 |
 |
|
Heritage Defense of the CSA Our Southern Heritage is under constant attack nowadays! Here are some letters, essays information and opinions that will help in the verbal defense of The Cause. Former U.S. president Theodore Roosevelt stated " Those Who Will Not Fight For The Graves Of Their Ancestors Are Beyond Redemption". |
|
The one common denominator that all individuals who berate, disparage, and
condemn the Old South and the Confederacy exhibit is ignorance. Slavery is
the issue they concentrate and dwell upon. However, such ignorance is
understandable because American history books written by biased Northern
professors have not presented Southern and Confederate history in a fair
and impartial manner. However, such individuals usually exhibit extreme
hardheadedness and resistance to facts, data, and information that
challenges their opinions which are based on feelings, emotions and biased
history. One Man's Reply 'Stars and Bars' still used as racist emblem Rather than being so Cockey-sure of himself, our Mr. Bill needs to get off his Duff and check his facts. The only Confederate Flag I have ever seen used to jeer at people is the Confederate Battle Flag (the one with the red field and the big starry blue X outlined in white). That Flag is sometimes called "The Southern Cross" or "St. Andrew's Cross." "The Stars and Bars" is the nickname of the first National Flag of the Confederate States of America. It had three wide horizontal bars of red-white-red and a blue canton with stars in a circle. (The latest Georgia flag is the Stars and Bars with the Georgia seal added in gold.) RACISM: The assumption that psychocultural traits and capacities are determined by biological race and that races differ decisively from one another which is usually coupled with a belief in the inherent superiority of a particular race and its right to domination over others [from Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of the English Language Unabridged (Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc.; 1981)] Many people believe that the Confederate Battle Flag is a symbol of racism because some groups -- such as the Ku Kluxers and the American Nazi Party -- that make no bones about their belief in the inherent superiority of the Caucasian race and its right to domination over others display that Flag. Such groups also sometimes display the United States Flag. Moreover, other people display the Confederate Battle Flag for other, benign reasons. A flag, or any other symbol, has only such meaning as is assigned to it by those who use it. The Confederate States of America never advocated as a national policy anything resembling a belief in the inherent superiority of a particular race and its right to domination over others. That nation spent its entire four year existence battling for its survival. Moreover, several different ethnic groups contributed to its struggle for survival. While Confederate Flags were not used during the existence of the Confederate States of America to carry out actions designed to further a belief in the inherent superiority of a particular race and its right to domination over others, other flags have been so utilized over the years: The one best example of a flag under which one race asserted its superiority and its right to dominate others is the flag of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, a/k/a the Union Jack. Under this flag, the aboriginal peoples of the Americas, Australia, various islands, and large parts of Africa and Greater Asia were subjugated. Many slaves, African and otherwise, were transported by ships flying this flag or a variation thereof. Under the tricolor of France, various islands and large parts of Africa were “colonized.” Under the flags of India, Mexico, and Turkey, ethnic minorities within those countries’ borders were hunted down and killed. Under the flag of the United States of America, a/k/a Old Glory, various leaders waged aggressive wars of conquest against various nations and peoples during the 1800s. Military commanders under this flag repeatedly encouraged murder, rapine, plunder, and other atrocities against those they attacked. Vast numbers of slaves were transported under this flag (most of them to the West Indies and South America). The aboriginal peoples of no continent or island were subjugated under a Confederate flag. No ethnic group was ever hunted down and killed under a Confederate flag’s authority. No slave ship ever sailed under a Confederate flag. No Confederate flag ever oversaw any attempt at colonization. No aggressive war of conquest was ever prosecuted under a Confederate flag. No military commander serving under a Confederate flag ever encouraged atrocities against the enemy. …so how can Confederate flags honestly be called symbols of racism? Mr. Duff has not shown that the people who objected to his choice of home-buyers believed that their race was superior and had the right to rule over others, so he has no grounds to accuse them of racism. All he has shown is that they prefer their own culture to another culture, much as a New Englander might prefer a clambake to an Oktoberfest, or a Texan might prefer a barbecue to an opera. The quality of preferring one’s own culture to another is ETHNOCENTRISM. Mr. Duff goes on to state that the neighbors who agreed with his decision “placed real American (Stars and Stripes) flags around their properties” – thus implying, if not blatantly stating, that the Confederate Battle Flag is neither real nor American. Unless Mr. Duff maintains that the Confederate Battle Flag is imaginary (which statement would be, to say the least, difficult to support), it follows that that Flag is real. As for its not being American, unless Mr. Duff wishes to go on record as stating that the nation whose army used that Flag was located in Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, or Antarctica, or on the