Council of Conservative Citizens seems to be greatly diminished in influence

It used to be that leading politicians spoke before the Council of Conservative Citizens, (www.cofcc.org), such as former U.S. Senator Trent Lott, and many lessor officials such as state representatives and city council members, etc. The Council of Conservative Citizens (CofCC) would gain prestige and legitimacy from prominent and not so prominent elected officials appearing before them.

However, when there was a big expose in 1998 of elected officials involved with the CofCC, afterwards there was a sudden drop of politicians willing to appear before the CofCC. Then sometime during the 00s decade there would be mention of some elected officials, just a few in Mississippi, and their names wouldn't be mentioned. Now it seems that there aren't any elected officials at all. I might have missed or overlooked one or two, but it seems that the CofCC isn't announcing any elected officials speaking before them, or any candidates in the major two parties.

There might be still some elected officials speaking before the CofCC and the CofCC just not mentioning it. However, the number of elected officials seems to have nearly dropped to zero, if it isn't zero.

The CofCC has lost a major source of prestige of having elected officials speak to them and solicit their support. An elected official now would no more want the CofCC's endorsement than that of the Westboro Baptist Church. Any political effort would be discredited if it was known that the CofCC was part of it.

They are still in existence and seem to be still active, but with little political influence. It seems to be little more than a club where the members can rage about race and the future.

Of course that is how it looks at the present. In the future, things might change.

Daily Show segment on Texas secession. Lincoln compared to Hitler by Texas secessionist

The Daily Show did a segment on Texas secessionists. D Magazine in Dallas had a blog on it.

http://frontburner.dmagazine.com/2013/02/22/the-daily-show-tackles-texas-secession/

What is interesting is that it exposed a lot of people to the idea that secessionists consider Lincoln a villain and compare him to Adolph Hitler.

So far secession and secessionists are a subject for laughs.

Emory University President calls 3/5th compromise over slavery honorable UPDATE: Emory president gives a NON-apology apology, greatly expanded media coverage of the story.

David Daley, editor at Salon, seems to have broke the story first, of Emory University president James Wagner's column in the university's magazine in which Wagner praised the 3/5ths compromise regarding slavery as a great example of pragmatism. Daley comments:

So under Wagner’s formulation, one of the basest and demeaning political deals of American history, if not the basest, is an example of working toward a “highest aspiration.” Counting slaves as three-fifths of a person becomes an example of American politicians setting their sights high!

The article is online here: 

http://www.salon.com/2013/02/16/emory_president_holds_up_three_fifths_compromise_as_noble_honorable/

James Wagner's article is here: 

http://www.emory.edu/EMORY_MAGAZINE/issues/2013/winter/register/president.html

Read it quickly, it might be pulled off the web.

The story so far has been picked up by Gawker and Raw Story.

Emory University is where Donald Livingston, former head of the League of the South Institute, and currently head of the Abbeville Institute is a professor. 

Consider this comment by Col. George Mason in the debate over slavery and the constitution at the Constitutional Convention. 

Col. George Mason [VA]. This infernal traffic originated in the avarice of British merchants. The British government constantly checked the attempts of Virginia to put a stop to it. The present question concerns not the importing states alone, but the whole Union. The evil of having slaves was experienced during the late war. Had slaves been treated as they might have been by the enemy, they would have proved dangerous instruments in their hands. But their folly dealt by the slaves as it did by the tories. He mentioned the dangerous insurrections of the slaves in Greece and Sicily; and the instructions given by Cromwell, to the commissioners sent to Virginia, to arm the servants and slaves, in case other means of obtaining its submission should fail. Maryland and Virginia, he said, had already prohibited the importation of slaves expressly. North Carolina had done the same in substance. All this would be in vain, if South Carolina and Georgia be at liberty to import. The western people are already calling out for slaves for their new lands, and will fill that country with slaves, if they can be got through South Carolina and Georgia. Slavery discourages arts and manufactures. The poor despise labor when performed by slaves. They prevent the emigration of whites, who really enrich and strengthen a county. They produce the most pernicious effect on manners. Every master of slaves is born a petty tyrant. They bring the judgment of Heaven on a country. As nations cannot be rewarded or punished in the next world, they must be in this. By an inevitable chain of causes and effects, Providence punishes national sins by national calamities. He lamented that some of our eastern brethren had, from a lust of gain, embarked in this nefarious traffic. As to the state being in possession of the right to import, this was the case with many other rights, now to be properly given up. He held it essential, in every point of view, that the general government should have power to prevent the increase of slavery.

Emphasis added. 

The coming of the Civil War with its horrific casualties makes Col. George Evans truly prescient. To give an idea of how horrific it was, when the percentage loss of life during the Civil War is applied to the present day population of America the casualties are calculated to be 7,000,000 persons.

The compromise over slavery was, as Col. George Evans feared it might be, a great national calamity. 

The entire debate over slavery at the Constitutional Convention can be read here. 

http://www.confederatepastpresent.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=100:debate-over-slavery-at-the-constitutional-convention-august-21-22-1787-&catid=41:the-gathering-storm

UPDATE: Emory president has given one of those NON-apology apologies. The reporting on it at Salon is here: http://www.salon.com/2013/02/16/emory_president_holds_up_three_fifths_compromise_as_noble_honorable/

The president isn't apologizing for what he said, but is sorry if others were hurt etc. He is reducing criticism of his statement to emotionalism, rather than rational criticisms of what he said.

