SHNV's Supporters for Apr. 2012:
Brock Townsend
Faithful Southron, THANK YOU!!

Southern Heritage <br>News and Views

Thursday, August 17, 2017

It Was All About Money or The Reason For The War Against Southern Independence

Dr. Newton James Brooks Jr.

*In reading this article, please remember that the terms revenue, import tax, and tariff, as used in this article, all mean the same thing. Some people, at the time of secession and in the years leading up to it, referred to the tariff or import tax by one of those two terms. Others referred to it as the revenue. All three terms mean the same thing.

 Most of those reading this article already know that the War Against Southern Independence was not fought to free the slaves. Democratic Congressman Clement Vallandigham, of Ohio, had this to say of the Republican Party and slavery, “I will not consent that an honest and conscientious opposition to slavery forms any part of the motives of the leaders of the Republican Party. (Vallandigham, p.52).
Lincoln himself stated more than once, as in his inaugural address, that the North was not fighting to free the slaves. Lincoln and the Republicans expressed their willingness to allow the continued existence of slavery where it then existed. Lincoln, in a letter dated December 22, 1860, written to Alexander Stevens, has this to say. “Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would, directly or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears.” (Stevens shortly after became Vice-President of the Confederate States of America.)                               
            The purpose of this article is not to go into the reasons or the purpose behind the anti-slavery movement. It was not however out of a desire to help the slave, not at any rate on the part of most of the leaders and financiers of the anti-slavery movement. Therefore, though problems due to agitation over slavery will be mentioned briefly, another whole article would need to be written to explain what caused the anti-slavery movement in the United States and what drove it.
            As if this was not enough to prove Lincoln’s willingness to tolerate the continued existence of slavery, on March 2, 1861, just two days before he was sworn in as President, a proposed new constitutional amendment was passed by Congress. It stated in part that “no amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress any power to abolish or interfere with slavery in any of the States by whose laws it may be allowed.” This amendment is known as the Corwin Amendment. It was signed by Lincoln only two weeks after he became President. It was then sent by him to the governors of all the states for those states to ratify it, so that it would become a part of the Constitution. If ratified, it would have become the 13th Amendment to the Constitution. For that to happen it had to be ratified by ¾ of the states. Two Republican controlled state legislatures did ratify it, before the Republicans realized that guaranteeing slavery would neither keep a state in the Union, nor cause the return of any of the states that had already left. 
            Initially, the people of the North and their politicians (with the exception of Lincoln and a few others) did not oppose the secession of any of the Southern States. Most Democrats and Republicans openly said they considered secession to be a right of every state. The Democrats were sorry to see any of the Southern States leave the Union, though many in the Republican Party openly said they were glad to see those Democrat dominated states secede, as this would leave a Republican majority in both Houses of Congress, allowing the Republicans to run the country without interference.
            The Harrisburg Pennsylvania Telegraph of November 12, 1860, a Republican paper, went much farther than saying that secession was a right. It said in an editorial, “We have only to say that if South Carolina, Georgia, or Alabama, or all of them, desire to withdraw from the Union,  . . . . ‘the sooner the better. . . . . Let them do as they please, and when they please, with one solitary condition, viz. that their separation shall be final. Their absence would be an incalculable and invaluable relief to the balance of the people of these United States.” (Bold type inserted by the author of this article.)
            Why would the Republican Party want to see the Southern states leave the Union? When the Republican national convention was held in Chicago in 1860, its party platform voiced opposition to slavery in the territories, support for free land in the territories for white settlers, a railroad to the Pacific, and a higher tariff on imported goods. (Carman & McKee, “A History of the United States,” Vol. 1. p.836). This tariff was called a protective tariff.  This meant that in addition to being needed to pay for a national railroad to the Pacific and to enable the government to give free land in the West to settlers, it was also meant to protect the higher priced goods of the Northeast from completion with the better quality and lower priced manufactured goods imported from Europe.
            All of these objects had been steadfastly opposed by the Democrats, and the Democratic Party was at that time dominated by the South, which gave it a large part of its votes. It therefore stood to reason that if the South seceded from the Union, the Republican Party would dominate and outvote its opposition. It would then be able to achieve all of its political goals.
            Only a few years before this the two political parties in America had been the Democrats and the American or Know-Nothing Party. The Know-Nothings were an extremely anti-Catholic Party. One of their stated goals had been to take the right to vote away from Catholics. They claimed Catholics were anti-American in their views. The great strength of the Know-Nothings was in the North.
There were those however who said the real reason the Know-Nothings wanted to take the right to vote from Catholics was because the vast majority of Catholics tended to vote Democrat. (Marshall, Thomas F. “Speeches and Writings of Thomas F. Marshall,” pp.459-460). The just mentioned Thomas Marshall was a former Congressman from Kentucky and a nephew of former chief justice of the Supreme Court John Marshall. He went farther in his denunciation of the Know-Nothings and their desire to take the vote from the Catholics in America.
Prior to the formation of the Know-Nothing Party, the dominant party in the North had been the Whig Party. One of the stated goals of the Northern Whigs had been a high protective tariff. The Know-Nothings also supported a high protective tariff.        The Democratic Party had prevented such a tariff for many years. Marshall felt those who desired such a tariff thought that by depriving Catholics of the right to vote that they would weaken the opposition party, the Democrats, to the extent that the Democrats would no longer be able to stop the country from getting a high protective tariff. (Marshall, p.461).       
When the Republican Party was formed in 1852, the Northern Know-Nothings joined it. Like the Know-Nothing Party, one of the goals of the new party was a high protective tariff. There were too many Democrats in the West and the Midwest however for the Republican Party to accomplish that goal. Joined with the Democrats of the South, they continued to stop all attempts to give the Republicans the kind of high tariff they wanted. Now, with the talk of secession, the Republicans felt that at last their chance had come. Destiny was smiling upon them. All that was needed was the secession of many or all of the states of the South.                                                                           
On 13 November 1860, the Brooklyn Daily Eagle stated its view that should any states attempt secession there would be nothing to do except to let them go.
            The Cincinnati Daily Commercial echoed similar sentiments by advocating that there be no attempt, “through forcible coercion,” to keep states in the Union should they desire to leave.
            The Davenport (Iowa) Democrat and News, on 17 November 1860, editorialized against secession, but in its editorial it noted that it was apparently in the minority in the North, where most of "the leading and most influential papers of the Union" believe "that any State of the Union has a right to secede."
            An editorial in another Republican paper, the New York Tribune, of Monday, November 19, 1860, stated that the Union should never be held together by force. It further said, on page 4, column 2. “. . . . whenever the Slave States, or the Cotton States only, shall unitedly, coolly say to the rest, "We want to get out of the Union," we shall urge that their request be acceded to.
            The Valley Spirit, a Democratic paper in  Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, under the heading, “The Duty of the North,” on December 14, 1860, said, "The duty of the people of the North in the present crisis is plain. If Southern States will secede  . . . . why then, let them secede.” In this editorial, this Democratic paper did not urge or rejoice in the secession of any Southern State, rather it urged the people of the North to allow any state that wished to secede, to go in peace.
            Three days later (December 17, 1860), the influential editor, Horace Greeley, a Republican, writing in his own paper, the New York Tribune, supported peaceful secession. He wrote, “If the Declaration of Independence justified the secession of 3,000,000 colonists in 1776, I do not see why the Constitution ratified by the same men should not justify the secession of 5,000,000 of the Southerners from the Federal Union in 1861. . . . . And when a section of our Union resolves to go out, we shall resist any coercive acts to keep it in. We hope never to live in a Republic where one section is pinned to the other section by bayonets.” Greeley’s was one of the last Republican editorials in favor of allowing peaceful secession from the Union.
            South Carolina was the first state to secede. On December 20, 1860, that state voted to leave the Union.
            All talk by Republicans and many others about peaceful separation changed once the Republican leadership realized that if the Deep South successfully left the Union, most of the income of the federal government would disappear. The income of the federal government came primarily from the import tax, called the tariff, and referred to by Lincoln as the “revenue”. The South paid nearly 75% of the tariff, and in 1860 the tariff provided 90% of the income of the Federal government. Most of the money (75%) spent on the states by the Federal government was spent to benefit the North. Only 25% was spent to benefit the South. As the fiery secessionist from South Carolina, Robert Barnwell Rhett, stated, the South was the best colony that any people ever possessed. (Colonies had been originally set up to for the financial benefit of the country that began them.)
The leaders of the Republican Party only began to talk of using force to prevent secession when they realized what losing the tax money from the seceded states would do to the revenue of the Federal government.
            This change on the part of the Republicans was so sudden that Democratic Senator Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois, in a letter dated December 20, 1860, still thought,
“Many of the Republican leaders desire a dissolution of the Union.”      