isles of the sea (another difficult-to-support statement), it follows that the Flag in question is undoubtedly American. As for the thirteen-stripe Flag’s being “well-understood to stand for liberty and justice for all”: • Take a look at http://pointsouth.com/csanet/kkk.htm. See all of the thirteen-stripe Flags? See who is using them? Do those people’s actions show liberty and justice for all? • Consider the people of Georgia – killed and robbed and raped by soldiers serving under the thirteen-stripe Flag. Did that Flag mean liberty and justice for the people of Georgia? • Consider the Native Americans – forcibly divested of their lands, killed off, and starved into submission by soldiers serving under the thirteen-stripe Flag. Did that Flag mean liberty and justice for the Native Americans? Is it not clear that the thirteen-stripe Flag’s government made it clear that their race (Caucasian) was superior and had the right to rule over the Native Americans – the very definition of “racism?” • Consider many of the prominent men of Maryland in the 1860s – thrown into the dungeon upon the sole whim of the President of the nation flying the thirteen-stripe Flag. Did that Flag mean liberty and justice for those Sons of the Old Line? • Consider the Nisei and Sansei (native-born United States citizens whose parents and grandparents had been born in Japan) in World War II – how they were forcibly removed from their homes and sent to concentration camps where they were crowded into tar-paper shacks. Did that Flag mean liberty and justice for the Nisei and Sansei? • Consider that, until 1948, the military forces of the thirteen-stripe Flag’s nation were segregated by race – while forces serving under the Confederate Battle Flag were composed of a mélange of Caucasians, Negroes, Hispanics, Native Americans, and even some Asians. Remember: No Confederate body -- military or civil -- ever committed atrocities upon enemy noncombatants, or forcibly removed anyone from his homeland based on his ethnicity, or dungenoned anyone for his political beliefs. If anyone can show how the thirteen-stripe Flag which oversaw all of the above unkindnesses symbolizes liberty and justice for all, while the Confederate Battle Flag, which oversaw none of the kind, symbolizes evil, I ask to be instructed at CliftonPalmerMcLendon@yahoo.com. Puttin’ the Skeer on ‘Em!
............................................................
"Brief History of the Ku Klux Klan, Focusing on Their Use of the Flag"
.............................................................
(Kindness of Billy. I am a KA, but national headquarters has now turned
politically correct which is a far cry from when my brother pledges and I
defended the Battle Flag hoisted on a telephone pole in our house's
backyard 24/7 from pledges of other fraternities during Hell Week. BT)
................................................................. Equal Status for Confederate Veterans Confederate veterans were afforded status equal to that of United
States
The Civil War produced at least two important outcomes. First, although it was not President Lincoln's intent, it freed slaves in the Confederate States. Second, it settled, through the force of arms, the question of whether states could secede from the Union. The causes of and the issues surrounding America's most costly war, in terms of battlefield casualties, are still controversial. Even its name the - Civil War - is in dispute, and plausibly so. A civil war is a struggle between two or more factions seeking to control the central government. Modern examples of civil wars are the conflicts we see in Lebanon, Liberia and Angola. In 1861, Jefferson Davis, the President of the Confederate States, no more wanted to take over Washington, D.C. than George Washington wanted to take over London in 1776. George Washington and the Continental Congress were fighting for independence from Great Britain. Similarly, the Confederate States were fighting for independence from the Union. Whether one's sentiments lie with the Confederacy or with the Union, a more accurate characterization of the war is that it was a war for southern independence; a frequently heard southern reference is that it was the War of Northern Aggression. History books most often say the war was fought to free the slaves. But that idea is brought into serious question considering what Abraham Lincoln had to say in his typical speeches: "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Slavery makes for great moral cause celebre for the War Between the States but the real causes had more to do with problems similar to those the nation faces today - a federal government that has escaped the limits the Framers of the Constitution envisioned. South Carolina Senator John C Calhoun expressed that concern in his famous Fort Hill Address July 26, 1831, at a time when he was Andrew Jackson's vice-president. Calhoun said, "Stripped of all its covering, the naked question is, whether ours is a federal or consolidated government; a constitutional or absolute one; a government resting solidly on the basis of the sovereignty of the States, or on the unrestrained will of a majority; a form of government, as in all other unlimited ones, in which injustice, violence, and force must ultimately prevail." Calhoun's fear, as well as that of Thomas Jefferson, was Washington's usurpation of powers constitutionally held by the people and the states, typically referred to as consolidation in their day. A significant bone of contention were tariffs enacted to protect northern manufacturing interests. Referring to those tariffs, Calhoun said, "The North has adopted a system of revenue and disbursements, in which an undue proportion of the burden of taxation has been imposed on the South, and an undue proportion of its proceeds appropriated to the North." The fact of the matter was that the South exported a large percentage of its