Happy New Year from California Division of Sons of Confederate Veterans

California Division Has a New "Real Son" Member

Date: Thursday, December 16, 2010, 5:13 PM

From Lou Olker, Sacramento:

Compatriots!

Our Camp and Division now have a Real Son again!

Yesterday Loye Ann and I drove to Carmichael and presented Daniel Hester Varnum his Real Son Certificate and Medal; his Life Member Certificate, pin, and a number of bumper stickers and goodies.

At 93 he is very much alert, though he must use a walker. He and his wife and daughter were tickled to death to receive the honor, and he is now an honor to us all.

His father (according to records in Florida) served in the 1st Alabama Infantry Regiment.

Deo Vindice!

Lou Olker, CDR Camp 1627, Sacramento

Northern Apologist Meme in Place to Advance the Northern Myth

The Northern myth of the Civil War is that the Yankees fought to free the slaves, end racism, create social justice and equality for all, while the evil Southerners fought to preserve and extend slavery throughout the United States.  It is utterly false, and easily disproved in debate.  However, that doesn't mean Yankee fans will shirk their chosen duty to invent new rationales and arguments to preserve and extend the Northern myth.

I wrote earlier about Bob Sutton's new propaganda line, about how the South allegedly admitted the war was about slavery at the beginning, then later changed the argument to something more palatable in order to win support from Europe.  Sutton is the chief historian(?) of the National Park Service.  In my rebuttal, I proved that Sutton's argument was a complete reversal of actual history -- it was Lincoln who disingenuously "changed" the reason for the war in order to dissuade British recognition of the Confederacy.  (See that post here.)

Now we have leftist columnist E.J. Dionne taking up the Sutton argument in his article "Let's Not Spin the Civil War."  Of course, Dionne's real message is "Let's Spin the Civil War in Favor of the North, Like We've Been Doing for 145 years."  Dionne's Washington Post article was reprinted at RealClearPolitics (read it here) where it has received potent criticism from Southern defenders.

During the 150th anniversary of the War for Southern Independence, we have a rare opportunity to refute the Northern myth of history and defend the South.  An effective way to do that is to perceive the Northern arguments and have rebuttals researched and ready to launch at a moment's notice.  If you want to be in on that and up on the latest developments, visit this site often.

Confederate Message in a Bottle Decoded After 147 Years

A Confederate message to General John C Pemberton, commander of Vicksburg, was finally decoded this week, 147 years after it was written.   It has been in the Museum of the Confederacy for many years, but never translated until this week.

The message was written in a cipher, which was easily decoded by a modern CIA codebreaker.

The full message reads: "Gen'l Pemberton: You can expect no help from this side of the river. Let Gen'l Johnston know, if possible, when you can attack the same point on the enemy's lines. Inform me also and I will endeavor to make a diversion. I have sent some caps (explosive devices). I subjoin a despatch (sic) from General Johnston."

The message was contained in a small glass vial along with a minie ball and closed with a cork.  The minie ball was to allow the vial to sink if it became necessary to throw it into a river to avoid interception.

Read the news article here.

Merry Christmas from the California Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans

Edwin Booth's Body to be Dug Up, DNA Tested

Edwin Booth

John Wilkes Booth

There are lots of stories, rumors and myths surrounding the assassination of Abraham Lincoln.  Much of the myths center around John Wilkes Booth.  Did he really die in that barn?  Did he escape to live out his life span?  Did he become a song and dance man on Vaudeville?  Okay, I just made that last one up, but you get the idea.

Edwin Booth, John Wilkes Booth's brother, is to be exhumed so his DNA can be compared to that of another long-dead corpse that is buried in Baltimore.  Researchers want to prove that the Baltimore man is indeed John Wilkes Booth, putting an end to the rumors once and for all.

It seems to me a rather frivolous reason for disturbing the dead, but that's just me.

Read it all here.

150 Years Ago Today: South Carolina Seceded From the Union

South Carolina Sovereignty Flag

The Sesquicentennial has officially begun.  150 years ago today South Carolina seceded from the Union.

Paul Rahe discusses the secession of South Carolina from the Union on December 20, 1860, 150 years ago today.  Rahe, a misinformed Northern apologist recycles old lies and myths about the "illegality" of secession, at this link.  