            Ben Wade, Senator from Ohio, was one of the founders and leaders of the Republican Party.  In a speech on the floor of the senate on December 17, 1860, (unless otherwise stated, all speeches can be found in the Congressional Globe, which is on-line. Look for the speech by date). Senator Wade had this to say about the possibility of one or more states seceding from the union.  “. . . . if a state secedes, . . . . we should have to exercise every Federal right over her . . . . .  and the most important of these would be the collection of the revenue (the import tax, or tariff), . . . . . Therefore it will be incumbent on the Chief Magistrate (he means the President), to proceed to collect the revenue of ships entering their ports, precisely in the same way and to the same extent that he does now     . . . .   What follows? . . . . if he undertakes to blockade her (a seceded state), and thus to collect it (the import tax, or tariff), . . . . What will they do? . . . . They must take the initiative and declare war on (resist) the united States; and the moment that they levy war force must be met with force; . . . . the act of levying war is treason  . . . . (Here Wade makes it plain that the Republicans will use force to collect the tariff, and that if a seceded state resists the use of force upon it by the federal government, that act of resistance will be considered treason.)
            Three days after Republican Senator Wade’s speech, Senator Pugh of Ohio, a Democrat, spoke in reply. In his speech to the Senate, he made this remark: “My colleague seems to imagine it the duty of the President, under his oath of office, to precipitate our whole country into civil war.” Pugh continued: “My colleague’s idea seems to be that, because an act of Congress for collecting duties at Charleston may not be executed for two or three months, or even for a longer time, it behooves us to employ arms, and engage in war. . . . must we, for that reason, and without any regard for consequences, draw the sword? Why should we not avoid war, if possible, . . . . Some objector will say, ‘we must collect the revenue.’ Yes sir, men . . . .  insist, vigorously . . . . that we shall make as much money from those people, levy as much tribute on them, all of them, . . . . is that maintaining the union?”
            Judah P. Benjamin, Senator from Louisiana, speaking to the Senate on Feb. 4, 1861, shortly before the secession from the Union of Louisiana, said this of the present situation, with Southern states leaving the Union: “We are told that the laws must be enforced; that the revenue must be collected; that the South is in rebellion without cause, and that her citizens are traitors. . . . . You will enforce the laws, collect revenue . . . .  wring tribute from an unwilling people? In Lord North’s speech on the destruction of the tea in Boston harbor, . . . . he proposed to close the port of Boston, just as the representative of Boston now proposes to close the port of Charleston”
            On March 2, 1861, two days before Lincoln’s inaugural address, the tariff
situation changed, giving the Republicans even more desire to force the seceded states back into the Union. On that day a greatly increased tariff, long desired by the Republicans, passed the Senate, having passed the House the year before. Virtually all of the northern representatives had supported it and virtually all southern representatives had opposed it. This was the Morrill Tariff.  It raised the import tax in the United States to an overall average of more than 40% of the value of the imported good, higher on some items. It was a much higher tariff than the one it replaced, never the less if the seceded states did not pay the new tariff the federal government would be forced to drastically cut spending. This made it even more important to the Republicans, the authors of the tax, to see that the seceded states were forced back into the Union. One of its changes was the increased protection that it gave U.S. iron manufacturers by greatly increasing the tax on imported iron. (Taussig, p.159).
One of the authors of this tax was Representative Justin Smith Morrill, of Vermont. Since one of the highest taxes of the tariff he helped to author was on imported iron, it is coincidental that Morrill’s primary source of income was his iron foundry (Biographical Dictionary of the U.S. Congress – online, 2001).
             Sometimes referred to as a “war tariff,” the Morrill Tariff was not that, because it passed before there was any serious expectation of war, passing the House before secession even began (Taussig, p.158). This tariff was actually increased in virtually every month from December of 1861 until it was superseded by an entirely new and even higher tariff in 1862 (Taussig, p.160).
            Only a few weeks after the much higher Morrill Tariff took effect, the situation changed again and again it changed for the worse in regards to the North. This happened when the provisional government of the Confederacy passed a low tariff. This low Southern tariff would make the importation of goods into the North cost twice what importing the same goods into the South would cost. (Foner, p.277).
            Where Northern manufacturers and businessmen had been disturbed before, they were now frantic with fear over the effect the two new tariffs would have on Northern industry and trade (Foner, pp.277-281). There was much talk and editorializing in the newspapers of imported goods being brought into both the Southern and the Northern states through Southern ports. This would be done because goods imported by way of Southern ports would be cheaper, due to the much lower import tax in the South. There was talk of Northern businesses closing, of huge numbers being put out of work and the manufactured goods of Europe and the agricultural products of the West and Mid-west by passing Northern ports such as Boston and New York, and instead flowing through the Southern ports, most especially that of New Orleans (Foner, pp.277-281).
            In the midst of this new crisis, the leadership of the Republican Party issued an order that no Republican member of Congress was to speak again on the issues of secession or the tariff, until one man in each House of Congress, chosen by the party leaders, had spoken and presented the view of the party leaders on the aforementioned issues.
In the House it was Representative Stanton, Republican, of Ohio. Based on his remarks, it appears that he had advance notice of the content of Lincoln’s inaugural address, which was given two days later. He said in part, “The President elect doubtless considers the laws imposing duties on imported goods as in full force, therefore to be faithfully executed. What else can he say? What else can he do? If their execution is resisted, I take it for granted that the President will use just so much force as may be necessary to see the laws faithfully executed. Those who oppose their execution, by levying war against the United States, are guilty of treason, and it will be the duty of the President to see that the laws for the punishment of treason are executed, as well as the laws for the collection of duties on imports.” Stanton further declared, “the laws for the collection of the revenues arising from duties on imports, which are necessary for the support and maintenance of the Government, must be executed at once. Charleston, Savannah, and New Orleans cannot be left open to the admission of foreign imports, duty free, so as to divert the foreign commerce of the country from Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore, and deprive the Government of the revenue which is indispensable to its very existence. If the seceding States resist the collection of duties in those ports, and make war upon the United States to prevent it, then we must have war, and upon their heads be the responsibility for all the horrors and calamities that may result from it” (Appendix to the Congressional Globe, page 301, 36th Congress, March 2, 1861, House of Representatives.)          
            Nor were the leaders of the Republican Party alone in recognizing the need for war in order to protect their pocket books. As early as March 14, 1861, only ten days after Lincoln’s inauguration, the Irish Times, of Dublin, Ireland, editorialized that, “If President Lincoln . . . . sends war vessels to collect the Federal duties (the tariff, or import tax), at the several ports of the Seceders, the Southerners must resist or yield at once to the North.” Further in the editorial we read, “This tariff is really the most vital question of the moment. If the Southern States suffer themselves to be taxed for the protection of the Northern manufactures, there is nothing to be gained by Secession: if they resist, the only way by which they can do so successfully is by war.”
            But if the Republicans were willing to go to war to collect the tariff, they were not willing to fight to free the slaves, indeed, they expressed their willingness to allow the continued existence of slavery where it then existed. On March 2, 1861, just two days before Lincoln was sworn in as President, a proposed new constitutional amendment was passed by Congress. (It was popularly known as the Corwin Amendment.) It stated in part that “no amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress any power to abolish or interfere with slavery in any of the States by whose laws it may be allowed.” This amendment is known as the Corwin Amendment. To become law, it still had to be ratified by ¾ of the states. A number of Republican controlled state legislatures did ratify it, before the Republicans realized that guaranteeing slavery would neither keep in the Union, nor cause the return, of any of the seceded states.
