in history as it is now written, add something to the luster of the page that records the deeds of the men and women of the South, and hand their story down to posterity so that their children’s children will think and speak of them with pride rather than shame.”

From the forward of the book “The Men In Gray” by Robert Catlett Cave, Copyright 1911

In preparing the committee report I have felt at liberty to use any or all of the individual papers. The committee appointed by the general citizens' and soldiers' meeting, held in Richmond, October 17, 1897, made a second report confirming and explaining the report of 1898. That also is herewith submitted. One member of that committee, Mr. John P. McGuire, made a special report on the whole subject which has been incorporated in this paper.

It was supposed some eighteen months ago that the History Committee of the Grand Camp of Virginia, successful in the efforts of that period, had finished its labors and had no further cause for action or reason for existence. We imagined that books, hostile to the truth and dishonoring to the dead and living of the South, had been driven from our State, and that with them would go opinions derived from them and of like effect, and therefore debasing to those who held them.

The actual situation is such that we consider it wise to begin, this report with a brief description of our position at home and of the forces arrayed against us. It should serve to guide and concentrate our own action. It ought to secure the vigorous cooperation of all the Confederate camps in the South.

We were in error in supposing our work done. We are not altogether rid of false teachings, whatever may be said of the purposes of our teachers. Because of newly aroused thought, the opinions alluded to are less prevalent than they were; but they are still heard from young men who, during the last thirty years, have been misled as to the characteristics of our people and the causes of the "war between the sections," from some who, "looking to the future," as they phrase it, foolishly ignore the lessons of the past, and from others who, thinking themselves impoverished by the war and being greedy of gain, have neither thought nor care for anything nobler. There are a few 'older men who think that the abandonment of all the principles and convictions of the past is necessary to prove their loyalty to the present. There are some who dare to tell us that "the old days are gone by and are not to be remembered;" that "it is a weakness to recall them with tender emotions." To these we reply: "Put off the shoes from off your feet, for the place whereon you stand is holy ground." Young or old, these men are few, but they are ours, and their children inherit their errors.

From Hunter Holmes McGuire 1835-1900, surgeon to Thomas Jonathan “Stonewall” Jackson, published in the original Confederate Veterans magazine.

As shown from the two excerpts above, many of the better learned men of the South who cast their lot with the olde Confederacy, who believed in the Constitutional validity, the honour and morality of their cause, were already seriously concerned about how future generations would be taught about the history of the War Between The States, as false histories had already been printed and were being taught throughout the country, but especially in the South. And as has been witnessed for many years, yankee columnists, editors, and letter writers continue to cast the South and its leaders as villains of the worst sort. Don’t they know the war is over? Yet when patriotic Southerners enter the debate and rise to defend their ancestors from unprovoked attacks, it is us who are accused of still fighting the war.

Worse, is when someone claims to be a Southerner whose ancestor fought the yankee invader and declares their ancestor to be a traitor, a villain. Such was the fear of the great Jefferson Davis when he wrote and said, "Nothing fills me with deeper sadness than to see a Southern man apologizing for the defence we made of our inheritance & denying the great truths on which all our institutions were founded. To be crushed by superior force, to be robbed & insulted, were great misfortunes, but these could be borne while there still remained manhood to assert the truth, and a proud consciousness in the rectitude of our course. When I find myself reviled by Southern papers as one renewing 'dead issues,' the pain is not caused by the attack upon myself, but by its desecration of the memories of our Fathers & those of their descendants who staked in defence of their rights -- their lives, their property & their sacred honor. To deny the justice of their cause, to apologize for its defence, and denounce it as a dead issue, is to take the last of their stakes, that for which they were willing to surrender the other."

And so it goes 150 years after secession filled the people of the South with hope of a future without the heavy hand of the overbearing hand of the federal behemoth that exists today. The yankee still hurls insults to the South and is affronted when we defend and fire back.

Written by Jimmy L. Shirley Jr.
SCV Camp 1599
James Patton Anderson
West Palm Beach, Fla.
7 February 2011

Monday, July 04, 2011

Another History-Challenged, Forgettable, Deep-North Leftist

A contributor and friend of Chronicles asked my opinion about a recent statement by Michelle Bachmann that the American Framers had "worked tirelessly" to get rid of slavery. I don't know the occasion for the statement or what possible relevance it can have to a 21st century presidential campaign. Here is my quick and irritated reply, which the distinguished editor of Chronicles thought might be shared with other friends. Bachmann is apparently one of the half-dozen forgettable Deep North leftists who are being promoted by the press and the Republican establishment as presidential front-runners. In Bachmann's case, very obviously a neocon spoiler impersonating a Tea Partier. No need to be too hard on the neocons here, because she is merely spouting an imaginary version of American history that has been Republican boilerplate for a century and a half.

