Monday, June 26, 2017

St. Louis Confederate monument going down by Friday

Evidently some city leaders regard Confederate monuments as something that needs to be taken care of immediately.

In the above link the removal of the Confederate monument in St. Louis is announced and it is stated that the monument will be out by Friday.

St. Louis city government gave it to a Civil War Museum in Missouri and they settled the lawsuit over the ownership of the monument.

One of the stipulations is that it won't be shown in St. Louis. On private land outside of St. Louis the monument loses most of its power.

So this makes for St. Louis, New Orleans, and Orlando getting rid of their Confederate monuments.

So Baltimore is going to be at least 4th.

Friday, June 23, 2017

Crazed racist speech made at the Museum of the Confederay

The above is a link to an article published in the Southern Partisan in 1994. It is a crazed racist speech made by Ludwell H. Johnson at the Museum of the Confederacy (MOC) in November 1993 upon being named a Museum Scholar of the MOC.

It was published in Southern Partisan, 3rd Quarter 1994, pages 21-26.

It is now published online by the Abbeville Institute accessible in the above link.

For copyright reasons I could not quote it at length in this article about the MOC, link below.

As I explain in the Black Commentator article Ludwell Johnson's neo-Confederate views were no secret.

Unfortunately the MOC as part of the American Civil War Museum will be part of the decision how to contextualize the Confederate monuments on Richmond's Monument Ave. Richmond Mayor Levar Stoney announced that there will be a commission because the monuments have a "false narrative."

I see Stoney  is employing all the buzz words, like diversity.

The above post article states:

"He said he's personally insulted by the monuments and wishes they had never been built."

So insulted he doesn't want them removed evidently.

The Virginia Flagger's protests against Stoney are artfully being used to make Stoney look like he is some champion against neo-Confederates which he obviously isn't.

I think we see the tactics that will be used to retain Confederate monuments.

"How soon will the alt-right win an election?" article in "Salon"

The above is a link to an article by Matthew Sheffield in Salon, an online publication.

I commented on Stewart's performance in the Virginia governor's election in this blog.

It is always hard to know if a certain election is the crest of a trend with the trend diminishing in the future or whether it is a sign of things to come.

Stewart did very well for a person for a person who was greatly outspent and was entirely opposed by the Republican Party establishment.

I have been trying to alert the public about the neo-Confederates since the early 1990s and I am glad that someone is finally getting concerned.

I think that Corey Stewart with his defenses of Confederate monuments has made the connection between Confederate monuments and the Alt-right clear. Sheffield with his article alerting the public about Stewart the public will realize that Confederate monuments support the Alt-right.

Thursday, June 22, 2017

Popular culture very hostile to the Confederacy, Gizmodo article mocks the Confederacy

It used to be some journalist would criticize the Confederacy or the Confederate flag and neo-Confederates would flood the journalist with emails that were really hostile and sometimes email boxes would over flow. (That is something that could happen in the past.)

Now journalists don't worry about some Confederate email brigade. There are probably too many journals to attack with email floods and the journalists would report on them.

However, this article really goes after the Confederacy.

The title is "Confederate Group Fights For Possession of Time Capsule Found in Monument to Losers."

In the article Robert E. Lee is called a traitor. A member of the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC) is called a "loser." The author refers to the UDC's "racist ancestors."

Gizmodo is an extremely popular website for those interested in science fiction (sifi), technology, and comic books and graphic novels.

Popular youth culture, sci fi culture, and technology enthusiasts are very much against the Confederacy.

Perhaps because the STEM world (ScienceTechnologyEngineeringMathematics) has always been multinational, muticultural and of deep antiquity.

The fact that the rejection of neo-Confederacy is so complete, and so emphatic means the Confederacy is being rejected by American culture.

Wednesday, June 21, 2017

Now, Now Memphians, Kevin Levin wouldn't approve of this

Activists in Memphis state, "If you don't take those statues down then we will."

Oh my goodness, loud voices, what would Kevin Levin think! This blog posting gives a good idea of what he would think.

In this blog posting Levin lectures New Orleans:
"The city of New Orleans is offering the rest of the country a lesson on how not to deal with Confederate iconography in public spaces."
The blog posting link is to an article where there was "name calling, shouts, and acrimony." Oh heavens, bring me my smelling salts!

Levin thinks New Orleans should follow the example of Richmond in the above post. I might point out that New Orleans is Confederate monument free whereas Richmond is infested with them.

Now in Memphis they are being loud and there might be, dare I say it, name calling and shouts. Oh my!

I am kidding, I think shouting really helps get the leadership focused on doing something, otherwise you end up being another Baltimore.

I have completed a 10,000 word essay on Kevin Levin. He really has quite a track record. I have first started sharing it with all the people to whom he has directed personal attacks. That is keeping me somewhat busy.

I recommend this article.

Another article on the Memphis effort. I have contacted the group on Facebook.

Orlando, Florida monument moved.

I thought I should take notice of this removal. They are the 2nd city after New Orleans. It seems St. Louis is delayed.

What is happening in Baltimore? Maybe they are working to be the 37th city to remove their Confederate monuments or maybe the 61st city after Bug Tussle Junction.

These are some links to articles.

At the new location it will be contextualized.

I think the chamber of commerce groups are thinking that Confederate monuments are bad for business and mayors where there isn't a lot of local support for Confederate monuments are beginning to act. Better to act now with little opposition, then let it fester as an issue.

Each city that removes a monument further legitimizes this as a move. Also, the Sons of Confederate Veterans idea of calling a boycott soon because worthless as more and more cities remove monuments. And as more cities remove monuments, the residents of the cities where Confederate monuments remain are going to ask what is wrong with their leadership.

