No Shame what-so-ever

Props to Jessie Sanford for this gem.

The Confederate Flag is just a symbol of states rights… Yeah, and the Swastika is just a Tibetan good luck charm, c’mon now.”

Robin Williams, Live on Broadway (2002)

by Jessie Alan Sanford August 12, 2014 Kevin really? You are going to use a man’s sad passing as a way to further your anti-Southern agenda. Sir you are one sick puppy

by Kevin Levin August 13, 2014 Yes, my anti-Southern agenda knows no bounds. This comment has to go into the hall of fame for nuttiest.


We all know Robin Williams made his living by telling jokes. Notice he is playing onBroadway, he may just be playing to the crowd. Maybe not. I suspect Williams is not into true history.

This is more proof that Levins blog is just a trashy joke.


51 thoughts on “No Shame what-so-ever

      • and under the US flag slaves and slavery was brought into this country. I can post quite a few things the US flag carries as baggage. Are you sure you want to go there??

      • No actually slavery on this continent began under the British colors. And yes, many bad things happened under the US flag and I bet more will happen in the future. But for the sin of slavery, the US flag flew over it longer the rebel flag, but it was also the US flag that ended it, while the rebel flag wanted to make it the reason for nationhood.

      • You need to read. I said this country.

        “rebel flag wanted to make it the reason for nationhood”

        Really. Prove it. Remember West Virginai came into the Union as a slve state.

  1. A. Stephen’s Cornerstone Speech…

    “Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.”

    • I knew you were going to post that speech so let’s adda couple of facts shall we??

      The Cornerstone Speech was delivered extemporaneously by Vice President Alexander H. Stephens, and no official printed version exists. The text below was taken from a newspaper article in the Savannah 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.

      [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.]

      • He gave a speech outlining the basic point here a week before saying the same thing. So I will take it at face value. And as I have said before, things after the war are a bit suspect since they had a chance to backtrack their thoughts to cover up for slavery.

      • and I have just proved that speech is not not reliable as a historical document. You can take the speech however you want, I really do not care. You can alos dismiss the reporters notes at the bottom of the page and also dismiss the sources from which this came, that yooo is up to you. Feel free to be as wrong as you want, I know by admitting you are wrong sinks your agenda

        BTW this document is not ater the war and Stephens did not make the reporters notes. Who is back tracking?? The sources I posted are the events as they happened. It is true history and I let the facts speak for themselves, I added no commentary.

  2. I know the speech is not after the war but he wrote after the war what he meant to say during the Cornerstone speech…backtracking what he now wanted it to say. For it being only a sketch of what was said it was very complete.

    Do you have a link for that information?

    • Corey,
      The reporter on the scene tells you this may not be accurate. That being the case why do you want to argue the accuarcy of the Cornerstone? And if the Confederate Constitution was all about slavery, then how does this make the way allabout slavery when I have posted Mr. Buchanan’s chapters about the start of the war and he clearly says it was about thec ollection of duties?

      Now I have proved the war was not about slavery. This WILLL NOT turn into an exchange of opions between the two of us. Post your facts and the sources. If you have none then move on.


      Copied From —

      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 regrd 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.


      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 173-175.

      • The above is post-war…I too would backtrack…we have been over this before.

        For the North is was not about slavery…it was about saving the Union

        For the south it was about slavery…they feared that Lincoln’s election would spell the end of slavery as it was…so they rebelled.

        As with Stephens, Buchanan is covering his butt because he failed to act when it counted.

      • You are right we have been over this before.

        Holy smokes Corey. Do you really think I am going to belive the North was fighting to save the Union and the South was fighting for slavery?? Think my man. That statement is not realistic at all. Fuirst of all to save the Union is to save slavery. It is nothing but a smoke screen. Second why would the Soutjh be fighting for slavery when the North IS NOT trying to free the slaves. Think for gosh sakes.

        Don[‘t send to a website that is biased. Post the facts. Shiow me where the Confederacy said we are fighting to maintain the institution. I have already posted documents that blow any argument you can find out of the water.

        I have already proved to you that the Cornerstone is a flawed document by the reporters notes. Why do you keep flogging that dead horse. In the case of Buchannan, feel free to go through the chapters I posted and find some fact that is not true. If you can do that I will post the information.

        There will be no more opinions posted. I am not wasting my time against your opinions.

    • I have heard that argument before…How could the south be fighting to preserve slavery if the Union was not fighting to free the slaves. You ask me to think…you need to think. Read the Secession Commissioners and learn and understand why the south seceded.

