Tuesday, May 31, 2011

Behind The Dixie Stars


Warning: Might be extremely upsetting to liberals and those who do not understand history to see a black gentleman who is a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans and proud that his Grand-Father served under General Forest.

2011 LS National Conference

~ CONFERENCE AGENDA~

Note: Both Online and Mail-In Registration Forms Are Provided At http://DixieNet.org.

Note: For location, and accommodation details please mash here


.
Thursday, 28 July
  • 8:00-9:30 p.m :: Annual League of the South Board of Directors Meeting, location TBA

Friday, 29 July
  • 8:00-9:00 a.m. :: Registration
  • 9:00-9:15 :: Welcome, Opening Prayer, and Entrance of Color Guard: MC Alex Cheek and TBA
  • 9:15-10:00 :: Speaker One - Pastor John Weaver: “When It Is Time”
  • 10:00-11:00 :: Workshop One - Mike Tubbs & Steve Walker: “Why Reforming the System Is Not Possible”
  • 11:00-11:30 :: Break and Musical Entertainment
  • 11:30-12:30 p.m. :: Workshop Two - Steve Kropelnicki, Esq.: “General Preparedness For A Societal Breakdown”
  • 12:30-2:00 :: Dinner (on your own)
  • 2:00-3:00 :: Workshop Three - Mike & Caleb Whorton: “How to Build and Maintain A Local League Chapter”
  • 3:00-3:30 :: LS Awards Ceremony: Alex Cheek and Michael Hill
  • 3:30-4:00 :: Break and Musical Entertainment
  • 4:00-5:00 :: Workshop Four - Franklin Sanders: “Building Community For Independence”
  • 5:00-5:10 :: Announcements and Closing Prayer: Alex Cheek and TBA
  • 5:10-7:30 :: Supper (on your own)
  • 7:30 until . . . :: An Evening of Southern Musical Entertainment


Saturday 30 July
  • 8:30-9:00 a.m. :: Registration
  • 9:00-9:15 :: Welcome, Opening Prayer, and Entrance of Color Guard: MC Alex Cheek and TBA
  • 9:15-10:15 :: Workshop Five - Mrs. Wade Rabun: “Stocking and Maintaining A Home Pantry”
  • 10:15-10:30 :: Break
  • 10:30-11:30 :: Workshop Six - Wade Rabun: “The Craft of Hunting & Tracking” 10:30-11:30
  • 11:30-1:00 p.m. :: Dinner (on your own)
  • 1:00-2:00 :: Workshop Seven - Dennis Blanton, Mike Crane, and David Jones: “Emergency Communications”
  • 2:00-2:15 :: Prize Presentations
  • 2:15-2:30 :: Break
  • 2:30-4:00 :: Workshop Eight - Pastor John Weaver and Ed Wolfe: “Basic Gun Safety and Maintenance”
  • 4:00-4:15 :: Break
  • 4:15-5:00 :: Speaker Two - Michael Hill: “What Would It Take To Get You To Fight?”
  • 5:00-5:10 :: Announcements and Closing Prayer: Alex Cheek and TBA
  • 5:10-5:15 :: Singing of Our National Anthem and Adjournment


Circle of St. Andrews Supper for LS Presidential Fund Contributors, time and place TBA.
Note To All State Chairmen: There will be no joint meeting of the Board and State Chairmen this year; instead, during the two-day conference, LS President Michael Hill will arrange to meet individually with each State Chairman (or his appointed delegate) to discuss matters pertaining to that particular State League chapter. These meetings will take place both during the conference breaks and in the evening on Friday. Each meeting should last no longer than 15-30 minutes.

‘New York Times’ Memorial Day article attacks the South

May 30, 2011
By Michael
Southern Nationalist Network
 
Establishment paper publishes anti-Southern writer

David W. Blight‘s article for the Establishment’s favourite newspaper, The New York Times, is full of one attack after another on the South. Blight was born, raised and educated in the Deep North, and he is the director of the Gilder-Lehrman Center for the Study of Slavery, Resistance and Abolition at Yale University. He has authored several books on race and Lincoln’s war against the South and has won the Lincoln Prize and the Frederick Douglas Prize. In short, there couldn’t possibly be a more anti-Southern partisan than the likes of David Blight.
Imagine if an openly pro-Southern writer penned an article about the war in the Times. Well, that would be unthinkable. But if the unthinkable happened surely we would hear comments like “Why are they still fighting the war?” Yet, when a Yankee partisan writes a piece that does nothing but attack the South repeatedly all is okay. Why are Yankees so obsessed with defending their invasion of another people, another culture and another government? Precisely because it was an invasion. It takes constant revisionism, excuses and attacks on the enemy (and make no mistake, the traditional South is just as much “the enemy” today – and is treated as such – as it was in 1861) to maintain support for Northern imperialism. If the attacks on the South were ever to stop, the truth would eventually win out and a majority would come to understand the Northern invasion and conquest of Dixie for what it was – with all the implications for the present that this would entail. Once upon a time, the anti-Southern attacks focused around allegations of treason. Today, they generally are focused around “racial justice” and the myths and Leftist politics surrounding that subject. This is Blight’s modis operandi. He makes a living attacking the White Southerner in particular and probably is a true believer in the Yankee righteousness of his crusade.
Blight champions the North in every paragraph throughout his article and misses no opportunities to insult the South and make it appear that racial divisions only existed below the Mason-Dixon line. Indeed, he returns to race again and again. Blight clearly reveals his Northern partisanship and opposition to Southern heritage in the following passage:
In the South, Memorial Day was a means of confronting the Confederacy’s defeat but without repudiating its cause. Some Southern orators stressed Christian notions of noble sacrifice. Others, however, used the ritual for Confederate vindication and renewed assertions of white supremacy. Blacks had a place in this Confederate narrative, but only as time-warped loyal slaves who were supposed to remain frozen in the past.
The Lost Cause tradition thrived in Confederate Memorial Day rhetoric; the Southern dead were honored as the true “patriots,” defenders of their homeland, sovereign rights, a natural racial order and a “cause” that had been overwhelmed by “numbers and resources” but never defeated on battlefields.
Click here for the full article (if you can stomach it).

Monday, May 30, 2011

Anti-racism crusade reaches new level of insanity

May 29, 2011
By Michael
 
Another crazy day on the Left Coast

California public school students have been suspended because they wore white t-shirts. The schools says that this proves they are White supremacists – even though one of them is Asian. No, I didn’t just make this story up, as insane as it sounds. Notice the government school administrator actually defends this nonsense. Azenith Smith covers the story for Fox 35:
Clearly Barack Obama is a White supremacist. Just look at that white t-shirt!
On Wednesday, Soquel High School suspended at least two students. The students say it’s because of allegations, they’re part of a white supremacist group.
“All the girls wore pink, all the sports guys wore tank tops,” says Soquel High Senior Mikey Donnelly. “We were all going to wear white so that was the plan. Just wear white t-shirts to identify ourselves and look back and say that was our group of friends right there.”
Soquel High Senior Mikey Donnelly wore a white t-shirt for his senior class photo Tuesday. About 10 of his friends did the same. That decision may seem harmless. But Soquel High suspended Donnelly for three days because of it. Donnelly said the school told him people were offended and intimidated by his group, claiming they’re a white supremacist gang.
“I do think this is BS,” says Donnelly. “I’m not a white supremacist in any way shape or form. If I did say white power, I would probably say it just as much as I say black power.”
He’s not the only one upset. “I feel disrespected,” says Soquel High Senior David Mine.
Mine also wore a white t-shirt and was also suspended. He’s missing out on finals and that could jeopardize his graduation. “I’m Asian,” says Mine. “I don’t see how I can be a white supremacist. I’m against it completely.” Soquel High Principal Ken Lawrence-Emanuel was very tight-lipped about it, saying students’ punishments are confidential. But told me the school got several complaints about a white pride group on campus.
“Safety is always first at Soquel High,” says Lawrence-Emanuel. “We want to make sure we do everything we can to keep people from feeling and being safe on campus.”
But, the students don’t agree and are ready to fight it. “It’s a pretty bad feeling to be labeled something you’re not,” says Donnelly.
Donnelly said nobody’s ever accused him of being a white supremacist before and plans on appealing the schools decision. He’ll even take it to court if he needs to.
Notice also that that principal says he has gotten complaints about a “White pride” group on campus. Of course, this is different from a White supremacist group. In fact, racial groups are quite common for non-White students. Gay and “trans-gendered” pride groups also exist. But naturally a White pride group – that’s “racist.” There’s an obvious double standard that discriminates against Whites at many schools.  Also, I wonder how an Asian person can be charged with being a White supremacist? That’s the ultimate insanity. And did the students cause any harm by wearing white shirts? No. So, what exactly is being punished here? Unreasonable policies like this is just another reason to avoid government schools when at all possible. The agenda of these institutions is clearly far-Left, politically-correct and anti-White.