            Just two days later, on March 4, 1861, Lincoln said in his inaugural address, “The power confided in me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts.” . . . . . I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. He also mentioned the proposed new amendment guaranteeing slavery (the Corwin Amendment), saying, “I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution  - - which amendment, however, I have not seen – - has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service (slavery) . . . . I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.”                                                                                                                           
            Lincoln continued by declaring secession to be illegal, declaring, “no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances. . . . The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts;” Lincoln went on to say that if there was a war the seceded states should be held responsible for it.  
            The New York Tribune (Republican) published a report from a correspondent in Virginia, in its March 9th edition. The correspondent wrote, “I have heard but one construction of Mr. Lincoln’s declaration of his intention to ‘hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government, and to collect the duty and imposts (the tariff). It is regarded, if not as a declaration of war, as at least the expression of a determination to coerce the seceding States into compliance with the demands of the Federal Government” (New York Tribune, March 9, 1861, page 6, column 4).
            The afore-mentioned Irish Times, of Dublin, Ireland, reported on March 9, 1861, about a speech Lincoln had made little more than a week previously. This speech was given while Lincoln was slowly making his way to Washington and his inauguration. All along the route, Lincoln had been stopping, attending receptions and giving speeches, often going many miles out of his way to do this. In a speech in Trenton, New Jersey, in speaking to the New Jersey House of Representatives, Lincoln had declared, in speaking of the seceded states, that “it may be necessary to put the foot down firmly.” The Times reported that at this juncture the legislature burst into cheers.
            In the same issue of the Irish Times, it was mentioned how several days before his speech to the New Jersey Legislature, Lincoln was in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, where he spoke to a group of well wishers. The Times reported the comments of the Speaker of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, who introduced Lincoln to the crowd. In introducing Lincoln, the Speaker of the House, Davis, had declared that Pennsylvania “stood read to pledge both men and money, if need be, to enforce the laws.” As he made that declaration, the assembled crowd burst into cheers. What laws was he referring to? The only laws that concerned Northern commerce and industry at the time were the tariff laws, and Pennsylvania, as a manufacturing state, indeed the leading state in the manufacture of iron, was very concerned about the collection of the tariff.
            The New York Tribune, the paper which just before Christmas had urged that seceding states be allowed to leave the Union in peace, in an editorial of March 16, 1861 (page 4, column 3), had this to say about the tariff and secession. “If free goods (goods on which the tariff had not been paid), are to be allowed to enter the slave states, why is it not better to give up the contest, . . . .” The editorial ended as follows, “If then, we have, or expect to have, anything that can be called a Government, now is the time for decided, energetic, effective action.”
            A further editorial of the Tribune, titled, “From Florida: The Feeling On Board the Brooklyn,” dated Monday, March 25, 1861, asked the question, “How much longer are we Americans to submit to the arrogant demands of a few hot‑ headed rebels?” The writer then stated that the government had the power, the law, and the right on its side, and that the South should be forced  . . . .  “to obey those laws to which their wiser and nobler ancestors agreed.” The writer said he believed the seceded states must be made to obey the law (Note: This is an excerpt from a longer article.)  Which law do you think was being referred too?                                                          
            The New York Times, in an editorial of March 30, 1861, said:  '...With us it is no longer an abstract question - one of Constitutional construction, or of the reserved or delegated power of the State or Federal Government, but of material existence ... We were divided and confused till our pockets were touched."
            Writing in December 1861 in a British weekly publication, All the Year Round, the famous British author, Charles Dickens, who was a strong opponent of slavery, but who blamed what he termed the “American Civil War” on the Morrill Tariff, said these things about the war going on in America:  “The Northern onslaught upon slavery is no more than a piece of specious humbug disguised to conceal its desire for economic control of the United States.” Dickens further said, “If it be not slavery, where lies the partition of the interests that has led at last to actual separation of the Southern from the Northern States? Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this as many, many other evils.  The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel.”
            Though the tariff was never as high as Northern manufacturers desired, one Boston native, Thomas P. Kettell, the son of a New England merchant, published a book shortly before secession began. It was titled, “Southern Wealth and Northern Profits”. Though his figures are not totally accurate, they give some idea of the profit the North made off of the South. (Kettell, pp.136-137). Kettell claimed that “the South has provided the capital that has accumulated at the North.” ie. The North has gotten rich off of the South. Kettell, p.136).  
              Congressman Clement Vallandigham of Ohio, a Democrat, had this to say, “This whole controversy has now become . . . .  a war for political domination . . . . But gentlemen of the North, you who ignorantly or wittingly are hurrying this Republic to its destruction, you who tell the South to go out of the Union if she dare, and you will bring her back by force,” (Vallandigham, p.52-53).
            Senator Joseph Lane of Oregon, in a senate speech on March 2, 1861, said in part:
“We are told that the design is to attempt nothing more than to collect the revenue in the ports of the seceded states. . . . Will it not be a declaration of war against the seceding states?” Senator Lane then quoted James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, who said: ‘The use of force against a state would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment.’ Madison had made that remark when a delegate to the Constitutional Convention proposed a clause to the Constitution which would give the national government the right to use armed force against a state in order to enforce a law. Such a clause was not placed in the Constitution.
            Lane later in his speech made these remarks: “Let me beg the party who are soon to take charge of this government to let the seceded States alone, and by no means attempt to collect revenue in their ports, that would result in a bloody, terrible war, but, on the contrary, acknowledge the independence of the Confederate States of America (then only seven states) and treat with them as an ally and friendly nation.” However, Lane did not think the Republican Party would allow peace, but would rather begin a war. He said: “We are living at a day and at a time when a northern sectional party have obtained possession of the power of this great Government, . . . . they want to keep the slave States in for their benefit – to foot the bills, to pay the taxes – that they may govern them as they see fit, and rule them against their will.”
            War was obviously in the offing, but did it have to come? It did if the tariff, what Lincoln called the revenue, was to be collected. With Lincoln in his inaugural address promising to collect the tariff in the seceded states, war was certain, for to collect the tariff in those states Lincoln would have to occupy their seaports or the forts guarding those ports. When he attempted to do this, it was also certain that the seceded states would resist. Fort Pickens, off the harbor of Pensacola, Florida was reinforced easily. When the steamer Star of the West had attempted to reinforce Fort Sumter with arms, ammunition and soldiers, it had been fired upon and forced to abandon its mission. This was while Buchanan was still President. When an attempt was made by Lincoln to reinforce the fort, it was fired upon and forced to surrender. On My 1st, 1861, Lincoln received a letter from Captain Gustavus V. Fox, who had headed the fleet sent to reinforce the fort. When Fox apologized for the failure to reinforce the fort, Lincoln replied with a letter that closed with these words. “You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result.”
            What was the result Lincoln was speaking of? Learning that a second and a secret expedition, including two warships, was being sent to reinforce the fort; with the approval of Jefferson Davis and on orders of General Beauregard, the general commanding Confederate forces at Charleston, Fort Sumter was fired on. The Confederates were then declared by much of the Northern press and the Lincoln government to be the aggressors. They had fired on the flag of the United States. The nation was now at war and it was entirely due to Southern aggression. Rally round the flag, patriots! Defend your country! And they did. And the war was on!
* All speeches in either house of Congress can be found in the Congressional Globe, under the date the speech was given. The Globe can be found on line, simply by typing Congressional Globe into any Search Engine.

