Confederate Historical Ignorance - Part 2

Article by Prof. Walter Willaims forwarded by Prattville Dragoons Sam Reid and Tyrone Crowley on Aug. 12, 2015.

Historical Ignorance  II

Walter E Williams - 15 July 2015

We call the war of 1861 the Civil War. But is that right? A civil war is a struggle between two or more entities trying to take over the central government. Confederate President Jefferson Davis no more sought to take over Washington, D.C., than George Washington sought to take over London in 1776. Both wars, those of 1776 and 1861, were wars of independence. Such a recognition does not require one to sanction the horrors of slavery. We might ask, How much of the war was about slavery?

Was President Abraham Lincoln really for outlawing slavery? Let's look at his words. In an 1858 letter, Lincoln said, "I have declared a thousand times, and now repeat that, in my opinion neither the General Government, nor any other power outside of the slave states, can constitutionally or rightfully interfere with slaves or slavery where it already exists." In a Springfield, Illinois, speech, he explained: "My declarations upon this subject of Negro slavery may be misrepresented but cannot be misunderstood. I have said that I do not understand the Declaration (of Independence) to mean that all men were created equal in all respects." Debating Sen. Stephen Douglas, Lincoln said, "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."

What about Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation? Here are his words: "I view the matter (of slaves' emancipation) as a practical war measure, to be decided upon according to the advantages or disadvantages it may offer to the suppression of the rebellion." He also wrote: "I will also concede that emancipation would help us in Europe, and convince them that we are incited by something more than ambition." When Lincoln first drafted the proclamation, war was going badly for the Union. London and Paris were considering recognizing the Confederacy and assisting it in its war against the Union.

The Emancipation Proclamation was not a universal declaration. It specifically detailed where slaves were to be freed: only in those states "in rebellion against the United States." Slaves remained slaves in states not in rebellion -- such as Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware and Missouri. The hypocrisy of the Emancipation Proclamation came in for heavy criticism. Lincoln's own secretary of state, William Seward, sarcastically said, "We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free."

Lincoln did articulate a view of secession that would have been heartily endorsed by the Confederacy: "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. ... Nor is this right confined to cases in which the 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." Lincoln expressed that view in an 1848 speech in the U.S. House of Representatives, supporting the secession of Texas from Mexico.

Why didn't Lincoln share the same feelings about Southern secession? Following the money might help with an answer. Throughout most of our nation's history, the only sources of federal revenue were excise taxes and tariffs. During the 1850s, tariffs amounted to 90 percent of federal revenue. Southern ports paid 75 percent of tariffs in 1859. What "responsible" politician would let that much revenue go?

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. 

Confederate Historical Ignorance - Part 1

Article by Walter Williams, forwarded by Prattville Dragoons Sam Reid and Tyrone Crowley on Aug. 12, 2015. 

                   Historical Ignorance

Walter E Williams - 15 July 2015                                                                   

The victors of war write its history in order to cast themselves in the most favorable light. That explains the considerable historical ignorance about our war of 1861 and panic over the Confederate flag. To create better understanding, we have to start a bit before the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia.

The 1783 Treaty of Paris ended the war between the colonies and Great Britain. Its first article declared the 13 colonies "to be free, sovereign and independent states." These 13 sovereign nations came together in 1787 as principals and created the federal government as their agent. Principals have always held the right to fire agents. In other words, states held a right to withdraw from the pact -- secede.

During the 1787 Constitutional Convention, a proposal was made that would allow the federal government to suppress a seceding state. James Madison rejected it, saying, "A union of the states containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a state would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound."

In fact, the ratification documents of Virginia, New York and Rhode Island explicitly said they held the right to resume powers delegated should the federal government become abusive of those powers. The Constitution never would have been ratified if states thought they could not regain their sovereignty -- in a word, secede.

On March 2, 1861, after seven states seceded and two days before Abraham Lincoln's inauguration, Sen. James R. Doolittle of Wisconsin proposed a constitutional amendment that read, "No state or any part thereof, heretofore admitted or hereafter admitted into the union, shall have the power to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the United States."

Several months earlier, Reps. Daniel E. Sickles of New York, Thomas B. Florence of Pennsylvania and Otis S. Ferry of Connecticut proposed a constitutional amendment to prohibit secession. Here's a question for the reader: Would there have been any point to offering these amendments if secession were already unconstitutional?

On the eve of the War of 1861, even unionist politicians saw secession as a right of states. Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel of Maryland said, "Any attempt to preserve the union between the states of this Confederacy by force would be impractical, and destructive of republican liberty."

Both Northern Democratic and Republican Parties favored allowing the South to secede in peace. Just about every major Northern newspaper editorialized in favor of the South's right to secede. New York Tribune (Feb. 5, 1860): "If tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861." Detroit Free Press (Feb. 19, 1861): "An attempt to subjugate the seceded states, even if successful, could produce nothing but evil -- evil unmitigated in character and appalling in content." The New York Times (March 21, 1861): "There is growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go."

The War of 1861 settled the issue of secession through brute force that cost 600,000 American lives. We Americans celebrate Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, but H.L. Mencken correctly evaluated the speech: "It is poetry, not logic; beauty, not sense." Lincoln said the soldiers 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." Mencken says: "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 people to govern themselves."

The War of 1861 brutally established that states could not secede. We are still living with its effects. Because states cannot secede, the federal government can run roughshod over the U.S. Constitution's limitations of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. States have little or no response.

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. 

