Congress Considers Confederate Commemorations

Reposted from Al Mackey’s blog @https://studycivilwar.wordpress.com/2017/09/10/congress-considers-confederate-commemorations/ . Al thanks for the heads up. many articles online I do not need to add a link for you.

Advertisements

Updating Charlottesville

I received this in an email, I HAVE NOT verified any statements made. I DO NOT HAVE THE TIME to research each statement. I AM posting this here in hopes that others can add more credible info.

Something to consider–
Russ Vaughan submits the following:
Evidence is turning up from, of all places, the Southern Poverty Law Center, as well as Breitbart and others, that this character, Jason Kessler, who organized the suspicious and supposed Alt-Right demonstration in Charlottesville, Va. that blew up in everyone’s face, is a cunning lefty holdover from the Occupy Wall Street movement and a former Barack Obama supporter. I smell Soros money, sabotage, and Democrat dirty tricks here.

I’ve been suspicious of the nature of the violence at this supposed Alt-Right demonstration since the news first began breaking. It is no secret that radical elements in the Democrat left have been routinely utilizing violence when it suits their purposes. We also know via secret tapings by Project Veritas that the Democratic Party has a semi-official director of dirty ops, Dick Creamer, who hires, trains, and emplaces professional disruptors to encounter, engage, and infiltrate conservative demonstrations to foment violence, assuring that the demonstrations then become the targets of negative media attention – naturally, against the conservative side. Creamer was caught on videotape boasting about his nefarious capabilities when he thought he was in friendly company.

So here we now have another blown supposedly conservative demonstration, where violence erupts and people are killed, and guess who just happens to be a ringleader of the various ultra-right to Alt-Right organizations ranging from KKK and neo-Nazis to the kind of patriotic folks who might go to a Flag Day celebration! Um, that would be our vaporous political will o’ the wisp, Jason Kessler, whose Occupy activities may well have put him in operational cahoots with high-level Democrat operatives. And owing to the leniency of Virginia open carry laws, too many of Jason’s followers just had to parade their personal armories in all their camo combat gear, showing off their minuteman firepower. My first reaction at seeing those clowns strutting down the street like they were in Mosul was, like that of many of my fellow NRA members and military veterans, shaking my fist and yelling at the TV, “No! No! No, you idiots! No!” And that kind of award-winning stupidity makes me wonder if the head planner for the event, Jason Soros…er, Kessler, didn’t have that firepower demonstration all lined up and ready to go precisely to make those right-wing tools look just like the fools they were being, while scaring the bejeezus out of the lefties, blacks, and MSM twerps.

There’s still not enough evidence on the actual violence, other than the schizophrenic kid who ran over the woman, to make any kind of assessment as to who did what in the confrontations between the right-wing demonstrators and the surprisingly strong counter-demonstration. I have to wonder if this Kessler fellow, strong Barack Obama-supporter that he is, had a hand in making sure his Alt-Right marchers were clearly guaranteed to encounter a strong crowd of riled up counter-protesters as well. The reporting of Kessler’s background, as well as that of Charlottesville mayor and Democrat activist Mike Signer and Vice Mayor Wes Bellamy, has convinced me that Charlottesville was a Democratic Party black operation, planned, organized, and carried out to its successful conclusion, to make the media portray all these conservative whites as stupid, racist, and violent. I believe that it was done by this soulless young man, who succeeded in selling himself to the dumb-bunny right-wingers as one of them.
MORE PROOF CHARLOTTESVILLE WAS A FALSE FLAG OP


“This is being driven by forces of evil that are beyond what normal people can think about.” – Representative Louis Gomert, (R-TX)

In the following clip from Fox News, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) talks about what happened on August 12 in Charlottesville, placing special emphasis on the fact that demonstrators for the Ku Klux Klan and Black Lives Matter arrived at the event on the same busses!

He also stresses the need for the appointment of a special counsel to investigate who paid for sending all those different groups to Charlottesville, and who ordered the stand-down of the police.

