Max Bluementhal has this article on Yahoo from Nation magazine.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20070628/cm_thenation/45209093
Arthur Ravenal, who is heading Giuliani's campaign, had a speech defending secession in the Congressional Record, June 25, 1991. It was reprinted in the Vol. 11, 2nd Quarter 1991 issue of Southern Partisan, page 10.
This is the Congressional Record entry for the 102nd Congress:
SUPPORT FOR SECESSIONISTS (House of Representatives - June 25, 1991)
[Page: H4950]
(Mr. RAVENEL asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute.)
Mr. RAVENEL. Mr. Speaker, I know that those who win the wars write the histories. However, I must take exception to a remark made by Mr. Solarz last week wherein he said,
Abraham Lincoln made the point that once the Southern States joined the Union, they were part of it permanently.
The fact was and still is that no constitutional prohibition of secession exists. Faced with this dilemma, Mr. Lincoln provoked the infant Confederacy into foolishly attacking Fort Sumter. He then declared the departing States to be in rebellion and called for 75,000 volunteers to suppress it. North Carolina, Tennessee, Arkansas, and Virginia refused the call and joined their southern sisters. I join those who applaud todays secessions in the Soviet Union and around the world. But where were they in 1861? We're content, but we still stand when the bands play Dixie!
[Page: H4951]
[TIME: 1230]
Saturday, June 30, 2007
Saturday, June 23, 2007
Possible implications of the recent failure of the Senate to pass an immigration bill.
The U.S. Senate failed to pass legislation on immigration, a couple weeks ago, (or was it three weeks ago?). Legislation on immigration seems to have stalled out and it doesn't appear that another bill on immigration is in the works. Though there might be some legislation being worked on and not being discussed publicly.
The one thing that is sure is that the failure of any legislation to pass continues the status quo. The status quo seems to fuel discontent among the base of the Republican party and pit social conservatives against the business interests in the Republic party. I think it will also pit the grassroots of the Republican party against the national Republican party establishment.
I think it could have serious ramifications for the Republican party besides divisive fights and disunity. The credibility of the Republican party leadership and elites could completely disintegrate with the rank and file conservatives. The grassroots might conclude that they need another political vehicle besides the Republican party. Or they might take over the Republican party in multiple states. It could be that in many states the Republican party will have its own agenda in opposition to the national party. For the South, the Republican party might be the Republican equivalent of Dixiecrats, and in reality a separate sectional party.
The break down in the authority of the national Republican party elites will provide an opportunity for Neo-Confederates to enter their agenda into the Republican party.
However, it shouldn't be forgotten that the national Republican party has one thing in their favor, they have money and money pays for elections and brings influence. But as the immigration issue boils over it may not be enough. In the South, and perhaps elsewhere, the candidate who seems to be aligned with the national Republican party elites, may find that getting elected or re-elected very difficult when perceived as pro-immigration. The underfunded candidate who is anti-immigration can win with poor funding and the opposition of the local media, or because of the opposition of the local media. In short there might be a revolt by social conservatives that overwhelms the management of Republican party politics by local and national Republican party elites.
If George W. Bush and the Republicans had passed immigration election, they could have presented a done deed, that would be very difficult to overturn by anti-immigration activists and directed a campaign to some other issue. There could be some hysteria worked up over something like, "Muslim Lesbians are teaching evolution in our schools." However, they didn't pass any immigration legislation, since it seems it is each Republican for him/herself in the upcoming elections. This seems rather foolish of the Republicans, since this issue isn't going to be a problem for the Democrats, but could really tear up the Republican party and bring chaos to Republican party politics.
In summary the issue of immigration may breakdown establishment authority in the Republican party and provide openings for out groups like the Neo-Confederates in the Republican party. It will be very interesting to see how the campaigns at the local level in the South develop for the 2008 elections. The national Republican party elites are not stupid and they might have some strategy to manage this issue. I don't see one, but that doesn't mean that there might not be one.
The one thing that is sure is that the failure of any legislation to pass continues the status quo. The status quo seems to fuel discontent among the base of the Republican party and pit social conservatives against the business interests in the Republic party. I think it will also pit the grassroots of the Republican party against the national Republican party establishment.
I think it could have serious ramifications for the Republican party besides divisive fights and disunity. The credibility of the Republican party leadership and elites could completely disintegrate with the rank and file conservatives. The grassroots might conclude that they need another political vehicle besides the Republican party. Or they might take over the Republican party in multiple states. It could be that in many states the Republican party will have its own agenda in opposition to the national party. For the South, the Republican party might be the Republican equivalent of Dixiecrats, and in reality a separate sectional party.
The break down in the authority of the national Republican party elites will provide an opportunity for Neo-Confederates to enter their agenda into the Republican party.
However, it shouldn't be forgotten that the national Republican party has one thing in their favor, they have money and money pays for elections and brings influence. But as the immigration issue boils over it may not be enough. In the South, and perhaps elsewhere, the candidate who seems to be aligned with the national Republican party elites, may find that getting elected or re-elected very difficult when perceived as pro-immigration. The underfunded candidate who is anti-immigration can win with poor funding and the opposition of the local media, or because of the opposition of the local media. In short there might be a revolt by social conservatives that overwhelms the management of Republican party politics by local and national Republican party elites.
If George W. Bush and the Republicans had passed immigration election, they could have presented a done deed, that would be very difficult to overturn by anti-immigration activists and directed a campaign to some other issue. There could be some hysteria worked up over something like, "Muslim Lesbians are teaching evolution in our schools." However, they didn't pass any immigration legislation, since it seems it is each Republican for him/herself in the upcoming elections. This seems rather foolish of the Republicans, since this issue isn't going to be a problem for the Democrats, but could really tear up the Republican party and bring chaos to Republican party politics.
In summary the issue of immigration may breakdown establishment authority in the Republican party and provide openings for out groups like the Neo-Confederates in the Republican party. It will be very interesting to see how the campaigns at the local level in the South develop for the 2008 elections. The national Republican party elites are not stupid and they might have some strategy to manage this issue. I don't see one, but that doesn't mean that there might not be one.
Alexander P. Napolitano scheduled speaker at Ludwig von Mises Insitute 25th anniversary event.
Andrew P. Napolitano, Fox news legal commentator is a scheduled speaker at the Ludwig von Mises 25th anniversary celebration. http://www.mises.org/upcomingstory.aspx?Id=97
The Ludwig von Mises Institute is the Libertarian faction of the Neo-Confederate movement and its head, Lew Rockwell, runs http://www.lewrockwell.com/ .
Andrew P. Napolitano's book, "The Constitution in Exile," has a chapter of Neo-Confederate nonsense in it, so Napolitano and the Ludwig von Mises Institute are a match.
What is interesting, is that the Ludwig von Mises Institute and the http://www.lewrockwell.com/ site are very much against the war in Iraq and very critical of president George W. Bush in contrast to Fox news which is very much has the opposite opinions. Are some of the Fox news conservatives bailing?
The Ludwig von Mises Institute is the Libertarian faction of the Neo-Confederate movement and its head, Lew Rockwell, runs http://www.lewrockwell.com/ .
Andrew P. Napolitano's book, "The Constitution in Exile," has a chapter of Neo-Confederate nonsense in it, so Napolitano and the Ludwig von Mises Institute are a match.
What is interesting, is that the Ludwig von Mises Institute and the http://www.lewrockwell.com/ site are very much against the war in Iraq and very critical of president George W. Bush in contrast to Fox news which is very much has the opposite opinions. Are some of the Fox news conservatives bailing?
Confederate Reenacting gets ugly.
I came across this latest from the web site, Save the SCV, http://www.savethescv.org/Index.htm .
It seems the Neo-Confederates are getting ugly with Walter C. Hilderman at Civil War re-enacting events. It also tells how some Confederate re-enactors are seeing themselves are a real Confederate force. Hilderman reports the following:
"One of the most startling expressions of this attitude among SCV re-enactors came from Robert "Rock" Edmiston, the 1st Sergeant of the SCV dominated 63rd North Carolina Troops reenactment group. He is a longtime leader in the Rowan Rifles SCV Camp in Salisbury, North Carolina. In May, 2004, Edmiston stated that, "If need be, the 63rd will be that unreconstructed thin grey line against a tyrannical federal government and the yankeeazation of our Southland." There is no statement that is more dangerous to the hobby of Civil War reenacting. In making this statement, Edmiston, now the 63rd’s commander, made it clear that his Confederate reenacting group is willing to fight the United States government. "
It seems it isn't all about "living history" or "heritage not hate." Hilderman's website is a good website to track what is going on in the SCV and amongst Confederate re-enactors. Evidently, Confederate reenacting is a form of anti-government militia training.
It seems the Neo-Confederates are getting ugly with Walter C. Hilderman at Civil War re-enacting events. It also tells how some Confederate re-enactors are seeing themselves are a real Confederate force. Hilderman reports the following:
"One of the most startling expressions of this attitude among SCV re-enactors came from Robert "Rock" Edmiston, the 1st Sergeant of the SCV dominated 63rd North Carolina Troops reenactment group. He is a longtime leader in the Rowan Rifles SCV Camp in Salisbury, North Carolina. In May, 2004, Edmiston stated that, "If need be, the 63rd will be that unreconstructed thin grey line against a tyrannical federal government and the yankeeazation of our Southland." There is no statement that is more dangerous to the hobby of Civil War reenacting. In making this statement, Edmiston, now the 63rd’s commander, made it clear that his Confederate reenacting group is willing to fight the United States government. "
It seems it isn't all about "living history" or "heritage not hate." Hilderman's website is a good website to track what is going on in the SCV and amongst Confederate re-enactors. Evidently, Confederate reenacting is a form of anti-government militia training.
Sunday, June 17, 2007
A Struggle for the United Daughters of the Confederacy?
Some years back before the radical Neo-Confederate movement took over the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV), the leadership would issue in the Confederate Veterans bulletins of what the purpose of the SCV was and that a radical path would discredit the SCV. The membership didn't seem to be concerned.
Recently in the United Daughters of the Confederacy Magazine, the President General of the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC), had a full page bulletin informing the readers what the purpose of the UDC was and more importantly what it wasn't. What it wasn't was involvement with other groups. The bulletin has a border like those for a certificate. It reminded me of the SCV warnings before they fell to the Neo-Confederates.
The UDC did issue a message in its magazine to the membership similar to this recent message during the 1950s during the struggle over civil rights.
Is the UDC going to be captured by the radical Neo-Confederate movement? I am sure the radical Neo-Confederates would very much like to have it under their control. UDC has various buildings and resources. The very fact that the UDC has to issue this warning is revealing that there is a concern that the UDC might be directed to radical Neo-Confederate avenues.
However, there are reasons a take over might be difficult. The UDC has been continuously operating through out the 20th century. They have a pre-existing membership and leadership. The SCV in contrast nearly disappeared in the 60s and 70s and had a huge expansion in membership during the 80s and 90s. The UDC is a women's organization and the radical Neo-Confederate movements are largely men, with few women. It would be harder to get enough members into the UDC to take it over. The UDC also has been more for upper class and middle class women.
The SCV has organized a women's auxiliary, the Order of the Confederate Rose, http://www.confederate-rose.org/. I have wondered what the need for this group is, when there is already the UDC. Why the SCV wants to organize women outside the UDC. The question arises if it is a vehicle to organize women to take over the UDC.
Another weakness of the UDC, is its aging membership. Now it may not be such a weakness. Often genealogical interests and historical interests start when people reach middle age and think about eternity. An organization will have an older membership, but it being continuously replenished by new middle aged members and not facing a decline. But if the UDC really doesn't have a problem with aging membership, the next generation to inherit it might be a smaller group of radical Neo-Confederate women.
Finally, there have been discreet promotions of Neo-Confederacy in the United Daughters of the Confederacy Magazine of radical Neo-Confederacy by Clara Erath in her column "Confederate Notes."
The UDC organizational struggles are kept out of public view and so it is hard to know what is happening in it. It could well be that the UDC is in no danger of take over, and it is just taking a precautionary measure against a few stray elements. I think that either nothing will happen or one day there will be a take over and we will find out after the fact. Or at a convention there could be a full scale squabble and news coverage if the police are called. Police have been called to a UDC local convention before. We will have to watch and wait.
Recently in the United Daughters of the Confederacy Magazine, the President General of the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC), had a full page bulletin informing the readers what the purpose of the UDC was and more importantly what it wasn't. What it wasn't was involvement with other groups. The bulletin has a border like those for a certificate. It reminded me of the SCV warnings before they fell to the Neo-Confederates.
The UDC did issue a message in its magazine to the membership similar to this recent message during the 1950s during the struggle over civil rights.
Is the UDC going to be captured by the radical Neo-Confederate movement? I am sure the radical Neo-Confederates would very much like to have it under their control. UDC has various buildings and resources. The very fact that the UDC has to issue this warning is revealing that there is a concern that the UDC might be directed to radical Neo-Confederate avenues.
However, there are reasons a take over might be difficult. The UDC has been continuously operating through out the 20th century. They have a pre-existing membership and leadership. The SCV in contrast nearly disappeared in the 60s and 70s and had a huge expansion in membership during the 80s and 90s. The UDC is a women's organization and the radical Neo-Confederate movements are largely men, with few women. It would be harder to get enough members into the UDC to take it over. The UDC also has been more for upper class and middle class women.
The SCV has organized a women's auxiliary, the Order of the Confederate Rose, http://www.confederate-rose.org/. I have wondered what the need for this group is, when there is already the UDC. Why the SCV wants to organize women outside the UDC. The question arises if it is a vehicle to organize women to take over the UDC.
Another weakness of the UDC, is its aging membership. Now it may not be such a weakness. Often genealogical interests and historical interests start when people reach middle age and think about eternity. An organization will have an older membership, but it being continuously replenished by new middle aged members and not facing a decline. But if the UDC really doesn't have a problem with aging membership, the next generation to inherit it might be a smaller group of radical Neo-Confederate women.
Finally, there have been discreet promotions of Neo-Confederacy in the United Daughters of the Confederacy Magazine of radical Neo-Confederacy by Clara Erath in her column "Confederate Notes."
The UDC organizational struggles are kept out of public view and so it is hard to know what is happening in it. It could well be that the UDC is in no danger of take over, and it is just taking a precautionary measure against a few stray elements. I think that either nothing will happen or one day there will be a take over and we will find out after the fact. Or at a convention there could be a full scale squabble and news coverage if the police are called. Police have been called to a UDC local convention before. We will have to watch and wait.
Homophobia and Confederate Heritage
I think that this blog at a major Neo-Confederate website says it all.
http://shnvalerts.blogspot.com/2007/06/crime-for-pastors-and-churches-to-speak.html
The article referred to is an American Family Association website with its founder and chairman Donald E. Wildmon. Wildmon interviewed in Southern Partisan, 2nd Quarter 1989 issue.
Neo-Confederates are in the anti-gay movement in this country.
http://shnvalerts.blogspot.com/2007/06/crime-for-pastors-and-churches-to-speak.html
The article referred to is an American Family Association website with its founder and chairman Donald E. Wildmon. Wildmon interviewed in Southern Partisan, 2nd Quarter 1989 issue.
Neo-Confederates are in the anti-gay movement in this country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
