Monday, May 29, 2017

Baltimore next to remove Confederate monuments? UPDATE1 Looks like St. Louis is next

From the above link.

Former Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake wasn't at a loss to find reasons to stall and not get Confederate monuments removed.

The commission appointed by Rawlings-Blake decided to remove only 3 of the 5 Confederate monuments in Baltimore coming up with excuses to keep two.

However, there wasn't really a plan to move the monuments and they sat in place. Rawlings-Blake had signs put up by the monuments to contextualize them.

The Baltimore Sun has been critical of the city administration. In this article about Baltimore comparing it to New Orleans. the editors wrote:
In January of last year, a seven-member mayoral commission recommended the removal of two of four Confederate era monuments from Baltimore's public parks. Sixteen months later, the offending statues haven't budged. While some "interpretive" signage has been added, they remain where they are and what they are — symbols of racism, fond tributes to the "Lost Cause" cult.
Last week in a city about as deep in the Deep South as possible and where there is far greater affection for the Confederacy than in Baltimore, workers removed that last of four monuments deemed just as offensive. ...

New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu didn't shirk his responsibility. He didn't drag his feet or choose to let the next administration deal with the controversy. He wasn't swayed by arguments that these monuments had some transcendent artistic or historic merit that made them off-limits. Instead, he gave a speech in which he clearly and convincingly explained why removing these monuments was not a denial of a benign history but an avowal of the terrorism and white supremacy they represented and that was no longer to be tolerated.
Clearly this is a slam at former Mayor Rawlings-Blake. Also it asks questions why New Orleans removed their monuments before Baltimore. I think the reason is that there is behind the scenes politically influential groups that back the monuments and who the political leadership of Baltimore feel they must answer to.

However, it seems that the new Mayor Catherine Pugh isn't in a hurry to get ride of the Confederate monument. One of her suggestions is to auction off the monuments to pay for the cost of removal. Not really a plan to do anything at all. Not a lot of demand for Confederate monuments now days, certainly not enough to pay for a monument removal.

The cost of the monument removal is being brought up by Mayor Pugh. She estimates that each monument removal will cost $200,000 and with a city budget of $2.8 billion that money to remove these monuments somehow can't be found.

As the old cliche' goes, "Where there is a will there is a way."

I think that if the monuments aren't removed soon it will become clear who really runs Baltimore and who the political leadership of Baltimore feels they must answer to. As the Confederate monuments remain it will reveal what the political leadership of Baltimore is made of.

Of course there could be a development where political groups outside the establishment will seize on this issue to discredit the establishment in which case the monuments will be removed and Mayor Pugh will make many fine speeches about it.

I don't think the monuments in Baltimore are going anywhere soon. Hopefully I am wrong.

It will likely be some other city elsewhere which will be next to remove their Confederate monuments.


Looks like St. Louis is next. I am numbering these posts since my expectation is that there will be several cities getting rid of their Confederate monuments while Baltimore's leadership is stumbling around.

Wednesday, May 24, 2017

Warning to Synagogues Part 2

See my previous posting.

I also recommend reading the following article. It is by David A. Love, at CNN, "Lynching re-emerges in new rhetoric of hate." This type of violence is already happening. 

This is an extract from a draft about the Sons of Confederate Veterans offering for sale the book "Cultures in Conflict" by Charles A. Jennings. Unitarians should also be careful.

Most ominously was a book review in the Jan./Feb. 2016 Confederate Veteran, Boyd D. Cathey reviews “Cultures in Conflict: The Union Desecration of Southern Churches and Cemeteries,” by Charles A. Jennings. The publisher given is Truth in History in Owasso, Oklahoma. This is the same publisher and city given for the book at the website.
Cathey’s review states that in the book Jennings explains that “the Northern and Southern states were growing dramatically apart, not just politically and economically, but also religiously and culturally,” and that “by the 1830s and 1840s, the South was becoming more conservative religiously and culturally, while in many areas of the North, the older Puritanism had evolved into Unitarianism and liberal evangelicalism.”
Cathey then asks the question, “But how to explain the rage and sickening zeal of many Northern soldiers and the ravages they committed when they came South?” Cathey refers to the books forward written by Charles Baker stating:

In his forward to the book, Dr. Charles Baker attributes this lapse into what was basically barbarism to the collapse of orthodox Puritanism and the increasing dominance of liberal Protestantism.

Cathey quotes Thornwell’s statement about the true nature of the conflict as previously quoted in this chapter. The book thus makes the desecration of churches and cemeteries in the South, “barbarism,” “ravages” done with “sickening zeal” due to the “collapse of orthodox Puritanism” which Cathey had also referred to as “the older Puritanism” having “evolved into Unitarianism and liberal evangelicalism.”
The Truth in History web site currently (7/2/2016) has a web page article, “Jewish Hatred Against Jesus Christ.” In another article, “The House of Israel and The House of Judah,” asserts that the ancient Israelites weren’t the ancestors of modern day Jews. Another article, “The Seventy Weeks of Daniel,” explains the history of the persecutions of the Jews as the punishments by Jesus upon the Jews for their rejecting him and the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans as another divine punishment.[i]  At the Truth in History website Charles Jennings is listed as the contact person with the phone number matching the phone number in the Confederate Veteran review.[ii] Also, earlier archived web pages at have Charles A. Jennings as the website author in the “About Us” description.[iii]
Dr. Charles E. Baker was the Chaplain in Chief of the SCV in the early 1990s.[iv]
The Truth in History website has listed this book on their website in the past and it can be found on archived web pages at However, now you would not find it on the Truth in History website, but you will find it sold at the Biblical and Southern Studies website which was founded by Rondel Rumburg, past Chaplain-in-Chief of the SCV, and the editor of the Chaplains’ Corps Chronicles of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, and is the editor of the 3rd edition “Chaplain’s Handbook,” for the Chaplains in the SCV.[v]
Boyd D. Cathey was on the Editorial Advisor Committee of The Journal of Historical Review of the Institute for Historical Review, according to an archived page from 2001.[vi] According to Scott Miller, University Programs Coordinator at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C., “The central institution of Holocaust denial in the United States is the Institute for Historical Review (IHR), located in southern California, and founded (with a deceptively scholarly name) by Willis Carto.”[vii]
The offer for sale of this book as well as the book review could possibly introduce SCV members to the Truth of History publisher and possibly Truth of History’s website’s promotion of what could be characterized as virulent anti-Semitism without the book review referencing anything about Jewish people.
In regards to Unitarians, in being made historical villains whose religion resulted in “desecrations” and “ravages” done with “sickening zeal,” it is entirely reasonable that someone might decide to avenge these alleged historical crimes with an act of violence.

