Educate Those Damn Yankees: Give to the Abbeville Institute

Below is a message from Donald Livingston of the Abbeville Institute.  We heartily recommend supporting this organization for all who care about the South.

Friends of the Abbeville Institute,

Distinguished historian Clyde Wilson has observed that when college students are confronted with the truth about the Southern tradition and its place in the American story, they often find it a transforming experience. Such education is the most important thing we can do in the culture war we are in.

Please support the Abbeville Institute with an end of the year tax deductible gift. Any amount will be greatly appreciated. There are a number of on-line ways to give. Press "Donations" on the website at www.abbevilleinstitute.org. Or you can send a check to Abbeville Institute, P.O.Box 10, McClellanville, S.C. 29458.

Merry Christmas,
Donald Livingston, President
Abbeville Institute
(843) 323 0690

Are the Sides Forming For a New Civil War?

There is a website devoted to militias that say the sides are now forming for a new Civil War. Not sure I agree, but the article is interesting.  Read it here.

The Fundamental Nonsensicality of the Gettysburg Address: An Irreverent View by H.L. Mencken

H.L. Mencken, the famous muckraker and journalist, discussed the Lincoln myth and the Gettysburg Address back in 1922, in an essay called “Five Men at Random,” Prejudices: Third Series, 1922, pp. 171-76.  With thanks to Nathaniel Strickland.

The backwardness of the art of biography in These States is made shiningly visible by the fact that we have yet to see a first-rate life of either Lincoln or Whitman. Of Lincolniana, of course, there is no end, nor is there any end to the hospitality of those who collect it. Some time ago a publisher told me that there are four kinds of books that never, under any circumstances, lose money in the United States—first, detective stories; secondly, novels in which the heroine is forcibly debauched by the hero; thirdly, volumes on spiritualism, occultism and other such claptrap, and fourthly, books on Lincoln. But despite all the vast mass of Lincolniana and the constant discussion of old Abe in other ways, even so elemental a problem as that of his religious faith—surely an important matter in any competent biography—is yet but half solved. Here, for example, is the Rev. William E. Barton, grappling with it for more than four hundred large pages in “The Soul of Abraham Lincoln.” It is a lengthy inquiry—the rev. pastor, in truth, shows a good deal of the habitual garrulity of his order— but it is never tedious. On the contrary, it is curious and amusing, and I have read it with steady interest, including even the appendices. Unluckily, the author, like his predecessors, fails to finish the business before him. Was Lincoln a Christian? Did he believe in the Divinity of Christ? I am left in doubt. He was very polite about it, and very cautious, as befitted a politician in need of Christian votes, but how much genuine conviction was in that politeness? And if his occasional references to Christ were thus open to question, what of his rather vague avowals of belief in a personal God and in the immortality of the soul? Herndon and some of his other close friends always maintained that he was an atheist, but Dr. Barton argues that this atheism was simply disbelief in the idiotic Methodist and Baptist dogmas of his time—that nine Christian churches out of ten, if he were alive to-day, would admit him to their high privileges and prerogatives without anything worse than a few warning coughs. As for me, I still wonder.

The growth of the Lincoln legend is truly amazing. He becomes the American solar myth, the chief butt of American credulity and sentimentality. Washington, of late years, has been perceptibly humanized; every schoolboy now knows that he used to swear a good deal, and was a sharp trader, and had a quick eye for a pretty ankle. But meanwhile the varnishers and veneerers have been busily converting Abe into a plaster saint, thus making him fit for adoration in the chautauquas and Y. M. C. A.’s. All the popular pictures of him show him in his robes of state, and wearing an expression fit for a man about to be hanged. There is, so far as I know, not a single portrait of him showing him smiling—and yet he must have cackled a good deal, first and last: who ever heard of a storyteller who didn’t? Worse, there is an obvious effort to pump all his human weaknesses out of him, and so leave him a mere moral apparition, a sort of amalgam of John Wesley and the Holy Ghost. What could be more absurd? Lincoln, in point of fact, was a practical politician of long experience and high talents, and by no means cursed with inconvenient ideals. On the contrary, his career in the Illinois Legislature was that of a good organization man, and he was more than once denounced by reformers. Even his handling of the slavery question was that of a politician, not that of a fanatic. Nothing alarmed him more than the suspicion that he was an Abolitionist. Barton tells of an occasion when he actually fled town to avoid meeting the issue squarely. A genuine Abolitionist would have published the Emancipation Proclamation the day after the first battle of Bull Run. But Lincoln waited until the time was more favorable—until Lee had been hurled out of Pennsylvania, and, more important still, until the political currents were safely running his way. Always he was a wary fellow, both in his dealings with measures and in his dealings with men. He knew how to keep his mouth shut.