The full statement of his apology is online here:

http://www.emory.edu/EMORY_MAGAZINE/issues/2013/winter/register/president.html

Wagner still doesn't seem to get the point of the criticism. As stated in the Washington Monthly, by Samuel Knight:

But he did manage to demonstrate —albeit inadvertently — the crude immorality of compromise for compromise’s sake.

Link: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2013_02/saturday_evening_reads_1043043.php

The media coverage of the article and the apology is getting major media attention locally in Atlanta and in national publications for people in higher education and other media outlets. So far one article overseas. The following are the links.

From The Root, a major national online media source for African Americans:

http://www.theroot.com/buzz/crazy-talk-three-fifths-compromise-was-great-pragmatic-solution

From the Atlanta Journal Constitution, the Atlanta major daily:

http://www.ajc.com/weblogs/political-insider/2013/feb/17/emory-university-president-sparks-three-fifths-fur/

From the Chronicles of Higher Education, one of the major national newspapers for people in the higher education profession:

http://chronicle.com/blogs/ticker/emorys-president-sparks-a-furor-with-a-comment-on-compromise/55747

Also Inside Higher Education, the other major publication for people in higher education has picked up the story and refers to some blogs covering it:

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/02/18/emory-president-sets-uproar-statements-three-fifths-compromise-and-then-apologizes

Even the British tabloid Daily Mail has picked it up.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2280321/Emory-University-president-apologizes-calling-Constitutional-compromise-enabled-slavery-noble-honorable.html

Will keep this posting updated as things develop.

"American Prospect" magazine identifies the Republican Party with the Confederacy.

One the website of the magazine American Prospect is an article claiming that the Republican party is a presidential election away from extinction. Whether this is true or not I am not going to comment and I really don't know. What interests me is the following statement about the Republican party:

It will die not for reasons of “branding” or marketing or electoral cosmetics but because the party is at odds with the inevitable American trajectory in the direction of liberty, and with its own nature; paradoxically the party of Abraham Lincoln, which once saved the Union and which gives such passionate lip service to constitutionality, has come to embody the values of the Confederacy in its hostility to constitutional federalism and the civil bonds that the founding document codifies.

The following are links to the article, which has been picked up by www.salon.com.

http://prospect.org/article/grand-old-jurassic-party

http://www.salon.com/2013/02/15/the_grand_old_jurassic_party_partner/

American Prospect is a Democratic party magazine, so its running an article portraying the Republican party as the party of the Confederacy is significant.

What is interesting is that the Democrats, Liberals, and Left continue to want to characterize the Republicans as being Confederates. It will be interesting if the Republicans respond by embracing the Confederacy. It seems though the Republicans are carefully avoiding the Confederacy.

Texas Tea Party favorite not far right enough since she doesn't support secession.

State Senator Donna Campbell, in an Austin Chronicle article called a Tea Party darling, isn't right enough for some Texans since she doesn't support secession. See this article:

http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2013-02-15/legelines/

Campbell's support for the United States is very conditional. This is her face book posting. 

I believe America is the land of the free and the home of the brave, and I ask brave Americans to come together to ensure we always cherish that freedom. I believe now is the time for patriots to defend our sovereignty as citizens of the United States, not as a divided people. I believe we can and should honor our Constitution as both Americans and Texans. I do not believe, as some have suggested, that it's time to give up on the United States despite the failed leadership in Washington, D.C. Instead, I believe it's time to work harder. No victory worth fighting for comes easy. I ask you to stand with me and stand for the values that made this Nation great. God Bless Texas and God Bless the United States!

http://www.facebook.com/DonnaCampbellTX/posts/10151752662974778

Supposedly at another time it Campbell might be open to secession, but at this time she isn't. That is patriotic? Is Campbell joking when she makes the Pledge of Allegiance when she says "indivisible"? 

If you go to the posting about 140 plus people are outraged that she doesn't support secession. However, 280 plus people like her posting, so even with Tea Party people secession isn't a majority view. 

Interesting is that the Austin Chronicle is covering this. It isn't a bill, or a position by Campbell. It is a source of humor and an embarrassment for conservatives therefore is reported for laughs. 

Belarus takes stand in favor of Texas secession/ secession in the U.S. is just a topic for laughs.

The brutal dictatorship of Belarus issued a human rights report so it could portray the nations that criticize it for human rights violations of being violators themselves. 

This is one article on it: http://frontburner.dmagazine.com/2013/02/05/belorussian-government-report-blasts-u-s-officials-for-not-letting-texas-secede/

And this is another:

http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2013/02/belarus_texas_secession.php

The complaint of Belarus was that quoting from the Houston Press article,"Belarus is outraged that the White House has ignored a petition on the issue." Quoting from the Belarus human rights report.

In November, people in seven American federal states collected sufficient numbers of signatures necessary for a secession from the USA. The civil petitions have been posted on a White House website's special section, where people can leave their submissions or join those posted earlier. To begin dealing with a petition, the White House needs to receive at least 25 thousand signatures in 30 days. Once this requirement is met, an official response will be published on the website.

