Political Insider

By Randy

November 30, 2006 9:18 AM | Link to this

What? No women in the room? That photo is a historical snapshot proving Georgia is still run by the “Good Ole BOY” network, whether those boys are white or black.

As an aside, if the ‘56 flag was offensive, where’s the outrage over our current flag or Florida’s state flag? (both based on confederate flag designs….there was more than one confederate flag you know)

The whole thing was issue was a non starter and was handled poorly.

By noted

November 30, 2006 9:33 AM | Link to this

“That photo is a historical snapshot proving Georgia is still run by the “Good Ole BOY” “

It’s a historical photo, so all it proves is that when the Democrats were in charge women were excluded from the meeting.

By uncle jessie

November 30, 2006 9:54 AM | Link to this

Bobby & Roy, took the money and got run out of office. Calvin & Tyrone, swapped one Confederate flag fer ‘nother and sank the Democrats. Scalawags jest laughing cause they ken buy off the next bunch in office too.

By GC

November 30, 2006 10:03 AM | Link to this

The picture underscores the old saying …” in politics there are no permanent friends and no permanent enemies.”

By GodHatesTrash

November 30, 2006 12:27 PM | Link to this

Yet the mind-numbing stupidity of the Lost Cause and southron culture infects Georgia and the United States to this day - would that Sherman had atomic weapons, or at least napalm…

By Yeller Dawg

November 30, 2006 2:30 PM | Link to this

All I see in this historic photo is some Carpet Baggers and their butt buddies getting ready to destroy the Georgia Democratic Party for the next 132 years…

Holcolmbe, Hood and Franklin - THANKS ! Our schools continue to suck, Mercedes never wanted to come to Georgia anyway, The boycott BS isn’t working in SC and would never work here, and Barnes could be the VP, instead of doing ProBono for homeless and druggies.

This is a collection of losers bigger than the folks who owned Video Poker machines

By King Rat Slayer

November 30, 2006 3:02 PM | Link to this

Hey Dawg

The Chamberpots of Commerce and NAACP run this state. So they managed to get the demoncraps to self destruct for an ugly blue butt wiper that lasted less than 2 years. Who cares?

Stole a flag that was 2/3rds Confederate and eventually became a flag that is 95% Confederate.

We just need to worry about the latest bunch of crooks under the Gold Dome.

Let Us Vote !!!! Punt Perdue !!!!

By Joe

November 30, 2006 3:04 PM | Link to this

Changing the 56 flag destroyed the democratic party in Georgia. Had that not happened, Barnes would have been re-elected and on his way to a VP nomination instead, but the arrogant @sses were sure they could overcome it. They were sure wrong.

Question to Tyrone, Smyre and the Ga democratic party that has lost all.

Was it worth it???

Joe

By Roy

November 30, 2006 3:54 PM | Link to this

Georgia should have been so lucky to have a NAACP boycott. Ask the business community in South Carolina. The only ones running scared from the NAACP are the politicians and chamber scalawags.

By ERNEST N. CREEL

November 30, 2006 4:48 PM | Link to this

To Trash: Sherman diddn’t need all that, just wait until the 2000’s: crack cocaine is doing more damage to this state than all his yankee’s ever could have! Southern Cuz

By noted

November 30, 2006 9:08 PM | Link to this

“Let Us Vote !!!! Punt Perdue !!!!”

Maybe you didn’t realize it, but we already had the election and Perdue was reelected to a second term - by a bigger margin then when he had the support of the flaggers.

By GC

November 30, 2006 9:20 PM | Link to this

Noted, you are correct but Perdue was re-elected under a cloud of fact based revelations that he used the Governor’s office for personal gain. His arrogance is telling him that he does not have to be responsive to questions that linger about the matter. If he doesn’t like the question he disses the questioner. All elected officials are amenable to the people at all times…24/7. That’s what our state Constitution says.

By James W. King

December 1, 2006 10:43 PM | Link to this

The Confederate flag represents Limited Constitutional Federal Government, States Rights, Resistance to Tyranny, and Christian Values and Principles. Thus it represents the same principles as the Betsy Ross U.S.flag—the principles America was founded upon. As America experiments with Globalism, Socialism, and Secular Humanism it is important for patriotic American’s to fly the Confederate flag as a reminder of these basic principles. America has 2 choices—1.Reclaim our heritage or 2.we will eventually surrender our Constitution and Sovereignty to the New World Order—a Godless Socialist United Nations. Many black Americans have been indoctrinated by Northern Liberal Marxist Socialists to view the Confederate flag as a symbol of racism and bigotry. They are being used and manipulated for political purposes to assist in the conversion of America to Socialism and Secular Humanism. The infamous Communist Karl Marx said “A people separated from their heritage are easily persuaded”. This is the real reason they want to destroy and ban Confederate heritage and symbols which are 180 degrees diametrically opposed to Socialism and Secular Humanism. The Communist Lenin coined the term “useful idiots”. Many white liberals fit this catagory as well as Southern politicians who are helping destroy Confederate principles, heritage, and symbols. White Southern Christians who fly the Confederate flag are not the enemy of responsible black Americans who are working to better themselves. It is true that KKK and other groups have misused, misrepresented, and abused the Confederate flag but this should not invalidate the true meaning of this honorable flag in the minds of educated knowledgeable Americans. Contact me at jkingantiquearms@bellsouth.net to receive my article “The 10 Causes Of The War Between The States” (civil war).

James W. King Commander- Sons Of Confederate Veterans Albany Georgia

By Billy Bearden

December 1, 2006 11:04 PM | Link to this

CONSPIRACY:

In order to protect Austin Scott and a major player in the Perdue Repoob Regime, this 5 year old incriminating picture was conveniently brought our AFTER the election.

Had this picture been released, say, oh about Oct 1st, Scott’s opponent John Tibbets would have gathered the needed 911 votes to defeat him.

The only repoob in amongst a nest of demoncraps, and the Political Inciters are protecting him….

By Jimmy L. Shirley Jr.

December 1, 2006 11:44 PM | Link to this

“General Sherman, where are you now that Atlanta really needs you!?”

By Greg Pearson

December 2, 2006 12:12 AM | Link to this

I’m glad this photo is out, people should be able to see the enemy. It is my desire and goal as a history major that these people will gain the everlasting disdain of their descendents for the selling of our heritage for a buck. The 56 flag was honourable and beautiful, our flag now is merely mundain and tainted by the way it was adopted.

By GodHatesTrash

December 2, 2006 12:50 AM | Link to this

And rebel rag wavers will burn in hell, roasting on a spit like the pigs they are…

By just

December 2, 2006 1:26 AM | Link to this

The extent and nature of comments on the subject of this blog evidence not only an unhealthy preoccupation with the past, but also a misunderstanding and/or lack of knowledge about the various changes to the state flag and the reasons behind them. It is this predomination of thought that keeps Georgia at the bottom in education attainment,jobs creation, wealth accumulation, to name a few. A crow is an eagle among sparrows!

By Randolph Phillips

December 2, 2006 2:39 AM | Link to this

The 1956 flag has three great virtues. It is beautiful. It represents, as it was intended, our State’s Confederate heritage and those who fought under it. And It is the flag under which Georgia made its greatest social, economic, and political advances, including the facts Georgia is the tenth largest state. Every black kid who first entered a white school or university in the state walked in under the 1956 flag.

In contrast, the Barnes flag looked like a panel in the Aids quilt.

The Perdue flag—a copy of the obscure provisional flag the Confederate Congress never voted on—is the flag on which the 1879-1955 White Supremacy flag of segregation. I think 483 lynchings occurred while it flew over Georgia.

The campign to change the flag was deceitful and contemptible, and what happens when Good Men do Nothing.

By Russell J. Ottens

December 2, 2006 6:20 AM | Link to this

How truly repulsive to view a photo of legislators who met like rats in the middle of the night to usurp the will of their constituents. It’s plain and simple that on that wretched night in January 2001, democracy was exchanged for totalitarianism where the people had absolutely no voice in the governance of their own state.

By GodHatesTrash

December 2, 2006 8:38 AM | Link to this

Nothing stirs up the bottom of the gene pool better than the sillyarse rebel rag.

The bottomfeeding and knuckledragging SCVers are out in force with their stupidity and revisionist history.

You can tell they were edumacated in the south…

By Russ Huffman

December 2, 2006 9:45 AM | Link to this

What I see in this picture is perhaps a little more simplistic than what the others commenting have described. This photo says that the citizens of Georgia come behind the big money folks who have their cozy little empires headquartered up in Atlanta. Like a pit of vipers, they hiss and coil up together, always ready to strike out at anyone from outside their circle of money, power, and corruption.

Georgia is run by a few rich folks and a handful of big corporations. Money is their only motivation. The wishes of the millions of Georgians concerning what flag we should fly is of absolutely no consequence to that group.

