The Washington Poop, I Mean Post: Fake News AND Fake History

The Washington Poop, I mean Post:
Fake News AND Fake History

by Gene Kizer, Jr.


The Washington Post article, "Destroying Confederate monuments isn't 'erasing' history. It's learning from it."1 by African American associate professor Keisha N. Blain of the University of Pittsburgh, proves that not only does the Washington Post peddle in fake news, it peddles fake history.

Professor Blain's contention in the short article is that "Confederate monuments, as well as Confederate-named Army bases, are modern inventions meant to distort history and celebrate a racist past" because:

These symbols serve one primary purpose - to honor figures of the past who upheld an undemocratic vision of America. They were created by white supremacists. And they function as a balm for white supremacists who long to return to a period when Americans regarded black people as property.

This is a silly, self-important view of history by a person obsessed with race.

Whether Prof. Blain likes it or not, the culture and institutions of America came from white Europe. Great Britain is our Mother Country.

We were founded because Europeans were looking for resources and wealth. The Virginia Company, the Massachusetts Bay Company, we were founded by capitalist companies out to make money and create markets, which creates opportunity for average people.

Europeans were Christians, Jews, Protestants, and their culture was derived from Greek democracy, ancient Athens and Sparta, the Roman Empire, the Catholic Church, the Protestant Reformation, the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, the Bible, English Common Law, Magna Carta, the philosophy of John Locke, which found its way into Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence.

There was a scientific revolution to go along with the industrial revolution. This was great progress for mankind.

That was the dominant culture from white Europe. It is more accurately described as American, not just white. White doesn't do it justice.

Professor Blain's characterization is racist. White supremacy? If you go to Africa you have black supremacy. In Central America, Hispanic supremacy. In Asia, Asian supremacy. If you go up by the North Pole, you have Eskimo supremacy.

Whatever the dominant culture is, that is what is supreme.

White supremacy in America when we were founded by white Europeans is not too profound an observation, so big deal.

The problem in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries for blacks and whites was the bringing together of two diametrically opposite cultures: the tribal culture of Africa, and the advanced industrializing scientific civilization of Europe that had evolved and become strong and confident and was exploring the world looking for resources, markets, wealth, and opportunity. There was great competition among European nations for expansion, to spread their innovative cultures.

Africans in Africa knew about capitalism too because they knew they could make money selling other Africans into slavery first, to the British, then later to Yankees, mostly New Englanders, who were America's slave traders.

The tribal chieftains of Africa built slave forts like the one on Bunce Island off modern Sierra Leone, and the barracoons Zora Neale Hurston, the famous African American anthropologist, wrote about in her book, Barracoon. It describes African tribal warfare and their slave trade in great detail.2

The goal of white European culture was not to have slaves. It was to build great cities and nations and wealth for all. There was some opportunity for blacks even during slavery because people like William Ellison, the famous black cotton gin maker in Sumter County, got rich and became one of the largest slave owners in South Carolina.

Once slavery ended and the decades long rebuilding of the Southern economy was complete, more opportunity was created. We have continued to evolve until we have, today, unlimited opportunity for everybody from sea to shining sea.

There is nothing holding anybody back in America today. Anybody can achieve anything they want with the right attitude and willingness to work hard. Opportunity is all over the place for blacks, whites, women, men, everybody.

People just have to solve their individual problems, get the education or training they need, develop a strong work ethic then do like Sam Walton said and "get after it." Develop an intense determination to succeed.

Those who buy into the false narrative of the left, that America is a horribly racist place founded on racism and slavery: you ain't going nowhere. You can drown in your misery or you can shake off that nonsense and get to work.

We have had a two-term black president in America, no matter how mediocre and divisive he was. That proves America is not a racist nation in the least.

The Democrat Party's false charge of racism against anybody who disagrees with them, promotes real racism, and so does their war on the past.

Southerners did not secede because of slavery. They seceded because they were fed up with the Northern hate Republicans used in the election of 1860 to rally their votes.

John Brown's terrorist raid at Harper's Ferry had been a wakeup call for the South. It proved Northerners were serious about murdering Southerners since Brown was financed by Northerners, then celebrated in the North as a hero when he was brought to justice. Two Union states, Ohio and Iowa, protected Brown's sons who were wanted for murder in Virginia. Protecting fugitives from justice when wanted by another state was unconstitutional. This was yet another Northern violation of the Constitution.