Nevertheless, it was his eloquence that probably brought him to his great estate. Like William Jennings Bryan, he was a dark horse made suddenly formidable by fortunate rhetoric. The Douglas debate launched him, and the Cooper Union speech got him the presidency. This talent for emotional utterance, this gift for making phrases that enchanted the plain people, was an accomplishment of late growth. His early speeches were mere empty fireworks—the childish rhodomontades of the era. But in middle life he purged his style of ornament and it became almost baldly simple— and it is for that simplicity that he is remembered to-day. The Gettysburg speech is at once the shortest and the most famous oration in American history. Put beside it, all the whoopings of the Websters, Sumners and Everetts seem gaudy and silly. It is eloquence brought to a pellucid and almost child-like perfection—the highest emotion reduced to one graceful and irresistible gesture. Nothing else precisely like it is to be found in the whole range of oratory. Lincoln himself never even remotely approached it. It is genuinely stupendous.

But let us not forget that it is oratory, not logic; beauty, not sense. Think of the argument in it! Put it into the cold words of everyday! The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination — “that government of the people, by the people, for the people,” should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in that battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves. What was the practical effect of the battle of Gettysburg? What else than the destruction of the old sovereignty of the States, i. e., of the people of the States? The Confederates went into battle an absolutely free people; they came out with their freedom subject to the supervision and vote of the rest of the country—and for nearly twenty years that vote was so effective that they enjoyed scarcely any freedom at all. Am I the first American to note the fundamental nonsensicality of the Gettysburg address? If so, I plead my aesthetic joy in it in amelioration of the sacrilege.

Mencken was a perceptive, honest witness to modern foibles and fallacies. About Lincoln, who was not a Christian (and who despised Christianity), Mencken was spot on.

Today there is a "civil war" within the Republican Party, the do-nothing moderates vs the liberty loving Tea Party and conservatives. However, neither faction has ever analyzed the paradigms and myths that inspire them to so weakly resist the advance of statism. They hold as their ideal a man who was the antithesis of limited government, an anti-Christian statist and corporatist who makes Obama look like a rank amateur.

Abraham Lincoln was far more dictatorial, more antagonistic to the Constitution and the will of the people, than even Barack Obama. The former was a man who shut down hundreds of newspapers, imprisoned thousands of civilians in rank dungeons for years, without charges or trial, illegally suspended habeas corpus, blockaded and invaded sovereign states, made war on women and children, burned (through his approval of the actions of his generals) whole towns, universities and private farms to the ground. AND, he threw the entire state legislature of Maryland into prison to prevent them from seceding from the newly involuntary union.

Modern conservatives need to stop their reflexive support of the Lincoln Myth. There is nothing about Abraham Lincoln that any freedom-loving American could ever identify with or wish to emulate.  Abraham Lincoln was about unlimited power and naked force, and therefore not an example for modern conservatives to follow.

King Richard III: Villain or Hero? Brits Still Arguing 528 Years Later

King Richard III,
As He Looks Today

I saw a fascinating account of King Richard III yesterday on the Smithsonian Channel.  Earlier this year British archaeologists deduced the location of Richard's grave and found his skeletal remains.  DNA and other evidence confirmed the skeleton's identity as that of King Richard III, killed in battle at Bosworth Field near Leicester, England on August 22, 1485.  The battle was the culmination of the "War of the Roses," an internecine fight among Englishmen as to who was entitled to the throne of England.  In short, it was a civil war.

King Richard III has long been painted as a villain by English authors and tradition.  Shakespeare wrote a play, "Richard III," where Richard III is depicted as an evil, ruthless murderer, with hunchback and withered arm.  "Now is the winter of our discontent," says the Shakespearean Richard, the line most famous from that play.  But was this depiction accurate?  British citizens disagree.  Supporters of Richard III have stated "history is written by the winners" (and how we know that to be true), with unsavory facts about Richard greatly exaggerated or fabricated.  These supporters point out that the negative imagery of King Richard was politically motivated, what we call "self-legitimizing myths," as a means of justifying the winners' war and clothing it in robes of righteousness.  Again, we Confederate descendants are all-too familiar with such tactics.  In order for the Yankees to be proven right, our ancestors must be proven wrong, unrighteous, and evil.

