Saturday, December 12, 2009

United Daughters of the Confederacy on Christmas Carols that aren't PC, (Politically Confederate)

One of the cover articles of the Nov. 2007, UDC Magazine, the official publication of the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC) is "Christmas Songs as Union Propaganda." On page 12, Sybil R. Willingham, Historian General of the UDC 2007-2008, has an article titled on that page, "Christmas Songs as Propaganda."

As Willingham explains:

"New Songs have been added over the years, and sometimes writer put their own words, opinions and political views to the Christmas story in an effort to influence the public. Some of our favorite hymns that we enjoy singing today contained controversial verses that have since been removed. Such was the case with the issue of slavery and the looming conflict that threatened to erupt between the North and the South."

Imagine that, someone might think the Christmas spirit is incompatible with slavery!

So what are these Christmas songs with their 'insidious' "Propaganda"?

One is it seems, "It Came Upon a Midnight Clear," published by a Dr. Edmond Sears in 1849 which Willingham claims out has an anti-slavery message in the 2nd verse which is no longer sung as follows:

"Yet with the woes of sin and strife
The world hath suffered long;
Beneath the angel-strain have rolled
Two thousand years of wrong;
And man, at war with man, hears not
The love song which they bring;
O hush the noise, ye men of strife,
And hear the angels sing!

If this is an anti-slavery message, so much the better I would say. Exactly what is controversial about this verse and who would find it controversial?

Another Christmas carol which Willingham sees as Abolitionist propaganda, is "O Holy Night." Willingham refers to a 3rd verse of the song as follows:

Truly He taught us to love one another;
His law is love and His Gospel peace.
Chain shall He break for the slave is our brother
And in His Name all oppression shall cease.
Sweet hymns of joy in grateful chorus raise we,
Let all within us praise His holy Name!

If we aren't singing this verse, we should, in my thinking, that is, if you a Christmas singing person. Again, to whom would this be a controversial verse?

Then Willingham moves on to the song "I Heard the Bells on Christmas Day" with words written by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow and set to music by John Baptiste Calkin. The verses she quotes are:

Then from each black, accursed mouth
the cannon thundered in the South,
And with the sound the carols drowned
Of peace on earth, goodwill to men

It was as if an earthquake rent
The hearth-stones of a continent,
And made forlorn the house-holds born
Of peace on earth, goodwill to men

Then in a section of the article titled "The Songs We Loved" Willingham tells us that the previously mentioned songs were not likely to have been sung in the South during the Civil War, (Especially the one that hadn't been set to music until 1872). She then gives brief histories of songs that didn't have abolitionist backgrounds and suggests.

"As you gather 'round with friends and family this Christmas, perhaps you will join in singing some of the old favorites that our Confederate ancestors sang, too."

Which would exclude Christmas songs written by abolitionists.

Well, if you listen to Christmas carols, try to make these Christmas carols that Willingham calls propaganda to those that you listen to. See if you can find complete versions.

Thursday, October 29, 2009

Further Updated, Updated Update on the GOP going neo-Confederate

I want to make it clear that I don't think any of the candidates in the NY 23rd district race are neo-Confederates, at least I haven't come across any evidence. The importance of the 23rd district is that moderates are being driven out of the Republican party and the party is going to drive to the right. In the South I believe that will be a drive into Neo-Confederacy.

This is the latest from on the NY 23rd District race.

"In shift, GOP leaders embrace Hoffman" at the following URL.

This update is to my earlier post on the GOP going neo-Confederate.

It appears that Hoffman, the Conservative Party candidate is is climbing in the polls and now is ahead of the Republican party candidate, and tied with the Democratic candidate and appears to have a reasonable chance of winning. House Republicans have suddenly started to support him.

If Hoffman wins, I think that right-wing Republican grass roots, will be emboldened to go after every moderate Republican and people who are not sufficiently right-wing. A big purge may be on the way.


The moderate Republican has dropped out of the race in the 23rd Congressional District. This is the New York Times article on it.

Further update:

The Republican party establishment has crumbled, GOP leaders rush to endorse the Conservative party candidate. Title of article is, "A profile in courage, it isn't - GOP latecomers hop on Hoffman bandwagon."

Saturday, October 24, 2009

GOP Party going neo-Confederate?, updated 10/31/09

As readers may or may not know, I have speculated about whether neo-Confederacy is going to be mainstreamed into the Republican party.

I have a post on this topic below which refers to all my earlier posts on the topic.

In an older post I discussed a possible mechanism that would drive the Republicans into extremism and neo-Confederacy. Individual Republican elected officials would have to be concerned that if they didn't shift towards extremism, they would be confronted by and defeated by primary candidates that were shifted towards extremism. The opposing force to this would be the Republican establishment who would see this trend as marginalizing the Republican party. Political parties do come to and end. They may linger for a while, but at a certain point, they cease to be of any importance.

These opposing forces are contenting in the 23rd Congressional District in New York state. I think that this congressional election is of tremendous importance of the Republican party.

These are two blogs on what is happening there.

This article is titled, "NY-23 race first test of tea party power."

The Republican candidate there isn't conservative enough, according to a certain faction of the Republican party, so they are backing third party Conservative Candidate Hoffman. It seems it will split conservative and Republican votes and elect a Democrat to Congress. This would be very interesting in itself as a process in which non-right wing Republicans are going to be purged from the Republican party. Another interesting development could be that there would be a Conservative Party congressional representative elected, and he will have a national platform, Congress, to speak out and be heard, and push the rest of the Republicans to the far right.

However, what really caught my attention is that the Republican party establishment is breaking ranks. In this article,, titled, "Top Republicans jump ship in NY-23," leading national Republicans are listed who are endorsing the Conservative Party candidate against the Republican party candidate. The Republican Party establishment seems to be fracturing and its resistance crumbling.

I think that this fracture in the Republican establishment needs to be understood in the context of other developments. Earlier this year Joe Wilson shouted out "You Lie," at President Obama's presidential address.

