How will Obama respond to these secession petitions, Update

Obama is not stupid, he is very smart and  has a sharp analytic mind. You may not agree with what he says, but I think it would only be blind partisanship not to recognize that he is smart.

So it occurs to me what will Obama's response be to these secession petitions? I initially thought it would be some reply with legal reasoning that would not get much public interest. Or perhaps Obama might just publish the Gettysburg Address and say "ditto" in a humorous response.

However, I see that these secession petitions give Obama a political opportunity. An opportunity to get his opposition into conflict and trouble with themselves and discredit themselves with the general public.

When Obama first got elected he made a statement that the Republicans shouldn't let Rush Limbaugh be their leader. Obama wasn't being helpful to the Republicans. He wanted Rush Limbaugh to be the face of the Republican party and further show that the Republican party wouldn't reject Limbaugh further giving credibility that Limbaugh was representative of the Republican party. Limbaugh not caring for anyone or anything except himself leaped at the opportunity to promote himself surely knowing he was enabling Obama's strategy. Obama's gambit worked wonderfully helping him to win re-election.

Understanding what Obama did, and that he is a strategic thinker taking advantage of these types of opportunities I think might give us insight as to what he will do. The petitions did get a lot of attention and his response will get a lot of attention. In responding Obama has the opportunity to discredit his opponents or put them in a difficult position with their supporters.

Surely Obama has noticed the response of Rick Perry advocating staying in the Union, but not condemning the secessionists and expressing sympathy to them. Obama surely has concluded secession is a difficult issue for some Republicans.

So Obama in his response to these secession petitions has opportunities. Even though the public is laughing at them, it is the type of thing that entertains the public and there will be curiosity over exactly what Obama's response will be. If Obama does a legalistic response, there will be some commentary about it and the topic will fade out to oblivion. If Obama hands out the Gettysburg Address or some brief historical reference, it will get some response, and fade to oblivion. The conservative movement will further resist secession entering their mainstream but not criticizing Obama so they can avoid being identified with secession.

But Obama might respond in a way that will bait his opposition to respond. Since much of his opposition is  hysterical or at least very excitable or reactive without reflection this isn't so difficult.

I think Obama's response might have many patriotic references and use the "mystic chords of memory" and his defense of the Union will refer to the blessings of the American government from a Democratic party viewpoint. Maybe not in an obvious way. He might refer to the American historical narrative and reference the increasing egalitarian spirit of American life and how opportunity is made available to all. He could refer to the great national enterprises like NASA and the national parks and federal lands. The later might provoke the Sagebrush rebellion types. There might be a reference to immigration, the Statue of Liberty and how America is seen as a desirable place to immigrate to and how immigration is part of the national story.

The response can't be seen as baiting the opposition, so it has to be done just right to provoke, but not at an obvious level.

I think though Obama will simply choose to make his response a general patriotic defense of the nation. But still these petitions give Obama a possible opportunity to create all sorts of trouble for his opposition and surely he must be thinking of them.

I am very curious as to what Obama's response will be.

Update 11/27/12: I think Obama merely has to have the same response to the secession petitions as Lincoln did regarding secession. Obama has to reject secession on the same basis as it was rejected during the Civil War. Without mentioning Robert E. Lee or Jefferson Davis or the Confederacy it will be clear that Obama rejects the basic arguments of the Lost Cause mythology justifying secession and hence reject the Lost Cause mythology.

Without mentioning the Confederacy by name he can reject it, and given the current geographic location of the Republican party base, this might get a response of those defending the Confederacy. It would put the Republicans in a difficult position not wanting to be identified with the Confederacy, but not wanting to alienate and lose their base in the deep South.

Mainstreaming secession, not so much.

It isn't happening that much. National Review is ridiculing it.

But it seems it is getting a little traction. WND, has an article where one of there writers interviews Michael Hill, president of the League of the South. The link is here:

http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/spanish-vote-endorses-secession-parties/

It could be argued that having WND pick up your cause doesn't represent mainstreaming very much, but rather your fringe status.

Town hall had another neo-Confederate, Bill Murchison, former writer for Southern Partisan, give his take on secession. You can read the article here:

http://townhall.com/columnists/billmurchison/2012/11/27/thoughts_on_secession/page/full/

There is this article at the Human Events web page which argues for a political program to avoid the threat of secession. http://www.humanevents.com/2012/11/26/the-spanish-secession/. The author isn't advocating secession but finds it a useful threat.