The Texas' petition gathered more than 125 thousand signatures. The petition points out that the US economic travails resulted from the Federal Government's failure to reform fiscal policies. In addition to Texas, Louisiana, Florida, North Carolina, Alabama, Georgia and Tennessee have also collected the required numbers. 

So far, the White House has not considered the civilian petitions, which can be regarded as violation of the right to self-determination.

The Houston Press blogger comments, "Secessionists: Ain't it good to know someone's got your back?" (Italics in the original.)

Secession has died out much as a news item except for occasional items where it can be played for laughs. There doesn't seem to be any rising interest in secession. The right wing media doesn't seem to want to pick up the topic. Even www.wnd.com, which usually is open to pandering to any fringe theory has lost interest.

There still may be a reaction to Obama's rejection of the petitions by the Sons of Confederate Veterans and the United Daughters of the Confederacy, but this won't impact politics and I don't think will even make news.

For now it seems the issue has come to an end no matter how much Public Policy Polling (PPP) polls on the issue. I think the Republican party, the conservative movement and the Tea Party faction of the Republican party don't want to be associated with this issue. There doesn't really seem to be a significant faction of conservative voters who are really serious about it regardless of the polls.

For now, it seems that in the end it will just be another amusing footnote in the history of the presidential elections of 2012. On the other hand, having so many people sign these petitions and having the PPP polls create the impression that a significant, and indeed a surprisingly high fraction of Republicans support secession does create a pre-condition for some other unforseen event setting off a secession movement. Some future event, alienating some faction of conservatives might lead them to support secession because some have previously signed a petition in jest but normalized secession for themselves, and the PPP polls giving conservatives the idea that others in their peer group consider it a legitimate political choice again normalizing it as a political choice.

For now it seems secession is going nowhere. However, the future is opaque.

Three Confederate parks renamed in Memphis all at once

Fearing a new Tennessee bill which would have forbade changing names of parks for historical persons, the Memphis City Council renamed Nathan Bedford Forrest Park, Jefferson Davis Park and Confederacy Park yesterday. 

An online ABC News article about it is here:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/memphis-renames-parks-honored-confederacy-18414958

Vote was 9 to 0 in favor of renaming the parks with 3 abstentions.

Evidently when the City Council was faced being stuck with these names forever, they were propelled to act.

The Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) attempted to defend the park names with their usual delusional historical claims. From the article;

The Sons of Confederate Veterans and others in Memphis oppose the name changes, saying that Forrest is a misunderstood figure who was not a racist but a businessman who treated his slaves humanely and resigned from the Klan.

"We should cherish the history that we have, we shouldn't cover it up and try to bury it or hide it," said Becky Muska, who spoke against the name change.

Ms. Muska is obscuring the issues, it isn't an issue of covering up history, it is an issue of honoring someone. There is something different between a memorial to those Forrest victimized and a memorial glorifying him. As for history, shouldn't we objectively study it, and not drool over it and coat it with sugar or misrepresent it. This is what Muska is advocating, a misrepresentation of history under the guise of sentimental statements.

The Memphis City Council was correct in what they did, but somebody needs to let Beck Muska and the SCV know that their arguments are the nonsense of delusional misrepresenting buffoons.

It does show that once a city has motivation, they can move and rid themselves of Confederate and neo-Confederate nonsense.

Summary of questions for jurors and judges, Update

I think I have thought of enough questions to effectively map the historical consciousness of potential jurors and their neo-Confederacy. I am going to summarize them here:

1. Are you a member of the League of the South, Council of Conservative Citizens, Sons of Confederate Veterans, United Daughters of the Confederacy or any other neo-Confederate organization?

2. Do you identify with the Confederacy or the Union?

3. Do you think it would be appropriate for public officials to praise the Confederacy?

4. Do you think states, counties, cities and other municipalities should adopt Confederate symbols in their logos, flags, seals, or other symbols they might adopt?

5. Do you think it would have been better if the Confederacy had succeeded in seceding?

It is a short list, but I think it would be effective in screening out people who are neo-Confederate or have Lost Cause attitudes from jury pools. I think all the questions can be reasons to exclude the juror with cause, and not merely a detection of bias. The Confederacy was a nation whose creation was attempted to perpetuate slavery and white supremacy.

These questions can also be asked of judges and should be asked of the judge selected to preside over a trial and if the judge asks affirmatively, the judge should be asked to not preside over the trial.

A neo-Confederate or Lost Cause type juror is not going to value the freedom of an African American as they would a white person. They have mythologies of Africans being contented to being slaves and have embraced a national attempt to maintain white supremacy and slavery. They will not take due diligence to make sure that a conviction is without doubt, instead tend to be biased to presume guilt. They will not be that concerned that there is a wrongful conviction.

Now that I have my five questions, I am not sure what my next step is. I will have to think about it.

UPDATE:

I would reword question #4 to say:

Do you think it is appropriate when states, counties, cities and other municipalities adopt Confederate symbols in their logos, flags, seals, or other symbols they might adopt?

Or.

Do you think states, counties, cities and other municipalities should not adopt Confederate symbols in their logos, flags, seals, or other symbols they might adopt?

