Saturday, September 28, 2019

Impeachment and secession

I have commented on impeachment and secession before.

To summarize it, as long as Trump is in office and his agenda seems to be going forward the secession movements in the United States are going to be deflated.

The potential base of support for secession is also largely the base of support for Trump. A secession movement would be anti-Trump and so the secessionists aren't going to be making progress.

However, if Trump is not re-elected in 2020, whether it is because he is impeached and removed from office, or just loses the 2020 election the secession movement will be revived and maybe stronger than ever as the base for Trump loses all hope to advance their agenda in the US political system.

Of course if the U.S. House does impeach Trump, it has to go to the U.S. Senate for trial. The U.S. Senate with a Republican majority could just dismiss the whole thing.

At this point it might be that the impact on secession movements is that it gives the diehard supporters hope that there will be a change in their fortunes and keep going in their efforts, and perhaps a few people will start looking at secession movements as an alternative.

Sunday, September 15, 2019

First video on Kennedy Twin's proposed reparations for the South for the slaves freed by Emancipation.

The link to the video is:

It took some time. It is about an hour long. I learned a lot of what to do and not do in making a video. The next video will be better. I also learned the software. I got more comfortable speaking infront of a cameria.

To explain the whole story takes a lot of time.

The next video will be about the promotion of the idea that the Civil War was a theological war.

Sunday, September 08, 2019

First short video, "Why Vlog about the Sons of Confederate Veterans," Also announcement of first series on the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

When you visit the antineoconfederate channel, please like, subscribe and SHARE.

This video is why do vlogging on the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

I am getting a little more relaxed about doing the video.

This is the first series topics, it is about the Sons of Confederate Veterans, slavery, reparations for slavery, pro-slavery theology, abolitionism, and the idea that the Civil War was a theological war. The Sons of Confederate Veterans don't take formal positions on these topics, but you can refer what ideology is pushed in their magazine, online and in their merchandise catalogs. Further what the ideology is of their leaders, especially those who are in charge of heritage defense.

Podcast account, but no podcasts yet/ Workflow for media. UPDATE: Podcasts are being released.

This is the link to my podcasts. Don't have one done yet. Somthing I hope to do soon. UPDATE: Podcasts are being released.

Topics will focus largely on the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

I have a good Rode microphone and set up with my computer so I just need to have material to deliver and make a Podcast.

This is the link to my podcasts. I don't have anything there yet.

Just getting elements together to start getting the message about the neo-Confederates and the Sons of Confederate Veterans to the public.

I think I will have for my first podcast a short podcast about who I am and my curriculum vitae. Then a podcast which will be a general description of what is neo-Confederacy? Then I am going to do a podcast on the Sons of Confederate Veterans about their views on slavery, abolitionists, and theology. This will be the basis of my first podcast on the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

No one is doing podcasts about the neo-Confederates. It is an audience and even with a small percentage of listeners I think I will reach a large market.

I think the workflow is going to be.

1. Paper.
2. Podcast
3. Video.
4. Announcement of the above on Facebook, Twitter, and blog.

I don't think the work flow will necessarily be the same for each item.

Introduction to the AntiNeoConfederate Channel. /Learning video software

This is the link. I am getting together the tools that will be used to bring down the Sons of Confederate Veterans.  It this link doesn't work, just go to the channel itself. As I learn to do video better I am likely to replace this video.

I am currently using MovieMaker and a new software Video Pad by NCH Software. I had purchased Corel but that has turned out to be a big mistake.  It locks up.  It isn't easy to match up sound levels for two clips.

This is the introduction to the AntiNeoConfederate channel followed by the general resource video. This will general resource video will always be at the end so that you can skip it if you want. Also, it will be an indicator the video for the specific topic of the video is over.

I decided not to use a teleprompter nor to have written notes that I can glance at. Instead I will be using bullet points. It is taking a while to learn to relax when being videoed. I am also purchasing small items for the video. I have an android directional microphone which plugs into my smartphone.

I have several libraries and I am using the downstairs library which has a lot of natural lighting. I still have to do an introduction video of who I am and my qualifications. OF COURSE LIKE AND SUBSCRIBE AND SHARE.

Saturday, September 07, 2019

Kevin M. Levin resigns from the Editorial Board of the Civil War History journal

NOTE: Allen Guelzo didn't make the quote that savaged Kevin M. Levin in the article. . I need to do follow up. However, my posting about him and the Vol. 2 of "Christian Resistance" is valid.

Kevin M. Levin resigned from the Editorial Board of Civil War History.

I don't think this is a wise move on his part. It is a position of influence. As I have said, they may have hoped he would resign. Even if they hadn't hoped he would resign, Levin's resigning has some advantages for Civil War History.  He won't be at meetings seething with anger or working on something driven by this article. The editors and person who decided to publish this article don't have to see him.