Brown's mission had been to create a slave revolt like Haiti's that would result in thousands of Southern men, women and children brutally murdered.

Republicans also used Hinton Helper's The Impending Crisis, as a campaign document. It called for the throats of Southerners to be cut in the night.

This was the future for Southerners in the Union.

So, ask yourself, if you were a Southerner in 1860, would you let Lincoln's terrorist, money thieving party rule over you?

Or would you secede and form a new nation more to your liking as was your sacred right laid out in the Declaration of Independence where it states:

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prof. Blain also accuses Southerners of being traitors.

The idea that Southerners were traitors when they had the right to secede and exercised it properly, again, shows Prof. Blain's ignorance of history.

The New England states threatened to secede many times more than Southerners. Horace Greeley believed in the right of secession ("let our erring sisters go") until he realized it would affect his money then he wanted war like the rest of the North.

Three states - New York, Rhode Island, and Virginia - demanded the right of secession in writing before joining the Constitution. All the other states accepted the reserved right of secession of New York, Rhode Island, and Virginia, thus giving it to them as well, because all the states are equal with the exact same powers.

Prof. Blain's statement that Confederate monuments, Confederate-named bases, etc. serve "one primary purpose - to honor figures of the past who upheld an undemocratic vision of America" shows that she knows nothing about Southern history and probably has never cared to trouble herself with it.

What Southerners did by calling conventions of the people (their secession conventions) to debate, then vote on the one issue of secession, is the most democratic thing to ever happen on American soil.

It goes straight back to the Founding Fathers when they required that states call conventions of the people to ratify the Constitution rather than having it ratified by their legislatures. This was a far sounder foundation for the country than a legislative vote that could be rescinded by a later legislature.

Each Southern state called a convention, elected delegates as secessionists or unionists, debated the issue thoroughly, then voted.

Seven states seceded and formed a new democratic republic on this earth - the Confederate States of America - very similar to the one formed by our Founding Fathers but with States' Rights thoroughly protected.

Four states rejected secession at first. Prof. Blain skips over this. She says only "By June 1861, four more states had seceded."

The reason they seceded had nothing whatsoever to do with slavery though Prof. Blain does not tell you that because she, herself, does not know it.

The four states that had rejected secession seceded because Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteers to invade the South. They were horrified that Lincoln would use the Federal Government to invade sovereign states and murder their citizens. The Federal Government was supposed to be the agent of the states, not their master.

In those four states - Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee and North Carolina - lived 52.4% of white Southerners, therefore a majority of white Southerners seceded over nothing to do with slavery. They seceded over unconstitutional federal coercion.

Prof. Blain does get one thing right. She says Lincoln "made no such promise in 1860" to end slavery. She's right. Lincoln and the North supported the Corwin Amendment which would have left black people in slavery forever, even beyond the reach of Congress, in places where slavery already existed.

Not a single Confederate monument went up to honor whatever Prof. Blain means by white supremacy.

All went up with pennies from school children, and such, in the war-impoverished South to honor their dead from a war in which 750,000 died, and over a million were maimed. Is that not enough suffering for Prof. Blain to understand that the region wanted to honor those souls who were their blood and kin in a permanent way?

Basil Gildersleeve, a Confederate soldier from Charleston, South Carolina who is today "still regarded as the greatest American classical scholar of all times."3 describes the sentiment well in 1892, 27 years after the war. He writes:

A friend of mine, describing the crowd that besieged the Gare de Lyon in Paris, when the circle of fire was drawing round the city, and foreigners were hastening to escape, told me that the press was so great that he could touch in every direction those who had been crushed to death as they stood, and had not had room to fall. Not wholly unlike this was the pressure brought to bear on the Confederacy. It was only necessary to put out your hand and you touched a corpse; and that not an alien corpse, but the corpse of a brother or a friend.4

Not a single Confederate monument went up out of fear that black people were raising themselves up, another of the absurd assertions of Prof. Blain.

If you what to know why Confederate monuments went up, straight from the mouth of Confederates, all you have to do is read the original Confederate Veteran magazine from any of its 40 year run.

The raising of the money for all the Confederate monuments is in it, day by day, penny by penny, a massive work of love and patriotism.

You can read the stories of the veterans organizations, the United Confederate Veterans, The Sons of Confederate Veterans, the United Daughters of the Confederacy and others.

Read original stories of battles, speeches at dedications, look at pictures, read a lot of poetry. It is the most warm and wonderful thing  you can imagine, exciting, dignified, extremely patriotic, by wonderful, decent people, and you can see that there is nothing the least bit racist about them.

Prof. Blain has no idea what she is talking about. Her understanding of history is abysmal, bless her heart.

What has happened to Southern history since the 1960s is a national disgrace, it is a "cultural and political atrocity" as Eugene Genovese said, especially what has happened in the past month with the Democrat Party's violent mobs and riots destroying historical monuments around the country.

But unlike flighty liberals, Southerners know our history and are solidly grounded. We will immediately begin a new round of monument building across America so we end up with a net increase, and the new ones will be more magnificent than ever.

We have one of the greatest historical records of all mankind, and throughout all of history, especially of valor, bravery and self-government. Here's how Basil Gildersleeve sums it up and is why we will make our history more known to the future than ever before:

All that I vouch for is the feeling; . . . there was no lurking suspicion of any moral weakness in our cause. Nothing could be holier than the cause, nothing more imperative than the duty of upholding it. There were those in the South who, when they saw the issue of the war, gave up their faith in God, but not their faith in the cause.5


1 Washington Post, "Destroying Confederate monuments isn't 'erasing' history. It's learning from it." by Professor Keisha N. Blain, June 19, 2020,

2020/06/19/destroying-confederate-monuments-isnt-erasing-history-its-learning-it/, accessed June 22, 2020.

2 Zora Neale Hurston, Barracoon, The Story of the Last "Black Cargo" (NY: Amistad, 2018).

3 Clyde N. Wilson, Abstract, The Creed of the Old South by Basil L. Gildersleeve, Society of Independent Southern Historians,, accessed 10/11/2014.

4 Basil L. Gildersleeve, The Creed of the Old South (Baltimore: The Johns hopkins Press, 1915; reprint: BiblioLife, Penrose Library, University of Denver (no date given), 26-27.

5 Gildersleeve, The Creed of the Old South, Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1915; reprint: BiblioLife, Penrose Library, University of Denver (no date given), 26-27.

President Dwight D. Eisenhower Loved Robert E. Lee; Gen. Jack Keane Is Clueless.

Eisenhower speaks with some of the 101st Airborne Division June 5, 1944, the day before the D-Day invasion.
Eisenhower speaks with some of the 101st Airborne Division June 5, 1944, the day before the D-Day invasion.
President Dwight D. Eisenhower Loved Robert E. Lee;
Gen. Jack Keane Is Clueless.

by Gene Kizer, Jr.

I want to make it clear that I have the greatest respect for Gen. Jack Keane, both for his service to our country, and as a commentator on military matters for Fox News. Gen. Keane is astute and highly credible to me. When he is on, I know I am getting good analysis. I have never disagreed with Gen. Keane on anything until a week ago.

On the evening of June 11, 2020, Gen. Keane was on The Story with Martha MacCallum on Fox News discussing the renaming of the 10 U.S. Army bases named for Confederate generals such as Fort Bragg in Fayetteville, North Carolina, and Fort Benning in Columbus, Georgia. Gen. Keane was against renaming the bases for basically the same reason President Trump is, because all of those bases have a long and distinguished history in our country by helping us win two World Wars and training our best for a century.

I thought Gen. Keane, a native New Yorker, would be knowledgeable of history and show great respect, as a soldier, for the valor and bravery of those Southern boys fighting for independence who, badly outnumbered and outgunned, were fearless in battle and killed as many of their enemies as their enemies killed of them. Gen. Keane has commanded a lot of their descendants.

But Keane said Confederates in the War Between the States were traitors who were not tried after the war because of a spirit of reconciliation. He said that same spirit of reconciliation led the Federal Government to name the 10 Army bases in the South after Confederate leaders, but that had gone too far. He said today nobody gets any inspiration from those Confederate leaders.

President Donald J. Trump presents the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation’s highest civilian honor, to retired four-star U.S. Army General Jack Keane, Tuesday, March 10, 2020, in the East Room of the White House. (Official White House Photo by Andrea Hanks)
President Trump presents retired Gen. Jack Keane the Presidential Medal of Freedom, March, 2020.

Let me correct the good general by pointing out that the reason there were no treason trials after the war was because Southerners had not committed treason and Yankees knew it. Imminently practical Yankees were not about to lose in a court of law what they had won on the battlefield.

