It Wasn’t About Slavery, Exposing the Great Lie of the Civil War by Samuel W. Mitcham, Jr. – A Comprehensive Review by Gene Kizer, Jr., Part One of Five

A Comprehensive Review of
It Wasn't About Slavery, Exposing the Great Lie of the Civil War by Samuel W. Mitcham, Jr.
Part One of Five

Regnery History (Washington, DC, 2020); 240 pages, 381 end notes, 169 sources in the bibliography, excellent index, numerous pictures, available from the publisher and other places in hardback, softcover, ebook, audiobook, and audio CD; hardback ISBN: 978-1-62157-876-5.

by Gene Kizer, Jr.
Mitcham-500-103K

Samuel W. Mitcham, Jr. has a remarkable ability to cut right to the chase when analyzing history. It no doubt comes from his extensive knowledge and perspective gained from a lifetime of writing (over 40 books) and reading about the events of the past which define us today.

The text of the inside front cover of Mitcham's It Wasn't About Slavery, Exposing the Great Lie of the Civil War starts with "If you think the Civil War was fought to end slavery, you've been duped."

That sentence identifies the book all over the Internet, which is excellent marketing for a book that does not just deserve a review, but deserves a "comprehensive" review. (I had put a sticky note to myself on the front of my copy to go through all of Dr. Mitcham's notes and bibliography and buy all the books he referenced for my library).

It Wasn't About Slavery goes way beyond the slavery issue. It is well argued and documented so that it is hard to question any of it.

Here's Dr. Mitcham's bio from the inside back cover:

Samuel W. Mitcham, Jr. received his Ph.D. from the University of Tennessee. A university professor for twenty years, he is the author of more than forty books, including Bust Hell Wide Open: The Life of Nathan Bedford Forrest; Vicksburg: The Bloody Siege That Turned the Tide of the Civil War; and Desert Fox: The Storied Military Career of Erwin Rommel. A former army helicopter pilot and company commander, he is a graduate of the U.S. Army's Command and General Staff College and is qualified through the rank of major general. He is a holder of the prestigious Jefferson Davis Gold Medal for Excellent in the Researching and Writing of Southern History.1

The book starts with several pages of endorsements by historians and one by Phil Robertson, Duck Dynasty patriarch and Dr. Mitcham's fellow Louisianan.

There is an introduction and 15 chapters. Each chapter has a nice epigraph by an historical figure or document appropriate to the chapter such as this one for Chapter III, Secession: The Constitutional Issue:

The principle, on which the war was waged by the North, was simple 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, abolitionist leader

This review, Part One of Five, covers the Introduction and Dr. Mitcham's background, which gets us into it.

In the Introduction, Mitcham writes:

The victor, as Churchill said, writes the history, but these "historians" have abused the privilege. What passes for history today is cultural and intellectual nihilism, especially when it comes to the myth of the Enlightened and Noble Federal Cause. Their aim is not the truth (which should be the ambition of every legitimate historian) but to serve an agenda. They are saying instead: "Forget the past unless it fits the narrative of which we approve because everything that occurred before us is irrelevant and inferior to our views and therefore should be forgotten, modified, 'corrected,' contextualized, or destroyed altogether."2

Is it possible to be more narcissistic?

Mitcham goes on to say that the primary purpose of his book is "to help bring some balance to the debate about what happened in the pre-Civil War era."

He states that our war of 1861-65 was definitely not a "civil war" which is defined as two factions within one country fighting for control of the government. Southerners left the Union democratically by their people debating the issue and voting in convention to secede as was proper according to the Founding Fathers.

Mitcham likes the term "War for Southern Self-Determination" but he uses Civil War because it is well-known though he says, when he writes it, it is shorthand for War for Southern Self-Determination.

He states that "Freeing the slaves was a result of the war, not the casus belli." The cause of the war was money as it is for most wars.

I agree with Dr. Mitcham completely. In the case of the North, it was to keep the money flowing out of the South and into the North by preventing the establishment of a powerful, free-trade confederacy on its southern border, a confederacy with economic and military alliances with England and the rest of Europe. The South, in such a situation, with 100% control of King Cotton, would not buy inferior, overpriced goods from the North and would soon be unbeatable, militarily, by the North.

