Monday, June 22, 2015

Support the Confederate Flag: DON'T BACK DOWN

Note to those who support the Confederate flag: DON'T BACK DOWN.

Don't be tepid or tentative in your support of the flag. Our opposition to Northern cultural bigotry and historical (and hysterical) ignorance must be firm and unflinching. We are right, and they are wrong. View the issue with the moral clarity it deserves.

Anti-Southern bigotry is possibly one of my biggest triggers.  I wrote about that some time ago, in a previous post from 2010.  In that post I noted that the Civil War was then, and this is now.  I said that I wanted to work with Northerner conservatives in our modern political struggles, and not refight a war of 150 years ago.  However, I noted that the Civil War (better described as The War for Southern Independence) tapped deep emotions in me, and had the power to make me hate.  I stated that I don't like to hate and seek to avoid that emotion whenever possible, because happiness and hate cannot coexist.  This week, however, I feel the negative emotion returning.  

Why?  Because Yankees, liberals and Southerners ignorant of their own history keep re-invading the South.  They buy into the Northern Myth.  Intellectually lazy, they go along with the popular mythology that casts the Confederates into the role of villain.  They dishonor our Confederate ancestors and grossly misrepresent their cause.  Now they want to finish the wishes of General Sherman to exterminate all Southerners completely, by insisting that the Confederate flag be relegated to museums, viewed only as a dishonorable artifact.

"We must show manners to those who find the flag objectionable," they write.  Why is it that we must show manners but they do not?  Why do their feelings count but not ours?  

Arm yourselves with knowledge of Southern history.  I suggest you can do that by reading a previously posted article by Professor Donald Livingston of Emory University, "Why the Civil War Was Not About Slavery."

Sunday, June 21, 2015

The Confederate Flag Will Not Come Down: Deal With It

As a Confederate descendant who is well read on the history of the War for Southern Independence, I revere the Confederate flag.  It is the flag of my country and my ancestors.  In light of the Charleston murders, we are now seeing a lot of liberals and mainstream Republicans calling for the removal of the flag from public display.

Mitt Romeny tweeted that the flag should come down.  He tweets

Take down the #ConfederateFlag at the SC Capitol. To many, it is a symbol of racial hatred. Remove it now to honor #Charleston victims.

I answered him with this:
I regret voting for you Mitt. The flag stays. Take down the flag of Utah, it's a symbol of a false prophet and polygamy.

And of course, there's "Old Gorey" that many associate with invasion of the South, war on women and children, the genocide of the American Indian, the theft of Hawaii from its Queen and its people, and the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. Oh yes, and it flew over Northern slave ships who brought the slaves to America in the first place.

The point is, a flag means different things to different people. We Confederate descendants do not accept Mitt Romney's definition or our flag, nor that of the Daily Kos, Karl Rove, Jeb Bush or any other cultural bigot who wishes to bully us into accepting their skewed view of history.

Here are the motivations of the flag haters:

1. Moral vanity. Nothing pleases a liberal more than asserting his alleged moral superiority over someone else. What is an easier way than by attacking the South?

2. To legitimize the Northern Myth, the huge lie that the North invaded the South to free the slaves because they were just so morally righteous and broad minded and enlightened. The truth is that the North hated blacks, wanted them kept out of the new territories, made laws prohibiting their presence, and planned to deport them all back to Africa or elsewhere. They went to war to force the Southern states back into the Union for economic reasons; slavery had nothing or very little to do with it. An independent South would have free trade, open ports, thus ending the Northern tariff on imported goods. A massive relocation of jobs and revenues would quickly flow from the North to the South. This would have created an economic boom in the South, but would have impoverished the North, who depended on the South continuing to pay 80% of the taxes collected by the federal government, and whose dock workers, shipping companies, railroads, textile mills and warehouses would soon find themselves out of work. Yes, this is all well documented in the newspapers of the time. When asked why he would not simply let the South go, Lincoln exclaimed "Let the South go? Who will pay my tariff?"

3. To legitimize the consolidation of the once sovereign states into subordinate entities inferior to and controlled by the federal government. Today this is effectively being accomplished through federal courts, who overturn state laws and legislate from the bench.

