White House has finally gotten the letter asking him to not send a wreath to the Arlington Confederate monument

The date on the return green postcard for the certified letter is March 27, 2017. So the White House just got the letter. It then would get looked at by staffers.

The letter was mailed some time ago, in first half of February, but I think it takes awhile to get through security.

You can read the letter and the supporting bibliography at this web page.

http://www.templeofdemocracy.com/sign-2017-petition-to-president-trump.html

You can go to the Change.org petition either through a link on that page or directly by this link.

https://www.change.org/p/edward-h-sebesta-ask-president-trump-not-to-send-a-wreath-to-the-arlington-confederate-monument

EU official threatens retaliation to support secession of U.S. states

Turns out that the EU official is being humorous.

https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2017/03/juncker-ohio/521385/

However, I don't think this is good even in jest.

Desperately seeking rationalizations to keep Confederate monuments

In New York City financial district there is a statue of a small girl standing in defiance in front of the statue of a bull. The statue of the girl is called "fearless girl."  This is the link to a story giving the background.

http://www.glamour.com/story/the-fearless-girl-statue-will-stay-on-wall-street-until-2018

The sculptor of the bull is upset and I think is making a fool of himself.

https://news.artnet.com/exhibitions/fearless-bull-charging-girl-copyright-907208

This blog posting recently showed up on Civil War Memory by Kevin Levin.

http://cwmemory.com/2017/03/28/does-the-robert-e-lee-monument-need-a-fearless-girl/

He has a friend who is proposing that some equivalent to "fearless girl" could be put up by Confederate statues instead of removing them.

Levin quotes the rationalization of this "very smart public historian."  You know, a person who is part of the established order of distinguished public historians and a Levin approved historian.

This "very smart public historian" is quoted as saying:

It satisfies those who say that taking them down destroys or covers up history; it preserves the monuments as part of the history of the built environment, thus satisfying the historic preservationists; and it gives the subjects of the monuments a 21st century sensibility.

It isn't considered that these justifications to keep the statues are just excuses and the "very smart public historian" is asserting that these "historic preservationists" should be taken seriously rather than dismissed as white banal nationalist fools. The blog posting is hilarious and you don't need parody  when you have postings like this.

I always thought that challenging these monuments and other forms of endorsing the Confederacy had the great value of revealing who was really who. This is a fight over who authors the landscape, and whether the landscape will be racialized as being a white landscape.

It also reveals that Levin and at least one "very smart public historian" are cultural geography illiterates.

Finally, when Levin doesn't mention who this "very smart public historian" is he is covering up who is advocating this agenda. Clearly this "very smart public historian" should not be considered credible in the discussion of any public history anywhere.

Nigel Farage should be denied entry to the U.S. Trump is derelict in allowing him to enter the nation

It turns out that two major Brexit movement politicians, Nigel Farage and  Aaron Banks, were allowed in the United States and raised funds for a new movement to break up California. This is the article:

http://sfist.com/2017/03/26/latest_calexit_gambit_split_califor.php

They should be declared undesirable aliens and not allowed in the U.S. again.

Commitment to democracy is accepting the results of an election you lost.

The boundaries of American states are somewhat capricious and formed for one reason or another over history. I supposed they could be draw again in 30 different ways that would make some sense. However, we don't need 900 states with 1,800 senators. Every geographic region can find some pretext to being divided further.

This is destabilizing to the United States and is a hostile act.

Every place needs two parties in opposition to each other. It helps keep both parties somewhat more honest and better behaved. Having areas where one party is completely dominant without effective opposition is not good, whether it be Republican or Democrat.

I am not necessarily opposed to all plans for rationalization of state boundaries. If they wanted to keep the number of states fixed to 50 but re-apportion according to population and maybe have states with one senator that might be interesting, but even then I would want to carefully think through all possible ramifications and consequences both immediate and over generations.

And this is what should be considered when you start talking about creating states. It opens up many questions as to what purpose the existence of states serve and the current system of states. They are largely the happenstance of history. In the 21st century we expect equal representation, and don't live in the 18th century where states had property requirements for voting.

One time in the 1970s I got out an atlas and in looking up the population of the states realized that 10% of the population gets 40% of the U.S. Senate and 40% of the population gets 10% of the U.S. Senate. If this gets generally considered I think that 40% of the under represented might not be very happy about it.

Andrew P. Napolitano claims to have been on a list of possible Supreme Court nominees. He is a prolific writer for Lew Rockwell.

Andrew P. Napolitano's claim to have been on a list of possible Supreme Court nominees is in the news.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/andrew-napolitano-supreme-court-shortlist-trump-236488

There is considerable skepticism regarding Napolitano's claim according to the article for which a link is supplied above.

Napolitano is a prolific contributor to www.lewrockwell.com.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/author/andrew-p-napolitano/

There are six webpages listing the articles.

As a supporter for secession Napolitano he is really not qualified.

Historian Eric Foner interviews historian Matthew Karp about his book, "This Vast Southern Empire: Slaveholders at the Helm of American Foreign Policy"

The interview is at this link:

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/03/slavery-civil-war-us-south-dubois-foner-karp/

I am reading Matthew Karp's book on the slavocracy in America and their control of American foreign policy and it is a fascinating book.

One thing Karp shows is that the slave owners were very optimistic and they saw their idea of bound labor taking over the world in one form or another, not slavery, but coolie labor, peons, and other bound labor.

Confederate flag as an anti-LGBT flag in Maine

In this article there is an account of Kennebunk High School flying a Gay pride flag and then taking it down.

http://goingcoastal.bangordailynews.com/2017/03/22/politics/gay-pride-confederate-battle-flags-displayed-at-maine-high-schools/

Evidently it was taken down because according to the article:

The flag was lowered a few days later after a transgender student at the school expressed discomfort with the amount of media attention the flag was getting, according to a report by SeacoastOnline.com. Kennebunk High School reportedly is the first high school in Maine to raise a gay pride flag.

I suggest the transgender student should stop being a whiner.

What is interesting is that some other students flew the Confederate flag in response to the Gay pride flag.

This isn't a misappropriation of the Confederate flag. The Chaplain's Corps Chronicles  of the Sons of Confederate Veterans has lots of anti-LGBT hostility as does the neo-Confederate group in general.

Incidents like this publicize what Confederate "heritage" is really all about. It also explains why there isn't going to be any "Confederate fabulous."

Arkansas bill to drop Robert E. Lee holiday goes to governor for signature

http://www.swtimes.com/news/20170318/arkansas-king-lee-bill-sent-to-governor

The bill if signed, and Governor Asa Hutchison is planning on signing it Monday in a ceremony, will remove Robert E. Lee from the state's Jan. 19th holiday which will be for Martin Luther King.

As the article points out that leaves only Alabama, Mississippi having a Robert E. Lee/ Martin Luther King holiday combined.

As the article points out there used to be seven states with Lee/King combined holidays.

Some Republicans in the state legislature came up with various excuses to not change the holiday without endorsing the Confederacy. This has been a strategy of late to defend the glorification of the Confederacy by having rationalizations that don't specifically defend the Confederacy but find some reason or another for the Confederate monument to stay, the Confederate holiday to be retained, and the street or building named after a Confederate not to be renamed.

I am sort of surprised that this has happened. It could be that with the massacre in 2015 some state legislators wanted to do something to further de-Confederate their state.

It might be though that the Lee holiday  came up in trying to attract a factory, facility, or business headquarters to Arkansas. Some competing site just needs to point out that they have a Confederate holiday and it would give pause to families wondering what type of state to which they would be moving. Competing sites probably would like to bring a place's Confederate identity to attention as a means of blocking the other sites chances of locating a corporate facility.

I don't think a corporation's non-discrimination policy is worth much if they don't consider the issue of the Confederate self-identification of a place to which they wish to locate a facility.

I think at some point I should ask corporations to consider this and give it some weight.

Levin's apologetics for the neo-Confederate

Kevin Levin has this blog, "The First Female Black Confederate?"

http://cwmemory.com/2017/03/02/the-first-female-black-confederate/


It is in reference to this article in which the South Carolina decided to honor a "female African-American Confederate veteran." http://www.aikenstandard.com/news/family-of-african-american-confederate-veteran-of-salley-accepts-statehouse/article_56060e74-fa11-11e6-8923-0ba00a5347b5.html

Levin opens his blog posting with a statement, "I've said many times that the vast majority of people who believe or push the black Confederate narrative do not do so for nefarious reasons. They are not promoting history in support of a Lost Cause agenda."

Levin just thinks they are just poor historians for whom, he the great expert, will show them the way.

The article shows a picture and who is in the picture? Reginal Miller, South Carolina Division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans; Ann Shugart, state president of the South Carolina Division of the United Daughters of the Confederacy, Judy McCardle, third vice-president of the South Carolina Division of the United Daughters of the Confederacy; and Mary M. Bailey, registrar of the South Carolina Division of the United Daughters of the Confederacy.

Seems like promoting the Lost Cause is part of this award.

Also, a Confederate of African ancestry being honored for supporting the Confederacy, a nation created to preserve slavery and white supremacy would be a traitor to justice and honoring such a person would be nefarious.

This search for Confederates of African ancestry or to find African Americans to defend the Confederacy is part of a very long history of finding some African American to endorse some racist policy or practice. During the 1950s the White Citizen's Councils newspaper would mention African American groups that were against integration. Zora Neale Hurston's denunciations of the civil rights movement are also quoted by persons were opposed to the civil rights movement. Walter Williams had a column in the "Southern Partisan" after it was denounced in the media. Martin Luther King Jr. has a niece who as his niece voices opposition to various liberal policies. I don't know what King's 2nd and 3rd grand nieces and grand nephews are doing though.

This is a fairly good indication of what Levin's book is going to be about. A very narrow technical historical analysis isolated from a larger practice in American history.

I have been thinking about writing something on claims of African Confederates, but felt that it will be dealt with elsewhere and I will focus on something else. Obviously now I realize that it need to write the book on the topic.

Phillips Dillard's pro-Confederate dissertation finally published by Mercer Univ.

Phillip Dillard's 1999 dissertation is being published as "Jefferson Davis's Final Campaign." The dissertation was titled "Independence or Slavery: The Confederate Debate over arming slavery."

The point of the dissertation was that the purpose of the Confederacy wasn't slavery. I have a copy.

The fact that Mercer University press is publishing this isn't surprising. They published James Oscar Farmer, "Metaphysical Confederacy" praised by Eugene Genovese.

I suppose Mercer will publish most anything sympathetic to the Confederacy.

Kevin Levin reveals himself on plantation weddings

This is his blog posting on the issue of plantation weddings. It is titled "We Just Want to Get Married," which is a good clue to his attitude.

http://cwmemory.com/2014/01/08/we-just-want-to-get-married/

I came across it while I was researching plantation weddings.

It really shows who Levin is.

A quote:

"Apart from confronting the past I don't see what is necessarily wrong with holding weddings, concerts, and other events on plantation grounds. Why must slavery be front and center of every activity? No doubt some of these sites rely on the income to stay open."

He also has the snarky comment, "Guess what, many plantation homes do provide a beautiful setting for a wedding."

Levin also invents "selective outrage" because slavery was in other places besides big house plantations. This is a sort of grasping at straws.

The mind simply reels reading this posting of Levin's and further you realize that Levin has no clue about what he is writing.

This posting reveals Levin to be inherently an establishmentarian. If there is a historical institution or some operation he is ready to defend it.

As time marches on he will eventually be an aging reactionary ranting against the future.

I think as time goes on clergy of whatever faith should pledge not to do plantation weddings. I will be writing people about this issue.

I am also researching it. As an issue of race, place, slavery and gender it is largely unexplored.

Bill Clinton hypocrite

http://www.salon.com/2017/03/10/bill-clinton-denounces-donald-trumps-nationalism-it-is-like-we-are-all-having-an-identity-crisis-at-once/

Bill Clinton wrote three letters of congratulations to the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC) when he was president, all after U.S. Senator Carol Mosley-Braun's historic victory against the UDC in the U.S. Senate. One of these letters was less than a year afterwards.

Further when I wrote a certified letter to Bill Clinton to revoke his letters or disown them there was no reply. This earlier blog posting has the story about Bill Clinton's letters to the UDC.

http://newtknight.blogspot.com/2008/03/bill-clinton-betrays-carol-moseley.html#.WMLgmvkrKiM

This is the link where I mention I had sent a certified letter to Bill Clinton in 2014. It has the green return postcard.

http://newtknight.blogspot.com/2016/08/concerning-alt-right-and-clintons.html#.WMLhbfkrKiM

In the Clinton administration the UDC was giving Confederate awards at the U.S. Military service academies.

Article about New Orleans getting rid of its Confederate monuments

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/my-hometown-is-finally-getting-rid-of-its-confederate-monuments

I guess the argument of "erasing history" or the argument that these statues can serve as a "teachable moment" isn't working.

St. Anne's Episcopal Church in Annapolis stops hosting Confederate ceremony

The following article is about St. Anne's Episcopal Church in Annapolis deciding they aren't going to host a Confederate ceremony.

http://www.capitalgazette.com/news/annapolis/ph-ac-cn-confederate-veterans-annapolis-0303-20170302-story.html

The church stopped hosting the event when contacted by a group called Stand Up For Racial Justice, but I think the reporter made a mistake and the group is Showing Up for Racial Justice -- Annapolis & AA Co.

The national group, Showing Up For Racial Justice, has many local chapters and I certain will make them aware of churches that host neo-Confederate.

I have been campaigning against churches hosting neo-Confederate groups.

This is my web page on asking churches to not host neo-Confederate groups.

http://www.templeofdemocracy.com/churches-of-the-confederacy.html

Stephen Bannon's ideology

This Vanity Fair article is very useful in discussing Stephen Bannon's ideology.

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/03/what-steve-bannon-really-thinks

The usefulness is that the article states that there isn't much real information about what Stephen Bannon believes. Bannon chief of staff in the Trump White House and formerly ran Breitbart.

I have been frustrated trying to find out what information there actually was. This article confirms what I suspected. There isn't much information. This isn't to say that reading Breitbart articles gives a good indicator what Brannon's view might be, we just don't have much in terms of what Bannon himself has said.

I am very happy the story of the Gracchi brothers is mentioned. I have always thought this was a very significant story in ancient history which doesn't get much attention.

I have decided to focus on how Breitbart handles the issues of secession, Confederacy, neo-Confederacy, slavery and some related issues regarding race. I think that the path to understanding is through reviewing the output. I would like to know what the ideology of Bannon is, but as the Vanity Fair article states, there isn't much evidence.

Some of the very partisan speculations about the thinking of Bannon have been worse than useless and not just because they have wasted my time in reading them and finding in the end no real information. When some real information comes to light it will be less likely that it will have credibility because of some of these speculations and will run the risk of being dismissed as another partisan speculation.

To make sure there is no misunderstanding, my reading so far of Breitbart leads me to conclude that it is a publication that is very concerning.

This is an earlier blog posting discussing the challenges of finding out who Bannon is.

http://newtknight.blogspot.com/2017/02/who-is-stephen-bannon.html#.WLmrQ_krKrw

Pat Buchanan, enemy of the United States

This article by Pat Buchanan is published here and there in the press.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/opinion/patrick-j-buchanan-is-secession-a-solution-to-cultural-war/article_24dac1cd-9a2b-5cfd-9499-3bb40084876a.html

http://www.wnd.com/2017/02/is-secession-a-solution-to-cultural-war/

https://townhall.com/columnists/patbuchanan/2017/02/24/is-secession-a-solution-to-cultural-war-n2289942

The answer to Buchanan's essay is no. There will always be people that disagree with you and you with them and if that was a justification for division you would soon end up with the Republic of your House.

Pat Buchanan was a contributor and on the masthead of Southern Partisan as senior adviser. He contributed to Chronicles magazine.

In this article we see that ideology triumphs over patriotism and that there are those who would break up the nation in order to advance an ideological agenda.

UPDATE: I would say  that Buchanan doesn't advocate secession in this article, but normalizes it, and is using the threat of secession to advance his idea of the Federal Union.

Rasmussen pollsters play with fire. Unpatriotic Repulicans

Rasmussen Reports has released this poll.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/february_2017/41_of_republicans_say_america_won_t_be_hurt_if_california_goes_solo

In the poll only 60% feel that it would be bad if California became another country. It really should be 90% or more and those who disagree should be considered cranks. The percentage that think that it would be a good idea is 18%.

Unfortunately the numbers thinking that it would be good if California became another country is driven by partisanship by Republicans of whom 25% thought it would be a good idea.

The headlines used by Rasmussen Reports need to be read carefully. They say that 41% of Republicans don't think America would be hurt by California secession which is 25% who are for it and 16% who say it would have no impact.

It seems that a lot of Americans don't see the obvious advantages of being in a continental nation or they don't think that these questions have real consequences, but are really just hypothetical and in the realm of fantasy.

Given that we have hundreds of statues in American honoring secessionists we should not be surprised that secession is legitimized and people are open to this really stupid idea.

Please consider the following petition.

https://www.change.org/p/edward-h-sebesta-ask-president-trump-not-to-send-a-wreath-to-the-arlington-confederate-monument