Basler, Roy P., ed. “The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln,” Volumes VII and VIII., New Brunswick, NJ, Rutgers University Press, 1953.

Foner, Phillip S., “Business and Slavery,” University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, N.C., 1941.

Kettell, Thomas P., Southern Wealth and Northern Profits,” John W. & John A. Wood,  New York, 1860. July 2, 2017.

Marshall, Thomas F., “Speeches And Writings of Hon. Thomas F. Marshall,” edited by W.L. Barre, Applegate & Company, Cincinnati, 1858.

Taussig, F.W., The Tariff History of the United States,” G.P. Putnam’s Sons, Knickerbocker Press, New York & London, 1888.

Vallandigham, Clement, U.S. Congressman, speech in the House of Representatives, December 15, 1859. Taken from “Abolition, The Union, and Civil War,” reprint of 1863 edition, Crown Rights Book Company, Wiggins, Mississippi, 1998.

Wednesday, July 19, 2017


Fanatics to the right of us, fanatics to the left of us.  Charlottesville City Council in front of us and the Mayor of Richmond behind us.    We are surrounded!  What can we do?  As always, we will follow the example of our ancestors and fight our way through.

All of this is over false claims of racism.  The only racism is coming from those who will use any excuse to bring down our monuments.   The City of Charlottesville denies the truth.   The City Council claims to know what people were thinking almost 100 years ago when the monuments were erected.  We do know what the City was thinking less than 20 years ago when the City Council approved a "Civil War Trails" marker describing both the General Lee and General Jackson monuments as well as the Court House monument.

This marker WAS titled "Confederate Heroes Remembered."  The following is the text from this marker:

"Lee and Jackson Parks contain two of Charlottesville's fine examples of public sculpture, gifts of benefactor Paul Goodloe McIntire (1860-1952).  The Thomas Johnathan 'Stonewall' Jackson statue was dedicated in 1921, the Robert E. Lee statue in 1924.  Depicting the Confederacy's two greatest heroes and executed by nationally prominent sculptors, the statutes and parks exemplify both the contemporary desire to honor the South's heroes and the widespread civic improvements of the early 20th century City Beautiful movement.

The statue of a Confederate common soldier in front of the Albemarle County Courthouse was erected in 1909.  Dedicated in a huge public ceremony, it illustrates the desire across the South to memorialize those who fought for the Confederate cause.  Money for the statue came from public appropriations and from citizen's gifts rather than from one donor.  The statue itself was created by a Chicago supplier of such figures for many localities, South and North.

Charlottesville's location behind the battle lines kept it from significant military action during the Civil War, but the community made a great contribution as the sit of major Confederate hospital activity.  From the Battle of First Manassas on, wounded soldiers filled many University of Virginia buildings, local structures and private homes. The medical school faculty, students and local citizens helped care for them.  Several University and city buildings-----called collectively the Charlottesville General Hospital----served as a large permanent hospital throughout the war.  By war's end it had treated 21,450 cases; 1100 of those who died are buried in the Confederate Cemetery at the University."

Where is this marker now?  Ask the Charlottesville City Council.  They recently sent City workers to remove the marker and make it disappear.

Take heart, we will prevail.  We will win.  The symbols of our Virginia Confederate Heritage will remain to inspire generations yet to come.

Frank Earnest
Virginia Division Heritage Defense Coordinator, SCV

Sunday, July 09, 2017

Attempted Murder of the Truth

By Jeff Paulk
I started to call this “The Murder of Truth”, but then after rethinking the issue, can truth actually be murdered?  As long as there are those of us who know the truth, and are willing to communicate it, the truth will continue to live.  Even with all of the attacks upon all things Confederate and Southern in the attempt to completely wipe out our culture, history, and symbols, those attacks only serve to strengthen the resolve in many of us, and, hopefully, awakens a need in many to determine just what actually is the truth.
In recent weeks we have seen wave after wave of attacks on the Confederate Battle Flag, Confederate monuments, even graves of our Confederate heroes. Even here in Tulsa, we have a new historical plaque that refers to “The War of Southern Aggression”.  Joining in on these attacks have been “Southern” (and I use that term loosely) politicians eager to show that they are “not racist” and disapprove of “racist” and “hurtful” symbols of our past.  What they are actually doing is revealing the Judas in their souls by betraying a people whose ancestors fought and died to repel an illegal invasion, one which had nothing to do with slavery, but everything to do with control and subjugation.  They are displaying the Marxist blood in their veins, and pandering and appeasing the historically ignorant so as to get their votes and be re-elected for another term.  These scalawags do not deserve to breathe the same air as the descendants of those who wore the gray in defense of their homes and families. They are accomplices in the attempted murder of the truth.  But the truth is not that easy to kill, even though 150 years of Marxist rewritten history has polluted the minds of millions with lies, slander, and propaganda, more and more people are being enlightened to the truth of our history.  Even in this day of rewritten history being taught, there are still some teachers out there who are teaching the truth, to the dismay of some parents who protest this drifting from the status quo. There are many books available that tell the truth of our history, of Lincoln, and the real reasons the War of Northern Aggression was fought, and how close the North came to losing that war. Though we are seeing numerous, calculated attacks upon our culture and heritage, there are still those of us who will not give in to the cultural terrorists, but will continue to push to get the truth out there to as many people as possible. There are fine organizations, such as the Confederate Society of America, that engage in promoting the true accounts of our history and crush the lies of the enemy with documented facts.  Maybe that is what upsets the cultural terrorists so much, that the facts are not on their side, so they attempt to bury the truth under a mountain of Marxist lies. As long as there are those of us who pass the truth along to posterity, it will continue to survive the continued attempts at murdering it.

So, let us all be vigilant in the defense of our heritage, history, and symbols, and not let the attempted murder of the truth go unanswered.
As President Jefferson Davis said, "Truth crushed to the earth is truth still and like a seed will rise again."

May we continue to water that seed and see it grow and spread throughout this land.

In Defense of the Flag

It truly pains my heart that a lot of blacks, and misguided whites, are offended by the Confederate Battle Flag.

That flag does not now represent, nor has it ever represented, slavery.  Yes, it has been hijacked by hate groups, like the KKK, but their main flag of choice has been the U.S. flag, and they also use the Christian flag. Why are the U.S. and Christian flags not called “racist” flags?  Because there is a war going on against all things Southern; our heritage, our history, and our symbols ever since the socialists won the War of Northern Aggression.

Southern culture would not be what it is without the flavor of the Southern blacks. Much has been contributed  by our fellow black Southerners.  It is sad to see them, and others, indoctrinated and brainwashed by those who are promoting a socialist agenda, which includes cultural genocide.  While nobody condones the institution of slavery, the fact is that it was a way of life, in both the North and the South, for many years. It was the New England slave traders that built the ships to transport already captured Africans from their homeland to the U.S. where they were sold to both Northerners and Southerners. Many brave, black Confederates fought the invading armies of blue, as did many Cherokee Indians, Jews, and Mexicans who sided with the Confederacy.  Slavery was not the issue, as taught in our rewritten history, but money, power, and greed, as is the case in all wars. General Robert E. Lee was against slavery, and had freed the slaves he inherited.  Union General Ulysses S. Grant retained his slaves even after the ratification of the 13th Amendment, which actually freed the slaves. So, the South was NOT fighting for slavery, and the North was NOT fighting to free the slaves. The institution was on its way out anyway.  The war just destroyed everything in its path, which included slavery. Slavery ended first in the North, not because of any moral endeavor or mercy on their part, but due to the institution not being conducive to an industrial society, and because Northerners refused to work alongside of blacks. Segregation, Jim Crowe Laws, and the Black Codes all originated in the North, not in the South.

Since the South was being burdened with 85% of the federal revenues, Lincoln could not bear to see that disappear with the seceded states.  He stated in his first inaugural address that he would continue the collection of duties, “by force if necessary”.  His invading armies raped, burned, murdered, and looted their way through the South, waging war on innocent civilians, who were mostly old men, women, and children. The Marxists have tried to stamp out our symbols and heritage for 150 years.  They don’t want any sign of self reliance or defiance to tyranny displayed.  They want us all to be crushed beneath the thumb of tyranny and not know what our Founders stood for, as well as our dead Confederate ancestors. They slander our symbols with words like “hate”, “racism”, and “slavery”, which are much more suited for their Yankee flag than any Confederate banner. It was their flag that flew high above the slave trading ships, built in New England. No Confederate flag ever flew on any slaver. Slander, lies, and propaganda are all the enemy has to hurl at us, because none of the historical facts back up any of their arguments. The truth easily deflates anything they can produce. We must defend these attacks upon our culture and heritage and not let these lies against us go unanswered.

Why would a former president of the NAACP, H. K. Edgerton, dress in Confederate gray and carry the Confederate Battle Flag from Asheville, NC to Austin, TX if the flag represents “hatred” and “racism”?  Because it does not represent these things, but represents a proud people fighting to defend their homeland from an illegal and unconstitutional invasion by an overgrown, oppressive government.  Mr. Edgerton has risen up above the traditional myths of indoctrination and learned for himself the truth which the media, and the government do not want known.  Anyone who contradicts the “standard” version of “history” is labeled as a kook or a lunatic. Well, as Mark Twain said, “It is easier to fool someone than to convince them they have been fooled”.   The truth is out there for anyone who dares look for it. Hosea 4:6 says, “My people destroy themselves for lack of knowledge”.  I would invite everyone, especially my Southern brethren, black and white, to discover the truth and infuse themselves with knowledge of that great conflict which has been rewritten to hide the truth.  Then the light of truth will open your eyes to what has been hidden and lied about for 150 years.

Deo Vindice

Jeff Paulk
Tulsa, OK


The Marxists, and those brainwashed by the Marxists, have long contended the reasons for the War of Northern Aggression to be different from what true history reveals. They slander our flags, calling them symbols of racism, and call our heroes traitors. Here we will answer and debunk those myths.

MYTH #1 - The war was all about freeing the slaves.

TRUTH – The war had nothing to do with slavery. The proposed Corwin Amendment, by Congressman Thomas Corwin of Ohio, would have FOREVER prohibited the abolition of slavery if the seceded states would but rejoin the union and ratify the amendment.  The South refused.  Why? If it wanted to protect slavery you would think the South would have jumped on this. Besides this, the Crittendon-Johnson Resolution stated that the war was not for the “purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those states”.

On July 22, 1861, the U.S. Congress passed a joint resolution stating the purpose of the war:

   “Resolved…That this war is not being prosecuted on our part in any spirit of oppression, not for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, nor purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those states, but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and all laws made in pursuance thereof and to preserve the Union, with all the dignity, equality and rights of the several States unimpaired; and that as soon as these objects are accomplished the war ought to cease.”

This is further proof that the war was NOT fought over slavery.  The North did, however, conquer and subjugate the South, and the war they initiated and waged against the South was both unconstitutional and treasonous.  It was fought to force the legally seceded South back into the union for the purpose of continuing the collection of excessive tariffs, which economically damaged the South, but was of economical benefit to the northern industrialists.

In his inaugural address, Lincoln stated that he would continue the collection of revenues “by force if necessary”.  He wanted the money that the South had been paying into the federal government.  The South was footing over 85% of the tax burden but only had 1/3 of the population.  The Northern industrialists and bankers were reaping the benefits of this. Also, if the war was “all about slavery”, why was it that Union General Grant had slaves, but Confederate General Robert E. Lee had none?  Why was West Virginia (which was illegally and unconstitutionally formed) allowed to cede into the union on the condition that it could keep its slaves?  Why was Union General Fremont’s order freeing slaves in Missouri countermanded by Lincoln and the slaves sent back to their masters?
Why were there more union soldiers that owned slaves than there were Confederate soldiers that owned slaves?
Also, not one single letter has been found written by Union or Confederate soldiers stating that they were fighting to “free the slaves”.  Numerous Confederate letters state that the Confederacy was fighting for independence and in defense of their homes and families.
Also, if it was about “freeing the slaves”, then why didn’t the federal government free them in the six states that remained in the union?  That would be Kansas (2), Nebraska (15), Kentucky (225,483), Missouri (114,931), Maryland (87,189), and Delaware (1,798) – 1860 Census. 

"Amend the Constitution to say it should never be altered to interfere with slavery."

-- Abraham Lincoln, 24 December 1860, presenting his stand on slavery to the Senate

"We didn't go into the war to put down slavery, but to put the flag back; and to act differently at this moment would, I have no doubt, not only weaken our cause, but smack of bad faith..." Abraham Lincoln

“The sole object of this war,” said Grant, “is to restore the Union.  Should I become convinced it has any other object, or that the Government designs using its soldiers to execute the wishes of the Abolitionists, I pledge you my honor as a man and a soldier I would resign my commission and carry my sword to the other side.”
                                     -Democratic Speaker’s Handbook, p. 33

MYTH #2 - The South wanted to protect and perpetuate slavery to the western territories.

TRUTH – Well, that myth is beyond absurd. Common sense refutes this myth.  By the very act of seceding from the union and establishing its own country, the South locked itself OUT of any rights to territories belonging to the U.S. The Confederate Constitution outlawed the importation of slaves, so if it wanted to “protect and perpetuate” slavery, why did it outlaw the importation of slaves?  Slavery was dying out in the South and there were five times as many abolition groups in the South than in the North.  The South wanted to be done with slavery and many had already freed their slaves. If the South wanted to “protect slavery”, it had only to stay in the union where it was already protected.  The South was working towards gradual emancipation so that the blacks could gradually be prepared to enter society as free people. The ending of slavery in the South was a byproduct of the war, not the cause for it.

MYTH #3 - The South started the war by firing on Ft. Sumter.

TRUTH – The firing on Ft. Sumter was what Lincoln had planned on.  He lied when he said that he would not resupply the forces there.  If Lincoln abandoned the fort, he risked legitimizing the Confederacy.  Northern sentiment was mostly in favor of recognizing the newly formed Confederacy.  Lincoln needed to change that opinion.  He crafted the plan of resupplying the troops there, knowing the South would not permit this and fire the first shots. Remember, the one who fires first is not necessarily the aggressor, but the one who causes that shot to be fired. Lincoln wrote to Lieutenant Gustavus Fox,  “You and I both anticipated that the cause of the [Federation] would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the results.” Lincoln provoked the firing on Ft. Sumter according to plan.  Now he could launch his war on the Confederacy, illegal as it was.

