Lysander Spooner’s “No Treason.” The Georgia SCV’s 10 Law Suits Defending Confederate Monuments and the First Amendment: Synopses and Updates

Lysander Spooner's No Treason.
The Georgia SCV's 10 Law Suits
Defending Confederate Monuments and the
First Amendment:
Synopses and Updates


[Publisher's Note, by Gene Kizer, Jr. : Lysander Spooner (1808-1887) was a "Champion of Liberty, a lawyer, abolitionist, entrepreneur, legal theorist and scholar" according to the plaque on his birthplace in Athol, Massachusetts. He's known for setting up a post office to compete with the government but it was shut down. He is author of a number of famous works including No Treason., and The Unconstitutionality of Slavery. He is still influential in libertarian circles and was cited in two United States Supreme Court Cases recently. Justice Antonin Scalia cited him in District of Columbia v. Heller, which struck down Washington, DC's ban on handguns in 2008. Justice Clarence Thomas cited him in McDonald v. Chicago, a 2009 firearms case.

The beginning of Spooner's No Treason., No. 1 is an outstanding summary of the North's reason for fighting the War Between the States, and it definitely was not slavery. Massachusetts-born Spooner would know. He states as one possibility that "the lusts of fame, and power, and money" was why the North fought, and, of course, that is absolutely correct. They were fighting for their tariff money, paid mostly by the South but spent mostly in the North. They were fighting for the bounties, subsidies and monopolies voted in Congress by the Northern majority for their businesses despite the South generating all the wealth of the nation with King Cotton and other Southern commodities.

They were fighting also because they thought they could win easily with four times the white population of the South, maybe 100 times the arms manufacturing capability, an army, navy, merchant marine; there were zero marine engine factories in the South while there were 19 in the North. Lincoln also had access to the unlimited immigration of the wretched refuse of the world to feed his armies while his navy blockaded Southern ports. At least 25% of the Union Army were new immigrants and many had been paid bounties to join after they arrived on ships hungry, broke, with only the clothes on their backs.

Yet it still took four years and 750,000 deaths, over a million wounded and the whole region laid waste for Lincoln's armies of invasion to subjugate the South. That's what happens when you fight men and women who were as committed to independence as our Founding Fathers. For the South, 1861 was 1776 all over.

In the year leading up to South Carolina's secession on December 20, 1860, the most widely quoted phrase in the secession debate in the South came from the Declaration of Independence:

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 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.

As Alexis de Tocqueville said in Democracy in America, if any one state became powerful enough to take over the government, they would make the rest of the country subservient and tributary to their wealth and power. That is exactly what happened and was exactly the goal before it happened.

The human lust for money, power and control is universal, as a South Carolina document acknowledged in December, 1860:

[W]hen vast sectional interests are to be subserved, involving the appropriation of countless millions of money, it has not been the usual experience of mankind, that words on parchments can arrest power.

[From The Address of the People of South Carolina, Assembled in Convention, to the People of the Slaveholding States of the United States]

The Georgia Division, SCV, has 10 excellent law suits going on, mostly against cities, counties, and public officials who have voted to break the law and remove Confederate monuments, but some involve protecting First Amendment rights.

The synopses and updates on each of the Georgia law suits are INSPIRING and fascinating. They show great determination to hold corrupt public officials accountable.

Finally, we get to kick some ass!

They need money so please donate. Here's how you get back at the mob that has been tearing down sacred monuments to war dead, and get back at corrupt public officials who are part of the mob and think they are above the law. [Click the Donate to the Georgia SCV Heritage Defense Legal Fund link at the very end of this post to help!]

Below is a press release from January 25, 2021 discussing the war they are waging in Georgia for the honor of Confederate soldiers who died and were maimed protecting Georgia and the South when Lincoln's hordes invaded.

The Georgia folks got a constitutional amendment on the ballot in the last election to repeal sovereign immunity and it passed overwhelmingly, so corrupt city and county officials can now be held accountable and not get away with hiding behind sovereign immunity.

Every state in the country ought to get rid of sovereign immunity so that groups and citizens have standing to sue cities, counties AND individual councilmen and women. That will get their attention and be good for government at all levels.

A few victories like that, the word gets around (we will SPREAD it around with vigor!) and the removal of monuments will be stopped dead in its tracks, forever.

We can then increase the building of new monuments so future generations will know our glorious American, Southern history.

We also need to focus on shaming characterless legislators who would even consider removing monuments from battlefields. We should appeal to veterans and veterans groups.

The fight over the U. S. Army base names in the South such as Fort Benning and Fort Bragg needs to continue with research on how the bases came to be named as they are. There is no question it was a grand gesture of reconciliation by our newly reunited country and as such are important statements as they are.

They have nothing to do with white supremacy as the dope Elizabeth Warren, one of the most characterless people in Congress who gamed the affirmation action system for years pretending to be an Indian, says. She knows nothing about history and could care less about American military honor.

If there are any old laws and some way we can sue to stop the base name changes, we should.

Maybe some old agreements are in place between the states where the bases are located and the Federal Government that would give us a chance. Maybe the state attorneys general or governors can help.

It is going to take two years, supposedly, to change the base names and all the streets, buildings, military assets such as ships and weapons named for Confederates, and to remove all Confederate monuments. If Republicans were in power, we could maybe do something with next years NDAA.

I do not think we should give up on the bases. We need more research. This is a ridiculous waste of millions of taxpayer dollars to change the names of 100 year old bases from where we won two World Wars. Surely veterans groups would be incensed and join us.

Please let me know of other law suits defending monuments and other situations going on around the country. Please write me anytime.

Publishing the beginning of Lysander Spooner's excellent No Treason. followed by the synopses of the Georgia SCV law suits protecting monuments, shows what the North was fighting for, which was not to end slavery. It was for their own wealth and power. Over 750,000 died so Yankees could enrich themselves and control the rest of the country.

Southerners were fighting for independence and the principles of the Founding Fathers. Basil Gildersleeve, the greatest American classical scholar of all time, was a Confederate soldier from Charleston, South Carolina. He sums up our reason for fighting in his book, The Creed of the Old South:

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.

The Georgia SCV synopses and updates follow Spooner, along with a Donate to the Georgia SCV Heritage Defense Legal Fund link.]


No Treason.
No. 1

by Lysander Spooner.

(Boston: Published by the Author,
No. 14 Bromfield Street. 1867.)


The question of treason is distinct from that of slavery; and is the same that it would have been, if free States, instead of slave States, had seceded.

On the part of the North, the war was carried on, not to liberate the slaves, but by a government that had always perverted and violated the Constitution, to keep the slaves in bondage; and was still willing to do so, if the slaveholders could be thereby induced to stay in the Union.

The principles, on which the war was waged by the North, was simply this: That men may rightfully be compelled to submit to, and support, a government that they do not want; and that resistance, on their part, makes them traitors and criminals.

Lysander Spooner, author of No Treason., The Unconstitutionality of Slavery, and many other important works.
Lysander Spooner, author of No Treason., The Unconstitutionality of Slavery, and many other important works.

No principle, that is possible to be named, can be more self-evidently false than this; or more self-evidently fatal to all political freedom. Yet it triumphed in the field, and is now assumed to be established. If it be really established, the number of slaves, instead of having been diminished by the war, has been greatly increased; for a man, thus subjected to a government that he does not want, is a slave. And there is no difference, in principle --- but only in degrees --- between political and chattel slavery. The former, no less than the latter, denies a man's ownership of himself and the products of his labor; and asserts that other men may own him, and dispose of him and his property, for their uses, and at their pleasure.

