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.

YOU'RE AN IDIOT, MARK.

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.

Sunday, May 25, 2014

Honoring Our Dead

On Memorial Day, it is right that we remember those who died for our freedoms, even if they were not successful in their cause.

General Patrick Cleburne warned what was in store for the South should it lose the war.  He wrote
It means that the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern school teachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the war; will be impressed by all the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, our maimed veterans as fit objects for derision.
Everything the good General predicted has come true.

God bless our Confederate dead, and may we never forget them.

Wednesday, May 21, 2014

BAN THE FLAG! Join the Campaign!

It is the flag of oppression, the flag of lies, the flag of ignorance.  The flag of extremists, the flag of an increasingly totalitarian ideology.

Join us in banning this flag from public display, anywhere, lest someone sane become offended.

Feel free to use this graphic on your websites or blogs.  Spread the word!

BAN THE FLAG!

Because one good turn deserves another....

Support for the Confederate Flag Grows on FaceBook

The idiot legislature of our Looney-Tunes state of California has passed a law to ban the display or sale of Confederate flags on state property.  I will happily and willingly break this law at the very first opportunity.  What we need is a group of us to visit the State Capitol grounds in Sacramento, and take turns selling each other small Confederate flags, say, for 10 cents each.  Someone can film it, and we can then put the film on YouTube.

This law is so unconstitutional as to defy the imagination.  It deserves not only our contempt, but our open defiance.

This new law has been discussed on at least three FaceBook forums recently, and the commenters were overwhelmingly in support of the flag.  Many discussed contempt for California.  I find this trend most encouraging.  Almost none of the commenters were in any way offended by the Confederate flag, and recognized it as a heritage symbol and an American flag.

Friday, May 16, 2014

Two Good Books That I Recommend

I have read two worthy books in the past two weeks, ones that I recommend.  They are:

1.  The Path to National Suicide - an Essay on Immigration and Multiculturalism, by Lawrence Auster.  This book explains how, due to liberal ideology, our borders were opened in 1965, and how the resulting transformation of America's ethnic composition helped fuel the ideology of multiculturalism which is changing the ethnic composition of America in radical ways.  Auster does not argue that all non-European immigration be halted, but that it is occurring too much and too fast for new immigrants to be successfully assimilated into our Anglo-Saxon, Judeo-Christian culture.  Third world immigration should be slowed to a fraction of what it is now.  The demographics of America prior to the 1965 immigration act should be restored and preserved, in order to retain our culture, forms of government and traditions.

I found the pamphlet very well written and argued.

2. The Myths of Slavery, by Walter D. Kennedy.  The actual history of slavery in the United States includes the North's enormous culpability in the institution, as well as its hypocrisy.  The author convincingly refutes the many slanders and falsehoods about the Confederacy, the Southern states, and the institution of African slavery.  Note:  exposing the whole truth about slavery is not "defending slavery," so please don't go there.  If you adore Lincoln as a demi-god and like to repeat the simplistic falsehoods of the Northern Myth, you won't like this book -- and that's why you should read it.

There is no way you can honor, respect or admire the Yankee invasion of the South in 1861 without undermining your own freedom in the here and now.