A better case could be made for Yankee treason against the Constitution, along with crimes against humanity, since Southerners were defending their homes, wives, children and firesides from an unconstitutional barbaric murderous thieving invasion. Nowhere in the Constitution in 1861 did it allow or require the Federal Government to invade a sovereign state for any reason whatsoever. The Federal Government was supposed to be the agent of the states, not their master.

If you want to talk about treason and war crimes, the Yankees compare well with other subjugators in world history such as the Romans and Germans who invaded peaceful nations to steal their wealth and control them.

The official White House portrait of Dwight D. Eisenhower by James Anthony Wills.
The official White House portrait of Dwight D. Eisenhower by James Anthony Wills.

History is so pathetic in this day and age that I'd be willing to bet Gen. Keane has no idea that the Northern economy of Abraham Lincoln (who 61% of Americans voted against in the election of 1860) was dependent on manufacturing for the South and shipping Southern cotton. We were most of the North's manufacturing market and we were fed up with high prices from Northern tariffs, bounties, subsidies and monopolies that were suctioning money out of the South and depositing it in the North constantly.

Gen. Henry L. Benning, for whom Fort Benning is named, was a justice on the Georgia Supreme Court before the war. He had analyzed the economic interaction thoroughly and said in 1860:

The North cut off from Southern cotton, rice, tobacco, and other products would lose three fourths of her commerce, and a very large proportion of her manufactures. And thus those great fountains of finance would sink very low. . . . Would the North in such a condition as that declare war against the South?1

We all know the answer to that is yes.

Lincoln was clever but, as Charles W. Ramsdell proved in his famous treatise, "Lincoln and Fort Sumter," Lincoln manipulated events in Charleston Harbor to get the war started because it was not in his interest to wait a second longer. Several Northern newspapers agreed that Lincoln started the war because he saw a chance to get it going without appearing as the aggressor.

Lincoln's commander in Fort Sumter, Major Robert Anderson, also stated that Lincoln started the war.

Lincoln's economy was headed for annihilation in April, 1861. Hundreds of thousands were unemployed and in the streets. He was petrified of the disintegration of the new Republican Party. He had to act, plus he wanted to announce his blockade and chill European recognition of the Confederacy.

European trade and military treaties would have meant the North could not beat the South. It would have been like the French in the Revolutionary War who helped us mightily to win it.

Southerners had always wanted free trade, anyway, so they could buy from Europe at much cheaper prices than those inflated by Yankee tariffs that enriched Northerners at the expense of the South.

Gen. Keane went to Fordham, so he probably wasn't aware that at West Point, where Lee, Grant, and so many antebellum military leaders went, the right of secession was taught in books such as William Rawle's A View of the Constitution of the United States of America.

There is overwhelming evidence of the right of secession, way beyond the reservation of the right of secession by New York (Gen. Keane's own home state), Rhode Island and Virginia before acceding to the Constitution.

The acceptance of the reserved right of secession of New York, Rhode Island and Virginia by the other states, also gave that right to them because all the states were and are equal with the exact same rights.

The right of secession was unquestioned throughout most of the antebellum era and, in fact, it was New Englanders who threatened to secede many more times than Southerners.

I might remind Gen. Keane that his native city, New York City, was the "principle port of the world" for slave trading during the War Between the States, a half century after the slave trade was outlawed.2 It was outlawed in 1808 but Yankees still carried it on around the world.

Boston and Portland were second only to New York in slave trading during the war. This distinction is noted in W. E. B. Du Bois's book, The Suppression of the African Slave-trade to the United States of America, 1638-1870.3

Maybe New York's name should be changed to satisfy the liberal mob, along with Boston and Portland's and all the other New England cities that were America's slave traders, because just about all of them were in New England.

New York also has the stain of the New York City Draft Riots when New York hate and racism were on full display and scores of blacks were lynched and murdered.

Here are some statistics on what Gen. Keane's "traitors" endured during the War Between the States. This is extremely important because Gen. Keane himself commanded a lot of their descendants.

The death statistics in the War Between the States are now between 650,000 and 850,000. These are the widely accepted statistics of historian J. David Hacker of Binghamton University.4

Drew Gilpin Faust in her excellent book, This Republic of Suffering, Death and the American Civil War, uses the earlier statistics of 620,000 total deaths compiled by William F. Fox, and she writes that those deaths were "approximately equal to the total American fatalities in the Revolution, the War of 1812, the Mexican War, the Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II, and the Korean War combined."5

If you use Hacker's statistics, you'd have to add Vietnam, both Gulf Wars, Afghanistan and the war on terror; in other words, deaths in the War Between the States were higher than all other American wars combined, with plenty of room to spare.

Faust says the rate of death "in comparison with the size of the American population, was six times that of World War II. A similar rate, about 2 percent, in the United States today would mean six million fatalities."6

Confederate soldiers "died at a rate three times that of their Yankee counterparts; one in five white Southern men of military age did not survive the Civil War."7 Sounds like a pretty brave lot of Americans to me, Gen. Keane.

Faust quotes James McPherson who writes that "the overall mortality rate for the South exceeded that of any country in World War I and that of all but the region between the Rhine and the Volga in World War II."8

To personalize some of those statistics, Confederate Col. George E. Purvis was quoted in Confederate Veteran magazine, March, 1897, from an article he had written about Union Gen. Henry Van Ness Boynton and the Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park. Gen. Boynton, with great respect for the courage of the Confederates he faced, wanted to make it a sacred memorial, not just to Union valor, but American valor.

Col. Purvis writes that Gen. Boynton and a friend had visited the Chickamauga battlefield on a quiet Sunday morning in the summer of 1888 and heard singing in a church nearby. The general's thoughts went from those sweet sounds to the hellish and "fearful horrors of that other Sunday, when the very demons of hell seemed abroad, armed and equipped for the annihilation of mankind" almost a quarter of a century earlier:9

They saw again the charging squadrons, like great waves of the sea, dashed and broken in pieces against lines and positions that would not yield to their assaults. They saw again Baird's, Johnson's, Palmer's, and Reynolds's immovable lines around the Kelley farm, and Wood on the spurs of Snodgrass Hill; Brannan, Grosvenor, Steedman, and Granger on the now famous Horseshoe; once more was brought back to their minds' eye, "the unequaled fighting of that thin and contracted line of heroes and the magnificent Confederate assaults," which swept in again and again ceaselessly as that stormy service of all the gods of battle was prolonged through those other Sunday hours.

Their eyes traveled over the ground again where Forrest's and Walker's men had dashed into the smoke of the Union musketry and the very flame of the Federal batteries, and saw their ranks melt as snowflakes dissolve and disappear in the heat of conflagration.

They stood on Baird's line, where Helms's Brigade went to pieces, but not until three men out of four - mark that, ye coming heroes! - not until three men out of every four were either wounded or dead, eclipsing the historic charge at Balaklava and the bloody losses in the great battles of modern times.

They saw Longstreet's men sweep over the difficult and almost inaccessible slopes of the Horseshoe, "dash wildly, and break there, like angry waves, and recede, only to sweep on again and again with almost the regularity of ocean surges, ever marking a higher tide."

They looked down again on those slopes, slippery with blood and strewn thick as leaves with all the horrible wreck of battle, over which and in spite of repeated failures these assaulting Confederate columns still formed and reformed, charging again and again with undaunted and undying courage.

How dare you, Gen. Keane, call these American soldiers from the South, "traitors." Your predecessor in the Union Army, Gen. Henry Van Ness Boynton, who fought against them in the War Between the States, calls them heroes, and you have commanded a lot of their descendants. Surely you owe respect to the men you command and whom you might have to send to their deaths.

To prove your inerudite claim that Confederates were traitors, you need to prove that the right of secession was illegal, and that the Declaration of Independence, where it states the following, is invalid:

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. (Bold emphasis added.)

You can't do either, Gen. Keane.

Secession was a legal right, and there was no "consent of the governed" in the South for a government that was robbing them blind and controlled by a region that sent terrorists into the South to encourage hate and murder of Southerners.

Southerners were fighting for independence and self-government.

Northerners were fighting for their wealth, power, and control of the country, so their cities and people would be rich and dominate the culture, just as Alexis de Tocqueville predicted.

It is provable beyond the shadow of a doubt that Northerners were not fighting to end slavery. The War Aims Resolution, the Corwin Amendment, the six Union slave states that fought for the North the entire war, the Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, and many other things prove that it was Union they were fighting for, like Lincoln said over and over, because all their wealth and power was tied to the Union.

Southerners just wanted to be free to govern themselves. They seceded peacefully and would have continued in peace if Lincoln hadn't started the war, and Southerners would have ended slavery soon.

Slavery was dying out and would not have lasted another generation with the automobile and telephone entering our lives. There were machines to pick cotton, and Southerners wanted to do like Yankees and hire and fire as business dictated without a birth to death commitment. Almost a million men died and another million were maimed for nothing.

For African Americans, there was a century of second class citizenship, and before that, horrible treatment by the Union Army.

Hundreds of thousands of newly freed slaves got sick from disease, starvation and exposure, during and after the war because of Yankee neglect, and tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, died.

We don't know the exact number because the Federal Government falsified the record and didn't count thousands of them because it made the government look bad. Dishonest Northern journalists helped cover it up but it is well documented in books such as Jim Downs' Sick from Freedom, African-American Illness and Suffering during the Civil War and Reconstruction.10

Downs writes that in Helene, Arkansas the "bodies of emancipated slaves were placed in the same carts with carcasses of mules and horses to be buried in the same pit."11

This terrible disrespect for the dead bodies of former slaves who had come to them for protection shows that "Northerners, allegedly fighting for the freedom and dignity of those subjected to human bondage, were transporting black people like animals."12

That shows what Yankees really thought of the newly freed slaves. That goes along with the many rapes of black women by Union soldiers recorded throughout the Official Records.

Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1st Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, in World War II, later president of the United States for eight years, had a picture of Gen. Robert E. Lee on his wall in the White House his entire time there.

Like President John F. Kennedy, Eisenhower had great respect for Gen. Lee and his cause, and he appreciated Lee's efforts to bind up the nation's wounds after our bloodiest war.

On August 1, 1960, a New York dentist, Dr. Leon W. Scott, wrote an angry letter to President Eisenhower excoriating him for having that picture of Lee in his White House office.

Scott wrote: "I do not understand  how any American can include Robert E. Lee as a person to be emulated, and why the President of the United States of America should do so is certainly beyond me. / The most outstanding thing that Robert E. Lee did, was to devote his best efforts to the destruction of the United States Government, and I am sure that you do not say that a person who tries to destroy our Government is worthy of being held as one of our heroes."13

President Eisenhower wrote back on the 9th:

Dear Dr. Scott:

Respecting your August 1 inquiry calling attention to my often expressed admiration for General Robert E. Lee, I would say, first, that we need to understand that at the time of the War between the States the issue of secession had remained unresolved for more than 70 years. Men of probity, character, public standing and unquestioned loyalty, both North and South, had disagreed over this issue as a matter of principle from the day our Constitution was adopted.

General Robert E. Lee was, in my estimation, one of the supremely gifted men produced by our Nation. He believed unswervingly in the Constitutional validity of his cause which until 1865 was still an arguable question in America; he was a poised and inspiring leader, true to the high trust reposed in him by millions of his fellow citizens; he was thoughtful yet demanding of his officers and men, forbearing with captured enemies but ingenious, unrelenting and personally courageous in battle, and never disheartened by a reverse or obstacle. Through all his many trials, he remained selfless almost to a fault and unfailing in his faith in God. Taken altogether, he was noble as a leader and as a man, and unsullied as I read the pages of our history.

From deep conviction, I simply say this: a nation of men of Lee's caliber would be unconquerable in spirit and soul. Indeed, to the degree that present-day American youth will strive to emulate his rare qualities, including his devotion to this land as revealed in his painstaking efforts to help heal the Nation's wounds once the bitter struggle was over, will be strengthened and our love of freedom sustained.

Such are the reasons that I proudly display the picture of this great American on my office wall.


Dwight D. Eisenhower14

Gen. Keane, I know you are a damn good man. President Eisenhower outranks you. Pay attention to your superior and learn from him.


Some of the last part of this article comes from a previously published article by me, "We are in a political fight and not a history debate," published in Confederate Veteran magazine May/June, 2018, and also published on this blog. All the original sources are footnoted.


1 Henry L. Benning, "Henry L. Benning's Secessionist Speech, Monday Evening, November 19," delivered in Milledgeville, Georgia, November 19, 1860, in William W. Freehling and Craig M. Simpson, Secession Debated, Georgia's Showdown in 1860 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), 132. Gen. Benning became one of Gen. Robert E. Lee's most able brigadier generals in the Army of Northern Virginia.

2 W. E. B. Du Bois, The Suppression of the African Slave-trade to the United States of America, 1638-1870 (New York: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1896), 179.

3 Ibid.

4 See Rachel Coker, "Historian revises estimate of Civil War dead," published September 21, 2011, Binghamton University Research News - Insights and Innovations from Binghamton University,, accessed July 7, 2014. Hacker's range is 650,000 to 850,000. He uses 750,000.