output, mainly agricultural products; therefore, import duties on foreign products extracted far more from the South than the North. Southerners complained of having to pay either high prices for northern-made goods or high tariffs on foreign-made goods. They complained about federal laws not that dissimilar to Navigation Acts that angered the Founders and contributed to the 1776 war for independence. Speaking before the Georgia legislature, in November 1860, Senator Robert Toombs said, ". . . They [Northern interests] demanded a monopoly of the business of shipbuilding, and got a prohibition against the sale of foreign ships to the citizens of the United States. . . . They demanded a monopoly of the coasting trade, in order to get higher freight prices than they could get in open competition with the carriers of the world. . . . And now, today, if a foreign vessel in Savannah offer [sic] to take your rice, cotton, grain or lumber to New York, or any other American port, for nothing, your laws prohibit it, in order that Northern ship-owners may get enhanced prices for doing your carrying." A precursor for the War Between the States came in 1832. South Carolina called a convention to nullify new tariff acts of 1828 and 1832 they referred to as "the tariffs of abomination." The duties were multiples of previous duties and the convention declared them unconstitutional and authorized the governor to resist federal government efforts to enforce and collect them. After reaching the brink of armed conflict with Washington, a settlement calling for a stepped reduction in tariffs was reached - called the Great Compromise of 1833. South Carolinians believed there was precedence for the nullification of unconstitutional federal laws. Both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison suggested the doctrine in 1798. The nullification doctrine was used to nullify federal laws in Georgia, Alabama, Pennsylvania and New England States. The reasoning was that the federal government was created by, and hence the agent of, the states. When Congress enacted the Morrill Act (1861), raising tariffs to unprecedented levels, the South Carolina convention unanimously adopted and Ordinance of Secession declaring "We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused for years past to fulfill their constitutional obligations. . . . Thus the constitutional compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the nonslaveholding States; and the consequence follows is that South Carolina is released from her obligation. . . ." Continuing, the Ordinance declared, "We, therefore the people of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America is dissolved and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State, with the full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce and to do other things which independent States may of right do." Next year war started when South Carolinians fired on Fort Sumter, an island in the harbor of Charleston, South Carolina. The principle-agent relationship between the states and federal government was not an idea invented by South Carolina in 1861; it was a relation taken for granted. At Virginia's convention to ratify the U.S. Constitution, the delegates said, "We delegates of the people of Virginia, . . . do in the name and on the behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known, that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the people of the United States, may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them, and at their will. That therefore no right, of any denomination, can be canceled, abridged, restrained or modified by the Congress, by the Senate, or House of Representatives, acting in any capacity, by the President, or any department or officer of the United States, except in those instances where power is given by the Constitution for those purposes." The clear and key message was: the powers granted the federal government, by the people of Virginia, "may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression" and every power not granted to the federal government by the Constitution resides with the people of Virginia. The people of Virginia, through their delegates, set up a contractual agreement, along with the several sovereign states (emerging out of the 1783 Treaty of Paris ending the war with Great Britain), created the federal government as their agent. They enumerated the powers their agent shall have. When the federal government violates their grant of power, then the people of Virginia have the right to take back the power they granted the federal government, in other words, fire their agent. The War Between the States, having settled the issue of secession, means the federal government can do anything it wishes and the states have little or no recourse. A derelict U.S. Supreme Court refuses to do its duty of interpreting both the letter and spirit of the Constitution. That has translated into the 70,000 federal regulations and mandates that controls the lives of our citizens. It also translates into interpretation of the "commerce" and "welfare" clauses of our Constitution in ways the Framers could not have possibly envisioned. Today, it is difficult to think of one elected official with the statesman foresight of a Jefferson, Madison or Calhoun who can articulate the dangers to liberty presented by a run amuck federal government. Because of that, prospects for liberty appear dim. The supreme tragedy is that if liberty dies in America it is destined to die everywhere. Walter E. Williams ........................................... 1. That Confederate soldiers fought for states rights guaranteed under the Constitution. 2. That the people of the South seceded in order to preserve their rights. 3. That the North (i.e., the
4. That the South fought against overwhelming odds. ............................................ Secession was NOT "treason!
