The Neo-Confederate groups and some other groups are defining what is the Southern position on immigration. They point out that of 30 U.S. Senators from 15 Southern states, (which they define to include West Virginia, Kentucky, Oklahoma, and Missouri) that 23 Senators are against the compromise amnesty bill that was passed in the U.S. Senate last week.
http://www.vdare.org/letters/tl_052706.htm#b1
The League of the South, feels that there is a Southern position on immigration.
http://leagueofthesouth.net/blog/more.php?id=1745_0_1_0_M
http://leagueofthesouth.net/blog/more.php?id=1747_0_1_0_M
http://leagueofthesouth.net/blog/weblog.php?id=0
The key thing to observe from this, is not the the pro and con arguments that might be put forth against or for immigration, or the various reasons the Neo-Confederates put against various policies concerning immigration.
The most important thing to observe is how they are creating the "Southern" position on immigration which means their opponents are "Unsouthern." Differing with anti-immigration views will somehow mean that you are letting down Robert E. Lee and the Confederate dead. It is related to the tactic of denouncing something as being unAmerican.
Progressive persons in the South self-identified as Southerners will not even be concious of this Neo-Confederate tactic. It does happen that they will start off by identifying their Confederate Southerners and their love of the South, or some assertion of Southern identity, and then promote their progressive idea after establishing their claim to be a "real Southerner." (This isn't the case always.)
With this mentality it should it should not be surprising that progressive movements don't go far in the South. It fails in multiple ways.
First, Southern progressives are not identifying and exposing this tactic of making progressive ideas "unsouthern" and by exposing this manipulative argument demolishing it once and for all.
Second, instead of rejecting this tactic, Southern identified progressives, reinforce it by introducing their argument with their Confederate credentials, or declarations of Southern identity, which assumes that are ideas that are unsouthern and that ideas should be sorted out as acceptable to the South or not. The progressive Southerner just feels that the classification of a particular idea as unsouthern is wrong.
Third, it reinforces the idea that "real" Southerners are those with Confederate credentials and reinforces that those with Confederate ancestors are legitimately a hereditary caste to whom it should be left to determine what is southern. Also there is the obvious implication that African Americans are not Southern. It also creates in the South classifications of whites as being Southern and unsouthern. Some people in the South haven't had family that has been in the South for generations, or are not practicioners of "southern culture" or are not "born and bred" in the South. Some white people in the South are unsouthern and their ideas illegitimate.
Fourth, it starts every debate with the progressive side up against a unlevel playing field with progressives having to debate both their ideas and whether it is unsouthern.
The utility of this tactic for maintaining the South as a reactionar fortress is clear, hence the popularity of the expressions "Damn Yankee" and the creation of a "North" as a geographical idea. It makes progressive ideas alien and anti-Southern, and not debatable on the issues, but removed to debating the holder of these ideas as unSouthern.
It should not be surprising that progressive politics in the South don't go very far with this mentality. If you haven't left the plantation mentally, don't be surprised if you are ineffective opposing a plantation politics.
Sunday, May 28, 2006
Saturday, May 27, 2006
"C.S.A. The Movie"
I haven't gotten a chance to see it. It hasn't come to Dallas. It sounds interesting.
The link to their site is at:
http://www.csathemovie.com/
They have a trailer for the film which is really something to see. Also, a lot of information.
I think an effort like this should be supported since it brings before the public how bad the Confederacy was.
The link to their site is at:
http://www.csathemovie.com/
They have a trailer for the film which is really something to see. Also, a lot of information.
I think an effort like this should be supported since it brings before the public how bad the Confederacy was.
Presidential Candidate Senator Christopher Dodd's poor record on Neo-Confederacy
According to this article, U.S. Senator Christopher Dodd of Connecticut is running for the presidency. U.S. Senator Dodd has a particularly bad record, for a Democrat, on Neo-Confederacy.
An overwhelming majority of Democratic Senators voted against Ashcroft's confirmation on the basis of Ashcroft's interview in Southern Partisan, Dodd was one of the few that voted for Ashcroft.
Dodd also voted for Gale Norton for the position of Secretary of the Interior, despite her unique Neo-Confederate ideas justifying her anti-environmentalism. Norton also had a Neo-Confederate interpretation justifying her attack on the American's With Disabilities Act.
Unfortunately, a great many other Democrats voted for Norton also. I have the background about Norton at the end of this entry.
However, what is most damning about Dodd is his praise of Strom Thurmond at Thurmond's 100th birthday. Derrick Z. Jackson had an editorial about the Democrats who were Lott enablers in 2002. I am looking for my copy in my files. I know it is here somewhere.
Dodd did vote against the renewal of the Patent of the United Daughters of the Confederacy in both the first and second vote. However, opposing Neo-Confederacy is going to take more than merely voting the right way when the issue of Neo-Confederacy is embarrassling evident to the point that it can't be accomodated.
I have gotten started on a 2008 presidential election page and will hopefully have something online in the next month, with some information. I am going to have to steadily populate it with information.
*****************
Gale Norton was nominated to the position Secretary of the Interior by George W. Bush and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. During the nomination Gale Norton's ideas about the Confederacy, states rights, and the 10th amendment received attention in press. This was a speech at a 1996 conference in Vail, Colorado. The following are some excerpts from her speech.
This is the introduction to the speech in which environmental law is put opposite states rights and the 10th amendment.