Ten Causes of the War Between the States - Part 2

The 10 Causes of the War Between the States
by James W. King

6. NORTHERN INDUSTRIALISTS WANTED THE SOUTH'S RESOURCES. The Northern Industrialists wanted a war to use as an excuse to get the South's resources for pennies on the dollar. They began a campaign about 1830 that would influence the common people of the North and create enmity that would allow them to go to war against the South. These Northern Industrialists brought up a morality claim against the South alleging the evils of slavery. The Northern Hypocrites conveniently neglected to publicize the fact that 5 New England States ( Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and New York ) were primarily responsible for the importation of most of the slaves from Africa to America. These states had both private and state owned fleets of ships.
7. SLANDER OF THE SOUTH BY NORTHERN NEWSPAPERS. This political cause ties in to the above listed efforts by New England Industrialists. Beginning about 1830 the Northern Newspapers began to slander the South. The Industrialists used this tool to indoctrinate the common people of the North. They used slavery as a scapegoat and brought the morality claim up to a feverish pitch. Southerners became tired of reading in the Northern Newspapers about what bad and evil people they were just because their neighbor down the road had a few slaves. This propaganda campaign created hostility between the ordinary citizens of the two regions and created the animosity necessary for war. The Northern Industrialists worked poor whites in the factories of the North under terrible conditions for 18 hours a day ( including children ). When the workers became old and infirm they were fired. It is a historical fact that during this era there were thousands of old people living homeless on the streets in the cities of the North. In the South a slave was cared for from birth to death. Also the diet and living conditions of Southern slaves was superior to that of most white Northern factory workers. Southerners deeply resented this New England hypocrisy and slander.
8. NEW ENGLANDERS ATTEMPTED TO INSTIGATE MASSIVE SLAVE REBELLIONS IN THE SOUTH. Abolitionists were a small but vocal and militant group in New England who demanded instant abolition of slavery in the South. These fanatics and zealots were calling for massive slave uprisings that would result in the murder of Southern men, women and children. Southerners were aware that such an uprising had occurred in Santa Domingo in the 1790 era and that the French (white) population had been massacred. The abolitionists published a terrorist manifesto and tried to smuggle 100,000 copies into the South showing slaves how to murder their masters at night. Then when John Brown raided Harpers Ferry,Virginia in 1859 the political situation became inflammatory. Prior to this event there had been five times as many abolition societies in the South as in the North. Lincoln and most of the Republican Party ( 64 members of congress ) had adopted a political platform in support of terrorist acts against the South. Some (allegedly including Lincoln) had contributed monetarily as supporters of John Browns terrorist activities.. Again slavery was used as a scapegoat for all differences that existed between the North and South.
9.. SLAVERY. Indirectly slavery was a cause of the war. Most Southerners did not own slaves and would not have fought for the protection of slavery. However they believed that the North had no Constitutional right to free slaves held by citizens of Sovereign Southern States. Prior to the war there were five times as many abolition societies in the South as in the North. Virtually all educated Southerners were in favor of gradual emancipation of slaves. Gradual emancipation would have allowed the economy and labor system of the South to gradually adjust to a free paid labor system without economic collapse. Furthermore, since the New England States were responsible for the development of slavery in America, Southerners saw the morality claims by the North as blatant hypocrisy. The first state to legalize slavery had been Massachusetts in 1641 and this law was directed primarily at Indians. In colonial times the economic infrastructure of the port cities of the North was dependent upon the slave trade. The first slave ship in America, "THE DESIRE", was fitted out in Marblehead, Massachusetts. Further proof that Southerners were not fighting to preserve slavery is found in the diary of an officer in the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia. He stated that "he had never met a man in the Army of Northern Virginia that claimed he was fighting to preserve slavery". If the war had been over slavery, the composition of the politicians, officers, enlisted men, and even African Americans would have been different. Confederate General Robert E. Lee had freed his slaves (Custis estate) prior to 1863 whereas Union General Grant's wife Julia did not free her slaves until after the war when forced to do so by the 13th amendment to the constitution and court action. Grant even stated that if the abolitionists claimed he was fighting to free slaves that he would offer his services to the South. Mildred Lewis Rutherford ( 1852-1928 ) was for many years the historian for the United Daughters Of The Confederacy (UDC). In her book Truths Of History she stated that there were more slaveholders in the Union Army ( 315,000 ) than the Confederate Army ( 200,000 ). Statistics also show that about 300,000 blacks supported the Confederacy versus about 200,000 for the Union. Clearly the war would have been fought along different lines if it had been fought over slavery. The famous English author Charles Dickens stated " the Northern onslaught upon Southern slavery is a specious piece of humbug designed to mask their desire for the economic control of the Southern states."
10, NORTHERN AGGRESSION AGAINST SOUTHERN STATES, Proof that Abraham Lincoln wanted war may be found in the manner he handled the Fort Sumter incident. Original correspondence between Lincoln and Naval Captain G.V.Fox shows proof that Lincoln acted with deceit and willfully provoked South Carolina into firing on the fort ( A TARIFF COLLECTION FACILITY ). It was politically important that the South be provoked into firing the first shot so that Lincoln could claim the Confederacy started the war. Additional proof that Lincoln wanted war is the fact that Lincoln refused to meet with a Confederate peace delegation. They remained in Washington for 30 days and returned to Richmond only after it became apparent that Lincoln wanted war and refused to meet and discuss a peace agreement. After setting up the Fort Sumter incident for the purpose of starting a war, Lincoln called for 75,000 troops to put down what he called a rebellion. He intended to march Union troops across Virginia and North Carolina to attack South Carolina. Virginia and North Carolina were not going to allow such an unconstitutional and criminal act of aggression against a sovereign sister Southern State. Lincoln's act of aggression caused the secession of the upper Southern States.
On April 17th 1861, Governor Letcher of Virginia sent this message to Washington DC: " I have only to say that the militia of Virginia will not be furnished to the powers of Washington for any such use or purpose as they have in view. Your object is to subjugate the Southern states and the requisition made upon me for such a object-an object in my judgement not within the purview of the constitution or the act of 1795, will not be complied with. You have chosen to inaugurate civil war; having done so we will meet you in a spirit as determined as the administration has exhibited toward the South."
The WAR BETWEEN THE STATES 1861-1865 occurred due to many complex causes and factors as enumerated above. Those who make claims that "the war was over slavery" or that if slavery had been abolished in 1776 when the Declaration of Independence was signed or in 1789 when The Constitution of the United States of America was signed, that war would not have occurred between North and South are being very simplistic in their views and opinions.
The following conversation between English ship Captain Hillyar and Capt. Raphael Semmes-Confederate Ship CSS Alabama occurred during the war on August 5th, 1861. It is a summary from a well-educated Southerner who is stating his reasons for fighting.
Captain Hillyar expressed surprised at Captain Semme's contention that the people of the South were "defending ourselves against robbers with knives at our throats", and asked for further clarification as to how this was so, the exchange below occurred. I especially was impressed with Semmes' assessment of yankee motives - the creation of "Empire"!
Semmes: "Simply that the machinery of the Federal Government, under which we have lived, and which was designed for the common benefit, has been made the means of despoiling the South, to enrich the North", and I explained to him the workings of the iniquitous tariffs, under the operation of which the South had, in effect, been reduced to a dependent colonial condition, almost as abject as that of the Roman provinces, under their proconsuls; the only difference being, that smooth-faced hypocrisy had been added to robbery, inasmuch as we had been plundered under the forms of law"
Captain Hillyar: "All this is new to me", replied the captain. "I thought that your war had arisen out of the slavery question."
Semmes: "That is the common mistake of foreigners. The enemy has taken pains to impress foreign nations with this false view of the case. With the exception of a few honest zealots, the canting hypocritical Yankee cares as little for our slaves as he does for our draught animals. The war which he has been making upon slavery for the last 40 years is only an interlude, or by-play, to help on the main action of the drama, which is Empire; and it is a curious coincidence that it was commenced about the time the North began to rob the South by means of its tariffs. When a burglar designs to enter a dwelling for the purpose of robbery, he provides himself with the necessary implements. The slavery question was one of the implements employed to help on the robbery of the South. It strengthened the Northern party, and enabled them to get their tariffs through Congress; and when at length, the South, driven to the wall, turned, as even the crushed worm will turn, it was cunningly perceived by the Northern men that 'No slavery' would be a popular war-cry, and hence, they used it. 
It is true that we are defending our slave property, but we are defending it no more than any other species of our property - it is all endangered, under a general system of robbery. We are in fact, fighting for independence."