"If you bring these leaders to trial, it will condemn the North, for by
the Constitution, secession is not a rebellion. His [Jefferson Davis]
capture was a mistake. His trial will be a greater one. We cannot
convict him of treason."
-- Salmon P. Chase, Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, 1867
.......................................
Which Side Was Right? Some Simple Questions
Q: Which side sought peaceful relations based on
peaceful coexistence and a mutual respect for the other's sovereignty?
Q: Which side sent out peace feelers and expressed
a desire for peace even when it was winning on the battlefield? Q: Which side wanted to make the other side its
largest trading partner? Q: Which side refused to even discuss peaceful
separation, peaceful coexistence, diplomatic recognition, and good trade
relations? Q: Which side was willing to let the other live
under a government of its own choosing and merely wanted the freedom to
do the same? Q. Which side sent an invasion force into the
other's territory? Q: Which side refused to sell the other medicine,
even though the medicine was to be used for the other side's POWs? Q: Which side deliberately allowed thousands of
the other side's POWs to freeze and/or starve to death, even though it
had ample supplies to keep the POWs alive? Q: Which side had to imprison over 20,000 to
30,000 of its own citizens, shut down two of its state legislatures,
suspend habeas corpus by executive order, shut down over 300 newspapers,
imprison dozens of newspaper editors, and expel members of its own House
and Senate in order to suppress domestic opposition to its war
policies? Q: Which side resorted to large-scale warfare on
the other side's civilian population and by this warfare killed some
50,000 of the other side's civilians? Q: Which side tried to assassinate the other
side's president and cabinet? .................................. "No other war (Civil War) started so many controversies
and for no other do they flourish so vigorously. Every step in
the conflict, every major political decision, every campaign, almost
every battle, has its own proud set of controversies, and of all the
military figures only Lee stands above argument and debate.
Recent years, however, have seen a new kind of nastiness emerge in
these disputes. Even the venerable Robert E. Lee has taken
some vicious hits, as dishonest or misinformed advocates among political
interest groups and in academia attempt to twist yesterday's America into
a fantasy that might better serve the political issues of today.
The greatest disservice on this count has been the attempt by these
revisionist politicians and academics to defame the entire
Confederate Army in a move that can only be termed the Nazification
of the Confederacy. Often cloaked in the argument over the
public display of the Confederate battle flag, the syllogism goes
something like this: Compatriots and Brothers in the Cause:
The South Under Siege 1830-2000
-
http://collards.
.........................................
For many years now I have questioned the antics of modern-day civil
rights groups who have fulfilled their stated purpose & mission of winning
civil rights for their people. They won the same rights as every other
American with the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Mission
accomplished and mission completed or so one would have thought.
Coming off this fresh victory & up until the present day these groups
keep making phrases like, "the dream is not finished," & "we still
have along way to go!" A long way to go to reach what? Why doesn't Senator Clinton call for the banning of the New York state flag, which features two slave ships in the center? The state seal, which is the state flag, was adopted in 1798 when New Yorkers were making money hand over first importing slaves into both New York City and The South. In 1798 New York City was the second largest destination for importation of slaves, second only to Charleston, S.C. Senator Clinton should read up on her history before condemning The South. ............................................... Don't blame the South for Abe Lincoln's war I have four comments concerning Daniel Augustine's letter to the editor ["Let's not misrepresent Abraham Lincoln, OK?" Feb. 20]. First of all, there was not an insurrection in the South. The Southern states simply seceded and wished to be left alone, as Jefferson Davis so eloquently stated. Second, Lincoln's armies did indeed "lay waste to our land," as the burned houses and barns throughout the Shenandoah Valley well attested. On top of that, approximately 50,000 Southern civilians of all colors died because of this invasion. Next, his statement that the Civil War was fought over slavery is best rebutted by the following two quotes from Dickens and Marx. "The Northern onslaught upon slavery was no more than a piece of specious humbug designed to conceal its desire for economic control of the Southern states."--Charles Dickens. "The war between the North and the South is a tariff war. The war is further not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery, and in fact turns on the Northern lust for sovereignty."--Karl Marx Finally, although the South did fire first, this was cleverly induced by Lincoln, as this quote will show. "You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result."--Lincoln, in a letter to Gustavus Fox on May 1, 1861. Brock Townsend ................................................ An Understanding of Southern Men Sen. Hoar of Massachusetts, speaking of the South on the
floor of the U. S . Senate on the 23rd of February, 1889. Sen. Hoar
did not understand the South and its problems before, during and after
Reconstruction, nor was he unbiased toward the South, but he sure did have a
good understanding of Southern men. .......................................... ............................................................................. Defending The Flag
The flag that we
know as the Confederate Battle Flag was used by many (but by no means all)
Confederate military units during the War for Southern Independence
(1861-1865). It was their flag, and they alone had the right to interpret
its meaning.