4. To legitimize the federal government's "right" to invade the individual states and make war on their citizens, using force to impose its will. We are continually moving in that direction today.  A nationalized police force is in the works.  Once accomplished, all American states will be effectively occupied by the federal government.

Here's why we will never agree:

Taking down the flag would mean acquiescing to bullies who wish to force their viewpoint on us, a viewpoint that is erroneous, insulting, self-serving and false. It would mean replacing our superior knowledge of history with the superficial myths the flag-haters learned from popular media, Hollywood and Northern-biased textbooks. We will not allow knowledge to be replaced with ignorance, or truth with falsehood.

History, or what is alleged to be history, is a major political weapon. The fight over history will largely influence how current and future generations see the Republic: as a collection of sovereign states with the right to self-govern and even secede, or as consolidation of those states into an increasingly oppressive federal tyranny from which there is no refuge, remedy or escape.

Leave our flag alone.

Saturday, June 20, 2015

Sick Freak Murders Nine in Black Charleston Church; Irrational Outpouring of Outrage Ensues

Another freakazoid has murdered people with a gun.  This time the perpetrator is one Dylann Roof, who resembles another mass murderer, Adam Lanza, who shot and killed 26 people in 2012, including 20 children in their classroom.  Both of these freaks remind me of the in-bred banjo player of "Deliverance" fame, but only in appearance.  They are nuts, crazy psychopaths -- and they can't even play the banjo.

Roof shot and killed nine parishioners in a Charleston church on June 17, 2015.  His apparent motive was that he hated black people.  The killing has invoked passionate debate, about gun control, the Confederate flag, and the collective guilt of white people for racism.

Now for some points that will prove unwelcome in the frenzied search for culprits in the aftermath of the crime.

1.  White people are less "racist" (I hate that overused word) than black people.  Some black people have been calling for a race war for some time, on Twitter and elsewhere.  Blacks have been shooting cops since Michael Brown was killed in the act of assaulting a white police officer, and expressing hatred of whites and advocating murder of policemen everywhere.

2.  Blacks commit murders and other crimes against whites in far greater proportion than the opposite.  Bad attitudes, racial prejudice and an inability to be held accountable for these things are endemic within the black community.  These facts are bound to increase prejudice against blacks by others, not only by whites, but also by Hispanics, Asians and Jews, who are frequently the victims of black violence and crime.

Colin Flaherty writes in the American Thinker, in an article titled The War on Black People in South Carolina: the First Casualty is Truth:
In Charleston, locals know racial violence is far more widespread than that. Only it is far more likely to be black on white.
A black person is 50 times more likely to assault a white person than the other way around. The black on white rape numbers are even more out of proportion when compared to white on black sexual assault.
3.  The Confederate flag had nothing to do with the crime.  However, the Daily Kos and other leftist sites are calling for the flag to be removed from public display in South Carolina.  Lindsay Graham has defended the flag and stated that it will not come down.  Graham is right.  Confederate descendants, and there are millions of us, love the flag for other than "racist" reasons.  It's not coming down, and those who don't like it can self-copulate.

4.  Dylann Roof's crime is not a factor of his political leanings.  Whether he is a Democrat or a Republican is irrelevant.  The little punk is nuts, crazy and insane.  Insanity is not a political persuasion.  Rabid political partisans on either side should stop trying to make political hay out of the tragedy.

5.  There are many good black people who have thrown their lot in with the forces of tolerance and civilization.  Many blacks in the South identify with the Confederate flag and are aware that the Northern Myth (of fighting the Civil War to free the slaves) is a lie of Biblical proportions. The criticisms in this post are not directed towards them.  Every man and woman is an individual, to be judged on his or her own merits alone.

6.  We will not give up our guns, and become helpless against a central government that seeks greater and greater control over our lives and liberties, as well as defenseless to violent criminals.  It is a shame that insane people periodically murder innocents with guns, and solutions must be sought to alleviate this.  However, such tragedies will have to be endured until solutions are found that do not remove guns from law-abiding citizens.

That's the way I see it anyhow.