That's why Lincoln started his war as quickly as he could. He announced his blockade around Southern ports before the smoke had cleared from the bombardment of Fort Sumter and the reason was to chill the South's relationship with Europe, which would be game-over for Lincoln, and he knew it. Money, power and control is what Lincoln and the North wanted.

The one thing that can be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt is that the North did not go to war to free the slaves. The vast majority of their statements, actions and documents in the first two years of the war such as the War Aims Resolution, which states that they are fighting to preserve the Union and not to end slavery, prove it conclusively.

The Northern economy was based mostly on manufacturing for its captive Southern market and shipping Southern cotton. Without the South, the North was dead.

Without the North, the South was in great shape.

The South would start manufacturing for itself. Southerners put a low 10% tariff in their constitution vis-a-vis the North's astronomical 47-60% Morrill Tariff, and Southerners forbid protective tariffs. Northern ship captains were beating a path to the South while goods rotted on New York docks. The South was for free trade as it always had been. The North was for extreme protection for its own industry and artisans.

As the most prominent economist of the time, Thomas Prentice Kettell said in this famous book, Southern Wealth and Northern Profits, the South was producing the wealth of the nation with cotton and other commodities but the North was taking all the profit. Southerners were paying 75% of the taxes but 80% of the tax revenue was being spent in the North.

Mitcham says that if "culture is defined as the total way of life of a people, they [North and South] had distinct cultures from the beginning. Only with the evolution of modern historical thought, heavily influenced by the ideas and tactics of Marx and Stalin, did the Civil War become 'all about slavery.'"3

Mitcham does not address the right of secession and the resulting accusation that Confederates were traitors but he states unequivocally that secession was a right understood by all. No Confederate leaders were tried for treason because they would have won their cases.

Mitcham says when Jefferson Davis was in prison after the war, the hated radical Republican senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts, who had been caned by S.C. Representative Preston Brooks in 1856, wrote to Supreme Court chief justice Salmon Chase stating "to try him [Davis]. . . would be the ne plus ultra of folly".

Mitcham continues:

Chase agreed. He wrote to his former colleagues in Lincoln's cabinet in July 1866: 'If you bring these [Confederate] leaders to trial, it will condemn the North, for by the Constitution secession is not rebellion.'.4

Confederate president Jefferson Davis was released from his Yankee torture chamber May 11, 1867, where lights had been kept on 24 hours a day with guards marching loudly nearby as a measure of spite for two years since it was known Davis was only able to sleep in total darkness.

Davis had wanted a trial but Yankees knew they would lose in a court of law what they had won on the battlefield because of their four-to-one population advantage and their 100-to-one gun advantage. That's why Lincoln started his war in the first place. His advantages had been so overwhelming he had been seduced into thinking it would be a quick war.

Abraham Lincoln, president of the North, did achieve his mission which was to keep the money flowing into the North from the rest of the country so New York and Boston would be great cities while the rest of the country be damned. No "consent of the governed" in Lincoln's mind.

The South suffered in abject poverty until World War II but their legacy of honor, valor, blood and sacrifice in their great war for independence is unsurpassed in world history. Few nations are as good. None are better.

Of course, Mr. Lincoln's war of invasion killed 750,000 men and mutilated over a million who suffered from lost limbs, eyesight and other injuries their entire lives.

Next Week:

A Comprehensive Review of

It Wasn't About Slavery, Exposing the Great Lie of the Civil War by Samuel W. Mitcham, Jr.

Part Two of Five


1 Another bio, this one from All American Entertainment, which books top-notch speakers nationwide for special events states that Dr. Mitcham "is also a former visiting professor at the United States Military Academy. At the University of Louisiana at Monroe, he was named 'My Favorite Professor' four times by the Baptist Student Association despite not being a Baptist. He was also named Freshman Honor Society's Professor of the Year." He "has also written dozens of articles and appeared on the History Channel, CBS, National Public Radio and the British Broadcasting Network. He is the former adviser to General Norman Schwarzkopf on the CBS Special D-Day." And, in the private sector "Mitcham is also the former president and CEO of TelSon Communications, a private $7 million corporation that provided local exchange service in seven states." https://www.allamericanspeakers.com/speakers/437206/Samuel-W.-Mitcham,-Jr. Accessed October 26, 2021.

