Confederate veterans honored in Nebraska

You have to love history, and stories like this one honoring some fine men

October 28, 2013 7:00 am  •  By Stephen Rickerl/Fremont Tribune

Thomas Campbell Sexton was told he would face certain death if he refused to allow a doctor to amputate his leg after a Minie ball tore through it during the Battle of Chancellorsville in 1863.

But as the story goes, Sexton being a stubborn man, told the doctor he would rather die than live without his leg. And live he did, almost to the age of 100 before he died of a heart attack in Dodge County in 1943.

Sexton was a private in Company D, 4th Virginia Infantry, in the army of the Confederate States of America during the Civil War. The brigade is probably one of the most famous Confederate brigades because it was commanded by Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson, said Jim Arbaugh.

Arbaugh, a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, recently established the Thomas C. Sexton Camp 2232 in Fremont. The Sons of Confederate Veterans, like their counterparts the Sons of Union Veterans, honor their Civil War ancestors by preserving their history and heritage.

On Sunday in Ridge Cemetery, Sons of Confederate Veterans, Sons of Union Veterans and Civil War re-enactors gathered around the gravesite of Private Thomas C. Sexton to pay tribute to his military service and honor the life he led after the war ended.

After the war, Sexton got a medical degree from the Baltimore Medical College, said Maj. Charles Folsom of Fremont, Sexton’s great-grandson.

With the south devastated by the war and offering little opportunity, Folsom said his great-grand father decided to move north, and came to Fontanelle in Dodge County. Settled by an Ohio contingent in 1855, Fontanelle was a strong Union settlement and its inhabitants did not trust Sexton immediately.

Folsom said he isn’t sure exactly what happened but he believes Sexton saved someone’s life and the residents of Fontanelle began to trust him. He eventually married Emma Peters, who had been in Fontanelle since the age of 4, and practiced medicine in the Nickerson-Fontanelle area.

Folsom said Sexton retired at the “ripe old age of 44” and built a house in 1888 at 10th Street and Nye Avenue in Fremont, which is still standing today.

About a mile west of Sexton’s home, Sunday’s ceremony in Ridge Cemetery was the first of its kind in the State of Nebraska, said Arbaugh, because the Thomas C. Sexton Camp 2232 is the only camp in the state recognized by the national organization of the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

Prior to its establishment, any ceremony honoring a confederate veteran was conducted by either the Grand Army of the Republic or Sons of Union Veterans, said Gale Red, Adjutant of the Lt. George E. Dixon Camp 1962 in Belleville, Ill.

Red helped guide Arbaugh in establishing the Thomas C. Sexton Camp, and helped officiate Sunday’s ceremony.

Red said the Sons of Confederate Veterans are the heirs of the United Confederate Veterans, and must be able to directly trace their lineage back to a Confederate veteran in order to be a member.

The United Confederate Veterans and the Grand Army of the Republic were made up of actual Union and Confederate veterans. The “Sons” organizations are their descendants.

 

Ho-Hum Another corrupt Democrat compares Tea Party to the Confederacy

Old Rantin’ Rangel can say the darndest things so this clip is not surprising in that it contains a gratuitous amount of BS and race baiting. What IS shocking is that Martin Bashir, he is not a newsman but he pretends to be one on MSNBS has contracted a case of Perpetual Serious Face

Seriously, every time I see Bashir on TV he has that same face. Maybe he is constipated? Take a look at the heartbreaking effects of Perpetual Serious Face

martin-bashir martin-bashir1 martin-bashir2 martin-bashir3 martin-bashir4 martin-bashir5 martin-bashir6

 

Hey kids, who is ready for some race pimpin’!

And not just any old race pimpin’ either! Oh no, we have none other than Je$$e Jack$on who thinks the Confederacy is still around.

Screen-shot-2013-10-08-at-7.30.03-PM

Is it me, or are Democrats playing the Confederacy Card a lot recently? Really showing their desperation now. They are like a bunch of vampires locked out of a blood bank as the sun is rising.

The dumbest Tweet ever?