I am not seeing the radical right pick up much on secession so far. email me links if you know of sources I over looks.

I think at this point not much will happen until Obama responds.

Spain a "megastate"? The League of the South fantasies

In the following League of the South (LOS) blog post Spain is referenced as a "megastate."

http://www.lsrebellion.blogspot.com/2012/11/spain-fears-break-up-as-catalonia-votes.html

In this blog about Catalan efforts at secession the LOS blog claims:

What's the bottom line of all these stories about secession? Simple: The 20th-century megastate is dead. Good riddance.

Really? Spain is a megastate? I could see perhaps a very large nation called a megastate, like the former Soviet Union or perhaps another large country like the United States or China and India. Of course what exactly is a megastate as opposed to a superstate as a opposed to a plain every day state I don't think is well defined. Perhaps "megastate" just sounds more impressive than saying "superstate" or "state."

Again what the LOS fails to perceive with these European efforts at secession is that Catalonia is planning, if it becomes a nation, to join the European Union. That is to join this supranational organization. The European Union has a common currency, national borders no longer count for much, and it is a common trade zone. The reason these European secession movements are possible is that the European Union is superseding the nation state and taking over its functions in many cases and eliminating national borders as boundaries.

The European Union makes the nation state less important. I haven't thought through much other modern trends such as transnational organizations, in particular regarding trade, the global integrated economy and how they might lessen the forces that drove the creation of the modern state of the 19th and 20th centuries. I suspect they make the nation state less needed as the world is integrated into larger structures than the nation state.

The trend has been the integration of European nations into the European Union and not secession. Sure the European Union has some problems, but they can print the Euro and I am sure they will work out something.  There may be some rough spots, but the historical forces of economics is what has driven this European integration from after World War II from the Benelux union to early pre-EU organizations for trade.

The League of the South does legitimately in discussion point out that secession isn't entirely out of the realm of possibility, after all the Soviet Union broke up as well as Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia. However, they totally ignore the local and specific historical backgrounds of these break ups in interpreting these events as foreshadowing secession in the United States which is rather odd for an organization which rejects universal values. (Word search "universal" on the LOS blog.)

The large state provides tremendous opportunities in funding research, providing a large labor market with abundant opportunities, large scale industries with their opportunities, great national enterprises such as NASA, research institutes, high energy physics, and all sorts of scientific and technological endeavors, a huge pool of people with all sorts of possibilities for creative interactions.

Small states, when they aren't in a matrix of a larger supranational organization often have many challenges, lesser opportunities, and often depend on larger allies.

It is in the LOS's interests to tout secession as the coming thing to boost the morale of their supporters and gain new adherents. However, others need to critically review their claims to see that they are far less than they seem.

Secession petitions and Confederate symbols

One question that hasn't been discussed is how people might perceive Confederate symbols, statues, flags, etc. with these secession petitions.  Jon Stewart makes reference to them in his comical take on the secession petitions. One can't but notice that the petitions achieving 25,000 signatures and thus promised a reply are from former Confederate states. The following is  a link to Stewart's commentary.

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/11/jon-stewart-secession-obama.php

The tolerance of glorifying the Confederacy has been based on the idea that the Confederacy and secession were safely dead. That was the basis of the politics overthrowing Reconstruction, Southern leaders constantly emphasizing that secession was not an option and how patriotic they were. This is the basis of their later politics, especially with the Spanish American war.

With the Confederacy safely dead, the Lost Cause is romantic to some as long as it stays "Lost." People watch Vivien Leigh and Clark Gable in "Gone With the Wind."

If the Lost Cause isn't so lost, such as with 800,000 plus signatures on secession petitions at whitehouse.gov,  then it isn't so romantic. I can't help but think that a lot of people will look at the Confederacy, and its remembrances and symbols with some distaste. They will think secession is very unlikely, but they will not be comfortable with glorifying secession or remembering it. They know that the unlikely can unexpectedly, surprisingly become likely.