Sunday, June 18, 2017

Richard T. Hines of the "Southern Partisan" promoted in the "Southern Partisan" Plinio Correa de Oliveira's book

The title of this article is "This Secret Catholic Exorcist Cult in Brazil is Making a Deal with the Devil."

It is about the follows of Plinio Correa de Oliveira, a far right reactionary, who founded the group, Tradition, Family and Property Association, known as TFP.

He was the author of a book promoting the idea that societies needed aristocracies who should be the leaders of society. His book was "Nobility and Analogous Traditional Elites in the Allocutions of Pius XII." The following is the link for the book.    The page should be visited to observe reactionary pre-modern thinking.

The book was advertised in the Southern Partisan, Vol. 13, 3rd Quarter, inside cover. What is interesting it is endorsed by Richard T. Hines, who is listed as the Chairman of the Confederate Memorial Committee of the District of Columbia.  The book is promoted as "A Theme Illuminating American Social History." There is a section on antebellum slave holders.

Also, Ed Meese, former Attorney General and Counselor to President Reagan did a recommendation for the book and Morton Blackwell the head of the Leadership Institute wrote a foreword for the book.

On the side is a list of "Links of Interest." One of the links is the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

Most of the links are to various hereditary societies of people who think they are special because they are descended from various individuals in the past. There is the Order of the First Families of Maine and The Order of the First Families of Mississippi. I guess this helps some people to feel they are special. Of course hereditary societies are inherently anti-democratic.

Friday, June 16, 2017

Another Confederate monument coming down! Orlando, Florida prepares to take down Confederate monument

Mayor Buddy Dyer is going to have the statue removed from Lake Eola Park to Greenwood Cemetery.

This will make Baltimore, if they every get their Confederate monuments removed, at least 4th major city to remove their Confederate monuments after New Orleans, St. Louis, and Orlando.

Business community view of Confederate Monuments

This is a link to a Bloomberg article, "Alabama Won't Quit the Confederacy."

The subtitle is, "A state law preservers old monuments, the trace elements of treason and tyranny."

The article explains the law's workings. It is very critical of the state. These are some quotes.

Alabama markets its racial crucible, but still can't bear to get beyond it. In 2004 Lee Warner, then executive director of the Alabama Historical Commission, resigned from the commission, complaining that other members were less than eager to memorialize the civil-rights struggle.
Meantime, black children continue to move through abysmally underachieving high schools named for Davis and Lee. Like Mississippi, Alabama continues to observe a combined state holiday jointly honoring King and Lee, a slave owner who fought to maintain totalitarian tyranny over black people. It's an occasion both to begrudge King's achievements, and to thwart them.

If white supremacy in America refuses to die, it's in part because too many white politicians insist on filling its decaying lungs with breath. The Memorial Preservation Act is only the latest attempt to resuscitate the corpse.
There are many articles critical of Confederate monuments and this article is a good article doing that. What makes it very significant is that it is in a prominent business publication and it sends a message to the business community that Alabama is retrograde on Civil Rights. Not a good place to locate a facility which will require hiring professionals with various specialized skills.

The Nation has an article about the farce of Republican legislators using various pretexts to keep Confederate monuments.

The Bloomberg article doesn't pull punches. This is the comment of the author.
That the law's proponents were too cowardly to admit what they were doing -- they just love old stuff -- might be considered incremental progress. But as Landrieu acknowledged, there is no decent way to compromise with the Confederacy. The statues and school names, trace elements of tyranny and treason, must go.
Across the political spectrum, excluding right-wing cranky, there is support for Confederate monuments to go.

It is my intention of keeping a registrar of who votes for the retention of Confederate monuments. If the Republican Party is the party of the Confederacy they should know that it will be documented and it is and it will be their public image.

Wednesday, June 14, 2017

Corey Stewart loses by a small margin in Virginia

Corey Stewart lost the Virginia Republican Republican primary by a very small margin. But he lost.

One of his issues he campaigned on was the retention of Confederate monuments which he loudly supported. He also strongly identified with Donald Trump in his campaign.

Here are some articles.

This is a mixed outcome in some ways. The fact that Stewart was defeated is good since he was a supporter of honoring the Confederacy and keeping Confederate monuments. Had he been successful in the primary we could expect other Republicans in Virginia and elsewhere to be stronger supporters of honoring the Confederacy.

It is bad since Stewart didn't have the Republican establishment support, not as much money as the establishment candidate, and by emphasizing the Confederacy nearly won the primary. By being a loud supporter of the Confederacy Stewart got national attention and was able to counter the resources and support of the establishment Republican candidate.

Republicans in Virginia and elsewhere will note this. They may not want to go on record as being big supporters of the Confederacy, but they won't want to be known as opponents either.

Had Stewart been defeated by a large margin, the prospects of the Confederacy in the South would have been greatly diminished.

So Corey's defeat is a defeat for the supporters of the Confederacy, but it isn't much of a victory of the Confederacy either. It is a step down the road which may prove to be a long road.

Tuesday, June 13, 2017

"Why Are Eight Confederate Icons Still Proudly Displayed In The U.S. Capitol?"

The link to the Village Voice article is:

I think attention is going to turn to Washington, DC and Confederate statues and monuments on federal grounds.

Arlington National Cemetery Confederate monument isn't mentioned.  I think Donald Trump sent a wreath to the monument this year. I wasn't able to find news reporting one way or the other.

We have a petition asking Trump not to send a wreath to the monument and you can sign here.

Monday, June 12, 2017

Allison Wicks, "D Magazine" and the opposition to removing Confederate monuments.

American Conservative has published another article defending Confederate monuments by Quentin B. Fairchild.

Intellectually it is just so much thrashing but represents the type of arguments we will face.

I think that what is important is to know which players are behind it.

American Conservative is published by the American Ideas Institute.  The masthead for the magazine and the board of directors for the American Ideas Institute are at this web page.

You will see that Allison Wicks is the Chairman of the Board of Trustees and the publisher of D Magazine.

This is the 2nd article American Conservative has published defending Confederate statues.

This is an earlier blog in the Robert E. Lee Park blog on a previous article in American Conservative defending Confederate monuments by Rod Dreher.

I am not surprised that American Conservative is taking the lead to defend Confederate monuments. In their pages I have found many persons who contributed to Southern Partisan or Chronicles or otherwise are involved in neo-Confederate groups.

Reactionary Dallas appears to be mobilizing to defend Confederate monuments.

Sunday, June 11, 2017

Garrett Epps points out in "The Atlantic" that the fight over monuments is not a fight over the past but a fight over the future.

Garrett Epps, Richmond native, has an article in The Atlantic titled, "The True History of the South Is Not Being Erases: Taking down Confederate monuments helps confront the past, no obscure it."

The article concludes
This is not a fight over history; it is a fight over the future. The neo-Confederate faith is not a heritage; it is a political program. And the proper lesson of Southern history is that this radical message—unapologetic, uncompromising, violent white supremacy—lurks in the American bloodstream like a virus, re-emerging at times when the national immune system is weak.

We may be living through an outbreak.

To survive and prosper, the South, and the nation, must renounce this pernicious creed and disarm its symbols. The bronze and marble men do no honor to the region’s true parents; they do, however, dishonor its children.
One way or another, they must yield their unearned pride of place.
For those who know my views I have always said it was a fight over the future. I have always said that it is a political program of white supremacy, and that it poisons our future.

Saturday, June 10, 2017

"20-minute drive from one of the most vile Confederate monuments in the great state of Tennessee"

From an article about a Canadian hockey player of Caribbean origins in a major Canadian paper is this statement:

“I never look at myself as a black player,” Subban told ESPN recently, a sentiment he has expressed in the past. “I think of myself as a hockey player that wants to be the best player in the league. I know I’m black. Everyone knows I’m black. But I don’t want to be defined as a black hockey player.” 
It is an admirable wish. What makes it especially compelling, in the Nashville context, is that here is Subban, a Canadian, a child of Caribbean immigrants from a diverse city (Toronto) bedazzling Predators fans and potentially winning a Stanley Cup in an arena that is about a 20-minute drive from one of the most vile Confederate monuments in the great state of Tennessee.

 The title of the article is, "P.K. Subban faces off against the politics of the Old South still on display in Tennessee." This is the link to the article.

Subban plays for the Nashville Predators hockey team.

The story has the picture of Jack Kershaw's sculpture of Confederate general Nathan Bedford Forrest. It is made of resin and as the article says, "is garishly cartoonish." The article doesn't mention it, but Jack Kershaw was a member of the League of the South. Kershaw was also involved in the opposition to civil rights in the mid-20th century.

In the article Subban actually doesn't say anything about monuments, the Confederacy, or Confederate monuments or Nathan Bedford Forrest.

What is interesting is that a major Canadian paper decided that the story line of their article would be, "Our black Canadian hero Subban is succeeding in America, in Tennessee, in defiance of this place where there are Confederate monuments, and pro-Confederate crazies."

Though Subban isn't quoted saying anything about the Confederacy or monuments to it, it is just assumed that it is a story that he is in such a place where they have Confederate monuments and that is the big story.

Note that the story stresses that Subban is from Toronto, "a diverse city" in contrast to Nashville which, as the article proceeds to explain, is in the center of Confederate crazy-land.

I am sure civic leaders in Nashville will not appreciate that they are seen as Confederate crazy-land. This is not good for business, not good for attacting talented individuals and businesses, not good for real estate values.

This is going to be a factor getting Confederate monuments taken down in America. Cities are not going to want to be seen as Confederate crazy lands.

As the monuments come down in some cities in the South those that still have them will be seen as Confederate crazy-lands.

Friday, June 09, 2017

What is next after Confederate monuments come down

As Confederate monuments come tumbling down, the question arises,  "what next?"

I think the situation has changed dramatically in the last month.

One particularly interesting development is that neo-Confederates groups will have no ability to defend Confederate statues in any significant city. The defense of the Confederacy is no defense of Confederate monuments and being associated with a neo-Confederate group instantly destroys credibility.

Instead there are arguments about preserving history or preserving African American history or some other convoluted argument. No one, is going to argue that the monuments should remain because the Confederacy was a great effort or a Confederate leader was some type of hero. The idea that the Confederacy is "Southern heritage" will be meet with derision.

Even some of the simpler arguments in defending Confederate monuments are subject to ridicule. The title of this article is, "Confederate monument supporters say the darnedest things."

So you have more involved arguments that monuments to white supremacy need to be kept to fight white supremacy. Such as this article in the New York Times.

Even this got ridiculed by Sarah Jones of the New Republic.

So now it is arguments like these:

or this one.

I don't think anyone is agreeing with these arguments unless they are desperately searching for some rationalization to keep Confederate monuments.

I think after a few more cities get rid of their Confederate monuments the number of people who want to have a defense or rationalization for keeping Confederate monuments on their resume' will be very few and confined to cranky right wing magazines.

The removal of the monuments will have a tremendous effect that I don't think people really appreciate.

Every Confederate monument whispers, "Civil rights maybe the slogan of the day, but white supremacy is for the ages."  Monuments speak literally with monumental authority. The persons who put them up had the resources to do so and authority to get them put in prominent municipal spaces and thus securing the endorsement of the municipality whether country or city.

As Confederate monuments and place names disappear, as governmental bodies drop the use of Confederate symbols the Confederacy will be the private passion of individuals which will increasingly be seen as aberrant.

In such an environment the involvement of neo-Confederate groups such as the Sons of Confederate Veterans and the United Daughters of the Confederacy in the Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps (JROTC) will be unacceptable.

Confederate awards at U.S. military academies will be questioned.

American history text books which indulge neo-Confederates and the Lost Cause will be unacceptable.

Donald Trump won't want to send a wreath to the Arlington Confederate monument.

Churches will stop hosting neo-Confederate functions unless they are fringe. Other organizations will distance themselves from neo-Confederates.

And as neo-Confederates are rejected by some, their acceptance by others will seem less acceptable.

I think the textbooks ought to be of concern. When reading "The American Pageant" by Lizabeth Cohen of Harvard Univ. and David M. Kennedy of Stanford Univ. you realize why  it has taken so long to get rid of Confederate monuments. I think history textbooks like these are really  pernicious in their effects.

I think it should be the next area to push after the Confederate monuments come down and I think that when the Confederate monuments come down these textbooks will be much more vulnerable.

I think after the monuments come down it won't take too long to get the U.S. military and the JROTC programs to drop the Confederacy. The churches are already dropping the Confederacy after my letter writing campaign. I have some more letters to write, but I think no neo-Confederate group is going to get a major mainstream denomination to allow them the use of their facilities.

So I think the next front will be American history textbooks which indulge the Confederacy and fans of the Confederacy.

"Anti-Confederate monument fever spreads North, East, even West: Opinion" from "New Orleans Times-Picayune"

The above is the link to the article.

It seems that the dam has broken. With New Orleans demonstrating that it can be done, citizens of other cities ask why their city still has Confederate monuments. It is a question that city leaders don't want to answer and would much rather take down the Confederate monuments.

Now a monument in St. Louis is coming down.

In this article they are talking about changing the name of Confederate Drive and changing it to Scott Joplin Drive in honor of the famous ragtime music composer.

As each city gets rid of its Confederate monuments the pressure will intensify on the other cities. Referring to a state law forbidding the removal of a Confederate monument won't do much good either. Cities can send scathing denunciations to state legislatures. There can be marches on the capital. There can be contextualization that is scathing also. I don't think the Republican Party wants to be the party of the Confederacy in the news day after day.

And many Confederate monuments are in cities where the Republican Party hasn't passed laws protecting them.

Once Confederate monuments come down there are other things to be attended to. The U.S. Military needs to stop working with neo-Confederate groups including ROTC. Some of our school textbooks are Lost Causes. Churches need to stop hosting neo-Confederate groups.

As for Baltimore it will be amusing to see if it is the 3rd, 4th, ... 17th city to get rid of its Confederate monuments. As its rank order increase, as the possible cardinal number begins to climb, I think residences of Baltimore will begin to realize the reality of their city.

Some Scott Joplin. Click on images to see the entire video.

Maybe Richmond won't follow the Richmond example

This was published in the Richmond Times-Dispatch today or yesterday.

The title is "Monuments whitewash history," by John Winn III.

The letter to the editor is given the award "Correspondent of the Day," with a fountain pen drawing. He is listed as a resident of Richmond by the Times-Dispatch. So Levin can't ask Winn his question, "Have you ever been to Richmond?" which he asked Sarah Jones when she proposed taking down the Confederate statues.

A single letter, even given the Correspondent of the Day designation, won't by itself bring down the monuments. It will be a voice to bring the Confederate monuments down and that is important.

However, the letter being given the designation Correspondent of the Day may signify that the Richmond Times-Dispatch is shifting on the monuments. They could have just published the letter, but instead decided to give it a special designation. Perhaps they want to be able to position themselves as neutrals going into what they see as an upcoming intensified struggle over the Confederate monuments.

I am sure that those involved in Richmond politics, civic affairs, cultural institutions will note that this letter was given a special designation by the Richmond Times-Dispatch.

I  doubt that the elites of Richmond wanted Richmond singled out as Confederate monument city before the nation. To be set up as the opposite of New Orleans.  To be seen as a new capitol of Confederate monuments as they tumble elsewhere across the nation.Yet, Levin made Richmond the capitol of Confederate monument retention in this article.

I doubt African American Mayor Dwight C. Jones wanted to be set up as the opposite of New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu.

The Virginia Defenders are quite aware of Levin's Smithsonian article. They took pains to explain to me that they wanted the monuments down. I am sure that Jones political opponents in the African American community have taken note of this article.

I have always said that pressing on the issue of Confederate symbols, place names, and monuments would be a lens to see who people really are.

The Smithsonian magazine article really pulled away the curtain and exposed Richmond's soul.

This maybe the first visible fracture in the defenses of the capitol of the Confederate monuments.

For those in Richmond who want to get their Confederate monuments taken down I recommend this article.

Thursday, June 08, 2017

African American leadership in Arizona campaigning against Confederate monuments there

These are some of the articles.

Evidently Arizona doesn't want to follow Richmond's example and instead follow New Orleans's.

There has been some who think that New Orleans is a bad example and Richmond is a good example because Richmond hasn't taken down their Confederate monuments.

This is a blog posting of a person who has advocated that Confederate monuments be retained.

If the above posting is deleted, the website is archived on

This article discusses the new type of opposition to Confederate monument removal.

This article has the history of the local monuments.

As monuments come down in one location the pressure will intensify  in other locations.

Looks like St. Louis is going to follow the example of New Orleans and not Richmond

Looks like St. Louis is going to follow the example of New Orleans and not Richmond.

With the monuments gone in New Orleans, communities are looking to their leadership and asking why their monuments haven't been removed.

The usual "blah blah blah" given as to why  the Confederate monument hasn't been removed isn't being accepted. People understand that where there is a will there is a way.

After St. Louis removes their Confederate monument other towns will be asking why their city hasn't removed their Confederate monuments. As each city removes their Confederate monument it will intensive the pressure to remove Confederate monuments in other cities. Who knows, maybe even Baltimore will find themselves removing a Confederate monument, maybe even two.

Other links about St. Louis removing the Confederate monument.

For every city where activists are working to get rid of Confederate monuments I recommend this article which mentions the new type of opposition they are likely to face.

Tuesday, June 06, 2017

The stereotype of what a white nationalist is and how they exploit it. "Baffler" magazine article

This is the link to an article, "White Nationalism's New Clothes," at the Baffler.

I think people are beginning to realize that not all white nationalists wear odd clothes or are marginal individuals.

It will be a good development when people realize this since they will begin to see the white nationalists that previously they didn't.

Monday, May 29, 2017

Baltimore next to remove Confederate monuments? UPDATE1 Looks like St. Louis is next

From the above link.

Former Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake wasn't at a loss to find reasons to stall and not get Confederate monuments removed.

The commission appointed by Rawlings-Blake decided to remove only 3 of the 5 Confederate monuments in Baltimore coming up with excuses to keep two.

However, there wasn't really a plan to move the monuments and they sat in place. Rawlings-Blake had signs put up by the monuments to contextualize them.

The Baltimore Sun has been critical of the city administration. In this article about Baltimore comparing it to New Orleans. the editors wrote:
In January of last year, a seven-member mayoral commission recommended the removal of two of four Confederate era monuments from Baltimore's public parks. Sixteen months later, the offending statues haven't budged. While some "interpretive" signage has been added, they remain where they are and what they are — symbols of racism, fond tributes to the "Lost Cause" cult.
Last week in a city about as deep in the Deep South as possible and where there is far greater affection for the Confederacy than in Baltimore, workers removed that last of four monuments deemed just as offensive. ...

New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu didn't shirk his responsibility. He didn't drag his feet or choose to let the next administration deal with the controversy. He wasn't swayed by arguments that these monuments had some transcendent artistic or historic merit that made them off-limits. Instead, he gave a speech in which he clearly and convincingly explained why removing these monuments was not a denial of a benign history but an avowal of the terrorism and white supremacy they represented and that was no longer to be tolerated.
Clearly this is a slam at former Mayor Rawlings-Blake. Also it asks questions why New Orleans removed their monuments before Baltimore. I think the reason is that there is behind the scenes politically influential groups that back the monuments and who the political leadership of Baltimore feel they must answer to.

However, it seems that the new Mayor Catherine Pugh isn't in a hurry to get ride of the Confederate monument. One of her suggestions is to auction off the monuments to pay for the cost of removal. Not really a plan to do anything at all. Not a lot of demand for Confederate monuments now days, certainly not enough to pay for a monument removal.

The cost of the monument removal is being brought up by Mayor Pugh. She estimates that each monument removal will cost $200,000 and with a city budget of $2.8 billion that money to remove these monuments somehow can't be found.

As the old cliche' goes, "Where there is a will there is a way."

I think that if the monuments aren't removed soon it will become clear who really runs Baltimore and who the political leadership of Baltimore feels they must answer to. As the Confederate monuments remain it will reveal what the political leadership of Baltimore is made of.

Of course there could be a development where political groups outside the establishment will seize on this issue to discredit the establishment in which case the monuments will be removed and Mayor Pugh will make many fine speeches about it.

I don't think the monuments in Baltimore are going anywhere soon. Hopefully I am wrong.

It will likely be some other city elsewhere which will be next to remove their Confederate monuments.


Looks like St. Louis is next. I am numbering these posts since my expectation is that there will be several cities getting rid of their Confederate monuments while Baltimore's leadership is stumbling around.

Wednesday, May 24, 2017

Warning to Synagogues Part 2

See my previous posting.

I also recommend reading the following article. It is by David A. Love, at CNN, "Lynching re-emerges in new rhetoric of hate." This type of violence is already happening. 

This is an extract from a draft about the Sons of Confederate Veterans offering for sale the book "Cultures in Conflict" by Charles A. Jennings. Unitarians should also be careful.

Most ominously was a book review in the Jan./Feb. 2016 Confederate Veteran, Boyd D. Cathey reviews “Cultures in Conflict: The Union Desecration of Southern Churches and Cemeteries,” by Charles A. Jennings. The publisher given is Truth in History in Owasso, Oklahoma. This is the same publisher and city given for the book at the website.
Cathey’s review states that in the book Jennings explains that “the Northern and Southern states were growing dramatically apart, not just politically and economically, but also religiously and culturally,” and that “by the 1830s and 1840s, the South was becoming more conservative religiously and culturally, while in many areas of the North, the older Puritanism had evolved into Unitarianism and liberal evangelicalism.”
Cathey then asks the question, “But how to explain the rage and sickening zeal of many Northern soldiers and the ravages they committed when they came South?” Cathey refers to the books forward written by Charles Baker stating:

In his forward to the book, Dr. Charles Baker attributes this lapse into what was basically barbarism to the collapse of orthodox Puritanism and the increasing dominance of liberal Protestantism.

Cathey quotes Thornwell’s statement about the true nature of the conflict as previously quoted in this chapter. The book thus makes the desecration of churches and cemeteries in the South, “barbarism,” “ravages” done with “sickening zeal” due to the “collapse of orthodox Puritanism” which Cathey had also referred to as “the older Puritanism” having “evolved into Unitarianism and liberal evangelicalism.”
The Truth in History web site currently (7/2/2016) has a web page article, “Jewish Hatred Against Jesus Christ.” In another article, “The House of Israel and The House of Judah,” asserts that the ancient Israelites weren’t the ancestors of modern day Jews. Another article, “The Seventy Weeks of Daniel,” explains the history of the persecutions of the Jews as the punishments by Jesus upon the Jews for their rejecting him and the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans as another divine punishment.[i]  At the Truth in History website Charles Jennings is listed as the contact person with the phone number matching the phone number in the Confederate Veteran review.[ii] Also, earlier archived web pages at have Charles A. Jennings as the website author in the “About Us” description.[iii]
Dr. Charles E. Baker was the Chaplain in Chief of the SCV in the early 1990s.[iv]
The Truth in History website has listed this book on their website in the past and it can be found on archived web pages at However, now you would not find it on the Truth in History website, but you will find it sold at the Biblical and Southern Studies website which was founded by Rondel Rumburg, past Chaplain-in-Chief of the SCV, and the editor of the Chaplains’ Corps Chronicles of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, and is the editor of the 3rd edition “Chaplain’s Handbook,” for the Chaplains in the SCV.[v]
Boyd D. Cathey was on the Editorial Advisor Committee of The Journal of Historical Review of the Institute for Historical Review, according to an archived page from 2001.[vi] According to Scott Miller, University Programs Coordinator at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C., “The central institution of Holocaust denial in the United States is the Institute for Historical Review (IHR), located in southern California, and founded (with a deceptively scholarly name) by Willis Carto.”[vii]
The offer for sale of this book as well as the book review could possibly introduce SCV members to the Truth of History publisher and possibly Truth of History’s website’s promotion of what could be characterized as virulent anti-Semitism without the book review referencing anything about Jewish people.
In regards to Unitarians, in being made historical villains whose religion resulted in “desecrations” and “ravages” done with “sickening zeal,” it is entirely reasonable that someone might decide to avenge these alleged historical crimes with an act of violence.

[i] Truth in History website,,  article “Jewish Hatred Against Jesus Christ,”, printed out 7/2/2016;  article about Jews not being Israelites, “The House of Israel and The House of Judah,”, printed out 7/2/2016; “The Seventy Weeks of Daniel,”, printed out 7/2/2016.
[iv] Baker, Charles Estell, “Chaplain’s Comments,” Confederate Veteran, Jan.-Feb. 1993, pp. 44. This issue doesn’t have a volume or number.
[v] The website seems to be primarily devoted to publishing H. Rondel Rumburg’s writings, but doesn’t give much information who is in charge. The page, does list H. Rondel Rumburg as the contact individual for the group. However, Gary Lee Roper does mention that Rondel Rumburg is the founder of the Society for Biblical and Southern Studies in “Antebellum Slavery: An Orthodox Christian View,” Gary Lee Roper publisher, 2008, pp. 179. The first issue of the Chaplain’s Corps Chronicles of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, Jan. & Feb. 2006, has him as Chaplain-in-Chief writing an editorial,, printed out 7/3/2016, and he is listed as the editor in the June 2016 issue,, printed out 7/3/16. For the listing of the 3rd edition of the “Enlarged Sesquicentennial Edition” of the “Chaplain’s Handbook,”, printed out 7/3/2016.
[vi], printed out 7/3/2016. Later archived pages don’t list the Editorial Advisory Committee.
[vii] Miller, Scott, “Denial of the Holocaust,”, printed out 7/3/2016. This is the website of the National Council for the Social Studies, an organization for social studies education and was founded in 1921. 

Monday, May 22, 2017

Mississippi State Rep. Karl Oliver calls for the lynching of those who destroy Confederate monuments. Definition of "destroy" appears to include taking them down. I have updated my warning to Synagogues post. UPDATE2: Coverage of comments national and international.

This is Karl Oliver's Facebook page with the call for lynching.

UPDATE: Facebook posting has been pulled or not publicly available. 

This is the Facebook posting calling for lynching.

His Facebook posting is a photo of the head of the Robert E. Lee statue, with the following text.

The destruction of these monuments, erected in the loving memory of our family and fellow Southern Americans, is both heinous and horrific. If the, and I use this term extremely loosely, "leadership" of Louisiana wishes to, in a Nazi-ish fashion, burn books or destroy historical monuments of OUR HISTORY, they should be LYNCHED! Let it be known, I will do all in my power to prevent this from happening in our State.

You can see from the text, Karl Oliver sees the removal of the monuments as being their destruction. Karl Oliver states, "The destruction of these monuments, ..." in reference to the monuments in New Orleans, of which one of them he has posted a picture of the head.

This is very interesting in that it shows that a monument only does its function, the promotion of a historical view, on public display. A tree that falls in the forest when no one is there does makes a sound, but no one hears it. So essentially a monument which is removed from public display in a government space or a space giving it credibility, has its function destroyed. Karl Oliver intuitively understands this and sees the monuments as having been destroyed.

Also, a monument removed to a museum where it is explained as a physical element promoting white supremacy also has its function destroyed.

So Karl Oliver is calling for the lynching of not just those who physically destroy monuments, but those who would have Confederate monuments removed from places where they can do their reputational work.

It has made the local news.

Violence is a core element of neo-Confederate ideology as I have stated in my blog before and as I detail in my book "Pernicious."

The Sons of Confederate Veterans sells the video "Birth of a Nation."

In their catalog they sell books in which the violent Red Shirts are represented as heroes.

I am quite serious in this warning to synagogues. I have updated with information about Karl Oliver.

I don't think he knows that the "Confederate and Neo-Confederate Reader" is published by the Univ. of Mississippi Press.  Maybe I should send him a free copy.

I wonder what the Sons of Confederate Veterans and the United Daughters of the Confederacy will have to say about Karl Oliver's statements.

UPDATE2: National and international coverage.

This is an AP newstory run at US News and World Report.

He has since apologized

Maybe this will get the ball rolling on changing the Mississippi state flag.

Please sign the petition asking Donald Trump not to send a wreath to the Arlington Confederate monument.

Sunday, May 21, 2017

"Bronze Plaques Matter" article by African American conservative

A lot of rationalizations will now be forth coming.

Burn Confederate flags on memorial day, so many to burn also

I will be burning Confederate flags on memorial day and putting it on Youtube. I will be burning and doing periscope broadcasting also.

I invite other people to burn and record it and put it on Youtube or facebook.

A lot of people know about the Confederate battle flag, but there are a fair number of other flags that you can burn and let people know about. You can burn over a dozen flags with Confederate origins.

I include a link so you can download, print and burn..

1. Bonnie Blue flag.

This flag, and when you see it don't let them tell you it is the flag of Somalia, which is similar, is a Confederate flag. I have seen it flow when I was walking off the campus of a university in the South. It was being flown by  a fraternity which has a reputation. They were standing in the front of the house and you could sort of tell from their expressions they thought they were pulling off something. Flying a Confederate flag but no one knew it.

2. 1st, 2nd and 3rd national flags of the Confederacy.

The 1st national Confederate flag is also popular for people and institutions to fly when they want to fly a Confederate flag and avoid a reaction. Evidently the idea that flying one flag in support of a nation dedicated to the purpose to preserve white supremacy and slavery is okay if the general public doesn't recognize it. They are not concerned that Civil War buffs recognize it because they generally  don't care.

3. The Van Dorn battle flag, Flag of the First Corps Army of Tennessee, Flag of the 1st Cherokee Mounted Rifles, J.P. Gills Flag, Flag of the Army of Northern Virginia, also called the Robert E. Lee Headquarters Flag."

4. Mississippi state flag. Sort of obvious.

5. This is the Confederate flag of Georgia and the state flag of Georgia.
Confederate flag of Georgia
State flag of Georgia.
You can see that it still incorporates an element of a Confederate flag.

The state flag of Georgia got ride of the obvious Confederate battle flag symbol but still incorporates the Confederacy.

6. The Confederate flag of South Carolina.
South Carolina Confederate flags.

Current flag of South Carolina. Adopted in Jan. 28, 1861.

7. The flag of the Citadel.
Civil War flag of the Citadel.

Also the Big Red flag of the Citadel today. Somewhat a resemblance since it is an intentional replica.

8. First Confederate Navy Jack

9. First Confederate Navy Ensign

10. The state flag of Virginia was adopted when it was a Confederate state.

You will note that the slogan on the flag is also the slogan of John Wilkes Booth who stated it when he shot Abraham Lincoln.

11. State flag of Arkansas

12. State flag of Alabama

They are passing legislation to protect Confederate monuments so burn two of them.

13. State flag of North Carolina

If you were surprised that your state was a Confederate flag or containing Confederate elements a burning of the flag will help educate the public.

John Sims symbolically burns Confederate flags in Detroit

This is an article about John Sims symbolically burning a Confederate flag in Detroit.

It will be at the N'Namdi Center art gallery.

Saturday, May 20, 2017

"Confederate monument supporters say the darnedest things"

The above is the link to the article. It is a take down of various half-witted things Confederate monument supporters say.

The Democrats are the party of James Buchanan

The Democrats are the party of James Buchanan.

The Republican Party was explained to be the party of Jefferson Davis explicitly by former Republican Mississippi U.S. Senator Trent Lott and also less directly by former Republican Texas U.S. Senator Phil Gramm in interviews in Southern Partisan.  Southern Partisan declared the Republican Party to be a Confederate party with its T-shirt.

However, when it comes to fighting against Confederate monuments and flags the Democrats have proven to be the party of James Buchanan. They hope to shake loose a few electoral votes in the next election by avoiding the topic.

In Louisiana the Republicans were fairly active in supporting the Confederacy. Former Republican Louisiana Gov. and one-time presidential candidate Jindal spoke out against removing the Confederate monuments. The Louisiana Republican House Reps voted for a bill to block removing Confederate monuments.  In other states Republicans are active in finding ways of blocking the removal of Confederate monuments.

One reason they are succeeding is that there really isn't much of an opposition by the Democratic Party. There are some Democratic elected officials fighting, but it is largely elected African American Democrats.

The policy of the Democratic Party seems to be that African Americans if they don't like the lack of action of the Democrats have no place to go.

This policy of not engaging on the issue of Confederate monuments is not confined to just centrist Democrats. It ranges across the liberal/left as well as centrist Democrats. Some of it is that among liberals and leftists there are many who  have the delusional thinking having an attachment to the Confederacy is not incompatible with being progressive. They are banal white nationalists. Other Democrats don't want to get in a fight with them.

A lot of it is calculation by the Democrats to get those extra white nationalist votes.

They will avoid engaging the issue by arguing that it is a matter of priorities or some other rationalization. The fact of the matter is that they don't want to face the issue.

Yes, there have been occasions, such as in 2015, where the Democrats did engage the issue, but we will not go forward getting rid of the monuments if the only time the Democrats act is right after a massacre.

I think a start is that unless a candidate has a position against Confederate monuments and symbols you don't support that candidate. Certainly you don't campaign for that candidate or donate money. It might result in a bad candidate being elected, but if we give in to this tactic of Democrats where they point out how scary the opponent is so that you vote for their flawed candidate the tactic will continue and there will be no progress in getting rid of Confederate monuments.

Also, to find out if a candidate has a position, you need to ask, and if they don't, ask that they take a position. If the issue starts coming up in candidate forums, I think that others hearing your question will start thinking about it as well and perhaps start asking the question themselves.

Another thing is that tables or lists need to be maintained on local candidates where they  stand. We need to divide the candidates into Pro-Confederate, anti-Confederate, and dough faces.

Refusal to respond to a questionnaire should be understood as supporting the statue quo and if the status quo has Confederate monuments you know how that candidate stands.

In some localities monuments aren't coming down without a sustained effort and an effort where Democrats will realize that they will be held accountable. It will mean writing letters, asking candidates to take a stand, appearing at public events. It won't take a lot of effort. A team of five with a few hours a week devoted to the effort could affect a real change in the political climate.

Dallas opposition to removing the Robert E. Lee statue in Dallas.

I blogged about it here.

I have a blog devoted to just the Robert E. Lee Park in Dallas, Texas and its monument.

You can sign up for emails for this blog and the Robert E. Lee Park blog to get updates of each blog posting.

Friday, May 19, 2017

Imagining No America

Edited for clarity and a little elaboration of ideas.

As any reader of this blog knows I oppose secession movements generally, though I think there are exceptions, and I opposed all and any secession movements from the United States of America.

The idea of living in a small nation nauseates me. I don't mind visiting a small nation, I suppose it could be quaint, and those that live there, if they are happy living there, that is fine. I would find it claustrophobic. The next big thing would be always coming from outside the nation.

As I explained in an earlier post I like driving long distances with no borders. I like great national enterprises. I think large nations generally are more secure.

Anyone who reads cultural geography and the theory of nationalism knows that nations are imagined. We are Americans because we imagine we are. Nations involve continuous work of creating national identity in the next generation.

Nations are created because there are those, usually national elites, who desire that the nation exist. Nations as an idea develop starting in the 18th century and triumph in the 20th century, but the idea  is declining towards the end of the 20th century and during the 21st century as elites instead imagine globalism. Also, our global interconnectivity tends to erase boundaries.

Should nationalism cease to be useful to someone their national identity can vanish quickly.

Such as in this article, "We could have been Canada?"

I think this article is published for amusement. I think it is.  However, I think it is of concern because we can easily imagine many things as it suits our fancy and in reading this article many can start imagining alternatives to being American since they learn the United States of America is not a given.

All nations exist only as long as they are seen as needed. They can vanish easily.

I think the reasons for national existence in the 19th and 20th century are inadequate for a variety of reasons. They are basically ad hoc for the needs of their time. There needs to be a reason for national existence suitable for the 21st century.

I think that there are many good reasons to live in a large Republic. Someone needs to enumerate why living in a large nation is inherently better.

Secession movements will continue to be a possibility as long as national existence is based on ideas of the 19th and 20th century. In particular, exceptionalism, the idea that America is outside of ordinary history, is not good. The moment America is doing poorly, the moment the spell of exceptionalism is broken, America will find itself desperate for a justification.

I don't think we can defend American national existence if we don't recognize what sustains national identity and recognize the fragility of nations. If we assume that it is set in concrete we will have done nothing to defend national existence against the possible events of history.

Thursday, May 18, 2017

Robert E. Lee is going down! This is a good example for Dallas, Texas. FRIDAY, Updates Continue Friday Lunch update Evening Update

Title of above article is, "Barricades, no parking signs crop up near Lee Circle signaling possible removal of state." It has a date time of May 18, 2017 4:29 pm.

Sounds like it is going to happen soon. This will be a great example to Dallas, Texas to take down their Robert E. Lee statue. This is the blog to take down the Robert E. Lee statue in Dallas, Texas.

I will update as this happens. Multiple reports of barricades going up and expectation that the Lee statue is going down.

Many commercials at this page.

You can see video at this page.

7:56 CST

New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu is going to speak on the removal of the monuments Friday.

Well I am retiring for the night. I will update in the morning.

Back up for 15 minutes with this update. Title is "All signs point to removal of New Orleans' Robert E. Lee statue imminent."  They expect the statue will be removed Friday morning. Only a handful of protesters showed up so far. The pro-Confederates and neo-Confederates have given up.

The Robert E. Lee statue is coming down during the day.

Picture gallery.

It is a national story.

It is an AP news story.

Mitch Landrieu is going to give remarks on the removal of the four Confederate landmarks.

"Special address on removal of monuments form New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu set for Friday."


You can watch it live at this website. It is their websites lead story and it is the first thing you see on the home page. The equipment is there. It is huge.

Neo-Confederates angry. Their world is going under.

Plans in place for former locations of Confederate monuments.

Louisiana House bill to protect monuments uses term, "War Between the States." The title of the article is, "Ar Louisiana House members Monuments Men or Confederate fanboys?: Opinion."

Winter Institute helped New Orleans address Confederate monuments

Back to work. I will update this evening.

Evening updates
Best online place to watch is

I am watching on Periscope when available. The neo-Confederate make all sorts of nonsensical historical claims.

New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu has issued a statement.

The guys doing the work are really brave. They are way, way up high, and they are exposed to any crazed individual that might shoot. I don't know if I could do the job.

Ask Trump not to send a wreath to the Arlington Confederate monument.

The Nola live feed seems to be getting overloaded. I am going to try to find another live feed.

Back to Nola.


Mayor Mitch Landrieu's speech.

Revolution against the Confederacy is coming.

They plan to go after everything. Quoting from the article.
The organization identified more than 100 statues, 24 streets, seven schools, and two hospitals that it says pay tribute to slavery. These include Tulane University, named after Paul Tulane, who was the largest donor to the Confederacy in New Orleans; several schools named after John McDonogh, who was a prominent slave owner in the city; and Governor Nichols Street, named after a Confederate general.

The success of their efforts will provide a template for the nation. It is a multiracial intergenerational coalition.

This is there web page.

Sign the petition.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Popular Posts Last 30 days

Popular Posts All Time