Saturday, May 28, 2011

Confederate statue crash sparks Reidsville, NC debate

Opponents of Southern heritage claim statue is 'divisive' and 'racist'

The political leaders of Reidsville, North Carolina appear less than enthusiastic about putting the town’s broken statue of a Confederate soldier back up. The statue is now in several parts, due to being hit in an automobile accident. People in the article excerpted below claim that putting the statue back up would signal racism. The soldier statue is even compared to the toppled statue of Saddam Hussein that once stood in Baghdad, Iraq.
“I personally think that the statue should have been gone a million years ago,” said James Monte. “It should have never been put up. It’s foolishness. It’s a symbol of racism.”
Calvert Smith, an employee at the Reidsville Library, said she misses the statue. The library staff has used it for years as a way of giving directions to their facility. However, she would like to see a change to the traffic circle where the statue once stood.
“Instead of focusing on one thing, we could be a lot more inclusive and have a veteran’s memorial,” said Smith. “Make it more inclusive then divisive.”
Smith said that in Reidsville’s history, more than 100 years ago when the statue was placed, there was only one type of veteran in this area, and that was the Confederate soldiers. Now, since our country has had so many wars, there are a lot more veterans to honor.
Racism was a concern for many residents this week. Andre Walkerson said the United States has moved past racism more and more over the years, including having an African-American president, integrating schools and just getting along better.
“There are a lot of different races down here,” said Walkerson. “We’re trying to come together; we don’t want to be divisive.”
Walkerson said he believes the statue is offensive. He said this country is fighting wars based on getting rid of tyranny and when Saddam Hussein’s statue in Baghdad fell in 2003, America rejoiced. But now, Reidsville’s own statue – which Walkerson said stands for similar principles – has fallen, and no one is rejoicing.
…Some people, while agreeing the monument is a part of the city’s history, said they feel Reidsville needs to move forward.
“People come to this city from out of state and they come into this city and they see this statue, that leaves a bad taste in their mouths,” said [James] Monte. “I don’t care about history, it’s 2011.”
Notice that even the defender of the Confederate statue, Calvert Smith, wants to make it part of a general war memorial that would celebrate veterans from the numerous wars in which the United States has involved itself since the 1860s. The Southern soldiers who fought a defensive war for home and country would be grouped with US soldiers who fought to steal part of the Spanish Empire, suppress popular uprisings against foreign occupation in Philippines, invade Iraq, blow up villages in Afghanistan, etc. There is a great moral difference between those who fought a justified defensive war and those who engaged in imperialism. As well, putting the Confederate state as part of a US war memorial would certainly take away much of the significance of the statue. The central identifying nature of the statue, as it stood in the middle of town and proclaimed the area Southern and loyal to the South, would be gone.

Also, consider the arguments of those who oppose the statue, such as Andre Walkerson. He says plainly that the statue is one of racism and “we don’t want to be divisive.” How does a soldiers’ monument signal racism? And if the goal is not to be divisive then surely nothing could ever be displayed for someone is always going to object to and be offended by any symbol – including the US flag and US war memorials. Notice too the words of James Monte: “I don’t care about history, it’s 2011.” The willful ignorance of such a statement would be unbelievable in previous ages. And what about the “need to move forward” argument? What does this even mean? How does removing a statue move anything forward? Does erasing history and knowing nothing about history, like James Monte, mean one has moved forward? Of course, it’s 2011. In that, Mr. Monte is correct. But what does the year have to do with forgetting or not caring about history? By the same argument, Rome should destroy the Colosseum – after all, it’s 2011 and we don’t care about history any more. Yes, many people love the Colosseum, but others do not. And surely, some bad things happened in the Colosseum and therefore we should destroy it and forget it ever existed, right? This is the logic of Mr. Monte and Mr. Walkerson.

If you would like to encourage the politicians in Reidsville to do the right thing and put the Confederate statue back up, you can contact city hall at:

Reidsville City Hall
230 W. Morehead St.
Reidsville, NC 27320
Also, please contact Mayor Festerman at:
Mayor James K. Festerman
1201 Benton Lane , Reidsville, N.C. 27320
Phone: 349-6146
Fax: 616-0850
Email: mayor@ci.reidsville.nc.us


Ex parte Merryman and Abraham Lincoln’s Suspension of Habeas Corpus

This day in history



In 1863, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney issued ex parte Merryman to challenge the authority of Abraham Lincoln and the military to suspend the writ of habeas corpus in Maryland. Lincoln, enraged, orders Taney's arrest.
by Andrew Young
by Andrew Young
After the outbreak of the American Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln, claiming emergency powers, suspended habeas corpus, a person’s right to have a judge determine the legality of his imprisonment.  Lincoln authorized the military to arrest and indefinitely detain anyone suspected of aiding the rebels.  This decision outraged many of Lincoln’s contemporaries, and has been a subject of debate for constitutional scholars ever since.  Roger Taney, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court during Lincoln’s presidency, voiced particular outrage in his Ex parte Merryman opinion.  The following essay will summarize Taney’s arguments against Lincoln’s claim of executive power, arguing that Taney’s interpretation of the Constitution is superior to Lincoln’s.

According to historians David Donald and James Randall, Lincoln relied on arbitrary arrests for political expediency.  If Lincoln had exclusively utilized the courts to judge cases of suspected treason, he would have convicted few, since the Constitution sets strict requirements for a treason conviction.  Moreover, those who were convicted might become martyrs and incite more resistance.  Therefore, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and allowed the military to conduct arbitrary arrests.

Lincoln gave several more diplomatic justifications for suspending habeas corpus.  First, he formulated a “doctrine of necessity.”  Since the president takes an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, he must violate it during emergencies to preserve the government.  Sometimes we amputate limbs to preserve life; similarly, presidents must occasionally violate the Constitution to save it.  Second, Lincoln offered two constitutional justifications for his actions.  He cited the president’s duty to make sure that the nation’s laws are faithfully executed; since disloyal Northerners could prevent Lincoln from “faithfully executing” law, he could suspend their right to habeas corpus. He then cited the commander-in-chief clause of the Constitution, claiming that, as commander-in-chief in wartime, he had “a right to take any measure which may best subdue the enemy.”

Before considering Ex parte Merryman, we should discuss the events that led Taney to write the opinion.  In May 1861, Union General George Cadwalader ordered John Merryman’s arrest for being “an active secessionist sympathizer.”  Under Cadwalader’s order, Merryman was held in a military prison at Fort McHenry.  When Taney, who was on circuit duty, demanded that Cadwalader allow him to judge the legality of Merryman’s detainment, Cadwalader refused, citing Lincoln’s orders.  Taney then attempted to hold Cadwalader in contempt, but Union soldiers refused to admit the marshal who tried to serve him Taney’s writ.  Thereafter, a frustrated Taney wrote his Merryman opinion.  