2 Samuel W. Mitcham, Jr., It Wasn't About Slavery, Exposing the Great Lie of the Civil War (Washington, DC: Regnery History, 2020), xv-xvi.

3 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, xvii.

4 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, xix.

Polls Show Mounting Support for State Secessions, Strongest Among Southern Republicans – Guest Post by Leonard M. “Mike” Scruggs

. . . These statistics confirm what the University of Virginia study found. There are two ideological movements for secession. Conservative and Constitutionally oriented Red State partisans want to secede from socially and economically radical Blue State dominance, and Blue State partisans want a government unhindered by Constitutional restrictions and traditional religious and moral values. The Blue State partisans are geographically separated between the Pacific Coast and Northeast.

Dividing the United States into a Red Constitutional Republic and two Blue Social Democracies (Pacific and Northeast), however, presents numerous national security and economic risks and difficulties for divided families. Nevertheless, the prospect for conservatives that they must give up freedom for the sake of unity is grim and unthinkable. . . .

Polls Show Mounting Support for State Secessions
Strongest Among Southern Republicans
Guest Post by
Leonard M. "Mike" Scruggs
The Bonnie Blue Flag - Hurrah! Hurrah! For Southern rights Hurrah!
The Bonnie Blue Flag - Hurrah! Hurrah! For Southern rights Hurrah!

[Publisher's Note, by Gene Kizer, Jr. : Mike Scruggs has analyzed a large national poll taken in June, 2021, just four months ago, that reveals "a jaw-dropping 66 percent of Southern Republicans indicated a willingness for their State to secede from the United States and join other seceding States." That is an increase of 16 points in six months, since the last time such questions were polled.

Our country today has become a tyranny with serious problems that can not be tolerated much longer. Chief among them is censorship by Google, Facebook and Twitter et al. in unconstitutional collusion with the federal government. When they can de-platform the president of the United States, Donald Trump, and deny his communication with half of the country that still supports him, they can do anything. Big Tech thinks IT is sovereign rather than the people.

A tiny handful of Big Tech lefties in one-party California can not be allowed to control the information of the 200,000,000-plus Republican and Independent Americans who despise them.

When the federal government tells Facebook to censor COVID information because it doesn't fit the left's paranoid political narrative, that is the same as the federal government censoring information and speech, which is unconstitutional.

Big Tech and the corrupt news media, at the behest of the federal government, already censor valid information on safe effective COVID treatments that are being used all over the world, thus hundreds of thousands have to die for leftist politics.

Big Tech and the Democrat Party do not follow science. They ignore the natural immunity millions of Americans have because those Americans have already had COVID.

Natural immunity if you have had COVID is arguably, even likely, better than the COVID vaccine. Yet if you have this strong natural immunity and don't want the government's vaccine, you are a pariah.

The bottom line is that millions who have better immunity than the vaccine are about to lose their jobs in the name of fighting COVID thanks to the Democrat Party that does not follow science.

We are unquestionably in a Marxist cultural revolution being pushed by the race-obsessed Democrat Party.

Think about Democrat governance. In many Democrat big cities they have decriminalized theft so thieves brazenly walk into pharmacies like CVS and load up what they want then walk out.

As a result, pharmacies are closing left and right in those places. There will soon be none for law-biding citizens to use.

What's next?

If you walk across town in blue state big cities and aren't murdered, raped or robbed before getting to your destination, be careful not to step in human feces or get a syringe needle from a junkie living across the street from your children's school stuck in your foot.

This is a sign of a collapsing society though Democrats think they are headed to utopia.

Of course, they also think men who think they are women, really are women and need abortion rights.

Now the Democrats want the IRS to monitor your bank account so it knows when you have $600 in there though Republicans are trying to raise that amount.

There should be NO amount that allows the IRS to automatically monitor every American. If they have a reason, such as they suspect a crime, then fine. But not for anything else. Let's not make every American a suspect.

Imagine the corruption this will cause. Now, every Democrat administration (if there are any after the 2022 and 2024 electoral bloodbaths that are predicted) can call the IRS and target a political enemy because every American will now be suspect.