Anyone who attempts to impart false meanings of the
Confederate Battle Flag is therefore out of order.
I
LIKE THE CONFEDERATE FLAG AND EQUALITY OF THE RACES
....................................................................................................
It's important to study nation's history
April is Confederate History month. Before the pall of political correctness descended on the country and drained politicians of what little courage they had, Southern governors routinely proclaimed the month. These days, I suspect few will. Nevertheless, there are only two really important events in American history. One is the American Revolution, and the other is the War Between the States and Reconstruction. The latter has been called America's second revolution and, by some, America's French Revolution. Sad to say, the America we live in today comes from that second revolution, not the first. Contrary to the politically correct version of history, Confederates saw themselves as defenders of the first revolution, not as defenders of slavery - though, to be sure, slavery played a part in the conflict. It came to symbolize all the other differences. It was not a civil war because the South never aspired to overthrow the government of the United States. The Southern states simply withdrew peacefully from what they believed, and in earlier years all Americans believed, was a voluntary union. The U.S. remained and the government in Washington remained. No Confederate official or military officer was ever tried for treason because no treason had been committed. The war was a conflict between nationalism and federalism. Regardless of which side you agree with, the events are so important to understanding America today you owe it to yourself to get up to speed on what really happened, as opposed to the Hollywood version. I've chosen four short books that will help. The best short overall history of the politics and the war is "North Against South," by Ludwell H. Johnson, published by the Foundation for American Education. A more recent book, "The Real Lincoln," by Thomas 1. DiLorenzo, published by Prima Publishing, is a devastating critique of the man who literally destroyed constitutional government in America and foreshadowed the modem Machiavellian politicians. "When in the Course of Human Events," by Charles Adams, a Northern historian, will disavow you of the notion the war was about freeing slaves and preserving the union. It was about money and control of territory and resources. The publisher is Rowman and Littlefield. Finally, Eric Foner's "A Short History of Reconstruction" will show you how the modem world and many of its problems were created. The publisher is Harper Perennial, and the author is no friend of the South, but he is honest and keeps to the facts, no matter how unflattering to any side of the issue. Naturally, there are tons of books on the war and Reconstruction, but I deliberately chose well-written short histories. If you wish to read Shelby Foote's novelized history in three volumes, you will need a long summer. You would need another long summer to read "The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government," by Jefferson Davis. I think you will like these shorter volumes better. I also would recommend you consider, if your ancestors fought in either army, two fine organizations, Sons of Confederate Veterans and Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War. Both are full of people interested in history and genealogy and I find such people to be mighty good company. Real veterans of the two armies founded both organizations. Through these organizations you can find re-enactors, who are people who replicate the equipment and uniforms of the two armies and replay the battles. The Web addresses are SUVCW.org and SCV.org. I would hope all Americans would develop an interest in our country's history. The more you know about America, warts and all, the more you will love it. ............................................................
America IS a Christian Nation!
“Our laws and institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of The Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise, and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian… This is a religious people. This is historically true.” -The Supreme Court Decision 1892 -Church of the Holy Trinity vs. The United States.