Wednesday, October 29, 2014

Henry Wirz, Commandant of Andersonville Prison, To Be Honored in Memorial Service


SCV logo  

(Atlanta - October 29, 2014) The Americus camp of the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) organization will host an annual Memorial Service for Civil War Andersonville Prison Commandant Capt. Henry Wirz on Sunday Nov. 9. The musical group, "A Joyful Noise," from Leesburg, will play and sing Southern Confederate songs and Gospel Hymns from 2 to 3PM followed by a formal memorial service. The public is invited to join the SCV and pay tribute to a Southern hero and martyr.
   The guest speaker will be Congressman Paul Broun from Athens .  Dr. Broun, a native of Athens, practiced medicine in Americus many years ago.  Confederate Reenactors "The Muckalee Guards" will provide Honor Guard duties during the Service.

   When the War Between the States (Civil War) ended in 1865, Capt. Wirz was paroled.  However, shortly thereafter, he was arrested and carried to Washington , D.C. where he was placed in the Old Capitol Prison.  His trial before a military tribunal lasted several months, and included the perjured testimony of a Yankee soldier who was a deserter from a NY. Regiment who falsely claimed to be a great nephew of Lafayette of Revolutionary war fame.  For his false testimony against Capt. Wirz, he was given a position with the U.S. Dept. of the Interior.  It was later learned that this key witness whose perjured testimony contributed considerably to the conviction had never been at Andersonville . The vast Majority of defense witnesses for Capt. Wirz were not permitted to testify.  Many historians call his trial a farce and travesty of justice.  After the war, James Madison Page, a Michigan cavalryman, who had been a POW at Andersonville , wrote a book completely exonerating Wirz.
  Capt. Wirz was found guilty of murdering 13 Union prisoners at Andersonville, although not a single body, nor even the name of any of the 13 was ever produced.  He was also falsely convicted on a second charge of conspiracy with high ranking members of the Confederate government to create the conditions that caused the high death rate. Wirz was made a scapegoat for the South.  On Nov. 10, 1865, Capt. Wirz was hanged in the yard of the Old Capitol Prison.  He declared his innocence to the end. The night before the hanging he was offered a commuted sentence if he would implicate Confederate President Jefferson Davis as a conspirator for Andersonville deaths. Wirz was an honorable man and would not lie to save his life.
   After the hanging, the barbaric Yankees cut off his head and arms and other body parts, and exhibited them about the country. It took Capt. Wirz's attorney, Louis Schade, four years to collect enough body parts to have a Christian burial in Mount Olivet Cemetery in Washington .
    The highly biased Northern version of Andersonville Civil War Prison (POW) Camp is well known however the true facts concerning Andersonville  are not well known. The government of The Confederate States of America issued an order that a large POW prison should be constructed in early 1864 to alleviate crowding in existing camps in the South. The requirements were that it be constructed at a location further South away from the battle front and should be a healthy location with plenty of pure water, a running stream, close to grist and saw mills and if possible have shade trees. The location selected was in South Georgia in Sumter County and was officially named Camp Sumter although it became known as Andersonville . It was constructed to house 10,000 Union POW's however numbers increased to as high as 45,000 due to a policy by the Lincoln administration to discontinue exchanges.
   The average death rate at other POW camps in the South was about 9% as compared to 12% for POW camps in the North where Confederate POW's were incarcerated.  In contrast the death rate at Andersonville was approximately 29% due to causes beyond the control of Confederate authorities and was unintentional. Also in contrast were the similar death rates at several Northern POW camps notably Elmira New York and Camp Douglas Chicago where the high death rates have been proven to be intentional.
    It is a well known fact that the victor of a war writes the history from a biased perspective. Immediately after the end of the war absurd war crimes claims were made by Northern politicians, military authorities, newspapers, periodicals, and citizens that the decisions and conditions that caused the human disaster at Andersonville were intentional on the part of Confederate authorities. Demands for War Crimes Trials were made and the Commandant of Andersonville POW camp, Capt. Henry Wirz, was arrested, tried, and convicted in a farce trial by a military tribunal who had predetermined that a conviction would result. No War Crimes Charges against Northern POW commandants were ever made and no Northern POW camp has ever been enshrined by the U.S. Government as a memorial to Confederate POW's. Only Andersonville in the South has been enshrined and it has become a memorial to American POW's of all wars that have involved American veterans.
   In defense of the Confederate government and Confederate prison officials in regards to Andersonville, a response was made in 1876, by the Southern Historical Society, consisting of 9 points that place the blame for deaths and suffering at Andersonville totally on Northern politicians and military authorities. Specifically President Lincoln, Sec. of War Stanton, Asst. Sec. of War Dana, and Gen. Grant shoulder the blame as noted in the following 9 points.
1. It is not denied that great suffering and mortality occurred but it was due to circumstances and conditions beyond Confederate control.
2. If the death rate be adduced as "circumstantial evidence of barbarity" the rate of Confederate deaths was higher in Northern POW camps where there was an abundance of food, medicine, and shelter.
3. The Union POW's were given the same rations as Confederate guards and soldiers and equal treatment in hospitals as required by the CSA government and the death rate of CSA guards was the same as POW's.  The Northern Federal government did not have this humane policy.
4. The exchange of prisoners was refused by the North  
5. The CSA government requested that Northern doctors and medicine be sent to treat Northern POW's and the request was denied.
6. The CSA tried to buy supplies including bowls and other utensils to use in feeding the POW's. They offered to pay with cotton and gold but the offer was refused by the Lincoln administration.
7. The Federal Government under President Lincoln made medicine contraband causing suffering and death of Union POW's and all Southerners, military and civilian.
8. Prior to the period of greatest mortality, the CSA authorities offered to release the Andersonville POW's without exchange but the offer was not accepted by the Lincoln Administration who was told by CSA authorities "we cannot feed or care for them-just come get them". Sherman 's barbaric war crimes in Georgia consisting of stealing, destroying, and burning made food and supplies even scarcer and increased suffering and mortality.
9. The Northern press was furnished lies and propaganda by Union Sec. and Asst Sec. of War Stanton and Dana claiming deliberate cruelties and war crimes by the South. The control of Northern POW camps was transferred by Stanton and Dana to vindictive partisan criminal elements and deliberate war crimes of cruelty, torture, and murder were committed against Confederate POW's as proven by a joint resolution of the U.S. Senate and House SR97.
  In 1906 former Confederate General Stephen D. Lee charged the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) organization with the duty to defend the honor of the South and the Confederate Soldier:
"To you, Sons of Confederate Veterans, we will commit the vindication of the Cause for which we fought.  To your strength will be given the defense of the Confederate soldier's good name, the guardianship of his history, the emulation of his virtues, the perpetuation of those principles which he loved and which you love also, and those ideals which made him glorious and which you also cherish.  Remember, it is your duty to see that the true history of the South is presented to future generations."

