Making Sense of Juneteenth

 

         I’ve been trying to make sense of this new Federal holiday called Juneteenth. I did a little research to try and understand it. I googled its origins and found the explanation that CBS news gives as extremely hilarious. Does anyone do any research before writing anymore or has the country become that “dumbed down” that there is no fear of someone having the intelligence to learn the truth?

          Before you get upset with me, read this entire article. I don’t have a problem with people celebrating the end of slavery. I do have a problem with it being limited to just people with African ancestors who were slaves. Native Americans were slaves, Irish were slaves, the Jewish were slaves, and the list goes on and on. I also have a problem with the explanation given for Juneteenth.

          According to Emily Mae Czachor a news editor for CBS, the proclamation freed the slaves, but couldn’t free everyone in Confederate controlled states. Has this person even read the proclamation? Did the proclamation free a single slave? The answer to both questions is probably the same. No.  

          The proclamation was issued as a war measure only. President Lincoln understood two things about the slaves. The first was the fact that they kept the Confederate Army fed and the second that they were home while Southern soldiers were at the front. If he could incite slave rebellions in the heart of the Confederacy, he could finally win a war that he was losing. The most surprising thing to Mr. Lincoln was the fact that the slaves in the South remained loyal. Not a single slave insurrection occurred during the war.

          The states of Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware, and Missouri would retain their slaves until the 13^th Amendment was passed. If Lincoln was so concerned with freeing slaves, these would have been the first he freed. These states were still part of the United States and were under his control. He not only never freed a single slave in these states, there were more he could have freed, but didn’t.

There were twelve parishes in Louisiana that were exempt from the proclamation because it was controlled by the Federal Army. (That’s right, these slaves remained slaves. It wasn’t just Louisiana either. There were forty-eight counties of Virginia (which illegally became the state of West Virginia see Article IV, section 3 of the United States Constitution) that were not freed by the proclamation because it was occupied by the United States Army. There were another seven counties of what is still Virginia that were excluded. Not a slave in Tennessee was freed by the proclamation because it was occupied by the Federal Army.

Unfortunately, none of this is taught in schools anymore and if it were, it would just be ignored. So how many slaves did the emancipation free? The answer is zero. You see, Mr. Lincoln didn’t free a single slave he could have freed, but attempted to free slaves that he had no ability to free. I can see why it is such an important holiday, can’t you?

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. 

How the Confederate Battle Flag Became Racist

The Confederate Battle Flag

St. Andrew's Cross Flag

       I've already written a blog on the Confederate Battle Flag being based on the Christian flag of St. Andrew, one of Jesus's Apostles and the younger brother of Peter. I won't repeat what I've already stated as you can go back and read those blogs if you're interested. I'm going in a different direction with this blog. Legend has it that Andrew was crucified on an "X" shaped cross different from the type that Christ was placed upon. The St. Andrew's Cross flag was derived from this legend. The flag has Christian origins. So the question arises, "How did a Christian flag come to be viewed as racist?"

       I've already told the story of the flag used by the KKK in the early 1900's. Below is a photograph of the 1928 Klan march on our nation's capital. You won't notice any Confederate Battle Flags in the photograph, but the U.S. National Flag. I've already asked why we don't consider that flag racist, but have yet to receive an answer from people that worship that flag while calling for the abandonment of the Confederate Battle Flag. 

1928 Klan march on Washington, D.C.

       I recently listened to a talk given by a friend of mine who happened to serve on the grand jury hearings for the case of the 16th Street Church bombing in Birmingham, Alabama on September 15, 1963 in which four young black girls were killed. I won't mention my friends name here because I have not received prior permission from him. I will explain what he learned from being on the grand jury. 

       First off, he learned why the Klan began to use the Confederate Battle Flag as its official symbol and turns out, it's the same reason other people use the flag. It has nothing to do with the Confederacy being a slave holding nation at all. When the protests began in earnest across the South to stop segregation, the Klan at that time was a peaceful organization or at least most of it's members attempted to be peaceful. Some of the younger members decided it was time for more radical action and appealed to the older Klan members for violence. The older members naturally didn't agree with this approach. The younger members fed up with what they considered the inaction of the older members did what they thought was right. They naturally raised the Confederate Battle Flag in defiance (that flag is the international symbol of defiance of course) in protest of the old leadership. Why else would the Confederate Battle Flag be displayed in Crimea during it's secession from Ukraine? There are almost no blacks there, so obviously, they aren't attempting to downgrade that race. It's become the international symbol of defiance to an overreaching authority. 