           ( “The Real Lincoln”, by Charles L. C. Minor, pages 88, 256, 257)

MYTH #4 – The secession declarations prove the South seceded to protect slavery.

TRUTH – While several of the Declarations do mention slavery, and the states call themselves “slave states”, these documents have to be interpreted in the context in which they were written.  You have to get into that period of history to understand their meaning. For decades the South had been the victim of slander, lies, and propaganda at the hands of the Northern press, authors, and even pastors. Radical abolitionists in the North promoted violence and insurrection to end slavery.

    “Four seceding Southern states published some form of declaration of their reasons for secession.  These were South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, and Texas.  Many modern academic allies of the Northern War to Prevent Southern Independence have recently taken up the cry that because these declarations have many references to slavery that they are proof that the war was all about slavery.  First of all, however, there is a difference between the cause of the war and the causes for secession.  The cause of the war was Lincoln’s call for 75,000 troops to invade the Southern states.  This invasion immediately triggered four more states secessions – Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas – in addition to protests from the governors of Kentucky and Missouri, and unrest in Maryland. 
     In addition, the substance of the secession declarations must be interpreted in their political/economic and constitutional contexts.  The Northern Union had become an oppressive government dedicated to Northern regional dominance and almost exclusively Northern economic prosperity.  States Rights were the primary bulwark against this Northern regionalism.  Many modern apologists for the Union cause also fail to recognize that these declarations, following South Carolina’s example, were building a legal case against Northern breaches of the Constitution.  Moreover, much of the language of these declarations was a protest against the constant inflammatory distortions and repeated attacks on Southern honor by radical abolitionists in Congress and in the Northern press.
     The Mississippi declaration included an admission of its economic dependence on slave labor.  However, over-dramatizing this admission in accusatory terms fails to recognize a genuine dilemma.  Many Southerners, probably a majority, would have gladly rid themselves of slavery.  But how could it be done without destroying the economies of the major cotton producing states and severely damaging New York banking and shipping interests?  Many also saw the necessity of preparing the slaves to compete in a free economy before emancipation.  Many would have followed the British model of gradual emancipation with compensation to slave owners.
     What the secession declarations prove is that Southerners had strong reasons to believe that their political rights and economic welfare were unsafe under Northern political dominance.”

                              (“The Un-Civil War”, by Leonard M. Scruggs, pages 27-28)

MYTH #5 – Secession was treason.

TRUTH – Secession being legal was taught at West Point from William Rawle’s “Views on the Constitution” published in 1825.  It was used as a text book for one year and remains in the library today. Americans who oppose secession for the Southern states find themselves bed partners with the communist generals of Yugoslavia and communist hard-liners of the former Soviet Union.  What was condemned in 1861 was sanctioned by the Republican Party in 1991 when Vaclav Havel of Czechoslovakia withdrew his country from the Soviet Union’s orbit, but Jefferson Davis and his fellow Southerners are called traitors for doing the same thing.
The 10th Amendment protects a states’ right to withdraw from the union. If a state voluntarily joined, it can voluntarily withdraw.
   New England threatened to secede over the War of 1812, yet no force was threatened against them to remain in the union.  Our Founding Fathers knew secession was a right held by the states.

“Among the Founding Fathers there was no doubt. The United States had just seceded from the British Empire, exercising the right of the people to “alter or abolish” — by force, if necessary — a despotic government. The Declaration of Independence is the most famous act of secession in our history, though modern rhetoric makes “secession” sound somehow different from, and more sinister than, claiming independence.

The original 13 states formed a “Confederation,” under which each state retained its “sovereignty, freedom, and independence.” The Constitution didn’t change this; each sovereign state was free to reject the Constitution. The new powers of the federal government were “granted” and “delegated” by the states, which implies that the states were prior and superior to the federal government.”
“After Lincoln’s illegal War of Northern Aggression, Jefferson Davis, the President of the Confederacy, was arrested and placed in prison prior to a trial. The trial was never held, because the chief justice of the Supreme Court, Mr. Salmon Portland Chase, informed President Andrew Johnson that if Davis were placed on trial for treason the United States would lose the case because nothing in the Constitution forbids secession. That is why no trial of Jefferson Davis was held, despite the fact that he wanted one!

Because of our progressive-liberal public education system, many Americans now believe the myth that secession is treasonable. The Declaration of Independence was, in fact, a declaration of secession. Its final paragraph declares inarguably the ultimate sovereignty of each state:

That these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved of all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do.

Following the Declaration of Independence, each colony established by law the legitimacy of its own sovereignty as a state. Each one drew up, voted upon, and then ratified its own state constitution, which declared and defined its sovereignty as a state. Realizing that they could not survive upon the world stage as thirteen individual sovereign nations, the states then joined together formally into a confederation of states, but only for the purposes of negotiating treaties, waging war, and regulating foreign commerce.”     Charles Pitts
If secession was not legal, why did the U.S. Congress try to pass an amendment making it illegal AFTER the Southern states seceded?
    (“The South Was Right”, by James Ronald Kennedy and Walter Donald Kennedy, pages 195-217)

Salmon Chase, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court told Lincoln’s boys that if they were to bring ANYTHING or ANYONE of that Confederation before the Court, and I quote,

MYTH #6 – The Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves.

TRUTH - You say, “His Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves! That proves he was against slavery.” Lincoln’s words: “I view the matter (Emancipation Proclamation) as a practical war measure, to be decided upon according to the advantages or disadvantages it may offer to the suppression of the rebellion.” He also wrote: “I will also concede that emancipation would help us in Europe, and convince them that we are incited by something more than ambition.” At the time Lincoln wrote the proclamation, war was going badly for the Union. London and Paris were considering recognizing the Confederacy and considering assisting it in its war effort.

All one has to do to debunk this myth is to actually read the Proclamation. It “freed” slaves in areas NOT under federal control, but expressly left them in bondage where it actually could have freed them. Over 100,000 union troops deserted after the Emancipation Proclamation was made public.


MYTH #7 – The South treated blacks terribly.

TRUTH - From, “The Truths of History”,  pgs. 92, 93.

The South claims that race prejudice has been, and now is, far greater in the North than in the South.
In his “Democracy in America”, De Toqueville, the French writer, says;

   “Though the electoral franchise has been conferred on the negroes in all the free States, if they come forward to vote their lives are in danger.  Negroes may serve by law on juries but prejudice repels them from office.  They have separate schools, separate hospital wards, and separate galleries in the theaters.  In the South it is quite different with the negro.  Undoubtedly, the prejudice of the race appears to be much stronger in the States that have abolished slaves than in the States where slavery still exists.
    White carpenters, white bricklayers, and white painters will not work side by side with the blacks in the North, but do it in almost every Southern State unless Northern men among their workmen oppose it.”

Negroes left their homes in Alabama to work in Illinois, but many were killed and others driven from the State.  Were the murderers of those negroes ever brought to trial?

  One Republican said:

      “If any more negroes come to Illinois, I will meet them on the border with gatling-guns!”

Mr. Seward, March 3, 1858 said:

      “The white man needs this continent to labor in and must have it.”

The Legislature of Kansas, the home of John Brown, said:

    “This state is for whites only.”

In 1850, 1855 and 1865, Michigan refused suffrage to free negroes.
In 1864 no negro could vote in Nevada.
     “In Illinois (Lincoln’s State) no negro nor mulatto was allowed to remain in the State ten days.  If a negro came into the State he was to be sold at auction.”

In twenty-seven counties of Indiana no negro was allowed to live.  If any white man encouraged him to come to the State he was fined.
In Boston the negroes are segregated.
In Ohio the negroes were warned if they did not segregate some dire calamity would befall them.
In New York City and Washington City this question of segregation is of serious import today and under constant discussion.
No negro can live in Oregon.

As to the condition of the slaves in the South under the institution of slavery, Major-General Quitman, of New York, an army officer who was stationed near a Mississippi plantation before the war, says in a letter to his father:

    “Every night she has family prayers with her slaves.  When a minister comes, which is very frequently, prayers are said night and morning, and chairs are always provided for the servants.
      “They are married by a clergyman of their own color, and a sumptuous supper is always prepared.  They are a happy, careless, unreflecting, good-natured race-who left to themselves would degenerate into drones or brutes.  They have great family pride and are the most arrant aristocrats in the world.” 

                      (The Secession War in America,” by J.P. Shaffull, published in New York, 1862)

By the above accounts, blacks were treated well in the South and horribly bad in the North.  There were laws against the mistreatment of slaves, though it did happen, it was not common.

MYTH #8 – The Confederate Flag is a symbol of racism and hate.

TRUTH - St. Andrew, a disciple of Jesus Christ, was martyred by crucifixion at Patras, Greece, ordered by the Roman governor.  He deemed himself unworthy of being crucified and nailed to a Latin cross like Jesus Christ. He requested crucifixion on an “X”-shaped cross and to be bound, not nailed. He preached the word of God to all that passed until he died. His martyrdom was during the reign of Nero, A.D. 60. Latin and Greek churches keep Nov. 30, his death date, as a day of feast. St. Andrew is honored as chief patron by Russia and Scotland. Here are some more interesting facts surrounding the flag:» In the 1860s, two-thirds of the country’s population was Scotch or Scotch Irish. This flag design was a carryover of the Scottish National Flag and ancestry.» No historical document exists to support that this flag represented hate, slavery, racism, deceit, infamy or repression. Not one flag of the Confederacy was ever described in its placement to represent anything other than the Confederate States of America.» No Confederate ship ever ran slaves.» The Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) adopted the battle flag as part of its logo in 1896, long before “hate” groups began to abuse the flag, and they condemn misuse of any Confederate flag.» The KKK and other “hate” groups didn’t use the flag until late 1950s/early 1960s. In his book “What They Fought For, 1861-1865,” historian James McPherson, after reading more than 25,000 letters and over 100 soldier diaries from both sides of the War for Southern Independence, concluded that Confederate soldiers "fought for liberty and independence from what they regarded as a tyrannical government."

Here, Mr. King tells it well.

Before you attack the Confederate soldiers' Battle flag, see how Old Glory will compare:

The Confederate Flag and the United States Flag are judged by different standards and criteria, and are not held to the same levels of accountability. In analytical science and weights and measures, comparisons are made against known standards. However, in politics comparisons are never made in a fair and impartial manner.  In order to understand the hypocrisy, ignorance, and bias that have been directed against the Confederate Flag, it is necessary to use the U.S. Flag (Stars and Stripes) as a standard of comparison. The purpose of this comparison is not to berate or disparage the U.S. Flag, but is to prove that the Confederate Flag has received unfair and unequal treatment.  The genocide and racial cleansing of the American Indians took place under the U.S. Flag. Their land was taken without fair and just compensation. Indians died by the thousands as they were forced on to reservations and subjected to starvation and deadly diseases. The Trail of Tears endured by the Cherokee is an example. In the American West, cavalry troopers murdered entire villages including babies in their mother's arms.

The U.S. Flag Flew over an unconstitutional and criminal war conducted against The Confederate States of America. Abraham Lincoln conducted this war for the benefit of wealthy Northern industrialists. Atrocities against Southern civilians and military are listed in the book, The Uncivil War: Union Army and Navy Excesses in the Official Records.  Furthermore, slaves were imported from Africa to America primarily by five Northern States: New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island. The Confederate Flag was not involved in the importation of slaves.

Finally, the U.S. Flag flies over a nation that has murdered an estimated 42 million babies by abortion. Confederate leaders would never have voted for abortion or nominated judges that would legalize abortion.  Political Correctness has been used to attempt bans of The Confederate Flag from schools, parades, public and private property, and even historical monuments and sites.  The Confederate flag represents Constitutional Limited Federal Government, States Rights, Resistance to Government Tyranny, and Christian Values and Principles. To say that it represents racism and bigotry is a negative and shallow interpretation comparable to saying the U.S. flag represents the genocide of the American Indians and abortion.      James W. King

Let it also be noted here that it was Northerners, New Englanders to be specific, who built the slave ships and transported their cargo of human flesh to the U.S. and sold them to Northerners and Southerners. It was the North that grew and perpetuated slavery, not the South.  Slavery died in the North because it was not as useful in an industrialized society as it was in an agricultural one, and Northerners refused to work alongside of blacks.  The North invaded the South to force it back into the union to continue the collection of excessive and unconstitutional taxes.  The South wanted only to be left alone.  The Confederate soldiers fought an illegal invasion in defense of their homes and families.  The union soldiers burned homes, barns and crops.  They raped the women, black and white.  They killed animals. They looted homes and stores.  During Reconstruction, which was nothing but a military dictatorship, the schools had to teach what the federal government told them to.  This is where the Marxist rewritten history begins. This is when the animosity between the races began due to the Yankees stripping whites of their rights and placing blacks in superior positions over whites. The history was rewritten to cover up the truth about Lincoln and his war crimes, and to cover up the truth of why he waged an illegal war. While the military phase ended in 1865, the political, economic, and social phases continue today.  Cultural genocide continues to be waged on our history, symbols, and culture. A union held together with bayonets is not a union. The South is full of Yankee transplants and Southern turncoats and scalawags glad to do the bidding of the globalists and Marxists, trampling on the memory of those brave dead, black and white, who fought in defense of their homeland. The lies and propaganda continue. Those who slander the South, blame it for slavery, and slander it and its symbols are clearly ignorant of true history.

Jeff Paulk
Col. Daniel N. McIntosh Camp #1378

Tulsa, OK

A Word to the “Take’em Down” Crowd

The Marxist-indoctrinated crowd just doesn’t get it. The War of Northern Aggression had NOTHING to do with slavery, but was fought to repel an illegal invasion of sovereign states that had legally seceded from an over-reaching, intrusive, tyrannical, overtaxing government. Slavery was a dying institution and no other country on the planet waged a war to end slavery.  It died a natural death everywhere else, so why do people think we needed a war here to end it?  The North hated blacks and were not invading the South to free the black race.  What sense does that make when there were more Union officers and soldiers who owned slaves than there were Confederates soldiers who owned slaves? If people would take the time to read the Corwin Amendment and the Johnson-Crittenden Resolution they would see that they clearly dispel the myth of slavery being the cause of the war.  Lincoln threatened war in his inaugural address when he stated that the duties and imposts would be collected from the seceded states "by force if necessary".  He could not bear to lose the revenues being unconstitutionally extracted from the South because the South was footing over 80% of the federal tax bill while the rich Northern industrialists and bankers were reaping the benefits. The war was all about ending self-government, subjugating the people of the South, looting the natural resources of the South for the benefit of the North, and establishing a strong, centralized government that would have control over the states.  The CSA seceded and fought for the same reasons that our Founding Fathers seceded from and fought Great Britain.  If slavery was the cause, as the Marxists contend, then isn’t it strange that not one letter, not one, has been found from either Confederate or union soldiers stating that this is what they were fighting about?  Instead, numerous letters found from Confederate soldiers state that they were fighting for independence and in defense of their homes and families.  Letters from union soldiers state that they were fighting to “restore the union”.  The Confederate Battle Flag and all the Confederate monuments have nothing to do with slavery or white supremacy, but a people who defied tyranny and fought to preserve the Constitution and the principles upon which our Founders established a new country. Lincoln was for white supremacy.  Just read his quotes about the inferiority of the black race and how he had never been in favor of making voters or jurors out of them.  Yet he is worshiped as the Great Emancipator.  He freed nobody. The 13th Amendment ended slavery, eight months after the war was over.