The issue of the 10th Amendment is something that even with a Republican Congress in place, it is still alive and well as an issue. Just a couple of days ago I met with the Assistant Attorney General for the Department of Justice, who is in charge of land and natural resource issues. She quite explicitly threatened the State of Colorado and other states because we had the audacity to adopt something in environmental area that we in Colorado think makes sense but the Federal government doesn’t agree. We’ll have the opportunity to do battle once again on the issue of the state being able to make its own decisions. This is not something that is a battle that we have won and we can forget about. This is a battle where we are still very much in the trenches in trying to make a difference.
The 10th Amendment is part of our Constitution. It says the powers that are not delegated to the Federal government by the Constitution are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. It is, unfortunately, an amendment that through time has not been given the power that one would think that it should be entitled to. The courts have not been strong defenders of that amendment. We’ve seen the cases sort of ping pong back and forth, with the states very often losing the ground that we’ve managed to gain. Part of that has been because we seem to be plagued by bad facts in these cases; bad facts make bad law.
Norton also complains about the American's with Disabilities Act. Then Norton brings up how she feels that American victory of the Confederacy had bad consequences.
But to go back to the issue of bad facts and bad law. I recall, after I had just gone through this massive battle with the EPA on state sovereignty and states rights, visiting the east coast. For the first time, I had the opportunity to wander through one of those Civil War graveyards. I remember seeing this column that was erected in one of those graveyards. It said in memory of all the Virginia soldiers who died in defense of the sovereignty of their state. It really took me aback. Sure, I had been filing briefs and I thought that was pretty brave. And then there were times we looked beyond the substance. When we looked at the decision making process. And understood the 10th Amendment was part of that separation of powers. It was part of what was supposed to guarantee that our government would remain limited. What would guarantee our freedom? Again, we certainly had bad facts in that case where we were defending state sovereignty by defending slavery.
Norton also complains about the American's with Disabilities Act. Then Norton brings up how she feels that American victory of the Confederacy had bad consequences.
But to go back to the issue of bad facts and bad law. I recall, after I had just gone through this massive battle with the EPA on state sovereignty and states rights, visiting the east coast. For the first time, I had the opportunity to wander through one of those Civil War graveyards. I remember seeing this column that was erected in one of those graveyards. It said in memory of all the Virginia soldiers who died in defense of the sovereignty of their state. It really took me aback. Sure, I had been filing briefs and I thought that was pretty brave. And then there were times we looked beyond the substance. When we looked at the decision making process. And understood the 10th Amendment was part of that separation of powers. It was part of what was supposed to guarantee that our government would remain limited. What would guarantee our freedom? Again, we certainly had bad facts in that case where we were defending state sovereignty by defending slavery.
But we lost too much. We lost the idea that the states were to stand against the Federal government gaining too much power over our lives. That is the point I think we need to reappreciate. We need to remind ourselves and remind the political debate that part of the reason the states need to be able to make their own decisions is to provide that check in our Federal system against too much power going to Washington.
An overwhelming majority of Democratic Senators voted against Ashcroft's confirmation on the basis of Ashcroft's interview in Southern Partisan, Dodd was one of the few that voted for Ashcroft.
Dodd also voted for Gale Norton for the position of Secretary of the Interior, despite her unique Neo-Confederate ideas justifying her anti-environmentalism. Norton also had a Neo-Confederate interpretation justifying her attack on the American's With Disabilities Act.
Unfortunately, a great many other Democrats voted for Norton also. I have the background about Norton at the end of this entry.
However, what is most damning about Dodd is his praise of Strom Thurmond at Thurmond's 100th birthday. Derrick Z. Jackson had an editorial about the Democrats who were Lott enablers in 2002. I am looking for my copy in my files. I know it is here somewhere.
Dodd did vote against the renewal of the Patent of the United Daughters of the Confederacy in both the first and second vote. However, opposing Neo-Confederacy is going to take more than merely voting the right way when the issue of Neo-Confederacy is embarrassling evident to the point that it can't be accomodated.
I have gotten started on a 2008 presidential election page and will hopefully have something online in the next month, with some information. I am going to have to steadily populate it with information.
*****************
Gale Norton was nominated to the position Secretary of the Interior by George W. Bush and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. During the nomination Gale Norton's ideas about the Confederacy, states rights, and the 10th amendment received attention in press. This was a speech at a 1996 conference in Vail, Colorado. The following are some excerpts from her speech.
This is the introduction to the speech in which environmental law is put opposite states rights and the 10th amendment.
The issue of the 10th Amendment is something that even with a Republican Congress in place, it is still alive and well as an issue. Just a couple of days ago I met with the Assistant Attorney General for the Department of Justice, who is in charge of land and natural resource issues. She quite explicitly threatened the State of Colorado and other states because we had the audacity to adopt something in environmental area that we in Colorado think makes sense but the Federal government doesn’t agree. We’ll have the opportunity to do battle once again on the issue of the state being able to make its own decisions. This is not something that is a battle that we have won and we can forget about. This is a battle where we are still very much in the trenches in trying to make a difference.
The 10th Amendment is part of our Constitution. It says the powers that are not delegated to the Federal government by the Constitution are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. It is, unfortunately, an amendment that through time has not been given the power that one would think that it should be entitled to. The courts have not been strong defenders of that amendment. We’ve seen the cases sort of ping pong back and forth, with the states very often losing the ground that we’ve managed to gain. Part of that has been because we seem to be plagued by bad facts in these cases; bad facts make bad law.