        Another thing that I learned from my friend on the grand jury trial that I'd never heard before was the fact that no one was supposed to be killed in the bombing at the church. The bomb was placed the night before and supposed to explode during the night. These Klan members didn't know how to correctly build a timer on their bomb. By the next morning when the bomb was supposed to have already exploded, none of these guys had the courage to walk up and see why it hadn't gone off yet. Unfortunately, for all involved, the bomb went off at the worst possible moment. 

A Russian lady protesting with a non-Russian flag

       Now let's move on to the ignorance our nation teaches. Because most of our nations lawmakers are unfortunately lawyers and they just want to "kiss ass" for a vote, none of them have the backbone to stand up for what is right. They jump on the bandwagon of "political correctness" and sing along. So, here are a few observations that should shake the politically correct to the core. 

       In an attempt to do away with the Confederate Battle Flag on Georgia's state flag, the politically correct raised enough protest to have the flag changed. The flag was changed from a battle flag that never flew over a slave holding nation to one that looks almost identical to the Confederate First National flag and a nation that did hold slaves. 

The Confederate 1st National Flag or "Stars and Bars"

The modern day Georgia state flag is not considered racist, but can you see any resemblence?

        Even funnier for me is the fact that none of the people that protest these things are smart enough to figure any of it out for themselves. Let's take a look at the march President Obama led across the Edmund Winston Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama on March 7, 2015. Below you can see a photograph of him on the bridge, but behind him is the obvious name of the bridge. 

Obama and others on Edmund Winston Pettus Bridge in Selma

      Why do I think the above photograph is comical? For starters, the bridge is named after Brigadier General Edmund Winston Pettus, a Confederate Brigadier General, and later a member of the original Ku Klux Klan. Now it's not funny that he is standing in front of a name associated with the Klan, because anyone one that care's to learn the true history of our nation will readily admit that the original Klan was meant to drive out the carpet bagger's from up North. They were not a racist group at all. The funny thing to me is the fact that no one in America realized who the bridge was named after until days after the photograph was taken. No one on Obama's staff even knew who General Pettus was. General Pettus was a great man, not a racist person at all. He loved the South and fought hard against the Central Government of Lincoln. He joined the Klan because he lived in a land where Southern white males had no representation in the government. He is buried beneath a flat marker (nothing fancy at all) because he was an extremely humble person. Now we learn that the politically correct want to rename the bridge after having been told who the bridge was named after. This I find extremely funny. 

        Reminds me of a quote attributed to one of the South's arch enemies, Abraham Lincoln said, "You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time." Maybe he should of been alive today to see how "dumbed down" we've become. 

        So what is the best way to take this flag back from the Klan and the skinheads? There is a simple solution. The black race needs to stop protesting this flag and embrace it. After all, as Frederick Douglass once stated, the black race is the stomach of the rebellion. Whether or not you believe blacks fought for the South, you must admit the South couldn't have survived without the help of the black race just as Frederick Douglass understood. Why then should the black race hate that flag? 

Problems with James Loewen's Confederate Reader

Another New England author attempts to prove it was good versus evil

       I recently ordered a book online not having a clue what the book was about. I have only read ninety pages, but the author lets you know what he is attempting in the introduction. The Civil War was about slavery and  slavery only. The "most holy north" invaded the "evil" south because everyone in the south are racists, etc. I quickly searched the back cover to find out what I could about the author. James W. Loewen is a retired professor from the University of Vermont. How could I have ever imagined he was another of those New England elitists. 

       Loewen does more to prove the south correct than he actually intends to. He tells us that the south seceded because the north was not obeying the constitution. According to him, the northern states had a moral right to not obey the fugitive slave law. Although, slavery was legal at the time (don't take what I'm saying as I support slavery, just bear with me), and the fugitive slave law was indeed law, Mr. Loewen insists the north was correct in disobeying the law. When the south seceded because of breach of contract (the northern states not obeying the laws of the constitution) according to Mr. Loewen, the south was wrong. Now you'd have to be a Yankee to think that way in the first place. Any good lawyer will tell you that if one party breaks a contract, the contract is worthless. 

