Main Menu
 About SHAPE/ Joining
 Image Gallery
 S.H.A.P.E Store
 Other Websites
 Military Units


Remember me

[ ]
[ ]
Members: 0

Click To Show - Guests: 5

Last Seen

gpthelastrebel Tue 02:53
Patrick Fri 16:05
Robray Wed 14:28
D. L. Garland Wed 18:09
dong fang Mon 01:55
Southern Heritage Advancement Preservation and Education :: Forums :: General :: Articles and Article Archive
<< Previous thread | Next thread >>
A letter from Jeff Paulk-- Answering the Myths
Moderators: gpthelastrebel, 8milereb, Patrick
Author Post
Thu Jun 16 2022, 12:26AM

Registered Member #1
Joined: Tue Jul 17 2007, 02:46PM
Posts: 4073

USA Today,

In this article Paul Brandus, as do others, reflects the state of indoctrination that has been achieved in this country. He states, "The notion that we have to keep the names of the defenders of slavery on some of our military’s most important bases is an abomination. It is an insult to those who serve today and an embarrassment for a nation that just cannot seem to get beyond the ugliest part of its past.”
Defenders of slavery. That is the same tired old lie that keeps getting regurgitated by the historically ignorant, particularly in the media. Let's set the record straight. Nobody in the Confederacy was fighting to "defend slavery", and nobody in the Union was fighting to "end slavery". If the North was fighting to end slavery, a good place to start would have been in its own back yard where more than 429,000 slaves still resided. Lincoln endorsed the Corwin Amendment which would have FOREVER made it illegal to abolish slavery, if the South would just return to the Union and ratify it. Obviously, that did not happen. So much for the "North fought to end slavery" myth.

Abomination? Let's talk about what an abomination is. How about continually worshiping and deifying Lincoln who illegally invaded the legally seceded states and waged a war to continue extracting unconstitutional and unfair tariffs from the South?
How about his full support of waging war on civilian old men, women, and children, and his armies murdering, looting, burning, and raping their way across the South, leaving black and white victims in their wake, dead, maimed, and starved? How about Lincoln's suspending of Habeas Corpus, shutting down over 300 Northern newspapers, illegally imprisoning tens of thousands of Northerners who spoke out against his war, and his censoring of telegraph communications?

The embarrassment is not in honoring the brave dead Confederate soldiers, but in honoring people like Lincoln, Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, Butler, and Hunter, to name a few. The Confederates fought for the very same reasons our colonial ancestors fought Great Britain; resistance to tyranny, independence, and the right of self-government. The Confederacy was in no way trying to destroy the U.S. government or the Union. Look where most of the battles took place. In the South. Why? Because the South was invaded. Had Lincoln not invaded, there would have been no war. Lincoln refused to meet with several Confederate envoys who wanted to avoid conflict. Lincoln wanted a war, and he produced one.

To rename military bases because they were named after Confederate soldiers is a slap in the face to all Southerners, their heritage, and the noble principles for which those soldiers contended. This cultural genocide against all things Southern and Confederate has got to stop. Our monuments have been defaced and removed, and we have seen schools, parks, and streets have their names changed to erase Confederate names. If everyone knew the truth about our history instead of the Marxist rewritten version shoved down their throats in the government indoctrination centers (public schools) and the Marxist propaganda pushers (universities) which is parroted by the media, Hollywood, PBS, NPR, and the History Channel, this cultural genocide would not be taking place. To rid this country of all things Confederate is just a stepping stone to erasing ALL of American history and culture. The Confederate items are just "the low hanging fruit" and the easiest to eliminate due to the massive indoctrination that has taken place in this country.

To guide your "journalists" in the right direction pertaining to our history, attached is a document "Answering The Myths" which addresses some of the common myths we hear repeatedly regurgitated by the media and academia. If you knew the truth, maybe you would not be cheerleading for the destruction of our history.


Jeff Paulk



The Marxists, and those brainwashed by the Marxists, have long contended the reasons for the War of Northern Aggression to be different from what true history reveals. They slander our flags, calling them symbols of racism, and call our heroes traitors. Here we will answer and debunk those myths.

MYTH #1 - The war was all about freeing the slaves.

TRUTH – The war had nothing to do with slavery. The proposed Corwin Amendment, by Congressman Thomas Corwin of Ohio, would have FOREVER prohibited the abolition of slavery if the seceded states would but rejoin the union and ratify the amendment. The South refused. Why? If it wanted to protect slavery you would think the South would have jumped on this. Besides this, the Crittendon-Johnson Resolution stated that the war was not for the “purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those states”.

On July 22, 1861, the U.S. Congress passed a joint resolution stating the purpose of the war:

“Resolved…That this war is not being prosecuted on our part in any spirit of oppression, not for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, nor purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those states, but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and all laws made in pursuance thereof and to preserve the Union, with all the dignity, equality and rights of the several States unimpaired; and that as soon as these objects are accomplished the war ought to cease.”

This is further proof that the war was NOT fought over slavery. The North did, however, conquer and subjugate the South, and the war they initiated and waged against the South was both unconstitutional and treasonous. It was fought to force the legally seceded South back into the union for the purpose of continuing the collection of excessive tariffs, which economically damaged the South, but was of economical benefit to the northern railroads and industrialists.

In his inaugural address, Lincoln stated, “ The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts;”. He wanted the money that the South had been paying into the federal government. The South was footing over 85% of the tax burden but only had 1/3 of the population. The Northern industrialists and bankers were reaping the benefits of this. Also, if the war was “all about slavery”, why was it that Union General Grant had slaves, but Confederate General Robert E. Lee had none? Why was West Virginia (which was illegally and unconstitutionally formed) allowed to cede into the union on the condition that it could keep its slaves? Why was Union General Fremont’s order freeing slaves in Missouri countermanded by Lincoln and the slaves sent back to their masters?
Also, nothing has been found in the “Official Records; War of the Rebellion” stating that they were fighting to “free the slaves”. Numerous Confederate letters state that the Confederacy was fighting for independence and in defense of their homes and families. Only about 3% of Confederate soldiers owned slaves, so what were the other 97% fighting for? Were the 97% who did not own slaves fighting so that the 3% who did own them could keep them? Of course not.
Also, if it was about “freeing the slaves”, then why didn’t the federal government free them in the six states that remained in the union? That would be Kansas (2), Nebraska (15), Kentucky (225,483), Missouri (114,931), Maryland (87,189), and Delaware (1,798) – 1860 Census.

"Amend the Constitution to say it should never be altered to interfere with slavery."
-- Abraham Lincoln, 24 December 1860, presenting his stand on slavery to the Senate

"We didn't go into the war to put down slavery, but to put the flag back; and to act differently at this moment would, I have no doubt, not only weaken our cause, but smack of bad faith..." Abraham Lincoln

“The sole object of this war,” said Grant, “is to restore the Union. Should I become convinced it has any other object, or that the Government designs using its soldiers to execute the wishes of the Abolitionists, I pledge you my honor as a man and a soldier I would resign my commission and carry my sword to the other side.”
-Democratic Speaker’s Handbook, p. 33


Having said all this, it is only fair to state that the opposition harps heavily on the fact that a very few Southern newspapers, such as the Vidette in Springfield, TN, talked about the war being about slavery. Tennessee had a strong pro-Union population and many citizens there joined the Union Army. Also, they point to a song written by T.W. Crowson of Alabama that cheers slavery. To paint the entire South and Confederate cause with the broad brush of “fighting for slavery” when only a tiny segment of the population felt this way is dishonest and reflects their “cherry-picking” agenda and telling of half-truths. Thousands of letters from Confederate soldiers to loved ones tell a very different story, but the opposition contends that no such letters were ever written. They are wrong.

Also, the opposition points to a recruiting flyer calling for Southerners to join up and fight the “Abolition foes”.
Taking things out of context is not uncommon for “those people”, as Gen. Robert E. Lee called them. Remember, the Yankee abolitionists were continually calling for slave uprisings and the murder of white men, women, and children by the slaves. It most certainly was not a “war of abolition”, because if it had been, almost no troops would have joined the Union Army. This is evidenced by the massive desertions experienced upon the publication of Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation. Abolition was a dirty word due to the violent intentions of the Yankees, so calling the invaders “Abolition foes” was calling the enemy a dirty name.