Rahe claims that, since the Constitution doesn't specifically state that secession is Constitutional, then it is not allowed.  Nonsense.  Since the Constitution doesn't state that secession is prohibited, then it is not prohibited.  Rahe has it exactly backwards.  Our rights and powers are not limited to those specifically stated and enumerated.  

Rahe then claims, unbelievably, that the Articles of Confederation (which existed before the Constitution was formed) stated plainly that the Confederation would exist "in perpetuity."  Really?  Is that why it was ended and cancelled? Implied in Rae's reasoning is that our current Constitution is illegal because we are still legally governed by the Articles of Confederation, which were "perpetual"!

In reality, those words "in perpetuity" only meant there was no automatic expiration date -- many corporations and other organizations have that same term in their organizing documents, but it is not to be taken literally.

Then there is the unfortunate (unfortunate for Rae) the 10th Amendment of the Constitution, which states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

And those powers include the right of secession, recognized by every state when the Constitution was formed, and by key founding fathers like Thomas Jefferson, and taught as a right at West Point before the War for Southern Independence.

Update:  Great minds think alike.  Robert Stacy McCain also rebutted Paul Rahe at this link.

History Channel's Bias?

I was shopping at Costco in Gilroy yesterday, and found their DVD aisle. In it were DVD's of the History Channel's presentations on the Civil War. One of them was about the leaders in that war. The Jefferson Davis segment was titled "The Traitor President Jefferson Davis."

Jefferson Davis, a traitor? Horse puckey!

Can You Identify This 19th Century Uniform?

Compatriot Gray of Camp 2160 in Australia has a photo of a uniform that he wants to identify.  He is not sure if it is a CSA uniform -- some unusual uniforms were worn by units on both sides of the war, e.g. the Zouaves.  If you can identify this uniform, please leave a message in the comments section of this post.

Compatriot Gray writes:

IDENTIFY THIS UNIFORM


In researching a new Confederate veteran, with the help of a descendant, I acquired several photos from her family album. The one shown here we are not sure about, but he looks like her ancestor at an earlier age.

Can you tell me anything about the uniform he is wearing?

James Gray
Commander
SCV Camp 2160
Australia

Update:  I googled British army uniforms and the uniform appears to be British, circa 1870.  I found some photos of British soldiers wearing very similar hats and a photo of some British reenactors wearing a similar type of uniform. See these photos below the fold.   Hat tip Ken Koch of California Division, who identified the uniform as British.

Update 2:  The uniform jacket has been identified as a fur-lined "hussar's pelisse."  See photos below the fold for a color photo example.  The uniform is definitely British.


...

View the Georgia SCV Ads Banned by the History Channel (Videos)

I located the Georgia Divison ads that the History Channel refused to run. They are below. Watch them all -- they are only 60 seconds each.

The Truth of Slavery In America:

Al Benson Explains the History Channel Bias Against the Sons of Confederate Veterans

Al Benson Jr. is a longtime friend and fellow activist for Southern heritage.  He has a blog called "Anti-Establishment History" and has an interesting post this morning on the History Channel controversy.  It's called The SCV and the Politically Correct "History" Channel.  

Follow the link to read it.

Recommended Site: Southern Heritage News & Views, by Chuck Demastus

There is a great site and email list for those wishing to keep abreast of current developments in Southern heritage.  It is Southern Heritage News & Views (SHNV), by Chuck Demastus.  I have added this site to our links in the left sidebar.  You can request to be placed on SHNV's email list and receive breaking news on an ongoing basis.

This morning SHNV has an article by an SCV Commander of a Georgia Camp, entitled "Terrorists and Socialists Caused Southern Secession," by James W. King of Camp 141 in Albany, Georgia.  Follow the link to read it.

"Composite Crosses" for Grave Sites Available

An SCV camp in South Carolina is selling iron crosses for Confederate grave sites, except that these iron crosses are not made of iron.  They look great and are a lot cheaper.

The Adjutant of Camp 125 writes:

A link for the Composite Crosses of Honor our Camp is using instead of those made out of aluminum or steel. See http://www.moseswoodcamp.org/ironcrosses.htm.

The Composite Cross is a similar material to a bowling ball, and the foundry in Gaffney uses this same material for many outdoor and machinery parts. The Crosses are a finished product in color black, and do not have to be primed or painted, as we had to do with the many steel or aluminum Crosses we have installed throughout Cherokee County in South Carolina.