       I then decided to learn what I could about Mr. Loewen's history classes, but wait, I was in for another surprise. Loewen was not a history professor (imagine that if you will). He was a professor of sociology. Now everything he writes begins to reveal itself. Mr. Loewen has attempted to write about a subject he is 150 years removed from, by making the same mistake as many other modern day historians. He is attempting to look at that time period through today's eyes. He has forgotten that to study a time period, one must place himself in that time period and view it through the eyes of those who lived at the time. 

       Was America the only part of the world to own slaves in 1860? Let's take a look. Various parts of Africa owned slaves up until 1900. Ethiopia had over 8 million people in slavery in 1930. China didn't outlaw slavery until 1910. Others include Korea, Thailand, Burma, and Japan. Saudi Arabia had over 300,000 slaves in 1960, that is correct, 1960. Where were all these New England elitists while all that was going on? That's a good question. 

       Could it be that there was no money to be made or power to be gained from freeing the Saudi slaves? As John C. Calhoun stated in a speech in Mr. Loewen's book, the New England states want the slaves freed, given the right to vote, to swing power into New England's favor because of course the freed slaves will vote for the people that gave them their freedom. New England had been losing power in this country ever since we began to expand. During the Mexican War, it was the New England states that threatened to secede because more territory meant less power for their section. 

       Mr. Loewen even attempts to persuade us that General Robert E. Lee was a racist. I agree with  Mr. Loewen on this point one hundred percent. As a matter of fact, 99.9% of all people during that time period were racists. All you have to do is listen to Abraham Lincoln's speeches to see what a racist he was, but Mr. Loewen chooses to ignore these. I'm not a racist, but I do have some serious questions I'd like answered. During the 1860's, Americans thought they were better than Africans, Irish, Polish, Germans, Latinos, Native Americans, and Italians. The Irish were looked down upon as the scum of the earth in 1860 (my red hair gives me away here). Yet, today, it is perfectly fine to insult any of these except those of African descent. Why? The answer lies in John Calhoun's speech. The politicians are still counting on all those votes from those of African descent to remain in power. 

       Mr. Loewen believes he has solved the argument of what the war was over, yet he refuses to believe that northern greed had anything to do with it. That would mean that his part of the nation could be just as guilty as the south. Nor does he mention the ships owned by the cities of New York, Philadelphia, Boston, and Chicago that made millions of dollars bringing African slaves to America to sell to the southern states. Do yourself a favor and skip this book. By using various documents of his choosing and ignoring others, he attempts to sell you on the fact that the war was about slavery and slavery only. Maybe he should just stick to sociology and leave the history to historians. 

May I quote you Mr. Lincoln

       Last Friday, our Sons of Confederate Veterans camp had Carl Jones speaking to us about the constitution and what it had to do with the War Between the States. For anyone who hasn't heard Carl talk, you have missed out. The man understands the U.S. Constitution better than most constitutional lawyers or supreme court justice's. During the course of the talk, we got on the topic of Ole Abe Lincoln and what he truly believed. It inspired me to write a blog using a few of his quotes to come to a conclusion of what the war was truly about. 

       We'll begin with dear Abraham speaking on the floor of congress on January 12, 1848. All italics in these quotes are mine.

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

       As far as Lincoln waging war on the South because of his love for the African slaves, let's see what he says about them on September 18, 1858, just two years before the conflict begins. 

       "I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social or political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negro's, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people." 

       What does he say just before the war begins in a speech a group of northerners who opposed slavery. This was stated by Lincoln on February 27, 1860 in New York City. 

       "Wrong as we think slavery is, we can yet afford to let it alone where it is, because that much is due to the necessity arising from its actual presence in the nation."

       What did he mean by the necessity of is presence in the nation. Lincoln was no idiot. He understood that if he freed the slaves upon taking office, he would ruin half the nations economy and that half was the one paying eighty-five percent of the Federal taxes at the time. 

       Let's take a look at a few quotes from his first inaugural address and see what we can learn about Abe Lincoln and his views on freeing the slaves.

       "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

       So Mr. Lincoln what exactly would lead to war if your not invading the South over slavery?

       "The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the government and to collect the duties and imposts (taxes); but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere."