Now for some facts.

King Edward IV, Richard's brother, died in April 1483, and Edward V (Richard's nephew) was in line for the throne to succeed his father.  Here's where the plot thickens.

King Richard III, Facial Reconstruction From the Skull

Richard III was appointed "Lord Protector" of his nephews, both sons of Edward IV.  They were Edward V and his brother, also named Richard.  Richard III ensconced both nephews in the Tower of London, not as prisoners, but as wards.  Before Edward V could be crowned king, however, his mother's marriage to Edward IV was somehow declared invalid (sounds like dirty politics to me), making Edward V ineligible for the throne.  Instead, Richard III ascended the throne in 1483, after which the two nephews were never seen again.  Although it has never been proved that Richard III did them in, many believe that this is what happened.  Still, it should be noted, Richard III had a legitimate claim to the throne through both his parents.

Loyalists to Edward IV challenged Richard III's right to the throne, but were defeated in battle.  A second challenge was mounted by Henry Tudor, who raised an army and attacked Richard III.  I do not know why or if Tudor was entitled to the throne, but he won it nevertheless by brute force, defeating the forces of Richard III at Bosworth Field where King Richard III died courageously in battle.  Overwhelmed by a crowd of warriors attacking him on all sides, Richard was killed by an ax blow to the back of his head.

Richard's body was taken to Leicester where it was hastily buried under the altar of Grey Friars Church there.  Five centuries passed and the the church was replaced by a modern parking lot, where the remains were located by ground penetrating radar on February 4, 2013.   Radio carbon dating of the remains, as well as DNA comparison to known lineal descendants, confirmed that the remains were those of Richard III.  Plus, the skeleton had severe curvature of the spine (scoliosis), which Richard III was known to possess. Further, the skull bore battle marks that fit the eye-witness descriptions of his demise. A forensic reconstruction of King Richard's face was made (see above), and it greatly resembles paintings made of Richard in the years shortly after his death.

Now the Second War of the Roses has commenced, with Brits arguing as to where the remains will be reinterred, in Leicester Cathedral or in York Minster.  A court is to decide the dispute later this month.

Outsiders often accuse American Southerners of "refighting the civil war," which ended 148 years ago.  However, we are not the only ones who continue to argue over who did what to whom and why.  The British have been refighting the War of the Roses for 528 years.  As for King Richard III, I favor giving him the benefit of the doubt.  He was a great Englishman and warrior for his people and his cause.

CNN Editorial Denounces the Confederate Flag as the Flag of Traitors

Some asshat named Dean Obeidallah (nice Muslim name there) has written a hate piece at CNN called "Confederate Flag Was the Flag of Traitors."  I had a great time baiting and bashing Yankees in the comments section, until the editors started holding up my comments ("awaiting moderation").

Skewering Yankees on the Sword of Truth is not difficult, in fact, it's like shooting fish in a barrel.  They are routinely ignorant of the facts of history, and Southerners are generally well armed with such facts.

I must admit I was deliberately incendiary in my comments.  If I can't convince Yankees that they are full of bovine excrement, then at least I can give them stomach acid.  The writer, Dean Obeidallah, is greatly angered because Confederate troops killed "110,000 Union troops."  Oh, so we were just supposed to stand there and let them kill us without any opposition?  Idiot.  I told him the number was greater than that, and quoted a verse from the song "Good Ole Rebel":

Three hundred thousand Yankees lie stiff in Southern dust.
We got three hundred thousand before they conquered us.
They died of Southern fever, and Southern steel and shot.
I wish it were three million instead of what we got.

Then I said, "I wish we could resurrect those dead Yankees and shoot them all again."  Ha ha!

No kiddies, what you learned in Third Grade about Abraham Lincoln and the Great Northern Myth is false history.  Free yourselves from ignorance, because truth is the weapon of freedom.

Hat tip to Carolyn Saunders of the Confederate Society of America for bringing this to my attention.