Surprisingly neo-Confederates applaud Joe Wilson. They should compare Joe Wilson's behavior to Jefferson Davis "Farewell Address to the Senate." Even though Davis had had highly partisan struggles in the U.S. Senate and knew that likely that he would be at war with many of his fellow Senators shortly in the future his address was a model of courtesy. Address at this link. ( Davis at the end of his speech says:

"In the course of my service here, associated at different times with a great variety of Senators, I see now around me some with whom I have served long; there have been points of collision; but whatever of offense there has been to me, I leave here; I carry with me no hostile remembrance. Whatever offense I have given which has not been redressed, or for which satisfaction has not been demanded, I have, Senators, in this hour of our parting, to offer you my apology for any pain which, in heat of discussion, I have inflicted. I go hence unencumbered of the remembrance of any injury received, and having discharged the duty of making the only reparation in my power for any injury offered.

Mr. President, and Senators, having made the announcement which the occasion seemed to me to require, it only remains to me to bid you a final adieu."

Joe Wilson's comment has lifted him up from obscurity, made him a national conservative hero, and flooded his campaign treasury with money. I can only imagine that there are some other Republican members of Congress who regret not having shouted something during Obama's speech and yet others who plan to shout something or do something at the next presidential address to Congress. The next Obama speech could turn out to be bedlam as Republican congressional representatives shout out to fill their campaign treasuries, defeat rivals in primaries, and further their national ambitions. In fact, there may be competition to find a pretext to be the first person to shout out so as to appear to be a leader of Republicans shouters. After all if 10 or 15 or 25 Republicans shout out, the potential campaign money and national exposure, will be divided up into small slices. As the leader of the shout out, the representative might get a larger slice of the rewards.

Of course the Republican party establishment might have a counter strategy to address this insurgency and we don't yet perceive it. However, it seems that the shift to extremism is progressing at a fair pace and the 2010 elections are still a long ways away.

Some Democrats are observing this with smugness, already counting the votes that will be driven into the Democratic party by a Republican party going off to the extremes. That is a short sighted view of the matter. Having a large national extremist party could results in a very unpleasant surprise in the future.


The moderate Republican candidate has dropped out in the 23rd district in New York, leaving the Congressional election between a Democrat and a member of the Conservative Party. This is the news item at the New York Times.

Sunday, September 20, 2009

Neo-Confederate myth or not?

You can find it all over the web in neo-Confederate writing about a supposed Senate Joint Resolution No. 41 passed on March 2, 1928 that supposedly is an endorsement of the expression "War Between the States." It is supposedly in the Congressional Record.

Well I checked the Congressional Record for March 2, 1928. There is a Senate Joint Resolution No. 41. It is however, about recompensing the State of Nevada for expenses it incurred as a territory during the Civil War on behalf of the national government. The text of the resolution is not in the report, just an amendment to the text.

This is the usual claim:

"On March 2, 1928, Senate Joint Resolution NO. 41 was adopted by Congress and entered in the Congressional Record. It reads as follows: A war was waged between 1861-1865 between two organized governments: the United States of America and the Confederate States of America. These were the official titles of the contending parties. It was not a "Civil War" as it was not fought between two parties within the same government. It was not a War of Secession, for the Southern States seceded without a thought of war. The right of a state to secede had never been questioned. It was not a War of Rebellion, for sovereign, independent states, co-equal, cannot rebel against each other. It was the War Between the States, because 22 non seceding states made war upon 11 seceding states to force them back into the Union of States""

However, the text isn't in the Congressional Record. It might be in the Joint Resolution, but it isn't in the Congressional Record, there is just an amendment to it. And the resolution is about a Nevada state claim.

I used Hein's electronic source for the Congressional Record, and looked at the previous and next Congressional session. I looked at the Statues at Large and it wasn't in it.

Perhaps something got put in the Nevada State claims resolution, but the resolution isn't in the Congressional Record as claimed by the neo-Confederates. I am beginning to wonder if the whole thing isn't made up. It would be very convenient to make a claim about a resolution that can't be found or found easily.

Wednesday, September 09, 2009

Preston Brooks lives

During Obama's speech, Joe Wilson shouts out that Obama was a liar.

Turns out that Joe Wilson has apologized.

Monday, August 31, 2009

"White Metropolis" a history of Dallas by Michael Phillips

I finished this last weekend reading "White Metropolis," which is a history of Dallas, by Michael Phillips and published by the University of Texas Press. I strongly recommend this book for anyone who is interested in the history of Dallas, and anyone who wished to understand how race can be used to pit one group against the other for the advantage of a ruling elite.

The web page for the book is at

The university press web page for the book is:

At this page you can browse the book.

I have been aware of different aspects of Dallas history as I have done my researches, but I never had the complete picture. This book gives a fairly complete picture. Also it is not a book of Dallas historical curiosities or a book of Dallas boosterism.

I especially liked his "caustic" review of some of the Dallas histories. Bad history needs to be publicly challenged and historians engaging in boosterism need to get castigated.

Since the Dallas elite has used race successfully to defeat democracy, I think that anyone living anywhere who is a supporter of democracy would find this book worth reading.

For your amusement, a local Dallas crackpot, Sharon Boyd, has her take on the book.

Monday, August 03, 2009

Birthers and Neo-Confederates, Obama's safety

I have gotten interested in tracking the Birther phenomenon recently. Mostly as an amusing freak show. My mother never allowed us to go to see the alligator boy when when we would visit the State Fair. Perhaps I am compensating in some way.

The neo-Confederate movement isn't monolithic regarding questioning Obama's birth in Hawaii.

The Council of Conservative Citizens,, has been covering doubts about Obama's birthplace since early in 2008 at least. I am not surprised, they are very accepting of wild fringe theories. The League of the South hasn't covered it, but they aren't denying it either. This is the link to Tuggle's League of the South blog on the topic.