      Yes, saving the Union would have included the institution of slavery. However, you have to look at the Republican platform from 1860 and see where they wanted to stop the expansion of slavery and to understand that Lincoln and the Republicans did not want to end slavery where it existed…they knew they could not short of a Const. Amendment. But keeping it bottled up and not spreading into the territories might cause its eventual death. That was what the south feared and thus fought a war to keep slavery safe, alive and spreading. The only way the saw that that was possible was now, after 1860, to leave the Union. Thus, the North could fight to preserve the Union while the south fought to protect slavery…it is quite possible since it happened. Not opinion but fact.

      As for the “biased” website…do you really think the website is biased…it is full of the statements made by the secessionists themselves…if it is biased it is biased for the truth. You didn’t read the links you just complained they are biased because any moron who read it would not claim bias.

  3. “What was the reason that induced Georgia to take the step of secession? This reason may be summed up in one single proposition. It was a conviction, a deep conviction on the part of Georgia, that a separation from the North-was the only thing that could prevent the abolition of her slavery. This conviction, sir, was the main cause. It is true, sir, that the effect of this conviction was strengthened by a further conviction that such a separation would be the best remedy for the fugitive slave evil, and also the best, if not the only remedy, for the territorial evil. But, doubtless, if it had not been for the first conviction this step would never have been taken. It therefore becomes important to inquire whether this conviction was well founded.”

  4. “On the 29th of November last, the Legislature of Mississippi, by an unanimous vote, called a Convention of her people, to take into consideration the existing relations between the Federal Government and herself, and to take such measures for the vindication of her sovereignty and the protection of her institutions as should appear to be demanded. At the same time, a preamble, setting forth the grievances of the Southern people on the slavery question, and a resolution, declaring that the secession of each aggrieved State, was the proper remedy, was adopted by a vote almost amounting to unanimity. The last clause of the preamble and the resolution, are as follows:”

    “”Resolved, That the election of a President of the United States by the votes of one section of the Union only, on the ground that there exists an irrepressible conflict between the two sections in reference to their respective systems of labor and with an avowed purpose of hostility to the institution of slavery, as it prevails in the Southern States, and as recognized in the compact of Union, would so threaten a destruction of the ends for which the Constitution was formed, as to justify the slaveholding States in taking council together for their separate protection and safety.”

    This was the ground taken, gentlemen, not only by Mississippi, but by other slaveholding States, in view of the then threatened purpose, of a party founded upon the idea of unrelenting and eternal hostility to the institution of slavery, to take possession of the power of the Government and use it to our destruction. It cannot, therefore, be pretended that the Northern people did not have ample warning of the disastrous and fatal consequences that would follow the success of that party in the election, and impartial history will emblazon it to future generations, that it was their folly, their recklessness and their ambition, not ours, which shattered into pieces this great confederated Government, and destroyed this great temple of constitutional liberty which their ancestors and ours erected, in the hope that their descendants might together worship beneath its roof as long as time should last.

    But, in defiance of the warning thus given and of the evidences accumulated from a thousand other sources, that the Southern people would never submit to the degradation implied in the result of such an election, that sectional party, bounded by a geographical line which excluded it from the possibility of obtaining a single electoral vote in the Southern States, avowing for its sentiment implacable hatred to us, and for its policy the destruction of our institutions, and appealing to Northern prejudice, Northern passion, Northern ambition and Northern hatred of us, for success, thus practically disfranchizing the whole body of the Southern people, proceeded to the nomination of a candidate for the Presidency who, though not the most conspicuous personage in its ranks, was yet the truest representative of its destructive principles.

    The steps by which it proposed to effect its purposes, the ultimate extinction of slavery, and the degradation of the Southern people, are too familiar to require more than a passing allusion from me.”

    “Under the false pretence of restoring the government to the original principles of its founders, but in defiance and contempt of those principles, it avowed its purpose to take possession of every department of power, executive, legislative and judicial, to employ them in hostility to our institutions. By a corrupt exercise of the power of appointment to office, they proposed to pervert the judicial power from its true end and purpose, that of defending and preserving the Constitution. to be the willing instrument of its purposes of wrong and oppression. In the meantime it proposed to disregard the decisions of that august tribunal, and by the exertion of bare-faced power, to exclude slavery from the public Territory, the common property of all the States, and to abolish the internal slave trade between the States acknowledging the legality of that institution.

    It proposed further to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, and in all places within the Territory of the several States, subject under the Constitution to the jurisdiction of Congress, and to refuse hereafter under all circumstances, admission into the Union of any State with a Constitution recognizing the institution of slavery.

    Having thus placed the institution of slavery, upon which rests not only the whole wealth of the Southern people, but their very social and political existence, under the condemnation of a government established for the common benefit, it proposed in the future, to encourage immigration into the public Territory, by giving the public land to immigrant settlers, so as, within a brief time, to bring into the Union free States enough to enable it to abolish slavery within the States themselves.

    I have but stated generally the outline and the general programme of the party to which I allude without entering into particular details or endeavoring to specify the various forms of attack, which have been devised and suggested by the leaders of that party upon our institutions.

    That this general statement of its purposes is a truthful one, no intelligent observer of events will for a moment deny; but the general view and purpose of the party has been sufficiently developed by the President elect.

    “It is my opinion,” says Mr. Lincoln, “that the slavery agitation will not cease until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure permanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect the house to fall, but I expect it to cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all another. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest its further spread and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction, or its advocates will push it forward until it shall become alike lawful in all the States-old as well as new, North as well as South.”

  5. “This, gentlemen, brings me directly to the causes which I desire to lay before you. For fully thirty years or more, the people of the Northern States have assailed the institution of African slavery. They have assailed African slavery in every form in which, by our contiguity of territory and our political alliance with them, they have been permitted to approach it.

    During that period of thirty years, large masses of their people have associated themselves together for the purpose of abolishing the institution of African slavery, and means, the most fearful were suggested to the subject race-rising and murdering their masters being the charities of those means. In pursuance of this idea, their representatives in the federal government have endeavored by all the means that they could bring to bear, so to shape the legislation as almost to limit, to restrict, to restrain the slaveholding States from any political interest in the accretion of the government. So that as my distinguished colleague [judge Benning], stated to you on yesterday, the decree goes forth that there are to be no more slave States admitted into the Union.

    Secondly, then, in pursuance of the same purpose that I have indicated, a large majority of the States of the Confederation have refused to carry out those provisions of the Constitution which are absolutely necessary to the existence of the slave States, and many of them have stringent laws to prevent the execution of those provisions; and eight of these States have made it criminal, even in their citizens to execute these provisions of the Constitution of the United States, which, by the progress of the government, have become now necessary to the protection of an industry which furnishes to the commerce of the Republic $250,000,000 per annum, and on which the very existence of twelve millions of people depends. In not one of these seventeen States can a citizen of one of the fifteen States claim his main property, and in many of them the persons of the citizens of these States have been violated, and in numerous cases the violence has resulted in murder.

    Third. The citizens of not less than five of our confederates of the North have invaded the territory of their confederates of the slaveholding States, and proclaimed the intention of abolishing slavery by the annihilation of the slaveholders; and two of these States have refused to surrender the convicted felons to the demand of the invaded States; and one of these-one of the most influential-one, perhaps, recognized as the representative of what is called American sentiment and civilization, has, in its highest solemn form, approved of that invasion; and numbers of people, scattered throughout the whole extent of these seventeen States, have made votive offerings to the memory of the invaders.

    Fourth. The most populous, and by far, the most potent of our late confederates, has for years proclaimed, through the federal legislature and by her own sovereign act, that the conflict between slavery and non-slavery is a conflict for life and death. Now, there is the calm, oft-reiterated decree of a State containing three millions of people, conducting four-fifths of the commerce of the Republic, with additional millions diffused through the whole of these 17 States. And many of these States themselves have decreed that the institution of slavery is an offence to God, and, therefore, they are bound by the most sacred attributes which belong to human nature, to exterminate it. They have declared, in their most solemn form, that the institution of slavery, as it exists in the States of their political confederates, is an offence to their social institutions, and, therefore, that it should be exterminated. Finally, acting upon the impulse of their duties of self-protection and self-preservation, majorities, large majorities throughout the whole of these 17 States have placed the executive power of the Federal Government in the hands of those who are bound by the most sacred obligations, by their obligations to God, by their obligations to the social institutions of man, by their obligations of self-protection and self-preservation, to place the system of slavery as it exists in the Southern States upon a course of certain and final extinction. Twenty millions of people, having in their hands one of the strongest Governments on earth, and impelled by a perfect recognition of the most powerful obligations which fall upon man, have declared that the vital interests of eight millions of people shall be exterminated. In other words, the decree, the result of this cumulation which I have endeavored to show you, was inaugurated on the 6th of November last, so far as the institution of slavery is concerned, in the confederates of the Northern non-slaveholding States. That decree is annihilation, and you can make nothing shorter of it.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s