In his Ex parte Merryman opinion, Chief Justice Roger Taney addresses Lincoln’s claims of sweeping executive power.  He directly challenges Lincoln’s claim that his duty to faithfully execute the nation’s laws justifies the suspension of habeas corpus.  The clause that requires the president to “faithfully execute” the laws, Taney says, does not permit him to “execute them himself, or through agents or officers, civil or military.”  Instead, the president’s duty is to assure that no outside force interferes with the government’s execution of the laws.  Therefore, he must help the judicial branch if some outside force threatens the judiciary’s power; he does not have the right to utilize the military to usurp judicial authority.

Taney also challenges Lincoln’s assertion that emergencies require the executive to usurp congressional and judicial authority.  Near the end of the opinion, he says that, if the executive branch can, in any situation, overstep other branches, then “the people of the United States are no longer living under a government of laws.”  In Taney’s view, the Constitution is not a mere suggestion of how government should operate under ideal circumstances.  Instead, it is a concrete document to which the executive must adhere at all times, including times of emergency.  If presidents can abandon the Constitution “upon any pretext or under any circumstances,” the Constitution means nothing.   

Perhaps most importantly, Taney says the framers never intended for the executive to suspend habeas corpus.  He offers mounds of evidence to support this contention.  First, he cites a major crisis during Thomas Jefferson’s presidency.  Aaron Burr, Jefferson’s vice president, led a conspiracy to seize territory around New Orleans to form a new country.  During this time, Jefferson actually wanted to suspend the writ, but wrote that he lacked the authority.  Instead, he suggested that Congress exercise its power to suspend habeas corpus. 

Second, he writes that the framers, fearing a liberal interpretation of the “necessary and proper” clause, which gives Congress the right to pass any law deemed “necessary and proper” for carrying out its duties, listed several fundamental rights that cannot be violated.  It is not a coincidence, Taney says, that the first right listed is the writ of habeas corpus, which may only be suspended in times of invasion or rebellion.

Third, Taney argues that it defies common sense to believe the framers would have trusted the executive with the right to suspend habeas corpus.  They had just broken away from a powerful, despotic English monarch.  Therefore, they distrusted a powerful executive, especially one who could arrest citizens and hold them indefinitely without trial.  As evidence, Taney cites the strict limits Article 2 places on the executive, such as the requirement for congressional approval of treaties with foreign nations and his short term of office.



Taney persuasively argues that the Constitution expressly denies the executive the right to suspend habeas corpus, even going so far as to say “I had supposed it to be one of those points of constitutional law upon which there was do difference of opinion, and that it was admitted on all hands, that the privilege of the writ could not be suspended, except by act of Congress.”  To support this contention, Taney cites Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution, which gives Congress alone the power to suspend Habeas Corpus.  He also cites the fact that Article 1 “is devoted to the legislative department of the United States, and has not the slightest reference to the executive department.” To further support his case, Taney discusses Article 2 of the Constitution, which deals with the executive branch.  Taney writes that “if the high power over the liberty of the citizen now claimed, was intended to be conferred on the president, it would undoubtedly be found in plain words in this article.”  However, Article 2 never gives the president this power.

Taney quotes his predecessors on the Supreme Court to bolster his arguments.  Justice Joseph Story, for example, once wrote that “It would seem, as the power is given to Congress to suspend the writ of habeas corpus…that the right to judge whether the exigency had arisen must exclusively belong to that body.”  Moreover, he refers to an opinion written by Chief Justice John Marshall.  Marshall’s opinion says that, if suspending the writ is necessary for public safety, only Congress may do so.  Until Congress suspends the writ, the courts must maintain habeas corpus.  To capitalize on the high esteem most Americans give Marshall, Taney says “I can add nothing to these clear and emphatic words of my great predecessor.”
The influence of English common law on America’s legal system, Taney argues, supports his position.  For centuries, the English dealt with monarchs who arbitrarily imprisoned their own citizens.  Therefore, they, like the framers, denied executives the authority to suspend habeas corpus.  Taney quotes English judge William Blackstone at length, who once wrote that “But the happiness of our constitution is, that it is not left to the executive power to determine when the danger of the state is so great as to render this measure expedient.” Though Taney concedes that the English and American systems differ greatly, he reminds readers that “upon this subject they (English judges) are entitled to the highest respect, and are justly regarded and received as authoritative by our courts of justice.”

Even if Congress had suspended habeas corpus, Taney argues, Merryman should still be released.  Cadwalader did not have probable cause to detain Merryman.  Taney correctly points out that Cadwalader never produced any witnesses to support his accusations, nor did he bother to specify “the acts which, in the judgment of the military officer, constituted these crimes.” Furthermore, even if the suspension of habeas corpus were legal, the military could not refuse to cooperate with the judicial branch.  Though the military can arrest private citizens, it must immediately transfer them to civil authorities.
On the question of the framers’ original intent, Taney’s view is clearly the correct one.  The framers would never have wanted the executive to have the power to suspend habeas corpus under any circumstances; they repeatedly criticized their previous ruler, the English king, for similar behavior.  For example, in the “Declaration of Independence,” Thomas Jefferson attacks King George because he “has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.” Lincoln, by allowing the military to arbitrarily arrest private citizens and sidestep judicial authority, differed little from George III.  Moreover, as Taney points out, during Thomas Jefferson’s presidency, when most of the framers were still in government, no one, even during a time of crisis (the Burr conspiracy), believed the president could suspend habeas corpus.  Nor did President James Madison, the “father of the Constitution,” claim sweeping executive powers during the War of 1812, as Tom DiLorenzo has written.

Even if we do not consider the framers’ original intent, Taney’s interpretation is clearly superior; as Taney writes, this should be “one of those points of constitutional law upon which there was no difference of opinion.”  Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the power to suspend habeas corpus.  If the president had the power to suspend habeas corpus, it would be found in Article 2, which deals with the executive branch; it is not.  

Many of Lincoln’s defenders concede the unconstitutionality of his suspension of habeas corpus, but argue that, although the suspension was dictatorial, Lincoln was a “good dictator.”  James G. Randall even called Lincoln a “benevolent dictator,” a phrase many would consider an oxymoron.  However, it is easy for those who never suffered the effects of Lincoln’s “benevolent” dictatorship to defend him.  John Merryman, who was arrested in his home without probable cause, would disagree with Randall’s analysis.  So would Francis Key Howard, who spent two years in military prison at Fort McHenry and wrote a book about his experience there called The American Bastille. Moreover, what is the Constitution worth if one man (the president), under a pretext of his choosing, can decide to ignore it?

After Taney issued his Merryman opinion, which President Lincoln ignored, the Lincoln administration increased its usurpation of judicial and congressional powers.  Lincoln, incensed by Taney’s defense of civil liberties, issued a warrant for his arrest.  Several sources corroborate this controversial warrant.  First, the private papers of Lincoln’s former law partner, Ward Hill Laman (who was a Federal Marshal at the time) contain a reference to the warrant, saying “After due consideration the administration decided upon the arrest of the chief justice.”  Second, Taney warned friends that he may be arrested, including George Brown, the future mayor of Baltimore.  Fortunately, no one could find a marshal who was willing to arrest an 84-year-old judge.
Lincoln’s attempt to arrest Taney helps prove Taney’s accusation that Lincoln was willing to usurp judicial authority and endanger American liberty.  Lincoln not only ignored an order from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court; he even tried to have the judge arrested.  If Lincoln had succeeded in arresting Taney, he would have virtually destroyed the separation of powers upon which this nation was founded.  How can the judiciary maintain its independence if the president can have the Chief Justice arrested for merely issuing an opinion with which he disagrees?
Donald and Randall’s analysis also supports Taney’s opinion.  If Lincoln decided to suspend habeas corpus simply because he feared that he could gain few treason convictions, he viewed the Constitution as an obstacle to be sidestepped, not a foundation for preserving liberty.  Furthermore, his belief that he would attain few convictions supports Taney’s claims.  After declaring that the military lacked probable cause in the Merryman case, Taney concluded that the government probably lacked evidence for many of its other arrests and encouraged other judges to demand writs of habeas corpus. Lincoln’s cynicism helps show that Taney was correct. 

President Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus lacked both moral and constitutional justification.  It confined thousands in military prisons for opposing war and voided years of jurisprudence.  The Constitution never gives the president the right to suspend habeas corpus, nor can that right be inferred from the commander-in-chief clause or the president’s duty to faithfully execute the laws.  Lincoln’s suspension was not only illegal; it was also dangerous, threatening the separation of powers that prevents any one branch of government from becoming too powerful.  Moreover, his actions inspired future presidents to ignore the Constitution during times of crisis.  Especially today, with the post-9/11 crackdown on civil liberties, Americans would be wise to reread Ex parte Merryman.

Friday, May 27, 2011

WV panel denies funds over H.K. Edgerton

May 26, 2011
By The Masked Walnut
 
Commission discriminates against Southrons

In a clear case of discrimination and hiding the truth about the War for Southern Independence, the West Virginia Sesquicentennial Commission denied funding to the Guyandotte Civil War Days festival committee because they planned to have author, lecturer, and Southern patriot H.K. Edgerton as their keynote speaker. I wouldn’t call the following article “pro-South” either.
In its first meeting since half of its citizen members resigned in protest, the West Virginia Sesquicentennial Commission Tuesday awarded four community program grants totaling $11,160 — but tabled one funding request because of the event’s controversial keynote speaker.
The Guyandotte Civil War Days festival committee requested a $2,547 grant to help fund its annual re-enactment of the Nov. 10, 1861, Confederate raid of the Cabell County community.
Commissioners voiced concerns over the event’s planned keynote speaker, H.K. Edgerton, a pro-Confederate author and lecturer who contends that large numbers of slaves “went to war with their masters” to fight against the Union.
Edgerton, who is black, headed a 2002-03 “March Across Dixie,” defending the Confederate flag as a symbol of the South. He also contends that slavery was not a significant factor leading to the Civil War [sic].
“This guy’s been very controversial from time to time,” Commissioner Rick Wolfe said Tuesday.
Victor Thacker, a dean at Davis & Elkins College, added, “The last thing we need to do as historians is give more bad history to our students.”Commissioners debated Tuesday whether to award the grant but exclude any funding for Edgerton’s appearance.
However, since any events that receive commission grants are permitted to use the state sesquicentennial logo in advertising and promotional materials, there was concern that any sponsorship would appear to be an implicit state endorsement of Edgerton. The meeting was the first since four of the eight citizen members of the commission, including vice chairman, noted Shepherd University historian Mark Snell, resigned over concerns the commission is emphasizing tourist-friendly festivals and re-enactments over educational and academic efforts.
Education and Arts Secretary Kay Goodwin, who serves as commission chairwoman, downplayed the divisiveness Tuesday.
“As you can see, this is a very talkative and opinionated group, and we’re happy to have that,” she said after Tuesday’s meeting. “We were sad to lose those who resigned.”
Later Tuesday, Goodwin issued a two-page statement defending the commission’s decision to provide what she termed “much-appreciated support for local groups organizing their own events.” She stated, “A minority of the commission’s original members disagreed with the decision to fund community programs, and, unfortunately, some members chose to resign because of that disagreement. “There is no question, however, that assisting local sesquicentennial commemorations falls squarely within the commission’s mission: to promote awareness, celebrate the unique creation of the state of West Virginia and the role of its people during the Civil War [sic] era, and its continuing effect on our people,” Goodwin stated.
Culture and History Commissioner Randall Reid-Smith, who participated in the meeting via teleconference, commented, “We commemorate the sesquicentennial of the Civil War [sic], and we celebrate statehood.
That comment was apparently directed at Snell, who in a Sunday Gazette-Mail article faulted Reid-Smith for the commission’s emphasis on promoting festivals and re-enactments. Snell went on to say he believes it is inappropriate to treat the 150th anniversary of America’s bloodiest conflict as a celebration.

Thursday, May 26, 2011

Secession: An Answer to the Sovereign Debt Crisis

by: Ron Holland

Get ready as secession is coming soon to a failed union near you. Over the weekend, the news has been full of reports about Scotland getting ready to vote on independence from the United Kingdom after the election victory by the Scottish National Party. The UK has stated it will abide by the coming referendum but we fear the Bank of England, their central bank will not be so agreeable.
Also we hear with the usual denials, that Greece is considering withdrawing from the Eurozone due to their sovereign debt problems. The Greek leadership believes dumping the Euro and creating their own currency will allow them to inflate their sovereign debts away as well as getting the country out of recession and forced austerity from Brussels. These same Greek politicians should have thought of this when earlier receiving their big payoffs and incentives to force the nation into the EU. They will claim the motive now is patriotism to save the nation as sometimes even politicians will become patriots when necessary but we expect they see another graft opportunity.

The European Central Bank (ECB) will not be pleased with Greece because its Greek bond portfolio will suffer. Also these individual political actions where citizens decide their future rather than distant central banking cartels and eurocrats threatens the entire European Union. The EU and ECB were just a sham and power grab from the beginning for power hungry European elites not content with just pillaging their own citizens.

Why This Political Action Can Solve the Sovereign Debt Crisis

Secession is the right for an area to leave a government tax jurisdiction (national boundaries) based on the will of a majority of the voters in the geographic area wishing to peacefully withdraw by democratic means and create a government more in tune and controlled by the citizens in the region. Often just the threat to withdraw from a larger union is enough to cause the central government politicians and central banking cartel to better follow the needs and dictates of the people. But when all other political remedies fail, secession is often the final solution to an elite political and central banking tyranny which steals from the people for the benefit of the controlling Anglo-American monetary elites in many Western nations.

The establishment media avoids like the plague the only real solution to the sovereign debt crisis around the world because they are totally controlled and exist only to protect the elites which created the sovereign debt crisis in the first place. Today democratic secession is starting to happen in Scotland and Greece and this peaceful political tool is a real alternative to forced unions like the American and European Union as well as national politicians on the take that pillage their own individual nations.

Today, when most forced, arbitrary unions of nation states are ended today, the action is by negotiation, democratic voting by the regional citizens involved and then a friendly and cooperative relationship with the former state. Scotland which was annexed into the British Empire by terrible wars and force of arms over hundreds of years will likely soon depart peacefully as did the old nation of Czechoslovakia split into the Czech and Slovakia Republics back in 1993.

Independence Would Allow New Nations to Repudiate the Sovereign Debt of Former Governments and Create a New Currency

I fear, here in the US, if we fail to take the necessary political actions to protect our wealth now at a time of our choosing, then foreign creditors and markets will decide when the American debt and the dollar are finished. Secession is one alternative and I hope others will come up with additional solutions. But citizens of every overly indebted state need to ask themselves and their political representatives a few questions.

Are the benefits of powerful central banking and political elite controls worth the economic costs, debts on future generations and the loss of personal and financial liberties?

Would we not be better off as new independent sovereign states or nations with the opportunity to create our own currencies after repudiating all or part of the illegitimate sovereign debt created to benefit the central bankers and monetary elites?

Are federal taxes, controls, welfare/warfare expenses and government debts which threaten to impoverish the individual states and citizens worth the costs of control, economic rape and financial pillage from central government politicians and central bank thugs out only to make more money and profits at the expense of normal productive citizens?

Would you rather as an individual or a nation become debt free and prosperous with your own currency or allow the central banks to continue their actions which have brought most western nations to the brink of ruin and bankruptcy?

If you answered yes to these four questions, then it is time to begin organizing and taking peaceful democratic actions to save our liberties and remaining wealth before the coming Treasury debt and dollar crisis happens in the United States as it has in Greece.

The time of large nation states began to end when they realized they could borrow from our posterity to buy votes and control today. The new internet reformation makes it impossible for media and political elites to hide the truth about our economic situation from the voters or world investors. This new transparency creates both danger and opportunity and we can either seize the opportunity for freedom or wait for the danger of economic collapse.