OBVIOUSLY YOUTUBE CENSORED THIS, SO HERE IT IS:

Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for uploading this video: http://vid.me/rBZbW

And the mere fact it is censored on Youtube proves Youtube is part of the “forces of evil that are beyond what normal people can think about.”

What I really said–

Alexander Stephens– V. P. Confederate States of America

Copied From — http://www.flatfenders.com/SCV/Heritage%20Defense_files/Cornerstone.htm

What I Really Said in the Cornerstone Speech
Alexander Hamilton Stephens

As for my Savanna speech, about which so much has been said and in regard to which I am represented as setting forth “slavery” as the “corner-stone” of the Confederacy, it is proper for me to state that that speech was extemporaneous, the reporter’s notes, which were very imperfect, were hastily corrected by me; and were published without further revision and with several glaring errors. The substance of what I said on slavery was, that on the points under the old Constitution out of which so much discussion, agitation, and strife between the States had arisen, no future contention could arise, as these had been put to rest by clear language. I did not say, nor do I think the reporter represented me as saying, that there was the slightest change in the new Constitution from the old regarding the status of the African race amongst us. (Slavery was without doubt the occasion of secession; out of it rose the breach of compact, for instance, on the part of several Northern States in refusing to comply with Constitutional obligations as to rendition of fugitives from service, a course betraying total disregard for all constitutional barriers and guarantees.)

I admitted that the fathers, both of the North and the South, who framed the old Constitution, while recognizing existing slavery and guarnateeing its continuance under the Constitution so long as the States should severally see fit to tolerate it in their respective limits, were perhaps all opposed to the principle. Jefferson, Madison, Washington, all looked for its early extinction throughout the United States. But on the subject of slavery – so called – (which was with us, or should be, nothing but the proper subordination of the inferior African race to the superior white) great and radical changes had taken place in the realm of thought; many eminent latter-day statesmen, philosophers, and philanthropists held different views from the fathers.

The patriotism of the fathers was not questioned, nor their ability and wisdom, but it devolved on the public men and statesmen of each generation to grapple with and solve the problems of their own times.

The relation of the black to the white race, or the proper status of the coloured population amongst us, was a question now of vastly more importance than when the old Constitution was formed. The order of subordination was nature’s great law; philosophy taught that order as the noraml condition of the African amongst European races. Upon this recognized principle of a proper subordination, let it be called slavery or what not, our State institutions were formed and rested. The new Confederation was entered into with this distinct understanding. This principle of the subordination of the inferior to the superior was the “corner-stone” on which it was formed. I used this metaphor merely to illustrate the firm convictions of the framers of the new Constitution that this relation of the black to the white race, which existed in 1787, was not wrong in itself, either morally or politically; that it was in conformity to nature and best for both races. I alluded not to the principles of the new Government on this subject, but to public sentiment in regard to these principles. The status of the African race in the new Constitution was left just where it was in the old; I affirmed and meant to affirm nothing else in this Savannah speech.

My own opinion of slavery, as often expressed, was that if the institution was not the best, or could not be made the best, for both races, looking to the advancement and progress of both, physically and morally, it ought to be abolished. It was far from being what it might and ought to have been. Education was denied. This was wrong. I ever condemned the wrong. Marriage was not recognized. This was a wrong that I condemned. Many things connected with it did not meet my approval but excited my disgust, abhorrence, and detestation. The same I may say of things connected with the best institutions in the best communities in which my lot has been cast. Great improvements were, however, going on in the condition of blacks in the South. Their general physical condition not only as to necessaries but as to comforts was better in my own neighbourhood in 1860, than was that of the whites when I can first recollect, say 1820. Much greater would have been made, I verily believe, but for outside agitation. I have but small doubt that education would have been allowed long ago in Georgia, except for outside pressure which stopped internal reform.

Return

Recollections of Alexander H. Stephens edited by Myrta Lockett Avary
Originally published by Sunny South Publishing Company and Doubleday, Page & Company, 1910
Louisana State University Press, Baton Rouge, 1998, pages 172-175.

At the time I posted this info I did not have the book. It may be found online at https://books.google.com/books?id=NMEEAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA468&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=3#v=onepage&q=savana%20speech&f=false

This is an important fact was was not npoted at the time of posting–

Recollections of Alexander H. Stephens: His Diary Kept when a Prisoner at Fort Warren, Boston Harbour, 1865; Giving Incidents and Reflections of His Prison Life and Some Letters and Reminiscences

Decesnadnts of Alexender Stephens just have no clue—–

Rob Baker thinks he has really found something of a smoking gun as he writes an article about Alexander Stephens (VP of the Confederacy) ancestor calling for Confederate statues to come down.
https://historicstruggle.wordpress.com/2017/08/25/ancestor-of-alexander-stephens-speaks-out/

As I have said many times ignorance of history infects all levels of education and classes of people. Stephens ancestor is no exception. Let’s take a look shall we? Oh before we start Remember the Sacco article “Should Historians make Judgments” bakers article fits right in that groove.

Baker first mentions the Cornerstone Speech by Stephens– DOESN”T EVERYONE??? Anyway When yoou read the Cornerstone speech, be sure to note these two parts—

The Cornerstone Speech was delivered without notes by Vice President Alexander H. Stephens, and no official printed version exists, although a local newspaper reporter printed a transcription of the speech later that same week. The text below was taken from that newspaper article in the Savannah [Georgia] Republican, as reprinted in Henry Cleveland, Alexander H. Stephens, in Public and Private: With Letters and Speeches, before, during, and since the War, Philadelphia, 1886, pp. 717-729.

and

[REPORTER’S NOTE. — Your reporter begs to state that the above is not a perfect report, but only such a sketch of the address of Mr. Stephens as embraces, in his judgment, the most important points presented by the orator. — G.]

So we see by these notes that this IS NOT an accurate transcription of the Cornerstone speech. Therefore it should not be used in a historical discussion.

And that is all Baker really has except for some comments of ill informed two brothers who claim to be descendants of VP A. Stephens. Maybe they are maybe they are not, who knows?? At any rate Baker and the Stephens boys, you should not judge unless you have the full facts.

Answering one question—

Should Historians Make “Judgements” About the Past in their Scholarship? Nick Sacco

https://pastexplore.wordpress.com/2017/08/25/should-historians-make-judgements-about-the-past-in-their-scholarship/#comments

In a nutshell no historian should make a judgement in his writing. The reason is simple he should be able to give complete information about an issue or subject in an unbiased manner. I will honestly say that none of the so called historians I have tried to debate will give you an unbiased review of past events. That point is proven here on COLD SOUTHERN STEEL.

2017 GAR Resolution

2017 GAR Resolution

Our Union counterparts have more nerve than the National UDC

SONS OF UNION VETERANS

Battlefield Flag and Monument Policy
As approved during the 136th National Encampment
Lansing, Michigan, 2017

WHEREAS, we, as the descendants of Union soldiers, sailors and marines and revenue cutter servicemen who, as members of the Grand Army of the Republic, met in joint reunions with Confederate veterans under both flags in the bond of unity.

WHEREAS, we, as members of the Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War strongly condemn the use of any American or Confederate flag by any and all hate groups.

WHEREAS, we the members of the Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War strongly condemn the removal, defacement or destruction of any Civil War Veterans Monument or tablet, whether Union or confederate.

WHEREAS, we, the members of the Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War, support the flying of all U.S. and C.S.A. flags at our National Battlefield sites and to be honored publicly in museums as our authentic archival documentation of our National past.

THEREFORE, we, the members of the Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War are committed to teaching the history of the American Civil War in our educational system and ask that all descendants of Civil War participants join us in this endeavor.

**********************************************************

I could not find a link to the national SUV website that was not corrupted, I will use this a verification.
http://www.iowasuvcw.org/

GP

In a sense the governor is right—

I have been very busy lately with various projects, to his credit so has Al Mackey. He has been keeping his keyboard hot in spreading his mis-information and untruths. Mackey is so busy with his attacks, it is almost impossible to keep pace with him unless one stays on the computer all day.

See https://studycivilwar.wordpress.com/2017/08/23/maines-delusional-governor-shows-his-ignorance-again/

This posting is about Mackey attacking Gov. Paul LePage, of Maine because of comments he war regarding the Cause of the War of Northern Aggression and the number of people from Maine who fought for the Confederacy. These comment6s were, according to Mackey—
In a radio interview Tuesday, August 22, 2017, LePage said, “What was the war? If you really truly read and study the Civil War, it was turned into a battle for the slaves, but initially — I mean, 7,600 Mainers fought for the Confederacy. And they fought because they were concerned about — they were farmers — and they were concerned about their land. Their property. It was a property rights issue as it began. The President of the United States, who was a very brilliant politician, really made it about slavery to a great degree.”

To be honest I am almost sure that no one person can give you accurate information on how many Mainers fought for the South. That being the case I won’t even argue the numbers without some sort of credible sources detailing these men’s service and state the place of birth or residence background. Heck for that matter there is no absolute number on how many men from Mississippi actually served the Confederacy!!!!!

The cause of the war, to my point of view, would be somewhat of a stretch to say it was about land, unless we are talking about Fort Sumter land. However I will give the good Governor the benefit of the doubt because I just assume he he is somewhat right until proven wrong by historical documents.

That brings us to the worn out issue of slavery. Man you would think that Mackey instead of spending so much time on the computer, would at least spend SOME time doing some actual credible research to support his points. Instead of some historical facts proving that the war was about slavery Mackey makes this generic statement—
Anyone who has read what the secessionists said and wrote knows the root cause of the war was always slavery. They weren’t concerned about their land, they were concerned about maintaining slavery.

I for one don’t know ALL what the secessionist said, but I will say this I have never read anywhere, in any document or speech the “secessionist” said we are going to war for slavery. To be honest I have never read where Lincoln or any other Union man of authority said we are going to war to free the slaves. Just one example of the slavery issue, West Virginia came into the Union as a slave state. Please do not believe me, look this info up for yourself.

According to Mackey, David Blight Historian at Yale Univ. had this to say —-
CNN interviewed two historians, David Blight of Yale University and Matthew Karp of Princeton University. “David Blight, Civil War historian and professor at Yale, told CNN in an interview that it was doubtful more than a handful of Mainers fought for the Confederacy. The state of Maine was one of the strongest supporters of the Union. Blight also took issue with LePage’s claim that the Civil War was initially a conflict over land. ‘That’s patented nonsense. It’s appalling degree of ignorance and misinformation by a governor of a New England state, or any state for that matter,’ he said. Blight reiterated that the war was fought over slavery and its expansion into new territories. ‘This war was rooted in the problem racial slavery and its expansion, and the ways in which that issue tore apart the American political system and then tore apart the Union,’ Blight said. ‘And to say that the war was only in the interest of farmers worried about their property rights is beyond ridiculous in the 21st century.’

Again no citation for Blight’s comments. I really don’t know of the interview, time allowing I may try to find it and post some comments,

“Matthew Karp, a Civil War historian at Princeton University, told CNN ‘the idea that Maine was a Confederate hotbed is pretty ludicrous.’ ————–
‘Slaveholders believed their right to human property was enshrined in the Constitution, while Lincoln and the Republicans did not — a major reason that so many slave-holding leaders embraced secession after Lincoln was elected.’ “

I can agree with Karp that slavery was ONE cause of secession, but not the only cause. Tariffs, and Indian raids was also a cause. Again I challenge you to look it up.

My last comment on this page, I will write Mr. David Blight of Yale university to see if he has any additional comments he desires to make. There is a list here of what appears to be about 10 pages of contact info for Prof. Blight — https://www.yale.edu/search/google/BLIGHT?query=BLIGHT
I am gonna attempt to make contact with him by way of this address—

David Blight | Department of History

David W. Blight is Class of 1954 Professor of American History at Yale University, joining that faculty in January, 2003. He previously taught at Amherst College …
history.yale.edu/people/david-blight

Frankly I have trouble believing that an educated man, a teacher, a person with an unbiased view, actually believes SLAVERY was the cause of the WBTS