Secession Poll in Texas identifies secession sentiment

The Public Policy Polling (PPP) organization has conducted a poll and found very high support for secession among Texas Republicans. The Houston Chronicle reports on it with a title, "Texas secession fervor is a heavily Republican phenomenon," the article is here:

http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2013/02/texas-secession-fervor-is-a-heavily-republican-phenomenon/

From the article, these are some of the poll results of who supports secession.

42 percent of those who call themselves very conservative
35 percent of Republicans
25 percent of non-Hispanic whites

Also, the article said that sentiment for secession has gone from 13 to 20% in Texas. This is the link to the PPP poll:

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_TX_013113.pdf

The question on secession is:

Would you support or oppose Texas seceding from the union because of Barack Obama’s reelection?

I don't know how seriously this secession sentiment should be taken. It might be that poll respondents are saying yes to secession as a means of strongly expressing their opposition to Obama. 

The League of the South (LOS) will likely see this as a sign that their time has come. It hasn't. 

The PPP is closely affiliated with the Democratic party. A person can't be both patriotic towards the United States of America and in support of secession. I think polling on the question of secession and breaking down the results by party and ideological affiliation in the PPP poll makes the Republicans seem very suspect on the issue of patriotism. The PPPs polling on secession, which has been reviewed in this blog before, identifies Republicans with secession. 

As I have stated before, Republicans have attempted since the 1950s to portray themselves as more patriotic than their opposition, if they are identified with secession, any attempt by the Republicans to portray themselves as patriotic, let alone being more patriotic than their opposition, will have no credibility. The patriotism being mentioned here is patriotism to the U.S.A.

Another impact of these polls is that it will normalize secession among conservatives. The respondents to the poll may have said they supported secession for laughs in rejecting Obama, but other conservatives hearing of the poll results may think that secession is widely supported by persons with similar views and it will be normalized for them and thus something valid to consider. 

Earlier blogs on these secession polls:

In an earlier post I referred to some opinion polls taken about the issues of secession.
http://newtknight.blogspot.com/2012/12/tagging-republicans-as-secessionists.html

It refers to an opinion poll that were taken on secession in Georgia.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/12/georgia-miscellany.html

I also had an early post on another opinion poll on secession.
http://newtknight.blogspot.com/2013/01/charles-m-blow-new-york-times-columnist.html

Which referred to the following Pew opinion poll result.
http://www.people-press.org/2011/04/08/civil-war-at-150-still-relevant-still-divisive/

Neo-Confederacy of a potential candidate for U.S. Senator from Georgia

Evidently U.S. House Representative Paul Broun referred to the Civil War as the "War of Yankee Aggression," in the U.S. House and now it is likely he will soon be a candidate for U.S. Senator from Georgia.

This is just one item of neo-Confederacy in the Republican party in the South. It isn't a trend yet. If he is successful I think other Republican candidates for federal elected office will seek to emulate him.

The link to the article is:

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/30/paul_broun_enters_georgia_senate_race/

I am reminded of a T-shirt sold by Southern Partisan magazine. This was on the front of the T-shirt.
CLICK ON PHOTOS TO MAKE THEM FULL SIZE.

And surely this would be one of Lincoln's nightmares. And the following graphic was the back side. The prediction or claim made by the graphic is only half true. The Republican party has become a party centered in the former Confederate states, but it it isn't a majority party and increasingly becoming a minor party.

Another question for jurors

Another question for jurors would be:

Do you think it would have been good if the Confederacy had succeeded in becoming an independent nation?

A yes answer to this question would have been cause for disqualifying a juror where a minority member was on trial, since the juror thought it would have been a good thing if a pro-slavery and white supremacist nation had come into being.

I think this is the last question I propose.

Additional questions for jurors and judges

I think these questions could be asked of both jurors and judges.

1. Do you identity with the Confederacy or the Union?

2. Do you think it is inappropriate for public officials to praise the Confederacy?

3. Do you think states, cities, municipalities should have or adopt Confederate symbols in their flags, logos, shields, seals, or other representations they create to represent themselves?

World Net Daily (WND) interviews Michael Hill President of League of the South on secession

Taylor Rose at World Net Daily (WND) a fringe website where Obama Birther theories are spun out, interviewed Michael Hill, President of the League of the South on secession. The story is here:

http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/secession-movement-just-needs-more-oxygen/

It will be interesting to see if WND will continue to report on secession as an issue. Though their site is really fringe, though they have mainstreamed some issues, notably Birtherism, the idea that Obama wasn't born in the United States and isn't a natural born citizen.

Perhaps this is a one time reflexive response in regards to Obama's response to the secession petitions.  An urge to oppose anything Obama might say.

"Los Angeles Times" editorial, "Neo-Confederates in Congress Resist Rapidly Changing World." UPDATE

At this link http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-neoconfederates-20130115,0,5722362.story there is an article titled, "Neo-Confederates in Congress Resist a Rapidly Changing World," David Horsey.

It really is astounding how people are picking up on the geography of partisan politics. I am going to read it and comment on it later. I will put an update note in the title when I do. I thought I would share it right away.

A quote from the article:

Today, there are quite a few very vocal neo-Confederates who think gun rights, states rights, the protection of white American culture and elimination of "excessive" taxation on the rich are the nation's preeminent concerns. Their anti-bellum mindset makes it impossible for them to accept scientific reality -- climate change, evolution, the true age of the planet -- and political reality -- America is becoming a more diverse, tolerant nation that does not share their fear-driven philosophy.

One of our two great political parties has been captured by the neo-Confederates and, because so many of them have been elected to Congress, the political system is gridlocked. 

I don't know if the author David Horsey is doing more than capitalizing on the popularity of the Lincoln movie and Lincoln to oppose the policies of conservative Republicans. To some extent though the essay depends on an awareness that the Republican party has become a party centered in the South.

He talks about how progressive change is delayed in the United States, but he really doesn't explain where this delay comes from. Essentially if you have a section of a nation that is a reactionary fortress and they control 25% of the representation, you have to get 67% of the rest of the nation to support something before it has a bare slightly over 50% majority. If you need to get an amendment passed, requiring 75% of the states to ratify something, you will need 100% of the states outside the reactionary block to get an amendment passed. I discuss this in my essay at www.templeofdemocracy.com/breaking.htm.

I think this article raises awareness of the nature of reaction in this nation as being regional, but indirectly. He calls the reaction neo-Confederate, but doesn't explain why and it doesn't necessarily mean conservatives from the South, it could be applied to conservatives anywhere.

However, I think it will tend to jog the public's mind to think about neo-Confederacy and the national geography of politics. Referring to an earlier blog, http://newtknight.blogspot.com/2013/01/rush-limbaugh-rages-like-neo-confederate.html, this essay will certainly seem to Rush Limbaugh a further justification for his argument that the South is being attacked because it is conservative. This would depend on Limbaugh conflating the South with the Confederacy.

Larry Pratt article on school shootings in a white supremacist neo-Confederate publication. Should his group be known as the Gun Owners of America, or the Gun Owners of the Confederacy.

Larry Pratt is the head of an organization called the Gun Owners of America (GOA), but really with his involvements in neo-Confederate organizations and their extremist publications shouldn't his organization be titled Gun Owners of the Confederacy?

His involvement goes way back.

In the May-June 1995, Vol. 2 No. 3 issue of the Southern Patriot, official publication of the League of the South (LoS), on page 24, is a section titled "Noteworthy Publications," in which it recommends a book put out by the GOA noting that the publication is "edited by GOA chairman and SL member, Larry Pratt." The LoS used to have the name Southern League hence the abbreviation SL.

It is not known whether or if Pratt resigned from the LoS or if he is still a member. Someone should ask him.

In a white supremacist publication, Southern Mercury, published by the Sons of Confederate Veterans education PAC, Pratt has in the Vol. 1 No. 2 Sept.-Oct. 2003 issue on pages 5-6, an article, "Judge Roy Moore is Right," concerning the case where Alabama Supreme Court Justice Judge Moore decided to erect a monument to the Ten Commandments and keep it in defiance of a court order to remove it.

In the Vol. 6 No. 5 issue, on page 18, Pratt has an article "Of Schools and Bodies," written in response to the Virginia Tech massacre. He argues that gun free zones at universities are the cause of school massacres and argues that having persons in schools armed is the solution and cites two cases where someone who was armed was able to shoot a homicidal intruder, one case at a church in the U.S., and another case in Israel. Pratt argues that both teachers and students should be allowed to carry guns to schools concluding his article with the statement.

We are told that having students or faculty (with concealed handgun permits) carrying guns scares many students and teachers. Maybe so. Which is worse -- being scared or being dead? 

What is also interesting is that Pratt's GOA regularly ran a full page advertisements in this white supremacist publication in each and every issue and thus was giving it significant support. The Southern Mercury ceased publication for lack of funding, so the GOA ads helped keep this publication going since without the advertising it might have run out of funds sooner.

This is a publication that defended slavery and endorsed books defending slavery.

Again, should the GOA be called the Gun Owners of the Confederacy instead?

For an example of the white supremacist writings in this publication go to this blog:

http://newtknight.blogspot.com/2006/06/white-supremacy-promoted-by-sons-of.html

(Interesting note, the other major advertiser was www.atlanticbullionandcoin.com whose owner has been tried and convicted for a ponzi scheme which defrauded thousands of right wingers of tens of millions of dollars.)

Rush Limbaugh rages like a neo-Confederate

You can read the entire transcript of Rush Limbaugh comments on his show at this link.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/01/14/obama_and_moderate_republicans_see_conservatives_as_common_enemy

What is of interest in this show is that Rush Limbaugh talks about the South being under attack from elites, such as an article in The New Yorker magazine. Limbaugh's comments sounds like something that neo-Confederates would say.

Rush's comments: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/01/14/obama_and_moderate_republicans_see_conservatives_as_common_enemy

New Yorker article: http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2013/01/21/130121taco_talk_packer

The author of the article is somewhat sympathetic to the South, but discusses how it is becoming culturally isolated from the rest of the nation. Limbaugh suggests that the article is part of some conspiracy to isolate the South which it clearly isn't:

And what this is about is a very approving story from the New Yorker about the attempt here to isolate the South.