For more information about the Sons of Confederate Veterans or any of this year's planned events to commemorate the Sesquicentennial of the War, contact the Georgia SCV at 404-456-3393 or online at    


* Permission to reprint this release is granted. 

Tuesday, October 21, 2014

Slavery In The North: So Much Smaller Than In The South, So Not Immoral?

Some Northern apologist attempted a rebuttal of my post about Limbaugh's error (see previous post below).  He argued, that yes, there was slavery in the North, but it was much smaller than that of the South.  Therefore, he implied, the North was less guilty of the stain than the South.

His argument didn't really address the point of my post, that Limbaugh's assertion of Northern innocence was fundamentally erroneous.  The North did not have strong objections to slavery, did not compromise their principles to encourage the South to join the union, as Limbaugh asserted.

However, the reader's comment about the low number of slaves in the North intrigued me.  Just how low was the number?  Was it indeed so  low that it doesn't matter?  I decided to do some research, and went looking for the Census of 1800, as it was close to the Revolution of 1776.

I found that the Northern states in 1800 had 150,075 slaves (17%) compared to the South's 743,530 slaves (83%).  Yes, the weather of the Southern states was much more amenable to cotton and tobacco farming, and for economic reasons (not moral ones), the South had more slaves.  So if our study in comparative morality and awesomeness depends on slave numbers alone, the reader might have a point.  But I doubt it.  Consider:  if the Northern states have ONLY 150,075 slaves, are they under the bar at which slavery becomes immoral?  I think not.  The argument is self-serving.