That the Framers "worked tirelessly" to end slavery is a total fiction, though one promoted by Lincoln and devoutly cherished by Yankees ever since. Part of the vast lie that governs American history and justifies the brutal war of conquest of 1861-1876. At the time of the Revolution slavery was legal in every State and the only voices against it were Quakers. The Declaration complains that the King has encouraged servile insurrection. Nearly ALL of the members of the Philadelphia Convention, including the Northern ones, were slaveholders.

Here the mystification of the Founding Fathers takes over. It is somehow assumed that the writers of the Constitution were divinely inspired lawgivers who wanted to abolish slavery but somehow did not quite get around to it. It is absurd to think that they wanted to abolish slavery and even more absurd, ludicrously so, that they had the power to do so. They were merely drafting a proposal for approval of the States. No proposal abolishing slavery could possibly have been made (Northerners were still financially invested in it) and certainly not approved.

The Constitution explicitly recognises, indeed takes for granted, the legal existence of slaves in a number of different ways and obligates all the States to return fugitives. Neither Jefferson or Adams were at the Convention but in discussing the Constitution Adams remarked to Jefferson that there was no real difference between the slaves and the lowest class of workers in the North. Slavery disappeared only gradually in the North (for practical rather than moral reasons) and it generally meant the disappearance of black people as well, who were never before, during, or after the Civil War accepted as equals in the North, but as an undesirable population.

Lincoln's platform in 1860 objects only to slavery in the federal territories (future States) which are to be the homes of white people only, and he makes a few pious declarations (the nation cannot endure half slave and half free -- a lie; and slavery should be put on the road to extinction. How? Certainly not by barring its extension which merely bottles it up and hardens it. Northerners were united on one thing---they wanted no black people near them. How then, can they be against slavery?

It is true, and here is their flimsy basis, that a number of Founders and leaders of the next generation, notably Jefferson, spoke of slavery as an evil and a problem -- primarily because it was bad economics and meant an undesirable black population. Even so, this antislavery sentiment was by no means pervasive in the North or South. Nobody, including Lincoln, knew what to do about such an immense problem.

Lincoln's opinion was the same as Jefferson's, if the slaves were set free they could not remain in American society where they had no place as free people. They must be deported. Most Southerners favoured the Northwest Ordinance barring slavery from that territory -- for the good reason that the foreign slave trade was still open, meaning more importations. That was territory. When States came into being there, they could decide for themselves. Indeed, Illinois quite seriously considered legalising slaves at one point.

There is absolutely nothing in the Founding Fathers antislavery sentiment that approves of the kind of fanatical abolitionism that became a Northern movement in the 1830s. It was something entirely new and disfavoured severely by all conservative Northerners. It demanded immediate emancipation without any practical thought whatsoever and it was fueled more by hatred of the South than by benevolence for the blacks.

Lincoln is basing his abolition attribution to the Founding Fathers on the Northwest Ordinance, which implied a restriction of the extension of slavery. But the Union continued to admit slave State after slave State. The treaty acquiring the Louisiana Purchase guaranteed the French inhabitants their slave property.

Yes, Jefferson and most Southerners approved the Northwest Ordinance of 1785, adopted before the Constitution. However, look at what happened when the Yankees tried to bar the admission of Missouri as a slave State (Further importation of blacks was illegal from 1808).

Both Jefferson and Madison reacted bitterly to this effort of the North to interfere with a sovereign State or set such conditions for admission, interfering with the will of a sovereign people. Further, they denounced the Missouri restriction repeatedly to all their correspondents as a cynical trick to increase Northern political power. And as Jefferson pointed out, the Yankee efforts did not free a single slave---they only affected where the slaves were located.

It was here that Jefferson made his famous remark about a fire-bell in the night which marked the destruction of the Union. The firebell was not slavery---it was the fact that the Yankees had created a fatal geographic division.

For your sake I have violated a longstanding policy of mine. Long ago I decided not to bother to reply to the endless attacks and lies of the Enemy on his own time and place. Rather, we should devote our finite selves to positive teaching of the truth to our own people. As I believe Robert L. Dabney pointed out---Yankees are a race that thrives on delusions.

Clyde Wilson
Please LIKE my
Freedom Watch
Facebook page
share it with friends

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