I think he lost his sense and just seething with anger and desiring retribution resigned. This is primarily an injury to himself.

Oddly Levin gives the author of the article which trashes him a free pass.

This is the tweet.

A couple things before I let this go. I don't blame Earl Hess for any ill will re: bloggers/historians who use social media. His own lack of experience and reliance on two surveys sent out to historians reflects this essay's analytical limitations.

Levin is resigning the Civil War History journal editorial board, but doesn't blame Hess. Hess surely knew what his article said and what the paragraph referring to Civil War Memory in it was saying. I think that Levin, even when the establishment kicks him, is still their faithful servant.

Levin didn't let it go, he has had more tweets.

This is his blog on it.

He had done a tweet on resigning before the blog posting.

I was told there was a Facebook post, but both I and the person who originally posted it to me could not find it. I think it might have been posted and delted.

He is very angry about it also.

I am sure Levin will not reflect on how he has done this to so many others.

There are good developments from this. I think the Civil War history profession has very visibly revealed themselves to be out of touch, a fossil left over from an earlier era in history. It shows how they haven't moved into the era of the Internet, and are a little cloistered club. This will undermine their credibility and lessen their hold on Civil War history.

Levin I expect will learn nothing from this. However, he scope of influence will be lessened. He isn't on the editorial board of Civil War History. He now has a group of Civil War historians who will be his antagonists. Some places will not be inviting him.

I can only speculate on motives for this attack, but Kevin Levin has after Charlottesville, become a big supporter of Confederate Monuments coming down. I think there are those in the Civil War history profession who really rage at monuments being taken down.  But it could just be reactionary rejection of the Internet or some combination of both.

My prior posts on this.

Friday, September 06, 2019

Civil War History is entirely in the wrong for its treatment of Kevin Levin

Yes, I thought it was hilarious irony in what was done to Kevin Levin in the publication Civil War History. I don't think anyone is a more severe critic of Levin than me. He has also treated me atrociously over the years.

However, what was done to him was just wrong. It also very much represents very much what is wrong about the Civil War historical profession.

First the anonymous criticism. Let whoever makes this criticism be named. Let Levin know who his acccuser is.

Second, what exactly is wrong with Levin's blog isn't really made clear except some vague "self-promotion" criticism. What exactly does this refer to. Also, if Levin is self-promoting himself, so what?  As an independent scholar he needs to make sure  his readers know that he is considered credible by others in his field. Even if he wasn't an independent scholar why shouldn't he let us know his acccomplishments?

I have read his blog, it isn't that self-promoting. I mean he does let you know that he published a book, or he is speaking somewhere.

He does inform a lot of people about the Civil War.

The Civil War history profession has largely failed. They sit in their cloistered venues and fail to educate the public.

The Civil War is one of the central events in American history. It defines in many ways who we are. How it exists in the popular imagination has been an important factor in shaping racial politics in the USA. In contributing to public life the Civil War history profession is a failure looking inward to metallurgy of buttons of soldier uniforms or the equivalent thereof.

Though the Civil War has had a tremendous impact on the history of race the interest in the African American community in the Civil War is extremely low. That is because the Civil War history profession has catered to or pandered to people with a Lost Cause mentality, or have been careful not to offend it or criticize neo-Confederates. It has given people with obvious problems with race a free pass.

We now face a future where the Civil War will attract about as much interest as the War of 1812.

The editors of Civil War History need to apologize to Kevin Levin.

Jefferson Davis highway is falling apart./ Breitbart is as stupid as ever.

I have realized that if I published a book on the Jefferson Davis highway at this point, it would not work to bring down the Jefferson Davis highway, but keep it alive. So it will never be published. I am not sure what I am going to do with the five or six file boxes of notes I have, but I will have to do something to make sure it isn't used to reincarnate the Jefferson Davis highway metaphysically.

This article is somewhat assuring in that Breitbart hasn't come up with a better idea to keep Confederate monuments than the erasing history idea. I am not going suggest alternatives since I literally don't want to give them any ideas.

This is important since it makes the rest of the Jefferson Davis highway system less tenable. No chamber of commerce will want their city to be the first city where the highway starts. With the ends of the highway untied, the higway will unravel.

The futility of efforts to keep the built landscape named after some Confederate figure becomes more and more apparent.

I think that psychologically the change of the name of this highway works to undermind the Confederate mouments in Richmond.

Also, everytime anything Confederate gets removed successfully from the environment, it will occur to others that the Confederate named item of the built environment in their city can go.

Finally, as there are fewer and fewer Confederate items, the remaining ones seem more and more anomalous.

Wednesday, September 04, 2019

About Allen Guelzo

Christian Reconstructionist Gary North published a series of volumes with the series title, Christianity and Civilization. Vol. 2 was "The Theology of Christian Resistance."

Allen Guelzo was a contributor.

Sometimes when I write a paper, I write up a big mess of a paper, which is not intended to be published, but instead is a source paper which is essentially all my notes written up.

This is the section mentioning Guelzo. All sorts of things slither around in Civil War history.

Surely Guelzo was aware who Gary North was or what this publication was about.

From my paper:

Gary North, is a leading Reconstructionist, known for his support for stoning as biblically sanctioned and inexpensive means of capital punishment. In particular, he is known for the advocacy of the stoning of young adults who are disobedient to their parents. [i] He has not contributed to the Southern Partisan. He has however contributed an article to Texas Republic magazine, a sort of neo-Alamonian variation of the Southern Partisan, complaining about government regulation of day care. [ii] Bill Murchison, League of the South member and contributor, explained the magazine’s purpose and the Confederate identity of Texas in the Southern Partisan. [iii]

He edited “The Theology of Christian Resistance: A Symposium, Vol. 2” by Geneva Divinity School Press, 1983. It was reviewed in the Summer 1983 issue of Southern Partisan. Thomas Landess overall favorably reviews, with some “reservations,” “The Theology of Christian Resistance,” with editor Gary North. As Landess states, “Still, with these reservations, on can learn a great deal from this book and its various authors.” Landess particularly likes M.E. Bradford’s contribution. [iv] In the League of the South publication, Southern Patriot, some of the neo-Confederate aspects are described. . In an article titled, “Lincoln & Interposition,” there is a section taken from the book, in an article “On Reconstruction,” by Tom Rose, to assert that Lincoln was acting unconstitutionally in his efforts to prevent the secession of the slave states. This article was originally published in the Journal of Christian Reconstruction Summer 1978. [v] The article in the “Theology of Resistance” advances the idea of the compact theory of the American union and supports the legitimacy of the idea of nullification and interposition.  It includes the South Carolina Ordinance of Secession as well as other documents from the time of secession. Rose advances the idea of interposition as a tool to resist what he feels is “idolatrous” government.

In “Theology of Christian Resistance, Vol. 2” Gary North in Part III of the book, “The History of Christian Resistance,” has a states rights article titled, “The Debate Over Federal Sovereignty” in which is discusses the Alien and Sedition Laws of 1798 as being opposed by the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798-199.  He merely writes the preface, and the rest of the article is lengthy quotations from the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions, and the text of the Alien and Sedition act. The intent of the article is discussed in Gary North’s “Editor’s Introduction” to the volume. Quoting:

These were statements of a philosophy which later became known as “state’s rights,” but which are simply an extension of the principle of balanced power, Federal versus local, of the U.S. Constitution. …The defeat of the Southern Confederacy in 1865 was equally the defeat of the original convenantalism of the Constitution.

North’s thoughts on the Confederacy are further revealed in the footnote for this section.

26 Perhaps the most brilliant defense of the state’s rights position is Alexander H. Stephens. A Constitutional defense of the Late War Between the States: Its Causes, Character, Conduct and Results (2 vols., 1868, 1870).  Stephens served as the Vice President of the Confederacy. See R.J. Rushdoony, The Nature of the American System (Fairfax, Virginia: Thobrun Press, [1965], 1978), ch. 3: “Alexander H. Stephens.”

Besides the two articles recommended by the Southern Partisan and Southern Patriot, and Gary North’s articles, other neo-Confederates make contributions, though on non-neo-Confederate topics to Vol. 2. Joseph C. Morecraft III has an article.  Tommy W. Rogers, who contributes a book review, has also contributed five book reviews to Southern Partisan. [vi] In one of these book reviews he is upset with an author of a biography of David Duke for not sharing Rogers sympathies with Duke’s politics. [vii] On the other hand there are two non-neo-Confederates who are contributors, Allen C. Guelzo, who has been criticized for his biography of Lincoln in the Southern Partisan, [viii] and Jim West who had an essay arguing that secession wasn’t constitutional in a 1996 issue of Chalcedon Reports.  This essay also had a great deal of agreement with neo-Confederate opinion on Unitarians and Reconstruction. [ix]  In Vol. 3 leading neo-Confederates make contributions. Francis Nigel Lee, leading neo-Confederate, contributes “The Christian Manifesto of 1984.”  Francis Nigel Lee spoke at the 7th Annual Southern Heritage Conference, in Monroe, Louisiana in 1997. [x] His topics were “Calvinism and Southern Culture,” “The Roots of the Confederacy,” and “The Holy Trinity & the Confederacy.” Douglas F. Kelly of Agenda Credenda has a contribution. Otto J. Scott also contributes an essay. Lawrence D. Pratt, member of the League of the South [xi] also has spoken at the Southern Heritage Conferences. [xii]

[i] Clarkson, Frederick, Eternal Hostility: The Struggle Between Theocracy and Democracy, page 81-82, Common Courage Press, Monroe, Maine, 1997.

[ii] North, Gary, “Day Careless,” Vol. 1 No. 5, July-August 1994, page 8-9, Texas Republic.

[iii]  Goolsby, Charles R., “Partisan Conversation: Bill Murchison,” Vol. 14 No. 1 1st Quarter, 1994, page 36, Southern Partisan

[iv] Landess, Tom,  book review of “The Theology of Resistance: A Symposium,” Vol. 3 No. 3, Summer 1983,   page 43 , Southern Partisan

[v] Rose, Tom, Vol. 7 No. 1, January – February 2000, page 11, Southern Patriot. Originally published in the Journal of Christian Reconstruction Summer 1979.

[vi] Rogers, Tommy, Vol. 9 3rd Quarter 1989, page 48; Vol. 10 4th Quarter 1990, page 46; Vol. 13 1st Quarter 1993, page 38; Vol. 15 4th Quarter, 1995, page 27; Vol. 16 3rd Quarter 1996, page 51, Southern Partisan.

[vii] Rogers, Tommy W., “Portrait of a Populist,” book review of “David Duke: Evolution of a Klansman” by Michael Zatarain, Vol. 10 4th Quarter 1990, page 46, Southern Partisan.

[viii] Smith, Sam,  “False Messiah,” review of “Abraham Lincoln: Redeemer President,” by Allen C. Guelzo, Vol. 20 1st Quarter 2000, page 37 – 39,  Southern Partisan.
[ix] West, Jim,  “The Constitutional War of the North,” No. 369, April 1996, page 18-23  Chalcedon Reports.

[x] “Seventh Annual Southern Heritage Conference …,” Vol. 4 No. 2, March – April 1997, page 23 , Southern Patriot. [Online record has the wrong No.]

[xi] “Noteworthy publications,” Vol. 2 No. 3, May-June 1995, page 24,  Southern Patriot

[xii]  “Conferences …”, Vol. 3 No. 2 page 16, for the 6th Conference; “Confederate Fanfare …”, Vol. 5 No. 3, May – June 1998, page 6,  for the 8th Conference, Southern Patriot.

Kevin Levin finds himself very publicly rejected by the establishment

See Link to Kevin Levin paper at the end of this posting.

Kevin Levin has striven to be part of the establishment. He has castigated those who he thought were antagonistic to the establishment. He has denounced those who he thought were making the discussion of the Civil War too raucus.

And now he finds himself very publicly rejected by an establishment Civil War historian.

In an article in Civil War History, the journal for Civil War historians, in an article about the perniciousness of social media.

This is the quote about Civil War Memory, Levin's blog, in the Sept. 2019, Vol. 65 No. 3, issue in an article, "The Internet and Civil War Studies," in the "State of the Field Series." Page 228.
"I used to read [a blog called] Civil War Memory occasionally, before it became all about self-promotion," commented a respondant who preferred to remain anonymous. "I found it odd how that blog became something of a what to read and in the know site. Social media has morpheed from talking to your friends to shouting at the abyss." 
It goes on to condemning social media and its effects on historical scholarship.

I don't want to be understood as defending Guelzo either. The Civil War historical profession is notorious in the larger history profession for its throwback aspects, for its archaic ideas about history. The Civil War history profession has managed to make interest in the Civil War a gerontological interest.

However, Levin has striven to be part of the establishment and in this paragraph he is held up to be the example of the bad social media outsider.

He is on the editorial board of Civil War History.  He thought he was in the pantheon, but realizes that he is one of the great unwashed. THE AGONY.

Paper about Kevin Levin.

Monday, September 02, 2019

Video on resources at the antineoconfederate page at youtube.

This is the link to the video.

You can just click on the video below. OF COURSE LIKE, SUBSCRIBE AND SHARE.

As I get the campaign ramped up and getting ready for Vlogging, I realized that I have a lot of resources here an there of different types and I need to have a video on my AntiNeoConfederate video channel to tell people about these resources.

I am going to have this segment added to the end of all the videos I post to my channel. Those who have seen it before can just skip it and go to the end. Those who have seen it for the first time can view the entire thing.

I need to do a "Who is Ed Sebesta" video. My academic qualifications,writings, etc.

I haven't decided where I am going to put my podcasts, but I expect to make a decision soon.

Again, the neo-Confederate movement isn't going to stop itself. Share links to this video on your social media and by one means or another let others know.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Popular Posts Last 30 days

Popular Posts All Time