Yankee PC Part II: Kevin Levin, Jane Dailey, and their idea of the S.C.V.

Jane Dailey of the University of Chicago

       During my last blog we discussed how the Northern politically correct historians change the truth to suit their agenda's. We talked about how Jane Dailey (shown above) changed the historical painting entitled "Lee and His Generals" to suit her agenda. She either doesn't know that only corps and army commanders were pictured in the painting, not brigade and division commanders or she is ignorant of what she claims to be a historian of. She claims that William Mahone was left out purposefully because he attempted to take care of the black race following the war. I was speaking with a colleague recently and stated, "You would think a professor of history would understand why a division commander would be missing from a painting of all corps and army commanders. After all, the greatest division commander in the Confederacy was Patrick R. Cleburne and he wasn't in the painting." My friend replied, "You would think, but most historians today don't have a clue. They write to make their side of the argument sound legitimate."

       Mrs. Dailey could have written about General Pierre Gustave Toutant Beauregard of New Orleans who was an army commander and was in the painting. Following the war, he fought to help blacks obtain equal rights and what "thanks" did he get for that? Well, the mayor of New Orleans had his monument removed from public places. So, there you go, write a story about that one Mrs. Dailey. 

       To add to their view of Southerners we need to read Kevin Levin's blog post asking if the Sons of Confederate Veterans truly want to restore the home of William Mahone. The home in question is William Mahone's boyhood home in Courtland, Virginia. Levin (an obvious psychic who knows what people are planning in the future) states that the S.C.V. will no doubt interpret the story about Mahone's pre-war career while ignoring his post-war career. Hey Kevin, perhaps you can avert some future murders and save lives since you already know what a group is planning to do in the future. 

       The problem with these modern day "northern historians" is the fact that they think all Southerner's are ignorant and only a "Yankee" can be intelligent. They don't understand that the S.C.V. has a charge to remember those who fought for the Southern states. It has nothing to do with post-war politics or racism. There happen to be black S.C.V. members as bad as that galls the "northern historians." Even Levin states that Mahone would not want the Sons of Confederate Veterans in his home. Since Levin knows so much about what all these people from the war wanted, perhaps he can channel General Robert E. Lee and ask him what his thought process was before deciding on Pickett's Charge. It would be a great help to the true historians that only deal with the facts, not assumptions that fit our agenda. 

       What these modern day revisionist historians from Chicago and Boston fail to tell everyone is the fact that race relations in the South would have always been favorable if not for the interference of northerners. Why did things go wrong following the war between the races. To start with, the republican northern congress wanted to maintain control of congress and by doing so, they outlawed anyone associated with the Confederacy from voting. That meant all male's above the voting age in the South. They allowed uneducated blacks the right to vote and hold office and make a complete shamble of the Southern economy. This is where the trouble began. The black race was taken advantage of by northern politicians for their own benefit (imagine any politician doing something like that if you can). I hear the "northern politically correct historian laughing at me already," but I can provide examples to the fact behind this.

       When the republicans came to power in South Carolina following four long bloody years of warfare, the state debt stood at 5.4 million dollars. That doesn't sound like a lot of money today, but let's see what happened following the republicans placing uneducated blacks in the state legislature. Once reconstruction ended in a time of peace, that debt had gone from 5.4 million dollars to 18.5 million dollars. Guess who had their taxes raised to pay for all this graft? The white race that had recently been made poor by four years of a losing war. How long did it take South Carolina to repay the 18.5 million dollar debt? It was after World War II, but don't tell these modern northern historians because they can just pretend none of this happened. 

       Let us look at these people the Federal government placed in power in the South Carolina legislature during this time. Of 63 members in 1868, 50 were black and 13 were white. Of the 63 members, only 22 could read, 8 could write correctly, and 41 had to make a mark for their signature. Only 19 were tax paying members of society and yet they voted to levy $4000.00 worth of taxes on each white person in the state. That is poor white people who had lost everything in the bloody Civil War. Why are these facts never mentioned by these modern "northern revisionist historians?" I think we already know the answer. 