Enthusiasm for the Confederacy and secession will no longer be thought as an amusing eccentricity or fantasy, it will be at some level be seen with a little bit of apprehension. People continuing to indulge Lost Cause enthusiasts themselves will not be appreciated.

I plan to make reference to these petitions in our 2013 letter to Obama asking him not to send a wreath to the Arlington Confederate monument.

Further thoughts on the secession petitions

Saturday morning, Nov. 17, 2012,  I went to Whitehouse.gov and printed out the list of petitions and totaled all the signatures for a state to secede. I got a little under 850,000 signatures. I doubt that this means there were 850,000 signers, probably some people signed more than one petition. Also it has been reported a large fraction of those signing some of the secession petitions were not from the state where a resident was petitioning to secede.

There have been numerous articles about these petitions, mostly in a humorous or mocking manner. The articles have become less and less frequent in the news. The next news cycle will be when the Obama administration responds. A great many people would oppose any position of Obama reflexively so there is likely to be some response to Obama's response. If Obama said the sky was blue it would get opposition in some quarters.

Interestingly enough the right media hasn't taken secession up much as an issue. I suppose there is one minor figure here or their that might have taken up secession as an issue, but the right wing media figures largely have not taken secession up. I think they realize that they can hardly portray themselves are more patriotic than thou and still be supporting secession. Also, the great majority of Americans love their country and are against secession. Conservatives know that if they pick up secession or if secession is identified with them the public would develop a real antipathy against conservatism.

So is this movement largely over for the present? I would say yes. There will be some articles when Obama responds, the right wing media will be glad to see the subject pass, and there will be only a residual of signers still interested in further pursing the topic.

The petitions themselves only got traction since they could be posted at the White House website and further if over 25,000 they were promised a reply. If the petitions had been on a website without any guarantee of a White House response they wouldn't have gotten as many signatures and certainly not any media attention.

I suspect that many of those who signed did so only as a way of expressing rejection of Obama without really wanting to secede. Also, they could do it without making public their full names.

However, the longer term impact may be more important. A great many right wing individuals signed their first secession petition for whatever reason. Having signed one secession petition, there isn't a barrier to signing a second one or give secession a consideration. Additionally though a great majority or nearly most of the signers might give it little further consideration, there will be some signers which will develop an interest in the topic and the small movement of secessionists will find a large influx of new supporters relative to their current numbers. Also, the issue of secession is now being discussed. What might seem initially seem wild or crazy becomes familiar and less shocking with ongoing discussion. Secession is becoming normalized.

The signers that didn't have serious consideration of seceding will find themselves open to thinking about it from time to time. They did sign the petition for secession for whatever the reason, and they are now signers of a secession petition for whatever reason. It can't but help affect their identity and their view of secession in subtle ways. We define ourselves individually and as groups symbolically and they have taken a symbolic action which will define themselves. In the future course of events, they will be more open to support secession again and potentially become seriously interested.

For purposes of argument I am going to assume that of the petition signers there was at least 500,000 different signers. I am just making a wild guestimate. I know there must be duplicate signers, how many it is anyone's guess.

In a nation of 300 million, 500,000 is a very small percentage, but a small fraction of those signers would be enough to sustain a small movement interested in secession. A fraction of 5% of 500,000 signers would be 25,000 which would be a very big expansion of the current movement, and many times larger than the Abbeville Institute. http://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/

Nations often have ups and downs and stresses and strains. A movement like this can be like a small fracture in a wind shield, which, with the right stressful conditions, the crack can end up propagating the entire length of glass. The future is full of unexpected events. Though seemingly laughable now, this movement could potentially in the future be a cause for concern.

How big was the initial group of people who thought the Soviet Union should be broken up? The secessionist Scottish National Party used to poll single digits in elections in Scotland, now they dominate the Scottish parliament and secession of Scotland is a real possibility. Every new idea starts with a minority of precisely one as Thomas Carlyle said.

However, I don't want to be advocating that we should be alarmed either. It could be that in 20 or 30 years this whole secession petition effort will be seen as a footnote in history, an odd ball curiosity for amusement in a nation continuing to progress. But it could be the seed, the small fracture that grows, in a nation facing an unexpected stresses. The future is opaque.

