Ah, some very welcome news

As any Southerner who is not ashamed of the South, I have spent lots of time defending being Southern. From defending the accent from those who think it makes us sound inferior, to pushing back against those who look down on the entire region as uneducated. And, of course, I have spent many years studying the War Between the States, ever since I was nine actually. That has led me to believe something VERY politically incorrect. That belief, based again, in years of  research is that it is absurd for anyone to assume that we Southerners ought to reject, or be ashamed of our Confederate ancestors. It is especially galling when some Conservative blogger does their best impression of a whining liberal and insists we must forget our past. You know, like those Conservatives who said Virginia ought to scrap marking April as Confederate history month. Because, I guess, history is icky, and surrendering to Liberals who wish to selectively edit history is our best move.

I always like to mention that any sin attached to the Confederate Battleflag can also be attached to Old Glory. I also think it important to note that the same Liberal nutcases who wish to yank the names of Davis, Lee, or Jackson off of parks, streets signs, and schools will one day be yanking the names of Washington, Jefferson, and Madison off of the same things. And, when there are no more Confederate banners, and no more more schools named after General Lee, the Left will not stop their campaign of cultural genocide, they will simply change their targets! Odd that those clamoring for us to “forget” our history are actually forgetting the long history of the Left’s complete intolerance of history they do not like.

Those that write about the Confederacy as a traitors always get me too. I imagine that if the Colonies had lost to the Brits in the American Revolution these folks would be calling our Founders traitors too. After all, those colonies seceded and sought their own nation didn’t they? Much like the Confederate States did. Much like the State of Texas sought its independence from Mexico, and Mexico from Spain. Maybe only winning struggles for independence makes seeking that independence right in some folks mind’s.

All of that brings me to that good news I spoke of in the beginning. A Nod to the Gods has a story out of Utah that made me smile

For once common sense prevails over political correctness.

I posted about a small college in southern Utah called Dixie State. With the school moving into university status, a few misguided/confused/brainwashed liberal students wanted to change the name from Dixie to Southern Utah because the term “Dixie” was thought to bring connotations of slavery or a perceived deep south racial bias. The few libertards did manage to have a beautiful statue removed, but failed by a LARGE margin to get the name changed. (Read Original Post Here)

An overwhelming 83 percent of respondents — made up of students, alumni, faculty, staff and community members — said the controversial “Dixie” title could or should be part of the school’s name.

However, Dixie opponents, including the NAACP, argue the term invokes a negative association with racism and slavery. But, the Sorenson advertising CEO argued that the community associates the name with volunteerism, compassion and a pioneer heritage.

The Dixie State student body president said that he wanted “Dixie” removed from the name, but that he would vote for the voice of the student body. The majority wanted to keep “Dixie” in the name with only 17 percent saying to remove it.

The overall vote in the Board of Trustees meeting was unanimous in favor of Dixie State University.

Not sure if the statue has been put back where it belongs. It should go back, let the whiners that wanted it down learn to be tolerant of someone else’s feelings for once in their lives! Here is a picture of the statue

 

Lions and Tigers and Neo-Confederate Judges? Oh my!

Oh Lordy, the Left does have “Confederacy Obsession Syndrome” don’t they? Stacy McCain notes that one Scott Lemieux, no, I have never heard of him either has contracted a serious case of C.O.S.

Why did Scott Lemieux reach for the “neo-Confederate” epithet (he clearly means it as such) to describe the three federal judges who ruled against President Obama’s recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board? I’m old enough to remember when liberals claimed to oppose the “imperial presidency,” but I suppose that was because Nixon was president back then. Liberals are OK with imperial authority when that authority is wielded by Barack Milhous Obama.

Lemieux may have gotten “neo-Confederate” from the Random Epithet Generator software that is installed on the laptops of progressive bloggers, to help them express their Manichean worldview.

It is not true that liberals are moral relativists. In their worldview, that which helps Democrats is good; that which helps Republicans is evil.

Because the appeals court ruled against the Democratic president, the court is evil, and the question for the Random Epithet Generator to solve is, “What kind of evil is this?” Racist? Sexist? Homophobic? Greedy? Reactionary? Climate change denialist? These possibilities were crunched through the algorithmic progression of the Random Epithet Generator and rejected in favor of “neo-Confederate.”

Yet another Liberal Malady is diagnosed by me, with a great deal of help from RS McCain of course, who just blew the lid off the Random Epithet Generator software that Liberals use. Of course, it might also be true that Lemieux, who is a professional idiot, so do not try to write such foolish things on your own kids, has just been indoctrinated to scream NEO-CONFEDERATE at anytime someone actually wants to abide by the Constitution.

Your Marxist Moron of the Day is….

Andrew Sullivan, who might need to read a couple of history books, especially where the War Between the States is concerned

Andrew Sullivan’s ahistoricism is simply breathtaking. Just watch his stunningly ridiculous comments on “This Week with George Stephanopoulos,” at Mediate, “Andrew Sullivan to ABC: If Romney Wins Florida and VA, It’s the ‘Confederacy’” (viaMemeorandum):

PBS reporter Gwen Ifill said that “we can’t ignore” the possible factor racial animus may play in deciding the election, noting that the poll indicates that, on some level, people are still willing to admit “racial bias.”

Sullivan then added: “If Virginia and Florida go back to the Republicans, it’s the Confederacy. Entirely. You put a map of the Civil War over this electoral map, you’ve got the Civil War.”

Conservative panelist George Will rolled his eyes. “I don’t know,” said a skeptical Ifill.

Will then posited two possible explanations for Obama’s slippage in the white vote since 2008: “A lot of white people who voted for Obama in 2008 watched him govern for four years and said, ‘Not so good. Let’s try someone else.’ The alternative, the ‘Confederacy’ hypothesis is that those people somehow, for some reason in the last four years became racist.”

“That’s not my argument at all,” replied Sullivan. “It’s the southernization of the Republican Party. [Virginia and Florida] were the only two states in 2008 that violated the Confederacy rule.”

The Confederacy Rule? I have studied the WBTS AKA the War of Northern Aggression for many years, and read hundreds of books, toured nearly all the battlefields, given speeches on several battles, generals, causes, etc. But I NEVER knew that the Confederacy was this big!

Map of the Confederacy according to Andrew Sullivan

 

What type of low life desecrates a war memorial?

 

Stories like this hit close to home for me

The Confederate Memorial Park near Point Lookout was vandalized last week with a spray-painted swastika on the base of a statue of a Confederate prisoner of war. A noose was placed around the statue’s neck and there was also a racial epithet spray-painted on another section of the memorial.

“I’m highly upset about it,” said Michael Daras, who lives nearby. His son, John, noticed the swastika on Thursday, but did not notice the noose until Friday when he visited the site.

“It shouldn’t be desecrated that way,” Michael Daras said, who was born in England and raised in Washington, D.C.

The memorial park was dedicated on Sept. 6, 2008, and cost more than $250,000 along with $100,000 worth of materials, said Jim Dunbar, chairman of the Confederate Memorial Park.

Awful, absolutely awful. Like I said this hits close to home, I had an ancestor, a Great-Great-Grandfather Allan Dean McWhorter, of the 4th South Carolina Cavalry was held at Point Lookout, and went blind while there. Oddly enough, another Great-Great-Grandfather  Lt.William A. Allen, of the 56th Georgia lost an eye at Vicksburg. The problem, however, is that such desecrations are all too common, as Richard G. Williams points out

 

In recent years, we’ve seen an increase in the number of articles and blog posts comparing Confederate soldiers to Nazis. It is an intellectually dishonest comparison with ideological and political motivations. Those promoting such an interpretation should be pleased with this bit of news. Evidently they’re having some success in getting their message out:
The Confederate Memorial Park near Point Lookout was vandalized last week with a spray-painted swastika on the base of a statue of a Confederate prisoner of war. A noose was placed around the statue’s neck and there was also a racial epithet spray-painted on another section of the memorial. (Story here.)

Beyond the obvious desecration of this memorial, I have a personal connection as my great-great Grandfather, Morris (aka “Maurice”) Coffey, was a prisoner at Point Lookout. This is disgusting. Fortunately, many are on to this twisting of history for the sole purpose of dishonoring Confederate soldiers:

Even the venerable Robert E. Lee has taken some vicious hits, as dishonest or misinformed advocates among political interest groups and in academia attempt to twist yesterday’s America into a fantasy that might better serve the political issues of today. The greatest disservice on this count has been the attempt by these revisionist politicians and academics to defame the entire Confederate Army in a move that can only be termed the Nazification of the Confederacy. Often cloaked in the argument over the public display of the Confederate battle flag, the syllogism goes something like this: Slavery is evil. The soldiers of the Confederacy fought for a system that wished to preserve it. Therefore they were evil as well, and any attempt to honor their service is a veiled effort to glorify the cause of slavery. ~ From Born Fighting by Virginia Senator James Webb (Page 208, emphasis mine).

Thus, any attempt to “glorify slavery” should be fought and one would be justified in desecrating monuments honoring Confederate soldiers. So, yes, academia is partly responsible as their Nazi comparisons and constant Confederate bashing encourages this type of thing. 

So sad, so very sad

 

Old Virginia Blog: Diversity In The Confederacy

History that many want to hide. Lots more here

Old Virginia Blog: Diversity In The Confederacy, posted with vodpod

A must read essay from The Other McCain

Robert Stacy McCain is, like me, a man who defends the South unapologetically. He is a man, like me, is proud of his Confederate ancestors. Stacy has written a great piece setting the record straight on the right of secession the Southern states claimed in 1861. It is well written and historically sound, and ought to be read by anyone who thinks the South had no right to secede. Check it out! And YES read it all

On this day in 1860, South Carolina voted to secede from the Union, and this 150th anniversary inspires historian Paul Rahe to publish his endorsement of the “indissoluble union” theory:

The legitimacy of secession has been debated ever since. In my view, secession was unlawful. There is provision in the United States constitution for ratification and for the admission of new states into the Union. There is no provision for secession.
It is true, of course, that – in ratifying the Constitution – Virginia specified “that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression.” But this unilateral assertion on Virginia’s part is not and could not be an assertion of a legal right under the Constitution – which, even if viewed as a contract, recognizes no such right. Rather, it is a reassertion of the natural rights that underpin the right to revolution asserted in the Declaration of Independence, and it applies to the people of the United States and not to the state of Virginia or even the people of the state of Virginia as such.

Of course, this theory effectively abolishes the states, rendering them nothing but administrative jurisdictions of the unitary and all-powerful national government — the negation of federalism.

From the standpoint of political science, it makes no difference whether in your opinion Southern secession was wise or just in 1860, or whether you are in favor of secession as a general idea, and it certainly makes no difference what your opinion is as to the controversies over slavery that provoked the crisis of 1860-61.

The fundamental question is, “Who ratified the Constitution, and what sort of union was created by that ratification?” And the answers to those questions are not, nor can they be, a matter of mere opinion. There are historical facts to be considered, and which Rahe glosses over.

The American colonies which declared their independence from Great Britain in July 1776 made it as clear as possible what their intent was:

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from 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.