Jesse Jackass Jackson: "The Tea Party Is the Resurrection of the Confederacy." God, I Hope So.

Jackass Jesse Jackson

Lifelong race-baiter Jesse Jackson said in an interview with Politico on Tuesday:

“The tea party is the resurrection of the Confederacy.  It’s the Fort Sumter tea party.”

Jackson relied on popular but erroneous popular mythology to imply that the so-called "Civil War" was the morally glorious North fighting the horribly "racist" South for black freedom and equality, surely the biggest fairy tale in what passes for American history.  And, like the "racist" Confederacy, the Tea Party is also "racist," to use the most overworked cliche in the English language.  Various jackasses on the right who are deeply ignorant of American history lent credence to Jackass Jackson by writing tripe like this:

That’s right, Jackson thinks if you believe in the U.S. Constitution, you are a terrorist looking to over throw the government and kill black people and you want to bring back slavery and the old Confederacy.

The conservative writer who wrote that slanderous nonsense needs rebuttal far more than does Jackson, and he will get it here.

The historical truth is that the North hated blacks with a passion, opposed slavery in the territories because of this hatred, and made life a living hell for any blacks who wandered among them.  Numerous historical references point to the fact that Southern blacks, even those in slavery, were substantially better off and better treated than free blacks in the North.  (Do see "Everything You Were Taught About the Civil War Is Wrong -- Ask a Southerner" by Lochlainn Seabrook.)

As for "terrorists," Northerners were the terrorists, invading sovereign states to coerce them back into a union they no longer wanted, making war on women and children, burning private homes, farms, universities and even whole cities to the ground; shutting down hundreds of newspapers, arresting and imprisoning thousands without charges or trial.  Lincoln was an odious despot, and the Northern war effort a mission from Hell.

Is the Tea Party then the "resurrection of the Confederacy" as Jackass Jackson has alleged?  Since the real Confederacy was the antithesis of an uncontrollable and tyrannical federal government, one can only hope.

Fourteen States Prepare Military Defenses Against the Federal Government - Maybe; Secession Anyone?

A site called "Before It's News" is reporting that fourteen states have begun reestablishing autonomous "State Defense Forces," i.e. state-run militaries that take their orders, not from the United States, but from their respective state governors.  Reportedly, Obama is fearful of these State Defense Forces because he does not control them.  Also, the article reports, Obama has sent warning notices to these fourteen governors to halt such actions immediately or face arrest for "treason."

Allegedly, the two governors leading this State Defense Force initiative are Rick Perry of Texas and Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota.  Ken Larive of "Before It's News" reports:

The two Governors leading this move are: Tim Pawlenty, Governor of Minnesota; and Rick Perry, Governor of Texas. Both of these State Governors stated they have: “…deep fear the President is destroying their Nation.” Governor Pawlenty’s fear of Obama is that since Obama took office he has appeased America’s enemies and has shunned some of America’s strongest allies, especially Israel. Governor Perry has declared that Obama is punishing his State of Texas by dumping tens-of-thousands of illegal Mexican immigrants into the cities and small towns of Texas. Governor Perry further recently stated: “If Barack Obama’s Washington doesn’t stop being so oppressive, Texans might feel compelled to renounce their American citizenry and secede from the union.”

If there is any truth to this report, it would appear that we are moving in the direction of another Civil War.  However, I am taking this report with a large grain of salt -- but I do hope that it's true!

Read the article here.

IN DEFENSE OF GENERAL NATHAN BEDFORD FORREST, CSA

Michael Climo, a California resident and member of Sons of Confederate Veterans, has written an article for Examiner.com, in which he clears up several misconceptions about Nathan Bedford Forrest.  We are reprinting the article below in its entirety, as online articles tend to disappear after a short time, especially ones that go against the "conventional wisdom."

IN DEFENSE OF NATHAN BEDFORD FORREST
by Michael Climo, California Sons of Confederate Veterans

General Nathan Bedford Forrest, CSA

It has been almost 150 years since the end of the War Between the States and Nathan Bedford Forrest remains known largely for three things – his talent and daring on the battlefield, the Fort Pillow “Massacre” and his role in the Ku Klux Klan. His military skills have earned him grudging respect by even the most ardent Yankee, but he is otherwise scorned as an unrepentant racist and murderer. But Forrest was not the one-dimensional villain that many uninformed people portray him to be.