The Yankee P.C.: Never Let The Truth Get In The Way Of A Good Story, Part 1

Major General William Mahone

       I was recently doing what I do best and that was studying information on Confederate generals. I came across an article that would have made me laugh if it wasn't for the fact that most people will read what this woman has written and believe it. The lady's name is Jane Dailey, an associate professor of history at the University of Chicago (of course). She begins her article mentioning attending a conference in Charleston, South Carolina. She had gone to an old marketplace to browse the shops for a souvenir for her son. She complained that all she could find was "Confederate memorabilia." That was when she noticed a painting (one of which I have hanging in my living room at this moment) called "Lee and His Generals." 

       Allow me to quote her directly here. "Inspecting it, I saw that something-or rather, someone-was missing. I was looking for a tiny, bearded, Major General, a divisional commander who was with Lee at Appomattox and who shared in the decision to surrender that April day in 1865. I was looking for General William Mahone of Virginia, and I did not find him because he was not there.....How did such a high-ranking Confederate commander wind up missing in action in a Charleston gift shop? Not, I think, by accident."

       She then proceeds to say that Mahone has been erased from Confederate history because of his association with African Americans following the war. Now, one would think a professor of history would be able to study this painting and figure out why Billy Mahone isn't in it. It has absolutely nothing to do with what he did following the war or for any reason that Jane Dailey has come up with. 

Lee and His Generals

       Allow me to introduce the painting to you. "Lee and His Generals" was painted by G.B. Matthews and was copyrighted in 1907. Jane Dailey is correct, you will not find William Mahone in the picture. Would you like to know the real reason why? Any historian worth their salt will quickly figure the answer out without writing a dishonest article to fit what they want history to read like. Let's see why Major General Mahone isn't in the picture. From left to right are the top commanders in the Confederacy. In the Confederate Army, General's commanded army's, Lieutenant General's commanded corps, Major General's commanded divisions, and Brigadier General's commanded brigades. From left to right in the painting are General John Bell Hood (commander of the Army of Tennessee in 1864), Lieutenant General Richard Stoddard Ewell (commanded a corps in Lee's Army), General Braxton Bragg (commanded the Army of Tennessee from 1862-1863), General Albert Sidney Johnston (commanded the Army of Mississippi from 1861 to 1862), Lieutenant General Wade Hampton (commanded Lee's Cavalry Corps late in the war), General Edmund Kirby Smith (commanded all forces west of the Mississippi), Lieutenant General Jubal Anderson Early (commanded a corps under Lee in 1864), Lieutenant General Ambrose Powell Hill (commanded a corps under Lee from 1863 until his death in 1865), Lieutenant General Richard Heron Anderson (commanded a corps in Lee's army in 1864 and ironically Mr. Matthew's painted the wrong general here, he accidentally painted Virginia Brigadier General Joseph Anderson), Major General John Brown Gordon (commanded a corps in Lee's army at the end of the war), Lieutenant General Theophilus Holmes (commanded a corps in Arkansas), Lieutenant General William J. Hardee (commanded a corps in the Army of  Tennessee), General Joseph E. Johnston (commanded the Army of Northern Virginia and the Army of Tennessee), Lieutenant General Simon B. Buckner (commanded a corps in the Army of Tennessee), Lieutenant General James Longstreet (commanded a corps in Lee's army), Lieutenant General Leonidas Polk (commanded a corps in the Army of Tennessee until his death in 1864), General Robert E. Lee (commanded the Army of Northern Virginia and in 1865 became commander of all Confederate armed forces), Lieutenant General Nathan Bedford Forrest (commanded a cavalry corps in Tennessee), General P.G.T. Beauregard (commanded the Army of Tennessee), Lieutenant General Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson (commanded a corps in Lee's army), General Samuel Cooper (the highest ranked general in the Confederacy), Major General Jeb Stuart (commanded the cavalry corps of Lee's army until his death in 1864), Lieutenant General Richard Taylor (commanded a corp in Louisiana), Lieutenant General John C. Pemberton (commanded the army at Vicksburg), and Lieutenant General D.H. Hill (commanded a corps in the Army of Tennessee). 