Is
America
a Christian nation? Posted: September 17,
2007
Is America a Christian nation? Did our country's Founders build a nation upon the bedrock of Christian belief and practice? Or was their republic irreligious or a secular state, embedded within a dominantly deistic worldview? The coup de grace of secular evidence? For those who find our country's Christian origins both implausible and untenable, the greatest alleged witness and support they cite is Amendment XI in the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, in which we find the words, "?the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion?" But do those words prove what they so plainly are quoted to proclaim? In my last article, I shared how we can learn a "200-year-old lesson on 9/11" from the treaties with Tripoli and the other Barbary Powers. However, we can also learn something about the Islamic worldview of our nation and Christianity, then and now. The religious context of the treaty of Tripoli To properly understand the alleged rejection clause of America's Christian foundation in Amendment XI, one must understand the historical, diplomatic and religious contexts in which the treaty was given. The former two I already addressed in last article ? now I will discuss the religious one. One of the errors of the Barbary States was that they considered America a Christian nation in the lineage of its European predecessors. The way they understood Christianity was through the lens of the Crusades, and so perceived any Christian country as a militant threat to their existence. So prevalent was this warlike view of Christianity that, in his April 8, 1805 journal entry, even Gen. William Eaton said of Muslim radicals, "We find it almost impossible to inspire these wild bigots with confidence in us or to persuade them that, being Christians, we can be otherwise than enemies to [Muslims]. We have a difficult undertaking!" With that grave Islamic misunderstanding of Christianity, how would and should a Christian nation's delegates answer the question, "Are you a Christian nation?" If you answer "yes," you are quickly categorized into a Crusade-form of Christianity and an enemy. If you answer "no," then you appear to be denying the basis upon which you were founded. Add to the mix that you are negotiating in a time of war, have very limited naval resources, are in recovery from another (Revolutionary) war, and that "yes, with an explanation" is not exactly the answer that is going to bail your seamen, cargo and ships out of Muslim extremist captivity. In that context, there was simply no way that America was going to align itself with European-Christian countries. U.S. leaders believed, as Noah Webster later elaborated, "The ecclesiastical establishments of Europe which serve to support tyrannical governments are not the Christian religion but abuses and corruptions of it." The perception, however, that the U.S. did support a Euro-brand of Christianity had already exacerbated the holy war and caused the enslavement of thousands of our citizens. But America simply had no might, right or fight to pick with Muslims and the Barbary Powers. After months of deliberation over the treaty, from before its inception Nov. 4, 1796, in Tripoli to its further discussions in the Senate from May 29-30 and June 7, 1797, it was accepted and ratified, because our government leaders understood its context, meaning, and the strategic, diplomatic and expedient nature of this negotiation. The full context of Article XI clearly reveals that American leaders wanted Muslims to know that the U.S. rejected the Muslim pejorative understanding of Christianity, which was nothing more than an anti-Islamic, European-Crusade religion. As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] and as the said [United] States have never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Islamic] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. [Italics mine] Amendment XI in the Treaty of Tripoli is not a simple historical declaration of national non-Christian origins or denial of America's religious roots, but a diplomatic negotiation intended to free U.S. seamen and ships and to avert further international (Muslim) attacks and warfare on the very young and war-torn United States. Other declarations of national Christian identity It's amazing that antagonists who disavow America's founding as a Christian nation will quote (out of context) complex war-time negotiations and yet avoid the explicit words of our Founders during times of peace. Why don't skeptics ever cite any of the following governmental leaders from the same period as the Barbary Wars? John Jay, the first chief justice of the United States, appointed by George Washington, wrote to Jedidiah Morse Feb. 28, 1797 (the same year the Treaty of Tripoli was ratified), "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers. And it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of a Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." John Adams, America's second president and the same one who signed and sent the Treaty of Tripoli to the Senate, just one year later delivered these words in a military address Oct. 11, 1798, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." And to what religion is Adams referring? He gave us an answer when he wrote Thomas Jefferson June 28, 1813, "The general principles on which the Fathers achieved independence were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite. ... And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all these Sects were united." Patrick Henry wrote to Archibald Blair Jan. 8, 1799,"The greatest pillars of all government and of social life: I mean virtue, morality and religion. This is the armor, my friend, and this alone, that renders us invincible." Charles Carroll, a signer of the Constitution, wrote to James McHenry Nov. 4, 1800, "Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion whose morality is so sublime and pure. ? are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments." John Quincy Adams, America's sixth president, spoke at an Independence Day celebration in 1837, "Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth? That it laid the corner stone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity?? Andrew Jackson, our seventh president, pointed to a Bible as
he lay sick near death in 1845 and said, "That book, sir, is the rock on
which our republic rests." America was founded as a Christian nation.
.................................................................................................. "As to my own position, I hope to see the Union preserved
by granting the South the full measure of her constitutional rights. If
this can not be done, I hope to see all the Southern States united in a
new confederation and that we can effect a peaceable separation. If both
of these are denied us, I am with Arkansas in weal or woe. I have been
elected and hold a commission of captain of the Volunteer Rifle Company of
this place and I can say for my company that if the Stars and Stripes
become the standard of a tyrannical majority, the ensign of a violated
league, it will no longer command our love or respect but will command our
best efforts to drive them from our state. I am with the South in life or in death, in victory or in
defeat...... I believe the North is about to wage a brutal and unholy war
on a people who have done them no wrong, in violation of the Constitution
and the fundamental principles of government. They no longer acknowledge
that all government derives its validity from the consent of the governed.
They are about to invade our peaceful homes, destroy our property, and
inaugurate a servile insurrection, murder our men and dishonor our women.
We propose no invasion of the North, no attack on them, and only ask to be
left alone." -- Major General Patrick Cleburne
............................................................................. "The Gettysburg speech was at once the shortest and the
most famous oration in American history... the highest emotion reduced
to a few poetical phrases. Lincoln himself never even remotely
approached it. It is genuinely stupendous. But let us not
forget that it is poetry, not logic; beauty, not sense. Think of
the argument in it. Put it into the cold words of everyday.
The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at
Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination --
that government of the people, by the people, for the people, should not
perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more
untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought
against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought
for the right of their people to govern themselves." ~ H. L. Mencken
|
The Truth about the Yankee War
In Defense of Gen. Forrest
Gen. Forrest is the subject of a very old hoax that has been around since the War. There is no truth to the rumor that he was ever a 'leader of the kkk' or that he was a racist. When he was called to appear at the 1871 US Congressional Committee that investigated the charges of his rumored involvement with that group, he was building a railroad with most of his workers being blacks, whom he paid better wages than other companies were paying whites. He worked to promote civil rights for blacks, and for all men; his speech to the Pole Bearers is proof of that.
Here's part of the transcript of Forrest's testimony to that 1871 hearing:
"The reports of Committees, House of Representatives, second session, forty-second congress," P. 7-449.
"The primary accusation before this board is that Gen. Forrest was a founder of The Klan, and its first Grand Wizard, So I shall address those accusations first. In 1871, Gen. Forrest was called before a congressional Committee along with 21 other ex-Confederate officers including Admiral Raphael Semmes, Gen. Wade Hampton, Gen. John B. Gordon, and Gen. Braxton Bragg. Forrest testified before Congress personally over four hours .
Forrest took the witness stand June 27th,1871. Building a railroad in Tennessee at the time, Gen Forrest stated he 'had done more , probably than any other man, to suppress these violence and difficulties and keep them down, had been vilified and abused in the (news) papers, and accused of things I never did while in the army and since. He had nothing to hide, wanted to see this matter settled, our country quite once more, and our people united and working together harmoniously.'
Asked if he knew of any men or combination of men violating the law or preventing the execution of the law: Gen Forest answered emphatically, 'No.' (A Committee member brought up a document suggesting otherwise, the 1868 newspaper article from the "Cincinnati Commercial". That was their "evidence", a news article.)
Forrest stated '...any information he had on the Klan was information given to him by others.'
Sen. Scott asked, 'Did you take any steps in organizing an association or society under that prescript (Klan constitution)?'
Forrest: 'I DID NOT' Forrest further stated that '..he thought the Organization (Klan) started in middle Tennessee, although he did not know where. It is said I started it.'
Asked by Sen. Scott, 'Did you start it, Is that true?'
Forrest: 'No Sir, it is not.'
Asked if he had heard of the Knights of the white Camellia, a Klan-like organization in Louisiana,
Forrest: 'Yes, they were reported to be there.'
Senator: 'Were you a member of the order of the white Camellia?'
Forrest: 'No Sir, I never was a member of the Knights of the white Camellia.'
Asked about the Klan :
Forrest: 'It was a matter I knew very little about. All my efforts were addressed to stop it, disband it, and prevent it....I was trying to keep it down as much as possible.'
Forrest: 'I talked with different people that I believed were connected to it, and urged the disbandment of it, that it should be broken up.'"
The following article appeared in the New York times June 27th, "Washington, 1871. Gen Forrest was before the Klu Klux Committee today, and his examination lasted four hours. After the examination, he remarked than the committee treated him with much courtesy and respect."
Actually, the "kuklos" was started in Pulaski, Tennessee, just before Christmas 1865, by six ex-Confederate officers, and was a sort of social club for Confederate officers.
Gen. Forrest was NOT the 'first Grand Wizard of the KKK". For the correct information on that, here are the actual documented facts :
Bedford Forrest had absolutely nothing to do with the founding of the Ku Klux Klan. And even within the history of the Klan, differences must be noted between the Klan of the 1860s and the Klan of today.
The KKK that was reorganized in 1915 had a well-deserved reputation as a bigoted and sometimes violent organization, fueled by hate and ignorance and thriving on fear and intimidation. But that wasn't always the case. The original KKK of the 1860s was organized as a fun club, or social club, for Confederate veterans. Many historians agree that if a YMCA had been available in the town of Pulaski, Tenn., the KKK might never have existed.