Tuggle side steps the issue by saying it isn't important. Though in the comments for the blog, he states that Obama's birth is something that can't be proven and is a waste of time pursing.

I think Tuggle is afraid of offending the birther movement which as I will document here on this blog seems to comprise a lot of his potential base, but he also doesn't want to discredit the League of the South.

I wonder if there couldn't be a contest for the wackiest birther theory. For example, someone could theorize, the REAL Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, but he was replaced by an alien, and they can't release his other birth certificate since it would show some discrepancy and reveal Obama to be an alien. Here you have merged UFO conspiracy theories and birther theories.

Well, back to seriously considering the birthers. There seems to be mainstreaming of birther opinion in the South according to a Daily Kos poll:

According to the Kos poll, break down of opinion on Obama's birth in the South is that 23% don't think he is born in Hawaii, 30% aren't sure, and 47% believe he is born in Hawaii.

The obvious further analysis has been done, since African Americans, Hispanics, and other minority voters by a very high percentage don't believe in birther theories, that means that the percentage of whites in the South who believe in birther theories or have doubts on the President's citizenship may be higher than 70%. This is again another manifestation of popular Confederate culture in the South.

I think you could further argue that southern white democrats largely don't believe in birther theories, so the percentage of southern white Republicans who either doubt Obama's birth or don't believe he is born in Hawaii must be very high indeed.

Nationally the results for the Republicans break down to 42 percent who believe he was born in Hawaii, 28% how believe a birther theory, and 30% who have doubts on Obama's birth.

I think that for a large fraction of the public, they simply can't accept that there is a black president, someone who might call a white police officer's actions "stupid." They are becoming unhinged. Their banal white nationalism is surfacing. The following is my article on banal white nationalism.

I would like to see some other polls to confirm these percentages reported by the Daily Kos poll, I suspect that the percentages of white southerners believing in brither theories would still be substantial.

These high numbers explain why some Republican elected representatives, right wing websites, and broadcast conservatives have pandered to them. I leave you to read who and what elsewhere on the web. Though I should state that some prominent conservatives have spoken out against this. I think some conservatives calculate that the birther movement could pull down conservatism in general. These stories discuss the problem of the birthers for the Republicans.

Here is a video of birthers taking over a town hall meeting of a Republican congressional representative: It has been viewed at this time by nearly 800,000 people.

When talk radio, Republican congressional representatives, television commentators pander to them, it certainly must embolden the birthers.

Suddenly this birther movement isn't so funny. The birther movement with this extent of public support are no longer a tiny minority of harmless cranks, but a serious threat to the public peace.

If a person doesn't believe that Obama is legally president of the United States, what would be the possible logical consequences for that person. It might be quiet alienation from the government and the cessation of patriotic feeling for the United States of America, but I think that given who the birthers are, they will undertake an program of actions. I think birthers will be embolden by the fact that they are not a tiny fringe group, and in some places in the country a sizable fraction of the public. This could have alarming consequences.

Given the ridiculousness of the birthers arguments, many people seem to view the birthers as a great opportunity for mirth and embarrassment of the Republicans as their pandering to them is caught out, but not as a serious threat. However, just because an idea or belief system is ridiculous, don't meant that it can't be the basis of a major movement or have widespread support. Look at the percentages of people who don't believe in evolution or that the earth is immensely old, and the harassment of the school biology textbook publishers. If a significant fraction of people believe in the birther theories, then the movement is significant and can have real impact.

What are the birthers likely to do next? One thing is that they are forming "citizen grand juries" to indict Obama of various crimes and ask that officials prosecute Obama. Here is an article on these "citizen grand juries" at World Net Daily, a far right website which had been beating the drum for the birther theories. here is a You Tube "citizen grand jury."

If an attorney for a county or city or some Southern state is in the situation that he or she will certainly lose the next Republican primary election if they dismiss the claims of these "citizen grand juries" what might their actions? If they do dismiss the claims of these "citizen grand jury" and lose the election because of it, what might be the actions of an attorney who won on the basis of supporting the claims of the "citizen grand juries"?

Also, what might be the actions of Republican state representatives and state senators when they face the 2010 Republican primary in Southern states?

What happens if the birthers decided to send a posse of 100 or more to arrest Obama on their own authority when he is visiting their town or locality? What if they are armed? What if it happens in a town where a very high percentage have birther views? What is the safety of Obama if a majority of the police in that town have birther views? Or the mayor and city council members can expect that by opposing the birthers it will lead to their losing the next election by a sizable margin?

If this birther delusion persists over the coming months, represents a sizable fraction of the Republican base and becomes a threat to Republican office holders winning the primaries, it might be possible that the Republican party will succumb to it, as well as the conservative media. The Republican party has a shrunken base and it and the conservative movement in general is seeking a direction for the future, so it is vulnerable to movements like the birthers.

This birther movement comes at a time of national crisis and stress as unemployment continues to climb and jobless benefits will start running out for millions.

Of course it could be that the birther movement will be laughed off the national political scene and become a marginal phenomenon and largely profit the Democrats by tarnishing the reputation of the Republican party and conservatism in general. However, if it doesn't become marginal, if the Daily Kos poll numbers are largely true, and there is a mainstreaming of the birther movement among white Republican southerners, developments could be quote alarming.

I think it is time for less laughing and more apprehension. Remember what happened the last time in the South when the "Bottom rail was on top."

Monday, July 27, 2009

"Voluntary Slavery Contracts" the Buffoonery of

This silliness passes for critical thought at The specific article is at this link:

The first part is some rational for privatizing rivers and the second half is for "voluntary slavery contracts" which Block defends.

Professor Block is not some professor at some private unaccredited institution, he is a professor at Loyal University in New Orleans and a senior fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute.

Monday, July 20, 2009

Ray McBerry running for gov. of Georgia, but seems embarrassed by Confederate flag

Ray McBerry is running for the governor of Georgia and has this website: He has a states' rights tour and he has an essay written by leading neo-Confederate, professor Donald Livingston at Emory University.

However, nothing about the Confederate flag. In fact there isn't anything about the Confederacy at all that I could find at his website. Is McBerry avoiding any Confederate identification for political advancement?

Thursday, May 28, 2009

Essay by James Lowen on Obama and the Arlington Confederate monument online at the History News Network

A short essay by James Loewen has just been published online at the History News Network.

Incidentally, I have a new blog where I will be tracking the campaign around the Arlington Confederate monument.

Monday, May 25, 2009

The anti-Confederate and pro-democratic American flag

I have been working on an anti-Confederate flag design for some time. I have thought about it in terms of the history of American flags with anti-Confederate meaning such as the Phalanx flag and others. The above is the anti-Confederate flag. The right side of the flag has a swallowtail ends.


The anti-Confederate flag was designed with several considerations in mind to make sure it would be a very good anti-Confederate flag.


First, the anti-Confederate flag shouldn’t contain a Confederate flag. For example there have been attempts to design an anti-Confederate symbol by putting the international prohibition sign over the Confederate battle flag. As a design it doesn’t work out well since the Confederate battle flag has a cross on it and the slash in the prohibition sign goes over a cross bar in the Confederate flag. Additionally from a distance it looks like you are wearing the Confederate flag. We don’t want to wear Confederate flags, not even with prohibition signs. Also, we want our flag to express pro-democratic values and not just a negation of the Confederate flag. We want to be for something in opposition to the Confederate flag.

Second, we want to have this flag be accessible to everyone, a flag that everyone who is for democratic values can call his or her own. We want an anti-Confederate and pro-American democratic flag that doesn’t exclude anyone and draws together different people to be united in their opposition to the Confederate flag and neo-Confederacy. The flag can’t specifically oriented to any one group in society since that would make it one group’s flag and hence not others’ flag.

Third, we want a flag that is distinctive from other flags and not likely to be confused with any other flag.

Fourth, we want a flag that is readily recognizable and stands out and draws attention.

Fifth, it needs to be a flag with a design compatible with flag design.

Sixth, it would be nice if it drew on anti-Confederate flags in history.

Seventh, the flag should have an appealing design so that people want to wear it because it has an appealing design.

Anti-Confederate Flags in History
During the Civil War there were many anti-Confederate flags. These were modified American flags. Some Americans rearranged the stars in the phalanxes or square pattern symbolizing readiness to face attacks on America from any direction.[1] The popularity of flying an American flag started with the Civil War. Prior to the Civil War American flags were flown at Federal buildings such as the Post Office. With the Civil War the manufacturers were suddenly faced with a tremendous demand for American flags which people flew as anti-Confederate flags. The American flag with or without modifications was seen as the anti-Confederate flag.[2]

The nickname “Old Glory” for the American flag comes from one Civil War episode. Capt. Driver, a retired sea captain, who moved to Tennessee in the Nashville area before the Civil War, had taken with him in his retirement the American flag he had flown on his ship. He was very proud of this flag and exhibited it frequently and called it “Old Glory.” When the Civil War broke out his flag was threatened and he hid it inside a quilt. When the American armies liberated Nashville, he was brought before the liberating troops and Capt. Driver exhibited his flag. This episode was picked up by the press at the time and though Capt. Driver and his flag are largely forgotten, the nickname “Old Glory” is still remembered.[3]

The Confederates saw the American flag as an Anti-Confederate flag. Mobs in New Orleans tore down an American flag and dragged it through the mud of the streets and then “tore it to shreds, and distributed the pieces among the crowd.” In Memphis the burial of the American flag was publicly celebrated.[4]

Unfortunately, with the overthrow of the multi-racial democracy of Reconstruction and the nation rejecting an Abolitionist vision of America, by the 1920s the Ku Klux Klan felt comfortable flying the American flag and even claimed that they were representative of 100% Americanism. So the American flag by itself has lost an anti-Confederate meaning.

The Phalanx flag and Capt. Drivers flags can’t be used since they are so similar to an American flag they aren’t distinctive and readily recognized as being something other than an American flag.

The Anti-Confederate Pro-American Flag Design
This anti-Confederate flag meets all seven of the considerations listed above. One, it doesn’t contain a Confederate flag. Two, it is for every one of all backgrounds, it isn’t specific to one group. Three, it is certainly distinctive from any other flag. Four, it is readily recognizable, even from a distance. Five, it is compatible with flag design. Six, it draw on the Civil War history of Anti-Confederate flags by being based on the American flag. Finally, Seven, it is a design that is appealing to people.

It isn’t just a flag against something, is a flag for the modern multi-racial democratic America against the anti-democratic and racist values of the Confederacy.

It has fifty stars in a blue region like the American flag and has red and white strips like the American flag. However, both the blue canton of the American flag and the stripes has been transformed. This gives the flag a novel and distinctive appearance so it won’t be confused with an American flag, but still will suggest the American flag. It is also an energetic pattern suggestive of an active struggle against neo-Confederacy. The swallowtail ends of the flag on the right side give the flag charm and further novelty.

[1] The Phalanx pattern is shown on page 131 in “The Stars and the Stripes: The American Flag as Art and as History from the Birth of the Republic to the Present,” published by Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1973.
[2] Guenter, Scot M., “The American Flag, 1777-1924: Cultural Shifts from Creation to Codification,” Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1990. For history of the American flag during the Civil War is Chapter 4, “Symbol of the Union: Flag Use During the Civil War,” pages 66-87. For changes in flag manufacturing to supply demand during the Civil War page 89-90.
[3] Harrison, Peleg D., “The Stars and Strips and Other American Flags,” pub. Little, Brown & Co., Boston, 1917, pages 304-307.
[4] Preble, George Henry, “Origin and History of the American Flag,” 2nd Edition, Vol. II, pub. Nicholas Brown, Philadelphia, 1917, pages 468-493.

Sunday, May 24, 2009

Even More news coverage of the Letter to Obama

The Letter to Obama made the Dallas Morning News, URL for the story is:

Other newspapers across the nation have started to pick up the story from the DMN.

The Associated Press has sent a short item out on the Arlington Confederate monument.

Saturday, May 23, 2009

More news coverage of the Letter to Obama/ Example of WHITE Left thinking

ABC News has a news article and our entire letter on the web here"

I just finished talking to a major daily newspaper that is going to run the story on the web.

Here is an example of WHITE Leftist writing: Basically the idea is that health care is everything and anti-racism is nothing. I think it is a good example of banal white nationalism, which you can read about here:

Another disappointing op-ed was by Kirk Savage at the Washington Post. You can read it here.

Thursday, May 21, 2009

"The Daily Beast" has article on Obama and the Arlington Confederate Monument, Updated other websites pick up story.

The article is online here:

This site has a large readership.

I will keep Anti-Neo-Confederate updated as the story starts appearing in the major press.

The number of signatures is now over 60.

Frederick Clarkson has an article on it at "Daily Kos" at this URL:

Tuesday, May 19, 2009

History News Network Publishes Letter to Obama, Update

James Loewen and I have gotten our letter published on the History News Network along with the list of persons who co-signed.

The link is at:

Other press coverage in progress. I will update as I can. More co-signers are expected and I need to continue to update the table.

"Moderate Voice" has a short commentary at this URL:

Black News Junkie also mentions the HNN item.

Sunday, May 17, 2009

Roger G. Kennedy, former Director of the National Park Service, Director Emeritus National Museum of American History co-signs letter.

Rogert G. Kennedy, former Director of the National Park Service and Director Emeritus, National Museum of American History has agreed to be a co-signer.

Letter is at:

2nd Wave of Signatures for Letter to Obama coming in.

James Loewen is now working his list of contacts and some very prominent names are co-signing the letter.

See my earlier postings for details of how this project is coming along.

The letter is online at:

Contacted Texas Senator Cornyn asking him to not send a wreath and to ask Obama not to send a wreath.

I have contacted both of my U.S. Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn. The following is the automated reply from Cornyn and the text of my letter to him.

Dear Edward Sebesta,

Thank you for contacting my offices. Your correspondence has been received, and we will respond to you as quickly as possible. A copy of your message is attached below for your records.
If you need immediate assistance regarding an urgent problem you are experiencing with the federal government, visit the "Help With Federal Agencies" section of the website for details on how to proceed so that your difficulties are brought to my attention as soon as possible.
If you are seeking information or services from my offices that are NOT related to my Legislative duties, please visit my "Services For Texans" section for more information.
Warmest Regards,

U.S. Senator John Cornyn
Edward Sebesta (

Your Message:
Civil Rights

Dear Senator Cornyn:

A group of prominent scholars across the U.S. have co-signed a letter asking President Obama NOT to send a wreath to the Arlington Confederate monument.
The letter is online at this URL:

I ask you, yourself not to send a wreath and encourage President Obama not to send a wreath. This monument embodies the values of white supremacy and radical neo-Confederacy.

Sincerely Yours,
Edward H. Sebesta

Friday, May 15, 2009

Letter to Obama asking him not to send a wreath to the Arlington Confederate monument posted online.

The link to the letter is:

So far co-signers are James McPherson, James Loewen, Paul Finkelman, William Lee Miller, and others. Signature forms are still coming in.

Tuesday, May 12, 2009

Signatures for Letter to Obama come flooding in.

Signatures have come flooding in. For each respondent, I have asked them to forward the letter to their friends. I am going to have to spend tonight entering all the names into a table.

See prior post for details.

Saturday, May 09, 2009

Letter to Obama asking him not to send a wreath to the Arlington Confederate Monument, Update

James Loewen and I have written a letter asking President Barack Obama not to send a wreath or other token of commemoration to the Arlington Confederate Monument.

We have sent out copies of the letter, along with signing forms, to prominent academics and are in the process of collecting signatures. For each person we contact, we will ask them to forward the letter and signing form to their contacts. This should result in an expanding network of contacts. This way we should be able to collect a good number of signatures for the letter. I have gotten the most enthusiastic initial response.

The history of the monument involves white supremacy and some other radical neo-Confederate sentiments. I plan on posting the letter later.

I think with President Barack Obama he will not sending a wreath or any other token to the Arlington Confederate Monument if asked. It is just a matter of letting him know that this has been done in the past and Obama preventing some functionary accidentally sending a wreath because sending one is on some White House to-do list left over from the previous administration.

President Barack Obama has a prior history of opposition to Confederate memorialization. There is an article in the Chicago Sun-Times, Oct. 3, 2005 about him objecting to a display of the Confederate flag.

UPDATE (5/10/09): I have gotten two very prominent scholars to sign so far just today. I expect that Monday the effort will really take off when people get in to read their emails.

Secession Support in the South, item from "Washington Monthly"

The Washington Monthly had this item online:

It seems that secession is much more favorably received in the South than elsewhere in the United States. This should not be surprising when some states in the South have Confederate flag designs incorporated into them, and there are statues honoring secessionists most everywhere, and counties, cities, streets, etc. are named after secessionists.

Historical remembrance has an impact.

What would be interesting would to see how these Southern attitudes broke down by race. I think you would find that African Americans, (besides H.K. Edgerton), would not be terribly sympathetic to secession. The Research Poll showed that secession was rejected by African Americans at a much higher percentage than by whites. I suspect the percentage of support for secession in the South would be much higher for whites in the South, and even higher for Republicans in the South, than the 8% reported for the South as a whole.

The poll numbers are at this link, go down the page a little:

Tuesday, April 28, 2009

"Southern Partisan" is back, not surprisingly they don't like Obama.

I got a copy of the "Southern Partisan" in the mail yesterday. They are going after Obama, which shouldn't surprise anyone. The major topics are the life of Jabez Curry and and interview with Felicity Allen about her hagiograpy of Jefferson Davis.

Saturday, April 25, 2009

A T-shirt sold by the "Southern Partisan" seems truer now than ever.

For a context for this posting read this blog post.

Except for the "Majority" part it seems to be becoming true.

Secession and Patriotism

For a context for this article see this earlier post of the day.

There have been those perplexed by support for secession by Texas Republicans who otherwise have this image of boisterous patriotism. After all seceding from a nation, is hardly patriotic towards the nation you are seceding from.

It isn't as contrary as it might seem. As understood in cultural geography, nations are imagined. We don't know everyone personally in a nation, but we imagine that we have an overarching commonality that makes all of us a part of a group. I think for some, the nation they imagine is a banal white nationalist nation. I explain the concept of banal white nationalism here:

I think for a lot of Texas Republicans that they were loyal to a white nationalistic America and not to a multiracial democratic America, and with the election of Obama and with the Democrats in control, they feel at some level, maybe not consciously, that their America no longer exists, but with an independent Texas they could have a white nation. So they are patriotic to their nation as they conceive it, but not to a multiracial America.

Will Obama comment on secession?

See my just previous post for a context for this post.

Obama briefly made a snide comment about Rush Limbaugh earlier this year to Republicans meeting with him, that they shouldn't allow themselves to be led by Limbaugh. I don't think Obama said it casually, I think it was a comment carefully calculated to sound like a casual off hand remark, but also calculated carefully to make Rush Limbaugh the leading representative figure of Obama's opposition and the Republican party. Obama knew that Limbaugh would jump at the chance no matter how damaging it might be to the Republican party. I think also Obama calculated that the Republicans would either not resist identification with Limbaugh or suffer damage if they did.

All Obama needs to do, to really send conservatism, Talk Radio, and the Republican party into the wasteland is to make some casual sounding comment about secession. Talk Radio would not, could not resist taking the bait. With Talk Radio ranting on secession, even Limbaugh would have to go along. Then the Republican party would stand around, like in the case of Limbaugh, not saying anything to refute secession, like they were unwilling to refute Limbaugh.

Republican Party becoming a Confederate Party?

As regular readers may know, (Do I have any regular readers besides neo-Confederates?) I have been thinking about the question of the Republican party being taken over by radical reactionary elements. I have also considered the question of the Republican party becoming neo-Confederate. See links to some earlier posts below.

Also, Euan Hague and I in our book on Neo-Confederacy, discussed the mainstreaming of neo-Confederacy.

Well recent events have surprised even me. I thought neo-Confederacy in the Republican party would be wearing a mask if it came to be dominating the party, that is, there would be advocacy for neo-Confederate policies but without the overt and recognizable neo-Confederate elements. Then there is Gov. Rick Perry talking about secession:

“When we came into the Union in 1845, one of the issues was that we would be able to leave if we decided to do that,” he told reporters on Wednesday. “My hope is that America, and Washington in particular, pay attention. We’ve got a great Union. There’s absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, who knows what may come of that?” (

Wow! No disguises here. So secession became a polling question with one poll showing that a slight majority of Texas Republicans, 51% versus 47%, approve secession. Though it is a Daily Kos poll.

John Shelton Reed, Univ. of North Carolina professor, former editor of "Southern Cultures," sociologist, one of the key founders of the neo-Confederate movement used to include the question of secession in his polls and be encouraged if he got 10-15%. I am sure he is quite excited by these results. He is probably more excited by the fact that secession has become a question for main stream polling, not just a polling question for a covert neo-Confederate poller like himself. Secession has entered politics.

Then there are all these state's rights resolutions, which seem mostly just talk without a real call for action, but one or more call for secession, and even state a trigger, an action, that would initiate secession. The following is an opinion piece where the vote was 43 to 1 in favor of a secession resolution.

Though it turns out a lot of Georgia State Senators hadn't bothered to read it. It also shows that Democrats, including African American Democratic elected officials are asleep at the entry gate. ( I was going to say "asleep at the switch," but do young people know what that means anymore?)

Still it did get passed.

Well the question of secession has resulted in a blizzard of news articles on it. Just go to Google News.

Where will all this lead? It might be the subject of the week, but be completely over next week. Or it might be go on for months. If the Democrats take a stand against secession, Talk Radio conservatives might reflexively take a stand for it. I haven't really surveyed what the reaction of conservatives has been. However, secession has now gone much more mainstream than it has ever been since 1865.

It will be interesting to see how many more major elected Republican officials start talking about secession. It will be interesting what Rush Limbaugh's position will be.

Links to posts on the Republican party becoming neo-Confederate or taken over by radical elements:

Links to posts on the Republican party becoming a sectional party.

Links to related posts

Sunday, March 15, 2009

Council of Illiterate Conservative Citizens; Updated, one error corrected, one clung to.

The Council of Conservative Citizens is up in arms over a History Channel show on the Punic wars and Carthage. They claim that Hannibal is being portrayed as sub-Saharan African.

The item is at:

Irately they proclaim:

"Afro-centrists are always scavenging about for crumbs to glorify a Negro history that never existed. The city-state of Carthage was Greek, not Sub-Sahara African. The inhabitants of North Africa at the time of Hannibal were white, not black. The Berbers of Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia are still Caucasoid, not black."

The Carthaginians were Phoenician, not Greek! Anyone who has even a passing knowledge of ancient history knows this. I have no idea why the race of the Berbers is brought up either. Berbers are not some modern day group descended from Phoenicians. They are not descended from the Greeks either but are a people indigenous to Africa.

The above is fairly representative of what passes for the Council of Conservative Citizens' historical analysis, a mental process thrashing with rage, rather than reason.


Well the post on the CofCC blog has been updated, they seem to realize the Carthaginians were Phoenician. However, they are still rattling on about Berbers. The Phoenicians weren't Berbers either. They immigrated from the eastern coast of the Mediterraneans and were the competitors of the Greeks in the ancient world. You would have to have slept through your ancient history classes not to know this. However, the hysteric historians don't seem to realize this.

Maybe "Southern Partisan" is dead after all.

There hasn't been an issue of the Southern Partisan (SP) for some time, about a year. I was doing some Internet researching and I stumbled across this post reported to be from Tim Manning Jr., former Assistant Editor of SP and dated Jan. 2008.

Some notable statements (any errors in the original) in the posting are:

"I resigned from Southern Partisan today. Here’s why. It’s going nowhere. The Editor is a moron. There are reasons to admire someone without a college education, but with Chris Sullivan, this is not the case. He dropped out of Furman during his first semester."

"In reality, you can immediately determine anything that is actually written by the Editor by his eighth-grade level literary skills."

"Southern Partisan subscriptions were over 10,000 when they first hired Sullivan almost 10 years ago. Today, there are barely 2,900 paid subscribers. Sullivan refuses to publish on time and to run a functional and newsworthy or intelligent website. He once told me he had never read I’ll Take My Stand."

I did note that Google gives this URL for Manning and Southern Partisan, but it it has been pulled.

Tim Manning evidently tried to start up his proposed online publication, The Southerner, but it seems to be gone also, though in the Internet Archives a single capture exists.

The Internet Archive (Way back machine) shows that this web location was first used for a student newspaper for South High School in Minneapolis, from 2002 to 2005, but that in 2008 Manning did set up

It seems that Tim Manning Jr.'s The Southerner lasted less than a month. The website no longer exists and the Way Back machine only has a single Jan. 2008 archive. It seems to have been a blog format.

So it could well be that the Southern Partisan has died. It would be a strategic victory over neo-Confederacy. Manning, in this reputed Manning post, claims that the number of paid subscribers has dropped from over 10,000 to 2,900.

Friday, February 27, 2009

An interesting analysis of the election results. The Confederacy lives.

This is a very interesting article on the white vote for McCain by state.

The former Confederate states stand out from the rest of the United States of America.

Confederacy of rejection of unemployment benefits. Plantation economics in action.

This is an interesting article in the "New York Times" on governors talking about rejecting unemployment benefits.

In your mind map out the states considering rejecting the unemployment benefits and see what you see.

Monday, February 23, 2009

So-called State Rebellions; Neo-Confederate hype in action

There is a lot of talk about the states in rebellion.

Such as at this link:

Or this link:

But examining the case of New Hampshire is instructive, it isn't a state in rebellion, it is just four lawmakers. In an article ridiculing the four Republican lawmakers the Nashua Telegraph editorial says "Memo to Lawmakers: The Civil War is Over."

As explained in this website the size of the New Hampshire House is limited between 375 to 400.

So four Republican house representatives are about 1% of the New Hampshire House.

So New Hampshire isn't in rebellion no matter how much Fox News might want their viewers to think so as shown in this video excerpt.

I suspect that for the other 19 states supposedly in rebellion it really is just one or two stray state legislators here and there getting a little too wound up by talk radio, but it is not states in rebellion.

The weasel words here is "states legislatures are considering" or some other variant of this phrase. If just one legislator proposes a bill, a body of the legislature, such as a committee is considering it, if only to reject it immediately.

So there is not some state's rights rebellion out there.

Sunday, February 22, 2009

J. Michael Hill on egalitarianism

J. Michael Hill, president of the League of the South has put online his essay against egalitarianism.

He is being a bit obscure on one part. When he talks about equality under the law. What he means that each person has a right to seek justice under the law. However, this doesn't mean equality in any other sense, it just means that they have an equality to seek under the law what rights they may or may not have in their station in the law. The law could be that some people are serfs and some people are lords and that they both have an equal right to seek the protection of the law for what the law might provide to them as a serf or a lord.

When reading neo-Confederate writing, words and expressions can have meanings that a modern reader might not comprehend. Neo-Confederate thinking often has a pre-modern viewpoint that is difficult to understand in a modern world.

Saturday, February 21, 2009

The story of Confederate House in Levittown

Jonathan Yardley has the story of Confederate House in Levittown.

"What followed was a protracted period of tension punctuated by frequent small riots and near-riots. Led by a "hulking flattopped man" named James E. Newell Jr., "a thirty-year-old electrician from Durham, North Carolina, who lived around the corner on Daffodil Lane," and his "sidekick, an unemployed forty-eight-year-old named Eldred Williams," a small but noisy and openly racist group of Levittowners made life so miserable for the Myerses that they took their children out of town. Police protection was half-hearted at best; "the local police . . . sat by and watched the harassment . . . for weeks." The Ku Klux Klan arrived on the scene and found eager supporters. Crosses were burned, epithets were painted on the Wechslers' house, and an empty house at nearby 30 Darkleaf Lane was rented to new neighbors, who turned the place into a kind of clubhouse:

"The Myerses and Wechslers recognized in horror the familiar faces of their tormenters, including Newell, and even the mailman who had started the riot after he'd delivered the first letter to Daisy Myers on that August day. Outside, the caretaker of the house, Eldred Williams, walked his black dog up and down the yard. He had renamed the pet in honor of this day. 'Here, Nigger,' he called to the dog, 'come here you, Nigger.' The neighbors had arrived."

They called the place 'the Confederate House,' and 'called themselves the Dogwood Hollow Social Club.' "

Confederate Culture in Action, harrassment of African American workers restoring power to electrical cooperative

The story is here:

Friday, February 20, 2009

Hispanics for the Union in San Francisco during the Civil War

I found this very interesting article about Hispanics rallying for the Union during the Civil War in San Francisco.