       I'm sorry the list is so long, but any true historian will readily notice why William Mahone is not in the picture. Each commander above commanded at least a corps or an army. Division commanders are not pictured at all. William Mahone was not ranked high enough to warrant his picture being in the painting because he never commanded more than a division. There are two major generals pictured above. Major General Jeb Stuart who commanded Lee's cavalry corps and would have eventually been promoted lieutenant general had he not been killed in the spring of 1864. The other is Major General John B. Gordon who also commanded a corps in Lee's Army in 1865. Had the war lasted longer, he no doubt would have been promoted. He actually claimed to have been promoted to lieutenant general in his memoirs, but he signed his parole at Appomattox as major general. There are other major general's who commanded corps for brief and long stretches during the war who did not get their pictures in the painting. Major General Benjamin F. Cheatham commanded a corps in the Army of Tennessee for over six months, yet he didn't get his picture in the painting and he deserves his image there more than Mahone. Major General Patrick Cleburne (one of the Confederacy's top generals also commanded a corps briefly, yet he is not in the painting. You would think a historian would understand this, but it doesn't help sell her story to admit the truth. 

       There is another sly falsehood that she slips into the story and figures it will not be noticed. Allow me to quote her again. "After the war, Robert E. Lee recalled that, when contemplating a successor, he thought that Mahone 'had developed the highest qualities for organization and command.'" Now General Lee did make the above statement about General Mahone's ability as a commander, but did he seriously contemplate making Mahone his successor? This was written by General Mahone and he quoted Lee after the war as making this statement to Lieutenant General Wade Hampton in which he overheard the remark. 

       I'm not calling General Mahone a liar, it is quite possible that General Lee made this statement as a compliment to General Mahone's leadership abilities. General Lee was a product of the old army. He better than anyone understood that a division commander does not have near the responsibility as a corps or army commander. I find it hard to believe that Lee would have wanted to promote a division commander to command of the army above all his corps commanders. We also know that General Lee thought highly of the ability of James Longstreet, who was ranked just behind Lee in the Army of Northern Virginia. There is more information about who Lee wanted to succeed him should he fall. Late in the war, after assigning Major General John B. Gordon to corps command, Lee came to respect his ability at such responsibility. Lee respected Gordon so much, that on his last two offensives (Fort Stedman and Appomattox), Lee entrusted these important attacks to his new corps commander. Lee went so far as to tell Confederate President Jefferson Davis that if he were to be killed that he thought it best for the Confederacy and the army for John B. Gordon to be given command. He didn't mention General Mahone at all during the war as a likely successor. There was nothing General Mahone had ever done to warrant jumping two grades to army command.

       Furthermore, at Gettysburg, the attack was made en echelon from right to left. This means that one division would advance and strike the enemy and hopefully when the Federal army shifted reinforcements from one sector to assist in the defense, the next division would advance into a gap in the line, thus breaking the Federal army. The assault began with Hood's division, then McLaws's division, followed by Richard Anderson's division. Pender's division was slated to advance following Anderson's, yet this never occurred. A brigade commander in Anderson's division dropped the ball. This man seemed to lose his nerve and never advanced, causing the en echelon attack to stall. Pender's division never entered the battle because of one man and that man was General William Mahone. Jane Dailey fails to mention this failure in her article of pure praise for General Mahone. 

       I am in no way downplaying General Mahone's ability as a commander. No one knows why he lost his nerve at Gettysburg, but as a division commander fighting around his home town of Petersburg, he was excellent. He understood the ground there because of his work with the railroad before the war. Mahone understood how to use every defile to move his troops into a position to catch the Federal's unexpectedly. General Mahone was a fine combat commander. I will go into more on Jane Dailey, Kevin Levine, and William Mahone in part 2 of this blog.

Anthony Johnson: The Father of American Slavery

Anthony Johnson

       As promised in the last blog, here is the story of Anthony Johnson, nicknamed "The Father of American Slavery." What makes Anthony Johnson special, just take a look at the drawing depicting him above. Johnson was born around 1600 in Angola, Africa. He was brought to Virginia as an indentured servant around 1621. He worked his required years and was freed and given land. He became a successful tobacco farmer in Maryland. It was there that he obtained five indentured servants, four white, and one black. Make sure you understand what I just told you. He had four white servants (slaves). Bet you never were taught that in school. 