This might be. John Fugelsang certainly did some serious digging to get this nugget of idiocy out of The Pit of Eternal Leftist Inanity

This is the natural result of Liberals going to the same well over and again. Eventually, it dries up and you end up saying/writing/tweeting something so stupid that you make a complete mockery of yourself. Fugelsang illustrates this by trying to tie the Confederacy to a government shutdown. a shutdown I might point out is the result of Harry Reid and president Obama being unwilling to budge an inch on either delaying, defunding, or altering Obamacare in any way.Screen-shot-2013-09-30-at-4.33.20-PM

If I may, allow me to set something straight here. The Confederacy was formed when seven states decided that the Northern States were going to use force to unfairly tax them, trample their state sovereignty, yes, slavery being one among several issues at stake, but not, in my view the most crucial one and centralize power in Washington rather than in the States. What they were doing was what the 13 colonies had done before them. They declared their right to form a new government, and wanted only to be let alone. Upon Lincoln’s call for 75,000 troops to force these states back into a union they no longer wished to be in the states of Arkansas, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia seceded. Their leaving the union had nothing to do with slavery, a fact too many people, even many Conservatives overlook.

Another fact overlooked, or ignored by Republicans today is that at that time the Democratic party WAS the Conservative party. It was the party that believed the Constitution could only be changed by amending it. Many Republicans believed in higher law that superseded the Constitution. It was the disregard for the Constitution that scared the Southern States. The ideal of States being sovereign was dear to many Americans in that time, not only Southerners but Northerners as well. The issue of slavery has been used by Liberals, and many modern Conservatives to squelch any debate on the causes of the war, or on the worthiness of hailing Lincoln as a “great” president. But, that issue was more complex than many today are willing to accept. For instance, you hear people say that the South wanted to expand slavery to new territories. While this is true of some Southerners, consider 94% of Southerners owned no slaves, it is also true that Southerners held that territories were FEDERAL property, thus the sovereignty states held did not apply. These same Southerners, Jefferson Davis being a prime example, also held that when  a territory became a state, it then had every right to allow, or ban slavery. In other words, that was a States Rights issue.

Sadly too many folks today never study the real causes, positions, issues, etc of that day. The South was bad because, slavery. Lincoln was a saint because he “ended” slavery, and anything he did, like imprisoning thousands and shuttering newspapers for speaking out against his policies, is thus excused, again because, slavery!

One last thing about  the Democratic Party of that day. The Democratic Party was born out of the Democrat-Republicans, the  party of Madison, Jefferson, and Monroe among others. That party split into the Democratic Party and the National Republicans in the late 1820′s with the National Republicans fading away very quickly. Again, at that time the Democratic Party WAS the party more affiliated with the Founders than their political opponents the Whigs were. It was out of the Whig party that the Republican Party rose, yes, with a strong sentiment against slavery. Of course many Republicans of that time wanted slavery abolished, and the former slaves gone from the country. Yes Lincoln was one of those who supported that. Google “Liberia” if you have doubts.

Eventually the Republicans and Democrats switched roles, we all know who the Conservatives and Liberals are today. Of course, it ought to be remembered that after the War Between the States Republicans included Progressives like Teddy Roosevelt, and so did the Democrats with the likes of Woodrow Wilson. It was not always so easy to define a politician by his party affiliation.

I write these things because I tire of the ignorance I hear about the War of Northern aggression, and the bashing of the South and the Confederacy as some evil enterprise that sought to destroy self-government when in fact the Confederacy was the greatest stand against the centralization of governmental power. Yes, the war changed this nation, and yes the end of slavery was an overdue result, and a result that would have happened even without a war. But the destruction of State Sovereignty, and the rise of an all-powerful federal government was a drastic blow to this nation. If you do not believe me, look around. look at how much more powerful the federal started becoming after Appomattox. Look what disgraces like Teddy Roosevelt, who should be removed from Mt. Rushmore, and replaced by Madison, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, LBJ, Jimmy Carter, and Barack Obama have done to America since the turn of the century. The change they brought to America was largely made possible by the destruction of state sovereignty.

Maybe these soldiers fought for a lot of the same principles?

American Revolutionary Soldiers 7 Confederate

A salute to my Great-Great Grandfathers and the Rebel spirit they passed on to me

First is Allan Dean McWhorter

AD McWhorter

Birth: Jun. 6, 1844
Death: Jul. 6, 1923

Co. C, 48th Georgia Infantry; Confederate States of America.Family links:
Spouse:
Nancy E. Stokes McWhorter (1841 – 1906)*

Children:
Mary Alice McWhorter Bagley (1876 – 1936)*
Hattie Ellen McWhorter Allen (1878 – 1969)*

The info about him serving in the 48th Georgia is, I believe wrong. My dad dis a lot of digging and  he has Allan Dean McWhorter serving in the 4th south Carolina Cavalry. I believe this is correct

Allan’s daughter would marry the daughter of William A. Allen. They eloped, since the WcWhorters were Methodists, and the Allens were Baptists. They would have nine children, including my Grandfather Randall M. Allen. Ironically both his grandfathers left the War of Northern Agression with major vision problems. Allen lost an eye at Vicksburg, and McWhorter went blind in Point Lookout Prison Camp in Maryland. Many Southerners fared very poorly in Northern prison camps because of poor sanitation, poor rations, shelter, medical care etc.

WA Allen

Birth: Mar. 25, 1825
Georgia, USA
Death: Feb. 25, 1911
Forsyth County
Georgia, USA

Husband of
#1 Agnes Bagley
#2 Elizabeth A. TrammellFather of
1. Jasper N. Allen
2. Susanne Caroline Allen
3. Jackson VanBuren Allen
4. John W. Allen
5. James Allen
6. Joseph Allen
7. Durham Allen
8. Charles D. Allen
9. Lunia Allen
10 William M. Allen

Units: Co. I, 3rd Georgia State Troops (3rd Sgt.)CSA Co. G, 56th Georgia Infantry (Pvt. – 1st Lt.) Joined: 8th Oct 1861 – Apr 1862 and 3rd May 1862. Wounded in the eye and lost sight in it at Vicksburg, Mississippi, 1863. Elected 1st Lt. in Feb 1864

 

Martin C. Mewborn was my maternal Grandmothers Grandfather He served in the 63rd Georgia Comapny I and was wounded at Kennesaw Mountain in 1864

MC Mewborn

Birth: Dec. 2, 1844
Death: Sep. 5, 1919
Family links:
Spouse:
Sallie Hay Mewborn (1848 – 1909)*

Children:
Ola Mewborn Lowe (1880 – 1959)*

Inscription:
At Rest
Martin C. Mewborn
Dec 2, 1844
Sept 5, 1919
We miss you so.

Note: Confederate War Veteran

Someone needs a lesson in history UPDATED my comments added

Gotta go to work, I will add my comments to this buffoon’s comments later tonight

OK, now let me try to set this Leftist straight. I cannot say what side of the Civil War War Between the States Rush would have been on. I do not call it a Civil War because a civil war is twp or more factions fighting for control of a national government. The Southern states were NOT seeking to take over the federal government.they were explicitly seeking to do much the same thing as the thirteen colonies had done, that is announce their independence to form a new nation. rather than seeking to conquer Washington DC, the Confederate States pleaded to just be let alone. Mr. Lincoln was not willing to do that, “where will our revenues come from” he asked when it was suggested the South be allowed to leave peacefully. His call for 75,000 volunteers to put down the “rebellion” caused the states of Arkansas, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia to secede. Slavery, to these states was not an issue, they wished to stay in the original union until they saw Lincoln expected them to attack their sister states. This clip from Gods and Generals explains it very well

So, as I stated earlier, I have no idea how Rush would have gone, many very good men fought on both sides. Even some of my ancestors fought for the Union, although most wore the gray and butternut of the Confederacy. I am proud of all of them, and will not allow pin headed academics in the clip from CNN to tarnish their intentions or aims.

 

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

1

 

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

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.