A quote from the article:

Finally on the night of October 16, 1864, the pro-Lincoln parade was to begin. Excitedly, members of the Club Unionista crowded into the rooms of the Terpsichore Hall. At the command of Captain Guillen, the Artilleros marched forward. Behind them, four abreast, the Club Unionista members marched out into the street, holding their flaming torches aloft. The mounted officers came behind, astride their spirited horses.The banners and signs carried by Club Unionista members bore evidence of their bi-lingual and bi-cultural heritage. One bilingual sign that tied together the American Civil War and the French Intervention in Mexico read:

“Honest Abe is our man—Muera Maximiliano” (Death to Maximilian)

Another banner listed the civil and military heroes of the war on both fronts, Mexico and the Atlantic coast: “Lincoln—Juarez, Grant—Negrete

Yet another gave a decidedly negative opinion of the leaders of the Confederacy and the French in Mexico: “Maximiliano el usurpador — Davis el traidor” (Maximilian the usurper, [Jefferson] Davis the traitor).

And still another banner made reference to Lincoln’s emancipation of the slaves: “Dios hizo al hombre y Lincoln lo declaró libre.” (God created man, and Lincoln declared him free)

Thursday, February 19, 2009

Ann Coulter defends the Council of Conservative Citizens

The SPLC has a report on Ann Coulter defending the Council of Conservative Citizens. The following is the link.

The link to the Council of Conservative Citizens is

Friday, February 13, 2009

Interesting news about Ron Wilson

Ron Wilson is former Commander-in-Chief of the Sons of Confederate Veterans and used to write for the "Citizen Informer" a publication of the Council of Conservative Citizens.

This morning I read a blog about some interesting financial arrangements he had for Anderson county in South Carolina. The following is an article in the The Journal in Williamston, SC.

This blogger, in a blog titles "Confederate Cronyism, Nepotism" reviews the article.

Sunday, January 25, 2009

Christian Conservative David Burton Against Neo-Confederacy

Bud Kennedy of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram has a column about a web page by John Burton of Wall Builders.

The Kennedy's column is at:

David Burton's online article is at:

Evidently the neo-Confederates are up in arms about it. It seems Burton has done considerable work assembling historical sources to show that the Civil War was over slavery.

Of course that this view is being adopted by conservative Christian southerners gives the neo-Confederate worry.

Wednesday, January 21, 2009

A "New York Times" article to upset the neo-Confederates

This article is the nightmare of neo-Confederates present and of neo-Confederates for generations in the past.

Writing Obama

I plan to write Obama about the issue of neo-Confederacy. I have been thinking about writing each issue individually, but I am now leaning to just writing one long letter and address all the issues about the Presidency and neo-Confederacy.

I know the president is busy with the issue of the economy. However, much of what my letter will concern itself with is things that Obama shouldn't do to support or pander to the Confederacy. That is they are actions that he should and could drop and lighten his load. I think actually much of the matters in my letter can be dealt with by minor administrators.

I am also going to think about getting some co-signers for the letter.

I am going to publish the letter on this blog after I mail it to Obama.

"Southern Partisan" -- Alive or Dead

The last issue of Southern Partisan was sometime early 2008. There is a fairly inactive website also and the latest story there was August 19, 2008. So is the Southern Partisan defunct? I don't think it is. Its editor, Christopher M. Sullivan, has been the Commander-in-Chief of the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) and I think probably very busy running the SCV. With the recent election of new officers for the SCV, Sullivan is now freed up to get Southern Partisan going again, which I think he will. I think the Southern Partisan has a loyal base which will support the publication through interruptions in regular publishing.

However, I think it does face challenges. After the press reporting on Southern Partisan in 1998 and 2000 over Trent Lott and Ashcroft respectively, prominent persons haven't been showing up in the Southern Partisan, unless they are retired and their careers are over. Thomas Woods Jr. omits any mention of his League of the South and Southern Partisan past at his website I think Gutzman hopes that the public isn't aware of his book reviews in the Southern Partisan. With the absence of U.S. Senators, prominent conservatives, authors, TV personalities like Willard Scott, the Southern Partisan loses some of its prestige and ability to attract readers.

Also, the type of university contributors that contributed to Southern Partisan are passing away. The English Dept. of universities in the South are no longer the habitats for neo-Confederacy like they once were. I don't think members of the Obama administration will want to interview with the Southern Partisan like members of the Reagan administration did.

I don't think the Southern Partisan is going to want contributors like those who wrote for Southern Mercury, the publication of the SCV Educational PAC. (I have put some short reviews of Southern Mercury articles online at

Nor do I think the Southern Partisan will want to publish fringe articles by persons who worry about the Illuminati and other conspiracy theories.

So there is going to be a challenge for the Southern Partisan to find contributors, but I think they will be able to find contributors. It will be interesting who they find. It might be people like John J. Dwyer. Maybe Douglas Wilson in Idaho,

On the other hand it could be that Southern Partisan will produce a few more issues and then be finished. The whole academic branch of neo-Confederacy might be dying out or no longer willing to publish in the Southern Partisan. When and if the Southern Partisan does terminate, it will take a few years to know for sure.

Thursday, January 01, 2009

Presidential Candidates for 2012 and neo-Confederacy

I have started a web page for 2012. The link is

Right now it is just a skeleton. I mostly copied over the 2008 page and eliminated those who have no chance of running for president in 2012. I have some updates in it also. There is the Black Commentator web page on Bill Clinton and the UDC. I have The New Republic article on Ron Paul and his newsletters. I need to ad to the Huckbee entry his pro-Confederate campaigning in 2008. I don't have anything in the Sarah Palin entry except her name and office. The Alaska Independence party is neo-Confederate and she was supportive of them. I will have to get together the documentation on this.

I will be writing Obama some letters regarding various Federal Government policies which support neo-Confederacy and will post the replies in the Presidential Candidate 2012 web page. I am none partisan and Obama will be treated like any other presidential candidate.

I do plan on sending out a questionnaire at some point to the candidates in 2011.

I have only three potential democratic candidates at this time, President Obama, Vice-President Biden, and Hillary Clinton.

I will be adding Republican candidates to the list as I am able to find out who are considered likely candidates.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Popular Posts Last 30 days

Popular Posts All Time