[i] Truth in History website,,  article “Jewish Hatred Against Jesus Christ,”, printed out 7/2/2016;  article about Jews not being Israelites, “The House of Israel and The House of Judah,”, printed out 7/2/2016; “The Seventy Weeks of Daniel,”, printed out 7/2/2016.
[iv] Baker, Charles Estell, “Chaplain’s Comments,” Confederate Veteran, Jan.-Feb. 1993, pp. 44. This issue doesn’t have a volume or number.
[v] The website seems to be primarily devoted to publishing H. Rondel Rumburg’s writings, but doesn’t give much information who is in charge. The page, does list H. Rondel Rumburg as the contact individual for the group. However, Gary Lee Roper does mention that Rondel Rumburg is the founder of the Society for Biblical and Southern Studies in “Antebellum Slavery: An Orthodox Christian View,” Gary Lee Roper publisher, 2008, pp. 179. The first issue of the Chaplain’s Corps Chronicles of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, Jan. & Feb. 2006, has him as Chaplain-in-Chief writing an editorial,, printed out 7/3/2016, and he is listed as the editor in the June 2016 issue,, printed out 7/3/16. For the listing of the 3rd edition of the “Enlarged Sesquicentennial Edition” of the “Chaplain’s Handbook,”, printed out 7/3/2016.
[vi], printed out 7/3/2016. Later archived pages don’t list the Editorial Advisory Committee.
[vii] Miller, Scott, “Denial of the Holocaust,”, printed out 7/3/2016. This is the website of the National Council for the Social Studies, an organization for social studies education and was founded in 1921. 

Monday, May 22, 2017

Mississippi State Rep. Karl Oliver calls for the lynching of those who destroy Confederate monuments. Definition of "destroy" appears to include taking them down. I have updated my warning to Synagogues post. UPDATE2: Coverage of comments national and international.

This is Karl Oliver's Facebook page with the call for lynching.

UPDATE: Facebook posting has been pulled or not publicly available. 

This is the Facebook posting calling for lynching.

His Facebook posting is a photo of the head of the Robert E. Lee statue, with the following text.

The destruction of these monuments, erected in the loving memory of our family and fellow Southern Americans, is both heinous and horrific. If the, and I use this term extremely loosely, "leadership" of Louisiana wishes to, in a Nazi-ish fashion, burn books or destroy historical monuments of OUR HISTORY, they should be LYNCHED! Let it be known, I will do all in my power to prevent this from happening in our State.

You can see from the text, Karl Oliver sees the removal of the monuments as being their destruction. Karl Oliver states, "The destruction of these monuments, ..." in reference to the monuments in New Orleans, of which one of them he has posted a picture of the head.

This is very interesting in that it shows that a monument only does its function, the promotion of a historical view, on public display. A tree that falls in the forest when no one is there does makes a sound, but no one hears it. So essentially a monument which is removed from public display in a government space or a space giving it credibility, has its function destroyed. Karl Oliver intuitively understands this and sees the monuments as having been destroyed.

Also, a monument removed to a museum where it is explained as a physical element promoting white supremacy also has its function destroyed.

So Karl Oliver is calling for the lynching of not just those who physically destroy monuments, but those who would have Confederate monuments removed from places where they can do their reputational work.

It has made the local news.

Violence is a core element of neo-Confederate ideology as I have stated in my blog before and as I detail in my book "Pernicious."

The Sons of Confederate Veterans sells the video "Birth of a Nation."

In their catalog they sell books in which the violent Red Shirts are represented as heroes.

I am quite serious in this warning to synagogues. I have updated with information about Karl Oliver.

I don't think he knows that the "Confederate and Neo-Confederate Reader" is published by the Univ. of Mississippi Press.  Maybe I should send him a free copy.

I wonder what the Sons of Confederate Veterans and the United Daughters of the Confederacy will have to say about Karl Oliver's statements.

UPDATE2: National and international coverage.

This is an AP newstory run at US News and World Report.

He has since apologized

Maybe this will get the ball rolling on changing the Mississippi state flag.

Please sign the petition asking Donald Trump not to send a wreath to the Arlington Confederate monument.

Sunday, May 21, 2017

"Bronze Plaques Matter" article by African American conservative

A lot of rationalizations will now be forth coming.

Burn Confederate flags on memorial day, so many to burn also

I will be burning Confederate flags on memorial day and putting it on Youtube. I will be burning and doing periscope broadcasting also.

I invite other people to burn and record it and put it on Youtube or facebook.

A lot of people know about the Confederate battle flag, but there are a fair number of other flags that you can burn and let people know about. You can burn over a dozen flags with Confederate origins.

I include a link so you can download, print and burn..

1. Bonnie Blue flag.

This flag, and when you see it don't let them tell you it is the flag of Somalia, which is similar, is a Confederate flag. I have seen it flow when I was walking off the campus of a university in the South. It was being flown by  a fraternity which has a reputation. They were standing in the front of the house and you could sort of tell from their expressions they thought they were pulling off something. Flying a Confederate flag but no one knew it.