Incidentally, look at the way those in the room cross their legs, much like females. Whatever used to reside between their legs is long gone, and they don’t want anyone to notice they’ve been neutered. Either that or their wallets are overstuffed, causing pain on one side and inducing them to sit that way.

Russ Huffman Jeffersonville, GA

By Jean Allen

December 2, 2006 9:50 AM | Link to this

To the guy who has such nasty things to say about the South and wishes Sherman had napalm and atomic bombs...I had to look hard; but I found something good about you.You are obviously not one of those "diversity" nuts (of the global, multicult variety.) You see, I am a Confederate American and the Confederate flag is my national flag. Since you attack my flag and my culture, you obviously don't believe in "diversity" and "multiculturalism". I am glad I found something good in you. I had to look for it; but I found it.

Jean Allen Tuscaloosa, Al.

By Billy Bearden

December 2, 2006 10:40 AM | Link to this

GodHatesTrash, just, & noted:

Put aside the Confederate Flag part of this issue for a second. Now what we have left is corrupt lying politicians, backroom deals, ignoring the will of the vast majority of the voting citizenry of Georgia, a Star Chamber of unelected Elites pushing buttons and pulling levers, and the threats, blackmail, lies, and deceit to get their way.

While you 3 have a strong desire to be governed in that fashion, to simply lie down and willfully submit to what government is inserting into your orifices originally designed to allow waste expulsion, there are those of us out here who refuse to become eunichs.

Name calling is a sign of weakness, and y’all scream like girls. Others on this thread have the blood of Confederate Ancestors running thru their veins, and are of a moral fiber you can never grasp.

So please feel free to act like girly girls who can’t get their way. We shall continue to fight that slime pictured in that photo, and others whereever they may be.

By James W. King

December 2, 2006 10:46 AM | Link to this

THE 10 CAUSES OF THE WAR BETWEEN THE STATES
Historians have long debated the causes of the war and the Southern perspective differs greatly from the Northern perspective. Based upon the study of original documents of the
War Between The States (Civil War) era and facts and information published by Confederate Veterans, Confederate Chaplains, Southern writers and Southern Historians before, during, and after the war, I present the facts, opinions, and conclusions stated in the following article.
I respectfully disagree with those who claim that the War Between the States was fought over slavery or that the abolition of slavery in the Revolutionary Era or early Federal period would have prevented war. It is my opinion that war was inevitable between the North and South due to complex political and cultural differences. The famous Englishman Winston Churchill stated that the war between the North and South was one of the most unpreventable wars in history. The Cause that the Confederate States of America fought for (1861-1865) was Southern Independence from the United States of America. Many parallels exist between the War for American Independence ( 1775-1783 ) and the War for Southern Independence. There were 10 political causes of the war —-one of which was slavery— which was a scapegoat for all the differences that existed between the North and South. The Northern industrialists had wanted a war since about 1830 to get the South’s resources ( land-cotton-coal-timber-minerals ) for pennies on the dollar. All wars are economic and are always between centralists and decentralists.The North would have found an excuse to invade the South even if slavery had never existed. A war almost occurred during 1828-1832 over the tariff when South Carolina passed nullification laws. The U.S. congress had increased the tariff rate on imported products to 40% ( known as the tariff of abominations in Southern States ). This crisis had nothing to do with slavery. If slavery had never existed —period—or had been eliminated at the time the Declaration of Independence was written in 1776 or anytime prior to 1860 it is my opinion that there would still have been a war sooner or later. On a human level there were 4 causes of the war—New England Greed—New England Fanatics—New England Zealots—and New England Hypocrites. During “So Called Reconstruction” ( 1865-1877 ) the New England Industrialists got what they had really wanted for 40 years—THE SOUTH’S RESOURCES FOR PENNIES ON THE DOLLAR. It was a political coalition between the New England economic interests and the New England fanatics and zealots that caused Southern secession to be necessary for economic survival and safety of the population.

TARIFF—Prior to the war about 75% of the money to operate the Federal Government was derived from the Southern States via an unfair sectional tariff on imported goods and 50% of the total 75% was from just 4 Southern states—Virginia-North Carolina—South Carolina and Georgia. Only 10%—20% of this tax money was being returned to the South. The Southern states were being treated as an agricultural colony of the North and bled dry. John Randolph of Virginia’s remarks in opposition to the tariff of 1820 demonstrates that fact. The North claimed that they fought the war to preserve the Union but the New England Industrialists who were in control of the North were actually supporting preservation of the Union to maintain and increase revenue from the tariff. The industrialists wanted the South to pay for the industrialization of America at no expense to themselves. Revenue bills introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives prior to the War Between the States were biased, unfair and inflammatory to the South. Abraham Lincoln had promised the Northern industrialists that he would increase the tariff rate if he was elected president of the United States. Lincoln increased the rate to a level that exceeded even the “Tariff of Abominations” 40% rate that had so infuriated the South during the 1828-1832 era ( between 50 and 51% on iron goods). The election of a president that was Anti-Southern on all issues and politically associated with the New England industrialists, fanatics, and zealots brought about the Southern secession movement.

CENTRALIZATION VERSUS STATES RIGHTS—-The United States of America was founded as a Constitutional Federal Republic in 1789 composed of a Limited Federal Government and Sovereign States. The North wanted to and did alter the form of Government this nation was founded upon. The Confederate States of America fought to preserve Constitutional Limited Federal Government as established by America’s founding fathers who were primarily Southern Gentlemen from Virginia. Thus Confederate soldiers were fighting for rights that had been paid for in blood by their forefathers upon the battlefields of the American Revolution. Abraham Lincoln had a blatant disregard for The Constitution of the United States of America. His War of aggression Against the South changed America from a Constitutional Federal Republic to a Democracy ( with Socialist leanings ) and broke the original Constitution. The infamous Socialist Karl Marx sent Lincoln a letter of congratulations after his reelection in 1864. A considerable number of European Socialists came to America and fought for the Union (North).

CHRISTIANITY VERSUS SECULAR HUMANISM—The South believed in basic Christianity as presented in the Holy Bible.The North had many Secular Humanists ( atheists, transcendentalists and non-Christians ). Southerners were afraid of what kind of country America might become if the North had its way. Secular Humanism is the belief that there is no God and that man,science and government can solve all problems. This philosophy advocates human rather than religious values. Reference : Frank Conner’s book “The South Under Siege 1830-2000.”

CULTURAL DIFFERENCES—Southerners and Northerners were of different Genetic Lineages. Southerners were primarily of Western English (original Britons),Scottish,and Irish linage (Celtic) whereas Northerners tended to be of Anglo-Saxon and Danish (Viking) extraction. The two cultures had been at war and at odds for over 1000 years before they arrived in America. Our ancient ancestors in Western England under King Arthur humbled the Saxon princes at the battle of Baden Hill ( circa 497 AD —516 AD ). The cultural differences that contributed to the War Between the States (1861-1865 ) had existed for 1500 years or more.

CONTROL OF WESTERN TERRITORIES—The North wanted to control Western States and Territories such as Kansas and Nebraska. New England formed Immigrant Aid Societies and sent settlers to these areas that were politically attached to the North. They passed laws against slavery that Southerners considered punitive. These political actions told Southerners they were not welcome in the new states and territories. It was all about control—slavery was a scapegoat.

NORTHERN INDUSTRIALISTS WANTED THE SOUTH’S RESOURCES. The Northern Industrialists wanted a war to use as an excuse to get the South’s resources for pennies on the dollar. They began a campaign about 1830 that would influence the common people of the North and create enmity that would allow them to go to war against the South. These Northern Industrialists brought up a morality claim against the South alleging the evils of slavery. The Northern Hypocrites conveniently neglected to publicize the fact that 5 New England States ( Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and New York ) were primarily responsible for the importation of most of the slaves from Africa to America. These states had both private and state owned fleets of ships.

SLANDER OF THE SOUTH BY NORTHERN NEWSPAPERS. This political cause ties in to the above listed efforts by New England Industrialists. Beginning about 1830 the Northern Newspapers began to slander the South. The Industrialists used this tool to indoctrinate the common people of the North. They used slavery as a scapegoat and brought the morality claim up to a feverish pitch. Southerners became tired of reading in the Northern Newspapers about what bad and evil people they were just because their neighbor down the road had a few slaves. This propaganda campaign created hostility between the ordinary citizens of the two regions and created the animosity necessary for war. The Northern Industrialists worked poor whites in the factories of the North under terrible conditions for 18 hours a day ( including children ). When the workers became old and infirm they were fired. It is a historical fact that during this era there were thousands of old people living homeless on the streets in the cities of the North. In the South a slave was cared for from birth to death. Also the diet and living conditions of Southern slaves was superior to that of most white Northern factory workers. Southerners deeply resented this New England hypocrisy and slander.