From the United States to a Debt-Free These United States

Secession does not have to mean the end of your nation but rather a democratic change from an incompetent structure representing elite interests into a decentralized limited government which serves the interest of the citizens rather than the central bankers and political establishment would be a positive change. For example, the individual American states could secede and withdraw from the existing Washington federal government and come together again through a debt-free, limited federal system like the Articles of Confederation.

For example in Europe, a confederation of independent sovereign nations with the right to voluntarily enter and leave a European Confederation might be the solution to the top-down failures of the European Union.

In the US, now with easy communication and travel a simple return to our decentralized Articles of Confederation would allow the individual states to compete with currency alternatives along with private competitors as well as repudiate the illegitimate sovereign debt of the former federal government. This national debt was created primarily to fund money making opportunities for a few favored elite controlled global corporations, banks and oil conglomerates but paid for by our taxes and with sovereign debts on future generations.

It Must Be Both a Political and Monetary Secession!

Just withdrawing from a former political entity if the new nation retains the same central banking cartel and fiat currency without a new replacement alternative really accomplishes nothing. At best, you would have a new generation of tax feeding politicians and bureaucrats at the public trough and no more. The solution for most regions is to leave the political elites, their sovereign debt and the central bank controls behind when declaring independence.

Starting Now

After all, fiat currencies and the central banking monopoly can only survive if there are no alternatives. One day soon. A nation or nations and maybe even private entities will take the concept of the Central Fund of Canada which is made up of gold and silver bullion and traded like a stock on several exchanges and create a new store of value for the 21st Century. They might use controlled and owned gold and unmined gold reserves, oil and oil reserves with maybe timber or another finite resource and create the ultimate store of value for world investors.

This private store of value and competing alternatives using the free-market could then transcend into a real alternative to central bank fiat currencies and thus end the hundred year reign of the Anglo-American central bank monopoly cartel on currency creation, sovereign debts and inflation wealth destruction. Until this happens, individuals, organizations and businesses can take advantage of gold storage mechanisms like the Central Fund of Canada and Global Gold of Switzerland until new more diversified alternatives are available.

It is now time to prepare a secure future for ourselves and future generations. It is time to leave the governments behind who oppress us and the central bankers which plan to finish us off in the coming US dollar and sovereign debt crisis.

Scotland’s William Wallace Was Right!

In the 13th Century,William Wallace gained recognition when he led the Scottish people in their fight against English occupation in the First War of Scottish Independence. Who can forget the last scene in the 1995 film epic, Braveheart, as the English were torturing Wallace and his last words were "FREEDOM."

I believe the cry of William Wallace for "Freedom" and Scottish Independence should be carried forth across the WEST today.

It is time to demand freedom from national sovereign debts we did not approve.
Freedom from central banks we never wanted which are destroying our economies and our currency.
Free us from far off bureaucrats and Anglo-American elites which increasingly seize our wealth for their purposes.
End the enticement of our children and grandchildren into serving their interests in foreign wars for wealth and resources rather than defending our nation.
Few citizens in Europe have had the opportunity to vote on EU membership and when they did the answer was usually a resounding "NO."

In America, no living citizens have had an opportunity to democratically vote on remaining in the arbitrary American union since 1860 when 11 states were allowed to vote at the state level.Here the democratic majority in the Southern states was overturned by Lincoln’s War which killed over 600,000 Americans.

It is time to put the killing and war on citizens and regions wanting to leave forced inclusion behind us as is the case of the United Kingdom allowing the citizens of Scotland to decide and choose whether to remain in the UK or leave and remain allies of equal position. The days of tyrants like Saddam Hussein, Gadhafi and Lincoln making war on their own citizens who simply want to leave and be left alone should be over.

It took Scotland almost a thousand years but soon this proud people under the St. Andrews Cross will be rid of English and Anglo-American rule and Scotland will once again take its rightful place among the nations of the world.

This year marks the 150 anniversary of another nation which also fought under the sacred banner of the St. Andrews Cross. General Robert E. Lee prayed: "While we see the course of the final abolition of human slavery is still onward, and give it the aid of our prayers, let us leave the progress as well as the results in the hands of Him who, chooses to work by slow influences, and with whom a thousand years are but as a single day."

Although chattel slavery ended a few years after Lee’s prayer, today most of the Europe and the Americas are increasingly slaves today. The war that ended chattel slavery paved the way for the destruction of the Southern economy and political power to allow a new kind of slavery, central bank slavery which began with the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913.

Today we are all slaves to fiat currencies which decimate our wealth, central banks and governments which create and burden future generation with sovereign debt and controls which are destroying our remaining freedoms and liberties.

It is time for the West to follow the halting steps of Scotland and Greece and begin the cry for Freedom from those financial institutions and political elites who oppress us and consider us as mere slaves to be manipulated, wealth creators to be fleeced and cannon fodder for their global wealth and resources plunder expeditions.

What do you think?



May 12, 2011

Ron Holland [send him mail] is a contributing editor to the Swiss Mountain Vision Newsletter and Chairman of the Advisory Board of the Foundation for the Advancement of Free-Market Thinking (FAFMT) in Vaduz, Liechtenstein.

Copyright © 2011 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

Wednesday, May 25, 2011

League of the South National Conference

The 18th annual conference will be held in Abbeville, SC, at the Civic Center on Friday and Saturday,
29-30 July A.D. 2011
.
The theme of this year's conference is "When the Day Comes . . ." [Conference Agenda]
Admission for the conference is the same as last: $50 per individual, $75 per couple, and $100 per family. Help make this years conference the best ever by pre-registering today!
Vendor tables are available for the extremely reasonable price of $15 per table per day. To arrange for your table please contact the LS office.
A complete agenda, including topics and speakers, will be posted here at DixieNet.org soon. To assure that you are aware of the latest updates, sign-up for our free email newsletter.

Monday, May 23, 2011

Confederate Memorial Day

Confederate Memorial Day will be held at Loudon Park Cemetery in Baltimore, Maryland on Saturday June 4, 2011, at 10:30 a.m. This annual event is sponsored by the Maryland Division Col. Harry Gilmor Camp #1388, Sons of Confederate Veterans and the United Daughters of the Confederacy. We will be dedicating 61 new grave markers as part of our Adopt-a-Confederate Program.

All are welcome.

Saturday, May 21, 2011

The South As Its Own Nation

The eleven Confederate States – Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia -- plus Kentucky and Oklahoma currently form the most consistent and cohesive political South. The premier US publication tracking congressional votes and US politics, the Congressional Quarterly. The same South appeared in a highly significant 3-9 March 2007 special report in London’s influential Economist magazine. State by state, this political South parallels rather closely the present cultural South, though in certain areas of these thirteen States (southern Florida and south Texas) Southern culture no longer dominates. On the other hand, areas beyond these thirteen States maintain their Southern culture to varying degrees. Much of Missouri remains basically Southern, as do parts of southern Maryland and Maryland’s eastern shore. Some say southern Delaware is Southern still.
West Virginia is a difficult state to sort out. Formed unconstitutionally under the Lincoln presidency to drive a wedge into the South and increase Republican congressional representation, many West Virginians believe their interests differ strongly from those of the Old Dominion, and while culturally Southern seem to prefer the description of “mountaineer” to “Southerner.” Maryland and Delaware have become so liberal that they fit with the Northeast politically, even though some areas there remain politically conservative and definitely Southern in outlook and culture.
The US Census Bureau continues to place West Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, and the District of Columbia within the South. However, the Bureau classes Missouri as a Midwestern state, although today it is politically more conservative in a traditionally Southern sense. Of the thirteen States constituting this “South,” Florida ranks overall as the least southern, primarily because of the massive numbers of Northern, Cuban, and Haitian immigrants who have settled in the Sunshine State. Yet measured by congressional votes, it remains politically a Southern State. Texas is in a category by itself, the western South.
The loss of south Florida and south Texas from the cultural South sharply illustrates what happens when large numbers of immigrants arrive. Culture follows demography. For more than twenty years south Florida has been described as part of the Caribbean, because of the huge influx of Cubans and Haitians. Both south and central Florida are so dominated by Yankees that Southern culture there has been stretched very, very thin – much of it has become wholly unSouthern. As parts of Florida have become Caribbean, so, too, south and southwest Texas have become part of greater Mexico. 