2. 1st, 2nd and 3rd national flags of the Confederacy.

The 1st national Confederate flag is also popular for people and institutions to fly when they want to fly a Confederate flag and avoid a reaction. Evidently the idea that flying one flag in support of a nation dedicated to the purpose to preserve white supremacy and slavery is okay if the general public doesn't recognize it. They are not concerned that Civil War buffs recognize it because they generally  don't care.

3. The Van Dorn battle flag, Flag of the First Corps Army of Tennessee, Flag of the 1st Cherokee Mounted Rifles, J.P. Gills Flag, Flag of the Army of Northern Virginia, also called the Robert E. Lee Headquarters Flag."

4. Mississippi state flag. Sort of obvious.

5. This is the Confederate flag of Georgia and the state flag of Georgia.
Confederate flag of Georgia
State flag of Georgia.
You can see that it still incorporates an element of a Confederate flag.

The state flag of Georgia got ride of the obvious Confederate battle flag symbol but still incorporates the Confederacy.

6. The Confederate flag of South Carolina.
South Carolina Confederate flags.

Current flag of South Carolina. Adopted in Jan. 28, 1861.

7. The flag of the Citadel.
Civil War flag of the Citadel.

Also the Big Red flag of the Citadel today. Somewhat a resemblance since it is an intentional replica.

8. First Confederate Navy Jack

9. First Confederate Navy Ensign

10. The state flag of Virginia was adopted when it was a Confederate state.

You will note that the slogan on the flag is also the slogan of John Wilkes Booth who stated it when he shot Abraham Lincoln.

11. State flag of Arkansas

12. State flag of Alabama

They are passing legislation to protect Confederate monuments so burn two of them.

13. State flag of North Carolina

If you were surprised that your state was a Confederate flag or containing Confederate elements a burning of the flag will help educate the public.

John Sims symbolically burns Confederate flags in Detroit

This is an article about John Sims symbolically burning a Confederate flag in Detroit.

It will be at the N'Namdi Center art gallery.

Saturday, May 20, 2017

"Confederate monument supporters say the darnedest things"

The above is the link to the article. It is a take down of various half-witted things Confederate monument supporters say.

The Democrats are the party of James Buchanan

The Democrats are the party of James Buchanan.

The Republican Party was explained to be the party of Jefferson Davis explicitly by former Republican Mississippi U.S. Senator Trent Lott and also less directly by former Republican Texas U.S. Senator Phil Gramm in interviews in Southern Partisan.  Southern Partisan declared the Republican Party to be a Confederate party with its T-shirt.

However, when it comes to fighting against Confederate monuments and flags the Democrats have proven to be the party of James Buchanan. They hope to shake loose a few electoral votes in the next election by avoiding the topic.

In Louisiana the Republicans were fairly active in supporting the Confederacy. Former Republican Louisiana Gov. and one-time presidential candidate Jindal spoke out against removing the Confederate monuments. The Louisiana Republican House Reps voted for a bill to block removing Confederate monuments.  In other states Republicans are active in finding ways of blocking the removal of Confederate monuments.

One reason they are succeeding is that there really isn't much of an opposition by the Democratic Party. There are some Democratic elected officials fighting, but it is largely elected African American Democrats.

The policy of the Democratic Party seems to be that African Americans if they don't like the lack of action of the Democrats have no place to go.

This policy of not engaging on the issue of Confederate monuments is not confined to just centrist Democrats. It ranges across the liberal/left as well as centrist Democrats. Some of it is that among liberals and leftists there are many who  have the delusional thinking having an attachment to the Confederacy is not incompatible with being progressive. They are banal white nationalists. Other Democrats don't want to get in a fight with them.

A lot of it is calculation by the Democrats to get those extra white nationalist votes.

They will avoid engaging the issue by arguing that it is a matter of priorities or some other rationalization. The fact of the matter is that they don't want to face the issue.

Yes, there have been occasions, such as in 2015, where the Democrats did engage the issue, but we will not go forward getting rid of the monuments if the only time the Democrats act is right after a massacre.

I think a start is that unless a candidate has a position against Confederate monuments and symbols you don't support that candidate. Certainly you don't campaign for that candidate or donate money. It might result in a bad candidate being elected, but if we give in to this tactic of Democrats where they point out how scary the opponent is so that you vote for their flawed candidate the tactic will continue and there will be no progress in getting rid of Confederate monuments.

Also, to find out if a candidate has a position, you need to ask, and if they don't, ask that they take a position. If the issue starts coming up in candidate forums, I think that others hearing your question will start thinking about it as well and perhaps start asking the question themselves.

Another thing is that tables or lists need to be maintained on local candidates where they  stand. We need to divide the candidates into Pro-Confederate, anti-Confederate, and dough faces.

Refusal to respond to a questionnaire should be understood as supporting the statue quo and if the status quo has Confederate monuments you know how that candidate stands.

In some localities monuments aren't coming down without a sustained effort and an effort where Democrats will realize that they will be held accountable. It will mean writing letters, asking candidates to take a stand, appearing at public events. It won't take a lot of effort. A team of five with a few hours a week devoted to the effort could affect a real change in the political climate.

Dallas opposition to removing the Robert E. Lee statue in Dallas.

I blogged about it here.

I have a blog devoted to just the Robert E. Lee Park in Dallas, Texas and its monument.

You can sign up for emails for this blog and the Robert E. Lee Park blog to get updates of each blog posting.

Friday, May 19, 2017

Imagining No America

Edited for clarity and a little elaboration of ideas.

As any reader of this blog knows I oppose secession movements generally, though I think there are exceptions, and I opposed all and any secession movements from the United States of America.

The idea of living in a small nation nauseates me. I don't mind visiting a small nation, I suppose it could be quaint, and those that live there, if they are happy living there, that is fine. I would find it claustrophobic. The next big thing would be always coming from outside the nation.