These lunatics taking down Confederate monuments are no different than Nazis or ISIS by attempting to destroy and rewrite history.  And quit putting the blame for slavery on the South.  It was the Yankee slave traders who brought the slaves to America, flying Old Glory on the masts of the slave ships.  Not one single slave ship ever flew a Confederate flag. These "take'em down" idiots are puppets for the global puppet masters seeking to destroy every bit of our history, culture, and Christianity.  It won't stop with Confederate monuments.  Washington and Jefferson will be next. What about the White House and other beautiful historic buildings in Washington D.C. built by slaves?  Will they be taken down too?  The hypocrisy of the Marxist left is easy to see.  They tolerate only what they agree with, but expect EVERYONE else to tolerate the left's views. Communists is what they are.  A blight on our soil and a disgrace to the great people of history who fought to make us free.  It is particularly sad to see Southerners doing the bidding of the Cultural Marxists.  These Marxists are never satisfied.  Appeasement is surrender.  Never surrender.

Jeff Paulk  
Tulsa, OK

Friday, June 30, 2017

American Independence Won In The South

In snow shoe mouth deep they came that 27th day of September 1780, a long column of mounted riflemen full of wrath and anger. The long slender rifles of the frontier (aka Flintlock American Long Rifle, Pennsylvania Rifle, Kentucky Rifle) were balanced across their saddles and knives strapped on their belts. They were "Over Mountain Men" from western North Carolina in the area that would later become northeast Tennessee in 1796. Several years earlier they had formed little settlements along the Watauga, Holston, and Nolichunky rivers on the western side of the Appalachian mountains.
The Revolutionary War for American Independence had not affected them until earlier in this year and due to their remote location they were virtually independent of British and American government. But the war in the north which had been ongoing since 1775 had been fought to a stalemate. Now England had decided upon a Southern Strategy and the war moved from the north to the south. Georgia, the youngest and weakest of the 13 American colonies had fallen to the British with the capture of Savannah on Dec. 29,1778. The British and their loyalist American Tory forces had moved into South Carolina and American Continentals and Whig militia patriots had suffered devastating defeats at Charleston, Waxhaws, and Camden.
British Major Patrick Ferguson had been ordered by British General Charles Cornwallis to invade the South Carolina back country between the Catawba and Saluda rivers and recruit Loyalists and suppress Whig Patriots. Within days of his invasion of the Carolina up country Ferguson had recruited many  Loyalist Tory British sympathizers and had began to hunt down and punish Whig Patriots.  During the summer of 1780 "Over Mountain Men" militia had swept eastward and engaged Ferguson and his Loyalist Tories in fierce little engagements at Woffords Iron Works, Musgrove's Mill, Thicketty Fort, and Cedar Springs. Now they had recrossed the mountains back to their homes planning to resume resistance at a later time.
Ferguson made a decision that would prove fatal to him and his Loyalists. He paroled a Whig prisoner and sent him to inform Col. Isaac Shelby whom he considered the titular head of the "Over Mountain Men" or "Back Water Men" informing them that if they did not cease resistance to the British Crown that he would cross the mountains and hang the leaders, burn their houses, and lay waste to the area with "fire and sword". Col. Shelby met with Col.John Sevier (Nolichunky Jack) and a meeting of the mountain men took place at Sycamore Shoals on the Watauga river. A decision was made to carry the battle to Ferguson and it was to be a fight to the finish. They rode eastward, a column of about 450 men, and were joined by North Carolina, Virginia, South Carolina and Georgia militia and now numbered over 1000.
Ferguson and his 1100 Loyalist Tories took up a position on top of King's Mountain on the NC. and SC. line. The Patriot army had selected 900 of the best rifleman and best horses. All through the night they advanced toward King's Mountain and at 3 PM on October 7 they totally surprised the Loyalists. The Colonels on horseback horseshoed around the mountain and led the men fighting  tree to tree to the top.
Ferguson was killed and the battle was a total Patriot victory.
Then at Cowpens South Carolina on Jan.17,1781 General Daniel Morgan and American Patriots defeated British Col..Banastre Tarlton. The victories of these two battles caused a British retreat to North Carolina where the American army engaged and bloodied them severely at Guilford Courthouse. With the help of the French fleet this led to surrender by the British at Yorktown Virginia on Oct. 19, 1781. On Sept. 3, 1783 England granted Independence to each of the 13 sovereign American colonies.

James W. King
Albany Commander Sons of Confederate Veterans may be contacted at

"Truth crushed to the earth is truth still, and like a seed will rise again."  - Jefferson Davis

Monday, June 05, 2017

Marxist Socialism In America

By James W. King
Albany Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) Camp Commander
Students at James Madison High School in Madison Wisconsin want the name of the school changed because Madison owned slaves. Using slavery as an excuse is a Marxist Socialist Communist ploy to change all of America's history. and it's future. Socialism and Communism hide and operate behind the cloak of humanitarianism while they stealthily work to enslave the planet. These students in Madison Wisconsin and the Democratic Hillary supporters who are rioting and demonstrating in America's cities are "useful idiots" as defined by Communist Vladimir Lenin. They don't have a clue that they are helping work to enslave their children, grandchildren and future generations. Socialism and Communism are using slavery as an excuse to erase Southern and Confederate history and the history of America's founding fathers. Also Christianity is being attacked. Next will be the U.S. flag the "Stars and Stripes" and eventually American sovereignty. The Bible predicts the coming of an evil One World Government and human misery on a scale this world has never seen.
Young Americans are very susceptible to indoctrination and many of America's schools have become indoctrination centers.  Karl Marx said "Separate people from their history so they can be easily persuaded-"The first step in liquidating a people is to erase its memory. Destroy its books, its culture, and its history. Then have somebody write new books, manufacture a new culture, invent a new history. Before long the nation will begin to forget what it is and what it was." -Karl Marx--Infamous European Socialist. Communist Vladimir Lenin is quoted "give us your child for 8 years and it will be a Bolshevik forever".
Socialist Communist Saul Alinsky wrote a book on how to create a Socialist country. Hillary Clinton and Obama studied his book. There are 8 levels of control to establish. The First and most important is HEALTH CARE-control health care and you control the people. Second-POVERTY-Increase the poverty level as high as possible. Poor people are easier to control and will not fight back if they are given all they need to live. Third-DEBT-Increase debt to an unsustainable level. This allows an increase in taxes which will produce more poverty. Fourth-GUN CONTROL-remove people's ability to fight the government and then create a police state. Fifth-WELFARE-take control of food housing and income. Sixth-EDUCATION-control the news media and what children are taught in school. Seventh-RELIGION-remove God from government and schools. Eighth-CLASS WARFARE-divide people into wealthy and poor. This will cause discontent and allow the wealthy to be taxed to support the poor. 
The three part conversion of the American Republic to Socialism began in 1861 with the Yankee "War of Northern Aggression"-the Political phase.  The Economic Phase started in 1913 with income tax, Federal Reserve and direct election of senators followed by the Cultural Phase in 1960-the Welfare and Nanny state. It is sucking America into the Marxist Quagmire. 

Contact me to receive my article"10 Causes of Southern Secession" and other articles defending Confederate history, heritage, and culture.
Please LIKE my
Freedom Watch
Facebook page
share it with friends

Please LIKE my
Southern Heritage News
& Views Facebook page
share it with friends.