The Union victory in 1865 destroyed the right of secession in America,which had been so cherished by America's founding fathers as the principle of their revolution. British historian and political philosopher Lord Acton, one of the most intellectual figures in Victorian England, understood the deeper meaning of Southern defeat. In a letter to former Confederate General Robert E. Lee dated November 4,1866, Lord Acton wrote " I saw in States Rights the only available check upon the absolutism of the sovereign will, and secession filled me with hope, not as the destruction but as the redemption of Democracy. I deemed you were fighting the battles of our liberty, our progress, and our civilization and I mourn for that which was lost at Richmond more deeply than I rejoice over that which was saved at Waterloo (defeat of Napoleon). As Illinois Governor Richard Yates stated in a message to his state assembly on January 2,1865, the war had " tended, more than any other event in the history of the country, to militate against the Jeffersonian Ideal ( Thomas Jefferson ) that the best government is that which governs least.

Years after the war former Confederate president Jefferson Davis stated " I Am saddened to Hear Southerners Apologize For Fighting To Preserve Our Inheritance" . Some years later former U.S. president Theodore Roosevelt stated " Those Who Will Not Fight For The Graves Of Their Ancestors Are Beyond Redemption".

James W. King
Commander Camp 141
Lt. Col. Thomas M. Nelson
Sons of Confederate Veterans
Albany, Georgia

Ten Causes of the War Between the States - Part 1

The 10 Causes of the War Between the States
by James W. King

Historians have long debated the causes of the war and the Southern perspective differs greatly from the Northern perspective. Based upon the study of original documents of the War Between The States (Civil War) era and facts and information published by Confederate Veterans, Confederate Chaplains, Southern writers and Southern Historians before, during, and after the war, I present the facts, opinions, and conclusions stated in the following article.
Technically the 10 causes listed are reasons for Southern secession. The only cause of the war was that the South was invaded and responded to Northern aggression.
I respectfully disagree with those who claim that the War Between the States was fought over slavery or that the abolition of slavery in the Revolutionary Era or early Federal period would have prevented war. It is my opinion that war was inevitable between the North and South due to complex political and cultural differences. The famous Englishman Winston Churchill stated that the war between the North and South was one of the most unpreventable wars in history. The Cause that the Confederate States of America fought for (1861-1865) was Southern Independence from the United States of America. Many parallels exist between the War for American Independence ( 1775-1783 ) and the War for Southern Independence.
There were 10 political causes of the war (causes of Southern Secession) ---one of which was slavery-- which was a scapegoat for all the differences that existed between the North and South. The Northern industrialists had wanted a war since about 1830 to get the South's resources ( land-cotton- coal-timber- minerals ) for pennies on the dollar. All wars are economic and are always between centralists and decentralists. The North would have found an excuse to invade the South even if slavery had never existed.
A war almost occurred during 1828-1832 over the tariff when South Carolina passed nullification laws. The U.S. congress had increased the tariff rate on imported products to 40% ( known as the tariff of abominations in Southern States ). This crisis had nothing to do with slavery. If slavery had never existed --period--or had been eliminated at the time the Declaration of Independence was written in 1776 or anytime prior to 1860 it is my opinion that there would still have been a war sooner or later.
On a human level there were 4 causes of the war--New England Greed--New England Fanatics--New England Zealots--and New England Hypocrites. During "So Called Reconstruction" ( 1865-1877 ) the New England Industrialists got what they had really wanted for 40 years--THE SOUTH'S RESOURCES FOR PENNIES ON THE DOLLAR. It was a political coalition between the New England economic interests and the New England fanatics and zealots that caused Southern secession to be necessary for economic survival and safety of the population.
1. TARIFF--Prior to the war about 75% of the money to operate the Federal Government was derived from the Southern States via an unfair sectional tariff on imported goods and 50% of the total 75% was from just 4 Southern states--Virginia- North Carolina--South Carolina and Georgia. Only 10%--20% of this tax money was being returned to the South. The Southern states were being treated as an agricultural colony of the North and bled dry. John Randolph of Virginia's remarks in opposition to the tariff of 1820 demonstrates that fact. The North claimed that they fought the war to preserve the Union but the New England Industrialists who were in control of the North were actually supporting preservation of the Union to maintain and increase revenue from the tariff. The industrialists wanted the South to pay for the industrialization of America at no expense to themselves. Revenue bills introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives prior to the War Between the States were biased, unfair and inflammatory to the South. Abraham Lincoln had promised the Northern industrialists that he would increase the tariff rate if he was elected president of the United States. Lincoln increased the rate to a level that exceeded even the "Tariff of Abominations" 40% rate that had so infuriated the South during the 1828-1832 era ( between 50 and 51% on iron goods). The election of a president that was Anti-Southern on all issues and politically associated with the New England industrialists, fanatics, and zealots brought about the Southern secession movement.
2. CENTRALIZATION VERSUS STATES RIGHTS---The United States of America was founded as a Constitutional Federal Republic in 1789 composed of a Limited Federal Government and Sovereign States. The North wanted to and did alter the form of Government this nation was founded upon. The Confederate States of America fought to preserve Constitutional Limited Federal Government as established by America’s founding fathers who were primarily Southern Gentlemen from Virginia. Thus Confederate soldiers were fighting for rights that had been paid for in blood by their forefathers upon the battlefields of the American Revolution. Abraham Lincoln had a blatant disregard for The Constitution of the United States of America. His War of aggression Against the South changed America from a Constitutional Federal Republic to a Democracy ( with Socialist leanings ) and broke the original Constitution. The infamous Socialist Karl Marx sent Lincoln a letter of congratulations after his reelection in 1864. A considerable number of European Socialists came to America and fought for the Union (North).
3. CHRISTIANITY VERSUS SECULAR HUMANISM--The South believed in basic Christianity as presented in the Holy Bible.The North had many Secular Humanists ( atheists, transcendentalists and non-Christians ). Southerners were afraid of what kind of country America might become if the North had its way. Secular Humanism is the belief that there is no God and that man,science and government can solve all problems. This philosophy advocates human rather than religious values. Reference : Frank Conner’s book "The South Under Siege 1830-2000."
4. CULTURAL DIFFERENCES- -Southerners and Northerners were of different Genetic Lineages. Southerners were primarily of Western English (original Britons),Scottish, and Irish linage (Celtic) whereas Northerners tended to be of Anglo-Saxon and Danish (Viking) extraction. The two cultures had been at war and at odds for over 1000 years before they arrived in America. Our ancient ancestors in Western England under King Arthur humbled the Saxon princes at the battle of Baden Hill ( circa 497 AD --516 AD ). The cultural differences that contributed to the War Between the States (1861-1865 ) had existed for 1500 years or more.
5. CONTROL OF WESTERN TERRITORIES- -The North wanted to control Western States and Territories such as Kansas and Nebraska. New England formed Immigrant Aid Societies and sent settlers to these areas that were politically attached to the North. They passed laws against slavery that Southerners considered punitive. These political actions told Southerners they were not welcome in the new states and territories. It was all about control--slavery was a scapegoat.