NEW ENGLANDERS ATTEMPTED TO INSTIGATE MASSIVE SLAVE REBELLIONS IN THE SOUTH. Abolitionists were a small but vocal and militant group in New England who demanded instant abolition of slavery in the South. These fanatics and zealots were calling for massive slave uprisings that would result in the murder of Southern men, women and children. Southerners were aware that such an uprising had occurred in Santa Domingo in the 1790 era and that the French (white) population had been massacred. The abolitionists published a terrorist manifesto and tried to smuggle 100,000 copies into the South showing slaves how to murder their masters at night. Then when John Brown raided Harpers Ferry,Virginia in 1859 the political situation became inflammatory. Prior to this event there had been five times as many abolition societies in the South as in the North. Lincoln and most of the Republican Party ( 64 members of congress ) had adopted a political platform in support of terrorist acts against the South. Some (allegedly including Lincoln) had contributed monetarily as supporters of John Browns terrorist activities.. Again slavery was used as a scapegoat for all differences that existed between the North and South.

SLAVERY. Indirectly slavery was a cause of the war. Most Southerners did not own slaves and would not have fought for the protection of slavery. However they believed that the North had no Constitutional right to free slaves held by citizens of Sovereign Southern States. Prior to the war there were five times as many abolition societies in the South as in the North. Virtually all educated Southerners were in favor of gradual emancipation of slaves. Gradual emancipation would have allowed the economy and labor system of the South to gradually adjust to a free paid labor system without economic collapse. Furthermore, since the New England States were responsible for the development of slavery in America, Southerners saw the morality claims by the North as blatant hypocrisy. The first state to legalize slavery had been Massachusetts in 1641 and this law was directed primarily at Indians. In colonial times the economic infrastructure of the port cities of the North was dependent upon the slave trade. The first slave ship in America, “THE DESIRE”, was fitted out in Marblehead, Massachusetts. Further proof that Southerners were not fighting to preserve slavery is found in the diary of an officer in the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia. He stated that “he had never met a man in the Army of Northern Virginia that claimed he was fighting to preserve slavery”. If the war had been over slavery, the composition of the politicians, officers, enlisted men, and even African Americans would have been different. Confederate General Robert E. Lee had freed his slaves (Custis estate) prior to 1863 whereas Union General Grant’s wife Julia did not free her slaves until after the war when forced to do so by the 13th amendment to the constitution and court action. Grant even stated that if the abolitionists claimed he was fighting to free slaves that he would offer his services to the South. Mildred Lewis Rutherford ( 1852-1928 ) was for many years the historian for the United Daughters Of The Confederacy (UDC). In her book Truths Of History she stated that there were more slaveholders in the Union Army ( 315,000 ) than the Confederate Army ( 200,000 ). Statistics also show that about 300,000 blacks supported the Confederacy versus about 200,000 for the Union. Clearly the war would have been fought along different lines if it had been fought over slavery. The famous English author Charles Dickens stated “ the Northern onslaught upon Southern slavery is a specious piece of humbug designed to mask their desire for the economic control of the Southern states.”

10, NORTHERN AGGRESSION AGAINST SOUTHERN STATES, Proof that Abraham Lincoln wanted war may be found in the manner he handled the Fort Sumter incident. Original correspondence between Lincoln and Naval Captain G.V.Fox shows proof that Lincoln acted with deceit and willfully provoked South Carolina into firing on the fort ( A TARIFF COLLECTION FACILITY ). It was politically important that the South be provoked into firing the first shot so that Lincoln could claim the Confederacy started the war. Additional proof that Lincoln wanted war is the fact that Lincoln refused to meet with a Confederate peace delegation. They remained in Washington for 30 days and returned to Richmond only after it became apparent that Lincoln wanted war and refused to meet and discuss a peace agreement. After setting up the Fort Sumter incident for the purpose of starting a war, Lincoln called for 75,000 troops to put down what he called a rebellion. He intended to march Union troops across Virginia and North Carolina to attack South Carolina. Virginia and North Carolina were not going to allow such an unconstitutional and criminal act of aggression against a sovereign sister Southern State. Lincoln’s act of aggression caused the secession of the upper Southern States. On April 17th 1861, Governor Letcher of Virginia sent this message to Washington DC: “ I have only to say that the militia of Virginia will not be furnished to the powers of Washington for any such use or purpose as they have in view. Your object is to subjugate the Southern states and the requisition made upon me for such a object-an object in my judgement not within the purview of the constitution or the act of 1795, will not be complied with. You have chosen to inaugurate civil war; having done so we will meet you in a spirit as determined as the administration has exhibited toward the South.”

The WAR BETWEEN THE STATES 1861-1865 occurred due to many complex causes and factors as enumerated above. Those who make claims that “the war was over slavery” or that if slavery had been abolished in 1776 when the Declaration of Independence was signed or in 1789 when The Constitution of the United States of America was signed, that war would not have occurred between North and South are being very simplistic in their views and opinions.

The Union victory in 1865 destroyed the right of secession in America,which had been so cherished by America’s founding fathers as the principle of their revolution. British historian and political philosopher Lord Acton, one of the most intellectual figures in Victorian England, understood the deeper meaning of Southern defeat. In a letter to former Confederate General Robert E. Lee dated November 4,1866, Lord Acton wrote ” I saw in States Rights the only available check upon the absolutism of the sovereign will, and secession filled me with hope, not as the destruction but as the redemption of Democracy. I deemed you were fighting the battles of our liberty, our progress, and our civilization and I mourn for that which was lost at Richmond more deeply than I rejoice over that which was saved at Waterloo (defeat of Napoleon). As Illinois Governor Richard Yates stated in a message to his state assembly on January 2,1865, the war had ” tended, more than any other event in the history of the country, to militate against the Jeffersonian Ideal ( Thomas Jefferson ) that the best government is that which governs least.
Years after the war former Confederate president Jefferson Davis stated ” I Am saddened to Hear Southerners Apologize For Fighting To Preserve Our Inheritance”. Some years later former U.S. president Theodore Roosevelt stated ” Those Who Will Not Fight For The Graves Of Their Ancestors Are Beyond Redemption”.

James W. King Commander Camp 141 Lt. Col. Thomas M. Nelson Sons of Confederate Veterans Albany, Georgia jkingantiquearms@bellsouth.net

By James W. King

December 2, 2006 11:19 AM | Link to this

The Yankee Problem in America Since the 2000 presidential election, much attention has been paid to a map showing the sharp geographical division between the two candidates’ support. Gore prevailed in the power- and plunder-seeking Deep North (Northeast, Upper Midwest, Pacific Coast) and Bush in the regions inhabited by productive and decent Americans. There is nothing new about this. Historically speaking, it is just one more manifestation of the Yankee problem.

As indicated by these books (listed at the end), scholars are at last starting to pay some attention to one of the most important and most neglected subjects in United States history – the Yankee problem.

By Yankee I do not mean everybody from north of the Potomac and Ohio. Lots of them have always been good folks. The firemen who died in the World Trade Center on September 11 were Americans. The politicians and TV personalities who stood around telling us what we are to think about it are Yankees. I am using the term historically to designate that peculiar ethnic group descended from New Englanders, who can be easily recognized by their arrogance, hypocrisy, greed, lack of congeniality, and penchant for ordering other people around. Puritans long ago abandoned anything that might be good in their religion but have never given up the notion that they are the chosen saints whose mission is to make America, and the world, into the perfection of their own image.

Hillary Rodham Clinton, raised a Northern Methodist in Chicago, is a museum-quality specimen of the Yankee – self-righteous, ruthless, and self-aggrandizing. Northern Methodism and Chicago were both, in their formative periods, hotbeds of abolitionist, high tariff Black Republicanism. The Yankee temperament, it should be noted, makes a neat fit with the Stalinism that was brought into the Deep North by later immigrants.

The ethnic division between Yankees and other Americans goes back to earliest colonial times. Up until the War for Southern Independence, Southerners were considered to be the American mainstream and Yankees were considered to be the “peculiar” people. Because of a long campaign of cultural imperialism and the successful military imperialism engineered by the Yankees, the South, since the war, has been considered the problem, the deviation from the true American norm. Historians have made an industry of explaining why the South is different (and evil, for that which defies the “American” as now established, is by definition evil). Is the South different because of slavery? white supremacy? the climate? pellagra? illiteracy? poverty? guilt? defeat? Celtic wildness rather than Anglo-Saxon sobriety?

Unnoticed in all this literature was a hidden assumption: the North is normal, the standard of all things American and good. Anything that does not conform is a problem to be explained and a condition to be annihilated. What about that hidden assumption? Should not historians be interested in understanding how the North got to be the way it is? Indeed, is there any question in American history more important?