Of course, the North's greatest contribution to slavery lies in its slave trading.  For every slave the Yankees sold the South, they sold 20 more to Brazil, Cuba and the West Indies.

The summary of slaves per state in the 1800 Census is below the fold.

Wednesday, October 15, 2014

Rush Limbaugh Mouths Northern Myth Nonsense on Radio Program; My Rebuttal

Rush Limbaugh really showed his ignorance of American history and the Civil War today.  He voiced some feel-good myths that are easily refuted, and should be.

Here are his statements and my correction:

1.  The Founding Fathers only allowed slavery at the formation of the United States to appease the Southern states and encourage them to join the union.  The Northern states opposed slavery and hated it and wanted to get rid of it.

Horse feathers.  MOST of the Founding Fathers were slave owners or slave traders, including George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and Patrick Henry.

Twelve of the thirteen original colonies were slave states.  There was no significant opposition to slavery by the Northern states.  In fact, the Northern states were enthusiastically getting rich through slave trading.  For every slave they sold to the South, they sold 20 more to Cuba, Brazil and the West Indies.  Massachusetts, that great bastion of abolitionism, enslaved the Pequot Indians and sold them into slavery outside the continent.  Rhode Island built and maintained an impressive fleet of ships designed and used specifically for slave trading.  Northern textile mills used Southern cotton, planted and harvested by slaves, without any moral objections whatsoever.

Slaves were used in the North just as long as they were needed, and were then sold to the South once immigrants (like the Irish) were plentiful enough to replace slavery.

2.  Fifty thousand soldiers died in the Civil War to abolish slavery.  Not even close, Rush.  Over 600,000 soldiers died in the Civil War (estimates put the number at around 640,000).  At least 300,000 were Union soldiers. They did not fight to free the slaves, they fought to force the South back into a political union that they no longer wanted, for the usual reasons:  to maintain the ability to tax and control property.  For more details, see the scholarly essay by a university professor who actually knows what he is talking about:  Why the Civil War Was Not About Slavery, by Donald Livingston, Emory University.  The "fighting to free the slaves" myth was created after the war to give a false veneer of righteousness to Northern aggression.

So Rush, as someone who listens to you regularly, I must advise you to SHUT UP with regard to the Civil War and the Southern states, since you are wrong on the facts, and since you are alienating many Americans who are Confederate descendants, many of whom are conservatives.

Friday, September 5, 2014

Thursday, September 4, 2014

Some Questions For the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles

The Texas Department of Motor Vehicles has refused to issue license plates displaying the Sons of Confederate Veterans' logo, which features a Confederate battle flag.  The SCV sees the flag as symbolic of patriotism, sacrifice and resistance to tyranny.  The Texas DMV sees the flag as however it was portrayed in the last televised rerun of "Mississippi Burning."  Or what they were told about the War for Southern Independence in the third grade.  Or something.

Here are the questions about the matter that the Texas DMV officials should consider:

1.  Who is practicing censorship and suppression, the SCV or the DMV?
2.  Whose actions serve to restrict individual freedom, choice and expression?
3.  Who is trying to impose ignorance over knowledge?
4.  Who is dealing in negative stereotypes and attempting to stigmatize and ostracize thousands through the arm of government?
5.  Who is practicing the cultural equivalent of ethnic cleansing?
6.  Who is politicizing history like 1984?
7.  Who is honoring the thousands of Texans who served and died for the Confederacy, and who is dishonoring their memory by officially defining their flag as objectionable?

Note:  My Uncle, who took part in the Invasion of Normandy (D-Day) in World War II is buried in Dallas.  My great grandfather, a Confederate veteran, is buried in Acton Cemetery in Acton, Texas, close by the grave of Davy Crockett's wife, Elizabeth.

Tuesday, September 2, 2014

Mark Levin: A Flaming Ignoramus on the Civil War

I originally posted the article belon on February 6, 2010. Today, September 2, 2014, Mark Levin again displayed his ignorance on his radio show by praising Abraham Lincoln.  Mark no doubts thinks the Russians are terrible aggressors for invading the Ukraine this week -- and he'd be right.  For some reason, when Lincoln did the same thing, even more ruthlessly, in 1861, that was just fine.  Because American tyranny is good, because Old Glory, Stars and Stripes Forever.  Or something.


Mark Levin is an excellent writer and has given a lot to the conservative movement.  However, his increasingly asinine remarks on the radio about the American Civil War and the Confederate States of America compel me to finally call him out.

Yesterday the Irate One stated that the Confederacy represented an "illegitimate form of government" based on "dangerous rebellion."  What a load of happy horse sh*t.  If that is true of the Confederacy, it is also true of the United States, who came into being in the same way:  through secession and a declaration of independence.  Furthermore, the Confederate States were not in "rebellion" to the Constitution or anything else.  They were merely exercising their right to self-government under the very American concept of "the consent of the governed."  They were merely following the legal means of seceding as outlined in textbooks at West Point, as commonly understood since the beginning of the American republic:  sovereign bodies that accede to a union of political states may also secede from the same union when it suits their needs and purposes to do so.  Abraham Lincoln himself stated as much in a speech to Congress while he himself was but a congressman:
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. 
Any government that forces a population into its fold through force is tyranny.  The Northern states were on the side of tyranny during the Civil War.  They did not fight to "free the slaves" as is commonly and erroneously taught to every third-grader; they fought to force the South back into a union it no longer wanted; the slaves were totally negotiable.  The Civil War was like most wars, fought over territorial control, the right to govern and the right to tax.  Similar situations today:  China's invasion of Tibet and its desire to annex Taiwan; Russia's desire to annex Georgia and its former colonies.

Abraham Lincoln was a flaming disaster to the United States, clearly the worst president in our history.  He started a war of tyranny and subjugation and killed 630,000 people in the process.  Yet, Lincoln is Mark Levin's hero.  It figures.


Why We Fight For Right to Display the Confederate Flag

The Texas Department of Motor Vehicles has opposed issuing license plates that display the Confederate flag.  The Sons of Confederate Veterans sued the DMV for the ban, and won their case on appeal in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.  Now the Texas state Attorney General seeks to bring the argument to the Supreme Court. The fanatical cultural oppression by the Texas AG is outrageous.  But why do anti-flag fanatics seek to ban the Confederate flag?

The anti-flag forces seek to ban the flag to uphold their erroneous views as described below:

1.  That the Confederacy was evil and wrong "in fighting for slavery."
This view is wrong because the North did not go to war to end slavery, as is popularly but falsely believed, but to compel the Southern states to remain in a union that they no longer wanted. If the North was not fighting to end slavery, the South could not have been fighting to preserve it.  The myth that the North fought to end slavery was invented after the war to give a false aura of respectability to Northern aggression and to justify the enormous number of fatalities and widespread destruction.
2  That the Confederate flag's display is "a painful reminder of racism and slavery."
This view is self-serving, in that the American flag is, historically, far more associated with African slavery than the Confederate flag.  Its goal is to scapegoat the South for an institution that was well-entrenched decades before there was a Southern Confederacy, and to deny the massive culpability of the North in the support and expansion of the institution.  
3.  That the Confederate South is solely responsible for the institution of African slavery.
Again, this is to scapegoat the Confederacy -- see rebuttal of No 2 above.  Northern states were heavily involved in the slave trade before the Civil War, and other countries both sold and used slave labor, e.g. Portugal, England, France, Cuba, Brazil and the West Indies.
4.  That the Confederate flag is "racially insensitive."
This view is is in support of race-huckstering groups like the NAACP, who are totally ineffective at solving the problems of their constituents, e.g. school drop-outs, poverty, illegitimacy, absent fathers and crime.  So they attack the Confederate flag instead, so they can point to some kind of success, however meaningless.  They must validate their otherwise feckless existence by scapegoating the flag.
6.  That the only possible interpretation of the flag's display is to express race hatred.
Although it is true that the flag has sometimes been misused by hate groups, those same groups have likewise used the American flag and the Celtic Cross.  However, all of these symbols mean many things to many people, and no one has the right to limit individual interpretations to the lowest common denominator.  For example, some might see the American flag as the flag of the genocide of the Plains Indians or the unconstitutional interment of Japanese Americans, or the imperialism of annexing Hawaii and deposing its queen.  However, like the American flag, the Confederate flag should be seen in a much wider context.
We fight for the flag for these reasons:

1.  We insist that the Confederacy be accorded a respectable place in American history.  The scapegoating of the South, and the slanderous falsehoods against it must not be the official position of any federal or state agency.