Previous to the war, there were some grounds for saying that --- in theory, at least, if not in practice --- our government was a free one; that it rested on consent. But nothing of that kind can be said now, if the principle on which the war was carried on by the North, is irrevocably established.

If that principle be not the principle of the Constitution, the fact should be known. If it be the principle of the Constitution, the Constitution itself should be at once overthrown.


Notwithstanding all the proclamations we have made to mankind, within the last ninety years, that our government rested on consent, and that that was the only rightful basis on which any government could rest, the last war has practically demonstrated that our government rests upon force --- as much so as any government that has ever existed.

The North has thus virtually said to the world: It was all very well to prate of consent, so long as the objects to be accomplished were to liberate ourselves from our connexion with England, and also to coax a scattered and jealous people into a great national union; but now that those purposes have been accomplished, and the power of the North has become consolidated, it is sufficient for us --- as for all governments --- simply to say: Our power is our right.

In proportion to her wealth and population, the North has probably expended more money and blood to maintain her power over an unwilling people, than any other government ever did. And in her estimation, it is apparently the chief glory of her success, and an adequate compensation for all her own losses, and an ample justification for all her devastation and carnage of the South, that all pretence of any necessity for consent to the perpetuity or power of the government, is (as she thinks) forever expunged from the minds of the people. In short, the North exults beyond measure in the proof she has given, that a government, professedly resting on consent, will expend more life and treasure in crushing dissent, than any government, openly founded on force, has ever done.

And she claims that she has done all this in behalf of liberty! In behalf of free government! In behalf of the principle that government should rest on consent!

If the successors of Roger Williams, within a hundred years after their State had been founded upon the principle of free religious toleration, and when the Baptists had become strong on the credit of that principle, had taken to burning heretics with a fury never before seen among men; and had they finally gloried in having thus suppressed all question of the truth of the State religion; and had they further claimed to have done all this in behalf of freedom of conscience, the inconsistency between profession and conduct would scarcely have been greater than that of the North, in carrying on such a war as she has done, to compel men to live under the support a government that they did not want; and in then claiming that she did it in behalf of the principle that government should rest on consent.

This astonishing absurdity and self-contradiction are to be accounted for only by supposing, either that the lusts of fame, and power, and money, have made her utterly blind to, or utterly reckless of, the inconsistency and enormity of her conduct; or that she had never even understood what was implied in a government's resting on consent. Perhaps this last explanation is the true one. In charity to human nature, it is to be hoped that it is.

. . .

Here is the end of No Treason. by Lysander Spooner:

George the Third called our ancestors traitors for what they did at that time. But they were not traitors in fact, whatever he or his laws may have called them. They were not traitors in fact, because they betrayed nobody, and broke faith with nobody. They were his equals, owing him no allegiance, obedience, nor any other duty, except such as they owed to mankind at large. Their political relations with him has been purely voluntary. They had never pledged their faith to him that they would continue these relations any longer than it should please them to do so; and therefore they broke no faith in parting with him. They simply exercised their natural right of saying to him, and to the English people, that they were under no obligation to continue their political connexion with them, and that, for reasons of their own, they chose to dissolve it.

What was true of our ancestors, is true of revolutionists in general. The monarchs and governments, from whom they choose to separate, attempt to stigmatize them as traitors. But they are not traitors in fact; inasmuch as they betray, and break faith with, no one. Having pledged no faith, they break none. They are simple men, who, for reasons of their own --- whether good or bad, wise or unwise, is immaterial --- choose to exercise their natural right of dissolving their connexion with the governments under which they have lived. In doing this, they no more commit the crime of treason --- which necessarily implies treachery, deceit, breach of faith --- than a man commits treason when he chooses to leave a church, or any other voluntary association, with which he has been connected.

This principle was a true one in 1776. It is a true one now. It is the only one on which any rightful government can rest. It is the one on which the Constitution itself professes to rest. If it does not really rest on that basis, it has no right to exist; and it is the duty of every man to raise his hand against it. . . .


The Georgia SCV's 10 Law Suits
Defending Confederate Monuments and the First Amendment:
Synopses and Updates
Georgia Division Pending Litigation
City of Cuthbert, Randolph County - O.C.G.A. § 50-3-1 violation


On December 14, 2020 the City of Cuthbert City Council voted to remove the Randolph County Confederate Monument. The Georgia Division will be filing for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and filed a lawsuit for violation of O.C.G.A. § 50-3-1. All the City Council members will be listed individually as defendants.


On January 19, 2021 the Georgia Division filed for a Temporary Restraining Order and filed a lawsuit for violation of O.C.G.A. § 50-3-1against the City of Cuthbert and the City Council Members as individuals. We are currently awaiting a court date.

City of Brunswick, Glynn County - O.C.G.A. § 50-3-1 violation


On November 18, 2020 the City of Brunswick City Council voted to remove the Glynn County Confederate Monument. The Georgia Division has filed for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and filed a lawsuit for violation of O.C.G.A. § 50-3-1. All the City Council members will be listed individually as defendants.


The city of Brunswick file a motion to dismiss our case. Then offered an temporary motion to stay to place a hold on any action to remove the monument. The SCV agreed to the terms of the motion to stay and the Superior Court Judge issued a consent order.

Newton County - O.C.G.A. § 50-3-1 violation


The Newton County Board of Commissioners voted to remove the Newton County Confederate Monument. The Georgia Division filed for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and filed a lawsuit for violation of O.C.G.A. § 50-3-1. While the Newton County Superior Court Judge did not issue a TRO, he ruled that nothing would happen to the Confederate Monument until the final ruling was issued.

As expected, the Newton County Superior Court Judge John Ott issued an order in favor of the County Commission’s action stating that the doctrine of sovereign immunity applied. The Georgia Division, SCV immediately filed a motion to appeal. The next day the County Commissioner Chairman attempted to have the Confederate Monument removed. This action, violation of the understanding reached at the earlier hearing, prompted Judge Ott to issue an Order to stay and forbid the removal of the Confederate Monument until the final decision is made.


The Georgia Court of Appeals has set a court date on April 13, 2021 and has agreed to hear oral arguments.

Rockdale County - O.C.G.A. § 50-3-1 violation


Chairman Oz Nesbitt, Jr., Chairman of the Rockdale County Board of Commissioners made an “executive decision” to remove the Rockdale County Confederate Monument. No formal discussion or vote was obtained from the Rockdale County Board of Commissioners. The Monument was removed that night under the cover of darkness. Georgia Division filed a suit for violation of O.C.G.A. § 50-3-1 in Rockdale County Superior Court. We have sued the Chairman both as an individual as well as Chairman of the Commission.


Rockdale County Superior Court issued a ruling in favor of the county on the basis of sovereign immunity. The Georgia Division has filed the case to be heard by the Georgia Court of Appeals. The Georgia Court of Appeals set the date of January 11, 2021 for the SCV to file their pleadings to the Court of Appeals, and it was filed on January 7, 2021. We are currently waiting on a ruling from the Georgia court of Appeals.

Henry County - O.C.G.A. § 50-3-1 violation


The Henry County Board of Commissioners voted to remove the Henry County Confederate Monument. The Georgia Division filed for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and filed a lawsuit for the actions proposed in violation of O.C.G.A. § 50-3-1.