On Dec. 24, 1865, six young Confederate veterans met in the law office of Judge Thomas M. Jones, near the courthouse square in Pulaski. Their names were James R. Crowe, Calvin E. Jones, John B. Kennedy, John C. Lester, Frank O. McCord, and Richard B. Reed. All had been CSA officers and were lawyers, except Kennedy and McCord, who had each served as a private in the Confederate army. The meeting resulted in the idea of forming a social club, an 1860s version of the VFW or American Legion.
Notice, Gen. Forrest was not present at the founding meeting.
Their number quickly grew, and in meetings that followed, the men selected a name based on the Greek word "kuklos" meaning circle, from which they derived the name Ku Klux. Perhaps bowing to their Scotch-Irish ancestry, and to add alliteration to the name, they included "clan," spelled with a K. And so, quite innocently, a new social club called the Ku Klux Klan was created to provide recreation for Confederate veterans.
McCord, whose family owned the town's weekly newspaper, the Pulaski Citizen, printed mysterious-sounding notices of meetings and club activities. As other newspapers picked up his stories about the Klan, word spread and the organization grew.
When the war ended, Forrest was virtually broke, having spent most of his estimated pre-war fortune of $1.5 million outfitting his troops. He was spending his time between business ventures in Memphis and his farm in Mississippi. Organizations such as the Klan were farthest from his mind.
When Forrest was elected Grand Wizard of the Klan in mid-1867 at the Maxwell House Hotel in Nashville, he wasn't even in town. He was elected in absentia. The best scholarly research shows that Forrest never "led the Klan," he never "rode with" the Klan, nor did he ever own any Klan paraphernalia.
The only known order that Forrest issued using his famous name and perceived authority was for the KKK to disband in 1869, which it finally did in 1871. And even that order was written by his longtime friend and former chief artillery officer, Capt. John Watson Morton.
So there you have it. There is no reason to think of Gen. Forrest with anything but admiration and respect. If anyone still thinks badly of Gen. Forrest, that is a reflection of their own bad character, and does not take away from Gen. Forrest's outstanding contributions to humanity.
Always remember, the "kuklos" of the late 1860s wasn't even remotely like the US-flag-waving racist mob on the early 20th century.
Keep the facts straight, teach the truth, and the hate will stop. Ignore false teachers. Work on problems of today, such as illegal immigation, the Iraq war, poverty here in the US, etc.
The transcript of the 1871 Congressional Committee can be found here.
Pages 3 to 41 contain Gen. Forrest's testimony.
This link connects to the record of Gen. Forrest's testimony concerning the 'ku klux' and the state of affairs in portions of Georgia and Tennessee in which Gen. Forrest had traveled. There are only two mentions of Fort Pillow in this link, each time it is mentioned only in passing, not in depth.
Many thanks to the Library of Congress for providing this link.
One of the best and most accurate published accounts of the Fort Pillow battle was reprinted by the Parks Service in 1973. It is titled "Victories At Fort Pillow".
Here is a link to another webpage about Gen. Forrest: http://www.37thtexas.org/html/grandfab.html
More on Gen. Forrest: mash here
............................................................................
From a letter:
The thing that I find most offensive and disgusting is that the wrong side moralizes about the atrocities of the war - the side that committed most of them! Lee would not let his soldiers take anything when he went north. He insisted that they pay for what they took even if it was in Confederate money. The Yankees were damned thieves from the beginning and only got worse as time went on. Yet it is the "Union side" that does all the moralizing about badly treated prisoners and atrocities committed by "guerrillas" and "bushwhackers".
Furthermore, the only atrocities committed against blacks that are recounted are those supposedly committed by the South. This is deceitful and treacherous and shows no intention of honestly addressing the wounds that have yet to heal in this nation. As one Confederate some time after the war said, "They expect us not just to accept defeat, but to admit wrong and guilt and beg forgiveness..."; that is, the Union wasn't satisfied with military victory, it wanted moral victory as well and as to that, the Yankees ain't got a leg to stand on.
.......................................................
The Year Was 1790
The year was 1790 and the young American nation was already feeling the pull of North versus South. Northern states were still facing debt from the Revolutionary War, while southern states had paid off most of their debt. So when Alexander Hamilton proposed that the federal government assume Revolutionary War debts, the South was definitely not on-board.
In order to gain support for the legislation, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison worked out a compromise . The agreement would put the capital of the young nation on the banks of the Potomac, surrounded by slave states, in exchange for support of the funding of Revolutionary debt. In the meantime, Philadelphia would be the capital.
The first U.S. census taken that same year counted a total population of 3,939,625, with African Americans making up 19 percent of that number (9 percent free and 10 percent slaves). 90 percent of the African American population lived in the South.