A Place & Name Among The Nations
 
In spite of these losses, the South remains one of the most important nations of the earth. Today “nation” usually refers to an independent political sovereignty, but originally it meant “a people with a sense of their own identity, occupying a certain territory that is their historic homeland.”
A politically independent sovereign state is not required for “nationhood.” Scots form a “nation” although they do not have their own state. The South remains very much a nation even though it has not been an independent sovereign “nation-state” since 1865. Even then the Confederate States of America were not a unitary state but a confederation of independent sovereign States.
The Latin root of “nation” comes from a word that means “to be born.” Blood, kin, family, past, tradition, place, and culture are all bound up in what it means to be a nation. Once Southerners understand that they are a classic nation by the core meaning of the word, they would be cowardly and disloyal not to preserve their own unique culture and society.
The West, including the United States, has taken the path of wholesale national suicide, driven by a multi-cultural globalist agenda. Today’s Western regimes are building a global state, reducing peoples and nations with all their wonderful variety to one homogenized Big Mac. An unbridgeable chasm separates Southerners’ values and vision from the leaders of these regimes. Against their citizens’ wishes, they want to replace national loyalty with loyalty to a universal abstract state under the banner of spurious “equality.”
Western regimes (including the US) are attempting to re-build the tower of Babel, creating their own version of “heaven on earth.” Southerners have wisdom enough to know that whenever fallen men set out to create heaven on earth it always becomes “hell on earth.” (Southerners may not be perfect, but we are realistic.) 

Nations Without States
 
The 2002 Encyclopedia of the Stateless Nations, in four volumes, followed a 1996 publication of a one volume work, Nations Without States. We have heard of only a handful of the many nations who want their national status recognized and a nation-state of their own. Scotland and Quebec are probably the two stateless nations you have heard most about, but since 1946 over half of the nation-states of the earth have achieved independent political status by secessions or separations from larger political entities. Centralized states are dying. Secession is the wave of the future.
After Lithuania seceded, the Soviet Union broke apart into the separate nations which had been forcibly yoked together under communism. Eastern Europe, formerly under Soviet hegemony, has also seen new nation states emerge from ancient nationalities.
The Encyclopedia of the Stateless Nations describes no fewer than 350 nations without states! To be listed, the nation must have 1) a flag; 2) a sense of identity as a special people; and 3) an organization(s) working to achieve a greater degree of recognition and autonomy, including, for many, nation-state status itself. 

Does The South Qualify?
 
The South easily meets these criteria. Southerners have many flags. The Encyclopedia describes the Confederate Battle Flag as “the Southern national flag,” but also gives the Stars and Bars as a national Southern flag. We have a very well developed and extremely widespread sense of Southern identity, and the Encyclopedia lists nineteen organizations as Southern national organizations.
In the article on “Southerners” under the subtitle “People and Culture” we find this assessment:
“Southerners are considered one of the major branches of the American nation, being the descendants of the original European settlers of the southern colonies established by settlers from the British Isles in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. By far the largest of the three original Anglo-American cultural areas, the South has always been the most idiosyncratic with respect to national norms. Although there are great regional differences between the inhabitants of the vast area, the cultural heritage of the Deep South remains the focus of modern Southern culture. Southern culture is still observable in almost every realm of activity, including the rural economy, regional dialects, diet, folklore, politics, architecture, recreation, and social customs.”
Amazingly, Southerners are the second most populous stateless nation included in the encyclopedia, after the Tamils of southern India.
Astonished? There’s more. The South’s world status is further substantiated by the March 2007 Economist, published in London. This presents the South to the world as a great place for business, with a surging economy growing faster than the US economy, a region with “song, flavour and charm,” building on its “traditional” strengths of “southern hospitality,” southern cuisine, and attractive weather. Eighteen of the top 30 “best performing” cities in the US lie in the South. Since 1990 the number of jobs in the South has risen by a third while their number in the US as a whole has risen only by a quarter. The Economist also notes that the Southern share of US gross domestic product (GDP) has risen from 22% in 1963 to 31% today. The Economist recognizes that areas of the South, especially rural areas and some cities, such as New Orleans, remain poor, and that prosperity is “unevenly spread.”

What About Racism?
 
The editors see the South as “A good place to be black,” citing a Pew Research Center Poll of 2003. That poll found a higher percentage of Southern than non-Southern blacks saying that discrimination against them is rare. Blacks are materially better off in the South where their income is 99% of the black US norm and their living costs lower. Three times as many blacks move to the South each year as leave it. The special report also points out that although the South contains only slightly more than half of American blacks, two-thirds of the 9,101 US black elected officials reside in the South. Mississippi alone has 54 black mayors.

Are We Populous Enough?
 
In 2006, 101 million people lived in the South. In 1993 the South had 81 million people, about the size of then recently united Germany. Today Germany has grown to only 82.4 million, and is already losing population due to birth rates well below replacement levels. The other leading Western European nations, France with 60.9 million people and the U. K. with 60.7 million people in 2006 have far fewer people than the South. European population is growing very slowly, and in some cases already falling. In spite of rapid Third World population growth , the thirteen State South remains twelfth in population of all the nation-states of the earth, as it was in 1993.

Are We Prosperous Enough?
 
Under the old method of calculating GDP (gross domestic product), which used official currency exchange rates instead of purchasing power parity, the thirteen Southern States had the world’s fourth largest economy 1990, behind the US, Japan, and united Germany. Today we have moved to the third strongest economy in the world, easily surpassing Germany by almost a trillion dollars (Southern economy: $3.548 trillion dollars in 2004; German economy, $2.741 trillion dollars in 2004).
Under the purchasing power parity method developed in 1998 for determining GDP, the thirteen State South again has the fourth largest economy on earth. Under the new method, China’s economy has grown so fast that Asian super tiger is rapidly catching up with the entire US economy. The GDP figures for 2005 in trillions of dollars under the new method are:
  • United States, 12.36 trillion
  • China, $8.86 trillion
  • Japan, $4.02 trillion
  • The South, $3.73 trillion
  • India, $3.61 trillion
  • Germany, $2.504 trillion
  • United Kingdom, $1.83 trillion
  • France, $1.82 trillion
  • Russian Federation, $1.59 trillion
  • Brazil, $1.56 trillion
  • Canada, $1.11 trillion
  • Mexico, $1.07 trillion
  • Spain, $1.03 trillion

In area the South’s vast territory stretches essentially as far as all of Western Europe north of the Pyrenees and the Alps (though including Switzerland). Subtract the almost uninhabited cold northern regions of Norway and Sweden and the South would have more land than all of Western Europe. The South’s homeland has more territory than the nation-states of France (close to the size of Texas), Germany, the United Kingdom, Ireland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Austria, Denmark, Norway and Sweden (minus the latter two’s frozen regions), with the tiny nations of Andorra, Liechtenstein, and Monaco thrown in for good measure. These countries have over 260 million people and include the three dominant nation-states of Europe, Germany, France, and the U. K. Even the smallest Southern State, South Carolina, has more land than Ireland, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Lithuania, Israel, Lebanon, Kuwait, and many other nation-states of the earth.

But Don't We Already Have The Best Of All Worlds?
 