Another issue is Alexander Stephens’ “Cornerstone Speech”. Most mainstream historians point to the “Cornerstone” speech by Alexander Stephens as the clearest piece of evidence that slavery and white supremacy alone were the reasons for Southern secession. After all, most transcriptions show Stephens having stated that the Confederate government was founded on the “great physical, philosophical, and moral truth” of white superiority. A major quote that the historians leave out of their interpretation, however, is Stephens’ assertion twice that “This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science.” This science Stephens referred to was actually based on NORTHERN pseudoscience on race at the time.
One such Northern scientist was Samuel George Morton, from Philadelphia. Morton owned a large collection of skulls from around the world and by the 1830s was using the measurements of the skulls to argue there were distinct differences in the origins of the races, he also used the size of skulls to argue which races were inferior. This pseudoscience was expanded on by Josiah Nott, who was born in South Carolina, but came from a wealthy Connecticut family and was educated at the University of Pennsylvania. Nott took these ideas even further by stating that the races were separate in the way that apes are distinct from humans.
The Cornerstone speech highlights the selective and narrow lens through which most people choose to look at history. This speech, which does show the darker side of equality at the time, does not present any uniquely Southern ideas on race. Many people would rather feel good and believe a lie, than feel uncomfortable and know the truth.
(“Revisiting the Cornerstone Speech”, Abbeville Institute, By Michael Martin on Aug 27, 2018)

MYTH #2 - The South wanted to protect and perpetuate slavery to the western territories.

TRUTH – Well, that myth is beyond absurd. Common sense refutes this myth. By the very act of seceding from the union and establishing its own country, the South locked itself OUT of any rights to territories belonging to the U.S. The Confederate Constitution outlawed the importation of slaves, so if it wanted to “protect and perpetuate” slavery, why did it outlaw the importation of slaves? Slavery was dying out in the South and there were five times as many abolition groups in the South as there were in the North. The South wanted to be done with slavery and many had already freed their slaves. If the South wanted to “protect slavery”, it had only to stay in the union where it was already protected. The South was working towards gradual emancipation so that the blacks could gradually be prepared to enter society as free people. The ending of slavery in the South was a byproduct of the war, not the cause for it.

MYTH #3 - The South started the war by firing on Ft. Sumter.

TRUTH – The firing on Ft. Sumter was what Lincoln had planned on. He lied when he said that he would not resupply the forces there. If Lincoln abandoned the fort, he risked legitimizing the Confederacy. Northern sentiment was mostly in favor of recognizing the newly formed Confederacy. Lincoln needed to change that opinion. He crafted the plan of resupplying the troops there, knowing the South would not permit this and fire the first shots. Remember, the one who fires first is not necessarily the aggressor, but the one who causes that shot to be fired. Lincoln wrote to Lieutenant Gustavus Fox, “You and I both anticipated that the cause of the [Federation] would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the results.” Lincoln provoked the firing on Ft. Sumter according to plan. Now he could launch his war on the Confederacy, illegal as it was.

(“The Real Lincoln”, by Charles L. C. Minor, pages 88, 256, 257)

The federal government under outgoing President James Buchanan – who was still in office at the time – had signed an agreement with South Carolina – now part of the newly created Confederate States of America – to make no attempt to relieve, rearm, re-supply or send more federal troops into Moultrie in exchange for that State government’s promise not to remove the federal troops in that fort by force. Of course, there was no need to re-supply the fort as the people of Charleston sold food to the federal troops despite the fact that South Carolina was no longer in the federal union. Sumter, however, was not part of any agreement because it was no longer a federal facility and such troops as remained in Charleston were assigned to Fort Moultrie! But by leaving Moultrie and moving to Sumter in secret and without informing the State of South Carolina or the newly established Confederate government of which that State was a part, Anderson was committing an act that can only be seen as hostile even if no shots were fired at the time.
This act was further exacerbated by the damage Anderson did to Moultrie in spiking its guns, removing its supplies and munitions and even cutting down its flag pole, a symbolic but potent rejection of the new Confederacy that in and of itself was a warlike act. Anderson moved to Fort Sumter because it was an island fort and therefore far more easily supplied and defended than land-locked Moultrie, still further evidence of the military nature of his operation. And as the possession of Sumter had reverted to South Carolina and was, therefore, no longer a federal installation, Anderson’s actions constituted nothing short of an invasion by the federal government of the land and property of the Confederate States of America! Furthermore, though no shots were fired in this military “invasion,” violence was indeed threatened as the civilian workers occupying Sumter at the time, were run out of the facility with guns and bayonets and forced to take small boats back across the harbor into Charleston, a further example of a warlike action against unarmed and unprepared noncombatants!
So it is obvious both in law and history, that the first act of hostility in the War of Secession was not the later false flag operation involving Sumter, but Major Anderson’s abandonment of Fort Moultrie and his occupation of Fort Sumter. It is equally obvious that Anderson, a mere major, would hardly have mounted such an offense on his own recognizance, thus making it equally obvious that his actions were ordered from those “higher-up” the chain of command. Lincoln had not yet been inaugurated, but he was in touch with General Winfield Scott about the military options open to him with regards to the consequences of secession and the federal forts and installations in seceded States, so it is more than probable that Anderson was ordered by his superiors to abandon Moultrie – which was neither easily defended nor rearmed – and retire to Sumter whose location provided a better chance at both. As that is the case, then it is not wrong to claim the first act of the so-called Civil War took place on Christmas Eve, 1860 and not April 15th, 1861.
(“The ‘First Shot’ Re-visited”, by Valerie Protopapas)

Lincoln’s first written message to congress War is about taxes.
“My policy sought only to collect the Revenue (a 40 percent federal sales tax on imports to Southern States under the Morrill Tariff Act of 1861).” reads paragraph 5 of Lincoln’s First Message to the U.S. Congress, penned July 4, 1861.
On Dec. 25, 1860, South Carolina declared unfair taxes to be a cause of secession: “The people of the Southern States are not only taxed for the benefit of the Northern States, but after the taxes are collected, three-fourths (75%) of them are expended at the North (to subsidize Wall Street industries that elected Lincoln).” (Paragraphs 5-8)
On April 8th, 4 days before the famous shots fired at Fort Sumter, Lincoln sent a fleet of war ships led by USRC/USS Harriet Lane to reinforce Fort Sumter which was in Charleston harbor to collect the new tax. USS Harriet Lane was a revenue cutter that became a warship. Revenue cutters previously called Revenue-Marine were armed ships for the Treasury Department meant to enforce tax collection.

It arrived on April 11th still a full day before the famous “shots fired” when Capt. George S. James fired a single 10-inch mortar round above Ft. Sumter. The Yankee tax collection ship that had invaded Charleston Harbor fired a 32 pound shot across the bow of a civilian steam ship Nashville. The union had sent its tax collection ships as well as other war ships to South Carolina to collect the tax and they fired first. It was the following day the South fired on the import-export tax collection fort. The Yankee ship would continue to fight in many naval battles until it wrecked off of Hatteras NC trying to enter the Pamlico Sound.

(Lincoln’s Tax Ship That Started The War), https://dawsontime.com/2021/01/25/lincolns-tax-ship-that-started-the-war/ )

MYTH #4 – The secession declarations prove the South seceded to protect slavery.

TRUTH – While several of the Declarations do mention slavery, and the states call themselves “slave states”, these documents have to be interpreted in the context in which they were written. You have to get into that period of history to understand their meaning. For decades the South had been the victim of slander, lies, and propaganda at the hands of the Northern press, authors, and even pastors. Radical abolitionists in the North promoted violence and insurrection to end slavery, and they were all for killing off white slaveholders, but never mentioned the black slaveholders in the South. (Oh yes, they most certainly existed. Didn’t learn that in school, did you?)

“Four seceding Southern states published some form of declaration of their reasons for secession. These were South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, and Texas. Many modern academic allies of the Northern War to Prevent Southern Independence have recently taken up the cry that because these declarations have many references to slavery that they are proof that the war was all about slavery. First of all, however, there is a difference between the cause of the war and the causes for secession. The cause of the war was Lincoln’s call for 75,000 troops to invade the Southern states. This invasion immediately triggered four more states secessions – Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas – in addition to protests from the governors of Kentucky and Missouri, and unrest in Maryland.
In addition, the substance of the secession declarations must be interpreted in their political/economic and constitutional contexts. The Northern Union had become an oppressive government dedicated to Northern regional dominance and almost exclusively Northern economic prosperity. States Rights were the primary bulwark against this Northern regionalism. Many modern apologists for the Union cause also fail to recognize that these declarations, following South Carolina’s example, were building a legal case against Northern breaches of the Constitution. Moreover, much of the language of these declarations was a protest against the constant inflammatory distortions and repeated attacks on Southern honor by radical abolitionists in Congress and in the Northern press.
The Mississippi declaration included an admission of its economic dependence on slave labor. However, over-dramatizing this admission in accusatory terms fails to recognize a genuine dilemma. Many Southerners, probably a majority, would have gladly rid themselves of slavery. But how could it be done without destroying the economies of the major cotton producing states and severely damaging New York banking and shipping interests? Many also saw the necessity of preparing the slaves to compete in a free economy before emancipation. Many would have followed the British model of gradual emancipation with compensation to slave owners.
What the secession declarations prove is that Southerners had strong reasons to believe that their political rights and economic welfare were unsafe under Northern political dominance.”

(“The Un-Civil War”, by Leonard M. Scruggs, pages 27-28)

MYTH #5 – Secession was treason.

TRUTH – Secession being legal was taught at West Point from William Rawle’s “Views on the Constitution” published in 1825. It was used as a text book for one year and remains in the library today. Americans who oppose secession for the Southern states find themselves bed partners with the communist generals of Yugoslavia and communist hard-liners of the former Soviet Union. What was condemned in 1861 was sanctioned by the Republican Party in 1991 when Vaclav Havel of Czechoslovakia withdrew his country from the Soviet Union’s orbit, but Jefferson Davis and his fellow Southerners are called traitors for doing the same thing.
The 10th Amendment protects a states’ right to withdraw from the union. If a state voluntarily joined, it can voluntarily withdraw.
New England threatened to secede over the War of 1812, yet no force was threatened against them to remain in the union. Our Founding Fathers knew secession was a right held by the states.

“Among the Founding Fathers there was no doubt. The United States had just seceded from the British Empire, exercising the right of the people to “alter or abolish” — by force, if necessary — a despotic government. The Declaration of Independence is the most famous act of secession in our history, though modern rhetoric makes “secession” sound somehow different from, and more sinister than, claiming independence.

The original 13 states formed a “Confederation,” under which each state retained its “sovereignty, freedom, and independence.” The Constitution didn’t change this; each sovereign state was free to reject the Constitution. The new powers of the federal government were “granted” and “delegated” by the states, which implies that the states were prior and superior to the federal government.”
“After Lincoln’s illegal War of Northern Aggression, Jefferson Davis, the President of the Confederacy, was arrested and placed in prison prior to a trial. The trial was never held, because the chief justice of the Supreme Court, Mr. Salmon Portland Chase, informed President Andrew Johnson that if Davis were placed on trial for treason the United States would lose the case because nothing in the Constitution forbids secession. That is why no trial of Jefferson Davis was held, despite the fact that he wanted one!

Because of our progressive-liberal public education system, many Americans now believe the myth that secession is treasonable. The Declaration of Independence was, in fact, a declaration of secession. Its final paragraph declares inarguably the ultimate sovereignty of each state:

That these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved of all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do.

Following the Declaration of Independence, each colony established by law the legitimacy of its own sovereignty as a state. Each one drew up, voted upon, and then ratified its own state constitution, which declared and defined its sovereignty as a state. Realizing that they could not survive upon the world stage as thirteen individual sovereign nations, the states then joined together formally into a confederation of states, but only for the purposes of negotiating treaties, waging war, and regulating foreign commerce.” Charles Pitts
If secession was not legal, why did the U.S. Congress try to pass an amendment making it illegal AFTER the Southern states seceded?
(“The South Was Right”, by James Ronald Kennedy and Walter Donald Kennedy, pages 195-217)
Not one Confederate was charged with treason. Jefferson Davis waited two years in prison and wanted to have his case tried in court because he knew he would win.
Salmon Chase, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court told Lincoln’s boys that if they were to bring ANYTHING or ANYONE of that Confederation before the Court, and I quote,
If secession is not legal, then why were there attempts to amend the Constitution to prohibit it?
“In the months before Lincoln’s inauguration, Representatives Daniel E. Sickles of New York, Thomas B. Florence of Pennsylvania, and Orris S. Ferry of Connecticut proposed constitutional amendments to prohibit secession. This would suggest that members of Congress understood at the time that secession was in fact constitutional; otherwise, why bother outlawing it? The proposals were testimonials to the truth of Chief Justice John Marshall’s statement in Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) that “limitations of a power furnish a strong argument in favor of the existence of that power.”

On March 2, 1861, two days before Lincoln’s inaugural and after seven states had seceded, Senator James R. Doolittle of Wisconsin submitted yet another proposed constitutional amendment that said, “No State or any part thereof, heretofore admitted or hereafter to be admitted into the Union, shall have the power to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the United States.” There would be no point in doing this if secession were already unconstitutional.”

(The Real Lincoln, by Thomas J. DiLorenzo – pages 290, 291)

MYTH #6 – The Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves.

TRUTH - You say, “His Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves! That proves he was against slavery.” Lincoln’s words: “I view the matter (Emancipation Proclamation) as a practical war measure, to be decided upon according to the advantages or disadvantages it may offer to the suppression of the rebellion.” He also wrote: “I will also concede that emancipation would help us in Europe, and convince them that we are incited by something more than ambition.” At the time Lincoln wrote the proclamation, war was going badly for the Union. London and Paris were considering recognizing the Confederacy and considering assisting it in its war effort.

All one has to do to debunk this myth is to actually read the Proclamation. It “freed” slaves in areas NOT under federal control, but expressly left them in bondage where it actually could have freed them. Numerous union troops deserted after the Emancipation Proclamation was made public.


MYTH #7 – The South treated blacks terribly.

TRUTH - From, “The Truths of History”, pgs. 92, 93.

The South claims that race prejudice has been, and now is, far greater in the North than in the South.
In his “Democracy in America”, De Toqueville, the French writer, says;

“Though the electoral franchise has been conferred on the negroes in all the free States, if they come forward to vote their lives are in danger. Negroes may serve by law on juries but prejudice repels them from office. They have separate schools, separate hospital wards, and separate galleries in the theaters. In the South it is quite different with the negro. Undoubtedly, the prejudice of the race appears to be much stronger in the States that have abolished slaves than in the States where slavery still exists.
White carpenters, white bricklayers, and white painters will not work side by side with the blacks in the North, but do it in almost every Southern State unless Northern men among their workmen oppose it.”

Negroes left their homes in Alabama to work in Illinois, but many were killed and others driven from the State. Were the murderers of those negroes ever brought to trial?

One Republican said:

“If any more negroes come to Illinois, I will meet them on the border with gatling-guns!”

Mr. Seward, March 3, 1858 said:

“The white man needs this continent to labor in and must have it.”

The Legislature of Kansas, the home of John Brown, said:

“This state is for whites only.”

In 1850, 1855 and 1865, Michigan refused suffrage to free negroes.
In 1864 no negro could vote in Nevada.
“In Illinois (Lincoln’s State) no negro nor mulatto was allowed to remain in the State ten days. If a negro came into the State he was to be sold at auction.”

In twenty-seven counties of Indiana no negro was allowed to live. If any white man encouraged him to come to the State he was fined.
In Boston the negroes are segregated.
In Ohio the negroes were warned if they did not segregate some dire calamity would befall them.
In New York City and Washington City this question of segregation is of serious import today and under constant discussion.
No negro can live in Oregon.

As to the condition of the slaves in the South under the institution of slavery, Major-General Quitman, of New York, an army officer who was stationed near a Mississippi plantation before the war, says in a letter to his father:

“Every night she has family prayers with her slaves. When a minister comes, which is very frequently, prayers are said night and morning, and chairs are always provided for the servants.
“They are married by a clergyman of their own color, and a sumptuous supper is always prepared. They are a happy, careless, unreflecting, good-natured race-who left to themselves would degenerate into drones or brutes. They have great family pride and are the most arrant aristocrats in the world.”

(“The Secession War in America,” by J.P. Shaffull, published in New York, 1862)

By the above accounts, blacks were treated well in the South and horribly bad in the North. There were laws against the mistreatment of slaves, though it did happen, it was not common. The “Slave Narratives”, compiled during the Great Depression by Northern journalists, proves that the blacks living in the 19th century South (at least the vast majority of them) were happy and content with their lives and the way they were treated. Why? Because it was not whips and chains as the Yankees and Hollywood have portrayed it to be. There was mutual love, respect, and kindness. White and black relations in the South at that time were quite good. Common sense and integrity actually existed with both races then. What happened to all that? Reconstruction.

MYTH #8 – The Confederate Flag is a symbol of racism and hate.

TRUTH - No historical document exists to support that this flag represented hate, slavery, racism, deceit, infamy or repression. Not one flag of the Confederacy was ever described in its placement to represent anything other than the Confederate States of America. No Confederate ship ever ran slaves. The Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) adopted the battle flag as part of its logo in 1896, long before “hate” groups began to abuse the flag, and they condemn misuse of any Confederate flag. The KKK and other “hate” groups didn’t use the flag until late 1950s/early 1960s. In his book “What They Fought For, 1861-1865,” historian James McPherson, after reading more than 25,000 letters and over 100 soldier diaries from both sides of the War for Southern Independence, concluded that Confederate soldiers "fought for liberty and independence from what they regarded as a tyrannical government."

Here, Mr. King tells it well. (James King, Commander of Lt. Col. Thomas M. Nelson’s Rangers, #141, Albany, GA)

Before you attack the Confederate soldiers' Battle flag, see how Old Glory will compare: http://www.vdare.com/fallon/confederate.htm

The Confederate Flag and the United States Flag are judged by different standards and criteria, and are not held to the same levels of accountability. In analytical science and weights and measures, comparisons are made against known standards. However, in politics comparisons are never made in a fair and impartial manner. In order to understand the hypocrisy, ignorance, and bias that have been directed against the Confederate Flag, it is necessary to use the U.S. Flag (Stars and Stripes) as a standard of comparison. The purpose of this comparison is not to berate or disparage the U.S. Flag, but is to prove that the Confederate Flag has received unfair and unequal treatment. The genocide and racial cleansing of the American Indians took place under the U.S. Flag. Their land was taken without fair and just compensation. Indians died by the thousands as they were forced on to reservations and subjected to starvation and deadly diseases. The Trail of Tears endured by the Cherokee is an example. In the American West, cavalry troopers murdered entire villages including babies in their mother's arms.

The U.S. Flag Flew over an unconstitutional and criminal war conducted against The Confederate States of America. Abraham Lincoln conducted this war for the benefit of wealthy Northern industrialists. Atrocities against Southern civilians and military are listed in the book, The Uncivil War: Union Army and Navy Excesses in the Official Records. Furthermore, slaves were imported from Africa to America primarily by five Northern States: New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island. The Confederate Flag was not involved in the importation of slaves.

Finally, the U.S. Flag flies over a nation that has murdered an estimated 42 million babies by abortion. Confederate leaders would never have voted for abortion or nominated judges that would legalize abortion. Political Correctness has been used to attempt bans of The Confederate Flag from schools, parades, public and private property, and even historical monuments and sites. The Confederate flag represents Constitutional Limited Federal Government, States Rights, Resistance to Government Tyranny, and Christian Values and Principles. To say that it represents racism and bigotry is a negative and shallow interpretation comparable to saying the U.S. flag represents the genocide of the American Indians and abortion. James W. King

Let it also be noted here that it was Northerners, New Englanders to be specific, who built the slave ships and transported their cargo of human flesh to the U.S. and sold them to Northerners and Southerners. It was the North that grew and perpetuated slavery, not the South. Slavery died in the North because it was not as useful in an industrialized society as it was in an agricultural one, and Northerners refused to work alongside of blacks. The North invaded the South to force it back into the union to continue the collection of excessive and unconstitutional taxes. The South wanted only to be left alone. The Confederate soldiers fought an illegal invasion in defense of their homes and families. The union soldiers burned homes, barns and crops. They raped the women, black and white. They killed animals. They looted homes and stores. During Reconstruction, which was nothing but a military dictatorship, the schools had to teach what the federal government told them to. This is where the Marxist rewritten history begins. This is when the animosity between the races began due to the Yankees stripping whites of their rights and placing blacks in superior positions over whites. The history was rewritten to cover up the truth about Lincoln and his war crimes, and to cover up the truth of why he waged an illegal war. While the military phase ended in 1865, the political, economic, and social phases continue today. Cultural genocide continues to be waged on our history, symbols, and culture. A union held together with bayonets is not a union. The South is full of Yankee transplants and Southern turncoats and scalawags glad to do the bidding of the globalists and Marxists, trampling on the memory of those brave dead black, white, Indians and Mexicans who fought in defense of their homeland. The lies and propaganda continue. Those who slander the South, blame it for slavery, and slander it and its symbols are clearly ignorant of true history. We went into the War a free people, and came out as slaves on the government plantation.

Jeff Paulk

Tulsa, OK

[ Edited Thu Jun 16 2022, 12:30AM ]
Back to top

Jump:     Back to top

Syndicate this thread: rss 0.92 Syndicate this thread: rss 2.0 Syndicate this thread: RDF
Powered by e107 Forum System