As I explained in an earlier post I like driving long distances with no borders. I like great national enterprises. I think large nations generally are more secure.

Anyone who reads cultural geography and the theory of nationalism knows that nations are imagined. We are Americans because we imagine we are. Nations involve continuous work of creating national identity in the next generation.

Nations are created because there are those, usually national elites, who desire that the nation exist. Nations as an idea develop starting in the 18th century and triumph in the 20th century, but the idea  is declining towards the end of the 20th century and during the 21st century as elites instead imagine globalism. Also, our global interconnectivity tends to erase boundaries.

Should nationalism cease to be useful to someone their national identity can vanish quickly.

Such as in this article, "We could have been Canada?"

I think this article is published for amusement. I think it is.  However, I think it is of concern because we can easily imagine many things as it suits our fancy and in reading this article many can start imagining alternatives to being American since they learn the United States of America is not a given.

All nations exist only as long as they are seen as needed. They can vanish easily.

I think the reasons for national existence in the 19th and 20th century are inadequate for a variety of reasons. They are basically ad hoc for the needs of their time. There needs to be a reason for national existence suitable for the 21st century.

I think that there are many good reasons to live in a large Republic. Someone needs to enumerate why living in a large nation is inherently better.

Secession movements will continue to be a possibility as long as national existence is based on ideas of the 19th and 20th century. In particular, exceptionalism, the idea that America is outside of ordinary history, is not good. The moment America is doing poorly, the moment the spell of exceptionalism is broken, America will find itself desperate for a justification.

I don't think we can defend American national existence if we don't recognize what sustains national identity and recognize the fragility of nations. If we assume that it is set in concrete we will have done nothing to defend national existence against the possible events of history.

Thursday, May 18, 2017

Robert E. Lee is going down! This is a good example for Dallas, Texas. FRIDAY, Updates Continue Friday Lunch update Evening Update

Title of above article is, "Barricades, no parking signs crop up near Lee Circle signaling possible removal of state." It has a date time of May 18, 2017 4:29 pm.

Sounds like it is going to happen soon. This will be a great example to Dallas, Texas to take down their Robert E. Lee statue. This is the blog to take down the Robert E. Lee statue in Dallas, Texas.

I will update as this happens. Multiple reports of barricades going up and expectation that the Lee statue is going down.

Many commercials at this page.

You can see video at this page.

7:56 CST

New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu is going to speak on the removal of the monuments Friday.

Well I am retiring for the night. I will update in the morning.

Back up for 15 minutes with this update. Title is "All signs point to removal of New Orleans' Robert E. Lee statue imminent."  They expect the statue will be removed Friday morning. Only a handful of protesters showed up so far. The pro-Confederates and neo-Confederates have given up.

The Robert E. Lee statue is coming down during the day.

Picture gallery.

It is a national story.

It is an AP news story.

Mitch Landrieu is going to give remarks on the removal of the four Confederate landmarks.

"Special address on removal of monuments form New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu set for Friday."


You can watch it live at this website. It is their websites lead story and it is the first thing you see on the home page. The equipment is there. It is huge.

Neo-Confederates angry. Their world is going under.

Plans in place for former locations of Confederate monuments.

Louisiana House bill to protect monuments uses term, "War Between the States." The title of the article is, "Ar Louisiana House members Monuments Men or Confederate fanboys?: Opinion."

Winter Institute helped New Orleans address Confederate monuments

Back to work. I will update this evening.

Evening updates
Best online place to watch is

I am watching on Periscope when available. The neo-Confederate make all sorts of nonsensical historical claims.

New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu has issued a statement.

The guys doing the work are really brave. They are way, way up high, and they are exposed to any crazed individual that might shoot. I don't know if I could do the job.

Ask Trump not to send a wreath to the Arlington Confederate monument.

The Nola live feed seems to be getting overloaded. I am going to try to find another live feed.

Back to Nola.


Mayor Mitch Landrieu's speech.

Revolution against the Confederacy is coming.

They plan to go after everything. Quoting from the article.
The organization identified more than 100 statues, 24 streets, seven schools, and two hospitals that it says pay tribute to slavery. These include Tulane University, named after Paul Tulane, who was the largest donor to the Confederacy in New Orleans; several schools named after John McDonogh, who was a prominent slave owner in the city; and Governor Nichols Street, named after a Confederate general.

The success of their efforts will provide a template for the nation. It is a multiracial intergenerational coalition.

This is there web page.

Sign the petition.

Wednesday, May 17, 2017

Warning to all synagogues UPDATE1: Mississippi State Rep. Karl Oliver calls for lynching of Confederate monument destroyers

I hope to elaborate more on this tomorrow.

The anti-Semitic book "South Under Siege" by Frank Conner is offered for sale by the Sons of Confederate Veterans, and is praised by them.

It calls "Northern Jewish intellectuals" the South's "deadliest enemy."  It argues that the 20th century Civil Rights movement was a conspiracy by "Northern Jews." There is a section-, "Northern Jews Wage All-Out Ideological Warfare Against the White South."

Some synagogues might say that they have deep roots in the South, mention Benjamin Judah, and mention Confederate ancestors. To that I would say that the type of people who go massacre people are not generally known for critical thinking.

Further the Sons of Confederate Veterans offer for sale books books extolling the Red Shirts as heroes and the United Daughters of the Confederacy still has a museum which they call a "Shrine" to the Red Shirts. If Dylann Roof was living in 1876 and participated in the Hamburg Massacre white South Carolinian would have considered him a member of what they considered the heroic Red Shirts. Even unto this day there are those who consider Wade Hampton III and the Red Shirts heroes.

There are monuments to Wade Hampton III in South Carolina including a large equestrian statue of him on the groups of the South Carolina state capitol grounds.

The Charleston Emanual African Methodist Episcopal Church massacre is part of a continuing history of massacre in South Carolina.