James W. King
Commander Camp 141
Lt. Col. Thomas M. Nelson
Sons of Confederate Veterans
Albany, Georgia

Prattville Dragoons Chaplain's Column for August 2015

Being Different – Scripture Matthew 5:3-6

Jesus made promises in "The Beatitudes." He was describing how to be different, how to be His servant in this hostile and wicked world we live in. He offers special rewards for these character traits and the special rewards for each are:

1. Those who are genuinely humble before God, who turn to Him in absolute dependence, will be assured of a place in His kingdom.

2. Those who show compassion on behalf of the needy, the hurting, will receive (in return) much comfort in their own lives.

3. Those who are gentle—strong within yet controlled without, who bring a soothing graciousness into irritating situations, will win out.

4. Those who have a passionate appetite for righteousness, both heavenly and earthly, will receive from the Lord an unusual measure of personal contentment and satisfaction.    

     After considering these questions it would be wise for each of us to ask ourselves the following questions:

1. Am I really different?

2. Do I take all this seriously and am I willing to change?

3. Do I believe that serving others is one of the most Christ like attitudes I can have?

     What significant difference will the ideas expressed in the Beatitudes have on my life? In conclusion the question is not what do we want to be when we grow up but rather what are you becoming, now that you’re grown?

     Please remember to pray for our country and all on our prayer list.

Prattville Dragoons Commander's Column for August 2015

A Symbol of Resistance, Liberty, and Self-determination

Compatriot Paul Whaley penned an exceptional letter to the editor of the State Newspaper of Columbia SC exclaiming, “If…removing the Confederate flag from the grounds of the capitol would change one mind, stop one act of violence, save one life… I would be in the forefront of such an effort.  All focus on the craven coward who… committed this appalling crime (murdering those at the Charleston AME church) has disappeared. Instead, those who laud diversity and inclusivity have demonstrated their own bigotry and intolerance by attacking the lowest hanging fruit, the Confederate flag.  The flag killed no one, a person did. Adults surely know the root causes of pure evil come from something far deeper in the minds of those who commit such acts than merely posing with any flag?”  Unfortunately, this tragic event just served as a convenient excuse, an opportunity to exploit the grieving black parishioners.  Politically correct politicians, certainly a farcical non sequitur excepting it acknowledges their unrelenting PC pandering, took advantage as politically expedient. I watched in amazement at the following tragic national event when Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez gunned down four Marines at a recruiting office.  All focus was on the victims as it appropriately should have been but evidence that Abdulazeez traveled to the Mideast including Yemen and blogged about Allah and Islam was dismissed in favor of the preferred PC observations that he was a depressed drug abuser.  But wait, didn’t the Charleston shooter have a history of mental illness and drug abuse also?   Obviously irrelevant when the Confederate flag could be the primary focus.  The Islamic star and crescent is a flag of peace, not hateful racism like the venerable Battle flag of the Confederacy, right? 