The South has the population, land area, economy, resources, knowledge, and innovative skill to be one of the most formidable nation-states of the earth. But why, many might ask, should the South give up a good thing when it has so much going for it?
A basic and practical answer is this: “the world the South would make for her people differs vastly from the world the US regime is constructing.” Time and again on issues affecting a people’s most basic values and institutions, the rest of the US has overridden Southern beliefs, values and policy choices. This radical difference in values between the South and the rest of the US is reflected in the US congress’ actual votes.
The George W. Bush Republican ascendancy has not changed this. If anything, it has made things worse. The US congress continues to override Southern congressmen on key issues affecting our way of life. A sample of these congressional votes further confirms that if the South were in charge of her own destiny, life would be much closer to what we as Southerners believe, value, and desire.

Immigration
 
One outstanding example is the May 2006 McCain – Kennedy Immigration Bill which passed the full Senate by the substantial margin of 62 – 36. This bill put millions of illegal aliens on track for US citizenship and, some have argued, would have increased legal immigration from around one million immigrants each year at present to at least two million annually. This was a major piece of special interest legislation, benefiting big corporations with dirt cheap immigrant labour at the expense of the native-born American worker.
Seventeen Southern Senators voted against this horrendous “abolition of America” bill, while only nine voted in favour. Outside the thirteen Southern States, the vote in favour was 53 against only 19 against. The South voted essentially two to one against McCain – Kennedy, while the remainder of the US voted close to three to one for it.
The list of lickspittle lackeys promoting the South-busting American Regime is long, and includes both Republican and Democratic leaders as well as the American educational establishment, mainstream media, entertainment industry, corporate business community, and many religious, cultural, and societal leaders. The pattern of overriding our wishes has been so consistent over the past four decades that every observer must admit the truth: irreconcilable differences separate Southerners from other Americans, and the South would be much better off as a politically independent Republic steering her own destiny.

Impeachment
 
Another stark Southern – US split occurred when the Senate voted on President Clinton’s impeachment verdict. The whole Senate voted to acquit Clinton on both impeachment charges while Southern Senators voted two-thirds in favour of convicting Clinton of obstruction of justice (18 to 8). If the South had been in charge, President Bill “the Lecher” Clinton would have been the first president in U.S. history to have been removed from office by impeachment.

Election
 
If the South had had its way, however, Clinton would not even have been elected in the first place. In both 1992 and 1996 the South voted for the Republican nominee for President, i.e., the candidate generally perceived to be more conservative (regardless of the reality).

Taxes
 
On tax policy, the South almost always votes for lower taxes, and is sometimes overridden by the US congress. In 1998 the thirteen State South voted by the required two-thirds margin for a constitutional amendment to require a two-thirds vote of both houses of congress to raise taxes. Southerners voted in favour of this constitutional amendment 90 to 41. In the full House the amendment failed by 238 to 186 opposed, far short of the constitutionally required two-thirds margin.

Religious Freedom
 
Also in 1998, Southern Representatives voted by the requisite two-thirds “super majority” to submit to the States the Religious Freedom Constitutional Amendment. It would have guaranteed an individual’s right to pray and recognize his religious beliefs on public property, including schools. The house of representatives as a whole rejected this amendment by a vote of 224 in favour to 203 opposed, falling miserably short of the necessary two-thirds margin.

States' Rights
 
In 1997 Senator Hutchinson of Arkansas offered an amendment to abolish the National Endowment for the Arts and transfer its fiscal 1998 funding directly to the States. The South voted for this State Rights proposal by the ample margin of 17 to 9, whereas the full Senate rejected this affirmation of the rights and duties of the States by the almost equally strong margin of 63 against to only 36 for.

Conclusion
 
Living under the yoke of the Yankee empire has already damaged our Southern culture. Will we be able to leave any of it to our children and grandchildren? Not if the yankee empire has its way.
The South as its own nation is more than powerful, populous, and prosperous enough to assume its place among the nations of the earth today. For the South, secession is the only practical, the only realistic, and the only moral choice.

Free the South

Friday, May 20, 2011



The Immorality of Education
In the 21st Century

by Dr. Michael Hill

"All that education can do in any case is to teach us to make good use of what we are; if we are nothing to begin with, no amount of education can do us any good." - John Gould Fletcher
At one time in the not too distant past, the objective of higher education was the nurture of something M.E. Bradford called '"humane learning." At the core of humane learning lives the idea that one will ultimately learn not only about the world in general, but about one's own place in it. In other words, the properly educated student will develop a balanced character as a result of being taught the particulars about his own place and kin and not simply rootless abstractions such as the universal rights of man, global democracy, and equality.  Humane education, then, should bring out something that already exists in man: a reverence for his own kind. As John Gould Fletcher wrote in his essay, "Education, Past and Present" from the Southern Agrarian manifesto I'll Take My Stand, “All that education can do in any case is to teach us to make good use of what we are; if we are nothing to begin with, no amount of education can do us any good."

TRADITIONAL SOUTHERN EDUCATION THEN...
Before the Northeast forcibly imposed its own nationalistic educational system on the entire country after The War to Prevent Southern Independence, the South's schools and colleges were on the whole more humane and tolerant, in the true sense of the word, than their Northern counterparts. Northern institutions, characterized by a meddlesome Unitarian-Universalist strain, produced iconoclasts who reveled in destroying traditional social norms in the name of "progress." Based on the classical model Southern schools, by contrast, produced men of good character who ensured the continuation of a stable, conservative society.
... AND NOW
Traditionally, the South never bought into the nonsense that all persons are equally educable. Those in academia would do well to remember that Thomas Jefferson championed educating only "those persons whom nature has endowed with genius and virtue." Yet today our schools and colleges have substituted quantity for quality and consequently turn out hordes of graduates woefully deficient in the fundamental skills of reading, writing, and ciphering. In the spirit of Alexander Pope, who believed "A little learning is a dangerous thing," Dr. Robert Lewis Dabney predicted our current educational dilemma: "the common schools will have created a numerous 'public' of readers one-quarter or one-tenth cultivated: and the sure result will be the production for their use of a false, shallow, socialist literature, science, and theology infinitely worse than blank ignorance."
But perhaps we should not be too surprised at this turn of events. In a society polarized between an internationally-oriented American ruling class and a regionally-oriented populism, it serves the interest of the former to see that the latter is miseducated. If this can be done to larger and larger numbers of the populists' children, then so much the better for the elite.

ANTI-SOUTHERN EDUCATION
As one who took his terminal degree at a public Southern state university and spent nearly twenty years teaching there, I have witnessed first-hand the contemptible and immoral campaign to make Southern children into deracinated, interchangeable cogs for the New World Utopia to come. As a college or university freshman, our unwitting student is given what Donald Davidson calls "the beginnings of a [proper] social perspective and a social philosophy." For the young man or woman in the Deep South, more often than not this means being taught to reject his own place and kin. For example, a professor of Southern Literature at the University of Alabama once told her students that every time they saw a white-columned mansion it should remind them of how evil their ancestors were. I asked her if she had ever considered assigning John Pendleton Kennedy's Swallow Barn or Stark Young's So Red the Rose to balance her politically-correct, anti-South reading list. She replied matter-of-factly that she was not interested in presenting a balanced view of what to her was a despicable culture and civilization.

THINK GLOBALLY- DESTROY LOCALITIES
Unfortunately for us traditionalists, this situation is the rule and not the exception these days, especially in the humanities and liberal arts. What Davidson termed "desirable cultural attitudes" largely means taking the "world approach” to literature and history espoused by leftists such as our professor friend at Alabama. A planetary consciousness captured in the banal bumper-sticker philosophy, "Think globally-act locally," is replacing the local and regional consciousness that once -provided a beginning point of reference for Americans from all parts of the country. The Pennsylvania steel mill worker and the north Alabama plowboy both have local and family traditions that are studiously left uncultivated in today's global classroom.