5 Drew Gilpin Faust, This Republic of Suffering, Death and the American Civil War (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2008), xi.

6 Ibid.

7 Ibid.

8 Faust, This Republic of Suffering, xii.

9 "American Valor at Chickamauga", Confederate Veteran, Vol. V, No. 3, March, 1897.

10 Jim Downs, Sick from Freedom, African-American Illness and Suffering during the Civil War and Reconstruction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012).

11 Maria R. Mann to Elisa, February 10, 1863, Maria Mann to Miss Peabody, April 19, 1863, Maria Mann Papers, LOC, quoted in Louis S. Gerteis, From Contraband to Freedman: Federal Policy Toward Southern Blacks 1861-1865 (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1973), 121, in Downs, Sick from Freedom,

12 Downs, Sick from Freedom, 27.

13 Dwight D. Eisenhower in Defense of Robert E. Lee, August 10, 2014, Mathew W. Lively,, accessed 5-3-20.

14 Dwight D. Eisenhower letter, August 9, 1960, to Leon W. Scott, in "Dwight D. Eisenhower in Defense of Robert E. Lee," August 10, 2014, Mathew W. Lively,, accessed 5-3-20.

Gen. Robert E. Lee at Chancellorsville by H. A. Ogden, painting in the LOC.
Gen. Robert E. Lee at Chancellorsville by H. A. Ogden, painting in the LOC.

Defund Academia, Not the Police

Defund Academia,
Not the Police

by Gene Kizer, Jr.

Since 1960, the racist identity politics of the left has politicized and degraded American history in academia and the news media. One of the problems with academia is that, in a metaphorical sense, it is inbred.

It is so liberal, the 33 wealthiest colleges in the last election gave Hillary Clinton $1,560,000. They gave Donald Trump $3,000.1

Over 90% of professors in the humanities and social sciences, which include history, are liberals, and it has been this way for decades.2

Those with differing opinions, if they even get hired, do not dare speak up. If they do, they will not get tenure and will often lose their jobs. There is no real debate on many topics, no challenge to liberal dogma.

The hypocrites in academia scream about diversity but have none themselves, yet diversity of thought is the most important kind of diversity.

When the views of half of the country are not represented, and, indeed, are deplored by most in academia (remember Hillary Clinton's "basket of deplorables"), then what comes out of academia and their accomplices in the news media -- especially with regard to history -- is the liberal party line: political propaganda preached by liberals without fear of criticism or examination.

There is also rampant discrimination in hiring in academia.

People are discriminated against because of their political views. How could it be any other way when academia is overwhelmingly liberal -- in some fields 30 to 1 -- as stated by Horowitz and Laksin in Footnote 2.

It has been this way for the past 50 years. Liberals discriminate against non-liberals in hiring. Liberals hire only other liberals.

It is obvious that academia is a hostile work environment for everybody but liberals, and increasingly hard left liberals, because of diversity departments that demean white people, speech codes that treat conservative views as hate, anti-Christian rhetoric, etcetera, ad nauseam.

This also makes much of academia extremely hypocritical -- again -- because in addition to screaming about diversity, which is non-existent in academia, they also scream about discrimination, yet they discriminate openly against the views of over half the country.

Conservatives and other non-liberals need not apply to academia, though much of academia is funded by taxpayer money from conservatives and non-liberals.

I know from personal experience that some liberals in academia are fine people who, despite their liberal bias, try to be fair. But many others are rigidly doctrinaire and definitely not fair, and they have the power structure and majority to impose their will with impunity.

These doctrinaire liberals preach their views constantly by weaving them into their classes -- comments, smirks, rolls of the eyes here and there -- which intimidate young students and coerce them into writing things they don't believe in order to pass.

As every honest scholar knows, to understand the past, one must view the past the way the people who lived in the past viewed it. The world of the past was not today's middle class America but that is the standard ignorant liberals want you to judge it by.

David Harlan in his book, The Degradation of American History, says that, starting in the 1960s with the Civil Rights Movement, leftist historians began criticizing American history as elitist.

They said it "focused our attention on great white men at the expense of women and minorities, that it ignored the racial and ethnic diversity of national life, that it obscured the reality of class conflict."

They wanted to expose the complicity of white men "in the violence and brutality that now seemed to be the most important truth about American history." They "feel no need to say what is good in American history."3

It's worse for Southern history.

Eugene D. Genovese,4 one of America's greatest historians before his death in 2012, wrote this is 1994:

Rarely, these days, even on Southern campuses, is it possible to acknowledge the achievements of the white people of the South. The history of the Old South is now often taught at leading universities, when it is taught at all, as a prolonged guilt-trip, not to say a prologue to the history of Nazi Germany. . . . To speak positively about any part of this Southern tradition is to invite charges of being a racist and an apologist for slavery and segregation. We are witnessing a cultural and political atrocity.5

Dr. Genovese goes on to say that this cultural and political atrocity is being forced on us by "the media and an academic elite."6

In the 2016 presidential campaign, 96% of money donated by journalists went to liberal Democrat Hillary Clinton.

Most of the news media are so biased7 it makes them untrustworthy and even more dishonest than academia.

In campaign coverage, the fraudulent media colluded with Clinton and gave her debate questions in advance, allowed her campaign to edit stories, asked her campaign for advice and quotations they could use to attack Donald Trump, and made no effort to hide their contempt for objectivity.

Too bad it backfired and greatly damaged the credibility of the media -- perhaps beyond repair -- just as political correctness has made academia shallow, ignorant, authoritarian, hypocritical and nothing deserving of respect.

This ain't your grandfather's academia. It's more like a leftist indoctrination center, a reeducation camp in Russia or China, than a place of learning and light where open debate and the First Amendment are sacrosanct.

Today's academia, at least with respect to history, is a silly caricature to laugh at. It is not the least bit interested in historical truth.

It is interested in America-hate and liberal activism. It hires activists and not historians, but if you disagree with that, you are a racist.

Our current mayhem started after the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis May 25, 2020 by some bad cops who are not typical of the vast majority of good, decent, hard-working police officers nationwide. There have been calls by violent leftists to defund the police.

Can you imagine what that would lead to?

Instead of defunding the police, let me suggest defunding academia, then taxing fake-news. The one would promote historical truth, and the other would erase the federal budget deficit in no time.


1 The 33 wealthiest colleges in the United States also gave Bernie Sanders $648,382, so, adding Hillary Clinton's $1,560,000 to Bernie's $648,382 gives a wopping $2,208,382 that academia gave to two extremely liberal Democrat candidates (99.9%) while giving $3,000 to Donald J. Trump (.136%), who won the presidency. See "Donald Trump Campaign Lacking In Support From Academic Donors" by Carter Coudriet, August 16, 2016,

sites/cartercoudriet/2016/06/16/donald-trump-campaign-lacking-in-support-from-academic-donors, accessed January 25, 2017.

2 See Horowitz, David and Jacob Laksin, One-Party Classroom: How Radical Professors at America's Top Colleges Indoctrinate Students and Undermine Our Democracy (New York: Crown Forum, 2009). From the Introduction: "A 2007 study by Neil Gross and Solon Simmons, two liberal academics, reported a ratio of liberal to conservative professors in social science and humanities of 9-1. In fields such as Anthropology and Sociology, these figures approach 30-1."
onepartydhjl.html, accessed January 26, 2017.

3 David Harlan, The Degradation of American History (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997), xv.

4 Genovese was a brilliant historian as the following paragraph illustrates. It is the opening paragraph of an essay in The Journal of Southern History, Volume LXXX, No. 2, May, 2014 entitled "Eugene Genovese's Old South: A Review Essay" by J. William Harris: "The death of Eugene D. Genovese in September 2012 brought to a close a remarkable career. In the decades following his first published essay on Southern history, Genovese produced an outstanding body of scholarship, based on a rare combination of deep research in primary sources; a mastery of the historical literature, not only in Southern history but also in many complementary fields; a sophisticated command of methodological issues; and often sparkling prose. And Genovese's reputation reached far beyond specialists in Southern history, and even beyond the academy. In 2005 a reviewer in one magazine for a general readership called Genovese the 'Country's greatest living historian' and his Roll, Jordan, Roll 'the most lasting work of American historical scholarship since the Second World War.'"

5 Eugene D. Genovese, The Southern Tradition, The Achievement and Limitations of an American Conservatism (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1994), Preface, xi-xii.

6 Ibid.

7 In numbers of journalists giving, 50 gave to Republican Donald J. Trump, while 430 gave to Clinton. That means 10% of journalists donated to Republican Trump, and 90% to Democrat Clinton. See David Levinthal and Michael Beckel article, October 27, 2016, "Journalists shower Hillary Clinton with campaign cash",, accessed January 25, 2017.