I recently tweeted a link to a column by Sylvia Thompson of renewamerica.com where she stated, “If Governor Nikki Haley thinks that removing a flag from a capitol building will do anything to alleviate the racial hatred fomented by …the Left throughout the country's history, she is sadly mistaken. Governor Haley has fallen into the web of deceit that the Left always uses to entrap the gullible. Governor Haley is not part of the black-white heritage of this country (being a second generation Indian immigrant), so I don't expect her to understand more than that a heinous crime has been committed in her state. She, however, is being used big time. So are all the others clamoring for the removal and destruction of flags and Civil War monuments in southern states. History happened folks, that's what makes it history. You can hide it and distort it, but you will never do away with it.  Since the end of the Civil War, many on the side of the Northern faction of the fight have done their best to demean, denigrate and punish white people of the South. I know this because I was born and reared in the South (and recognize) the sneering at and looking down upon Southerners, black and white. President Andrew Johnson, the successor to the assassinated President Abraham Lincoln, succeeded in making Reconstruction a vindictive program that hurt even repentant Southerners while benefiting northern opportunists (Carpetbaggers) and cynical white Southerners (Scalawags). All of whom exploited alliances with blacks for political gain. This acerbation of wounds bred a hatred and resentment among defeated Southerners that played out against freed slaves. And so it goes even to this twenty-first century, capitalizing on old hatreds. A primary goal of the Left is to ensure that the age-old rift between American blacks and whites is never resolved, because blacks will no longer be enslaved to them if it is resolved.”  To be a progressive liberal is evidently to be an angry intolerant bigot.  The elimination of the Confederate flag is the goal for those who wish to control the populace, to eliminate this living vibrant symbol of resistance, liberty, and self-determination.

It is clear that we as Southerners embracing our noble Confederate heritage face an entrenched enemy determined to slander our culture and history while exacerbating racial tensions and divisions.  The public has an ingrained misunderstanding of this pivotal period in our nation’s history and the drivers which were the impetus for our ancestors to establish the Confederate States of America and “the ideals which made (the Confederate soldier) glorious”, why we revere and honor these heroes.  We may blame our public (and private schooling) for this indoctrination of a false education of history as General Cleburne warned.  But as the Charge implores us, it is our duty particularly in this challenging current period to vindicate the Cause, defend “the Confederate soldier’s good name”, guard his history, “perpetuate those principles which he loved” and “see that the true history of the South is presented to future generations.”  This is a tumultuous time but we have an opportunity to stand with our grandfathers, to make a difference for perpetuity.  The removal of the Confederate flags and desecration of memorial monuments has been a rallying cry for the bigoted PC crowd but it should be a rallying cry for the Sons of Confederate Veterans likewise excepting, we must defend these sacred vestiges of our Southern history and heritage. Paul is correct that removing a flag may not change anyone’s mind but it has had the fortunate effect of awakening Confederate compatriots.  It is a silver lining that interest including membership in the SCV has increased markedly since this crisis emerged.  Communication Officer Larry Spears indicates Alabama Division membership as well as Dragoon camp membership has increased 15% or more. But we need more soldiers, defenders of the Cause.  We have the responsibility to utilize this additional manpower and resources to overcome the PC intolerance.  Maintaining and expanding membership and this momentum is very important; it is your dues and donations to the SCV which fund heritage defense and our great initiatives like community Confederate preservation, advertising and educational programs.  But each of us as individuals should seek to do everything we can to prioritize the Charge in our deeds and actions at every opportunity possible - contacting your state government representatives, fundraising, cemetery maintenance, flag setting and displays, volunteering, camp meetings, community and educational events.   A sincere welcome to all the new Dragoons and to all those long time members of Camp 1524, as you can ascertain, these are fantastic times to proclaim your Southern heritage and stand on the front lines of Confederate activism and I encourage everyone to get involved and support the Cause.

Visit to Cheatham Hill in Marietta GA

Cheatham Hill, Pigeon Hill and Kennesaw Mountain are situated near Marietta GA and it was here where Union forces under Gen. Sherman advanced in June and July of 1864, part of the Atlanta campaign.  Sherman's forces assaulted heavily fortified positions here abandoning his prior flanking maneuvers against Confederate General Johnston in a frontal attack. The Confederates repulsed the enemy inflicting heavy losses but the Yankees succeeded in forcing Johnston to retreat once again, prompting his removal from his command of the Army of Tennessee.  At Cheatham Hill, Union Gen. George Thomas' forces were separated by just 400 yaards from the Confederate forces under Generals Cleburn and Cheatham.  After initial artillery bombardment by the Yankees and their advance through thick underbrush, the Confederate artillery opened fire when the Union forces were just 60 yards off.  Federals succeeded in reaching the Confederate lines resulting in fierce close quarter shooting and hand to hand combat, even throwing rocks. The intensity of artillery and musket fire at close range resulted in a fire in the dry brush.  In a humanitarian act, following the assault on June 27th, Lt.Col. William Martin commanding an Arkansas regiment jumped atop his parapet and waved a white flag, shouting to the Yankees to remove their wounded before they burned to death.  The following day, Union officers presented Martin with a pair of Colt revolvers in appreciation.  Cheatham Hill is part of the 2965 acre Kennesaw Mountain National Battlefield Park.  The Cheatham Hill park is off Hwy 120/Dallas Hwy/Whitlock Ave, west of Marietta and includes walking trails around the earthworks where cannon emplacements illustrate the Confederate positions. A granite monument to the Texas defenders, units which served in the Atlanta campaign including Cheatham Hill is found on the roadway to the parking area and trailhead.  An enjoyable quick educational excursion close to the hustle and bustle of Marietta and Atlanta.

Trailhead Showing Battlefield Map

Cannon Emplacement on Earthworks

Texas Monument

Historic Road Marker for Cheatham Hill on Hwy 120 in Marietta

US Army: We Won't Be Changing Military Bases Named for Confederate Soldiers

From Tommy Rhodes, Commander SCV Camp 1864 (dated Sunday July 5, 2015):

US Army: We Won’t Be Changing Military Bases Named for Confederate Soldiers

The latest Confederate flag controversy may be too difficult for flag supporters to resist, like a wave crashing on the beach, the tsunami of attacks against the old battle flag may be too much for many Southerners to bear. 

This isn't the first time that the flag has faced attack, but this time just feels different. This time feels like it really may be the last time. Sure, they may not be able to ban the flag, but they can turn it into a pariah, forcing anyone who flies the flag into second-class citizenship. I think that the battle for the Southern Cross may be a losing one, but a greater battle still rages, the battle for an untainted history.

Along with the attacks on the Confederate battle flag, the media and liberals have joined forces to attack any and all things bearing any connection to the Confederacy. War memorials, historical sites, cemeteries, highways, buildings, and on and on it goes. If something is named after a Confederate soldier or is in honor of a Confederate soldier, then it is in danger of attack.