The Sons of Confederate Veterans offer for sale book that praise or condone the Ku Klux Klan and offers for sale the movie "Birth of a Nation."

At this moment neo-Confederates are really upset over the removal of Confederate monuments.

It is possible that some deranged individual will decide to punish individuals who are called the South's "deadliest enemies" by means which the neo-Confederate tradition considered heroic, murder and mayhem. A set of views which is promoted by the Sons of Confederate Veterans by their promotion of books that advance these views.


Karl Oliver has called for the lynching of those who destroy Confederate monuments. From the reading of his Facebook posting making this call, I think it is obvious that he includes those who remove Confederate monuments form public places.

This call for lynching is by an elected representative. My hypothesis that there would be violent sentiments over this monument removal and hence my concern for synagogues I think is should to be warranted. This is the public statement of an elected official, I am sure among members of white supremacist groups there are similar sentiments. Surely there are "lone wolf" demented individuals who have read the "South Under Siege" and will want to do something to the South's "deadliest enemies" as they understand it.

Virginia Sons of Confederate Veterans hypocrisy

The Virginia Sons of Confederate Veterans issued a statement which among other things condemned the Alt-Right protesters led by Richard Spencer that had a torch light parade supporting the Robert E. Lee statue in Charlottesville, Virginia.

It is the duty of the Sons of Confederate Veterans to emulate the high moral standards of those who fought and died to protect their home land. We represent Southern Heritage NOT White Supremacy. People of all races, religions, and colors fought to defend their Southern homes in the War for Southern Independence.
Those who show up with torches and making inflammatory statements are in no way connected with or indorsed by the SCV. These people only serve to play right into the hands of those who would label us all as racists. In the end, they may do more to bring down monuments than the actions of our enemies.

What hypocrisy. The public doesn't know that the SCV offers for sale the pro-KKK movie "Birth of a Nation" and endorses it. They don't know that the SCV offers for sale the anti-Semitic book, "South Under Siege," which is also a flaming racist book, a book which has been praised in their publications The public doesn't know about the articles that were published in Southern Mercury magazine, published by the SCV's Education PAC. 
The public doesn't know that the SCV offers for sale books that portray the white supremacist terrorist Red Shirts as heroes. 
The SCV does know that having Richard Spencer marching for any Confederate statue is a likely to further encourage to bring down Confederate monuments. 
If the public knew what I know about the SCV and the United Daughters of the Confederacy the Confederate monuments would come down quickly. I hope to let the public know what I know. 

When will the Robert E. Lee statue go down? Probably soon

I think the Robert E. Lee statue will likely go down soon. I suspect that the crew that pulls down the statue needs a couple days to rest up and then they will be ready.

Mayor Mitch Landrieu very likely realizes he has to move fast. Though the Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards has spoken out that the state of Louisiana should not interfere with monument removal in New Orleans, he probably wishes the 4th Confederate monument is removed before the Louisiana State Senate passed a bill protecting monuments and has to veto it.

This is a link to a story about Gov. John Bel Edwards being opposed to the Louisiana House bill protecting monuments.

Also, there is always the chance that some judge in either the state or federal judiciary might decide to give some ruling protecting the statue. The ruling might be overturned upon appeal, but the monument removal will be delayed until is overturned.

Also, someone might chain themselves to the Lee monument.  Or there might be a Confederate stylite. I see that there is a platform near the top of the monument. It might be difficult if somone was up there and refusing to get down.

Or perhaps a really large mob might yet mobilize.

I would not be surprised if the Robert E. Lee Monument is down before the end of this coming Sunday, May 21, 2017.  Landrieu needs to get a move on and get this last monument down soon and I think he well knows it.

"New York Times" Op Ed "Good Riddance to Confederate Monuments"

The above article is titled "Good Riddance to Confederate Monuments" by Sharlene Snegal Decuir.

I think that establishment opinion has largely shifted in opinion to being against Confederate monuments, and not just quietly but forcefully with strongly expressed opinions.

"U.S. News & World Report" editorial that the monument needs to come down

"U.S. News & World Report" is the conservative news weekly, or was, I don't know if it still in print. During the mid-20th century Civil Rights Era it was supportive of segregationists. Yet in the above article Jamie Stiehm praises New Orleans Mayor Landrieu and argues that it is time for Confederate monuments to come down in the South.

Conservatives are abandoning the Confederacy.

Washington and Lee University doesn't want New Orleans Confedederate mo

The above article reports that Washington and Lee University doesn't want the New Orleans Confederate statues.

I suspect that these monuments are politically radioactive. The article says the city of New Orleans has reached out to Washington and Lee University, Beauvoir, and the Smithsonian.

I rather doubt the Smithsonian wants these monuments unless they plan an exhibit that really focuses on their history as icons of white supremacy, which I think would be too hot for the Smithsonian.

I think Beauvoir would be interested, but I don't know if they can afford the transportation, though I suspect the city of New Orleans would be willing to underwrite some of the cost.

Meanwhile in Baltimore the city stalls in removing any Confederate monuments.

"Boston Globe" editorial, perhaps Levin can get into a "twitter spat" with Jeff Jacoby

Jeff Jacoby's editorial is "In free societies, monuments to tyranny  have no place."

Perhaps Kevin Levin can convince Jacoby that they do have a place in Richmond, Virginia because he and his fellow "experts" have found a way.

Jacoby writes:
The Confederate monuments are memorials to the vilest cause in American history. The South went to war for one reason above all: to perpetuate the enslavement of black Americans. The dismantling of the statues is a long-overdue act of moral hygiene; it is appalling that they were ever erected in the first place. What other nation tolerates grand public memorials to its traitors?
Despite decades of blather about Southern “heritage,” the core message of the Confederate monuments — especially those erected after the collapse of Reconstruction — was never hard to decoct. They stood for bigotry and racial backlash, and for the willingness to take up arms in defense of human bondage. Naturally, Ku Klux Klan supporters like David Duke are among those protesting the statues’ removal.
Jacoby later in the article compares these monuments to monuments to communist tyranny and monuments to the Soviet Army in Poland. Jacoby points out that "Massive Nazi swastikas were destroyed in Germany" with the overthrow of the Nazis.