Limbaugh sees the South being attacked by liberal media elites because it is conservative and that these supposed enemies of the South love the movie Lincoln because Lincoln attacked the South; Quoting Limbaugh:

Have you asked yourself why is Hollywood so gaga over Lincoln, the movie? Why is Bill Clinton all of a sudden out there at the Golden Globes last night being brought on stage to thunderous standing ovation to talk about Lincoln and what he did during the Civil War? 

What did Lincoln do, as far as these people are concerned? He wiped out the South.

The rest of Limbaugh's comments also sound like something the league of the South would say. Indeed the League of the South (LoS) is very enthused about Limbaugh's comments as shown in their posting about them which you can read at the LoS's blog at the following link. 

http://www.lsrebellion.blogspot.com/2013/01/rush-limbaugh-us-left-wants-to-finish.html

I don't know if this is just a one time thing by Rush Limbaugh or if it represents a new ongoing theme in his performances. It could be that Limbaugh has recognized that his likely listeners are geographically concentrated and that he needs to orient his narratives towards that demographic. Or that the geography of current politics has become obvious and he needs to be relevant to this developing public awareness of this geography of current politics. Rush points out a recent article at www.salon.com in his comments:

Last week, Salon.com had a story called, "Welcome to the new Civil War -- Lincoln's Unfinished War Rages On, as the Neo-Confederacy Tries to Turn Back the Clock on Women, Gays, God and Guns."

(Article is online here: http://www.salon.com/2013/01/05/welcome_to_the_new_civil_war/)

I don't think for a second that Limbaugh's bringing up this issue about the South was accidental or just the result of a meandering monologue. I think Limbaugh is shrewd and carefully considers his topics and presentation of them.

If this new theme is successful for Limbaugh, as the leading figure of conservative news entertainment, I think that other media figures in the same field will rush to do pick up this theme of the South being under attack. 

There have been articles in the past which have referred to the Civil War in discussing the modern geography of partisan politics and mapping it to the geography of the Civil War. However, these have been all in liberal or progressive publications or in non-partisan publications. Now Limbaugh is responding to these articles and affirming that there is a modern geography of partisan politics.  If groups in both sides of the political spectrum see the same modern geography of partisan politics that it is likely that the general public will accept this geography as a given. 

Finally, if the South is seen as the conservative region and southern is identified as being identical to conservatism, will not many see conservatism as being Confederate? 

Well one commentary is a trend. We will have to see. 

Another question for potential jurors

I think potential jurors should be asked whether they display Confederate flags or representations of Confederate flags such as flags themselves, flag decals, bumper stickers, tattoos or other visual display.

I think if a person demonstrably identifies with material objects an identification with the Confederacy, a nation created for white supremacy, then I think that juror can be excluded with cause from a jury.

I think this is important since there are many people who have a strong identification with the Confederacy but aren't members of a neo-Confederate organization.

White House rejects neo-Confederate arguments for secession with no answer to secession petitions.

The white house has answered no to the secession petitions. You can read the White House reply here:

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/our-states-remain-united

The reply to the petition quotes Lincoln from both his 1st inaugural address and his "Gettysburg Address," refers to the Civil War and secession in 1861, asserts that the Union is indestructible. These issues are brought up in two paragraphs in the White House reply. Links are provided to Lincoln's "1st Inaugural Address," "Gettysburg Address," and the Supreme Court ruling on Texas vs. White in which the court rules that secession violated the U.S. Constitution. In this blog I will discuss the response after the quotation of these two paragraphs with historical references which follows:

Our founding fathers established the Constitution of the United States "in order to form a more perfect union" through the hard and frustrating but necessary work of self-government. They enshrined in that document the right to change our national government through the power of the ballot -- a right that generations of Americans have fought to secure for all. But they did not provide a right to walk away from it. As President Abraham Lincoln explained in his first inaugural address in 1861, "in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual." In the years that followed, more than 600,000 Americans died in a long and bloody civil war that vindicated the principle that the Constitution establishes a permanent union between the States. And shortly after the Civil War ended, the Supreme Court confirmed that "[t]he Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union composed of indestructible States."

Although the founders established a perpetual union, they also provided for a government that is, as President Lincoln would later describe it, "of the people, by the people, and for the people" -- all of the people. Participation in, and engagement with, government is the cornerstone of our democracy. And because every American who wants to participate deserves a government that is accessible and responsive, the Obama Administration has created a host of new tools and channels to connect concerned citizens with White House. In fact, one of the most exciting aspects of the We the People platform is a chance to engage directly with our most outspoken critics. 

It should be noted that the White House could have given a reply that didn't have historical references or just limit it to the Supreme Court decision Texas vs. White, but they choose to anchor the reply historically, and specifically in Lincoln's speeches, the Civil War and the secession of slave states in 1861 and one of the most emotionally charged events in American history both then and now.

I don't know if this response will get much coverage in the media, but it is in some ways very historic. I did a study in 2011 and 2012 of presidential statements regarding the Civil War and associated issues, such as the terminology they used, for example "War Between the States" versus "Civil War" back to Herbert Hoover.

Presidents have avoided the issue of the constitutionality of secession since the 19th century as far as I have been able to find. Presidents have avoided saying anything that can be construed as a rejection of the Confederacy in the 20th century since President Hoover who used the term "War Between the States" in the fall before he lost his bid to be re-elected.