THE ALIEN INVASION
The intrusion of alien professors pushing an alien worldview into Southern classrooms unfortunately has had the most telling effect on our colleges and universities. Not only do we find our historic symbols and traditions sacrificed to the gods of political correctness, but our classrooms have become hot-houses of anti-Southern propaganda. A Carpetbag and Scalawag professor intimidates the student who dares to defend his region rand its heroes, or the junior faculty member who might present something other than the current Marxist orthodoxy. It is all but impossible nowadays to find a course in Southern history taught by a patriotic Southerner because his superiors think him incapable of teaching the subject in an unbiased fashion. No one seems to give much consideration to the potential bias held by a liberal New Englander or Midwesterner. It strains credibility to imagine the situation reversed: a traditional, conservative Southern professor lecturing the students at Harvard or Yale on the moral deficiencies of their Yankee ancestors.

After all, the history of the South is much too important to be left to Southerners. If that were done the minds of the young down here might be corrupted with fables such as The War was not caused primarily by slavery or that the South's position on States' Rights and secession corresponded faithfully to the Founding Fathers' ideas. Generations of Southern boys and girls might be taught that Lincoln was not really the Great Emancipator and saviour of the Union but rather a vile, ambitious politician, the tool of Northern plutocrats intent on subverting the Constitution to destroy Southern economic competitiveness and to colonize the region and steal its abundant resources, all under the mask of "preserving the Union." In other words, if traditional Southerners are left in charge of teaching history and literature in their own region, then the myth of a glorious democratic Union, purchased with the blood of blue-clad saints and crowned by the martyrdom of Father Abraham, will be exposed as the big lie that it is.

In reality, we have an American Empire sired by the forebears of those who now dominate our cultural and educational institutions. We cannot expect them to permit the truth to be taught to the descendants of those who were branded "rebels" for defending the principles of the Old American Republic. Sadly, this is the heart of the immorality of what passes for education in the 21st century South. 

- Dr. Michael Hill is President of the League of the
South as well as a noted author and historian

Media & Leftists attack Confederate sign in Montgomery, AL

Confederate historical marker under attack

 A local television news channel (WAKA CBS) in Montgomery, AL has a story out which supports attacks on a historical marker at the site where Confederate States Government offices once stood. The article start with a negative slant against the marker and then quotes Black Leftist leaders from the area who oppose its presense. On the other hand, only a very weak case is made in the marker’s favour – note John Napier’s quote about “the good, bad and the ugly” of Southern history. Also note the part where the article refers to the time when the “Confederate government reigned supreme in the South.” This gives the idea that the CSA was not an elected government with popular support. The entire article reads like it was written by people who oppose Southern heritage and the traditional South:
A marker that features the Confederate battle flag is back in downtown Montgomery. It was removed six years ago and some people had hoped they would never see it again.
The sign marks where the offices of the Confederate government stood in 1861. It has seen opposition and protests for years without success.
“It makes me feel like we’re going backwards or maybe we’ve never moved forward from the fact that this would be up,” Re’Rene Rae said.
The marker has many meanings. It is a symbol for a critical moment in time when the Confederate government reigned supreme in the South and had seceded from the Union.
But others see it as a symbol of oppression and slavery, and said it does not belong on city property.
“To flaunt the Confederate flag in the faces of the black people here in Montgomery is insulting,” Rep. Alvin Holmes (D-Montgomery) said.
He said the marker should have never come back after it was removed in 2005 due to the Renaissance Hotel construction. The marker was never publicly discussed or announced before it was installed again.
“Because they knew the black leaders in the city of Montgomery would oppose it, so they want to get it installed first.”
But Mayor Todd Strange said the city council always had plans to bring it back. He said his preference was to place it at the First White House of the Confederacy, but a historical group met to discuss the significance of the marker and its location, and said otherwise.
“They came back and said it was historically significant at that location because that was where the offices were, so we’ve put it back just with the history of the location facing the front,” Strange said.
John Napier, who is a former member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, and involved in the donation of the marker in 1979, said he believes history can not be altered and the marker belongs where it is.
“It’s part of our history,” he said. “I don’t believe in censoring our history. Our history is the good, the bad and the ugly.”

Thursday, May 19, 2011

Hog Heaven


by Joyce Bennett 
 
Not too many years ago in the county where I was born, summer morning mists would hang over acres and acres of tobacco, a crop we have been raising for almost four centuries. Today, however, because most of our farmers have taken a government buy-out, it is, sadly, a surprise to come across a field topping out along a back road in August. If there is anything I associate more with my country upbringing and Southern heritage than the gummy weed so despised by anti-smoking crusaders, it would have to be that other staple of Southern agriculture, the hog.
In years gone by even county people who were not farmers kept three or four of them, and every fall our hogs met their inevitable demise. By the time I was in junior high school, I was far too sophisticated --and deracinated-- to appreciate the rustic rituals of autumn, wishing with all my heart I had been born a city girl and not some hick who had to live on a tobacco farm and eat "hug" meat.
But as a child, I had happily run barefoot up the path behind our house to the pen to watch my father feed the animals we raised each year. I enjoyed watching them eat and liked the mealy aroma of mash and water feed and how it coated their pretty pink snouts as they dipped them in the trough. I liked to scratch their backs and hear them grunt. I even liked the "smell" of the hogs themselves. Somehow it was not unpleasant to me.
Daddy loved his hogs and hated killing them. To spare them suffering, he hired a highly-regarded black neighbor to shoot them before slitting their throats. In pork-pie hat and galluses, a cigar in his mouth, Spencer Barnes aimed his rifle at each beloved head dropping one after the other to the hard ground. The Pennsylvania Dutch, who had come to the county in the thirties, did not kill their hogs before bleeding them, and my brother saw an Amish farmer beat with a board one poor thing that had broken its leg and wasn't moving fast enough to the slaughter to suit him. But my people were gentle.
To them hog killing was a big event. Family came to help; and also Agnes, the woman who had taken care of us children over the years and who was given to the telling of ancient and quite often gruesome tall tales. Until late into the night everyone sat around a large table in the kitchen cutting up the meat. It fell to my mother to prepare the country sausage, and she took great care in seasoning this delicacy, adding just the right amount of red pepper and sage and expertly twisting the plumped up casings into the links that would hang from tobacco sticks in the unctuous chill of a December meathouse. In the spring, we would take down from the rafters a moldy Easter ham and scrub it off, stuffing it with greens and onions and boiling it in a pillowcase for the holiday dinner.
I am proud of such experiences and proud of my Southern agrarian roots-- now. Though I returned to the county from the North almost thirty years ago, as a young woman I was anxious to shake off the sandy soil of a Maryland tobacco farm and eventually married a Midwesterner, moving to exotic places such as Minnesota and Iowa. It was in Iowa one gray winter day when the snow lay in dishwater dingy piles, that I saw a semi rig hauling some hogs to market. My heart broke for them. Hogs should not be treated this way. They should live in a small pen and be loved by tender-hearted people who speak softly to them and scratch their backs and who kill them with mercy and respect for the sustenance they provide.
But I have not turned into a militant vegetarian. No one loves country ham more than I do. I baste it in Jack Daniels. And I pride myself on my greens and fatback. As I grow older, however, I feel increasingly guilty about buying corporate meat, about buying that plastic tube of Old South-style sausage at the supermarket. Animal rights types are not necessarily wrong in calling attention to the miseries that most livestock endure before their final terrifying moments in a gigantic slaughter house. And right-wing radio talk show personalities might ridicule anyone who protests the plight of corporate farm animals, but, in truth, a little kindness towards the creatures over which God has given us dominion isn't left-wing or radical. It is simply Christian.
Because most people today might not find it practical to keep hogs out back, buying meat on the hoof or meat products from a farmer we know and trust would seem a good alternative to supporting the big agricultural conglomerates. The totalitarians in DC, however, through increasingly complex regulation, threaten small farming operations, and the Southern National Congress has now called on the federal government to end its sponsorship of big agribusiness and to "restore the common law rights of farmers to sell at farm gate."
In first and foremost defending the Christian agrarian substrate of Southern society, we begin to frustrate the American Empire's plans to control even the most seemingly mundane aspects of our lives.
________________________________

Joyce Bennett is the Chairman of the Maryland League of the South and a Maryland Delegate to the Southern National Congress.