The latest case in point comes from the US Military who have been inundated with demands that they change the names of military bases which were named after Confederate Generals! Fort Benning in Georgia, Fort Bragg in North Carolina and Fort Hood in Texas, for example, are all named after Confederate leaders who were both respected and beloved throughout the South and in the military.

Thankfully it seems that the Pentagon and the US Army are ready to defend those bases and the honor of the men they were named after. The Army does not look at the men that these bases were named after as simply "Confederate" Generals, but as American military icons.

Army spokesman Brig. Gen. Malcolm Frost said "Every Army installation is named for a soldier who holds a place in our military history. Accordingly, these historic names represent individuals, not causes or ideologies. It should be noted that the naming occurred in the spirit of reconciliation, not division."

There has to be a line drawn, hasn't there? I understand the reticence with flying the Confederate flag in public places, but these people are part of our shared history. They are part of the very fabric of our nation and they deserve a place in our story, because they did play an important, even vital, role in that narrative. Men like Nathan Bedford Forrest should be remembered, John Bell Hood, James Longstreet, Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson, Braxton Bragg, and especially the great Robert E. Lee (who thought slavery an evil sin and a burden on our nation).

… In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country. It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. 

 ---   In a letter to Mary Anna Lee from December 1856

So, is it okay to honor Lee? Or is every Confederate soldier, even the anti-slavery ones, tainted with the sins of racism and slavery?

This is our history, and yes, some of it is very ugly – but there is no nation that does not own some ugliness in its past. Erasing it from memory serves no one; in fact it's only by remembering well our past that we can hope to avoid repeating those very same mistakes. In this case, the mistake we should fear repeating isn't necessarily racism or slavery (though we should avoid those), but the mistakes of considering some in our society lower than others. Many liberals look at those who might defend Southern culture as backwards and uneducated. They make a dangerous miscalculation.

The men and women who lived through the Civil War deserve more than to be erased from our history. They deserve to be remembered for their accomplishments and their contributions to the path we've all trod. Tear down the flag in public places if you must, but leave our history alone. 

The Real Robert E. Lee by James Rutledge Roesch of the Abbeville Institute

The Real Robert E. Lee

By James Rutledge Roesch on May 2, 2014

I was disappointed to hear of the demands of a group of Washington & Lee law students to ban the flying of the Confederate battle flag and denounce one of their school’s namesakes, General Robert E. Lee, as “dishonorable and racist.” This latest controversy appears to be yet another example of the double standard and prejudice against anything “Confederate.” Why, for instance, is there outrage against Lee, but not George Washington, one of the wealthiest slaveowners of his time? Why is there outrage against the Confederate flag, which flew over slavery for four years, but not the American flag, which flew over slavery for eighty years? I would like to right the multitude of wrongs which have been perpetrated against Lee’s legacy in particular and Confederate history in general. Hopefully, these truths will provide an appreciation of the complexity of the issues, principles, and participants in the “Civil War.”

First, Lee deplored slavery, describing it as a “moral and political evil” in a letter to his wife, Mary Anna. Lee told her that they should give “the final abolition of human slavery…the aid of our prayers and all justifiable means in our power,” praying for “the mild and melting influence of Christianity” over “the storm and tempest of fiery controversy” driving America to disunion. Lee elsewhere called slavery a “national sin” for which he feared America would be punished. “If the slaves of the South were mine,” Lee wrote to Bishop Joseph P.B. Wilmer, “I would surrender them all without a struggle to avert this terrible war.” Lee himself was never willingly involved in the slave economy. When his wife inherited some slaves through her father-in-law, Lee freed them in accordance with his wishes, and stayed in touch with many of them. Near the end of the war, Lee supported the late General Patrick R. Cleburne’s revolutionary plan to emancipate and compensate any slaves who enlisted in the Confederate army, along with their families. Lee recommended that arming and freeing the slaves be followed by a “well-digested plan of gradual and general emancipation.” After the war, Lee endorsed emancipation. “So far from engaging in a war to perpetuate slavery, I am rejoiced that slavery is abolished,” Lee told Pastor John Leyburn. “I would cheerfully have lost all I have lost by the war, and have suffered all I have suffered, to have this object attained.” In a correspondence with Lord Acton, the great English classical liberal, Lee said, “Although the South would have preferred any honorable compromise to the fratricidal war which has taken place, she now accepts in good faith its constitutional results, and receives without reserve the amendment which has already been made to the Constitution for the extinction of slavery.” According to Lee, emancipation was “an event that has been long sought, though in a different way, and by none has it been more earnestly desired than by citizens of Virginia.” The fact that the Confederacy’s champion was an enemy of slavery and proponent of emancipation should force everyone to question what they assume the Confederate flag symbolizes – slavery and hate or independence and honor?

Second, Lee initially opposed secession, but his loyalty to his native state – the Commonwealth of Virginia – surpassed his loyalty to the abstraction of the Union. “With all my devotion to the Union and the feeling of loyalty and duty of an American citizen,” Lee confessed to his sister, Anne, “I have not been able to make up my mind to raise my hand against my relatives, my children, my home.” Although Lee considered secession to be wrongful, he could not countenance a government based on force of arms rather than consent of the governed. “I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than a dissolution of the Union,” Lee informed his son, George. “Still, a Union that can only be maintained by swords and bayonets, and in which strife and civil war are to take the place of brotherly love and kindness, has no charm for me.” When invited to lead the Federal invasion of the Confederacy – which, as President Abraham Lincoln painstakingly affirmed, was solely for “preserving the Union” rather than “freeing the slaves” – Lee declined and resigned his commission in the U.S. Army. “Save for the defense of my native state,” Lee replied to Washington, D.C., “I never desire again to draw my sword.”