In contrast, when Forrest enlisted in the Confederate Army in 1861, Forrest was worth roughly 1.5 million dollars. But unlike many of his contemporaries, Forrest never lost sight of the fact that he was dealing with people. Although it is probably safe to assume that he never considered blacks his equals he still followed a strict rule to never buy or sell a slave if it would break up a family. He would also reunite broken families by buying the individual members and then selling them as a family unit.

Nathan Bedford Forrest: The Slave Trader
Forrest is often reviled for his pre-war activity of trading slaves, and it’s true that not only was he a slave trader, he was quite successful at it. But by no means was he alone. U.S. senator James DeWolf of Bristol, Rhode Island was the most successful slave-trader in American history and he was responsible for transporting at least 10,000 Africans to the Americas. DeWolf curried favor with President Thomas Jefferson in order to continue in the trade long after it was outlawed. When DeWolf died in 1837 he was a multi-millionaire and considered the second-richest man in America.

Forrest was also determined that slaves should be treated humanely. He had a list of men that he refused to sell slaves to because they were known as cruel masters. Forrest also allowed newly purchased slaves a measure of self-determination that was unheard of in that day and age. He would give the slave a pass to move about town with the instructions to “find the man you would like to be your master, and I will then sell you to that man.”

Nathan Bedford Forrest: The Slave Owner
It would seem that Forrest was well-regarded by his own slaves as well. When he formed his own cavalry unit, he offered his male slaves the opportunity to ride with him and fight for the Confederacy. In return, if they served honorably, they would be given their freedom at war’s end, win or lose. Forty-five men accepted the offer, and 44 stayed with him through the end of the war. In 1863, well before the end of the war, Forrest drew up the papers freeing them all.

Of these 45 newly freed men, 44 stayed with him and continued to serve in the Confederate Army until the end of the war. The one other man returned home to nurse his dying wife. In 1876, Forrest wrote, “Those boys stayed with me…and better Confederates did not live…those among us during the war behaved in such a manner that I shall always respect them for it.” Throughout his writings, even in personal letters, Forrest consistently referred to slaves or free man as ‘colored’ or ‘black,’ which were the politically correct terms of his times.

Nathan Bedford Forrest: The Fort Pillow Incident
Recently, Glenn Beck and David Barton made statements on Beck’s program about Nathan Bedford Forrest that were completely inaccurate. Beck held up a sword that belonged to Forrest, that Barton claims was used at Fort Pillow to skin black Union soldiers alive. This is nothing more than false conjecture that has reached reprehensible levels over time. Fort Pillow was indeed a vicious battle, but the truth was clearly not presented by Beck and Barton. Perhaps they should actually read the U.S. Congressional inquiry into the matter.

Only two weeks after the battle the inquiry could not conclusively determine exactly what happened. Both sides failed to control the action, and only Forrest’s direct, personal intervention to stop the shooting saved many of the Union defenders left standing on the beach. Not satisfied with this Congressional inquiry, Union General William T. Sherman convened a not-so-impartial inquiry. He openly stated that he would try and convict General Forrest. However, Sherman’s inquiry also ended without substantive evidence to find Forrest culpable. However, if this actual record does not meet with your satisfaction perhaps Lt. Col. Edwin L. Kennedy, Jr., Assistant Professor, Department of Command and Leadership, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama review of the events at Fort Pillow will: http://www.armchairgeneral.com/nathan-bedford-forrest-and-the-battle-of-fort-pillow-1864.htm. With this evidence at hand, to you Mr. Beck and Mr. Barton I say this: You said it, now you prove it!

Nathan Bedford Forrest: The White Knights
To some extent, Forrest’s association with the Klu Klux Klan has been exaggerated over the years. True, in 1865 he helped form the Knights of the White Camellia, but Forrest’s Knights differed greatly from the modern image of the Klan. Today’s Klan would find the founding members of the White Knights highly objectionable because several of these former Confederate officers were Jewish. Forrest’s original vision was of a political and fraternal group, and the goal was to fight the excesses of the Freedman’s Bureau and the Federal occupation troops.

That intent obviously became badly warped even early on, and some members adopted a violent approach. When these members refused to stop what amounted to terrorism or to give up wearing masks, Forrest asked for the group to disband and renounced his association with them. The modern Klan that we know actually dates back less than 100 years. Founded in Gary, Indiana, in 1915, the Klan may claim they are the legacy of Forrest’s Knights of the White Camellia, but their philosophies and practices bear little resemblance to the views actually held by Forrest himself.

In 1871 a Congressional committee composed of Radical Republicans investigated the Klan, its origins, its activities and the possible involvement of former Confederate leaders. They had the current facts at-hand and the men they were investigating testified before them. Among those compelled to testify was Forrest. The Committee, which would have liked nothing better than to be able to charge and try Forrest, concluded in its official findings that Forrest did not found the Klan, was not the Klan's leader, did not advise the Klan and instead worked only to have the Klan disband. See "The reports of Committees, House of Representatives, second session, forty-second congress," P. 7-449. Again with this evidence at hand I say to all of you disbelievers, prove it otherwise.

Nathan Bedford Forrest: After the War
Both Forrest’s public speeches and private writings spoke of peace and reconciliation. This began as early as his farewell address to his troops in 1865. He explained, “Reason dictates and humanity demands that no more blood to be shed. Fully realizing and feeling that such is the case, it is your duty and mine to lay down our arms, submit to the powers that be, and to aid in restoring peace and establishing law and order throughout the land.”

He also instructed his men that “Civil war, such as you have just passed through naturally engenders feelings of animosity, hatred and revenge. It is our duty to divest ourselves of all such feelings; and as far as it is in our power to do so, to cultivate friendly feelings towards those with whom we have so long contended…”

Forrest was invited to speak often in the years following the war, and he encouraged support for the U.S. government and Constitution, and acceptance of free blacks as political and legal equals. His last public speech was in 1875 at a Fourth of July BBQ held by the Independent Order of Pole Bearers, an early black civil rights organization in Memphis. Although many of his white contemporaries urged him to decline the invitation, Forrest ignored their advice.

Speaking to the group, Forrest said, “I came here with the jeers of some white people, who think I am doing wrong. I believe I can exert some influence…and shall do all in my power to elevate every man, to depress none. I want to elevate you to take positions in law offices, in stores, on farms, and wherever you are capable of going.” He also encouraged them to vote, saying “I don’t propose to say anything about politics. You have a right to elect whom you please; vote for the man you think best, and I think, when that is done, you and I are freemen. Do as you consider right and honest in electing men for office.”

While I do not claim that Nathan Bedford Forrest was a saint and deserves consideration as a civil rights pioneer, an objective look at history shows that he was a far more complicated man than is often portrayed.

Great Southern Boy: Hank Williams III Singing and Looking Like Grandpa

If You Don't Like The Southern Confederacy, YOU CAN KISS MY ASS

How's that title for an objective, scholarly historical analysis?

The truth is, the interpretation of history is about as objective as religion, politics, war or any teenage boy on his first trip to a cat house.

So I'm taking a leaf from the playbook of fellow Confederate descendant Hank Williams III, who has a song titled "If You Don't Like Hank Williams, You Can Kiss My Ass!"  Well said, Brother Hank.  The same holds true of the Southern Confederacy.

Today I got into yet another fight with a G-- D---- Yankee at The Other McCain blog.  Robert Stacy McCain is a prominent conservative blogger, member of the SCV, and an infamous "neo-Confederate."  Or at least, that's what leftists like to call him, as if it were an insult instead of a compliment.

The Yankee at The Other McCain began slamming the South with all the usual Yankee lies, ending his diatribe by comparing Jefferson Davis to Pol Pot, Mao and Che Guevara.  Now normally, a comment like this would (and should) be followed by a fist to the Yankee's mouth, but since he wasn't in swinging range, I just proceeded to debunk his sophomoric, self-serving version of history, following it with a long list of the crimes of super-villain Abe Lincoln, followed still by a link to the article in this blog titled "Why the Civil War Was Not About Slavery."

End of rant.

150 Years Ago Today: Pickett's Charge; My Experiences at Gettysburg

Stogie at Gettysburg

Today marks the 150th anniversary of the "high water mark" of the Confederacy when 12,500 Confederate soldiers attacked Union defenses on Cemetery Ridge.  The Confederate troops were told to focus on the Copse of Trees on Cemetery Ridge, and began a fast walk forward towards the Union lines.  The Southern lines were showered with canister, shells and musket fire and few actually reached the stone wall (a barrier of loose boulders piled in such a way as to make a kind of fence).  The great Confederate General Lewis Armistead was shot down just before reaching the Angle, a bend in the stone wall.  A monument today marks the spot where he fell, and I have been there.  The Angle is still there as well, with no hint of the desperate fighting that occurred there.

There is an excellent photo essay of reenactors at Gettysburg this week, and they have recreated the sights and scenes of that momentous battle with incredibly authentic detail.  See it here.

I was at Gettysburg in August of 1992, as a Confederate reenactor and extra ("background artist") in the Ron Maxwell movie "Gettysburg," based on the novel "The Killer Angels."  Bro and I had prepared for the filming for weeks in advance; I had grown a salt and pepper beard and we flew to Virginia where we rented a car and drove to Gettysburg.  We arrived and set up our tent in the Confederate camp, where we stayed for the week, constantly wearing our heavy woolen uniforms and marching at daybreak with other Confederate reenactors over grounds where the actual Confederates marched and died 129 years before.  With our uniforms, 1857 Enfield muskets (working replicas), canteens, haversacks, cartridge belts, rough brogan shoes, bayonets and other gear clinking and clanking to the tramp of marching feet, we took our places in the lines and prepared to once more assault the Union lines beyond the wooden fence bordering the Emmitsburg Pike.

                                                                                      Reenactors at Gettysburg, 2013

It was a hot, uncomfortable, busy week, and I wouldn't trade it for anything.  It was one of the most meaningful experiences of my life, and not because we were in a movie, or rubbing elbows with famous actors like Martin Sheen (as Lee) or Stephen Lang (as Pickett), but because we were paying homage to our courageous forbears in what was almost a religious experience.  As we the Confederates quietly passed the statue of General Lee on Seminary Ridge, where the real Confederates began the charge, we entered the actual Hallowed Ground to form our battle lines.  The Copse of Trees on the horizon is still there, and the grassy green expanse in front of us seemed silent and sacred.  How very different from that day in 1863, when the field between Seminary Ridge and Cemetery Ridge was filled with roaring cannon and the rattle of  musket fire, billowing gun smoke, whistling shells and the screams of dying men, a scene of  blood and carnage, of dead men and horses.  Though the field before us was now silent, we could see, hear and smell the battle in our imaginations.

Soon our long gray line was marching forth, our red battle flags unfurled to the Pennsylvania breeze.  Many Confederate descendants, overcome with emotion, wept.  Bro and I marched forth with fixed bayonets, shells exploding on either side, rockets streaming over our heads, around dead horses here and there, onward toward the wall!.  We were finally shot down at the Angle (filmed later at an alternate location), and it was an honor to "die" for the Southern Cause.  One of our members actually did die, of a heart attack, later that week.  Actor Sam Elliot later led a memorial service for him and one other reenactor who died as well.

Bro and I were members of the First Virginia Infantry.  After the filming, we drove to Hollywood Cemetery in Richmond and walked among the graves of the Confederate dead.  General Pickett is buried there, as well as many of his men.  We found one tombstone that identified the dead as a member of the First Virginia who fell at Pickett's Charge.  We also visited the graves of Jefferson Davis and Jeb Stuart, who are buried close to each other.

****

That's my Pickett's Charge tale, one that I and Bro actually experienced in the flesh.  Somewhere in the film "Gettysburg," there is a scene of grizzled, smoke stained Confederates marching toward the camera at the outset of Pickett's Charge, and for a few brief seconds, I am visible in the line, black slouch hat on my head, shouting at the other troops to "straighten that line."  Bro appears right behind me, for only a second before the scene ends.

Gettysburg: H.L. Mencken Put It All In Perspective

As the 150th anniversary of the Battle of Gettysburg approaches, I think it is appropriate to pierce the self-delusion of Yankee apologists and dreamers with a quote from H.L. Mencken.

by H.L. Mencken

The Gettysburg speech was at once the shortest and the most famous oration in American history...the highest emotion reduced to a few poetical phrases. Lincoln himself never even remotely approached it. It is genuinely stupendous. But let us not forget that it is poetry, not logic; beauty, not sense. Think of the argument in it. Put it into the cold words of everyday. The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination – that government of the people, by the people, for the people, should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves.