Confederate Railroad performed at neo-Confederate event held by the Sons of Confederate Veterans and reported in the Southern Partisan

Confederate Veteran has lost two bookings over their name. This is their website. http://www.confederaterailroad.com/

This is their Facebook  https://www.facebook.com/ConfederateRR/

They have been dropped from two fairs as of 7/26/2019.

There is an attitude that they are being picked on.

Charlie Daniels is really upset as reported in this article.

https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/cody-leach/charlie-daniels-blasts-decision-cancel-confederate-railroad-band-giving-fascism

In this Brietbart article Danny Shirley is all innocence saying, "I've done nothing wrong" and attributes the name to being derived from regional pride. He is quoted saying, "I love the part of the country I'm from and I will never apologize for that."

https://www.breitbart.com/entertainment/2019/07/25/confederate-railroad-banned-from-second-state-fair-for-name/

He does other whining.

However, it turns out that when the band started they were quite the defenders of the Confederacy.

The 2nd Quarter 1993, Vol. 13 Southern Partisan (pp. 42-43) had an article by neo-Confederate Devereaux D. Cannon Jr. about "The Southern Heritage Jam," put on by the Sons of Confederate Veterans at their new national headquarters on May 22, 1993.

The article has a picture  of  Danny Shirley with the caption, "Danny Shirley, lead singer of Confederate Railroad, the "Best New Country Band of 1993," rallies the troops." These would be neo-Confederate 'troops.'

The article makes special mention of Confederate Railroad and thanks to Confederate Railroad as defenders of  the Confederacy. I quote:

"The first started by Alderman exploded as he introduced the final act of the evvening, the award-winning, and politically incorrect, "Best New Country Band of 1993," Confederate Railroad. The young men who make up that band are more than proud of their country and heritage, as the name implies. They are often asked in interviews whether they are criticized for having "Confederate" in their name. Each question offers them an opportunity to "witness" for Dixie, and opportunity which they never pass up."

"Southern Heritage Jame I was put together on a shoe string, with no advertising budget. Despite that, it provided to be a grand success and will grow into an annual event. (Rumor has it that Waylon Jennings has agreed to headline Southern Heritage Jam II.) ... The Jam was a success because  so many  artists were willing to donate their time and energy to benefit Southern Heritage. Confederate Railroad is to be especially commended in thsi regard. They played a concert earlier in the day at Jackson, Tennessee. From that concert they drove some 150 miles to donate their time and talent to the cause of the South, and then immediately set off, at 1:30 a.m. Sunday, to invade Ohio."

The article then urges other artists to support the Confederacy like the Confederate Railroad.

Danny Shirley sought to get the support of neo-Confederates by supporting a neo-Confederate event. According to the article are proud of the Confederacy. Devereaux Cannon mentioned as the "Chairman" of the Confederate Heritage Committee of the SCV.

Southern Partisan magazine, Abbeville Institute, Revival or Decline of the Southern Partisan and the neo-Confederate movement

The Abbeville Institute is running a lot of essays from the Southern Partisan magazine.

https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/

First I want to discuss and dispose of this website which seems to be some zombie thing in case anyone thinks it represents a real continuation of the Southern Partisan magazine. This website exists with the old Southern Partisan cover title.

https://www.southernpartisan.com/

However, it seems to be a content farm or some type of website in which an algorithm scans published articles and presents them on the website.

All the authors are, "by Editor," or at least the ones I have reviewed.  I don't see any of the old Southern Partisan material from the magazine available.

So it is with some interest that I have seen a lot of Southern Partisan material being republished online at the Abbeville Institute. Is it a sign of the Southern Partisan neo-Confederate ideology continuing on into the present and possibly into the future?

I thought initially it might be that. However, I am also thinking that it might be that the Abbeville Institute needs filler. I noticed last week on the blog it is all or almost all old Southern Partisan articles.

It could be that since 2015 there are less and less individuals willing to write for the Abbeville Institute. They no longer list a faculty, and I can't find online any indication anymore that Brion McClanahan is the editor. I notice that some contributors have nothing to lose in their reputations.

Or it could be that this nationalist movement is dying out. The purposes which drove neo-Confederate nationalism and much of Southern studies, the maintenance a hierarchy of class, gender, race are still there, but neo-Confederate nationalism is no longer seen as the means to maintain these hierarchies. It could be that among neo-reactionaries, white nationalists, other reactionary sorts neo-Confederate nationalism is seen as irrelevant or at best a charming antique from the past.

These reactionary forces might still respect the Confederacy and revere figures of the Confederacy, but they don't see neo-Confederacy as a means or program to direct the future.

One of the forces which drove neo-Confederate nationalism was the need to maintain a separatist anti-democratic and explicitly racist section in the former slave states against national democratizing trends and national movement towards civil rights. It was to facilitate an internal secession.

The Southern Partisan started in 1979 and got serious funding in 1980 and was really launched that year, when it seemed that with the election of Ronald Reagan there was a real chance of overturning or rendering impotent civil rights legislation. The neo-Confederates felt very betrayed when Reagan didn't restore the pre-civil rights era status quo, though Reagan did much to undermine civil rights.

Though there still is a struggle over civil rights in 2018, the old segregationist regimes of the 1950s are gone forever. M.E. Bradford's hopes remain dashed.

Also, the struggle is for the nation at large. States' rights is gone. All the political forces are playing for the nation. Separatism is conceived as being realized through external secession in the form of a nation state and not internal secession with the vehicle of states' rights.

The whole Lost Cause argument of the Civil War being about states' rights doesn't seem to be that important. Secessionists might believe that the Civil War was over states' rights, but they are planning secession. They may be justifying secession a little because they see a lack of states' rights.  But I think the whole discussion might be seen as superfluous to secessionists who are conceptualizing their arguments within nationalist concepts, and nationalists aren't interested in being within a larger polity with or without "states' rights."

Neo-Confederacy is not dead though. It will continue as a reactionary thread in American thinking. It is still a concern. It has influence, such the "Politically Incorrect Guides" of the Regnery Press.

Because a specific nationalist movement is becoming less important, doesn't mean that the Lost Cause is fading out. School textbooks pander to the Lost Cause. The Lost Cause and its monuments seem to have become an agenda item of reactionary or racist websites like Breitbart. But Breitbart doesn't care about M.E. Bradford or neo-Confederate writing or ideology. Instead their defense of Confederate monuments is more about white nationalism in general and white resentment.

At this time neo-Confederacy is largely expressed by the Sons of Confederate Veterans. The United Daughters (UDC) of the Confederacy seems to have dropped entirely advocacy of neo-Confederate ideas. Privately they might still support neo-Confederate ideas though, it just isn't public. The UDC has set up their website such that archive.org doesn't archive it.

This doesn't mean neo-Confederacy is dead or will be dead. I don't think it will be what it was in the 1980s and 1990s. It will likely be picked up as a narrative in a larger reactionary narrative of national or world history. It might be a field of study for reactionaries reading reactionary books.

I think there still remains work to be done about neo-Confederacy. There is the Sons of Confederate Veterans and the United Daughters of the Confederacy and their enablers. There is still the issue of the complicity of the field of Southern studies with neo-Confederacy which the field refuses to acknowledge much less address.

Of course like a herpes infection, neo-Confederacy might flare up again under stressful circumstances.

However, even then I think that it will be that elements of neo-Confederate thinking will be used by national reactionary movements to advance a national reactionary narrative rather than push regional agendas.

The publication of the American Ideas Institute is American Conservative though they have had neo-Confederate contributors.

"Southern Partisan" defender Jeff Session gives Hawaiian secessionists a big boost UPDATE

Jeff Sessions defended neo-Confederate Southern Partisan magazine during the confirmation hearings for John Ashcroft who had interviewed in Southern Partisan.

I see Sessions's page with his defense is no longer online.

As most everyone has hear Sessions made this comment about a federal judge's decision regarding an executive order by Trump regarding immigration.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/04/20/jeff_sessions_is_amazed_that_some_guy_in_hawaii_can_tell_trump_what_to_do.html

Sessions said, “I really am amazed that a judge sitting on an island in the Pacific can issue an order that stops the President of the United States from what appears to be clearly his statutory and Constitutional power.”

It is somewhat concerning that the Attorney General of the United States doesn't understand the concept of the division of powers in our federal system of government.

Sessions's statement in reference to Hawaii tends to confirm the criticisms of Sessions during the U.S. Senate confirmation process that he was a racist.

However, what has really amazed the public is Sessions's dismissive attitude towards Hawaii, as if it isn't a real US state. I can't imagine him making this type of remark about Arkansas or Vermont or Utah or Maryland or any of the other 48 contiguous states. This comment isn't coming from some fringe element but the Attorney General of the United States of America.

This of course is very harmful to the Republican Party in Hawaii, but I don't think they have much influence there. It is a statement which will alienate persons of Pacific Island ancestry on the United States mainland. However, a lot of those votes are in California and the Republican Party does poorly there. As for Asian Americans Sessions's comments send a clear message that they will always  be seen as the alien other. Again a lot of those votes are concentrated on the East and West coasts where the Republican Party isn't winning anyways.

Still Sessions's comments are adding another long term obstacle to presidential victories when the demographics for the 2016 Trump victory are fading away with time. The Republican Party can't always  depend of the Democrats selecting and trying to foist a candidate for president who just isn't that electable.  Also, in Hawaii and on the East and West coasts there are elected Republicans who are attempting to have some influence and elect candidates and Sessions's comments damage the Republican Party's prospects there.

Also, Asian Americans are distributed across the country and in a lot of states currently dominated by Republicans Sessions's comments will be an acceleration of the slow shift that is occurring of these states to a more progressive politics.

HOWEVER, ....

Sessions's comment is a tremendous boost for the Hawaiian secessionists. The Attorney General of the United States of America has made it very clear, loud and clear, that to him Hawaii isn't part of the United States of America. Sessions really couldn't have been more insulting if he tried. It is the casual way he said it as well as what he said that shows that he really doesn't consider Hawaii part of America.

Sessions's comments are an endorsement of the central core concept of  the Hawaiian secessionist movement, that Hawaii is really a foreign nation under American occupation.

The impact of this comment is still in play. What will Trump say? What will the national leadership of the Republican Party say? Will the conservative movement rebuke Sessions? It will be observed to what extent the Republican Party and the conservative movement respond to Sessions's comments and to what extent they reject them.

Then their has been the Boycott Hawaii movement by Trump supporters which is already an antagonizing factor. http://www.kitv.com/story/34943719/attorney-general-doug-chin-reacts-to-boycotthawaii

The press is focusing on the outrage of Hawaiian leaders, but what will be really interesting is what Hawaiian secessionists do with it and I think they certainly will use Session's statements.

Of course there are all those other islands in the Pacific which the United States possesses as colonial possessions. Maybe they also will suddenly develop secession movements. I suggest Mr. Sessions not visit any Pacific Islands ever. It would energize any potential secession movements.

For the territorial integrity of the United States of America Jeff Sessions should resign.

UPDATE:

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/21/jeff-sessions-hawaii-judge-remark-237456

Sessions denies that he made a disparaging remark about Hawaii.

It might be that Sessions thinks he is in Alabama where some people are predisposed to accept these type of excuses or that excuses that he made during his confirmation hearing will work now. And they might work now. I don't think they will work in Hawaii though.

Sessions didn't say, "a lone judge out of hundreds," or something similar. Sessions felt it was essential to mention it was "an island in the Pacific" to emphasize how reasonable it was. The only people who are buying Sessions's excuse are people with a racial attitude anyways.

Numerous links to our research at CNN article

I am going to just put up the link, to the article, but if you go to the links embedded in this article you will see some of my old web pages, and links to my video channel at YouTube and other material supplied by Euan Hague and I or just by myself.

Even the TPM Cafe material originally comes from me.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/17/politics/kfile-corey-stewart-richard-hines/

I will provide more information tonight. The nation seems to be realizing what is happening.

The claim of the following T-shirt which was sold by Southern Partisan seems to have become real.

If you want to prevent "Lincoln's worst nightmare" sign this petition.

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

CLICK ON IMAGES TO SEE WHOLE THING

Abbeville Institute author at "Breitbart"

As I dig into Breitbart I am making interesting discoveries. I see that Brion McClanahan is the author of seven articles in 2016. No articles before and so far as of 1/29/2017 no articles in 2017.

All seven articles are articles to praise Trump or discredit Trump's opponents or both.

We should watch carefully who Trump nominates to various boards relating to scholarship and arts. For example the National Institute of Humanities. M.E. Bradford may not have been able to get nominated to the National Institute of Humanities, but McClanahan might. Some may say that the Democrats in the Senate would prevent it, good luck with that.

http://www.breitbart.com/author/brion-mcclanahan/

Brion McClanahan is a major figure at www.abbevilleinstitute.org, a neo-Confederate organization.

https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/topics/brion-mcclanahan/

I see that McClanahan is able to give his neo-Confederate interpretations of history.

In this article, "Donald the Good," McClanahan attacks James G. Blaine, Republican presidential candidate of 1884. McClanahan's leadership role in the Abbeville Institute isn't mentioned.
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/06/25/donald-the-good/


In this article, "Trump Foreign Policy Speech Makes all the Right Enemies," mentions that McClanahan is the author  of "9 Presidents Who Screwed Up America -- and Four Who Tried to Save Her." I just bought the book while writing this blog posting.
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/04/29/trump-foreign-policy-speech-makes-right-enemies/

You can read about the book here. You will notice that it is endorsed by neo-Confederates Lew Rockwell and Clyde Wilson.  The presidents who are listed as messing up America are Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard M. Nixon and Barack Obama.
https://www.amazon.com/Presidents-Who-Screwed-Up-America/dp/1621573753

The ones the thought tried to save here were Thomas Jefferson, John Tyler, Grover Cleveland, and Calvin Coolidge.

Somewhat inconsistently Brion McClanahan praises Trump as another Andrew Jackson in his article, "Is Donald Trump the Andrew Jackson or Aaron Burr of our Time?".
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/03/26/is-donald-trump-the-andrew-jackson-or-aaron-burr-of-our-time/


If you look at this website you will see a list of Scholars & Writers for America statement of endorsement for Donald Trump.

I see in it persons who wrote for Texas Republic, Southern Partisan and Chronicles magazine. I should emphasize that most of the writers on this list haven't. But I see a fair number who did, as well as those who wrote for the Abbeville Institute and at least one who I think was involved with the League of the South Institute.

Again, it is likely that they will expect to be appointed to some board or committee and apply their neo-Confederate or fringe ideology to American culture.

I do not have any information at  all whether Trump supports the thinking of any of these individuals or Brion McClanahan. I think that Trump, if he is sincere about his slogan, "Make America Great Again," should not appoint any neo-Confederates to any position or employ them in his administration.

By the way Lino Graglia what was your opinion of whether Texas should have joined the Union?

Still studying "Breitbart" magazine. It isn't the "Southern Partisan" but it is something.

I have been exhaustively studying Breitbart's treatment of various topics. I have the articles printed out, hand dated, and filed and organized. Besides issues relating to the Confederate flag, monuments, and the Confederacy, I have printed out their articles relating to American slavery, Lincoln, 14th Amendment, 13th Amendment, etc.

I am using a browser that prints the date, URL, etc. I hand write the date so I can better organize them.

Breitbart isn't the Southern Partisan, but is in many ways supportive of the Confederacy.

On other topics they align with neo-Confederate objectives, but there aren't neo-Confederate arguments given. So I can't say this is a neo-Confederate agenda.

I also note the neo-Confederate authors they have published.

I am planning on reviewing these articles and do a report. I will report on some narrow aspects of Breitbart while doing my research.

The reason I do hard copy printouts is that I want incontestable documentation. Web pages disappear. Online news sites generally aren't tracked by archive.org.

The question might be why am I studying Breitbart instead of other right wing publications. The reason is that its former chief, Stephen Bannon, is in President Trump's administration. Breitbart also seems to be the press agency of the White House.

After "Breitbart" article, I have decided I will be writing Jeff Sessions about his assertion about the "Southern Partisan"

It might be asserted that since the Southern Partisan is no longer being published it is not of importance that Jeff Sessions came to the defense of the Southern Partisan.

However, the Southern Partisan articles are being republished at the Abbeville Institute website. https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=&as_epq=Southern+Partisan&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&lr=&cr=&as_qdr=all&as_sitesearch=abbevilleinstitute.org&as_occt=any&safe=images&as_filetype=&as_rights=

Jeff Session's assertion that the Southern Partisan isn't some extremist magazine helps give neo-Confederate groups like the Abbeville Institute a free pass when they publish articles from Southern Partisan magazine. 

Even if the Southern Partisan magazine articles weren't being republished, defending the Southern Partisan magazine defends the neo-Confederate movement. This magazine has become a corpus of neo-Confederate writing which continues to be of influence. 

A considerable controversy has arisen over Jeff Sessions' nomination by Donald Trump to the position of Attorney General of the United States. 

Most recently Mark Thompson has stated called Jeff Sessions a "Confederate Attorney General." This statement has become a news item at Breitbart. 

Statement by Mark Thompson can be seen here. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1j2GhQNayo

Breitbart's reporting is here, where you can watch a video of Thompson making the statement.

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/01/14/msnbc-guest-jeff-sessions-is-a-confederate-attorney-general/

It occurs to me I should write Jeff Sessions to retract his defense of Southern Partisan magazine. 

One reason in particular is that it is inappropriate for Jeff Sessions, as Attorney General, to defend a magazine which supported the break up of the United States. That is my understanding of the import of this article in the Southern Partisan originally  published in 1997. (3rd Quarter 1997, Vol. 17, starting on page 18, by William Lamar Cawthorn Jr. )

https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/review/the-south-as-an-independent-nation/

More generally, Jeff Sessions' defense of the Southern Partisan helps legitimize their pernicious agenda. 

Finally, I think whether Sessions rejects the Southern Partisan magazine or not will show who he is.  

"Breitbart" avoids issue of Senator Sessions' defense of "Southern Partisan" magazine on the floor of the Senate.

I blogged earlier about U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions' defense of Southern Partisan magazine.

http://newtknight.blogspot.com/2016/11/alabama-us-senator-jeff-sessions.html#.WG_W9fkrKiM

Below is the link to Sessions' defense of Southern Partisan. Use the search term "Partisan" to find it.
http://www.sessions.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/floor-statements?ID=a73ad92f-7e9c-9af9-709d-5328157bc3ea

The following is the link to a Jan. 5, 2017 article where Breitbart is trying to spin Sessions' image.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/attorney-general-pick-sessions-has-dueling-images/

What you won't find in the article is any mention of Sessions' defense of the Southern Partisan. Sessions' submitted into the Congressional Record Southern Partisan's editor Christopher Sullivan's statement defending the magazine which is marvel of careful wording to deny admitting that the Southern Partisan was a racist magazine.

Of course Breitbart isn't going to try to give any excuse for Sessions' defense of Southern Partisan magazine, since Sessions' defense of Southern Partisan magazine is indefensible, both Sessions and Breitbart would rather no one would know about it.

It also shows how Breitbart acts to enable neo-Confederacy by letting enablers of neo-Confederacy off the hook.

Russian Readership of this blog. Foreign power on the prowl

The readership of my blog is surging. Normally there are 400 to 500 page views. Suddenly it is over 1300 and then yesterday 1793.  This might be good if it were largely American readers and I was informing the American public about the neo-Confederate movement.

However, when looking at it Pageviews by Countries I see that about 50% of my readers are in Russia.  See below. Blog continued after picture.

Now the partisan press that is opposed to Trump is reporting a lot about the Russians and Trump. I am concerned that the reader not think that this blog posting is part of that. I have had surges of Russian readers before recent elections and have blogged on Russian readers in the past. I think Donald Trump will be entirely and energetically opposed to secessionist movements.

Nor do I want to imply any Xenophobia about foreign readers. There might be interest in the neo-Confederate movement elsewhere of a curious or scholarly nature and that is fine. However, the large interest from just one country, widely reported to be interested in fostering separatist movements in the United States, is of concern.

So what exactly do I wish to say? What I wish to say is that there is a large foreign power that is prowling around looking for some means of weakening the United States through separatism. It isn't just an assertion by myself, it has been noted by a variety of media across the political spectrum.

I am not calling for a large major national campaign, but I think that there needs to be some program of modest resources devoted to countering separatism and taking proactive steps. Once a separatist movement gets underway and gets some measure of support among the public, it tends to persist for some time. It is always likely to have a resurgence like a herpes virus.

So what do I think needs to be done? In general all separatism needs to be considered in the context that there is Russian interest in fomenting it. I also suggest the following:

1. Stop reporting on separatist movements as amusing novelties. The Scottish National Party only got single digits in the polls in the 1940s and was a very small marginal movement. Now it seems Scotland might become an independent nation.

The belief in American exceptionalism I think leads to not recognizing that American can be subject to the same dangers as other nations. I suggest that people should consider that pride comes before a fall, or as the Greeks stated it, hubris nemesis, which translates as pride then destruction.

I have noticed that the reporting on secession has been changing. The media has been somewhat quick to report that the California secessionists are headed by a person in Russia.

2. As I have stated earlier we absolutely have to avoid oppressive measures. Nothing would be stupider than locking up a pro-secessionist or other like action. It immediately makes the secessionist a martyr and it makes the secessionist movement seem much more important since otherwise why would you arrest the individual.

Also arresting individuals does prove that the government is an oppressive organization and secession is a solution.

Finally, it attracts people who are against the current government, whatever it is.

3. However, the government should avoid aiding those who are or have worked against the American nation. Trump should not appoint people who have been supportive of secessionist measures to any post. There was a web page of scholars for trump. http://scholarsandwritersforamerica.org/

At this page of scholars for Trump, I see William Murchison, contributor to Southern Partisan magazine and former officer of the Texas League of the South.  Texas Republic magazine had an issue on whether it was a mistake that Texas jointed the Union and my reading of it is that the articles leave the reader to conclude that it was a mistake. It was published by the Lynn Landrum society, named after a racist columnist for the Dallas Morning News. William Murchison published an article praising Landrum. He was also active in Texas Republic magazine.

This is the masthead of the Sept.-Dec. 1995 Texas Republic double issue which discusses whether Texas should have joined the United States.

The editorial board members were Cathie Adams, John Alvis, William Caruth III, Marco Gilliam, J. Evetts Haley Jr., David Hartman, Charles R. Helms, Joseph Horn, Tex Lazar, Michael Muncy, William Murchison, and Joseph Sullivan.

The publisher was Joseph Sullivan. Senior editors were John Knaggs, Thomas H. Landess, and Michael Muncy. The managing editor was Mitchell Muncy. The assistant publisher was John A. McMillan. The art director was E. Taylor Owens. Correspondents were Marco Gilliam, Kelton Morgan, Kevin Southwick, Sabrina Haley Statton. Proof readers at large were Kathleen Alvis and Marjorie K. Haney.

Contributors listed were Robert Aguirre, Jerry Bartos, Austin Bay, Mark Blackwell, Jack Brocius, Barry Brown, Jane Brown, P.J. Byrnes, Paul Cameron, John Colyandro, Marguerite Starr Crain, John J. Dwyer, T.R. Fehrenbach, Paul Fenech, Evan Fitzmaurice, Richard Ford, Donald S. Frazier, H. Martin Gibson, John Goodman, Charles Goolsby, Lino A. Graglia, David Guenthner, Nancy Halsey, Charles R. Helms, J. Cameron Humphries, William Keffer, Elmer Kelton, Floy Lilley, Merrill Mathews Jr., Roger F. Meiners, Wayne Milstead, Priscilla Montgomery, Gary North, Marvin Olasky, Rob Peebles, Christopher Prawdzik, Sam Ratcliffe, Morgan O. Reynolds, Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr., Matthew Sandel, Valerie Shank, Barbara Stirling, Paul Strohl, Michael Quinn Sullivan, Ken Towery, Yuri Waldo, Caroline Walker, James W. Walker, Thomas G. West, Kathleen Hartnett White, and Jim Wright.

I see more than one name on the list of Scholars for Trump which was on the masthead of the Sept.-Dec. 1995 Texas Republic double issue which discusses whether Texas should have joined the United States.

Not all the contributors should be assumed to be secessionists, but the editorial staff and board clearly approved this issue. For the others they should be rejected for having anything to do with a Lynn Landrum Society. Landrum was a rabid racist. http://jmichaelphillips.blogspot.com/2011_07_01_archive.html  I have PDFs of some of Landrum's editorials.

These are people who spoke at events of the Lynn Landrum Society. Again the readers should understand that Landrum was a rabid racist.

Name	Description
Phil Gramm	U.S. Senator
Dick Armey	U.S. House of Representatives
W.H. Hutt	Professor
William Murchison	Syndicated Columnist
J.Evetts Haley	Author
M.E. Bradford	Univ. of Dallas, Professor of English. (Leading neo-Confederate. Campaigner for George Wallace for president.)
Tom Pauken
Carolyn Wright	Judge
M. Stanton Evans	Director National Journalism Center
William Rusher	Former publisher National Review
Donald Hodel	U.S. Interior Secretary
Tom Phillips	Texas Chief Justice
Nathan Hecht	Texas Supreme Court Justice (Currently Chief Justice)
Raul Gonzalez	Texas Supreme Court Justice
Daniel Papeo	Washington Legal Foundation
Peter Huber	Manhatten Institute
Michael McCormick	Judge
Paul Pressler	Judge
Lino Graglia	University of Texas School of Law
Kenneth Cribb	Heritage Foundation and Intercollegiate Studies Institute
Steve Pejovich	Texas A&M University
Russell Kirk	“author and critic” (Major figure in conservative politics)
Morgan Reynolds	Texas A&M University
John Goodman	President, National Center for Policy Analysis
John Chubb	Brookings Institute
Joe Horn	University of Texas at Austin
Kent Grusendorf	Texas State Representative
Alan Gribben	University of Texas at Austin
Charles Sykes	“author”
Jim Wright	Senior columnist, Dallas Morning News
Alan Keyes	Ambassador
Richard Estrada	Dallas Morning News
Richard Rubottom	Ambassador
Michael Wilson	Heritage Foundation
Llewellyn Rockwell	Ludwig von Mises Institute
John Culberson	Texas State Representative
Odie Faulk	“author and historian”
Alan Parker	St. Mary’s Law School
John Alvis	University of Dallas
Rick Perry	Texas Agriculture Commissioner

But I am getting a little off topic here. The president should not appoint those who support secession to national positions.

4. The campaign for American nationality can't be just negatives against other things. It needs to be for something.  A proposal can be judged on its own merits. The fact that a bad person or organization supports it is just reason to examine the proposal very carefully, but if it is a good proposal it is a good proposal. So there needs to be some effort to show the positives of American nationality. It is a big country with a great deal of space and a wide choice of places to live. It has great scientific projects. You can drive for thousands of miles without encountering national boundaries. America's size allows great national enterprises and research institutions. Also, being one nation we don't have a continent with nationalist antagonisms. Large nations can usually protect themselves. 

5. Those who foment national divisions ought to be rejected by the federal government and the pubic. Now this can be subjected to abuse. Criticizing an elected official or the opposition isn't fomenting national division. The tool of dictatorships is to make illegal anything they call unpatriotic and suppress opinion. Also, various political commentators like to call one opinion or argument they don't like as unpatriotic rather than argue the facts of the issue.  The word "divisive" can be use to stigmatize discussing an issue that does need to be discussed.

However, separatist arguments should be recognized as such and rejected. In rejecting them it needs to be carefully shown how they are separatist, and not labeled as such just as an assertion.

Others who promote division also should be recognized as doing such and be rejected. In rejecting them it needs to be shown clearly that it is the intent of the writer to foment division or that the article clearly and dishonestly inflames a situation which results in the division of the American public which would also lead to separatists movements. 

Again, this charge should not be indiscriminatorily be used. If made indiscriminatorily the public will reject any claim of separatism. 

Alabama U.S. Senator Jeff Session's defense of "Southern Partisan" magazine. An apologist for neo-Confederacy will be the next Attorney General UPDATE: Quoted in "The Grio" about Sessions.

It has been reported that Donald Trump has offered U.S. Senator Jeff Session,, (Republican - Alabama) the position of Attorney General of the United States. This is a disaster, another example of the Confederacy in the White House. 

This is Jeff Session's defense of Southern Partisan magazine back in 2001 when John Ashcroft was nominated for Attorney General.

You will need to word search for Southern Partisan.
http://www.sessions.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/floor-statements?ID=a73ad92f-7e9c-9af9-709d-5328157bc3ea

This was Session's comments on Southern Partisan.

Mr. President, I have received a statement from the editor of the Southern Partisan magazine that has been attacked here to some degree. I have never read the magazine. But it is a refutation of many of the statements made about the magazine. It certainly is proof that the magazine is in a much better light than it has been reported to be here on the floor.

I note that Senator Ashcroft, when he was interviewed by it, simply did a telephone interview with the magazine. There was no evidence he ever read it, or saw it, or knew much about it.

I think it would be healthy for the statement of Chris Sullivan, editor of the Southern Partisan, to be made part of the Record in which he flatly denies that he favored, or the magazine favored, segregation or other kinds of racially—discriminatory activities.
I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

In the Congressional Record there is the letter from Chris Sullivan which is, in my opinion, a total misrepresentation of the Southern Partisan magazine.  It is also in the link above. Just word search down to the statement.

UPDATE: https://thegrio.com/2016/11/18/kkk-friend-in-jeff-sessions/

Breitbart seems to be something like "Southern Partisan" magazine. I wonder if the Confederate flag will be flown at the White House UPDATE; UPDATE 2 "Breitbard" isn't the "Southern Partisan"

UPDATE2:  I have been printing out maybe 200 articles from "Breitbart" regarding the 14th Amendment, neo-Confederates, the Confederacy, Confederate flags & monuments, Lincoln, etc. Breitbart is nationalistic and will be against secession.

There are important differences between "Breitbart" and the "Southern Partisan." "Breitbart" doesn't condemn Lincoln. I am not saying "Breitbart" is better or worse, nor am I saying that "Breitbart" isn't a problem. I am just saying that these two magazines are different.


I am reading "Breitbart" and seeing what they have to say about neo-Confederacy and the Confederacy.

My mind just reels seeing what is put forth as fact in reading "Breitbart."

Richard Quinn, the editor of "Southern Partisan," never made it to the White House, though he helped Ronald Reagan get elected.

But Steve Bannon, executive director of Breitbart, will be part of the White House staff.

I am browsing through Breitbart and recognizing names.

For example there is this article by Ron Maxell, director of the movie, "God and Generals."

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/25/on-the-occasion-of-president-obamas-wreath-for-the-confederate-memorial/

In this speech he says:

I myself am neither a Confederate nor a neo-Confederate, whatever that means. I am simply an American — and that’s enough for me. I belong to no organizations, clubs, round-tables or societies related to the Civil War or indeed to anything else. But I will not be intimidated from speaking at memorials for Confederate or Yankee soldiers – nor silently stand by as others heap insult and scorn on anyone who does. I am no one’s mouth-piece or propagandist. I have no axe to grind or grievance to nurse. I am no more and no less than a free man.

Really?


He gave an interview in "Southern Partisan" magazine, Vol. 22 Issue No. 6, (Nov./Dec. 2002)

He contributed a movie review to "Southern Partisan," March/April 2002, Vol. 22 No. 2.

This was done after the reputation of "Southern Partisan" was generally known to the public.

Then I have this review of his anti-Muslim anti-Hispanic article in "Chronicles" magazine.

http://hispanicmuslims.com/articles/alamokosovo.html

His movies are ridiculed by those who have some knowledge of history and Maxwell's movies are in my opinion neo-Confederate propaganda.

There are some reviews of "Gods and Generals."

http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/gods-and-generals-2003

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/gods_and_generals/

More about Ron Maxwell.

1. Attended the 108th reunion in 2003 of the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

2. Announced as speaker at the Stephen D. Lee Institute meeting in 2007 in "Confederate Veteran" magazine. The Stephen D. Lee Institute is an organization of the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

3. When Ron Maxwell spoke in 2009 at the Arlington Confederate Monument it was an event for which the Sons of Confederate Veterans was one of the sponsors.

An article about the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

http://www.blackcommentator.com/526/526_confederacy_sebesta_guest_share.html

The fact that his Confederate folderol is published by "Breitbart" says  a lot about "Breitbart."


The Confederacy will be in the White House. We should ask whether the Confederate flag will be flown at the White House.

UPDATE:

Breitbart seems to have a Romance of Reunion thing, maybe not quite like "Southern Partisan." The idea is that it doesn't matter what white men were fighting for, it just matters that they were fighting and therefore brave and therefore heroes. I am still digging in.

Also, I have added more information above about Ron Maxwell.

Lindsey Graham out of the Presidential race, hopefully will be defeated for re-election

Lindsey Graham has dropped out of the presidential race. His campaign never did particularly well and then became irrelevant.

Lindsey Graham interviewed in the 1st Quarter 1999 Southern Partisan.  He was given a free pass on this by Columbia, South Carolina newspaper The State.

For his 2015-16 presidential campaign he hired the former editor of the Southern Partisan, Richard Quinn.

Now his presidential campaign has become irrelevant and to naught except that it is now on record that he never really regretted pandering to neo-Confederates. It would have been terrible if someone who had interviewed with the Southern Partisan was even one of the presidential candidates of a major party.

Hopefully he isn't re-elected U.S. Senator either. What is delicious irony is that the same forces which he pandered to in the Southern Partisan are the same people who are going to try to end his political career in South Carolina. It is a fate that Graham richly deserves.

There aren't too many Republican office holders who interviewed in the Southern Partisan who are still in office, but I look forward to the day when there are none.

I think  U.S. Senator Thad Cochran of Mississippi is the last one.

Sons of Confederate Veterans is re-publishing "Southern Partisan" articles. Reactionary ideology in full view.

SONS OF CONFEDERATE VETERANS PROMOTING NEO-CONFEDERATE IDEOLOGY

The South Carolina Division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) is putting online an article from the "Southern Partisan" magazine.

http://scscv.com/why-yankees-wont-and-cant-leave-the-south-alone/

This article gives insight as to the deeply reactionary nature of neo-Confederate thought. Richard Weaver's book, "The Southern Tradition at Bay" laments women voting and is very racist.

Thad Cochran's Interview with "Southern Partisan" at Buzzfeed. I am the source for the information

The Buzzfeed story on Thad Cochran's interview in Southern Partisan is at Buzzfeed.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/thad-cochran-defended-mississippi-flags-confederate-emblem-t#.hsWVp7BWX

I supplied the documentation. An excerpt from the article.

Cochran also decried the Voting Rights Act in the magazine, saying aspects of it “ought to be discontinued.”

“No, I think that it is regrettable, and it ought to discontinued,” said Cochran to the magazine. “When we last had the Voting Rights act before the Senate, I offered an amendment to apply the law to all states not just to those of the old Confederacy.”
Cochran explained that his amendment was intended “to show everybody what a great deal of trouble” the law’s ‘preclearance’ requirements were.

At the time, the law required “every political subdivision, local community, township, county and state government, to go to Washington and get the federal government’s permission before any change in a boundary could be made, or any election law could be changed to be certified in effect, that it did not unfairly or improperly disadvantage anyone in their efforts for full political participation.”

“That’s not necessary any longer,” said Cochran.

I have been giving interviews and transmitting information to reporters. Barely can keep up.

Look for some new stories in the coming days. The whole "Heritage Not Hate" slogan is about to be shown for what it is, bogus.

Charles Pierce of "Esquire" magazine blogs that the Republican Party is subversive of the Union.

Charles Pierce of "Esquire" magazine blogs that the Republican Party is subversive of the Union.

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a33605/how-the-gop-subverts-the-republic/

In the Fall 1984 Southern Partisan magazine (Vol. 4 No. 4) by Republican Mississippi U.S. Senator Trent Lott explains how the "spirit of Jefferson Davis lives in the 1984 Republican Platform."

Page 44

Partisan: At the convention of the Sons of Confederate Veterans in Biloxi, Mississippi you made the statement that "the spirit of Jefferson Davis lives in the 1984 Republican Platform." What did you mean by that?

Lott: I think that a lot of the fundamental principals that Jefferson Davis believed in are very important today to people all across the country, and they apply to the Republican Party. .... After the War between the States, a lot of Southerners identified with the Democrat Party because of the radical Republicans we had at the time, particularly in the Senate. The South was wedded to that party for years and years and years. But we have seen the Republican Party become more conservative and more oriented toward traditional family values, the religious values that we hold dear in the South. And the Democratic party has been going in the other direction. As a result of that, more and more of The South's sons, Jefferson Davis' descendants, direct or indirect, are becoming involved in the Republican Party. The platform we had in Dallas, the 1984 Republican platform, all the ideas we supported there --- from tax policy, to foriegn policy: from individual rights, to neighborhood security --- are things that Jefferson Davis believed in. 

Page 46

Partisan: Well, you were very successful early in the administration, with the economic program, but so often when it comes to an issue of great importance to the South --- one that comes to mind is the renewal of the punitive Voting Rights Legislation -- even some of our Southern Republicans seemed to have backbones of jelly. You are one of the few who took a stand against that legislation which, with the "effects test," is far worse than the original version of the legislation.

Lott: We tried to improve on it; we tried to hold off some of those changes that make it even more punitive, and the "effects test" is one example. But I have always maintained that if the same laws were applicable to say, Queens, New York that are applicable to other Southern states, Queens wouldn't be in compliance. ... There is no escape hatch for us. They are still trying to exact Reconstruction legislation that is just not fair. [In the interview this was followed by a lengthy complaint that if you vote against civil rights legislation people say you are against civil rights.] 

Page 47 

Partisan: We have another example which seems to defy political reality. The Republican party gets very little of the black vote. Yet when you come with a controversial issue like the King holiday, which more or less made Martin Luther King a symbol equivalent to George Washington, you find a vast majority of Republicans --- even Southern Republicans -- going along. Where is the gain for the Republican Party? The one instance where it has been disproven as a political advantage, Jesse Helms was 200 points down in North Carolina before he made this a more issue with his opponent. Then Helms pulled up to a neck-and-neck position in the poll. 

Lott: Well, I think it is a mistake to vote for something like that. It is either needed or not, it is either right or wrong. And I would not vote for another national holiday for anybody, including Thomas Jefferson. I would vote for eliminating some of the ones we already have, as a matter of fact. Look at the cost involved in the Martin Luther King holiday and the fact that we have not done it for a lot of other people that were more deserving. I just think it was basically wrong. ... 

Oh My Captain, My Captain - Lincoln, Booth, and the League of the South

The League of the South had said that it was going to celebrate the assassination of Abraham Lincoln by John Wilkes Booth. http://leagueofthesouth.com/honoring-john-wilkes-booth569/

This sentiment has been present since the time of Lincoln's assassination among ex-Confederates and neo-Confederates. Southern Partisan magazine in their Christmas catalog sold a t-shirt celebrating the assassination of Lincoln.  CLICK TO ENLARGE.

The Confederate Veteran magazine, official publication of the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV), a neo-Confederate group, (or if you are Kevin Levin, a 'Southern Heritage' group) publishes pictures of members with Lincoln re-enactors in jokes about the assassination of Lincoln. 

In the Jan./Feb. 2010 issue of Confederate Veteran magazine, on page 29, there is a photo of a group of SCV members giving a Lincoln re-enactor a ticket to Ford Theater. On page 31 there is a photo of an SCV member pointing a gun at a Lincoln re-enactor with the re-enactor not realizing it. The SCV thinks this is hilarious. 

The neo-Confederate (or if you are Kevin Levin, 'Southern Heritage') groups have a seething hatred of Lincoln. The May/June issue of the Confederate Veteran has a major article where Lincoln is compared to Hitler by James Ronald Kennedy. There is a book about the Republican Party being a hot bed of Marxism by Al Benson Jr. and Walter Donald Kennedy which is sold by the SCV, You can find the book "Lincoln's Marxists" being sold on www.amazon.com. 

Rick Lowery, editor of National Review, has this article about the Lincoln haters.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/17/the-rancid-abraham-lincoln-haters-of-the-libertarian-right.html

So it should be no surprise that a neo-Confederate group has come out and said point blank they celebrate the assassination of Lincoln. Among the neo-Confederate groups a seething hatred of Lincoln is common. 

The questions to be asked is why the League of the South is doing this now. Is it for the publicity it will give them among other neo-Confederates? It is a recruitment effort? 

Or is it a continuing shift in the neo-Confederate movement where factions are one upping each other in denouncing Lincoln? After the dialog among neo-Confederates has reached the point where Lincoln is denounced in vitriolic terms and compared to Hitler, Marx, and Stalin what is the next step in being plus ultra on hating Lincoln? 

The SCV has steadily increased its animosity against Lincoln in its writings and the books it recommends, however I don't think that they are ready to come out openly in favor of celebrating the assassination of Lincoln. SCV members might privately celebrate John Wilkes Booth's assassination of Lincoln, but publicly doing so would demolish their efforts at "heritage defense" and their involvement with the Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps (JROTC), and their public acceptance would be gone.

The League of the South knows this and their celebrating the assassination of Lincoln gives them a competitive edge over the SCV. It might cause some problems within the SCV since some members might demand that the SCV also celebrate the assassination of Lincoln openly. 

The drive to openly celebrate the assassination of Lincoln might simply be driven by a feeling that the anti-Lincoln message isn't getting before the public.  It would be the next logical stage of activity in an anti-Lincoln campaign. To get public awareness and interest in their message. The celebration of the assassination of Lincoln might simply be rage bursting forth from the confines of the fear of public opinion. 

As for Kevin Levin's outrage over the League of the South celebration of the assassination of Lincoln, he needs to recognize that he is an enabler when he gives the SCV and neo-Confederates a free pass. A person who won't use the term neo-Confederate is an enabler of neo-Confederates. 

A good history of anti-Lincoln hatred is John McKee Barr's book "Loathing Lincoln." 

His web page is http://loathinglincoln.com/

On a closing note I refer to Walt Whitman's famous poem, "O Captain, My Captain," regarding the assassination of Lincoln.

Some readings on YouTube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSAymj4hp7Y

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBL8wT6Pm9g

In the above readings I find something that might be said at a funeral. I think the readings would be much better is they were done in a voice distraught as if the speaker was discovering that the captain is dead and as if they were on a deck on a ship headed home. 

I was unable to find a YouTube reading like this.