I had people calling me ultra radical for comparing Confederate monuments to monuments to Nazis.

Now it is mainstream.

Interesting article about school renaming in New Orleans

About the renaming of schools in New Orleans

Tuesday, May 16, 2017

It looks like Beauregard is coming down next in New Orleans and soon. UPDATES: They are strapping up Beauregard and he will achieve liftoff. UPDATE GONE

This article just went up about 45 minutes ago.

It seems with the Louisiana House passing a bill to block cities from removing a monument, the mayor of New Orleans is not wasting time.

The reason that monuments are coming down in New Orleans is that the establishment isn't listening to the local historical societies and their nonsense. That is why New Orleans will soon not have monuments and Richmond will still have theirs.

When the 4th monument in New Orleans comes down every town will wonder why they still have a Confederate monument and when will they be able to get rid of them.

It has become an Associated Press news story.


City of New Orleans confirms Beauregard statue is coming down Tuesday night.  Craine is on the scene. There is a heavy police presence around the Beauregard statue. This article has live updates.

You can watch it live here.

A bunch of ignorant people shouting giving their reasons to keep the statue.


The article below the live video has other videos where the usual excuses are given to keep the Confederate monuments.


This article has a lot of pictures.

"Ring around the rosie, pockets full of posies, ashes, ashes, we all fall down." Confederate monuments seem to be set for a tumble. UPDATE

It seems that there is a call to pull down monuments across the South. Here are some articles. I got them from Kevin M. Levin's twitter feed.

One good thing about monument removal happening at many different places is that the Sons of Confederate Veteran can't concentrate their focus on one locality.

When the 2nd and 3rd city get rid of their monuments I think people in a city where there is still a Confederate monument will wonder what is wrong with their leadership.

UPDATE: More places getting rid of Confederate monuments.

Kevin M. Levin attempts to talk down to Sarah Jones of the "New Republic" magazine

Kevin M. Levin attempts to patronize Sarah Jones of the "New Republic." You can read the exchange here on Twitter if you are a member. I printed it out for my records.

In this conversation he is the expert talking down to Sarah Jones. He also uses his usual tactic avoiding debate on the issues by either questioning the competency of the individual or their right to debate the issue.

You really have to read the entire series this is one example. Not the capitalization of "WHY" and the expression "you would do well to consider."

Levin pulls out what he thinks will flatten Jones by asking whether she has been to Richmond. If Jones hasn't then she is some type of outside agitator. This is the theme of "Sweet Home Alabama" that Jones is an outsider.

Turns out that Sarah Jones is from Virginia and has been to Richmond many times.

Then it is more patronizing stuff.

Levin's patronizing of Sarah Jones is this article by Jones in New Republic.

Sarah Jones in the article is basically calling Gary Shapiro of the University of Richmond a fool. She doesn't use the term, just calls his arguments "deeply confused."

Though Shapiro does not deny the horrors of slavery or hold up the Confederacy as an entity worthy of praise, his argument is deeply confused. If these monuments are “memorials,” whom do they memorialize? Certainly not the victims of slavery.

Levin blogs on this encounter.

From his blog:

I do not mean to suggest that all parties in Richmond are satisfied or that mistakes have not been made. What I do think is important to acknowledge is that the city has made a concerted effort to think carefully about how history is interpreted and how it is commemorated in public spaces. None of this is acknowledged in the New Republic piece.

Turns out that Sarah Jones doesn't think much of what the little cliques in Richmond have done.

And Levin is bent out of shape that Sarah Jones doesn't think much of the efforts of the local historical societies and what cliques they make up and of which he is in good standing.

He can't comprehend that some figures in the larger national establishment are just coming out  and saying these statues need to go and really don't care what rationalizations or excuses or clever strategems the local historical cliques have come up with.

I wonder how long it is going to be before The Atlantic decides that Levin is retrograde.

Convoluted stuff and nonsense arguments aren't going to convince people other than those who love the Confederacy or fear loss of white control over the landscape. That is white nationalists and banal white nationalists.

Republican Party in Louisiana chooses to be a party of the Confederacy UPDATE

In the above article discusses the vote by the Louisiana House to block removal of New Orleans monuments. As the article says, it is by "largely a party line vote."

The Democrats who voted for this bill need to be voted out of office.

Ed Rogers in the Washington Post may be asking his fellow Republicans to make a clean break with the Confederacy, but it is obvious that the Republican Party is embracing the Confederacy.

One of my upcoming projects is to document Republican Party embrace of the Confederacy.


An editorial castigating the Republican Party for supporting the Confederate monuments.

Monday, May 15, 2017

When will the Arlington Confederate monument be removed. Why is a Confederate monument okay in DC and not okay in New Orleans

This is my blog on the Arlington Confederate monument, why it is about white supremacy, and my efforts to convince presidents not to send a wreath to it.

Latest activity has been to send a certified letter to Donald Trump asking him not to send a wreath to the Arlington Confederate monument.

However, I think the question should be raised why should their be a Confederate monument in the Arlington National Cemetery.

Certainly in a national park a Confederate monument, which snidely labels Lincoln a dictator and tyrant in Latin, is unacceptable.

Perhaps the "Washington Post" needs a clean break with the Confederacy

The above is a link to an article titled, "Republicans need a clean break with the Confederacy," by Ed Rogers, who we are told is a "veteran of the Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush White Houses."