Third, Lee did not believe he was fighting for the particular issue of slavery, but for the foundational principles of American freedom – self-government, independence, and the constitutional rights of the states. As the Confederacy rejected three offers from Lincoln to exchange submission to the Union for the protection of slavery, Lee’s convictions were confirmed. “Our sole object,” Lee wrote to Confederate President Jefferson Davis, “is the establishment of our independence and the attainment of an honorable peace.” Before his very first battle at Cheat Mountain, Lee did not encourage his men to fight for slavery, but for home, hearth, kith, and kin. “The eyes of the country are upon you. The safety of your homes and the lives of all you hold dear depend upon your courage and exertions. Let each man resolve to be victorious, and that the right of self-government, liberty, and peace shall find in him a defender.” Lee supported states’ rights not because they protected slavery, but because, as the Founding Fathers understood, they were the “safeguard to the continuance of a free government” and “the chief source of stability to our political system.” As Lee explained to Acton, “The consolidation of the states into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of that ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded it.” Lee further noted that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, both of whom were secessionists in their day, opposed “centralization of power” as the gateway to “despotism.” According to Lee, “The South has contended only for the supremacy of the Constitution, and the just administration of the laws made in pursuance to it.”

Fourth, Lee faithfully upheld the time-honored laws of just, civilized warfare. Although always outgunned, Lee defied the odds and outfought his enemies with a special Southern blend of gallantry and audacity. Despite his brilliance, however, Lee abhorred the death and destruction of war. “It is well that war is so terrible,” Lee remarked to General James Longstreet on the eve of triumph at the Battle of Fredericksburg, “otherwise we should grow too fond of it.” One Christmas Day, Lee reflected on the evil of war in a letter to his wife. “What a cruel thing is war; to separate and destroy families and friends, and mar the purest joys and happiness God has granted us in this world; to fill our hearts with hatred instead of love for our neighbors, and to devastate the fair face of this beautiful world! My heart bleeds at the death of every one of our gallant men.” Despite the systematic atrocities which Federal armies inflicted upon the South – Northern leaders spoke chillingly of “extermination” and “repopulation” – Lee never succumbed to the temptation of retaliation. In both of his invasions of the Union, undertaken to force Federal invaders out of war-torn Virginia, Lee expressly forbid any depredations against the person or property of civilians. Upon crossing the Potomac into the occupied Old Line State, Lee declared to the Marylanders that “regaining the rights of which you have been despoiled” was his mission. “We know no enemies among you, and will protect all of every opinion,” avowed Lee, in stark contrast to the Federal military dictatorship. “It is for you to decide your own destiny, freely and without constraint.” Before entering Pennsylvania, Lee said, “I cannot hope that Heaven will prosper our cause when we are violating its laws. I shall, therefore, carry on the war in Pennsylvania without offending the sanctions of high civilization and Christianity.”

Fifth, after the war, Lee was a leading figure in urging reconciliation between the North and the South. “All should unite in honest efforts to obliterate the effects of war and restore the blessings of peace,” urged Lee. “They should promote harmony and good feeling,” as well as “qualify themselves to vote and elect…wise and patriotic men who will devote their abilities to the interests of the country and the healing of all dissension.” According to Lee, “I have invariably recommended this course since the cessation of hostilities, and have endeavored to practice it myself.” Instead of the many lucrative offers he received after his surrender, Lee accepted the presidency at the humble Washington College because he believed he had a duty to prepare for peace the young men whom he had led in war. “I have a self-imposed task which I must accomplish. I have led the young men of the South in battle; I have seen many of them die on the field. I shall devote my remaining energies to training young men to do their duty in life.” In his new command, Lee’s goal was “to educate Southern youth into a spirit of loyalty to the new conditions, and the transformation of the social fabric which had resulted from the war, and only through a peaceful obedience to which could the future peace and harmony of the country be restored.” Lee’s efforts ultimately saved the small and struggling school, so it was only fitting that after his death the college was renamed in his honor. Lee forgave the Northerners who pillaged, burned, and conquered his country, as well as maimed and murdered his compatriots. “I have fought against the people of the North because I believed they were seeking to wrest from the South its dearest rights,” explained Lee, “but I have never cherished toward them bitter or vindictive feelings, and have never seen a day when I did not pray for them.” If only Lee’s modern-day detractors were capable of such grace.

President Theodore Roosevelt described Lee as “the very greatest of all the great captains that the English-speaking peoples have brought forth.” Prime Minister Winston Churchill referred to Lee as “the noblest American who had ever lived and one of the greatest commanders known to the annals of war.” According to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, “We recognize Robert E. Lee as one of our greatest American Christians and one of our greatest American gentlemen.” When criticized for his admiration of Lee, U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower did not pander for popularity, but stood for his beliefs:

General Robert E. Lee was, in my estimation, one of the supremely gifted men produced by our nation. He believed unswervingly in the constitutional validity of his cause, which until 1865 was still an arguable question in America. He was thoughtful yet demanding of his officers and men, forbearing with captured enemies but ingenious, unrelenting and personally courageous in battle, and never disheartened by a reverse or obstacle. Through all his many trials, he remained selfless almost to a fault and unfailing in his belief in God. Taken altogether, he was noble as a leader and as a man, and unsullied as I read the pages of our history. From deep conviction I simply say this: a nation of men of Lee’s caliber would be unconquerable in spirit and soul. Indeed, to the degree that present-day American youth will strive to emulate his rare qualities, including his devotion to this land as revealed in his painstaking efforts to help heal the nation’s wounds once the bitter struggle was over, we, in our own time of danger in a divided world, will be strengthened and our love of freedom sustained.

If General Joshua Chamberlain of the Army of the Potomac, who fought against Lee in victory and defeat, could bring himself to salute the Army of Northern Virginia as it surrendered its arms and furled the flag it had borne on so many battlefields, then the least we can do today is let Lee rest in peace.

History is a vast and intricate tapestry upon which each generation weaves its story. Every time a thread of that tapestry is torn away, we lose a priceless piece of our heritage and our destiny. We are all free to hold our own opinions, of course, but we are not free to force those opinions on others by purging history to conform to the dictates of “political correctness.” The “Civil War” was not a morality play between a righteous North and wicked South, but a national tragedy with good and evil on both sides. Whatever one’s views of this decisive crossroads in American history, it must be admitted Lee was a man of sterling integrity and iron bravery who was fatefully engulfed in the “fiery ordeal” which he so very feared. Let us honor Lee’s last wishes and choose reconciliation over recrimination.

Shriners Jump On PC Bandwagon/Disrespect Veterans and Confederate Shriners

Forwarded by the Virginia Flaggers.  SCV Camp 1524 believes that the Shriners should stick with their wonderful charity work and leave the perversion, twisting, distortion, and ignorance of Southern heritage to the PC historical revisionists. Contact the Shriners at shrinepr@shrinenet.org or membership@shrinenet.org or call at 813-281-0300 or 813-281-8101.

AL Division SCV Flags 4 Alabama - First Flag Dedication August 15, 2015

From the event host Kevin McKinley, Sons of Confederate Veterans Camp 2088 PVT WILLIAM M. CARNEY - Atmore  AL   

The Confederate flag flies over the newly erected Escambia County Confederate Memorial as part of the AL Div Flags for Alabama program....come celebrate YOUR flag and YOUR heritage on Saturday August 15, at 10AM in beautiful downtown Canoe Alabama along Highway 31.

Directions to the Memorial: take the I-65 casino exit in Atmore and go south, turn left on Highway 31 North at the RR...this is also called Nashvile Ave... Follow 31 North about 5 miles....when you get to Canoe, AL you will come under a caution light on 31...there is a gas station on the right with a historic marker....turn left past the marker and cross tracks, make an immediate left and the flag will be on the right.

We are encouraging folks to bring a Confederate flag if possible, although not necessary...would like to see a show of support for the flag. 

Prattville Dragoons Camp Meeting Announced for August 13th, 2015

The next camp meeting for SCV Camp 1524 will be held on Thursday, August 13 and will feature a very special speaker, Reverend Cecil Williamson of Selma. Cecil is also a member of the Selma City Council and has been a staunch Confederate on the front lines for many years. If you attended the Confederate Memorial Day ceremony at the Alabama state capitol in April or the re-dedication of Confederate Circle in Selma in May you heard him speak eloquently and truthfully about our honorable Southern heritage. He will enlighten us even more the evening of August 13. Please put this event on your calendar, invite family and friends and come expecting to be blessed by Cecil’s presentation. 

The meeting will again be held at Shoney’s in Prattville at I-65 exit # 179, Cobbs Ford Rd. at 6:00 pm for a meal and good Confederate fellowship. The meeting starts promptly at 7:00 pm. 

"A Confederate Flag Does Not Divide Us; Leftist Ideology Does" by Sylvia Thompson

Posted on June 24, 2015 on Renew America - http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/sthompson/150624 .

If Governor Nikki Haley thinks that removing a flag from a capitol building will do anything to alleviate the racial hatred fomented by Barack Obama over the past several years, and the Left throughout the country's history, she is sadly mistaken. Not only Governor Haley, but every conservative thinker who follows her lead, has fallen into the web of deceit that the Left always uses to entrap the gullible.

I recall over the years having seen white supremacists with American flags flying. Their position is that America is being taken away from them by foreigners and people who had no part in forming this nation. Is Old Glory to be the next target because social undesirables use it as a symbol for whatever?

Governor Haley is not part of the black-white heritage of this country, so I don't expect her to understand more than that a heinous crime has been committed in her state and that she genuinely grieves for the victims and their families. She, however, is being used big time. So are all the others clamoring for the removal and destruction of flags and Civil War monuments in southern states, and even statues in Washington, DC. History happened, folks, that's what makes it history. You can hide it and distort it, but you will never do away with it.

Since the end of the Civil War, many on the side of the Northern faction of the fight have done their best to demean, denigrate and punish white people of the South. I know this because I was born and reared in the South. The sneering at and looking down upon Southerners, black and white, by some from other parts of the country have become a pastime, these days.

In my reading of history, President Andrew Johnson, the successor to the assassinated President Abraham Lincoln, succeeded in making Reconstruction (the rebuilding of the postwar South) a vindictive program that hurt even repentant Southerners while benefiting northern opportunists (Carpetbaggers) and cynical white Southerners (Scalawags). All of whom exploited alliances with blacks for political gain.

This acerbation of wounds bred a hatred and resentment among defeated Southerners that played out against freed slaves, the only defenseless people in their midst. And so it goes even to this twenty-first century, capitalizing on old hatreds. One can only wonder how much better this nation would have fared had Lincoln lived to negotiate the South's surrender.

Today's opportunists taking advantage of black folks are called Leftists: Marxist types, some claiming the mantle of Christianity; garden-variety evil doers of all stripes; and of course the elitist class of well-heeled people who think only they are fit to rule over us, the sweaty masses. A primary goal of the Left is to ensure that the age-old rift between American blacks and whites is never resolved, because blacks will no longer be enslaved to them if it is resolved.

The massacre at the church in Charleston is just another source of leftist exploitation. While everybody's guard is down, it is a good time to advance a few infractions against the rights of some Americans to maintain their history, a history that is, by the way, part and parcel of American history.

Do not ever believe that taking down a flag will be the end of it. The Left will demand no less than the destruction of America's soul.

On another note, heinous crime, such as the one that Dylann Roof committed, usually switches our focus to the issues of hate and forgiveness. The survivors of victims of Roof's massacre have puzzled the public with their decision to forgive him. There is nothing puzzling about a mature Christian's view of hatred. We understand that hating gets you nowhere, except stressed out and at odds with Christ's teachings. Only people who do not have a strong grasp of Scripture and the person of Christ are baffled by Christians acting like Christians.

Forgiveness in the biblical sense, however, is sometimes not well understood. We can only forgive someone for what they do to us directly. Dennis Prager, the columnist and radio talk show host, makes this point in one of his recent articles on the events in Charleston.* The survivors can only forgive Roof for the pain and loss that he caused to them. They cannot forgive the deaths of their loved ones; only their dead relatives can forgive him for that. And they are no longer in a position to do so; therefore, Roof must eventually face Almighty God to sue for forgiveness.

Prager, in his article, also offers that it is time for all blacks who hold hatred and animosity toward white Americans to consider forgiving them, now that as a nation, we are contemplating forgiveness. It is fact that Barack Obama and all of his leftist ilk have exacerbated underlying hatred that, over the decades, was being rooted out of the psyche of many Americans of all races. It takes only a few small, hateful men, however, to bring down what so many good people built up. If we get rid of those hate mongers among us (remove them from power and to the ash bin of history where they belong), this nation just might survive.