However, President Obama White House response directly rejects the constitutionality of secession or any justification for it and thus directly rejects a key argument of the neo-Confederates and the Lost Cause historical mythology. It is a direct rejection of a core belief of the United Daughters of the Confederacy and the Sons of Confederate Veterans and millions of Americans many of concentrated in the region of the former Confederate states. It is indirectly a rejection of the Confederacy, the leaders of secession and the supporters of secession in 1861. It directly rejects the very phrase "War Between the States." Though presidents haven't used this term since President Clinton used it once in 2000. Importantly it isn't just a rejection on some general reasoned principles, but a rejection based on the arguments used in the Civil War against secession by Lincoln the president who defeated the Confederacy. Obama is using specifically the historical narrative of the Union in the Civil War to reject these petitions.

Lincoln's 1st Inaugural Address contains a lengthy argument of secession which though is an argument that would apply to any effort at secession, is specifically applied by Lincoln to the secession of slave states in 1861. It is a rejection of the secessionists, such as Jefferson Davis, secession convention delegates, and many others.

The response with its reference to the "Gettysburg Address" implies that the defeat of the Confederacy was a great and heroic thing for the world and not just America, for as Lincoln said in that address:

It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us--that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion--that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth."

In an earlier post I referred to some opinion polls taken about the issues of secession.
http://newtknight.blogspot.com/2012/12/tagging-republicans-as-secessionists.html

It refers to an opinion poll that were taken on secession in Georgia.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/12/georgia-miscellany.html

I also had an early post on another opinion poll on secession.
http://newtknight.blogspot.com/2013/01/charles-m-blow-new-york-times-columnist.html

Which referred to the following Pew opinion poll result.
http://www.people-press.org/2011/04/08/civil-war-at-150-still-relevant-still-divisive/

The Georgia opinion poll said that 42% of Georgia Republicans would be willing to secede.

When you look at who identifies with the Confederacy in the Pew opinion poll you see that they are primarily white people who identify themselves as Southerners and they mostly live in a former Confederate state. I would hazard to guess that what white votes Obama got in the former Confederate states were largely not from whites who identify themselves with the Confederacy. In short those Obama might antagonize are very unlikely to vote for him anyways.

I blogged on how Obama would respond to these secession petitions at: http://newtknight.blogspot.com/2012/11/how-will-obama-respond-to-these.html

Basically I predicted that Obama would make a response that was provocative without seeming to be provocative. His hope would be to provoke the Republicans to respond in a way that would identify them with secession and the Confederacy. I don't know for a fact that Obama's response had this intent. However, if you wanted to get a reaction that would identify your opponents with secession and the Confederacy without seeming to provoke, Obama's reply would be the way to do it.

The Sons of Confederate Veterans and the United Daughters of the Confederacy will certainly have response to this White House reply. Whether Obama's rejection of secession gets a wider response it remains to be seen.

Incidentally the link on the Politico reporting of the response goes to the wrong petition and response.

To keep a record of this White House reply I quote the entire reply following:

OFFICIAL WHITE HOUSE RESPONSE TOPeacefully grant the State of Louisiana to withdraw from the United States of America and create its own NEW government. and 8 other petitions

Our States Remain United

By Jon Carson

Thank you for using the White House's online petitions platform to participate in your government.

In a nation of 300 million people -- each with their own set of deeply-held beliefs -- democracy can be noisy and controversial. And that's a good thing. Free and open debate is what makes this country work, and many people around the world risk their lives every day for the liberties we often take for granted.

But as much as we value a healthy debate, we don't let that debate tear us apart.

Our founding fathers established the Constitution of the United States "in order to form a more perfect union" through the hard and frustrating but necessary work of self-government. They enshrined in that document the right to change our national government through the power of the ballot -- a right that generations of Americans have fought to secure for all. But they did not provide a right to walk away from it. As President Abraham Lincoln explained in his first inaugural address in 1861, "in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual." In the years that followed, more than 600,000 Americans died in a long and bloody civil war that vindicated the principle that the Constitution establishes a permanent union between the States. And shortly after the Civil War ended, the Supreme Court confirmed that "[t]he Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union composed of indestructible States."

Although the founders established a perpetual union, they also provided for a government that is, as President Lincoln would later describe it, "of the people, by the people, and for the people" -- all of the people. Participation in, and engagement with, government is the cornerstone of our democracy. And because every American who wants to participate deserves a government that is accessible and responsive, the Obama Administration has created a host of new tools and channels to connect concerned citizens with White House. In fact, one of the most exciting aspects of the We the People platform is a chance to engage directly with our most outspoken critics.

So let's be clear: No one disputes that our country faces big challenges, and the recent election followed a vigorous debate about how they should be addressed. As President Obama said the night he won re-election, "We may have battled fiercely, but it's only because we love this country deeply and we care so strongly about its future."

Whether it's figuring out how to strengthen our economy, reduce our deficit in a responsible way, or protect our country, we will need to work together -- and hear from one another -- in order to find the best way to move forward. I hope you'll take a few minutes to learn more about the President's ideasand share more of your own.

Jon Carson is Director of the Office of Public Engagement

Tell us what you think about this response and We the People.

This was copied from https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/our-states-remain-united January 12, 2013.