       Now we get a better understanding. You will have 700,000 of your countrymen slain and many more disabled for the love of money. Can you tell what you your reply was when suggested by a member of your own cabinet to just allow the South to leave in peace?

       "Let the South go? Where then would we get our revenue?"

       Let us look at a speech that Mr. Lincoln gave to a group of freed blacks on August 14, 1862 so we can understand how you truly view the black race.

       "You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffer very greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffer from your presence. In a word we suffer on each side. If this is admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated."

       Eight days following this speech, what exactly did you write and say to Horace Greeley the New York newspaper editor. 

       "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could do by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."

       This last quote I am posting is not by Mr. Lincoln, but by that newspaper editor that Lincoln was writing to above. 

       "If the Declaration of Independence justified the secession of 3,000,000 colonists in 1776, why did it not justify the secession of 5,000,000 Southerners from the Union in 1861?"

       That's a very good question. It's too bad ole Abe's not around to explain it to us. Wait, I believe he can. I refer you to the reply he gave to his cabinet member earlier in this post. "Where would we get our revenue?"

       

       

       

       

The Argument of Black Confederates

Louis Nelson a black Confederate rifleman

       I enjoy reading all the arguments both for and against the possibility of black men serving in the Confederate army. You would be surprised about how upset both sides get on the subject. There are those who refuse to believe that a black man would do anything to support a government that supported slavery while there are those who believe over 100,000 blacks fought for the Confederacy. The truth of the matter is that both sides are missing the mark. Another problem that historians have today is attempting to look at history from the way people think today. A hundred years from now, it may be deemed immoral to slaughter animals for food. Those historians will look at our generation and shake their heads. While we don't think we've done anything wrong, there will be those historians who paint us all as evil.

       The first African slave mentioned on this continent was in Massachusetts in 1638. Ironically, its these same present day New Englander's who identify the evil South as the slave states. The state of New York freed its last slave in 1827, just 33 years prior to the war. The last slave on record in Pennsylvania appeared on in 1846, just 14 years prior to the war. The last handful of slaves in New Jersey were freed in 1865 by the 13th Amendment. At the same time, today we are 12 years removed from an attack on our country by terrorists. Have we changed our opinions about terrorists? A hundred years from now, our descendants may say those terrorists were correct and fighting for what they believed in, but does this make what they did right? 

       The entire thought of blacks fighting for the Confederacy is confusing or we wouldn't still be having this argument today. Louis Nelson served as a cook in the 7th Tennessee Cavalry during the first part of the war. This unit served under Bedford Forrest (the same evil Southerner who hated blacks and slaughtered them at Fort Pillow according to historians). In the latter stages of the war, he served as a rifleman. During the last part of the war, he was a chaplain, ministering to both white and black Confederates. He had memorized the Bible by heart. If you look for his service records you will not find anything. Not because he didn't serve, but because he was black. Since the Confederate government would not allow blacks to enlist, men like Louis were never considered a part of the Confederate army. Does this mean he wasn't a soldier? 

       I have an ancestor who volunteered and was employed as a scout against the British army during the Revolutionary War. He was captured in this role and held prisoner for almost two years. When the war ended, he was released. Was he a Revolutionary soldier? According to the line of thinking among these "North was right, South was wrong" people, he was not. He applied for a pension and because he had no military records was denied a pension although he was a war prisoner for almost two years.

       I worked with a fellow years ago that was a cook in Vietnam. He never fired any type weapon in combat. He did enlist and was lucky enough to be placed in the kitchen while other poor men were fighting and dying. Does this mean he was not a soldier? He draws a military pension today and is considered a veteran. According to the rules set forth by some historians, this man was a soldier (although he never fired a weapon in anger), while Louis Nelson didn't have a piece of paper declaring  him a soldier (he served as a rifleman), this means Nelson was not a black Confederate according to historians. The line is fine and historians get caught up in the argument and refuse to yield an inch either way in an attempt to prove their side was right. 

Nelson Winbush

       Nelson Winbush is the descendant of Louis Nelson. He is also a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans as am I. We are both proud descendants of Confederate soldiers. Winbush has been attacked by the NAACP for his support of what his grandfather believed. During the antebellum period, slaves were considered a part of the family. My ancestors were too poor to own slaves. Some slaves were better off than my ancestors. Mary Chesnut said that slavery was not worth the trouble. When a 1000 dollar slave (27,000 dollars in today's money) got sick, you ran to get a doctor. When slavery was over, you paid the same person minimum wage and when they got sick and were no longer capable of employment, you hired someone else.