According to standard accounts of American history (i.e., Northern mythology), New Englanders fought the Revolution and founded glorious American freedom as had been planned by the “Puritan Fathers.” Southerners, who had always been of questionable character, because of their fanatic devotion to slavery, wickedly rebelled against government of, by, and for the people, were put down by the armies of the Lord, and should be ever grateful for not having been exterminated. (This is clearly the view of the anonymous Union Leaguer from Portland, Maine, who recently sent me a chamber pot labeled “Robert E. Lee’s soup tureen.”) And out of their benevolence and devotion to the ideal of freedom, the North struck the chains from the suffering black people. (They should be forever grateful, also. Take a look at the Boston statue with happy blacks adoring the feet of Col. Robert Gould Shaw.)

Aside from the fact that every generalization in this standard history is false, an obvious defect in it is that, for anyone familiar with American history before the War, it is clear that “Southern” was American and Yankees were the problem. America was Washington and Jefferson, the Louisiana Purchase and the Battle of New Orleans, John Randolph and Henry Clay, Daniel Morgan, Daniel Boone, and Francis Marion. Southerners had made the Constitution, saved it under Jefferson from the Yankees, fought the wars, acquired the territory, and settled the West, including the Northwest. To most Americans, in Pennsylvania and Indiana as well as Virginia and Georgia, this was a basic view up until about 1850. New England had been a threat, a nuisance, and a negative force in the progress of America. Northerners, including some patriotic New Englanders, believed this as much as Southerners.

When Washington Irving, whose family were among the early Anglo-Dutch settlers of New York, wrote the story about the “Headless Horseman,” he was ridiculing Yankees. The prig Ichabod Crane had come over from Connecticut and made himself a nuisance. So a young man (New York young men were then normal young men rather than Yankees) played a trick on him and sent him fleeing back to Yankeeland where he belonged. James Fenimore Cooper, of another early New York family, felt the same way about New Englanders who appear unfavorably in his writings. Yet another New York writer, James Kirke Paulding (among many others) wrote a book defending the South and attacking abolitionists. It is not unreasonable to conclude that in Moby Dick, the New York Democrat Herman Melville modeled the fanatical Captain Ahab on the Yankee abolitionist. In fact, the term “Yankee” appears to originate in some mingling of Dutch and Indian words, to designate New Englanders. Obviously, both the Dutch New Yorkers and the Native Americans recognized them as “different.”

Young Abe Lincoln amused his neighbors in southern Indiana and Illinois, nearly all of whom, like his own family, had come from the South, with “Yankee jokes,” stories making fun of dishonest peddlers from New England. They were the most popular stories in his repertoire, except for the dirty ones.

Right into the war, Northerners opposed to the conquest of the South blamed the conflict on fanatical New Englanders out for power and plunder, not on the good Americans in the South who had been provoked beyond bearing.

Many people, and not only in the South, thought that Southerners, according to their nature, had been loyal to the Union, had served it, fought and sacrificed for it as long as they could. New Englanders, according to their nature, had always been grasping for themselves while proclaiming their righteousness and superiority.

The Yankees succeeded so well, by the long cultural war described in these volumes, and by the North’s military victory, that there was no longer a Yankee problem. Now the Yankee was America and the South was the problem. America, the Yankee version, was all that was normal and right and good. Southerners understood who had won the war (not Northerners, though they had shed a lot of blood, but the accursed Yankees.) With some justification they began to regard all Northerners as Yankees, even the hordes of foreigners who had been hired to wear the blue.

Here is something closer to a real history of the United States: American freedom was not a legacy of the “Puritan Fathers,” but of Virginians who proclaimed and spread constitutional rights. New England gets some credit for beginning the War of Independence. After the first few years, however, Yankees played little part. The war was fought and won in the South. Besides, New Englanders had good reasons for independence – they did not fit into the British Empire economically, since one of their main industries was smuggling, and the influential Puritan clergy hated the Church of England. Southerners, in fighting for independence, were actually going against their economic interests for the sake of principle.

Once Southerners had gone into the Union (which a number of wise statesmen like Patrick Henry and George Mason warned them against), the Yankees began to show how they regarded the new federal government: as an instrument to be used for their own purposes. Southerners long continued to view the Union as a vehicle for mutual cooperation, as they often naively still do.

In the first Congress, Yankees demanded that the federal government continue the British subsidies to their fishing fleets. While Virginia and the other Southern states gave up their vast western lands for future new states, New Englanders demanded a special preserve for themselves (the “Western Reserve” in Ohio).

Under John Adams, the New England quest for power grew into a frenzy. They passed the Sedition Law to punish anti-government words (as long as they controlled the government) in clear violation of the Constitution. During the election of 1800 the preachers in New England told their congregations that Thomas Jefferson was a French Jacobin who would set up the guillotine in their town squares and declare women common property. (What else could be expected from a dissolute slaveholder?) In fact, Jefferson’s well-known distaste for mixing of church and state rested largely on his dislike of the power of the New England self-appointed saints.

When Jeffersonians took power, the New Englanders fought them with all their diminishing strength. Their poet William Cullen Bryant regarded the Louisiana Purchase as nothing but a large swamp for Jefferson to pursue his atheistic penchant for science.

The War of 1812, the Second War of Independence, was decisive for the seemingly permanent discrediting of New England. The Yankee ruling class opposed the war even though it was begun by Southerners on behalf of oppressed American seamen, most of whom were New Englanders. Yankees did not care about their oppressed poorer citizens because they were making big bucks smuggling into wartime Europe. One New England congressman attacked young patriot John C. Calhoun as a backwoodsman who had never seen a sail and who was unqualified to deal with foreign policy.

During the war Yankees traded with the enemy and talked openly of secession. (Southerners never spoke of secession in time of war.) Massachusetts refused to have its militia called into constitutional federal service even after invasion, and then, notoriously for years after, demanded that the federal government pay its militia expenses.

Historians have endlessly repeated that the “Era of Good Feelings” under President Monroe refers to the absence of party strife. Actually, the term was first used to describe the state of affairs in which New England traitorousness had declined to the point that a Virginia president could visit Boston without being mobbed.

Yankee political arrogance was soulmate to Yankee cultural arrogance. Throughout the antebellum period, New England literature was characterized and promoted as the American literature, and non-Yankee writers, in most cases much more talented and original, were ignored or slandered. Edgar Allan Poe had great fun ridiculing the literary pretensions of New Englanders, but they largely succeeded in dominating the idea of American literature into the 20th century. Generations of Americans have been cured of reading forever by being forced to digest dreary third-string New England poets as “American literature.”

In 1789, a Connecticut Puritan preacher named Jedidiah Morse published the first book of American Geography. The trouble was, it was not an American geography but a Yankee geography. Most of the book was taken up with describing the virtues of New England. Once you got west of the Hudson River, as Morse saw it and conveyed to the world’s reading public, the U.S. was a benighted land inhabited by lazy, dirty Scotch-Irish and Germans in the Middle States and lazy, morally depraved Southerners, corrupted and enervated by slavery. New Englanders were pure Anglo-Saxons with all virtues. The rest of the Americans were questionable people of lower or mongrel ancestry. The theme of New Englanders as pure Anglo-Saxons continued right down through the 20th century. The alleged saints of American equality operated on a theory of their racial superiority. While Catholics and Jews were, in the South, accepted and loyal Southerners, Yankees burned down convents and banished Jews from the Union Army lines.

A few years after Morse, Noah Webster, also from Connecticut, published his American Dictionary and American spelling book. The trouble was, it was not an American dictionary but a New England dictionary. As Webster declared in his preface, New Englanders spoke and spelled the purest and best form of English of any people in the world. Southerners and others ignored Webster and spelled and pronounced real English until after the War of Southern Independence.

As the books show, Yankees after the War of 1812 were acutely aware of their minority status. And here is the important point: they launched a deliberate campaign to take over control of the idea of “America.”

The campaign was multi-faceted. Politically, they gained profits from the protective tariff and federal expenditures, both of which drained money from the South for the benefit of the North, and New England especially. Seeking economic advantage from legislation is nothing new in human history. But the New England greed was marked by its peculiar assumptions of moral superiority. New Englanders, who were selling their products in a market from which competition had been excluded by the tariff, proclaimed that the low price of cotton was due to the fact that Southerners lacked the drive and enterprise of virtuous Yankees! (When the South was actually the productive part of the U.S. economy.)

This transfer of wealth built the strength of the North. It was even more profitable than the slave trade (which New England shippers carried on from Africa to Brazil and Cuba right up to the War Between the States) and the Chinese opium trade (which they were also to break into).

Another phase of the Yankee campaign for what they considered their rightful dominance was the capture of the history of the American Revolution. At a time when decent Americans celebrated the Revolution as the common glory of all, New Englanders were publishing a literature claiming the whole credit for themselves. A scribbler from Maine named Lorenzo Sabine, for one example among many, published a book in which he claimed that the Revolution in the South had been won by New England soldiers because Southerners were traitorous and enervated by slavery. As William Gilmore Simms pointed out, it was all lies. When Daniel Webster was received hospitably in Charleston, he made a speech in which he commemorated the graves of the many heroic Revolutionary soldiers from New England which were to be found in the South. The trouble was, those graves did not exist. Many Southern volunteers had fought in the North, but no soldier from north of Pennsylvania (except a few generals) had ever fought in the South!

George Washington was a bit of a problem here, so the honor-driven, foxhunting Virginia gentleman was transformed by phony folklore into a prim New Englander in character, a false image that has misled and repulsed countless Americans since.

It should be clear, this was not merely misplaced pride. It was a deliberate, systematic effort by the Massachusetts elite to take control of American symbols and disparage all competing claims. Do not be put off by Professor Sheidley’s use of “Conservative Leaders” in his title. He means merely the Yankee ruling elite who were never conservatives then or now. Conservatives do not work for “the transformation of America.”

Another successful effort was a New England claim on the West. When New Englanders referred to “the West” in antebellum times, they meant the parts of Ohio and adjacent states settled by New Englanders. The rest of the great American West did not count. In fact, the great drama of danger and adventure and achievement that was the American West, from the Appalachians to the Pacific, was predominantly the work of Southerners and not of New Englanders at all. In the Midwest, the New Englanders came after Southerners had tamed the wilderness, and they looked down upon the early settlers. But in Western movies we still have the inevitable family from Boston moving west by covered wagon. Such a thing never existed! The people moving west in covered wagons were from the upper South and were despised by Boston.

So our West is reduced, in literature, to The Oregon Trail, a silly book written by a Boston tourist, and the phony cavortings of the Eastern sissy Teddy Roosevelt in the cattle country opened by Southerners. And the great American outdoors is now symbolized by Henry David Thoreau and a little frog pond at Walden, in sight of the Boston smokestacks. The Pennsylvanian Owen Wister knew better when he entitled his Wyoming novel, The Virginian.

To fully understand what the Yankee is today – builder of the all-powerful “multicultural” therapeutic state (with himself giving the orders and collecting the rewards) which is the perfection of history and which is to be exported to all peoples, by guided missiles on women and children if necessary – we need a bit more real history.

That history is philosophical, or rather theological, and demographic. New Englanders lived in a barren land. Some of their surplus sons went to sea. Many others moved west when it was safe to do so. By 1830, half the people in the state of New York were New England-born. By 1850, New Englanders had tipped the political balance in the Midwest, with the help of German revolutionaries and authoritarians who had flooded in after the 1848 revolutions.

The leading editors in New York City, Horace Greeley and William Cullen Bryant, and the big money men, were New England-born. Thaddeus Stevens, the Pennsylvania steel tycoon and Radical Republican, was from Vermont. (Thanks to the tariff, he made $6,000 extra profit on every mile of railroad rails he sold.)

The North had been Yankeeized, for the most part quietly, by control of churches, schools, and other cultural institutions, and by whipping up a frenzy of paranoia about the alleged plot of the South to spread slavery to the North, which was as imaginary as Jefferson’s guillotine.

The people that Cooper and Irving had despised as interlopers now controlled New York! The Yankees could now carry a majority in the North and in 1860 elect the first sectional president in U.S. history – a threat to the South to knuckle under or else. In time, even the despised Irish Catholics began to think like Yankees.

We must also take note of the intellectual revolution amongst the Yankees which created the modern version of self-righteous authoritarian “Liberalism” so well exemplified by Mrs. Clinton. In the 1830s, Ralph Waldo Emerson went to Germany to study. There he learned from philosophers that the world was advancing by dialectical process to an ever-higher state. He returned to Boston, and after marrying the dying daughter of a banker, resigned from the clergy, declared the sacraments to be a remnant of barbarism, and proclaimed The American as the “New Man” who was leaving behind the garbage of the past and blazing the way into the future state of perfection for humanity. Emerson has ever since in many quarters been regarded as the American philosopher, the true interpreter of the meaning of America.

From the point of view of Christianity, this “American” doctrine is heresy. From the point of view of history it is nonsense. But it is powerful enough for Ronald Reagan, who should have known better, to proclaim America as the shining City upon a Hill that was to redeem mankind. And powerful enough that the United States has long pursued a bipartisan foreign policy, one of the guiding assumptions of which is that America is the model of perfection to which all the world should want to conform.

There is no reason for readers of Southern Partisan to rush out and buy these books, which are expensive and dense academic treatises. If you are really interested, get your library to acquire them. They are well-documented studies, responsibly restrained in their drawing of larger conclusions. But they indicate what is hopefully a trend of exploration of the neglected field of Yankee history.

The highflying Yankee rhetoric of Emerson and Hillary Rodham Clinton has a nether side, which has its historical origins in the “Burnt Over District.” The “Burnt Over District” was well known to antebellum Americans. Emersonian notions bore strange fruit in the central regions of New York State settled by the overflow of poorer Yankees from New England. It was “Burnt Over” because it (along with a similar area in northern Ohio) was swept over time and again by post-millennial revivalism. Here preachers like Charles G. Finney began to confuse Emerson’s future state of perfection with Christianity, and God’s plan for humanity with American chosenness.

If this were true, then anything that stood in the way of American perfection must be eradicated. The threatening evil at various times was liquor, tobacco, the Catholic Church, the Masonic order, meat-eating, marriage. Within the small area of the Burnt Over District and within the space of a few decades was generated what historians have misnamed the “Jacksonian reform movement:” Joseph Smith received the Book of Mormon from the Angel Moroni; William Miller began the Seventh Day Adventists by predicting, inaccurately, the end of the world; the free love colony of John Humphrey Noyes flourished at Oneida; the first feminist convention was held at Seneca Falls; and John Brown, who was born in Connecticut, collected accomplices and financial backers for his mass murder expeditions.

It was in this milieu that abolitionism, as opposed to the antislavery sentiment shared by many Americans, including Southerners, had its origins. Abolitionism, despite what has been said later, was not based on sympathy for the black people nor on an ideal of natural rights. It was based on the hysterical conviction that Southern slaveholders were evil sinners who stood in the way of fulfillment of America’s divine mission to establish Heaven on Earth. It was not the Union that our Southern forefathers seceded from, but the deadly combination of Yankee greed and righteousness.

Most abolitionists had little knowledge of or interest in black people or knowledge of life in the South. Slavery promoted sin and thus must end. No thought was given to what would happen to the African-Americans. In fact, many abolitionists expected that evil Southern whites and blacks would disappear and the land be repopulated by virtuous Yankees.

The darker side of the Yankee mind has had its expression in American history as well as the side of high ideals. Timothy McVeigh from New York and the Unabomber from Harvard are, like John Brown, examples of this side of the Yankee problem. (Even though distinguished Yankee intellectuals have declared that their violence was a product of the evil “Southern gun culture.”)

General Richard Taylor, in one of the best Confederate memoirs, Destruction and Reconstruction, related what happened as he surrendered the last Confederate troops east of the Mississippi in 1865. A German, wearing the uniform of a Yankee general and speaking in heavily accented English, lectured him that now that the war was over, Southerners would be taught “the true American principles.” Taylor replied, sardonically, that he regretted that his grandfather, an officer in the Revolution, and his father, President of the United States, had not passed on to him true American principles. Yankeeism was triumphant.

Since the Confederate surrender, the Yankee has always been a strong and often dominant force in American society, though occasionally tempered by Southerners and other representatives of Western civilization in America. In the 1960s the Yankee had one of his periodic eruptions of mania such as he had in the 1850s. Since then, he has managed to destroy a good part of the liberty and morals of the American peoples. It remains to be seen whether his conquest is permanent or whether in the future we may be, at least to some degree, emancipated from it.

By James W. King

December 2, 2006 11:26 AM | Link to this

Individuals, groups, and organizations who denounce the Confederate States of America, the Confederate flag, and the celebration of Confederate Memorial Day appear very ignorant, biased, and hypocritical. I assume they totally support the United States of America, the U.S.flag and U.S. Memorial day.

In claiming that the Confederate flag represents slavery and racism they make no comparison to the U.S. flag (Stars & Stripes) and to the history of the United States of America. Slavery began in the North in Massachusetts. Soon after the Pilgrims landed they began enslaving the Pequot Indians. In 1641 Massachusetts was the first colony to legalize slavery by statute. The five states that imported slaves in the colonial era were Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, and New York. The slave trade was still in operation at the beginning of the War Between the States and the slave ship "Nightingale" was captured by Capt. John Julius Guthrie, who soon became a Confederate naval officer, on April 21, 1861. It was registered to the city of Boston, Massachusetts. Thus the slave trade in America was carried on under the U.S. flag and the flags of the Northern colonies and states with U.S. money. The U.S. flag flew over slavery for 90 years as compared to 4 for the Confederate flag. New York City had the second highest slave population in the U.S. The U.S. flag flew over the genocide of the American Indians. Their land was taken without fair compensation and they died by the thousands from starvation and disease as they were herded onto reservations. It was the U.S. government that broke every treaty ever made with the Indians. The U.S. flag flew over the Trail Of Tears endured by the Cherokee. The official flag of the KKK is the U.S. flag, not the Confederate flag. Indiana and Ohio in the 1920 era were the largest Klan states and all photographs of that era show them flying the U.S. flag. The U.S. flag flew over the concentration camp incarceration of loyal Japanese U.S. Citizens during World War II while some of their fathers and sons fought and died for the U.S. as American soldiers. The U.S. participated in the allied bombing of Dresden,Germany in World War II which was a population center and not involved in the war effort. Thousands of innocent children were burned alive. Finally the U.S. flag flies over a nation that has murdered an estimated 46 million babies by abortion. Given these facts, which flag has flown over more human rights violations, the U.S. flag or the Confederate flag? Which flag is more associated with slavery ? Which flag has had more racist acts committed under it ? Clearly the answer is the U.S. flag. Both the United States of America and the Confederate States of America should be respected and honored for positive reasons.

By James W. King

December 2, 2006 11:35 AM | Link to this

The Confederate Flag and the United States Flag are judged by different standards and criteria, and are not held to the same levels of accountability. In analytical science and weights and measures, comparisons are made against known standards. However, in politics comparisons are never made in a fair and impartial manner.

In order to understand the hypocrisy, ignorance, and bias that have been directed against the Confederate Flag, it is necessary to use the U.S. Flag (Stars and Stripes) as a standard of comparison. The purpose of this comparison is not to berate or disparage the U.S. Flag, but rather to prove that the Confederate Flag has received unfair and unequal treatment.

The genocide and racial cleansing of the American Indians took place under the U.S. Flag. The U.S. Flag flew over an unconstitutional and criminal war conducted against The Confederate States of America. Abraham Lincoln conducted this war for the benefit of wealthy Northern industrialists. Slaves were imported from Africa to America primarily by five Northern States: NY.,MA.CT.,NH.,and RI. The Confederate Flag was not involved. Finally, the U.S. Flag flies over a nation that has murdered an estimated 50 million babies by abortion.

Political Correctness has been used to attempt bans of The Confederate Flag from schools, parades, public and private property, and even historical monuments and sites.

The Confederate flag represents Constitutional Limited Federal Government, States Rights, Resistance to Government Tyranny, and Christian Values and Principles. To say that it represents racism and bigotry is a negative and shallow interpretation comparable to saying the U.S. flag represents the genocide of the American Indians and abortion.

By James W. King

December 2, 2006 11:51 AM | Link to this

Keep in mind that the discussion below occurs during the war, August 5th, 1861, between Semmes and a Captain Hillyar, of the British vessel “Cadmus”. It is as good a summary as I’ve seen from a well-educated Southerner of the period who is stating his reasons for fighting.

When Captain Hillyar expressed surprised at Captain Semme’s contention that the people of the South were “defending ourselves against robbers with knives at our throats”, and asked for further clarification as to how this was so, the exchange below occurred. I especially was impressed with Semmes’ assessment of yankee motives – the creation of “Empire”!

Memoirs of Service Afloat By Raphael Semmes Pages 186-187, Chapter 16 Original Publication, 1868 Louisiana Paperback Edition, 1996

Semmes: “Simply that the machinery of the Federal Government, under which we have lived, and which was designed for the common benefit, has been made the means of despoiling the South, to enrich the North”, and I explained to him the workings of the iniquitous tariffs, under the operation of which the South had, in effect, been reduced to a dependent colonial condition, almost as abject as that of the Roman provinces, under their proconsuls; the only difference being, that smooth-faced hypocrisy had been added to robbery, inasmuch as we had been plundered under the forms of law”

Captain Hillyar: “All this is new to me”, replied the captain. “I thought that your war had arisen out of the slavery question”.

Semmes: “That is the common mistake of foreigners. The enemy has taken pains to impress foreign nations with this false view of the case. With the exception of a few honest zealots, the canting hypocritical Yankee cares as little for our slaves as he does for our draught animals. The war which he has been making upon slavery for the last 40 years is only an interlude, or by-play, to help on the main action of the drama, which is Empire; and it is a curious coincidence that it was commenced about the time the North began to rob the South by means of its tariffs. When a burglar designs to enter a dwelling for the purpose of robbery, he provides himself with the necessary implements. The slavery question was one of the implements employed to help on the robbery of the South. It strengthened the Northern party, and enabled them to get their tariffs through Congress; and when at length, the South, driven to the wall, turned, as even the crushed worm will turn, it was cunningly perceived by the Northern men that ‘No slavery’ would be a popular war-cry, and hence, they used it.

It is true that we are defending our slave property, but we are defending it no more than any other species of our property – it is all endangered, under a general system of robbery. We are in fact, fighting for independence. Our forefathers made a great mistake, when they warmed the Puritan serpent in their bosom; and we, their descendents, are endeavoring to remedy it”.

By GodHatesTrash

December 2, 2006 12:23 PM | Link to this

CSA - an organization of traitors.

KKK - an organization of terrorists.

SCV - an organization full of the descendants of traitors and terrorists.

TRASH.

By They Ride With Forrest - Gump, that is...

December 2, 2006 12:28 PM | Link to this

LOSERS

By Steve

December 2, 2006 12:45 PM | Link to this

Boycott schmoycott. An abysmal failure in SC and would have failed in Ga. too. In Mississippi democracy reigns, they voted, and in Georgia the politbureau/oligarchy decides. Stalin would be proud. Georgians deserve better. Honor sacrificed on the alter of money = yankee.

By James W. King

December 2, 2006 2:28 PM | Link to this

Traitor, according to Noah Webster’s 1828 dictionary: One who violates his allegiance and betrays his country; one guilty of treason; one who, in breach of trust, delivers his country to its enemy, or any fort or place entrusted to his defense, or who surrenders an army or body of troops to the enemy, unless when vanquished; or one who takes arms and levies war against his country; or one who aids an enemy in conquering his country.

Treason, according to Noah Webster’s 1828 dictionary: Treason is the highest crime of a civil nature of which a man can be guilty. Its signification is different in different countries. In general, it is the offense of attempting to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance, or of betraying the state into the hands of a foreign power.

Traitor, according to The Random House College Dictionary 1984: A person who betrays another, a cause, or any trust; a person who betrays his country by violating his allegiance

Treason, according to The Random House College Dictionary 1984: violation by a subject of his allegiance to his sovereign or to the state

So, here are the definitions of treason and traitor. We, as Confederates, members of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, Southerners, Southrons, oftentimes read/hear of our Confederate ancestors referred to as traitors. Most of the time, we wince, get our feelings hurt, or as the P/C crowd says “offended”, and move on. Here is why we are not the descendants of traitors. First, the Southern States democratically withdrew from the voluntary union of States, based upon a compact they had made with each other to guide their “common government” and to help them settle any disagreement they may have with each other. This “compact” is called the Constitution of the United States of America. Without now going into the details of this “compact” suffice to say these were “the rules” by which all signatories agreed to live by, as regard the other States. And, they understood that if the “compact” was broken on one point, then the whole thing was broken. Was George Washington a “traitor”? As a British subject, he most certainly was. The English law, first clearly stated in the Statute of Treasons (1350) included this, “and to wage war against the kingdom”. Source: http://www.answers.com/topic/treason. Also, it included this, “prohibited levying war against the king, adhering to his enemies, or contemplating his death.” So, clearly, the whole of the 13 British colonies that were established in the “New World” and constituting what we now call “the 13 original States”, were guilty of treason. Because they did wage war against the kingdom, they did levy war against the king. Are we to hold our Confederate ancestors to the same standard? Did they “wage war against the kingdom”, i.e. the U.S. government? Did they “levy war against the king”, i.e. president lincoln? According to Article 3 of the Constitution it thus provides that treason shall consist only in levying war against the United States or in giving aid and comfort to its enemies and that conviction may be had only on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act or on confession in open court. By that definition, are Mexicans traitors? Because of a little incident in U.S. history referred to as “the Mexican War, 1846-1848”? What about the Germans who waged war against the U.S. in 1917-18 and again in 1942-45? What about the Vietnamese, the Iraqis? Obviously, these countries’ people have given aid and comfort to our enemies. So, is this starting to get ridiculous? Of course it is. So is calling our Confederate ancestors “traitors”. Because, the various Confederate soldiers, if they had been in the employ of the U.S. government, if they had been soldiers and sailors of the U.S. army and navy, they resigned their places so that their honour and integrity may be maintained. At that point, they became private citisens of their respective States, not soldiers of the United States armed forces. Therefore, the stain of traitor could not be levied against them. The United States army took up arms against the sovereign States who had just declared their individual independence. As men who had military experience, they offered their swords, their very lives, in the defence of their States. Those very States who sincerely believed that their future, as sovereigns, lay out of this union with an outlaw, rogue nation, and instead, belonged with the several Southern States, all of whom had kindred spirits, the spirits of liberty. They democratically withdrew from the voluntary union of sovereign States, then joined together, in common cause, a new union, a Confederate union. All of this was done within the highest ideals of the democratic process. Treason? No! But, was there “treason”? Was there “rebellion” in the U.S. in the 1860’s? Are not we the ones who point out it was the president of the United States, abraham lincoln, who violated his oath of office by violating the Constitution of these United States? These are ten distinct violations of the Constitution by Abraham Lincoln: Coercion in 1861. Article IV.— Laws of Neutrality — Trent Affair. Article VI, Clause 2 — Violation of International Law.— Writ of Habeas Corpus Suspended. Article I, Section IX, Clause 2.— War Declared Without the Consent of Congress, 1861. Article I, Section VIII, Clauses 11, 12.— Emancipation Proclamation. Article IV, Section III, Clause 2.— West Virginia Made a State. Article IV, Section III, Clause 1.— Freedom of Speech Denied. Vallandigham Imprisoned in Ohio. Amendment One.— Blockading Parts of States that Were Held by the Federal Government to be Still in the Union.— Liberty of the Press Denied. Amendment One.— Violation of the Fugitive Slave Law. Article IV, Section II, Clause 3. With all these clear and distinct violations of the Constitution by the Commander-In-Chief of the armed forces of the United States of America, would it be a stretch at all to declare that it was the yankee soldiers who were the traitors? By virtue of and connection to, their highest leader? If it be their leader who leads them into the paths of unrighteousness, to do harm to the Constitution, to do harm to the nation, to do harm to its citisens, can they, the yankee soldier, be called the good guy, the patriot, the “American hero”? Was it not the yankee soldier who rounded up the old men, women and children of Roswell and New Manchester, Georgia onto train cattle cars and shipped them north only to dump them off north of the Ohio River to be on their own? Was it not the yankee soldier who killed more than fifty thousand Southern civilians in a four year war, almost as many American soldiers who died in Vietnam in a fifteen year war? Was it not yankee soldiers who destroyed the Shenadoah Valley, causing the yankee general to boast that a crow flying over would need to carry provisions? I could go on and on about the treachery of the yankee soldier. Therefore, I conclude that for now on, we refer to the yankee soldier as the traitors. No more will our enemies call us traitors, by extension, because we honour our brave Confederate/American ancestors, who stepped up to do the right thing, placed their lives on the line in the defence of the ideals of the Founding Fathers. No more will their base charges of treason go unanswered, no more will they ridicule their bravery, scorn their patriotism and laugh at their motives without being challenged.

By Firebrand

December 2, 2006 6:18 PM | Link to this

I find it very interesting that those who want to obliterate all things Confederate because of their “painful” reminders of slavery are the same people who have demanded that the National Parks Service include verbage at our national battlefields explaining the role of slaves and slavery in the War Between the States. There is also an effort afoot to have comments about the slave labor, which was used to build the U.S. Capitol building, included in a plaque to be placed at the U.S. Capitol to commemorate those slaves … which leads me to ask, “What is the difference?” Isn’t one symbol as much of a “painful” reminder of slavery as the other? Or, because you choose the symbolism, does that make it less “painful?” It sounds more than a little hypocritical to me. Also, as politically incorrect as it may sound, the fact remains that every single slave that landed on American shores had already been enslaved in his native Africa before he or she arrived here. The slave trade would have been impossible if not for the tribal warlords of Africa trading their own kind for their own profit. Why is it we never hear one word of this mentioned by those who belittle all things Confederate, whose finger of blame is only pointed toward white Southerners? Is it too “painful” to admit the truth … that their own ancestors bear much, if not most, of the responsibility of the slave trade existing in the first place? Or, does admitting this truth explode all foundations of any argument that justifies reparations, and therefore should be conveniently tucked away?

Does anyone remember President Clinton bringing up the subject of an apology for American slavery on a visit last year to Uganda? "European-Americans received the fruits of the slave trade," Mr. Clinton said on a visit to the village of Mukono with Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni. When Museveni was asked about such an American apology, he replied: "African chiefs were the ones waging war on each other and capturing their own people and selling them. If anyone should apologize it should be the African chiefs. We still have those traitors here even today." Slavery is alive and well today, with over 26 million being held in bondage in Africa - far, far more than in all the Confederacy's years combined and multiplied. Where is the NAACP and its supporters in the battle to free these blood kin? Do they not know that their money, which is being wasted in trying to eradicate a proud heritage that will never be eradicated under any circumstance, could be buying their own blood out of slavery in their native land? How can the NAACP focus all of its attention and money on a symbolic issue when the people they claim to represent are fighting real issues like fatherless homes, gangs, drug abuse, poor academic performance, and teenage pregnancy every single day of their existence? I ask any person who decries the symbolism of the Confederacy to answer this single, simple question: What does removing these symbols do to substantively improve the life of one person, black or white or green or plaid, in this state or nation?

By GodHatesTrash

December 2, 2006 6:42 PM | Link to this

Your heritage, you filthy rednecks, is a heritage of hate, rape, murder, torture, racism and oppression.

Topped off with treason against the government of the United States, followed by 100 years of government sanctioned terror against blacks.

All your fancy smoke blowing and bilious bullsheet can’t change any of that.

By GodHatesTrash

December 2, 2006 6:44 PM | Link to this

Funny how you cretins loved the Democrats when they were the ones under the sheets with you.

Stupid Klan trash.

By James W. King

December 2, 2006 7:43 PM | Link to this

iberals appear to have a mental dysfunction which prevents their brain from processing information in such a manner as to arrive at rational logical conclusions. Therefore they cannot distinguish fantasy fromreality.

By Gene Wade

December 2, 2006 7:47 PM | Link to this

It is telling that the group of individuals that removed the 56 flag did so in secret and refused to let Georgians decide for themselves the flag issue. And some people wonder just why most of us consider politicians and big business to be scoundrels and liars without decency and honor. But,they have no shame.

By James W. King

December 2, 2006 8:03 PM | Link to this

Liberals appear to have a mental dysfunction which prevents their brain from processing information in such a manner as to arrive at rational logical conclusions. Therefore they cannot distinguish fantasy from reality. When presented with facts they cannot logically or historically present counter facts to refute they resort to name calling. This is typical liberal methodology and is the only means that these uneducated, irrational, and illogical individuals know how to use to attempt to express themselves. No amount of fact and logic will cause these individuals to change their warped views and ideas. They do not want to be educated. Liberalism is all about feelings as opposed to fact. Individuals of this type do not want facts interfering with their feelings and illogical and irrational concepts and perspectives of history. I am anxiously awaiting more name calling in response to this post. Come on “God Hates Trash” give us your best.

By GodHatesTrash

December 2, 2006 8:28 PM | Link to this

A bunch of bucktoothed inbred cretins burning crosses while dancing around drunk under their bed linens claiming to be a superior race and culture - now there is an effing fantasy!

Trash.

By GodHatesTrash

December 2, 2006 9:13 PM | Link to this

The “heritage” you knuckledraggers try so very hard to whitewash IS a heritage of racial hatred, including (but not limited to) the rape of slaves, the murder and working to death hundreds of thousands of human beings, the torturing, maiming and beating them, and the oppression of racial and political minorities.

Your filthy ancestors DID wage a 4 year war upon the United States Government, started when traitors shelled Fort Sumter.

Your southron states DID practice segregation and apartheid and condoned lynching for a one hundred year period after the Civil War against the freedmen and their descendants.

Those are the facts, jackanape.

By Firebrand

December 2, 2006 10:27 PM | Link to this

And the north was guilty of none of this? Racism and prejudice is sold as a Southern monopoly when in fact the northern states were just as if not moreso biased in their views. Why, even Jet magazine recently acknowledged that the Great Emancipator himself was a racist who endorsed not only the separation of the races but an overall deportation of blacks from American soil. But of course, his final vision became using the slave card as a “holy” cause in the war, then basically dumping millions of people into a society they were in no way ready to be a contributing part of - hence 150 years now of cyclic government dependency.

Funny how those facts are so rarely heard, much less discussed. Oh, but that wouldn’t fit very well into the propagandized version of our history now, would it?

Give me a break.

By Billy Bearden

December 2, 2006 10:41 PM | Link to this

GodHatesTrash

So full of hate against the Southern White Man you must have either written the recent Fulton County Democratic Campaign Add, or you are either John Lewis, Andrew Young or Shirley Franklin. Perhaps youz guyz are taking turns posting….

Plus all that talk of folks raping, murder, burning, torture, etc… You must be talking about either the Yankee Union Army under Sherman or the Imperial Japanese Forces of WW2.

By GodHatesTrash

December 3, 2006 12:00 AM | Link to this

Firebrand, when busted for bad behavior, a seven-year old will often resort to “well, what about the other kids, they were doing it, too…”.

Congratulations!

You have the moral, ethical, and intellectual development of a seven-year old.