       The period of indentured service at the time was four to seven years. Anthony married another African slave named Mary and they had gained their freedom by 1635. By 1651, Anthony had a successful tobacco farm and owned five servants, four white, and one black. In 1653, John Casor, the black servant claimed his indenture had expired and he was being held illegally by Johnson. The story is complicated with a neighbor attempting to gain the services of Casor and a court case resolved the issue. It was the first time in America that a person was held in servitude (slavery) for life. Prior to this time, one could be held in servitude for a lifetime only if he'd committed a crime. Two white planters swore in court that Casor had served his time, yet the court still sided with Johnson. Now we have all been convinced by modern historians that black men could not win in court versus whites. This case proves that assumption wrong. Anthony Johnson died around 1670 after earning the nickname "The Father of American Slavery." 

       I looked up Anthony Johnson on Snopes and found they agreed with everything I've written above. Its easy to tell by the way they worded their article that it galled them somewhat to admit the above was true, but they had little choice. They go on to list other facts about slavery that very few want to admit was true. Here is what they list. In 1830, 3,775 black people owned 12,740 black slaves. At the time of the Indian removal in 1838, three tribes, the Creeks, Choctaws, and Chickasaws owned 3,500 African slaves. At a latter point the Cherokee tribe owned 3,500. In 1860, William Ellison, a free black man in South Carolina owned 63 black slaves. There were 171 black slave owners at the time in South Carolina alone. There are a lot more interesting facts on Snopes and you can tell they attempt to put a spin on the ones that aren't politically correct. 

       My buddy Pat, a member of the S.C.V. in the Joe Wheeler Camp in Birmingham said that he liked me because I just tell it like it is. I wish everyone else would do the same and quit trying to be so politically correct. If your statement is a fact, just say this is how it was, there is no need to say this is correct, but let me put a spin on it so it doesn't hurt so much. 

Grant's Final Victory by Charles Bracelen Flood

Grant's Final Victory

I recently bought Grant's Final Victory by Charles Bracelen Flood. The book is not about any of Grant's war experiences or his term as president, but only covers the last year of his life. Flood does an excellent job with this story. Although, I like a few pages finishing it, I can go ahead and recommend this book. I found it difficult to put down. It's just one of those books that gets a grip on you and you can't stop. Flood is an excellent story teller. It reminded me of a book I had read years ago about Robert Edward Lee after the Civil War. That book is called Lee: The Last Years. I went and looked in my book case among my 450 Civil War books and sure enough, Charles Flood had written that book as well. 

Lee: The Last Years also by Flood

       I strongly recommend both books by Charles Flood. The book is very readable, but one must take caution with certain points. Charles obviously idolizes Grant. He would make it appear that Grant was truthful in his biography and this is the part I have trouble with. Although, there are problems with things Grant said in his biography, this is a very good book about the last years of Grant's life. I'm a southerner and I love everything the South stood for, yet I respect Grant. Unlike his counterpart William T. Sherman, being a victor, he could forgive the south for what he saw as wrong. Grant could respect what his enemies stood for.
       He understood as the book by Flood states that the founding fathers would have included the word secession if they'd have know the county would have gone to war and cost the county nearly a million men to decide whether a state could secede. Grant actually said that he believed the founding fathers would have placed the exact words in the constitution to avoid a war like the nation endured. He truly believed the constitution protected the individual states from being forced to remain in the Federal union. 
       I've been around these northern born historians that have been given the head job in Southern battlefields, etc., and I can tell you there is no mistake about the power they have been given. I have friends that were battlefield guides and were fired because they were Southern born. All you have to do is contact a great friend of mine named Heath Mathews and he will definitely tell you how the world has changed in order to be politically correct. To hell with the true history of our nation as long as we all bow down to what the world wants us to believe in this day and time. I will speak the truth and hell with changing history to impress the ones that want people change history for their own purposes or votes.