I remember last year or earlier this year a Camp West of the Mississippi had stated they were paying about $75-100 for each Cross. We are selling the Composite Crosses for $25 plus Shipping to any SCV Camp. Do you think there could be any interest out West for a Composite Cross?

Robert Little
Adjutant Camp Moses Wood #125
Gaffney, SC

Contact Robert Little (click on his name above) if interested in purchasing these inexpensive crosses for your camp.

A Message from the Chaplain, Army of Trans-Mississippi

Five Confederate Soldiers

Enemies!

The enemies of Christ are hard at work to remove any and all Christian influence from our country, which was founded on Christian principles and a reliance on Jesus Christ.

School children are being taught that George Washington crossed the Delaware and chopped down a cherry tree, but not that he was a Christian. They are not being told what he had to say about God, Jesus Christ, or the Bible. This is not only true of George Washington, but of nearly all of the founders and early leaders of our country. Most were Christians who put their trust and faith in God. We know that, because they said so. However, this is not being taught to our children even though it's true. And, why? Because it isn't politically correct and some non-Christian might claim to be offended.

For generations we've been taught that Abraham Lincoln was a great man who saved the country and freed the slaves. Scores of people, misled by erroneous teaching, have visited his statue in Washington, D.C. to pay homage to his image as if he were some god in a Greek temple. Of course, we know him to have been a tyrant who's inflated ego, poor judgment, and illegal acts caused the death of over six hundred thousand American men and immeasurable suffering.

At the same time, honorable, Christian men like Robert E. Lee, T.J. "Stonewall" Jackson, and all of our Confederate generals, who fought to save the country and it's constitution, have been vilified and called traitors. Our brave and noble Confederate forefathers are being called a "racist army." Our proud Southern heritage is being mocked and our legacy shamed by those whose only interest is self promotion. They pick fights and find fault in what is true and right in order to increase the audience of their radio or television programs, or add to the readership of their newspaper columns or websites. They criticize and attack what is honorable and true, while they have no honor and care nothing for truth.

Southern states who asked their young men to leave their homes and families to go to war to defend it against a terrorist invasion, and now refuse to honor their sacrifice because it isn't politically correct are a disgrace. Southerners who have bought in to the Union lies and will not seek or accept the truth even when it's presented to them, because of what someone might think, are a shame and unworthy of their own heritage.

The Sons of Confederate Veterans has been given the "defense of the Confederate soldier's good name," and "the guardianship of his history." As such we may get mad and upset at these self-serving hypocritical bigots that attack our noble Southern heritage and brave Confederate forefathers, but I firmly believe God is for us, and the Bible tells us in Romans 8:31, "If God be for us, who can be against us?"

Bro. Len Patterson, Th.D.
Chaplain, Army of Trans-Mississippi

 

Bob Sutton of the National Park Service: Biased and Wrong on History

As we approach the 150th anniversary of the Civil War, a lot of ignorant and wild statements are being made.  There are the usual suspects:  the mainstream media; the NAACP and Yankee biased historians like Bob Sutton, head of the National Park Service.  This was apparent in an AP news story that appeared yesterday.

First, nonsense from the NAACP:

"It's almost like celebrating the Holocaust," said Benard Simelton, president of the Alabama conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. "Our rights were taken away and we were treated as less than human beings. To relive that in a celebratory way I don't think is right."

Apparently Simelton is unaware that blacks' "rights" were taken away by other blacks in Africa, who first made them slaves; then sold them to Yankee slave traders who sold them to the South (and for every one sold to the South, the Yankees sold 19 more to Cuba, Brazil and the West Indies).  Celebrating secession and the formation of the Confederate States of America is NOT the same thing as celebrating slavery -- any more than celebrating the 4th of July is celebrating slavery (as most of the Founding Fathers were slave owners or traders).

Second, some common sense from a member of Sons of Confederate Veterans:

Mark Simpson, commander of the South Carolina Division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, acknowledged that an event such as the Dec. 20 Secession Gala in Charleston is seen by some Americans as politically incorrect. But "to us it's part of our nature and our culture and our heritage."

"Slavery was a very big issue. Anyone who denies that has his head in a hole somewhere," said Simpson, a Spartanburg businessman who counts 32 ancestors who fought for the South. "But slavery was not the single nor primary cause, and that's where the line gets drawn."

Simpson said the primary cause was states' rights — the purported right of states to nullify federal laws and freely leave the Union they voluntarily joined.

Simpson is absolutely correct.  Slavery had a strong influence on the Southern states decision to secede, because they felt they had no other choice (that will be covered more fully in a later post).  The abolitionists demanded immediate and uncompensated emancipation and supported terrorism against the South, which would  have devastated both the slave owner and the slave.  But it wasn't slavery that started the Civil War, it was Lincoln's invasion of the Southern states.  No invasion, no war -- and by his own statements (discussed later herein), he invaded to enforce the Union, not to free the slaves.

Now some simpleton nonsense from the head historian of the National Park Service:

"Slavery was the principal cause of the Civil War, period," said Bob Sutton, chief historian for the National Park Service. "Yes, politics was important. Yes, economics were important. Yes, social issues were important. But when you get to the core of why all these things were important, it was slavery."

Sutton is highly biased.  The principal cause of the Civil War was the Northern invasion of the South, PERIOD.  The North had NO MORALLY RESPONSIBLE plan to end slavery, no plan for emancipation, no plan to assimilate former slaves into Northern society.  Without such a plan, the Northern pretense at virtue falls flat on its face.

Sutton continues to embarrass himself with these remarks:

A few weeks before the first shots of the war were fired at Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor, Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens called slavery "the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution."

But as the war progressed, the Confederate government shifted its rationale to states' rights because Davis knew neither England nor other third powers would support the South in a war to preserve slavery, Sutton said.

Sutton has reversed history here!  It was the exact opposite of what he pretends to be true:  Lincoln at first stated categorically that the war was NOT about slavery; he even continued enforcing the fugitive slave law.  He wrote to the governor of South Carolina, insisting that the abolition of slavery was not his aim!  Lincoln wrote to Horace Greeley the following denial:.

If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union.

It was Lincoln who later changed the "reason" for the war, in order to dissuade the British from recognizing the Confederate government, not the opposite, as Sutton dishonestly suggests.

Read the whole sordid piece at this link.

Video: Confederate Generals Who Died in the War

History Channel Discrimination Against Sons of Confederate Veterans

Georgia Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans Dec. 3, 2010

SOUTHERN HERITAGE CALL TO ACTION! HISTORY CHANNEL DISCRIMINATION Friends & Members of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, As many of you have already heard by now, the 60-second history segments commemorating the Sesqicentennial of the War which have been produced for the Georgia Division of the SCV have been pulled from the air by the History Channel in Georgia.  This decision was made by Nancy R. Alpert, one of the many vice-presidents at A&E Television Networks, the parent company of the History Channel.  You can read her reasons in the press release sent out by the Georgia Division HERE. The Georgia Division is still running the segments on three other national network channels in Georgia, in addition to the other radio and television stations involved in the statewide campaign, as part of the commemoration of the Sesquicentennial.  None of the other networks or stations have expressed any concern at all, and many have commented on the quality of content and presentation of the segments.  Many of the 60-second segments may be viewed on the Georgia Division website at www.GeorgiaSCV.org. Since our press release was sent out several days ago, we have been inundated by members and friends of the SCV who are interested in taking action.  As we have seen in other instances, if we allow this anti-Southern discrimination to go unchecked without response, it will only encourage others to do the same. What we need you to do: 1. Forward this email to every individual and list that you know. 2. Make two phone calls every day, from now until we send out a call to stop; it will take five minutes or less.  If this is unsuccessful, we may send contact information for advertisers at the History Channel so that you can ask them to cancel their advertising; but please do not do that at this point.     * Call Mr. Berning, vice-president of national sales at A&E by dialing         212-210-1400, select prompt "1" then enter 2376464 #, then # again.     When you reach the secretary, please say something similar to the following (we recommend using your own words):  "Hi, my name is ___ ; and I would like to file a complaint with Mr. Berning.  I would like to protest A&E and the History Channel's decision to pull the history segments paid for by the Sons of Confederate Veterans in Atlanta which commemorate the Southern veterans who died in the War Between the States.  It is discrimination against Southerners.  I would like to ask for the reinstatement of the segments and the removal of Nancy Alpert who made the decision."     If the secretary attempts to transfer you, it is our recommendation that you insist on finishing your statement to her and ask her to convey the message to Mr. Berning since he is in charge of sales for A&E.     * Call A&E's Atlanta sales office using the same script, minus Mr. Berning's name. The direct number is 404.816.8880. 3. If you are not already receiving the press releases from us, please sign up to receive them so that we will be able to keep you up to date on the progress of this issue and the Sesquicentennial.  Click HERE to receive the press releases and updates.   With your help, we can make a signficant impact for the cause of our Southern heritage! Sincerely, Ray McBerry PR Officer, Georgia Division Sons of Confederate Veterans Ray McBerry Enterprises is the public relations firm for the Georgia Division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

Why The Civil War Was Not About Slavery

By Donald W. Livingston, Professor of Philosophy, Emory University

Member, Sons of Confederate Veterans
President, Abbeville Institute

Reprinted With Permission

Donald W. Livingston

American historians up to the 1960s tended to treat the War Between the States as a tragic or as a bungling affair. The moral challenge posed by slavery was seen as an aspect of why war broke out, but one overshadowed by deep and long standing constitutional, economic, and political conflicts. Today, however, historians, inspired by Marxist-style analysis, preach the one-dimensional doctrine that the conflict at its core was a moral struggle over slavery. The South was willing to destroy the Union in order to protect slavery and expand it. The North fought to eliminate slavery by preserving the Union. A recent historian, for instance, writes “It is an astonishing anomaly that … for one hundred years historians and commentators attempted to exorcise slavery as relevant or to downplay it as incidental to the conflict. Recent scholarship has at last acknowledged that the participants, after all, knew what they were contending about. Slavery, its expansion or limitation, its abolition or perpetuation was what the war was all about.”¹

Another historian writes “that Southerners seceded over one thing and fought over one thing, slavery.” A recent biographer of Robert E. Lee says of Lee “He was a leader in the Southern rebellion, in which so many fought so nobly for such a bad cause.”²

Robert Penn Warren, a Pulitzer Prize poet and novelist, witnessed the birth of this new style of writing history in the early 1960s, and wrote a devastating critique of it in The Legacy of the Civil War. Through the myth of a holy crusade to abolish slavery, Americans had illegitimately acquired what he called a great “treasury of virtue.” Even historians who know the myth is a distortion have generally not written history in a way to criticize it. The National Park Service has ordered every Civil War battlefield park in the nation exhibit the theme that the war was “about slavery.” This was the theme of Ken Burns’ TV series on the Civil War in which Lee was presented as “a traitor.” The series was very popular and prompted the conservative columnist George Will to gush that it was a demonstration of what television is for. The myth has been taught for generations in public schools and colleges. References to it are frequently heard in political speeches, commemoration speeches of all kinds, the media, in film, and in sermons from mainline churches. People in Argentina, Tokyo, Paris, Moscow and Australia who know next to nothing about American history know that the Civil War was “about slavery.” The upcoming sesquicentennial year commemorating the beginning of the War to Prevent Southern Independence promises to be a long, extended speech explaining how the war was “about slavery.” The myth, however, is not true. What is essentially wrong with it is not that it obsessively focuses on slavery while omitting facts contrary to the myth (though it does that), but that it reads a moral meaning into the conflict over slavery that did not exist. It leads us to believe that the North’s “antislavery” was a correct response to the moral challenge, whereas the South was “pro-slavery” and reprehensibly turned its back on the moral challenge. In what follows we shall see that what Warren called America’s great “treasury of virtue” is filled with fool’s gold that morally corrupts all who exploit it.

The first thing to appreciate is slavery was, from the very first, a national enormity, an American sin for which every section of the Union bore some responsibility. This, however, is not how we have been trained to think. We think of slavery as an alien and “un-American” practice confined to the South in the 19th century. But an honest look at American history reveals a quite different picture. Slavery was woven into the economic, political, and cultural fabric of the Northern states from the beginning. The first African slaves were brought to New England in 1638 in exchange for enslaved Indians. Boston began importing slaves from Africa in 1644. For 164 years New Englanders sold slaves throughout the Western Hemisphere.