Further, to the rest of your childish post, after the Civil War, the freedmen were far less dependent on government than white rednecks. There were no federal aid programs at the time, and state and local relief efforts went almost exclusively to whites in the southron states. So much for your damnable lie about 150 years of dependence.

And, given the poor economic and social performance of the American redneck in our society, isn’t your statement the pot calling the kettle black?

I mean, seriously - standards of living, income, public health, education, STDs, divorce, teen pregnancy, rape, incest, violent crime - the south always lags behind, the white south too.

Who are you people to condemn or cast aspersions on anyone, given your degraded culture and society?

By Michael Reuter

December 3, 2006 7:34 AM | Link to this

GodHatesTrash

Wooo you are one angry mofo, brutha. You also possess one of the most narrow intellects I’ve encountered lately. I’m enjoying the comic relief, though, so please don’t stop. A question, I know it’s dark in there, does it smell bad too? Another, and this one’s a double, How often do you pull your head out to breathe, or do you? A third and final, Do you think it manly to use a pseudonym? Finally,a suggestion, Get an education before you post again. Now, since I don’t really expect a cogent reply……make me laugh again!

By Michael Reuter

December 3, 2006 7:34 AM | Link to this

GodHatesTrash

Wooo you are one angry mofo, brutha. You also possess one of the most narrow intellects I’ve encountered lately. I’m enjoying the comic relief, though, so please don’t stop. A question, I know it’s dark in there, does it smell bad too? Another, and this one’s a double, How often do you pull your head out to breathe, or do you? A third and final, Do you think it manly to use a pseudonym? Finally,a suggestion, Get an education before you post again. Now, since I don’t really expect a cogent reply……make me laugh again!

By They Ride With Forrest - Gump, that is...

December 3, 2006 8:20 AM | Link to this

Look at all the SCVers! You folks at the AJC must be proud - this blog is becoming a veritable Who’s Who of Georgia rednecks!

Seriously, it must be hard thankless work to work for a newspaper in an area of the country with so many semi-literates - you know, casting pearls before swine…

Hey, these clowns are probably proud their great Goobernor Sonny got the SAT scores up to 46th.

Oh wait - these are the flaggers… fools still living smack dab in the middle of the dirty shacks and outhouses of mid-19th century Georgia… they don’t like the goobernor…

By James W. King

December 3, 2006 9:55 PM | Link to this

The history of the Confederate era and that of the Reconstruction era that followed has not been fairly and accurately portrayed. In addition the liberal news media and Hollywood have misrepresented, misused, and abused the Confederate flag. History is subject to political manipulation. Historical records prove that a majority of black Southerners of the Confederate era did not perceive the Confederacy and the flag in a negative perspective as many black Southerners of the present era do. In Mississippi on Feb. 1, 1890, an appropriation for a monument to the Confederate dead was being considered. A delegate had just spoken in opposition, when John F. Harris, a black delegate rose to speak. “I was sorry to hear the speech of the young gentleman from Marshall County. I am sorry that any son of a soldier would go on record as opposed to the erection of a monument in honor of the brave dead. And, Sir, I am convinced that had he seen what I saw at Seven Pines, and in the Seven Day’s fighting around Richmond, the battlefield covered with mangled forms of those who fought for their country’s honor, he would not have made this speech.” “When the news came that the South had been invaded, those men went forth to fight for what they believed, and they made no requests for monuments. But they died, and their virtues should be remembered.” “Sir, I went with them. I, too, wore the gray, the same color my master wore. We stayed for four long years, and if the war had gone on till now I would have been there yet. I want to honor those brave men who died for their convictions.” “When my mother died I was a boy. Who, sir, then acted the part of mother to the orphaned slave boy, but my old Missus! Were she still living now, or could speak to me from those high realms where are gathered the sainted dead, she would tell me to vote for this bill. And, sir, I shall vote for it. I want it known to all the world that my vote is given in favor of the bill to erect a monument in Honor of the Confederate Dead.” When the applause died down, the measure passed overwhelmingly, and every black member voted “AYE.”

By James W. King

December 3, 2006 10:41 PM | Link to this

The 2 individuals who have resorted to name calling and insulting remarks on this forum have lowered themselves in the minds of all intelligent educated readers. It is obvious that they have closed minds and do not have a thourough understanding of historical and current events. There is a saying that”a little knowledge is a dangerous thing”. This sums up their shallow understanding of the past and present. Their understanding and perception of the Sons Of Confederate Veterans organization and the members of this organization is pure fantasy. It appears that these individuals refuse to be educated and prefer to retain their misconceptions. I am an honor graduate of the University of Georgia with an advanced degree. I own my own corporation.I live in a nice home on a nice track of land surrounded by plantations, one of which is 26,000 acres and belongs to the owner of Victoria’s secret corp. Many of our SCV members are professional men—doctors—lawyers-businessmen. We are not racists and disdain the modern klan. We view the Confederate flag as representing the form of government America was founded upon—A CONSTITUTIONAL FEDERAL REPUBLIC composed of a LIMITED FEDERAL GOVERNMENT and SOVEREIGN STATES. This has nothing to do with racism and bigotry. We have black members of the Sons of Confederate Veterans organization. These black members are proud Southerners who had ancestors that were black Confederates. These black Confederates served willingly and attended Confederate reunions for years after the war and traveled and slept with their white comrades in arms. Today I attended a tombstone dedication for 3 Confederate soldiers in South Georgia. The family cemetary was destroyed accidently in the 1920-30 era by a timber company. New markers were installed and dedicated today. In attendance were black descendants of one of the men. The rededication was a Confederate military funeral with reenactors in Confederate uniform. The service included 3 rifle vollys and the singing of “Dixie”. The black descendants joined several hundred of their white relatives in the service and were treated with the utmost respect and dignity and were truly welcomed and accepted. The old family cemetary was miles out in the country in a remote area. I say all of the above to make the point THE SCV IS NOT THE KLAN and WE ARE HONORABLE MEN. The 2 men who have made the vicious character assassinations are 180 degrees wrong. Their claims that SCV members are uneducated inbred rednecks living in shacks are totally wrong. Would you two offenders like to open your closed minds and reconsider the incorrect and insulting remarks that you have made on this forum and be man enough to admit that you had misconceptions and apologize ?

By GodHatesTrash

December 3, 2006 10:50 PM | Link to this

Would you give your name and address out to lynchmobbers, assassins, and churchbombers?

You filthy rednecks have a long history of violence and vigilantism - one on one, you are worthless fighters though.

Instead you attack at night in force like a pack of rabid jackals, or you hide in the darkness like the human detritus Byron dela Beckwith or James Earl Ray, or you plant bombs in churches like the godless heathen devils that you are.

I will remain anonymous, you heathen jackal.

By jake

December 3, 2006 10:51 PM | Link to this

King…

Stay in the past if you want but from the reactions I read on this headline people are looking to the future. Effective discourse requires courtesy. Be courteous and stop cloging this blog.

By GodHatesTrash

December 3, 2006 10:53 PM | Link to this

I don’t apologize to trash, traitors, or terrorists. Scum.

By uncle jessie

December 4, 2006 10:07 AM | Link to this

From what I’m a hearing thar’s some folks needs to get out of the city fer a while. Spend some time with Daisy and the boys down in Hazzard. Might see thangs different…

By James W. King

December 4, 2006 8:52 PM | Link to this

God occasionally works miracles and after reading the trashy vulgar posts on this forum by a hate filled fanatic it is apparent it would take such a miracle direct from God to rescue him from the clutches of Satan. He is the only one being hurt by all this unwarranted hatred and the sad part is that he seems to think his actions are in accordance with God. It is obvious that one does not have to go to Iraq to find absolute fanatics and zealots.

By James W. King

December 4, 2006 11:00 PM | Link to this

” And who is he who will harm you if you become followers of what is good? But even if you should suffer for righteousness” sake, you are blessed. And do not be afraid of their threats nor be troubled. But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear; having a good conscience, that when they defame you as evildoers, those who revile your good conduct in Christ may be ashamed. For it is better, if it is the will of God, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil.”

By GodHatesTrash

December 5, 2006 8:41 AM | Link to this

Too bad more of your knuckledragging raping murdering hatefilled forebearers didn’t heed that passage.

They’re in Hell where they belong, so why do you worship them?

By James W. King

December 5, 2006 8:42 AM | Link to this

Uganda President Yoweri Museveni states he blames “black traitors” more than white Europeans for the 17th and 18th century slave trade. “African chiefs were the ones waging war on each other and capturing their own people and selling them,” he said. “If anyone should apologise it should be the African chiefs. We still have those traitors here even today.” - March 1998

By GodHatesTrash

December 5, 2006 9:51 AM | Link to this

Oh good - there are some Africans in Hell too. Maybe they are having sex with your grandmothers while your grandpappies watch!

Your posts are hilarious - you find some Stepin Fetchit black folk to tell you lies that you want to hear, then you puke them up on this blog.