White House Petition asking Obama not to send a wreath to the Arlington Confederate Monument

I have submitted a petition asking Obama not to send a wreath to the Arlington Confederate Monument.

You can view it at this link:

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/not-send-wreath-arlington-confederate-monument-and-therefore-not-support-neo-confederates/gYyh3MQ3?utm_source=wh.gov&utm_medium=shorturl&utm_campaign=shorturl

Another link is:

http://wh.gov/PLBU

Until it has a 150 signatures it won't appear in the listing on the website.

We have 30 days to get 25,000 signatures.

2013 Letter to Obama is posted at the Arlington Confederate Monument Report

The 2013 Letter to Obama is posted at the Arlington Confederate Monument report blog at this link.

http://arlingtonconfederatemonument.blogspot.com/2013/01/2013-letter-to-obama-asking-him-not-to.html

There is also a White House petition at: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/not-send-wreath-arlington-confederate-monument-and-therefore-not-support-neo-confederates/gYyh3MQ3?utm_source=wh.gov&utm_medium=shorturl&utm_campaign=shorturl

You will not be able to view it at Whitehouse.gov excepting by the use of the above link until it has 150 signatures. Please sign it today.

The letter is as follows and focuses on the issue of the secession petitions.

                                                                                                May 15, 2013

                                                                                                Edward H. Sebesta

President Barack H. Obama

The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Hon. President Obama:

As widely reported in the press, nearly a million people had signed secession petitions at the whitehouse.gov website by December 10, 2012.  By their very definition these petitions are a complete rejection of American ideals and they seek to damage the country.  Why are these petitions not viewed as offensive or odious?

Further secessionism has made inroads to mainstream politics. In Minnesota at the 2010 2^nd Congressional District Republican convention a resolution that a state had a right to secede came within two votes of passage, “but only after Sutton, who was functioning as the convention’s chair, reminded his fellow Republicans that opposition to secession by states was a founding Republican principle in the late 1850s.”[1] However, about two weeks later the Minnesota 5^th Congressional District Republican convention did pass a resolution both supporting nullification and endorsing “secession as options to enforce state sovereignty.”[2]

Perhaps because they had listened too many times to the Charlie Daniels Band song, “The South is Gonna Do It Again,” in 2009 the Georgia State Senate passed resolution SR632, conditionally calling for both nullification and secession by a margin of 43-1.[3] Tennessee Congressional Rep. Zach Wamp brought up secession as a response to health care legislation in 2010.[4] Former Vice-Presidential Candidate Sarah Palin spoke to the Alaska Independence party which wishes that Alaska secede from the Union.[5]

Then there is the now widely known statement of Texas Governor Rick Perry speaking before a Tea party group in Texas in 2009 saying, “When we came into the Union in 1845, one of the issues was that we would be able to leave if we decided to do that,” and “We’ve got a great Union. There’s absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, who knows what may come of that?”[6]

Ron Paul went to a secession convention in Charleston, South Carolina held by the Ludwig von Mises Institute (www.mises.org) in 1995 where he was a speaker.[7] He has been heavily involved with the pro-secession Ludwig von Mises Institute over the years.

Why is secession not odious?

I think the answer is obvious to even the most casual observer. At the federal, state, and local level Confederate secessionists who sought to destroy the United States of America are honored and glorified with monuments and symbols. This normalizes and makes the idea of secession to break up the United States morally acceptable.

We believe that a president of the United States of America should not send a wreath to the Arlington Confederate monument as it glorifies both a violent rejection of the United States and normalizes secession.

Earlier we have written you about other practices by the federal government that normalize secession: Allowing the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) to get involved with the Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps; Allowing the United Daughters of the Confederacy to give awards to cadets at the U.S. Military academies named after treasonous secessionists; and allowing the SCV to be part of the Federal Combined Campaign.

I ask you to stop normalizing secession by ending the Presidential practice of sending a wreath to the Arlington Confederate monument on Memorial Day or any day and to end any federal activities that allow the SCV and UDC to spread their secessionist message to our military.

                                                                                    Regards,

                                                                                    Edward H. Sebesta

---

[1] Lori Sturdevant, “Party of Lincoln flirts with a house-divided resolution,” Star Tribune, March 30, 2010, online.

[2] Lori Sturdevant, “Secession gaining fans in MN GOP,” Star Tribune, April 12, 2010. Online.

[3] Jay Bookman, “Georgia Senate threatens dismantling of USA,” Atlanta Constitution Journal, April 16, 2009, http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2009/04/16/georgia-senate-threatens-dismantling-of-usa/.

[4] Emi Kolawole, “Tennessee Rep. Zach Wamp talks of secession,” Washington Post, July 24, 2010. Online

[5] Jon Swaine, The Telegraph (UK), Sept. 2, 2008, online; Max Blumenthal and David Neiwert, “Meet Sarah Palin’s right-wing pals,” http://news.salon.com/2008/10/10/palin_chryson Online.

[6] James McKinley, jr., “Texas Governor’s Secession Talk Stirs Furor,” New York Times, April 18, 2009, online.

[7] Ludwig von Mises flyer, “Secession!,” Ludwig von Mises Institute, post marked Feb. 27, 1995.