       Nelson Winbush denies today that Lincoln freed a single slave. He has the ability to realize that Lincoln's emancipation proclamation freed slaves in the states in rebellion and no other. In other words, Lincoln freed slaves he had no power to free, but didn't free a single slave in the states he could have. I salute Nelson Winbush whom I consider a brother above any of these northern white men who attempt to stir up trouble between our races by painting the white southerner as a criminal to self-serve their own agenda. I believe to their discredit and frustration that Nelson Winbush would side with me.

       The entire argument is frustrating because the Confederate army kept poor records as it was. Knowing how many actually served the Confederacy will never be known. We do know many served as cooks and many more were used to dig entrenchments. Some say the number was as high as 100,000 and one Harvard professor places the number as low as 7,000. Either way, it is known that some blacks actually fought while others served in supporting roles. As I like to say that war was over nothing more than money. Allow me to quote Abraham Lincoln, "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it..."

Slavery vs. Tariff: From a neutral standpoint

From a famous British authors viewpoint

       You can't read a response to any Civil War video on youtube or other websites without reading the continuing arguments about which side was right and which was wrong. Just like in that war, almost all northern people believe the war was fought to free the slaves. Most southerner's believe the war was fought over states rights and the tariff, except for the few who believe everything they've been taught in school. The war was complicated. If it was a war over simple black and white, then we wouldn't be arguing over it today, one-hundred and fifty years after the fact. 

       It seems to be the same arguments repeated over and over again. I had a discussion with an Arizona State University history professor who was completely sold on slavery being the only reason of the war. He attempted to make fun of any opinion I had regarding the war because he has two more years of college than I do. Regardless of those two years of college, I can guarantee I have studied and read more about the American Civil War at least three times more than he ever will. I did ask him a simple question that he played off completely that actually helps with the argument I am making. I asked if he was born in a New England state. His reply was, "Don't even act like you don't know I'm from New York." Enough said in my opinion. 

       Mr. "S" insisted that the American Civil War had nothing to do with anything except the northern states being more moral and upright than the evil slave holding states. He doesn't have the intellectual ability to understand that you cannot compare 19th century culture to today's version. This is a mistake made quite often with today's historians or so called historians. They tend to ignore those parts of history that don't fit their perfect world version and insert what they want. 

       I decided to take a different approach, an approach any true historian should appreciate. I decided to go outside the country and read what a foreigner would think the war was about. Surely, someone neutral and famous would be totally honest with the world over what that war was fought about. I doubt Mr. "S" would want to hear him, but the man did live in that time period, was not from New York, and spoke from a neutral vantage point. 

Famous author Charles Dickens

       I was recently reading some of British author Charles Dickens letters when I found some very interesting comments made by the man. Dickens was born in 1812 and lived until the year 1870 when he died of a stroke. For those that have never heard of him, he has written several books including A Christmas Carol, Oliver Twist, and A Tale of Two Cities. 

       You would be surprised what opinions Charles Dickens had about the reason the American Civil War occurred to begin with. In his letters he stated that "slavery has in reality nothing on earth to do with it. The North having gradually got to itself the making of the laws and the settlement of the Tariffs, and having taxed the South most abominably for its own advantage" was basically out of control. What he meant was that once the northern states had more free states than slave states, they passed the most ridiculous taxes on the southern states without the southern states having the ability to defend themselves. What he basically was saying was that the Confederate states were being bullied by the northerners. He went on to say that neither side of the conflict cared a bit for the black race. He understood what Lincoln was saying when he said, “I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races—that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this, that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."

       

Justin Smith Morrill

      What did Charles Dickens know about slavery and the tariff? We know that the majority of England was against slavery and this prominent citizen seemed to be going against the grain. The question is "why?" 

       Perhaps the United States helped him come to his decision. With the South still serving in Congress, the Tariff of 1857 was passed and had lowered the tariff to 17% which benefited the South. Once the majority of the southern states had left the union, the northern states were free to pass any tariff they wanted. Thus, we come to the Morrill Tariff of 1861. The passage of this tariff raised the taxes on exports from 17% to 38%. At this date, Mr. "S" still insists the war had nothing to do with money, but the holy north against the evil slave holding south. 

       He is entitled to his opinion, but is he entitled to force his students to agree to his way of thinking to pass an American Civil War course? I have several questions for Mr. "S," but he would simply turn my questions into some smart joke if I asked him. Here are two of them if I knew he would take me seriously. #1 Was Charles Dickens an idiot for believing the same thing that most southerners do? #2 If the northern states fought the war because they were so humane, why did they go wipe out the American Indians in the 1870's? 

       Thanks for your input Mr. Charles Dickens, but I'm sure your opinion means as much to the northern historians as it does to some alien from Mars.

Charles Dickens

The Confederate Flag: Part 2

The First Confederate National Flag

       Another lie reported by the Montgomery reporter stated that there were more marchers than spectators because no one cared for the event. I guess it would have been too much trouble to check around and ask why. The men in charge of the parade decided it would be a nice gesture if they would invite the spectators present to march with the reenactors. My wife and children were among this group. It amazes me how the media twists stories to suit what they want. 

       You may wonder why newspaper reporters resort to stirring up controversy in their papers and I have the answer. This is a quote from an actual historian about present day reporters: "Newspapers are a thing of the past and they will stir up any controversy in order to sell a newspaper and save their jobs."

       These men understand what the flag stands for

       An African American friend of mine on Facebook understands what the flag meant. He was the president of the NAACP in Asheville, North Carolina and was forced out of office because he refused to declare the Confederate Flag as a racist symbol among other things. He supports the flag today and the following is a quote of what he believes: "The Civil War had almost nothing to do with the issue of slavery. Abraham Lincoln supported an amendment that would create permanent slavery, and five Northern states kept slavery until they were forced to abandon the institution, due to the 13th amendment. Even then, Delaware, a Northern loyalist state, refused to ratify the amendment. He believes that the South had a constitutional right of secession, arguing that not only was southern secession legal, it was justified. Outrageous tariffs drove the south into extreme poverty, and many unconstitutional actions of Abraham Lincoln lead to the secession of the Confederate States of America. H.K. Edgerton blames the North for the onslaught of racism in the twentieth century, pointing out that post-civil war poverty in the south, that lasted until post World War II lead to feelings of resentment, and resulted in the violent racism of the civil rights era. He points out that if the South had been allowed to go peacefully, both the United States and the Confederate States would have abandoned racism long before the 1900s, while keeping a booming trade alive between the industrial North, and Agricultural South."

       We can figure out which flag should be hated for flying over slavery very easily by going through the history of slavery in this country. It is estimated that around 645,000 African's were shipped to the United States as slaves. The idea of slavery began with something called 'indentured service' which meant a person worked for another person until a certain amount of time. This was used for both races, black and white. In 1769, Spain abolished the use of American Indian slaves in its territories. 

       In 1789, slavery had been legalized in New York, Ohio, Connecticutt, New Jersey, and Deleware among states in the south. By 1821 all the northern states except Deleware had abolished slavery. Ironically, Deleware would not abolish slavery until the 13th Amendment was ratified by congress after the Civil War. 

       The United States outlawed the importation of slaves into the country in 1808. Anyone found guilty would be tried for piracy and sentenced to death. Only one man was ever executed in the United States for importing slaves. That man was Nathaniel Gordon of Maine. Since the practice of importing slaves into America was outlawed in 1808, guess which flag was flying at the time. The Confederate Battle Flag wasn't invented until the 1860's. That leaves only one flag.

The only flag in this country that ever allowed slaves to be imported

       That is also the same flag that waged war on Native Americans and attempted to exterminate the race. I don't see that flag being denounced as racist. It seems that the political correct community decides it will rewrite history to suit their agenda. In the next couple of weeks I will write a blog on the true Abraham Lincoln and not the myth that school teachers and politically correct people try to cram down our throats today. I also plan on writing a few blogs to show that African Americans fought for the Confederate States during the war. Again, I hope I haven't offended anyone. 

The Confederate Flag: Part 1

The Battle Flag

       Nothing in this country causes more controversy today than for someone to display the Confederate Battle Flag in public. Recently, I attended the re-enactment of Confederate President Jefferson Davis in Montgomery, Alabama. Newspapers covering the event tried to twist the entire thing into something it wasn't. Why, you might ask? Because, controversy sells newspapers. I was recently listening to the Paul Finebaum talk radio show and he brought something to my attention I hadn't thought about before. With everyone getting the news free on the internet today, newspapers are going out of business. He made the statement that reporters must write stories that will attract attention if that means ignoring the truth. 

       I normally try and avoid discussing issues that involve controversy between two different races because no matter what you say, you end up being labeled a racist. I'm going out on a limb here and attempt a discussion without offending anyone. Hopefully, I won't end up regretting writing this blog.

       I've never understood what the Confederate flag has to do with racism. The flag was used in battle to distinguish Confederate units from Federal units. It was never an official flag that represented the Confederate government, but represented military forces. It wasn't the only flag that flew over Confederate military forces. 

The Trans-Mississippi Flag

Cleburne's Division Battle Flag

Polk's Corps Battle Flag

       All three of the flags above flew over Confederate troops in battle, yet there is no controversy surrounding either of them. I drove around with a tag on my truck that was the Bonnie Blue Flag which was the first flag of the Confederacy. It remained on my truck for over ten years and no one complained about that flag. As a matter-of-fact, I was often asked why I had a Texas flag on my truck. 

       I've often heard that people hate the Confederate Battle Flag because the Ku Klux Klan often carried the flag. That argument doesn't make any sense. The Ku Klux Klan has carried the American Flag just as often as the Confederate Flag, yet no one complains about the American Flag. 

KKK Marching in Washington in 1952

       Today, the majority of Klan members are located in the northern states, particularly the state of Ohio. I love the Confederate Flag and racism has nothing to do with the reason I love that flag. I have numerous friends who are African American. One good friend named Larry told me he knew there wasn't a racist bone in my body. He understands that I just love history, but there is more to it than just history. Allow me to discuss this further and hopefully I won't come across as unpatriotic. 

       Today we honor American troops fighting in Iraq and  we are called traitors if we don't support those troops. What are those troops doing in Iraq? It was proven that there were no weapons of mass destruction in that country. As I tell everyone who asks me what the American Civil War was fought over, all wars are fought for one reason and that reason is money. Our troops are in Iraq today for oil no matter how you try and justify them being there. We still honor the flag that sent them there, because they are dying everyday under that flag. The same can be said about the Confederate Flag. Good men died fighting under the Confederate Flag. Good men who owned no slaves and never fought to defend slavery. My Confederate ancestor in the 35th Alabama Infantry could barely afford shoes, much less another human. I'm not defending slavery here either, I think it is morally wrong and I would never attempt to own another human being. 

       Let me get back to the Davis Inauguration Re-enactment. Newspapers there interviewed local blacks about us re-enacting the event of 150 years ago. One NAACP leader stated that we were up there spreading ignorance. I'd never known until that day that every re-enactment which I consider a hobby is a means of spreading ignorance. I would like for that man to explain to me how a Civil War Re-enactment spreads ignorance. I talked to a black friend of mine before attending the re-enactment in Montgomery. I explained to him that the NAACP was discussing protesting us having the re-enactment and asked his opinion. He has strong feelings about slavery and what went on in the United States prior to the Civil War, but his reply was simple. He told me to go enjoy myself, that there was nothing wrong with a re-enactment. 

       Another woman was interviewed about the event and stated that she thought we were intentionally insulting black people by having  the event during black history month. Of course, the reporter failed to mention that we didn't have the re-enactment just because it was black history month, but because we re-enact these events on the anniversary of the actual event. The inauguration of Davis occurred 150 years ago, long before February was designated black history month. 

African American Lady who had a Confederate Ancestor

       My wife took the above picture of an African American lady who marched in the parade. She has a black Confederate ancestor and she attended the event to honor the man as a soldier. When the reporter wrote his article, many who oppose the Confederate Flag commented that blacks were forced to fight for the Confederacy against their will. They said that not one black soldier fought willingly for the Confederacy. I suppose black Confederate veterans were forced to attend Confederate soldier reunions years after the war also. 

Black Confederate Veterans at a reunion

       I will go into more detail about the misunderstood flag and the facts in the next part. Again, I hope I'm not offending anyone, just making an attempt to get to the truth.