Norton also complains about the American's with Disabilities Act. Then Norton brings up how she feels that American victory of the Confederacy had bad consequences.
But to go back to the issue of bad facts and bad law. I recall, after I had just gone through this massive battle with the EPA on state sovereignty and states rights, visiting the east coast. For the first time, I had the opportunity to wander through one of those Civil War graveyards. I remember seeing this column that was erected in one of those graveyards. It said in memory of all the Virginia soldiers who died in defense of the sovereignty of their state. It really took me aback. Sure, I had been filing briefs and I thought that was pretty brave. And then there were times we looked beyond the substance. When we looked at the decision making process. And understood the 10th Amendment was part of that separation of powers. It was part of what was supposed to guarantee that our government would remain limited. What would guarantee our freedom? Again, we certainly had bad facts in that case where we were defending state sovereignty by defending slavery.
Norton also complains about the American's with Disabilities Act. Then Norton brings up how she feels that American victory of the Confederacy had bad consequences.
But to go back to the issue of bad facts and bad law. I recall, after I had just gone through this massive battle with the EPA on state sovereignty and states rights, visiting the east coast. For the first time, I had the opportunity to wander through one of those Civil War graveyards. I remember seeing this column that was erected in one of those graveyards. It said in memory of all the Virginia soldiers who died in defense of the sovereignty of their state. It really took me aback. Sure, I had been filing briefs and I thought that was pretty brave. And then there were times we looked beyond the substance. When we looked at the decision making process. And understood the 10th Amendment was part of that separation of powers. It was part of what was supposed to guarantee that our government would remain limited. What would guarantee our freedom? Again, we certainly had bad facts in that case where we were defending state sovereignty by defending slavery.
But we lost too much. We lost the idea that the states were to stand against the Federal government gaining too much power over our lives. That is the point I think we need to reappreciate. We need to remind ourselves and remind the political debate that part of the reason the states need to be able to make their own decisions is to provide that check in our Federal system against too much power going to Washington.
Republican Congressman John J. Duncan Jr. Contributor to "Chronicles" magazine
In the May 2006 issue of Chronicles magazine of the Rockford Institute, Tennessee Republican Congressman John J. Duncan Jr. has an article on pages 8-9.
Duncan has contributed a series of articles to Chronicles magazine.
Sept. 2002, page 6. Complaint about Federal government.
April 2003, page 3. On the war in Iraq and what he calls American Empire
Dec. 2003, page 7. War in Iraq
Jan. 2004, page 43. About his East Tennessee accent. Article also mentions that he is an Elder for the Eastminister Presbyterian Church in Knoxville.
Chronicles magazine is largely a Neo-Confederate enterprise. President Thomas Fleming was one of the founders of the League of the South, along with other Chronicles editors. Fleming also was the founding editor of Southern Partisan.
Paleoconservatism is an appropriation of portions of the conservative past by present reactionaries to give themselves a lineage, and by Neo-Confederates to give their agenda a broader avenue. Paleoconservatism is a project by Neo-Confederates.
The last congressional representative was Manzullo of Illinois, who became part of the Rockford Institutes effort to block integration of the Rockford schools. When the Rockford Register Star did an expose on the Neo-Confederate identity of the Rockford Institute, Manzullo dropped the Rockford Institute like a hot potato, saying that Illinois was the land of Lincoln.
http://www.house.gov/duncan/
http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/
Duncan has contributed a series of articles to Chronicles magazine.
Sept. 2002, page 6. Complaint about Federal government.
April 2003, page 3. On the war in Iraq and what he calls American Empire
Dec. 2003, page 7. War in Iraq
Jan. 2004, page 43. About his East Tennessee accent. Article also mentions that he is an Elder for the Eastminister Presbyterian Church in Knoxville.
Chronicles magazine is largely a Neo-Confederate enterprise. President Thomas Fleming was one of the founders of the League of the South, along with other Chronicles editors. Fleming also was the founding editor of Southern Partisan.
Paleoconservatism is an appropriation of portions of the conservative past by present reactionaries to give themselves a lineage, and by Neo-Confederates to give their agenda a broader avenue. Paleoconservatism is a project by Neo-Confederates.
The last congressional representative was Manzullo of Illinois, who became part of the Rockford Institutes effort to block integration of the Rockford schools. When the Rockford Register Star did an expose on the Neo-Confederate identity of the Rockford Institute, Manzullo dropped the Rockford Institute like a hot potato, saying that Illinois was the land of Lincoln.
http://www.house.gov/duncan/
http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/
Wednesday, May 24, 2006
Euan Hague and Ed Sebesta mentioned in Kevin Phillips' "American Theocracy"
On page 141 in Kevin Phillip's new book, "American Theocracy," a New York Times bestseller, our article on Confederate Christian nationalism is mentioned in a discussion about southern exceptionalism.
You can read the article online either in PDF or in html.
PDF http://gis.depaul.edu/ehague/Articles/PUBLISHED%20CRAS%20ARTICLE.pdf
HTML http://www.utpjournals.com/product/cras/323/sebesta.html
You can read the article online either in PDF or in html.
PDF http://gis.depaul.edu/ehague/Articles/PUBLISHED%20CRAS%20ARTICLE.pdf
HTML http://www.utpjournals.com/product/cras/323/sebesta.html
Sunday, May 21, 2006
United Daughters of the Confederacy and the Council of Conservative Citizens
As shown in the online edition of Citizen Informer, official publication of the Council of Conservative Citizens, Connie Foster, President of the Alabama Division of the United Daughters of the Confederacy is speaking to the Council of Conservative Citizens Alabama State meeting.
http://www.cofcc.org/citizensinformer/www-issues/CI_2006-1.pdf
Check page 15.
The United Daughters of the Confederacy has supported Neo-Confederacy, but has kept a low profile, it sometimes leaks out though.
http://www.cofcc.org/citizensinformer/www-issues/CI_2006-1.pdf
Check page 15.
The United Daughters of the Confederacy has supported Neo-Confederacy, but has kept a low profile, it sometimes leaks out though.
U.S. House Rep. Ron Paul contributes article to "Citizen Informer"
Member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Republican Ron Paul, has an article in the "Citizens' Informer," Oct.-Dec. 2005, on the price of gold and what it means. I don't know if he has given them permission or not. Someone should ask.
The Citizen Informer is the official publication of the Council of Conservative Citizens, www.cofcc.com .
Pat Buchanan has an article on the same page about the Arab and African riots in Paris.
The Citizen Informer is the official publication of the Council of Conservative Citizens, www.cofcc.com .
Pat Buchanan has an article on the same page about the Arab and African riots in Paris.
Boy Scouts of America? Confederacy?
In the Nov./Dec. 2005 issue of Confederate Veteran, page 31, is a short description of a joint activity of the Sons of Confederate Veterans with the Boy Scouts.
The collaboration between the Boy Scouts and the Sons of Confederate Veterans goes back years. Reviewing the issues of Confederate Veterans you see that the Boy Scout and Sons of Confederate Veterans in joint activities.
The collaboration between the Boy Scouts and the Sons of Confederate Veterans goes back years. Reviewing the issues of Confederate Veterans you see that the Boy Scout and Sons of Confederate Veterans in joint activities.
SCV celebrates Confederate invasion of Mexico
After the Civil War some Confederates refused to surrender and went to Mexico to colonize and offer their services to the French puppet emperor Maximillian who was the figure head of the French forces occupying Mexico. During the Civil War, with the United States preoccupied with the rebellion, France and Spain decided to invade Latin America and take what territories they could.
The Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) recently celebrated Confederate General J.O. "Jo" Shelby going into Mexico as reported in the Nov./Dec. 2006 issue of Confederate Veteran, pages 16-19. The celebration was in the form of a re-enactment of Shelby's forces trek across Texas and entry into Mexico which occured April 29 to May 3, 2005.
This link tells the history of Shelby and includes his relation to Maximillian, French puppet emporer.
http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/SS/qms1.html
In the article is the following quote:
"After the event, Fort Duncan Museum Director John Stockley and his wife led participants in uniform acrss the Rio Grande into Piedras Negras, Mexico. In order to conform to Mexican law, they left their horses and arms ont he Texas side of the river, but the modern-day Confederates joked that they were claiming the town for the Emporer Maximillian and the Confederacy, too."
I think the SCV's celebration of the Confederates collaboration with the foriegn occupiers of Mexico and Napoleon III's attempted destruction of a neighboring republic is very revealing of their attitudes towards Mexico and Hispanics.
The Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) recently celebrated Confederate General J.O. "Jo" Shelby going into Mexico as reported in the Nov./Dec. 2006 issue of Confederate Veteran, pages 16-19. The celebration was in the form of a re-enactment of Shelby's forces trek across Texas and entry into Mexico which occured April 29 to May 3, 2005.
This link tells the history of Shelby and includes his relation to Maximillian, French puppet emporer.
http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/SS/qms1.html
In the article is the following quote:
"After the event, Fort Duncan Museum Director John Stockley and his wife led participants in uniform acrss the Rio Grande into Piedras Negras, Mexico. In order to conform to Mexican law, they left their horses and arms ont he Texas side of the river, but the modern-day Confederates joked that they were claiming the town for the Emporer Maximillian and the Confederacy, too."
I think the SCV's celebration of the Confederates collaboration with the foriegn occupiers of Mexico and Napoleon III's attempted destruction of a neighboring republic is very revealing of their attitudes towards Mexico and Hispanics.
Who is going to pick up the pieces of the Republican Party When it falls?
With the falling poll numbers of President George W. Bush and the Republican congress, a lot of the focus has been on the Democrats' chances of taking over the House of Representatives.
What hasn't been thought of is who is going to pick up the pieces of the Republican party if it fails during 2006 and 2008. The Republican party has been under the domination of the neoconservatives, much to the resentment of the paleoconservatives. The paleoconservatives is another name for Neo-Confederates. Mostly the same people. I suppose there are other factions of conservatism also.
If the Republican party loses the House, Senate, and White House in the next two years, I doubt whether one group will be able to dictate the direction of the Republican party and be able to enforce it. Winning elections is the primary need of political parties, and those who win elections I would think would set the direction. Those whose political direction results in defeat, would, I think, have little or no influence.
I think the recent bolting of some Southern republican representatives on the Voting Rights Act is a manifestation of this. They are looking at what they think will win in their districts. They have rejected the direction of the national Republican party, which has nothing to offer at this time but defeat at the polls. The Republican party may go down to defeat nationally, but as members of a more explicitly Dixiecrat wing of the Republican party they will be re-elected.
In general there are more and more reports of the Republicans in congress ignoring the direction of the White House.
Here you can read both Pat Buchanan's Neo-Confederate comprehension of the Civil War and his hopes for directing the Republican party after a national economic calamity.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50279
Am I making a prediction of the future? No, definitely not. I only wish to point out a possible future. Hopefully I am wrong entirely. If I am right, the attack on the Voting Rights Act is just a harbinger of what the future of the Republican party in the South will be like. It may well be what the Republican party will be like nationally, I really don't know.
In summary, nothing discredits a leadership like an overwhelming defeat. If the Republicans sustain great losses I would think that the entire question of the direction of the Republican party in national politics will be open. Historical developments are often that a certain state of things abruptly change to another state of things or a fluid state of change, like a phase change in a physical system. Often the coming change is not forseen.
If the Republicans lose my prediction, guess, is that Neo-Confederacy, either as itself or under the guise of paleoconservatism will be much more strongly mainstreamed into the American conservative movement than it already is, but more importantly will be given a voice at the table of American conservatism.
What hasn't been thought of is who is going to pick up the pieces of the Republican party if it fails during 2006 and 2008. The Republican party has been under the domination of the neoconservatives, much to the resentment of the paleoconservatives. The paleoconservatives is another name for Neo-Confederates. Mostly the same people. I suppose there are other factions of conservatism also.
If the Republican party loses the House, Senate, and White House in the next two years, I doubt whether one group will be able to dictate the direction of the Republican party and be able to enforce it. Winning elections is the primary need of political parties, and those who win elections I would think would set the direction. Those whose political direction results in defeat, would, I think, have little or no influence.
I think the recent bolting of some Southern republican representatives on the Voting Rights Act is a manifestation of this. They are looking at what they think will win in their districts. They have rejected the direction of the national Republican party, which has nothing to offer at this time but defeat at the polls. The Republican party may go down to defeat nationally, but as members of a more explicitly Dixiecrat wing of the Republican party they will be re-elected.
In general there are more and more reports of the Republicans in congress ignoring the direction of the White House.
Here you can read both Pat Buchanan's Neo-Confederate comprehension of the Civil War and his hopes for directing the Republican party after a national economic calamity.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50279
Am I making a prediction of the future? No, definitely not. I only wish to point out a possible future. Hopefully I am wrong entirely. If I am right, the attack on the Voting Rights Act is just a harbinger of what the future of the Republican party in the South will be like. It may well be what the Republican party will be like nationally, I really don't know.
In summary, nothing discredits a leadership like an overwhelming defeat. If the Republicans sustain great losses I would think that the entire question of the direction of the Republican party in national politics will be open. Historical developments are often that a certain state of things abruptly change to another state of things or a fluid state of change, like a phase change in a physical system. Often the coming change is not forseen.
If the Republicans lose my prediction, guess, is that Neo-Confederacy, either as itself or under the guise of paleoconservatism will be much more strongly mainstreamed into the American conservative movement than it already is, but more importantly will be given a voice at the table of American conservatism.
Saturday, May 20, 2006
Sen. George Allen and the Confederacy
There has been some articles about Republican U.S. Senator George Allen's youthful enthusiams for the Confederate flag and enthusiams earlier in his career. The following is one article concerning this:
http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/ap/2006/05/14/ap2744449.html
However, I would say that his enthusiams are no so remote in the past.
In the Centennial Anniversary edition of the Confederate Veteran, Vol. 3 1996, official publication of the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV), on page 3, is a full page letter of George Allen as governor congratualting the SCV on their 100th anniversary.
The letter starts with
"On behalf of the Commonwealth of Virginia, it is an honor and a privilege for me to extend my warmest greetings and sincere congratulations to the Sons of Confederate Veterans on the occasion of its centennial anniversary."
However, Allen's letter isn't all pleasantries and he gets into his Neo-Confederate beliefs, stating in the 3rd paragraph:
"Your efforts are especially worthy of recognition as across our country, Americans are charting a new direction -- away from the failed approach of centralized powerin Washington, and back to the founders' design of a true federal system of shared powers and dual soveriegnty. By doing so, our country is helping to foster a rebirth of freedom for all Americans and will allow the states to chart their own course and control their own destinies as intended by the Constitution."
This is the Neo-Confederate idea of the Confederate tradition and reveals U.S. Senator George Allen to be a Neo-Confederate in his thinking. None of the other twelve governors that contributed letters, made an ideological statement, their letters being mostly sentimental blather. Even Trent Lott in his full page letter avoided Neo-Confederate ideology.
PRESIDENTIAL PAGE
I am going to get one started again. I think it is important that Jefferson Davis remain the one and only Confederate president.
http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/ap/2006/05/14/ap2744449.html
However, I would say that his enthusiams are no so remote in the past.
In the Centennial Anniversary edition of the Confederate Veteran, Vol. 3 1996, official publication of the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV), on page 3, is a full page letter of George Allen as governor congratualting the SCV on their 100th anniversary.
The letter starts with
"On behalf of the Commonwealth of Virginia, it is an honor and a privilege for me to extend my warmest greetings and sincere congratulations to the Sons of Confederate Veterans on the occasion of its centennial anniversary."