I think one key thing to observe is whether a right wing media figure turns to embrace secession to promote his own ratings. He probably won't really support secession, but will advocate it to boost ratings and make him stand out in a crowded and very competitive field of right wing broadcast professional commentators. A field where one gets ahead by being more outrageous than the others.

If he or she succeeds then imitators will follow. So far though even WND isn't that sympathetic to secesssion. You are really out there on the fringe when WND.com thinks that you are out there. These are the people who embraced Birtherism.

I think also this movement will be aided or retarded by how the future is perceived. Right now many see the Democrats as having locked up the future. There is a lot to be said for this. The economy is terrible and Obama has managed to be re-elected despite this. One can only imagine how the Democrats will do in 2016 if the economy has a turn around. However, these projections of long term dominance of one party or another often prove wrong. After the defeat of Goldwater in 1964, there was a fear there wasn't going to be a real two party system anymore.

But if it does appear that there is no future for a certain politics where some people are privileged over others there will be, I think, some support for secession. Some will imagine that they could have their privileged position in some enclave or state. These perceptions would support a politics of states rights for a sort of internal secession or a politics of outright secession.

So at this point, I conclude the door has been open to the topic of secession in national politics. This is a critical and important step in the development of an ongoing political discourse about secession. However, whether it leads anywhere is very much open to question, I think at this point it isn't, unless there are unforeseen developments.

It should not be a cause for alarm but it should be cause for thoughtful concern.

Loads of Laughs: Secession petitions at Whitehouse.gov

Go to Google News and do a search with key words "secede" or "secession" and you will find articles about the secession petitions at whitehouse.gov. It is all over mainstream media. According to reports if you get 25,000 signatures in 30 days the Obama administration promises to make an official reply, with some various caveats. So far a petition asking for Texas to be allowed to secede has gotten 70,000 signatures and other petitions are gaining signatures quickly.

It gives a whole new meaning to the slogan, "America: Love it or Leave It."

This has gotten neo-Confederates excited. For an example go to this link. They think their time has come. It hasn't.

The impact of these petitions will be as follows;

1. It will provide an opportunity for humor. Check this posting.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/13/why-you-really-want-to-secede-from-the-united-states_n_2123181.html

If you don't think this example is funny remember I said "opportunity" for humor.

2. It will make the opponents of Obama seem silly or crazy.

3. It will result in making some elected Republicans in the South look questionable. For example Rick Perry's response to the Texas secession petition: Rick Perry's comments in "USA Today."  Where Rick Perry states:

"Gov. Perry believes in the greatness of our Union and nothing should be done to change it," Frazier's statement says. "But he also shares the frustrations many Americans have with our federal government. Now more than ever our country needs strong leadership from states like Texas."

Perry wants to oppose secession with out alienating these secession petitioners which it seems he sees as part of his voter base. Perry doesn't want to criticize these petitioners, but sympathize with them.

4. It makes the opponents of Obama seem unpatriotic. After all advocating secession from America is a fairly forthright rejection of America.

5. Runs the risk of further identifying conservatism with the Confederacy. More than a few have observed the electoral map of states for Romney looked like a Confederacy. Now there are secession petitions.

I think it also poses a risk for the conservative media in this country. The temptation is to be the most outrageous voice in the conservative media to boost ratings, but giving into this movement risks running conservatism as a viable movement in this country off a cliff.  Though WND is headlining this secession movement. http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/now-many-states-want-to-secede-from-u-s/

I think in about a month this will be mostly over. The Obama administration will point out that states can't secede and additionally there would least have to be some vote on it by the citizens of a state to see if even a bare majority wanted to secede, and you would think for a serious change like this it would have to be 2/3'rds or a higher fraction of the voters wanting this type of change.

Of course if Obama says he is against something, some people will reflexively be for it.

I do think though that this effort is perhaps a manifestation of a larger phenomenon. I think a lot of people that were opposed to Obama thought that in four years he would be defeated at the polls and he would be gone. Indeed they thought it right up to the end, despite polls showing otherwise. Some of the opposition was hysterical in nature such as the birther movement.  Additionally it seems that with this election that the likely direction of the United States will be towards a different America than what the anti-Obama movement wants.

I think this is a reality that some anti-Obama opponents can't accept. I think the secession petitions are just blowing off steam and few are serious about them, but I do think that the more hysterical opponents of Obama will look for some serious method of opposing the post-election future and that these methods might be cause for concern.

Also, if you do sign an official secession petition, even if your full name isn't given, and you do it as a joke, you still have done it, and psychologically this action changes to some degree your self-identification. It is a symbolic gesture, and we often create our identity with symbols. You will now be a person who did sign a secession petition.

I think the future bears watching.

"Secession" in the European Union

There has been a fair amount of excitement amongst neo-Confederates recently about proposed secessions from states that are members of the European Union. This is an example from the League of the South blog, "Rebellion."  http://www.lsrebellion.blogspot.com/2012/10/secession-fever-sweeping-europe.html.

The fact is that many of these "secession" movements, such as Scotland, propose that their newly independent nations will become members of the European Union. It would be really secession if Scotland proposed to be a separate nation outside of the European Union. With a European Union providing a free trade zone and a common currency it may be that the nation state is being obsoleted by a larger state, the European Union, and in which case secession from the superseded nation state is possible.

Also, whether there is really a secession movement going needs to be questioned. In some cases there really is a sizable movement, but in other cases it is just a few people living Ruritanian fantasies. For example in Vermont the secession movement is just a few cranks that have no real following.

Also, it isn't considered by Vermont secessionists that Vermont has it fairly good in the U.S.A. As a small state with a very small population Vermont gets two U.S. Senators with its 600,000 some inhabitants. Given that the average state has 6.4 million people (320 million divided by 50) this is significant over representation in both the U.S. Senate and the Electoral College for the election of the president by a factor of 10. This has some very real benefits.

This is one: http://www.sanders.senate.gov/legislation/issue/?id=90c28ee4-5607-4eaf-90b4-1e400d5458d3

As an independent nation Vermont wouldn't have two U.S. Senators pushing for higher milk prices for the rest of the nation.  In fact they would have a lot of milk and no price supports. I am sure there are probably other instances where Vermont finds it very advantageous to have this 10X over representation.

In fact, Vermont should be careful not to discuss secession too much. Has anyone looked at the Constitution in regards to state being expelled? What if the American consumers realized that milk would be cheaper if Vermont was an independent nation?

For those enamoured of having their very own small toy nation, I suggest they look at the fate of the peoples in the Unted States of Central America who opted for being independent nations of Central America. Like many small states they ended up as victims of more powerful forces, in this case companies raising bananas, acquiring the nickname banana republics as term of contempt.

Some small nations do get along reasonably well. They have special circumstances remote like Iceland or they are in mountaineous regions like Switzerland and do not present great prizes for conquest or otherwise interest powerful nations. However, a great many other small nations find themselves dealing with adverse circumstances. They are dependent on more powerful states for support or find themselves dominated in various ways by more powerful neighbors when they are not actually invaded.

Is there really secession movement to form a new small nation state that wouldn't be a part of a larger state or framework of states in the Western world? No.

Creepy Plus - The Sons of Confederate Veterans and the Great Hanging in Gainesville.

The Sons of Confederate Veterans are just creepy in this story.

http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/10/07/4318432/after-150-years-a-dark-chapter.html

More Mildred Rutherford

I have added more Mildred Rutherford speeches at www.confederatepastpresent.org. Her racism and historial reasoning are just delusional. The neo-Confederates don't think so and republish her works as being instructive, but then again the delusional would find reasonable the delusional.

Just use the search function for Mildred or Rutherford and they will all show up.

This will tell you what Confederate "heritage" is all about.

"War Between the States" expression used in "Scientific American"

I was reading a Special Issue  of Scientific American with the theme "Beyond the Limits of Science" which is really about going beyond the limits of current science. It is the Sept. 2012 Vol. 307 No. 3 issue.

I was reading an article, "Mind in Motion," (pages 58-63)  by Miguel A. L. Ncolelis, which is about the developments in Prosthetics and a goal of ultimately being able to create prosthetics such that the paralyzed could run or do other things just by thinking it. This by the way is not far fetched. The one thing that has amazed me about science is how it is speeding up faster and faster over the decades.

On page 61 there is a side bar for the article about the history of prosthetics, such as the first historical record of an artificial limb, other items such as the invention of gun powder which resulted in a greatly increased need for prosthetics. Under the title Civil War the entry states with the following sentence:

"The War Between the States resulted in many amputations."

Increasing the representation of under represented minorities in the science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) progressions is a major effort by all the professional societies and we have a leading science publication publish something like this. The term Civil War is the generally accepted term by history professionals and all those who aren't neo-Confederate cranks.

Did Nicolelis think that there was some neo-Confederate readership he had to placate by making sure he used both terms. He is a professor at Duke University, and maybe there in North Carolina that type of pandering might be necessary, but certainly not for the global educated audience of Scientific American.

I am going to write the editors.

The meaning of "Neo" in words.

The Neo-Confederates are currently complaining (whining) about the term Neo-Confederate. This is an ongoing complaint with the Neo-Confederates. A typical example of what passes for reasoned commentary is at this blog.

http://www.lsrebellion.blogspot.com/2012/07/are-we-neo-confederates.html

The claim that the term "Neo-Confederate" is an accusation.  "Neo" merely means new. The term was first used in Southern Partisan magazine by its editor Richard Quinn. (Vol. 8 No. 1 Spring 1988).

There are terms such as neo-classical and neo-baroque for either architects or musical composers working in the style of the Classical and Baroque eras. Politically there are neo-liberals and neo-conservatives and they are simply terms. Calling something neo-Baroque isn't derogatory.

The use of "neo" would be to differentiate a new group separate or distinct from the prior group from which the new group is derived or revived.

You know with the adjective neo-classical that the building or piece of music isn't from the classical period, but is a later building or piece of music done in a style or form derived from the classical period in some later period distinct and separate from the original period. When a period is long but continuous we might say early, middle or late to further differentiate the period.

The Confederacy ceased to exist some time ago. The new movement for secession of course intently studies the Confederacy and interprets its meaning and asserts an ideological belief that they hold to be derived from the Confederacy, but they are not of the period of the Confederacy. They are a later revival. They are neo-Confederate.

Michael Hill, president of the League of the South explicit racism

When I first started tracking the League of the South there were people who really didn't want to acknowledge that they were racists and came up with all sorts of rationalizations to deny it. I think however, this essay by Michael Hill will settle this question once and for all:

http://dixienet.org/rights/our_survival_as_a_people.php

Hill's essay both makes it clear and explains at length his racist ideas. He believes that the races, as popularly thought of, come from the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japeth, from his interpretation of the bible. White people are held to be the sons of Japeth. Hill believes that God favors white people.

After his biblical arguments for racial separation he has a fairly elaborate exposition of his racist views. The following is a sample quote:

"Our white European-American ancestors had no trouble enunciating the obvious truth that Western Christian civilization was superior to all others. Moreover, they had no hesitation about defending it, as their God-given patrimony, against those who would denigrate or destroy it. Just a century ago, our civilization was still distinguished by a robustness and self-confidence born out of a realization of the natural superiority of the West and its ways. None but the most crack-brained utopians believed in social, political, economic, and cultural equality, nor did they believe in the equality of the races in intellect and accomplishment. Unfortunately, the present century has witnessed the old order turned upon its head."

Advertising the article exposing the Museum of the Confederacy at Black Commenator on the History News Network

I placed a small ad on the History News Network, www.hnn.us, to let people know about the expose' of the Museum of the Confederacy at www.blackcommentator.com. For those interested in the article the free links to all four installments are at: http://newtknight.blogspot.com/2011/11/moc.html.

The ad is up, they are adding the link from the ad to the web page this evening.

I am been very busy, but I thought it was time to let a wider audience know about this article.

2012 Letter to Obama about the Arlington Confederate monument

http://arlingtonconfederatemonument.blogspot.com/2012/05/2012-letter-to-obama.html

The letter can be found through the above link.

"Anderson Independent Mail" runs major article on Ron Wilson, former Commander-in-Chief of the SCV

The Anderson Independent Mail has published a major article on Ron Wilson, former Commander-in-Chief of the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) about his past history. For those who haven't seen my earlier post on this topic, Ron Wilson has been charged with running a Ponzi scheme which has cost unwary investors tens of millions of dollars.

The major article is online at:

http://www.independentmail.com/news/2012/may/19/the-tarnishing-of-ron-wilson/

There is additionally another short article about his writing in the Citizen Informer, the official publication of the Council of Conservative Citizens (www.cofcc.org).


http://www.independentmail.com/news/2012/may/19/proto-tea-partier-ron-wilson-wrote-about-debt-20/

I am mentioned in both articles and helped supply a lot of documentation for the articles.

Maintaining and indexing archives of neo-Confederate materials takes a lot of time, but it is all worthwhile when I can help out reporters and others and get the information to those who need it.

Sons of Confederate Veteans promotes Anglo-Saxon superiority over European white immigrants, Asian Americans and African Americans

I came across a pamphlet published by the Sons of Confederate Veterans in 1914. It was first a speech at the Convention of the United Confederate Veterans and the Sons of Confederate Veterans, then they asked for it to be published in a national publication and it was, and then they had it printed up as a pamphlet for distribution. I managed to acquire one of them.

It is revealing in that they don't consider some European immigrants white enough, and they seek alliances with those who have antipathy to Asian immigrants in the West, and of course there is that old standby in Confederate heritage, white supremacy over African Americans.

To show what Confederate heritage is really about I have put the entire text online at my web site and you can read it at this link.

http://www.confederatepastpresent.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=188:anglo-saxon-supremacy-over-other-european-whites-asian-americans-and-african-americans-promoted-by-the-sons-of-confederate-veterans&catid=37:the-nadir-of-race-relations

When the book "Politics and the History Curriculum: The Struggle over Standards in Texas and the Nation," comes out there will in my biographical note will be a reference to www.confederatepastpresent.org and thousands of students and educators will have access to this website and the resources in it and including the above referenced document.

Additionally there is the website www.citizenscouncils.com which is also referenced in the biographical note. I am going to have www.confederatepastpresent.org reference it.

www.confederatepastpresent.org loaded with primary documents

After a long time, I have finally gotten around to working on my website www.confederatepastpresent.org. I want to have it done by the time the book on the Texas teaching standards comes out and have it serve as a reference source for teachers in Texas and elsewhere. I have added about 150 documents to it. They go from 1783 to the 1950s.

My biographical note in the book both mentions my other books, and the websites www.confederatepastpresent.org and www.citizenscouncils.com. So I needed to make sure that the website was done before the book came out.

I have a tremendous amount of documents to put on the website www.confederatepastpresent.org. I have only done the initial set.

The original manuscript for the book was nearly 900 pages of single spaced type. Jim Loewen pointed out that would be a reference book that would sit on the shelf, and so we cut the manuscript down to a book that could be used in the class. The understanding was that the material not used would go on a website.

As time has gone on since then I have run across a lot of material which should go on the website. Such as a pamphlet published by the Sons of Confederate Veterans seeking to deny African Americans' civil rights and interesting enough seeing allies in those on the West Coast of the United States who would deny civil rights to Asian Americans.

Did you know that counties in Georgia and Virginia passed resolutions for secession and the causes given were to preserve slavery? I am going to put them online.

I have a ten volume set of books of the speeches and writings of Jefferson Davis. There are many documents which show Davis's broad racism and pro-slavery ideology and in particular his attitudes towards Latin Americans.

I have accumulated a great deal of material over the years and I want to share it as a primary document resource for students, teachers, and others.

Once I get done with this, I am going back to finishing up a couple books which are nearly finished.

Cinco de Mayo and the Civil War in the news, Update More articles

The press is reporting on the Civil War origins of the holiday Cinco de Mayo and its anti-Confederate origins. The following are some links which I will add to.

http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_20517077/marcela-davison-aviles-link-between-cinco-de-mayo

http://www.mercedsunstar.com/2012/04/18/2313672/author-explains-cinco-de-mayo.html

http://latinola.com/story.php?story=10645

The coverage of Dr. Hayes-Bautista's new book has been tremendous.

Associated Press

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jiNynw9VAxhp03X5ZLByq3iUEyXQ?docId=393b41297baf4cd48bbee011364c805e

Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/cinco-de-mayo-_-not-mexican-independence-day-_-holiday-with-us-civil-war-civil-rights-roots/2012/05/02/gIQAgJXpwT_story.html


This is from the LA Weekly:

http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2012/05/cinco_de_mayo_history_california.php

This is from CNN

http://articles.cnn.com/2012-05-05/us/us_cinco-de-mayo-origins_1_mexican-army-french-army-california-and-oregon?_s=PM:US

This is from UPI

http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2012/05/05/Historian-Cinco-de-Mayo-has-roots-in-US/UPI-35091336228138/?spt=hs&or=on

From Tuscon

http://www.tucsonsentinel.com/arts/report/050512_cinco_de_mayo/the-facts-cinco-de-mayo/

From the New York Times, Hayes-Bautista is mentioned as a source for this article.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/04/remember-remember-the-fifth-of-may/

From the Wall Street Journal,

http://online.wsj.com/article/AP393b41297baf4cd48bbee011364c805e.html

It was on numerous other media and their have been bloggers commenting on it. 

It is making the Spanish language press also.
http://www.hoylosangeles.com/news/2012/may/04/cinco-de-mayo-tradicion-americana/

"Civil War Monitor" reviews favorably "Confederate and Neo-Confederate Reader."

The glowingly positive review is online at this link:

http://civilwarmonitor.com/book-shelf/loewen-sebesta-eds-the-confederate-and-neo-confederate-reader-2010

To quote from the review:

"For those of us that study and teach issues of Civil War memory, one of our great frustrations has been the lack of easily attainable primary source material to thoroughly discredit and dismantle the mythological claims of Confederate and neo-Confederate revisionists. Loewen and Sebesta’s exceptional new text The Confederate and Neo-Confederate Reader is the first collection of primary sources focused exclusively on such documents, as the authors note, that have somehow remained hidden “in plain sight” since the end of the Civil War. The book provides teachers and researchers alike with an invaluable archive of speeches, images, political papers, and memoirs that graphically reveal what the Confederacy and its post-war nostalgists actually believed about slavery, secession, race relations, and the whitewashing of the southern past."

Finished Reading Dr. Hayes-Bautista's "Cinco de Mayo"

I just finished reading "El Cinco de Mayo: An American Tradition," by Dr. Hayes-Bautista of UCLA. It is a good read. It provides some background of the history of Latinos in California as context for the development of Cinco de Mayo as a holiday in California.

Cinco de Mayo was developed in California, though over time it has been picked up by other regions.

Its origins come from the Civil War where Latinos saw fighting the Confederacy and the French invaders of Mexico as part of one common struggle for democracy and against slavery, for the republican form of government and against aristocracy and oligarchy and racism.

In the original Cinco de Mayo celebrations in the 19th century pictures of Lincoln and Juarez were carried in processions. The American flag and Mexican flag were always paraded together as symbolic of the struggle for freedom in both countries.

Hayes-Bautista also explains how the meaning of Cinco de Mayo was lost as subsequent immigrant groups adopted it as a popular holiday but weren't connected to its past tradition in the past when there wasn't a developed body of Latino intellectuals as today.

The concluding paragraph of the book is very interesting as Hayes-Bautista speculates what a future Cinco de Mayo might be like. I quote as follows:

"It is interesting to speculate about what form future celebrations of the holiday might take, should its true origins and heritage become better understood. Naturally, the blatantly commercial aspects will not disappear; by now, virtually no American holiday has escaped some degree of commercialization. But future celebrations might also include California mission-era songs, dances, and costumes; uniformed Civil War reenactments featuring the Native California Cavalry and the unofficial Latino militias; images of Abraham Lincoln, Benito Juarez, and Ignacio Zaragoza; and of course liberal displays of American and Mexican flags side by side. Likewise, there might be uniformed reenactors of the French Intervention, including the Californios and Latino immigrants who traveled to fight for freedom and democracy in Mexico. In addition to the "Battle Hymn of the Republic," one might hear Mexican soldiers' songs of the 1860s, such as "Adios, Mama Carlota" or "Batalla del Cinco de Mayo.' It might be fitting as well to remember the Latinos who, in the same spirit, fought for the United States in the Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II, and the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and subsequent conflicts. As in the nineteenth century, there might be speeches and pageants recalling these historical events, reminding listeners of the motivating values they share, showing the continuing relevance of those events to modern-day issues."

Such a Cinco de Mayo would have revolutionary impact in Texas. Also, would the Jefferson Davis highway be able to persist in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas with such a historical consciousness amongst the Latinos in those states?