Well I think it would be good if all political parties make a clean break with the Confederacy. Given that former Mississippi U.S. Senator Trent Lott has in a speech to the Sons of Confederate Veterans and in Southern Partisan magazine has also explained that the Republican Party is the party of Jefferson Davis Roger's hopes of a clean break by the Republican Party with the Confederacy is not likely to happen.

However, before the Washington Post lectures others perhaps they can start advocating that the Democratic Party make a clean break with the Confederacy. For example they can decided that future Democratic presidents, unlike Obama, not send a wreath to the Arlington Confederate monument, and apologize for being advocates that Obama should send a wreath to the Arlington Confederate monument.

They might also ask Bill Clinton to retract his three letters of congratulations to the United Daughters of the Confederacy. I wrote Bill Clinton in 2015 and asked him to retract them and did not get a reply.

I don't think this will happen though. The Washington Post is looking for a way to twist the Republicans and I don't think they are really that serious about Republicans or Democrats or themselves giving up the Confederacy.

On the other hand the Washington Post is the press agency of the centrist Democrats so they are setting the new policy for the Democratic Party that they are not the party of the Confederacy, in as much as it is useful.

I don't think they will ask Donald Trump to not send a wreath to the Arlington Confederate monument which I think will show how serious the Washington Post is on this.

Certainly the Washington Post won't advocate the Arlington Confederate monument to be removed.

This is how Confederate monuments will be defended

I will have more information tonight, but these are examples how Confederate monuments will be defended.

No one wants to defend the Confederacy so other rationalizations are being used.

The argument in the above link is that getting rid of Confederate monuments will result in a missed opportunity to fight racism.

This op ed is revealing. It also argues that getting rid of Confederate monuments will result in a missed opportunity to fight racism. Who would want to miss an opportunity to fight racism.

This is the type of argument you make when you are a fool but educated.

Destroying or removing the structures eliminates opportunities for productively using our past. Critical contextualization is the better alternative. This would be a complex process, drawing on the skills and judgment of historians, artists, urban planners and a good cross-section of local residents. Much could be added: plaques concerning the war itself, disputes over slavery, Richmond’s and Virginia’s roles in the Confederacy, Reconstruction (and its abrupt termination following the 1876 election deal), African-American disenfranchisement, the blatant racism surrounding the statues’ planning and dedication.

The league of distinguished experts will come up with a really complicated rationalization to keep Confederate monuments, because all these artists, historians, urban planners are experts. Removing Confederate monuments are the ideas of the great unwashed.

Also, there is a slur on those who simply want to remove the monuments. They are called "iconoclasts."

So Kevin Levin is a member of a faction that has some support.

The New York Times has a past history which I need to explicate.

For now let me provide this link to an early blog on them.

Incidentally this is the petition asking Trump not to send a wreath to the Arlington Confederate monument.

Sunday, May 14, 2017

"The Atlantic" magazine has lengthy article explaining why Confederate monuments need to go

I am posting so often since significant developments seem to be occurring by the hour.

What is interesting about this article is that the liberal establishment and neo-liberal establishment is deciding that the Confederate monuments need to go and are providing the space for voices against Confederate monuments to be heard. This is an important change from the past where these type of publications mostly didn't discuss Confederate monuments.

The old story was the Confederate flag hurt feelings of African Americans, but if the flag was gone, then everything was okay. You had to be a radical to be against Confederate monuments.

As one major journal of public opinion follows the next it will develop that they all will adopt a position that they are for the removal of Confederate monuments. Support for Confederate monuments will be confined to reactionary magazines and websites and support for Confederate monuments identified with reactionary opinion.

Arguments for contextualization will be seen for what they are, an excuse to retain monuments or just plan oddball.

Here is a quote from the article.

Those monuments, that reverence for the Lost Cause and its leaders, do lasting damage to all who live in their shadows. It’s no coincidence that Richmond was the ideological powerhouse of “massive resistance”—defiance of the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education—during the 1950s. That constitutional monstrosity flowed directly from neo-Confederate ideology.

A picture from my visit to Richmond.

White Supremacist protest in Charlottesville, Virginia to retain Robert E. Lee statue with Torchlight parade. UPDATE

The above article is about a protest at Lee Park in Charlottesville, Virginia. Evidently Richard Spencer, nationally infamous white nationalist was there.

It was a torch light parade, rather photogenic for the media.

Major media outside of Virginia. SEE UPDATE for more links to national media coverage.

Local TV coverage

There was a protest during the day and it seems a torchlight parade later that evening.

The article quotes protesters saying "Russia is our friend" and "Blood and soil."

This type of event really demolishes the "Heritage Not Hate" ruse. Though we can expect that pro-Confederate groups will disavow them.

I think though this event will create an environment where the various proposals to retain the Robert E. Lee statue with some pretext of contextualization just won't be an option.

If the statue is removed. it will of course lead to efforts elsewhere. People will wonder why their city still has Confederate monuments.


I am adding a few links to the story from other news media sources. It is becoming national news.

Saturday, May 13, 2017

HELL HAS FROZEN OVER1 "Washington Post" column defending Confederate monument removal

The above is a link to a Washington Post column by Christine Emba explaining why Confederate monuments need to be taken down and debunking the arguments which attempt to justify keeping the Confederate monuments.

The Washington Post is the press agency of the centrist Democrats. Up until 2015 they have been somewhat nothing on opposing neo-Confederacy and not particularly vigorous about opposing neo-Confederacy since.

In 2009 they came to the defense of Obama sending a wreath to the Arlington Confederate monument.

This was written by Kirk Savage, a court historian, and it will be forever attached to his name.

I am somewhat puzzled by the Washington Post running this column. Did they not see the contradiction with Savage's column? Or do they think no one will remember?

Now with the neo-liberals arguing the Confederate monuments will have to go Democrats will start supporting their removal.

For all the public historians rationalizing keeping Confederate monuments, suddenly they find the establishment is no longer supporting these ideas. They are in an embarrassing position of having supported what they thought was the mainstream establishment view, but now have a record of having supported what is considered a reactionary view.

These historians might consider cutting their losses, not just by stop thinking of some rationalization of some plan to keep a Confederate monument, but  review what other institutions they support which shortly or in a few years might also lose establishment support. They run the risk of being referred to as the old guard or some other label which discredits them.

This is a great idea for what to do with Confederate monuments, send them to Beauvoir

Beauvoir for those of you who don't study the life of Jefferson Davis is Davis's last home. It is in Biloxi, Mississippi and owned by the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

As reported in this article they would like the monuments being removed in New Orleans.

I think this is a great idea for some major and minor reasons.

Minor Reasons

1. It lessons the opposition to monument removal. For a lot of the uninformed Confederate monument supporters having the monuments at another Confederate shrine will seem like a great idea.

The Sons of Confederate Veterans dug up the remains of a Confederate soldier in South Africa to remove them to the United States because of fears of what would happen when Apartheid fell.

I am sure some racial fear will come into play and some neo-Confederates and other white supremacists will want to remove the Confederate monuments to what they consider a safer location.

2. Once the monuments are moved to another Confederate location, it would be extremely difficult to get them back. I would suggest some legal thing to keep the monuments locked down such as selling them for $1.

Major Reason

Confederate monuments will reveal what places like Beauvoir are really about. The disguise of being some historical enterprise professionally run will be ripped away, the the real agenda of it being a neo-Confederate enterprise will be revealed.

There will be fewer historical societies which will want to have anything to do with Beauvoir or other historical places which accept Confederate monuments. Businesses will wonder if they want to be seen being involved. Other organizations will avoid such an institution. Schools will certainly not want to visit.

I do hope that the Charlottesville, VA Confederate monument will be sent to the White House of the Confederacy in Richmond to mark what their agenda is.

Frank Stewart is outed as defender of Confederate monuments in New Orleans and isn't happy about it.

If you are wondering why the Confederate monuments stay up in Baltimore you would do well to study New Orleans. Many there were surprised when local historical societies and preservationists defended the Confederate monuments there.

The Sons of Confederate Veterans and the United Daughters of the Confederacy provide the show of sentimental nostalgia, but there is another force keeping Confederate flags in place -- rich white people who donate money to organizations and political campaigns.

In fact the fight over Confederate monuments reveals how peoples' cities are really run.

Frank Stewart was a very rich individual who contributes money to philanthropies. He also was a strong supporter of the Confederate monuments in New Orleans.

New Orleans Mayor Landrieu named him publicly and Stewart was quite angry about it.

Landrieu made an apology, but the damage to Stewart's reputation has been done both with Landrieu's statement and Stewart's own reaction to it.

The above article notes that Frank Stewart is still defending the Confederate monuments.

So Landrieu can say that he apologized and the episode is over for him, but Stewart is revealed as who he really is, a person who defends Confederate monuments.

This is a warning to rich white banal nationalists and other Confederate monument supporters in other towns, you might have your face front and center before the public as a supporter of Confederate monuments. You might babble things, you might parade African Americans that support you, but it will be to no avail.

Effort to remove Confederate monument in Shreveport, Louisiana. It is starting.

It has already begun. I thought the process whereby other cities would take down Confederate monument would really start moving along after the 4th monument in New Orleans went down, but it is happening already.

I discussed how a movement against Confederate monuments everywhere would start with the success of monument removal in New Orleans, but I thought it wouldn't really take off until the 4th monument was removed. This is my blog posting stating this.

The following is about the debate to remove a Confederate monument in Shreveport.

Not only is the process underway, but the columnist writing this essay is showing how all the excuses and rationalizations for the Confederate monuments are rubbish and that the Confederate monuments are about white supremacy.

This is a column in the major daily newspaper for New Orleans. Not a paper with a limited readership. Members of the establishment will take note.

Other cities are also thinking about removing monuments.

However, there is one road block that is coming up. State lawmakers are trying to remove control of Confederate monuments form the cities and other municipalities.

The success of this effort I think is largely due to the fact that the Democratic Party isn't speaking up. Trent Lott explained in a Southern Partisan interview that the Republican Party was for those who have the values of Jefferson Davis. The discussion was about him expressing the same idea in a speech to the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

The problem is that the Democratic Party has been the party of James Buchanan in resisting the Republican Party's support of the Confederacy.

However, I plan to compile a table of every vote for Confederate monuments by state legislators.

Also, I don't think the Republican Party is going to want to be identified with the Confederacy in the future. I think that some of these bills were passed with the understanding that Confederate monument removal would not go so far. The issue wouldn't be pressed so strongly. The bills were passed in the situation as it was, which was very different from how it will be. I think Republicans are going to reconsider this legislation.

There can be marches to state capitols demanding bills be repealed. Local legislators can submit bills asking for their monument to be exempted. Cities can send petitions to state legislatures year after year asking for the bill to be repealed or the monument to be exempted.

Year after year the Republicans can be hammered as being the party of the Confederacy. I think with the defeat of Sheri Few and she only getting 5% of the vote in the Republican primary the GOP in many states will see large liabilities and little advantage, few benefits in the defense of the Confederacy. It could be a long struggle which would not just embarrass the Republican Party nationally, but destroy their credibility.

One big obstacle are residual yellow dog Democrats and a white members of the liberal/left in the former Confederate states which like to think they are all this and that but in reality are banal white nationalists.

One thing about the removal of the Confederate monuments it is revealing who is who in New Orleans.

In the above link the article reports that the Mayor of New Orleans specifically criticized Frank Stewart, a local rich guy who supported the monuments.

I said that fighting neo-Confederacy would surface who was really who in a society. Frank Stewart's reputation has been taken down along with the two monuments that have been taken down.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Popular Posts Last 30 days

Popular Posts All Time