However, Allen's letter isn't all pleasantries and he gets into his Neo-Confederate beliefs, stating in the 3rd paragraph:
"Your efforts are especially worthy of recognition as across our country, Americans are charting a new direction -- away from the failed approach of centralized powerin Washington, and back to the founders' design of a true federal system of shared powers and dual soveriegnty. By doing so, our country is helping to foster a rebirth of freedom for all Americans and will allow the states to chart their own course and control their own destinies as intended by the Constitution."
This is the Neo-Confederate idea of the Confederate tradition and reveals U.S. Senator George Allen to be a Neo-Confederate in his thinking. None of the other twelve governors that contributed letters, made an ideological statement, their letters being mostly sentimental blather. Even Trent Lott in his full page letter avoided Neo-Confederate ideology.
PRESIDENTIAL PAGE
I am going to get one started again. I think it is important that Jefferson Davis remain the one and only Confederate president.
The South Will Rise Again - Effort to Block Voting Rights Act
I saw this story in the "Dallas Morning News" and it is online at the "San Jose Mercury," May 18, 2006 online posting.
click here for article in San Jose Mercury.
A group of Republican lawmakers are working on defeating the extension of the Voting Rights Acts. The arguments are straight out of the Southern Partisan magazine, and a few extra.
The big one is that the South is being picked on. This is a standard argument going back to Reconstruction when giving African Americans civil rights was proposed by ex-Confederates as oppressing the South.
What these opponents of the Voting Rights Act don't mention is that for the act to be constitutional there must be a problem of prior discrimination against minorities voting. It is in the South largely that the Voting Rights Act applies because of former discrimination. The proposal to make the terms applicable to the whole country would destroy the act by making it unconstitutional. This gets dropped.
The other argument is that it is no longer needed, that the abuses are in the past. There are still cases where there is voter intimidation, by flyers that go out before election with vaguely worded threats about arrests if you vote illegally and other things.
The basic reason that there aren't current abuses so much anymore is that the law exists with teeth and is enforced. It is like saying we can cut off the engins of an airplane because it is 20,000 feet in the air.
A many of the elected Republican officials local, state, and Federal get involved with the Neo-Confederate movement, interviewing in the Southern Partisan, showing up at Council of Conservative Citizens meetings.
I would point out that the city of Dallas has refused to have a human rights commission here. Civil Rights in Dallas exists because of the Federal government.
The state governments here still fly the Confederate flag or have Confederate symbols in their state flags and other symbols, and with the big campaign against the Voting Rights Act we now know what these flags mean.
click here for article in San Jose Mercury.
A group of Republican lawmakers are working on defeating the extension of the Voting Rights Acts. The arguments are straight out of the Southern Partisan magazine, and a few extra.
The big one is that the South is being picked on. This is a standard argument going back to Reconstruction when giving African Americans civil rights was proposed by ex-Confederates as oppressing the South.
What these opponents of the Voting Rights Act don't mention is that for the act to be constitutional there must be a problem of prior discrimination against minorities voting. It is in the South largely that the Voting Rights Act applies because of former discrimination. The proposal to make the terms applicable to the whole country would destroy the act by making it unconstitutional. This gets dropped.
The other argument is that it is no longer needed, that the abuses are in the past. There are still cases where there is voter intimidation, by flyers that go out before election with vaguely worded threats about arrests if you vote illegally and other things.
The basic reason that there aren't current abuses so much anymore is that the law exists with teeth and is enforced. It is like saying we can cut off the engins of an airplane because it is 20,000 feet in the air.
A many of the elected Republican officials local, state, and Federal get involved with the Neo-Confederate movement, interviewing in the Southern Partisan, showing up at Council of Conservative Citizens meetings.
I would point out that the city of Dallas has refused to have a human rights commission here. Civil Rights in Dallas exists because of the Federal government.
The state governments here still fly the Confederate flag or have Confederate symbols in their state flags and other symbols, and with the big campaign against the Voting Rights Act we now know what these flags mean.
Sunday, May 14, 2006
American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property, the Other Opus Dei
With the novel "The DaVinci Code" being released as movie soon there has been a considerable amount of publicity regarding Opus Dei, a reactionary Catholic society.
Opus Dei isn't the only reactionary Catholic Society around.
I was going through Southern Partisan, the leading Neo-Confederate magazine, which has been around since 1979, some years back, indexing the issues and in the Vol. 13 3rd Quarter 1993 issue was a full page ad for the book "Nobility and Analogous Traditional Elites in the Allocutions of Pius XII: A Theme Illuminating American Social History," by Plinio Correa de Oliveira, reactionary activist in Brazil, and founder of the Brazilian Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property, of which there are branches around the world such as the American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property, (TFP). (http://www.tfp.org/).
The head line of the advertisment in the Southern Partisan for the book was a quote from Richard T. Hines (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050829/blumenthal) stating, "A book that is a masterful compendium of the principles that true Southerners believe in." Hines is mentioned as the Chairman of the Confederate Memorial Committee of the District of Columbia. He was the associate editor of Southern Partisan until 1993.
The book is a defense of aristocracy and a rejection of modern democratic societies. In the advertisement we are told:
"Since the 18th century, generations have been schooled in utopian principles proclaiming total equality as the guarantor of liberty and justice for all. The egalitarian mything of a classless society was claimed to be the path down which mankind must ravel to reach perfect social harmony.