The Henry County Superior Court Judge did not issue a TRO. He accepted the County’s defense based on the doctrine of sovereign immunity. The Georgia Division filed a motion to reconsider after finding a lease agreement between the County and City showing the property where the Monument was standing was leased by the City of McDonough. Therefore, the County had no standing to remove the Monument.


Henry County Superior Court issued a ruling in favor of the county on the basis of sovereign immunity. The Georgia Division has filed the case to be heard by the Georgia Court of Appeals. Our Attorney is currently working on the pleadings for the Georgia Court of Appeals.

City of Athens/Clarke County - O.C.G.A. § 50-3-1 violation


City of Athens Clarke County Consolidated Government (ACCG) stood by and permitted "mostly peaceful protestors" to vandalize the 1871 Clarke County Confederate Monument located at the intersection of Broad Street and College Avenue. The ACCG voted to remove the Confederate monument to an obscure location in Clarke County at the end of a dead-end, rubbish-strewn road. They claim the move is necessary for a pedestrian walk-widening project that has been the works since 2019. The plans received under an open records request clearly shows that proposed relocation of the Confederate monument was not considered until May 2020. The Georgia Division filed for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and filed a lawsuit for ACCG’s violation of O.C.G.A. § 50-3-1. The Superior Court of Clarke County denied the Georgia Division a TRO based on the doctrine of sovereign immunity.


The Georgia Division lawsuit for violation of O.C.G.A. § 50-3-1 is awaiting a court date. The Georgia Division filed an amendment adding the mayor and city commissioners to the lawsuit as individual defendants.

Gwinnett County - Motion to intervene


The Gwinnett County Solicitor Brian Whiteside filed a lawsuit claiming the that the Gwinnett County Confederate Monument at the old historic County Courthouse was a "nuisance" and is a public safety issue and could cause injury or even death. The Georgia Division and the Major William E Simmons Camp #96 filed a motion to intervene to be a party to the suit.


Gwinnett County Superior Court Judge issued a ruling in favor of the SCV to grant the motion to intervene. Currently, the Camp and Gwinnett County are negotiating a settlement.

City of Alpharetta - Old Soldiers Day Parade- 1st Amendment violation


The Georgia Division filed for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The TRO was denied by Judge William Ray and Georgia Division then filed a suit against the City of Alpharetta for violation of their 1st amendment rights.

The City's defense was that since the City was the primary sponsor the parade was considered to be “governmental speech” and therefore not a First Amendment violation. The City argued that permitting the Confederate Battle Flag in the City-sponsored parade might cause viewers to believe the City was endorsing the Confederacy or the SCV. The SCV provided proof the VFW was the primary sponsor and there were other participants in the parade. The Democratic party of Fulton County was one such group. It displayed a banner. Other businesses advertised their trade with signs and banners. The SCV argued that the City was not concerned about endorsing the Democratic Party or these businesses and was therefore censoring the SCV for its viewpoint.

Judge William Ray again ruled against the Georgia Division citing that the parade was governed by the concept of governmental speech. The SCV has filed a motion for reconsideration with the United States District Court of the Northern District of Georgia based on the issue of forum analysis.


Judge William Ray ruled against the motion to reconsider. The Georgia Division has filed an appeal with the United States 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. Attorney Walker Chandler has filed an entry of appearance and pleadings with the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

City of Columbus - Linwood Cemetery - O.C.G.A. § 50-3-1 violation


General Henry Benning Camp #517 entered into an agreement formally adopted by resolution with the Mayor and City Council of the City of Columbus on October 4, 1994. The SCV was permitted to erect two 35 foot flag poles flying the Confederate Battle Flags in the Confederate Sections of the Linwood Cemetery. Sometime in 2016 the Battle Flags were removed and replaced with 1st National Flags. The Camp made various attempts to resolve the issue with the Mayor by rotating the flags with the many different flags of the Confederacy, but the Mayor refused. The Camp then placed, as clearly permitted under the Agreement, a Battle Flag back on one pole. The Mayor and Council responded by having the Memorial Flag poles cut at the base, destroying and removing them.


Georgia Division filed a suit for violation of O.C.G.A. § 50-3-1 in Muscogee County Superior Court, awaiting a court day to be set. The Georgia Division filed an amendment adding the mayor and city commissioners to the lawsuit as individual defendants.

Cotriss Case - 1st Amendment violation


Silvia Cotriss was a police sergeant with the Roswell city police. She was fired for flying a Confederate Battle Flag in front of her home. A black pharmacist complained because she had a city police car parked at her home. According to her attorney, the car was in the shop on the day in question. She sued based on the city firing her when she was exercising her 1st amendment rights at her home.

The case went before United States District Court of the Northern District of Georgia and Judge William Ray ruled against her.


The case was appealed and now is awaiting a ruling from the US 11th circuit court of appeals. The SCV has assisted in expenses in this vital case. If upheld, the precedent could be set that no Confederate heritage supporter has a right to a government job.


Click Here to DONATE to the Georgia SCV
Heritage Defense Legal Fund!

For mail-in donations,
make checks payable to the
Georgia Division, SCV, and mail to
P. O. Box 1081
Macon, GA 31202

Strike Back at the Hate-America Mob!

The Georgia SCV’s New Suit Against the City of Cuthbert and Individual Council Members

The Georgia SCV's New Suit Against the
City of Cuthbert and
Individual Council Members
Entire Suit Is Published Below so Others Can See this Tactic in Action
We Are Living in a Tyranny

by Gene Kizer, Jr.


We are living in 1984, in an American tyranny.

That is proven by attacks on free speech, censorship across the board, massive deplatforming of people because of their political beliefs, cancel culture that destroys careers-lives-families, and racist identity politics, all underpinned by the constant hatred of American history.

President Trump's 45 page White House 1776 Commission Report was the first thing Biden canceled off the White House website because his voters don't want to see anything that portrays America honorably. The fraudulent 1619 Project is more to their liking.

There is also the labeling of 75 million Trump voters as potential domestic terrorists so the government can spy on them like Obama's FBI did to Trump when he first took office.

When I read in George Orwell's 1984

'Who controls the past,' ran the Party slogan, 'controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.'

I understood what he was saying but it was hard to imagine exactly how that would work.

It's not any more.

It is going on clearly before our very eyes. It is so shocking that one is paralyzed with disbelieve and can only stand there with their mouth open wondering if this is not some kind of bad dream.

Is there really tyranny in America?

There was tyranny in 1776 but was taxation without representation worse than having your life destroyed by cancel culture because you voted for Trump or went to the rally in Washington, DC on January 6 with a half million other patriotic Americans?

Was taxation without representation worse than having all the social media accounts used by the president of the United States to communicate with the country, shut down by big tech? Google promised in 2016 never to let a Republican win again and in 2020, all of big tech acted on that promise with life or death urgency.

Was taxation without representation worse than big tech censoring the New York Post's excellent reporting on Hunter and Joe Biden's corruption and influence selling to the Chinese? The Post had the credible Tony Bobulinski story which polls show would have caused 10% of Biden voters not to vote for him, which would have, right there, given President Trump the win; but big tech suppressed the Post story so Trump would not win. Most people did not see that story until after the election.

We are clearly living in a tyranny today that is worse than 1776. People are afraid to speak up, and that is the purpose of cancel culture, the ultimate technique of political bullying and violence.

Thanks STUPID REPUBLICAN PARTY for protecting us against this horror when you had the chance.

You were too busy promoting Elizabeth Warren's plan to rename all the U. S. Army bases in the South such as Fort Benning and Fort Bragg even though those base names are a century old and were named after Confederates as a grand gesture of reconciliation after a war that killed 750,000 soldiers and wounded over a million.

Jim Inhofe and Mitch McConnell are national disgraces, and Inhofe lied to us and President Trump. He alone, as chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, could have prevented the renaming of the bases, and he promised he would, but he is a liar. He joined with Elizabeth Warren and the Democrats to screw his own voters, and Mitch McConnell supported him.

Of course, Inhofe and McConnell's stupidity contributed to the loss of the two Senate seats in Georgia, where two of those bases are located including legendary Fort Benning, Home of the United States Army Infantry.

The Republican Secretary of State in Georgia, Brad Raffensperger, secretly tapes a phone call with the president of the United States then releases it to the Washington Post hours before the Senate runoffs in Georgia, guaranteeing the national headlines coast to coast, hours before the most important Senate runoffs in Georgia history, would be extremely negative against President Trump and the Republicans.

And Raffensperger is a Republican?

For the good of the party, couldn't he have waited a couple days to release his phone call?

Why did Raffensperger make such a horrible settlement with Stacey Abrams in the first place lowering voting standards, which enabled Democrats to win across the board in Georgia? The Georgia legislature better get that corrected and quick, and Georgia voters need to vote Raffensperger out with a vengeance.

The national Republican Party is so stupid. I know Trump made his mistakes but he was one man, surrounded by traitors and a hostile press, against the massive DC swamp.

Trump's appeal is that: He is the first Republican to fight for what he believes in and campaigned on, and fight hard. EVERY other chickensh_t Republican turns tail and joins the enemy. When one does fight, it is so surprising you almost fall over.

I thought Sen. Tom Cotton was a good guy but he did not stand up for President Trump and object to the obvious voting irregularities in the battleground states as Sens. Josh Hawley, Ted Cruz , and many others did, or planned to.

Democrats have objected every year when Republicans win, but Republicans backed off after the riot. Kelly Loeffler was going to object but took back her objection after the riot as if the riot made massive voting irregularities disappear. That shows her lack of character but, sadly, she is a typical Republican.

For daring to exercise his constitutional right to object as Democrats do every election, Sen. Hawley lost his book deal with Simon & Schuster, though he quickly got another deal with Regnery, which is a much better publisher. So that worked out well.

There are a lot of great Republicans. Matt Gaetz, Jim Jordan, Devin Nunes -- Gov. Ron DeSantis in Florida -- and others who will fight, but all of them better pick it up or they will never win another national election.

Republican legislatures in the battleground states had better get a grip on their election laws and make damn sure Democrats can't cheat with massive mail-in ballots as it appears they did in 2020.

But don't hold your breath.

We are not going to give up our country or our country's history. We should never, ever remove a century old monument, especially those to war dead. The people doing that today are ignorant and utterly misguided, but, like cancer, they will not stop. They plan to mindlessly destroy every last vestige of Southern history.

We should always build more monuments, not less. That way we send a fuller message into the future for those who are not yet born, to one day contemplate.

They don't need the woke hate of arrogant people today who think they know more than anybody in human history. Let people in the future decide for themselves.

In America, we don't burn books, nor forbid them to be published as some on the left want to do. Frankly, we must watch closely the inclinations of those on the left, chief among them, censorship. What are they afraid of?

Are they afraid that more people will find other ideas, besides woke ideas, more to their liking?

The good folks in Georgia are leading the way in this fight to preserve American and Southern history for future generations. They are doing our country a huge service and everybody should follow their lead.

Below, is the January 19, 2021 press release of the Georgia Division, SCV, followed by their law suit in its entirety against the City of Cuthbert, Georgia and Cuthbert's city council members, individually, for voting to violate Georgia state law.

Confederate monument in Cuthbert, GA, town sq, erected in 1896 by Randolph Cty UCV and Ladies Mem Assoc of Randolph Cty.
Confederate monument in Cuthbert, GA, town sq, erected in 1896 by Randolph Cty UCV and Ladies Mem Assoc of Randolph Cty.

We should all innovate, publish, write, make films and videos, speak, do whatever we want except give in to hate and tyranny. We are still the greatest nation in history, and the South is still the best part, by far, of that great nation.


Secession, North and South

Secession, North and South

Address by Col. E. Polk Johnson at U.D.C. Convention in Louisville, April, 1919 (from Confederate Veteran magazine, Vol. XXVII, No. 5, May, 1919)

[Publisher's Note, by Gene Kizer, Jr. :

It was this time of year, one hundred and sixty-one years ago, that seven Southern states, believing with every ounce of their being that "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," seceded from the old Union and formed a new nation on this earth: the Confederate States of America.

For over a decade, those seven states along with the rest of the South, had endured abject hatred and violence encouraged by a political party that was determined to rally its voters in the populous North. They wanted political control of the country so they could continue to enrich themselves with high tariffs, bounties, subsidies and monopoly status for their businesses (not unlike the tyrannical monopoly status Google, Facebook and Twitter enjoy today).

That party was the first sectional party in American history, "a party of the North pledged against the South," as Wendell Phillips proudly stated.

Hate works, in politics, as we see today, and the Republican Party had used it brilliantly. Their nominee, Abraham Lincoln, won but with only 39.9% of the popular vote, meaning 60% of the country voted against him.

So, the consent of the governed in the South was not there for continuance in a Union that hated them and was robbing them blind. They seceded peacefully and expected to live in peace but were promptly invaded because the North could not stand a low tariff nation on its border, especially one that promised to be a formidable competitor with 100% control of the most demanded commodity on the planet: King Cotton.

The North faced economic annihilation without the South as free trade Southerners sought to buy better goods from Europe rather than the overpriced North.

There was also the astronomical Morrill Tariff, the epitome of Northern greed and economic stupidity. It threatened to destroy the Northern shipping industry overnight as ship captains beat a path from the high tariff North to the low tariff South where protective tariffs were unconstitutional.

Lincoln needed his war before Europeans recognized Southern independence and gave military aid along with the trade agreements they both sought. With European military aid, the North would not have been able to beat the South, and Lincoln knew it. Thus, he sent warships, troops and supplies to Fort Pickens on Santa Rosa Island in Pensacola Bay, and Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor, to get the war started.

Before the smoke had cleared from the bombardment of Fort Sumter, Lincoln announced his blockade, which chilled European recognition of the South and caused Europe to take a wait and see attitude.

By the time Lincoln's war was over, 750,000 were dead, and over a million, wounded.

The Republic of the Founding Fathers was dead too, and in its place, the Northern dominated federal leviathan we have today.

Northern anti-slavery was in no way pro-black. It was anti-black. They didn't like slavery because they did not like blacks and didn't want blacks anywhere near them in the West.

"Anti-South" is a more accurate term than anti-slavery because most of Northern anti-slavery was political and economic, designed to rally votes for the Republican Party, not to help black people.

Several Northern and Western states had laws preventing free blacks from residing there or even visiting for more than a few days including Lincoln's Illinois. If blacks stayed too long, they could be arrested and in some cases, whipped.

People like Horace Greeley and many others were what is known today as virtue signalers. They agitated to end slavery but did not put forth a single plan to phase out slavery such as the gradual, compensated emancipation that most countries on earth used effectively and easily to end slavery.

The Northern states used gradual compensated emancipation to end slavery in the North though their record is miserable because in most cases, before the poor slave was to be free, ever thrifty Yankees sold him or her back into slavery in the South. Alexis de Tocqueville said the North did not end slavery but just changed the slave's master from a Northern to a Southern one.

The following is an excellent historical analysis of the causes of the war, the North's carrying on of the slave trade, the right of secession, the horror of federal coercion as stated by Alexander Hamilton, and ultimately, reconciliation. It was written by a former Confederate, Col. E. Polk Johnson, 54 years after the war, when memories were fresh. It would be like someone today writing about events in 1967.]


IT HAS BEEN THOUGHT APPROPRIATE by the Program Committee that a part of the evening's proceeding shall be devoted to the question of secession and the withdrawal of the Southern States from the Union in 1860, and to me has been assigned the preparation of a paper on that subject.

In the North it was and is thought that the South was prompted in the movement of 1860-61 by the sole desire to perpetuate slavery.

This we deny.

The Southern States have been persistently misrepresented as the propagandists of slavery, and the Northern States as the defenders and champions of universal freedom. It has been dogmatically asserted that the War between the States was caused by efforts on the one side to extend and perpetuate human slavery and on the other to resist it and establish human liberty.

Neither allegation is true.

To whatever extent the question of slavery many have served as an occasion, it was far from being the cause of the war.

As a historical fact, negro slavery existed in all the original thirteen States. It was recognized by the Constitution. Owing to climatic, industrial, and economical--not moral nor sentimental--reasons, it had gradually disappeared in the Northern States, while it had persisted in the Southern States.

The slave trade was never conducted by the people of the South. It had been monopolized by Northern merchants and carried on by Northern ships.

Men differed in their views as to the abstract question of the right or wrong of slavery, but for the two generations after the Revolution there was no geographical line of such differences. It was during the controversy over the Missouri question that the subject first took a sectional aspect, but long after that period abolitionists were mobbed and assaulted in the North. Lovejoy, for instance, was killed in Illinois in 1837. The above statements are from a short history of the Confederate States by Jefferson Davis.

The object of the war on the part of the North was ostensibly "to save the Union," but before it had ended it had become an open crusade to free the slaves of the South.

It may be of some interest to inquire at this point how the negro came to be here. Let Matthew Page Andrews, an impartial historian, answer: "Ships engaged in this traffic [the slave trade] had regular routes from several of the New England States to the West Indies, whither they took merchandise to exchange for tropical products, especially sugar and molasses.

They then returned to New England, converted the molasses of their cargoes into rum, and went from there to Africa. With the rum and beads and trinkets they bought the ignorant savages of Africa. The slave vessels now returned to America and sold their cargoes in the Southern slave markets. * * * Clergymen in the North would return thanks for the safe arrival of these slave ships."1

"In 1619 slavery was not recognized in English law nor in the laws and customs of Virginia; and although previously referred to in Virginia court records as in existence, slavery was not regulated by statutory laws until 1661, several years subsequent to such action in Massachusetts (1640) and Connecticut (1650)."2

"As late as February 12, 1853, Illinois enacted legislation making it a crime for a free negro to come or be brought into the State."3

"The New England States desired the continuance of this traffic (slave trade) for the reason that their ships were making large profits from it."4

"In answer to a memorial from Pennsylvania praying the abolishment of slavery, Congress declared that under the Constitution the question could be decided by the States only and that the Federal government had no authority in the matter."5

"The moral question involved in the extension of slavery was by no means predominant. The conflict was fundamentally a political and economic one."6

The Narraganset Indians in December, 1675, were attacked by a force of colonists, who destroyed their fort and killed more than a thousand of them. "By the summer of 1676 the three Indian tribes were utterly crushed and their chieftains, Philip and Cananchet, killed. The captured Indians were sold as slaves."7

Referring to the Emancipation Proclamation, Andrews says on page 293: "if the proclamation had aroused the slaves in resistance throughout the Confederacy, the Southern armies could not have been maintained in the field. That the slaves remained faithful to the trust committed to their care by the men who went to the front is not only a tribute to the training and character of the Southern negroes, but an enduring memorial of the kindly relations between the master and servants."

This is but a grouping of facts known to all who have a knowledge of the earlier history of our country. They are collected here for easy reference by those who may not have paid attention to the events which culminated in the War between the States.

It is not necessary to read between the lines to learn that our very patriotic brethren of new England had a very healthy and ever-present affection for the mighty dollar and nice elastic consciences, which they never permitted to interfere with the collection thereof.

One recalling the pretended holy horror of the North at the thought of secession may be misled into the belief that it was a plant of purely Southern growth which could neither germinate nor exist in any other climate or locality. Permit a glance at the utterances of some of the leaders of thought in the North prior to the war.

Joshua R. Giddings: "I look forward to the day when there shall be a servile insurrection in the South, when the black man, armed with British bayonets and led by British officers, shall assert his freedom and wage a war of extermination against his master. And though we may not mock at their calamity nor laugh when their fear cometh, we shall hail it as the dawn of a political millennium."

Rufus P. Spalding: "In the alternative being presented of the continuation of slavery or a dissolution of the Union, we are for a dissolution, and we care not how quickly it comes."

Charles Sumner: "The fugitive slave act is filled with horror. We are bound to disobey this act." Sumner was a Senator from Massachusetts, sworn to support the laws of the country, yet he taught their nullification when they did not suit him. Andrew Jackson called this treason when South Carolina sought to nullify an act of Congress.

Portland (Me.) Advertiser: "The Advertiser has no hesitation in saying that it does not hold to the faithful observance of the fugitive slave law of 1850." This journal was an apt and ready pupil in the school of disunion taught by Charles Sumner and the other extremists in the North.

Horace Greeley: "I have no doubt but the free and slave States ought to be separated. The Union is not worth supporting in connection with the South." When several of the States had withdrawn from the Union, he said: "Let the erring sisters go in peace."

Wendell Phillips: "There is merit in the Republican party. It is the first sectional party ever organized in this country. It is not national; it is sectional. It is the North against the South. The first crack in the iceberg is visible. You will yet hear it go with a crack through the center."

The Independent Democrat, a New Hampshire newspaper which belied its name, said: "The cure for slavery prescribed by Redpath is the only infallible remedy, and men must ferment insurrection among the slaves in order to cure the evils. It can never be done by concessions and compromises. It is a great evil and must be extinguished by still greater ones. It is positive and imperious in its approaches and must be overcome with equally positive forces. You must commit an assault to arrest a burglar, and slavery is not arrested without a violation of law and the cry of fire."

In October, 1859, John Brown, of a memory almost as infamous as the cowardly crew in the background outside the line of fire who supplied the money that armed his marauding murderers, made an attack upon Harper's Ferry, Virginia, his object being the stirring up of an insurrection among the slaves and the murder of the whites. Of this event the Hon. J. L. M. Curry, in his "Civil History of the Confederate States," says: "In October, 1859, John Brown, a bold and bad man, made his bloody foray into Virginia, fraught with the most terrible consequences of spoliation of property, arson, insurrection, murder, and treason.

This raid was a compound of foolhardiness and cruelty. Conservative and respectable journals and all decent men and women denounced at the time the arrogant and silly attempt of the murderer to take into his destructive hands the execution of his fell designs.

Sympathy with those purposes and his methods was vehemently disclaimed by the representatives of all parties in Congress, and conspicuously by John Sherman. Few, except redhanded and dastard fanatics, lifted voices against his execution after a fair trial and a just verdict by a Virginia court. A Senate committee, after laborious investigation submitted a report, accompanied by evidence, and said: 'It was simply the act of lawless ruffians under the sanction of no public or political authority, distinguishable only from ordinary felonies by the ulterior ends in contemplation by them and by the fact that the money to maintain the expedition and its large armament they brought with them had been constituted and furnished by the citizens of other States of the Union under circumstances that must continue to jeopardize the safety and peace of the Southern States and against which Congress has no power to legislate."

Andrews says of the affair, on page 261: "No one prominent in political life in the North seems to have been directly concerned with this proposed servile insurrection, but a number of well-known abolitionists contributed money and supplies. The most noteworthy of these was Thomas Wentworth Higginson. The distinguished philosopher and author, Ralph Waldo Emerson, declared: 'The new saint (Brown) will make the gallows glorious like the cross.'"

Mr. Curry concludes as follows: "So much for the Senate. Now John Brown inspires a popular song and poetry and eloquence, almost a national air, and Northern writers and people compare him to Jesus Christ and put him in the Saints' Calendar of Freedom."

Among other canonized saints in the North in the period before the war was Harriet Beecher Stowe, whose "Uncle Tom's Cabin," the most mendacious of all the literature of that day, did more to fan the fires of hatred and keep them burning in the North than all the utterances of the half-mad fanatics whose object was the goading of the South into acts of reprisal for the John Brown raid. The list could be extended indefinitely, but enough has been said to show the menace which faced the quiescent South.

Touching the rights of the States to control their own affairs, upon which the South insisted and still insists, it is interesting to note the expressions of several of the States made at the time of their acceptance of the Constitution, showing, as they do, beyond any doubt the same construction of that instrument that was and is to-day the sentiment of the South.

Virginia, the mother of States and of Presidents, declared 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," and that "every power not granted thereby remains with them (the people) and at their will."

New York with equal candor resolved: "That the power of the government may be resumed by the people whenever it shall become necessary to their happiness; that every power, jurisdiction, and right which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States or the departments thereof remains in the people of the several States or to their respective State governments to whom they have granted the same; and those clauses in the said Constitution which declare that the Constitution shall not have nor exercise certain powers do not imply that the Constitution is entitled to any powers not given by said document, but such clauses are to be construed either as exceptions to certain specifications or as inserted merely for greater caution."

Rhode Island declared in 1790 that "the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whenever it shall become necessary to their happiness."

Maryland declared that nothing in the Constitution "warrants a construction that the States do not retain every power not expressly relinquished by them and vested in the general government of the Union."

A public meeting of citizens of Boston, Mass., in Faneuil Hall in 1809 in a celebrated memorial states that they looked "only to the State legislature, which was competent to devise relief against the unconstitutional acts of the general government; that your power is adequate to that object is evident from the organization of the Confederation."

Proceeding now to an expression of personal opinion, William H. Seward, Secretary of State in the cabinet of Mr. Lincoln, is found saying: "There is a higher law than the Constitution which regulates our authority over the domain. Slavery must be abolished, and we must do it." It was a common expression during the war that the Constitution was laid away during the struggle, an expression corroborated by Mr. Seward's sentiment.

Horace Greeley, in the New York Tribune, wrote: "The time is fast approaching when the cry will become too overpowering to resist. Rather than tolerate national slavery as it now exists, let the Union be dissolved at once, and then the sin of slavery will rest where it belongs."

Mr. Lloyd Garrison defiantly declared from every Northern platform that "the Union is a lie. The American Union is an impostor, a covenant with death and an agreement with hell. We are for its overthrow. Up with the flag of disunion, that we may have a free and glorious republic of our own!"

Where did secession have is birth? Was it at the North or at the South? Let Josiah Quincy of Massachusetts, answer. He regarded the purchase of Louisiana by Mr. Jefferson as invalid until each of the original thirteen States had signified its assent, and on the bill for the admission of Louisiana into the Union in 1811 he declared: "If the bill passes, it is my deliberate opinion that it is virtually a dissolution of the Union; that it will free the States from their moral obligation; and as it will be the right of all, so will it be the duty of some, definitely to prepare for a separation, amicably if they can, violently if they must."

In 1844 Charles Francis Adams, of Massachusetts, introduced into the legislature of that State a resolution of reference to the annexation of Texas almost identical with that of Mr. Quincy in 1841, declaring that Massachusetts was "determined to submit to undelegated powers in no body of men on earth."

In 1857 a State Disunion Convention was held at Worcester, Mass., at which it was resolved to seek "the expulsion of the slave States from the Confederation, in which they have ever been an element of discord, danger, and disgrace." It was also proposed to organize a party whose candidates should be publicly pledged to "to ignore the Federal government, to refuse an oath to its Constitution, and to make the States free and independent communities." These quotations indicate the views of the North in regard to the perpetuity of the Union and the free and easy manner in which they declared for its immediate dissolution.

A word from the South is now in order on the same subject. In "The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government" Mr. Davis calmly and in a statesmanlike manner, devoid of that passion which so marked the disunion sentiment of the North, summarizes the following proposition:

"That the States of which the American Union was formed from the moment they emerged from their colonial or provincial condition become severally sovereign, free, and independent States, not one State or nation."

"That the Union formed under the Articles of Confederation was a compact between the States in which these attributes of sovereignty, freedom, and independence were expressly asserted."

"That in forming the more perfect Union of the Constitution afterwards adopted the same contracting powers formed an amended compact without any surrender of those attributes of sovereignty, freedom, and independence, either expressed or implied; that, on the contrary, by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, limiting the power of the government to its express grants, they distinctly guarded against the presumption of a surrender of anything by implication."

"That political sovereignty resides neither in individual citizens nor in unorganized masses nor in fractional subdivision of a community, but in the people of an organized political body."

"That 'no republican form of government' in the sense in which that expression is used in the Constitution and was generally understood by the founders of the Union, whether it be the government of a State or a confederation of States, is possessed by any sovereignty whatever, but merely exercises certain powers delegated by the sovereign authority of the people and subject to recall and reassumption by the same authority that conferred them."

"That the 'people' who organized the first confederation, the people who dissolved it, the people who ordained and established the Constitution which succeeded it, the only people, in fine, known or referred to in the phraseology of that period, whether the term was used collectively or distributively, were the people of the respective States, each acting separately and with absolute independence of the other."

"That in forming and adopting the Constitution the States, or the people of the States--terms which, when used with reference to acts performed in a sovereign capacity, are precisely equivalent to each other--formed a new government, but no new people, and that consequently no new sovereignty was created, for sovereignty in an American republic can belong only to a people, never to a government, and that the Federal government is entitled to exercise only the powers delegated to it by the people of the respective States."

"That the term 'people' in the preamble to the Constitution and in the Tenth Amendment is used distributively; that the only 'people of the United States' known to the Constitution are the people of each State in the Union; that no such political community of corporate unit as one people of the United States then existed, has ever been organized, or yet exists; and that no political action by the people of the United States in the aggregate has ever taken place or ever can take place under the Constitution."

John Marshall, the famous Chief Justice of the United States and one of the most prominent members of the Federalist party, who cannot be accused of sympathy with  States' rights views, delivered an address in the Virginia Convention of 1798 from which the following quotations are made: "The State governments did not derive their powers from the general government, but each government derived its power from the people, and each was to act according to the power given. Would any gentleman deny this? Could any man say that this power was not retained by the States, as they had not given it away? The State legislature had power to command and govern their militia before and have it still undeniably, unless there be something in the Constitution that takes it away."

In another instance the special subject was the power of the Federal judiciary, of which Mr. Marshall said: "I hope that no gentleman will think that a State can be called at the bar of a Federal court. Is there no such case at present? Are there not many cases in which the legislature of Virginia is a party and yet the State is not sued? Is it rational to suppose that the sovereign power shall be dragged before  a court."

Daniel Webster, in a speech in Virginia in 1851, said: "If the Senate were to violate any part of the Constitution intentionally and systematically and persist in so doing year after year and no remedy could be had, would the North be any longer bound by the rest of it? And if the North were deliberately, habitually and at fixed purpose to disregard one part of it, would the South be bound any longer to observe its other obligations? How absurd it is, then to supposed that when different parties enter into a compact for certain purposes either can disregard any one provision and expect, nevertheless, the other to observe the rest! I have not hesitated to say, and I repeat, that if the Northern States refuse willfully and deliberately to carry into effect that part of the Constitution which respects the restoration of fugitive slaves, and Congress provides no remedy, the South would be no longer bound to observe the compact. A bargain cannot be broken on one side and still blind the other side."

Alexander Hamilton, the father of the Federalist party, said in the New York convention: "To coerce a State is one of the maddest projects that was ever devised. What picture does this idea present to our view? A complying State at war with a noncomplying State, Congress marching the troops of one State into the bosom of another. Here is a nation at war with itself. Can any reasonable man be well disposed toward a government which makes war and carnage the only means of supporting itself, a government that can exist only by the sword? But can we believe that one State will ever suffer itself to be used as an instrument of coercion? The thing is a dream. It is impossible."

Unhappily our generation and that which preceded us have seen come to pass the very thing that to Hamilton was a dream, an impossibility. We have seen States willingly used for the wicked purpose of coercing their sister States and counting it unto themselves as righteousness. We have seen the South crushed beneath the feet of the soldiery of her sister States and heard the ribald laughter of the Northern politicians as they mocked us in our calamity. But, thanks to a just God, we have survived the worst that ever befell a people, and the South, regenerated, true to its every plighted word, stands foursquare to every wind that blows.

As a Kentuckian and a former Confederate soldier, my heart beats in unison to-day, as it beat half a century ago, with that of the brave old Governor of Kentucky who, in reply to Mr. Lincoln's call for troops, said: "I say emphatically that Kentucky will furnish no troops for the wicked purpose of subduing her sister Southern States." Nor did she furnish any while brave old Beriah Magoffin was Governor.

Quoting again from Mr. Davis, he is found saying: "We have seen how vehemently the idea of even political coercion was repudiated by Hamilton, Marshall, Webster, and others. The suggestion of military coercion was uniformly treated as in the quotations from the authorities just named, but with still more abhorrence. No principle was more fully and firmly settled on the highest authority than that under our system there could be no coercion of a State."

Nor had any one with authority to speak denied the unalienable right of a State to withdraw from the Union at the moment when its rights were infringed and its freedom of action denied. Indeed, this paper, if it proves anything, has proved by the testimony of Northern witnesses that it was entirely proper, legal, and justifiable for a Northern State to secede from the Union at any moment, but it was illegal, unjust, and not to be thought of that a Southern State should exercise a like action.

After all, the highest proof of the correctness of the Southern view was shown by the failure of the government to press the trial of Mr. Davis for treason on the indictment returned against him at Richmond, Va. The foremost legal minds of the North knew that he was not a traitor, nor could he be proved so under the law. Hence the dismissal of legal proceedings against him and his ultimate release from the charge.

This action was a high testimonial to the position the South through its leaders had taken before, during, and after the war. Mr. Davis and the men who followed the flag of the South during four years of a heartbreaking struggle were not traitors nor rebels, but patriots from their point of view, and not one of the living men of that struggle but is proud of his participation therein and of the southern cross pinned to his ragged gray jacket by the hands of a Daughter of the Confederacy.

The war was inevitable. In no other way could the differing views of the North and the South be brought to a conclusive settlement. Every patriot heart beats more warmly to-day at the thought that it has been settled and can arise no more to disturb our happily reunited country.

Mr. Davis, in concluding the history of the Confederate government, uses these words: "In asserting the right of secession it has not been my wish to incite to its exercise. I recognize the fact that the war showed it to be impracticable, but this did not prove it to be wrong; and now that it may not again be attempted and that the Union may promote the general welfare, it is needful that the truth, the whole truth, should be known, so that recrimination may forever cease and that on the basis of fraternity and faithful regard for the rights of the States there may be written on the arch of the Union, Esto perpetua."

(This article is verbatim, with spelling and text, from the original in Confederate Veteran magazine. Some longer paragraphs were broken up for ease of reading but nothing was left out or changed.)


1 Matthew Page Andrews, History of the United States, footnote on page 177.

2 Andrews, footnote, page 23.

3 Andrews, footnote, page 210.

4 Andrews, page 153.

5 Andrews, page 162.

6 Andrews, page 212.

7 Andrews, page 61.

Sue Public Officials Personally, and Fight for Fort Benning, Fort Bragg et al.

Sue Public Officials Personally,
and Fight for Fort Benning, Fort Bragg et al.

by Gene Kizer, Jr.

I have written about this before because it is an extremely good idea, and the Georgia Division, SCV, is leading the way.

They are suing more mayors and council people as "individuals" (meaning they are being sued personally) for voting to remove Confederate monuments in direct violation of Georgia's monument protection law. The Georgia Division, SCV, press release of December 22, 2020 is below in its entirety.

The Georgia Minutemen have been promoting this approach too.

Those arrogant mayors and council people who knowingly vote to break the law obviously have contempt for the citizens of Georgia, the Georgia legislature, Georgia's history and the rule of law.

This is a GOOD move by the Georgia Division, SCV, and EVERY SCV division in the country should follow suit and do the same thing.

Imagine the satisfaction when you can sue those SOBs personally on behalf of our Confederate ancestors.

The Republican Party in the states, statewide, and locally -- unlike congressional Republicans -- is great and should help. Republicans in South Carolina have introduced legislation, H. 3326, and H. 3249, to strengthen our Heritage Act and enable us to sue public officials as individuals when they vote to break our law, just like in Georgia.

Suing public officials personally does have a deterrent effect when the word gets around, and as Sun Tzu said, beating the enemy without having to fight, is supreme excellence.

Arranging things in your state through your legislature so private citizens and heritage groups have the legal right to sue those law breaking public officials personally, should be the highest priority of every state in the country. That is the only way this Nazism against Southern history is going to be stopped.

A lot of states are doing effective things to preserve their history and many of our people are leading the way. Let's please share that information with people who will write about it and promote it across the country, like me. We will promote it when advantageous, and be discrete when advantageous. The point, though, is to accumulate the knowledge, capability and helpful contacts so that we can take action and beat those horrible people who think it is OK to remove monuments to war dead.

Our enemies mean to destroy the history of the South totally. They fully intend to wipe it off the map and teach all future generations that the Old South was an evil place that stood only for slavery.

They don't want it known that America was founded in the South, at Jamestown, Virginia in 1607, or that the South provided America's most beloved leaders and Founding Fathers whose descendants all fought and bled for our country like the great patriots they are.

This mindless political hate must be beaten one way or another. Southern history is the best part of American history.

I know most people on this list know all this, but here's a select summary for those who don't.

From Virginia alone, Thomas Jefferson, wrote the Declaration of Independence, James Madison is the Father of the Constitution, and George Washington commanded our victorious Revolutionary War armies and was our first president who was "First in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen."

Those words are part of a eulogy for Washington given by Henry "Light Horse Harry" Lee, "a major general in the Continental Army, member of the Continental Congress, governor of Virginia" and father of Gen. Robert E. Lee.

Robert E. Lee's estate, Arlington House, owned by his wife, Mary Anna Custis Lee, great-granddaughter of Martha Washington, has been our nation's most sacred burial ground -- Arlington National Cemetery -- for a century-and-a-half.

Southerners won all of America's wars before the War Between the States.

The Revolutionary War was won in the South with patriot victories at Kings Mountain and Cowpens, South Carolina, culminating in the surrender of British Gen. Charles Cornwallis at Yorktown, Virginia in October, 1781.

Southerners won the War of 1812 at the Battle of New Orleans while treasonous New Englanders were slinking around in their Hartford Convention.

Southerners added much territory to our country with the Louisiana Purchase over which New Englanders again threatened to secede.

Southerners won the Mexican War with more Southern blood and treasure than from any other part of America, and we supported every other American war with much higher percentages of military recruits than our percentage of the population.

We wrote the book on American valor, decency and love of country with Southerners like Alvin York of Tennessee, the most highly decorated American soldier of World War I, and Audie Murphy of Texas, the most highly decorated American soldier of World War II.

Alvin Cullum York, a/k/a Sgt. York, highly decorated WWI soldier from Tennessee.
Alvin Cullum York, a/k/a Sgt. York, highly decorated WWI soldier from Tennessee.
Audie Leon Murphy, from Texas, the most highly decorated American soldier of WWII.
Audie Leon Murphy, from Texas, the most highly decorated American soldier of WWII.

Our country has benefited mightily from Southern patriotism and blood.

But Democrats like Elizabeth Warren, and stupid Republicans in Congress who go along with her, don't care.

The War Between the States is the central event in American history. Over 750,000 Americans died, and over a million were wounded out of a national population of 31 million. We lost 400,000 in World War II out of a national population of 150 million.

None of that matters to the racist identity politics of most Democrats who, once again, have legislation out there to remove Confederate monuments that currently sit on some of the bloodiest battlefields in history.

James McPherson says in Drew Gilpin Faust's book, This Republic of Suffering: Death and the American Civil War:

[T]he 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.

Suing public officials personally is the exact right thing to do. If we have the legal ability to do it, we'll go after every one of them with relish.

Anybody who is successful suing a public official personally, please share that information so we can all learn and profit from it.

If there is a way to sue people who have removed monuments illegally in the PAST, we should look at that too and do it.

If there are legal experts who can advise us on how to do some of these things, please contact me and I will spread the word.

It would be an extreme pleasure to donate money toward suing public officials personally who vote to break the law and remove sacred monuments to Southern war dead.

When we have successes suing these characterless public officials, we should spread the word far, wide and relentlessly.

We should fight Elizabeth Warren's provision in the NDAA
to rename Forts Benning, Bragg and others

It is extremely regretable that STUPID REPUBLICANS voted with Elizabeth Warren to rename the U.S. Army bases in the South though most are a century old and helped us greatly to win World Wars I and II. There was no reason whatsoever to do this.

The abject stupidity and contemptuous behavior of Senate Armed Services Committee chairman, Jim Inhofe, unquestionably helped Democrats defeat the two Republican senators in the January 5th runoff in Georgia, thus taking the majority in the Senate away from the Republican Party.

Legendary Fort Benning, near Columbus, is a major century old fort in Georgia, Home of the United States Army Infantry. There is also Fort Gordon, near Augusta, that dates to 1941.

Inhofe's idiotic support of Elizabeth Warren, against the wishes of President Trump, will change not only the names of Fort Benning, Fort Bragg and all the others, but it will change all the street and building names, change the names of weapons and military assets, remove every monument to a Southerner, and remove every vestige of the Confederacy despite oceans of Southern blood being spilled defending our great nation all over the planet.

Just like Stacey Abrams owns weak cowardly Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp and Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, Elizabeth Warren owns Jim Inhofe and the dumb Republicans on the Senate Armed Services Committee where they will no longer have the majority.

Here are the prophetic words from my article December 17, 2020 entitled "BETRAYAL: Republicans in the Senate Guarantee U.S. Army Base Names in the South WILL Change":

Republicans won't win the Senate runoffs in Georgia in just over two weeks because STUPID Republicans have done NOTHING to correct the situation in Georgia that allowed Stacey Abrams and her ilk to steal the general election from President Trump in the first place.

Where is the GBI and FBI questioning the woman caught on camera scanning the same ballots over and over? She knows about the corruption and all the players involved.

Where is the GBI and FBI questioning of the person who lied and said a water main break is why they quit counting ballots the wee hours of November 4th? That person is the tip of a line that goes into an ocean of Georgia corruption.

The Georgia governor is a Republican (supposedly) and the Georgia legislature is overwhelmingly Republican. How about assert yourselves and take command and rectify the horrible deal made with Stacey Abrams that promoted widespread election fraud in Georgia and disenfranchised millions of legitimate Georgia voters.

If you don't, mark my words, Republican Senators Loeffler and Perdue have no chance of winning in two-and-a-half weeks.

The utter incompetence of Inhofe, Kemp, Raffensperger and their disgusting ilk has now caused Republican defeat and removed all Republican influence in the United States government. It has negated the votes of 75 million Trump supporters.

The national Republican Party, unless President Trump can perform a miracle, is over.

By the time corrupt Democrats get through with us, we will be a one-party country like California and New York are one-party states.

As I said, local and state Republicans are strong and doing good (with the exception of Brian Kemp and Brad Raffensperger in Georgia whose careers as Republicans are over, and good riddance. With friends like that, who needs enemies!).

We should be looking for ways to defeat Section 377 of the NDAA, Elilzabeth Warren's sick provision.

We should look into the original agreements between the Southern states and the Federal Government when the bases were constructed.

We should get public support from veterans organizations.

We should look at state and local laws, and technicalities that can prevent the slaughter of Southern history at U.S. Army bases in the South.

Perhaps the revulsion at potentially having to rename Arlington National Cemetery and/or parts of it will cause this horrible provision to be rethought.

Of course, those Southern bases were part of our country's reconciliation after our bloodiest war. We came back together like the great nation we used to be. Naming those bases after Confederates was a gesture of respect by Northerners who had fought against us. It showed appreciation that we were now all one nation again.

All of that is lost on a characterless individual like Elizabeth Warren who gamed the affirmative action system for years pretending to be an Indian when she is as white as Frosty the Snowman (though much less intelligent and certainly with less personality).

She is, however, more intelligent that Jim Inhofe.

She got Inhofe to severely damage the two Republican Senate candidates, Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue, in the runoff January 5th, and they lost to Elizabeth Warren's Democrats, who now have the majority in the U.S. Senate.

Republican traitor Brad Raffensperger's releasing to the Washington Post his phone call with President Trump, which was spread all over the fake news media the day before the election, also damaged the Republican candidates; but then, Raffensperger's sell-out settlement with Stacey Abrams allowed widespread Democrat Party cheating and fraud in Georgia in the first place.

Jim Inhofe is a dope and so is Brian Kemp and Brad Raffensperger. We deserve better.

Here's the Georgia Division, SCV's, excellent press release of December 22, 2020: