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.

Max Blumenthal has article on Joe Wilson and the SCV

The article is online at the Daily Beast at:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-09-11/joe-wilsons-rebel-yell/

Yours truly is mentioned.

Preston Brooks lives

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

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/09/joe.wilson/

Turns out that Joe Wilson has apologized.

"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 http://www.whitemetropolis.com/

The university press web page for the book is:

http://www.utexas.edu/utpress/books/phiwhi.html

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.

http://www.dallasarena.com/r060410.htm

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, http://www.cofcc.org/, 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. http://www.dixienet.org/rebellion/2009/07/where-was-obama-born.html

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. https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7205107949341817795&postID=1041010766453363565

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: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/7/31/760087/-Birthers-are-mostly-Republican-and-Southern

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.

http://washingtonindependent.com/53396/how-many-southern-whites-believe-obama-was-born-in-america

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. http://www.templeofdemocracy.com/breaking.htm

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.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25625.html

Here is a video of birthers taking over a town hall meeting of a Republican congressional representative: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V1nmn2zRMc 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. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=93481 here is a You Tube "citizen grand jury."http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2q5VbkAFFpM.

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."

"Voluntary Slavery Contracts" the Buffoonery of LewRockwell.com

This silliness passes for critical thought at www.lewrockwell.com. The specific article is at this link: http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block134.html

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.

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: www.georgiafirst.org. 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?

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.

http://hnn.us/articles/87913.html

Incidentally, I have a new blog http://arlingtonconfederatemonument.blogspot.com/ where I will be tracking the campaign around the Arlington Confederate monument.

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.

Introduction

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

Considerations

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.

Even More news coverage of the Letter to Obama

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

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/nation/stories/DN-obamaconfed_24nat.ART.State.Edition1.50cc1ac.html

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.

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"

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=7657749&page=1

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:

http://blog.buzzflash.com/analysis/773 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: www.templeofdemocracy.com/breaking.htm.

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

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/22/AR2009052202999.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

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

The article is online here:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-05-21/should-obama-honor-dixie/

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:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/5/22/734253/-Will-Obama-Honor-the-Confederacy-This-Year

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:

http://hnn.us/articles/85884.html

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:

http://themoderatevoice.com/32640/not-only-should-obama-not-send-flowers-for-the-confederate-monument-at-arlington/

Black News Junkie also mentions the HNN item.

http://blacknewsjunkie.com/stories/116964/Dear_President_Obama_Please_Don39t_Honor_the_Arlington_Confederate___History_News_Network.html

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: http://www.templeofdemocracy.com/ObamaLetterNR.pdf

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:

http://www.templeofdemocracy.com/ObamaLetterNR.pdf

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
---------------------------------------------------
Name/Email:
Edward Sebesta (esebesta@tx.rr.com)

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:

http://www.templeofdemocracy.com/ObamaLetterNR.pdf

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

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

The link to the letter is:

http://www.templeofdemocracy.com/ObamaLetterNR.pdf

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

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.

http://newtknight.blogspot.com/2009/05/letter-to-obama-asking-him-not-to-send.html

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:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_05/018062.php

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:

http://www.dailykos.com/statepoll/2009/4/30/US/298