In Nobility and Analogous Traditional Elites in the Allocutions of Pius XII -- A Theme Illunimating American Social History, best-selling author Professor Plinio Correa de Oliveira forcefully argues the contrary. Drawing on papal and classical sources, the author persuasively makes the case for the necessity of a natural social hierarchy."
Antebellum Southern society is extolled as a society embodying aristocratic ideals. The North is held to be the force of industrialism and Nouveaux Riches and not aristocratic.
Part of the book is online at this link http://www.tfp.org/what_we_think/bon/bon_toc.htm but it doesn't includ Part II, which has Appendix I which comments on the South.
(For those who somehow buy into the industrial versus agrarian myth of the Civil War, it should be noted that Iowa, Minnesota, and other Midwestern and other agrarian states were emphatically pro-Union. The Southern economy was intergrated into a global economy of trade and finance and very much of the modern capitalist world.)
It might be thought that this book of Oliveira is of a fringe and marginal group. However, it is very handsomely made. The endorsements are very noteworthy.
The forward is written by Morton C. Blackwell, who is listed as president of the Leadership Insitute and Republican National Committeeman of Virginia, and formerly Special Assistant to the President to the President for Public Liason.
The dust jacket has the endorsements of Paul M. Weyrich, and some prominent members of the Catholic church, Cardinal Mario Luigi Ciappi O.P., Cardinal Alfons M. Stickler, Fr. Victorino Rodriguez, Fr. Anastasio Guitierrez. (Incidentally the initials O.P., means Order of Preachers.)
Sometimes we might think that some issues are settled, but there are groups that hope to restore Feudalism and they have members with influence in powerful organizations.
The TFP isn't the only such organization against modern democracy. Much of the Neo-Confederate movement denounces democracy. This is a book promoted by the Mises Institute, "Democracy: The God That Failed."
http://www.mises.org/store/Democracy-The-God-That-Failed-P240C1.aspx
The Rockford Institute, which publishes Chronicles, believes in Fuedalism as superior to democracy. One issue had the cover theme, "Turn Left at the Renaissance," with the issue devoted to denouncing the Renaissance as leftist.
The Rockford Insitute also supports a heirarchal society as does the League of the South.
A lot of people think the Confederate flag issue is about the civil rights issues of African Americans, and it does include those issues. However, the Confederate flag issue is broader and is about the larger issue of democracy. The Neo-Confederates are hostile to democracy.
It needs to be remembered that the Poll tax disenfranchised poor whites in the South, a great and substantial number of them, as well as disenfranchising African Americans.
This anti-democratic bias goes back to the Civil War. When Georgia seceded, the state constitution was rewritten to make it more anti-democratic as explained in the book "Toward a Patriarchial Republic: The Secession of Georgia," Michael P. Johnson, LSU Press, 1977.
This anti-democratic bias continues to this day. In the Southern Partisan, the Statue of Liberty has been denounces as something that should be destoryed, the Declaration of Independence is denouces as Parisian liberalism. The passage of the 19th amendment to the Constitution giving women the vote was lamented in the Southern Partisan, the defeat of the Equal Rights Amendment was celebrated.
The founder of modern Neo-Confederate thinking, M.E. Bradford, professor of English at the University of Dallas (local Catholic university), and also campaigner for George Wallace, wrote a major text in Neo-Confederate history, "Remembering Who We Are: Observations of a Southern Conservative," states in the dust jacket.
"The United States was not founded, Bradford argues, with the idea of creating a society dedicated to either justice or equality, and all attempts to turn America in that direction have resulted in a perversion of the nation's true origins in the struggle for liberty from the oppression of a remote and sometimes hostile government."
The Confederate tradition is and has been an anti-democratic tradition. It should be the concern for anyone who supports the American tradition. Opposition against the Neo-Confederate movement needs to stop being white paternalistic concern for African Americans and understood as a defense of democracy itself.
Opus Dei isn't the only reactionary Catholic Society around.
I was going through Southern Partisan, the leading Neo-Confederate magazine, which has been around since 1979, some years back, indexing the issues and in the Vol. 13 3rd Quarter 1993 issue was a full page ad for the book "Nobility and Analogous Traditional Elites in the Allocutions of Pius XII: A Theme Illuminating American Social History," by Plinio Correa de Oliveira, reactionary activist in Brazil, and founder of the Brazilian Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property, of which there are branches around the world such as the American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property, (TFP). (http://www.tfp.org/).
The head line of the advertisment in the Southern Partisan for the book was a quote from Richard T. Hines (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050829/blumenthal) stating, "A book that is a masterful compendium of the principles that true Southerners believe in." Hines is mentioned as the Chairman of the Confederate Memorial Committee of the District of Columbia. He was the associate editor of Southern Partisan until 1993.
The book is a defense of aristocracy and a rejection of modern democratic societies. In the advertisement we are told:
"Since the 18th century, generations have been schooled in utopian principles proclaiming total equality as the guarantor of liberty and justice for all. The egalitarian mything of a classless society was claimed to be the path down which mankind must ravel to reach perfect social harmony.
In Nobility and Analogous Traditional Elites in the Allocutions of Pius XII -- A Theme Illunimating American Social History, best-selling author Professor Plinio Correa de Oliveira forcefully argues the contrary. Drawing on papal and classical sources, the author persuasively makes the case for the necessity of a natural social hierarchy."
Antebellum Southern society is extolled as a society embodying aristocratic ideals. The North is held to be the force of industrialism and Nouveaux Riches and not aristocratic.
Part of the book is online at this link http://www.tfp.org/what_we_think/bon/bon_toc.htm but it doesn't includ Part II, which has Appendix I which comments on the South.
(For those who somehow buy into the industrial versus agrarian myth of the Civil War, it should be noted that Iowa, Minnesota, and other Midwestern and other agrarian states were emphatically pro-Union. The Southern economy was intergrated into a global economy of trade and finance and very much of the modern capitalist world.)
It might be thought that this book of Oliveira is of a fringe and marginal group. However, it is very handsomely made. The endorsements are very noteworthy.
The forward is written by Morton C. Blackwell, who is listed as president of the Leadership Insitute and Republican National Committeeman of Virginia, and formerly Special Assistant to the President to the President for Public Liason.
The dust jacket has the endorsements of Paul M. Weyrich, and some prominent members of the Catholic church, Cardinal Mario Luigi Ciappi O.P., Cardinal Alfons M. Stickler, Fr. Victorino Rodriguez, Fr. Anastasio Guitierrez. (Incidentally the initials O.P., means Order of Preachers.)
Sometimes we might think that some issues are settled, but there are groups that hope to restore Feudalism and they have members with influence in powerful organizations.
The TFP isn't the only such organization against modern democracy. Much of the Neo-Confederate movement denounces democracy. This is a book promoted by the Mises Institute, "Democracy: The God That Failed."
http://www.mises.org/store/Democracy-The-God-That-Failed-P240C1.aspx
The Rockford Institute, which publishes Chronicles, believes in Fuedalism as superior to democracy. One issue had the cover theme, "Turn Left at the Renaissance," with the issue devoted to denouncing the Renaissance as leftist.
The Rockford Insitute also supports a heirarchal society as does the League of the South.
A lot of people think the Confederate flag issue is about the civil rights issues of African Americans, and it does include those issues. However, the Confederate flag issue is broader and is about the larger issue of democracy. The Neo-Confederates are hostile to democracy.
It needs to be remembered that the Poll tax disenfranchised poor whites in the South, a great and substantial number of them, as well as disenfranchising African Americans.
This anti-democratic bias goes back to the Civil War. When Georgia seceded, the state constitution was rewritten to make it more anti-democratic as explained in the book "Toward a Patriarchial Republic: The Secession of Georgia," Michael P. Johnson, LSU Press, 1977.
This anti-democratic bias continues to this day. In the Southern Partisan, the Statue of Liberty has been denounces as something that should be destoryed, the Declaration of Independence is denouces as Parisian liberalism. The passage of the 19th amendment to the Constitution giving women the vote was lamented in the Southern Partisan, the defeat of the Equal Rights Amendment was celebrated.
The founder of modern Neo-Confederate thinking, M.E. Bradford, professor of English at the University of Dallas (local Catholic university), and also campaigner for George Wallace, wrote a major text in Neo-Confederate history, "Remembering Who We Are: Observations of a Southern Conservative," states in the dust jacket.
"The United States was not founded, Bradford argues, with the idea of creating a society dedicated to either justice or equality, and all attempts to turn America in that direction have resulted in a perversion of the nation's true origins in the struggle for liberty from the oppression of a remote and sometimes hostile government."
The Confederate tradition is and has been an anti-democratic tradition. It should be the concern for anyone who supports the American tradition. Opposition against the Neo-Confederate movement needs to stop being white paternalistic concern for African Americans and understood as a defense of democracy itself.
Saturday, May 13, 2006
American Flags, Mexican flags, and Confederate flags.
The following link to an opinion piece by Steve Chapman in the "Chicago Tribune" is about the rallies by Hispanic immigrants and has a commentary about the complaints about foriegn flags, which Chapman points out:
"The complaint about "foreign flags" is especially nervy coming from Lott, who as a cheerleader at the University of Mississippi used to carry a Confederate battle flag onto the football field. Unlike the architects of the Confederacy, those people waving flags from Mexico or Honduras never tried to tear this country asunder."
Click here for link to Chapman's column.
Chapman points out that Irish flags in a St. Patrick day parade don't seem to cause problems with people.
I have noticed that the same conservative media which decries the display of the Mexican flag is the same media that defends so-called Confederate "heritage."
The following is a link to an article I had published on the anti-Muslim/anti-Hispanic Neo-Confederate movement in the United States.
http://www.rtis.com/touchstone/sum02/09.HTM
"The complaint about "foreign flags" is especially nervy coming from Lott, who as a cheerleader at the University of Mississippi used to carry a Confederate battle flag onto the football field. Unlike the architects of the Confederacy, those people waving flags from Mexico or Honduras never tried to tear this country asunder."
Click here for link to Chapman's column.
Chapman points out that Irish flags in a St. Patrick day parade don't seem to cause problems with people.
I have noticed that the same conservative media which decries the display of the Mexican flag is the same media that defends so-called Confederate "heritage."
The following is a link to an article I had published on the anti-Muslim/anti-Hispanic Neo-Confederate movement in the United States.
http://www.rtis.com/touchstone/sum02/09.HTM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