2.  We refuse to allow the Confederate flag to be used as a bogeyman to disrespect our ancestors, their descendants, their country, Southern history, or the Southern section of the nation.

3.  We refuse to allow our viewpoint on history to be repressed by "viewpoint discrimination," such as that practiced by the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles.  We refuse to be acquiescent in the legal proliferation of negative stereotypes of Southerners who are proud of their ancestors and who cherish Southern symbols like the Confederate flag.  The Texas Department of Motor Vehicles seeks to enforce its bigotry through legalization, and we will not quietly go along.

4.  We refuse to acquiesce to official slander of Southern history or culture, by allowing federal or state governments to ban the Confederate flag, or to define it as "the flag of slavery, racism and oppression."

We will never stop fighting for an honorable place for Confederates in American history.  We will never give up.

Monday, September 1, 2014

My Letter to Governor Jerry Brown Re: California Bill to Ban the Confederate Flag

Today I finally had enough, and wrote to Governor Brown.  That correspondence is below.

September 1, 2014

Governor Jerry Brown
c/o State Capitol, Suite 1173
Sacramento, CA 95814

Re:  Proposed Ban on Confederate Flag in California

Dear Governor Brown:

I understand that a bill to ban the Confederate flag in California has been passed by the state legislature.  It now sits on your desk awaiting signature.  I am asking you not to sign it.  It is a blatant violation of the First Amendment, and if passed, we will litigate the matter in federal court.  You will lose.

The Confederate flag is a sacred heritage symbol to millions of Americans, both white and black, particularly those who are descendants of Confederate soldiers, sailors and marines.  We do not display it to offend anyone, or to express hatred of anyone, but as a symbol of who we are and where we came from.  It is a tribe symbol, representing our families, our ancestors, our people, their culture and their history.  If some are offended by the sight of the Confederate flag, you can be sure that we are equally offended by their uninformed and unfounded hostility.  They pretend to know what’s in our hearts, and they haven’t the slightest idea.  Their efforts to ban the flag both insult us and slander us.

Those who seek to ban the flag do so out of ignorance, and seek to make their ignorance the law of the land.  They seek to politicize American history, making any alternative views of that history illegal, shameful and suppressed.  Such efforts are totalitarian and oppressive, no matter how “honorable” they pretend to be.  

For the sake of freedom of expression, inquiry and association, please do not sign that bill.

Sincerely yours,
Stogie [full name redacted]
Life Member, Sons of Confederate Veterans

Cc:  Isadore Hall III, D-Compton
2200 W. Artesia Blvd. Suite 210
Compton, CA 90220

Sunday, August 31, 2014

California Seeks to Ban the Confederate Flag

California, where I live, is one far-left cesspool of tyranny.  All but one of the state legislators have voted to ban the Confederate flag from public display and the sale of Confederate flags.  Human Events reports:
Assemblyman Isadore Hall III, D-Compton, introduced the legislation after his mother discovered the Capitol gift shop sold a replica of Confederate money that contained a picture of the flag, according to the L.A. Times.
Isadore Hall is an ignoramus of Southern history, and seeks to legislate his ignorance into law.  We are to be forced by the state government into accepting his ignorance as fact.  This is politicizing history, and is a slander against our Confederate ancestors and against us who love the flag.

Governor Brown has yet to sign the bill into law.  If he does, I suspect we will sue the state in federal court for a blatant violation of our First Amendment rights.

Read the Human Events article here.  Of particular interest are the comments to the article.  They, once again in similar articles, overwhelmingly support the flag and oppose the California bill.