Democrats are authoritarians who constantly use the federal government and IRS to go after average Americans who disagree with their idiotic or racist policies like Critical Race Theory. They applaud AG Merrick Garland for siccing the FBI on parents upset at school boards for encouraging Critical Race Theory and teaching transgenderism to young children. The disgraceful Garland has a huge conflict of interest because his daughter is married to a man making millions spreading racist CRT around the country so Garland, of course, wants to keep the money flowing for his daughter. Lock those parents up if they interfere with Merrick Garland's family's cash flow. The children of the proles don't matter to Merrick Garland.

Democrats want a totalitarian tyranny with them in charge.

They don't care about free speech or the prosperity of the middle class. That's why Biden canceled the Keystone Pipeline then had to beg the Saudis on his knees to produce more oil. What a national embarrassment. As the famous chant at football games goes, F  J  B !!!

The only thing Democrats care about is their own power and wealth. We saw that in the Kavanaugh hearing. They offer nothing to Americans in general except anti-white hatred and racism. They don't even care about the black people they purport to love. They use black people. Defunding the police harms poor blacks in inner cities more than anybody.

If we have another stolen election because of Democrat Party corruption with mail-in ballots, ballot harvesting, no monitors, etc. (see the Texas law suit filed in the U.S. Supreme Court shortly after the 2020 election), states will take action and may secede.

We have 50 powerful states in our Union. Any one of them could stand on its own. There are many small countries on the planet where people govern themselves democratically and are happy and prosperous.

One possible solution is to reel in federal power and re-empower the states as was intended by the Founding Fathers but good luck getting rid of the deep state. It, along with Big Tech, has more power today than the people, though the people are the sovereign.

We want free speech and the government out of our lives.

We want a reliable press and tech companies that allow all information to flow so we can make up our own minds about everything. We don't need some liberal pissant in California telling us what to think.

If states ever did secede, or, as I said, if there is another stolen election, or elections we can not trust, states WILL secede and they should because who the hell wants to live in a leftist tyranny with dopey California liberals in charge of our magnificent country. They can't even keep the electricity on out there. Their hypocritical leaders, again, step in human feces as they go maskless ignoring their own mandates that they force on the proles they rule.

If states ever did secede, and the red states formed their own constitutional republic, we could use most of the current United States Constitution as a base then add assurances that would make our republic free, prosperous and fair forever for all our citizens regardless of skin color.

We would make our guiding principle a colorblind meritocracy and put it in law. We would be like America before the Democrat Party became Marxist Communist with the delusion that the American public will roll over and let them rule us.

We will adopt Martin Luther King's adage that it is not skin color that is important but the content of one's character. It is hard to get better than that.

Here are other things we could put in our red state constitution to keep our country free:

1) Strong anti-monopoly laws that would never ever allow a Google, Facebook or Twitter to arise. No company can ever censor our people. We want the innovation from vigorous competition always. WE WILL HAVE FREE SPEECH ALWAYS.

2) Laws forbidding cancel culture so that if somebody cancels a person because of their political beliefs, the canceler can be sued into bankruptcy immediately. NO MORE CANCEL CULTURE. Let the blue states have it.

3) Guaranteed equal justice under the law. We are supposed to have that now but we don't. The Democrat Party has politicized everything in America including the criminal justice system. Democrats get off while Republicans rot in solitary confinement. Violent rioters burning cities in 2020 got off while non-violent trespassers on January 6 in the capital who were let in, in many cases, and mingled in a friendly way with Capital police, rot in solidary confinement.

There are trials for every policeman who shoots a black person committing a crime but no trial for the murder of Ashli Babbitt, an unarmed 120 pound woman, a United States Air Force war veteran who was not even warned before being murdered.

4) Strong laws against FBI and federal government corruption that led to the fraudulent Steele dossier which hamstrung a United States president for three years with the Mueller Investigation. In other words, Hillary Clinton would be in jail for a long time and so would Christopher Steele.

5) No racist affirmative action quotas. Everybody competes on an equal footing. No punishment of people alive today for something their ancestors were supposed to have done 150 years ago. That is a shakedown of monumental proportions. We are all equal today. If you have a problem, get more education. Get help somewhere. Everybody competes on a level field.

6) Strong laws to prevent the federal government from ever becoming as corrupt as it is today with its deep state. No labor unions in the federal government. No federal employees doing labor union business for the Democrat Party while on the clock as federal employees.

7) Strengthen the Tenth Amendment empowering states over the federal government. Limit tax flow to the federal government. No federal grants to study the sex life of the Ukrainian fruit fly.

8) National defense in the red states will be no problem since 44% of the United States military today comes from the South. Red state folks are patriotic and will serve, defend and die just like our ancestors did in the War Between the States when they were outnumbered four to one and outgunned 100 to one. Southerners still killed a like number of Yankees in a war that killed 750,000 and maimed over a million out of a population of 31 million.

9) Encouragement of states to pass monument protection laws so that 100 year old monuments are not allowed to be destroyed by mobs. Encourage more monuments to be built if need be but never ever do like ISIS, the Taliban and Democrat Party and destroy monuments to forebears.

10) Encourage the teaching of a comprehensive history of slavery which would start with blacks in Africa selling other blacks into slavery, then put the blame on the British and New Englanders who carried on most of the slave trade so much so one can argue that the entire infrastructure of the Old North was built on profits from the slave trade. Boston and New York were the largest slave trading ports on the planet in 1862, during the War Between the States, 54 years after the slave trade had been outlawed by the U.S. Constitution.

11) Absolute security of all borders so that we can not have an invasion like the one orchestrated by Biden and Obama to change the U.S. electorate to the skin colors favored by racist Democrats, which is anybody but white people.

12) No teacher union monopolies that stifle education and indoctrinate students with Marxist socialist Communist ideology with Democrats in charge.

13) School choice for everybody.

All those folks who want constitutional government, the rule of law, freedom and capitalism so they can have prosperity, will move to the red states, and all the Marxists, Communists and socialists can move to the blue states or Venezuela, Russia, China, Iran or other like-minded places. Remember, California can not even keep the electricity on, and when walking around in blue state big cities, one must watch out for drug needles and human feces in the street, or gangs robbing drug stores in broad daylight with government approval.

Mike goes into detail on the right of secession, which absolutely is a right. I'd like to add to his excellent analysis that three states reserved the right of secession before acceding to the United States Constitution: New York, Rhode Island, and Virginia. By the acceptance of the right of secession of New York, Rhode Island, and Virginia, all the other states had it too because all states entered the Union as exact equals.

There is indisputable evidence of the right of secession. See The Right of Secession, Part II of my book Slavery Was Not the Cause of the War Between the States, The Irrefutable Argument. It is comprehensive and includes such things as a Stetson University College of Law, Stetson Law Review article that concludes that the South absolutely did have the right to secede and had exercised it properly. There is much more.

The Supreme Court Case Texas v. White in 1869 that concluded that Texas had never left the Union and that the Union was indestructible, apparently never read the reserved right of secession of New York, Rhode Island and Virginia that gave the right of secession to Texas and all the other states. Tell the families of the thousands of Texans who died fighting for independence against the Yankee invasion that Texas had never left the Union.

The chief justice presiding over this case, Salmon P. Chase, was Lincoln's secretary of the treasury, so, of course he was going to rule against secession and not indict his boss, Lincoln, for starting a war that killed 750,000 men and maimed a million, which LINCOLN ABSOLUTELY DID DO.

The abject corruption of Reconstruction rendered any decision of Chase's court as to the right of secession, invalid, and actually laughable.

No legal determination that involves corruption, duress, violence or coercion, which define Congressional Reconstruction, can be valid.

On the other hand, the secession conventions of the South, which had been called by Southern state legislatures and whose representatives were elected by the Southern people, are valid as the article in the Stetson University College of Law, Stetson Law Review, determined. That article is "The Foundations and Meaning of Secession" by H. Newcomb Morse. It states on pages 434 to 436:

When the Southern States seceded from the Union in 1860 and 1861, not one state was remiss in discharging this legal obligation. Every seceding state properly utilized the convention process, rather than a legislative means, to secede. Therefore, not only did the Southern States possess the right to secede from the Union , they exercised that right in the correct manner.

Morse concludes:

. . . conceivably, it was the Northern States that acted illegally in precipitating the War Between the States. The Southern States, in all likelihood, were exercising a perfectly legitimate right in seceding from the Union.

Southern secession conventions were pure democracy at work. They debated the single issue of secession for days then voted to secede.

Of course they had the right to secede. The most widely quoted phrase in the secession debate in the South in the year prior to Southern states seceding 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 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.

No decision by Lincoln's former employee during the corrupt Reconstruction period can determine something as momentous as the right of secession, which was taught at West Point as an absolute right in the antebellum era, and was never questioned by anybody until Lincoln needed a justification for his bloody war. He waged that war for the supremacy of the federal government controlled by the North over the rest of the country. It was about Northern wealth and power, and gave us the corrupt federal government we have today. Yankees were the federals, as in federal government, during the war. They certainly did not fight to free the slaves as the War Aims Resolution and other Northern documents produced in the first two years of the war prove.

Following Mike's bio and article are links to The Times Examiner website, Mike's outstanding columns, and to his books.]

Mike Scruggs is the author of two books - The Un-Civil War, Shattering the Historical Myths; and Lessons from the Vietnam War, Truths the Media Never Told You - and over 600 articles on military history, national security, intelligent design, genealogical genetics, immigration, current political affairs, Islam, and the Middle East.

The abridged version of The Un-Civil War sold over 40,000 copies and won the prestigious D. T. Smithwick Award by the North Carolina Society of Historians, for excellence.

Mike holds a BS degree from the University of Georgia and an MBA from Stanford University. A former USAF intelligence officer and Air Commando, he is a decorated combat veteran of the Vietnam War and holds the Distinguished Flying Cross, Purple Heart, and Air Medal. He is a retired First Vice President for a major national financial services firm and former Chairman of the Board of a classical Christian school.

Polls Show Mounting Support for State Secessions
By Mike Scruggs
(First published in The Times Examiner, 19 October 2021)
Strongest Among Southern Republicans

A BRIGHT LINE WATCH/YouGov poll of 2,750 Americans taken in late June 2021, revealed that a jaw-dropping 66 percent of Southern Republicans indicated a willingness for their State to secede from the United States and join other seceding States. This was up from an already high level of 50 percent in a poll following the January 6 incursion of crowds of protestors into the Capitol building. Most of these protestors were frustrated by questionable election results but had no destructive or evil intent. Overall, in the June national survey, 37 percent indicated a “willingness to secede.” Republicans in the Western Mountain regions also evidenced strong sentiments favoring secession at 43 percent. Curiously, Democrats on the West Coast and in the Northeast also showed above average sentiment for secession, but obviously for different reasons.

A University of Virginia (UVA) analysis in July of 2,012 voters, about half for Biden and half for Trump, also indicated surprisingly high sentiment for the secession of their State. Approximately 52 percent of Trump supporters favored secession to join other seceding “Red states.” Remarkably, even 41 percent of Democrats favor secession to join seceding “Blue states.” These poll results indicate a strong ideological enmity and distrust between the two parties. About 83 percent of the Trump voters were concerned about radicalism and immorality ruining the country. Curiously, 62 percent of Biden voters were concerned about radicalism and immorality, but perhaps from a different perspective.

The survey showed that Republicans and Democrats strongly distrust each other. More than 80 percent of both parties believe the opposing party presents “a clear and present danger to American democracy.”  Much of this distrust has been created by undeniably radical social Marxist policies. Much more has been the deliberate result of an irresponsibly partisan mainstream media, which has little moral compass or regard for truth. “Can’t we all just get along” sighs only tend to bury important truths, and burying truth only makes things worse.

According to Dr. Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics,

“The divide between Trump and Biden voters is deep, wide, and dangerous…The scope is unprecedented, and it will not be easily fixed.”

The June YouGov poll also found that 50 percent of Southern independents favor secession, while only 20 percent of Democrats favor it. In the Mountain states, 35 percent of independents favor secession but only 17 percent of Democrats.

Secession sentiment is fairly strong among independents generally with 43 percent of independents in the “Heartland” favoring it, compared to only 34 percent of Republicans, and 19 percent of Democrats. Secession sentiment among independents ranges from 33 percent on the Pacific coast to 50 percent in the South.

Democrat sentiment for secession is highest on the Pacific Coast with 47 percent favoring secession. Only 33 percent of independents and 27 percent of Republicans want the West Coast to secede from the United States.

In the Northeast 39 percent of Democrats favor secession, while 35 percent of independents and 26 percent of Republicans favor it.

These statistics confirm what the University of Virginia study found. There are two ideological movements for secession. Conservative and Constitutionally oriented Red State partisans want to secede from socially and economically radical Blue State dominance, and Blue State partisans want a government unhindered by Constitutional restrictions and traditional religious and moral values. The Blue State partisans are geographically separated between the Pacific Coast and Northeast.

Dividing the United States into a Red Constitutional Republic and two Blue Social Democracies (Pacific and Northeast), however, presents numerous national security and economic risks and difficulties for divided families. Nevertheless, the prospect for conservatives that they must give up freedom for the sake of unity is grim and unthinkable. Our hope for now should be in the 2022 and 2024 elections, and that many former Biden voters and Democrat partisans will be convinced by the terrible reality and ruinous failure of Biden and Democrat Party policies that the nation must return to the traditional Constitutional and moral values that made us a great nation, and which are absolutely necessary for our continued survival.

Is Secession legal and Constitutional? Even Congressman Abraham Lincoln said so in 1848:

“Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable and most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world.”

Might does not make right, and decades of propaganda cannot change the truth. The 1776 Declaration of Independence was referenced by the South Carolina Declaration of the Immediate Causes for Secession on December 24, 1860:

“Thus were established the two great principles asserted by the Colonies, namely: the right of a State to govern itself; and the right of a people to abolish a Government when it becomes destructive of the ends for which it was instituted.”

Secession was and is legal, but the question today and always is whether secession is desirable. We are headed for some extraordinary tough decisions and hardships, unless voters wake up and throw out the social Marxists and their spineless establishment apologists in the 2022 and 2024 primaries and general election.

The 1860 South Carolina Declaration of the Causes for Secession has become a popular tool for political-correctness-chained academics to prove the Civil War was only about slavery. The word “slavery” or words or phrases pertaining to it are used 18 times in a total word count of 2,209. The document uses the word “Constitution” 21 times, which seems a more prevalent theme, if you insist on reading for word count rather than analytical context.

More than a dozen paragraphs point out the history of the British Colonies and United States from 1765 to 1860 pertaining to the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights to prove South Carolina’s Constitutional Right of Secession. Most of the slavery words were complaining about Northern violations of Article 4 of the Constitution and other breaches of promise regarding handling of runaway slaves. While I can fully understand and sympathize with the position of 14 Northern States and probably Abraham Lincoln on the unpleasant obligation to enforce Article 4, it is ridiculous to assert the War was only about slavery because South Carolina used violations of Article 4 as proof of Northern unfaithfulness to Constitutional principles. South Carolina in particular, but other Southern and Border States generally were very concerned that the North was abandoning Jeffersonian principles of government and seeking national greatness based on consolidated and centralized big government.

The Tariff Wars from 1824 through 1860, though not mentioned in the South Carolina Declaration of 1860, were a prime example of Northern sectional politics and government that ignored Southern interests. South Carolina had threatened secession in 1824 and 1833 (Nullification Crisis) over unfair tariffs that benefited Northern sectional interests and exploited and harmed the South.

The Northern myth that the Civil War was only about freeing slaves still rankles knowledgeable Southerners and others not bound by politically correct chains. This is largely because politicians, PC academics, and the media so frequently use it to make the South a racist and traitorous punching bag and perennial scapegoat.

This is true even on Fox News on which otherwise conservative commentators and contributors frequently refer to the U.S. or the Republicans as fighting a war to end slavery. This is such a shallow, half-baked misrepresentation that it belongs in the propaganda hall of fame.

The most recent and egregious example of bad scholarship serving as a punching bag to slander and defame the South, is Fox News commentator Brett Baier’s new book, To Rescue the Republic, which basically tries to upgrade General and later President U.S. Grant to the status of a national moral hero.

Grant did some noble things, but he allowed and encouraged several Union generals to make total war on Southern civilians, resulting in over 50,000 dead, and as President presided over one of the most corrupt administrations in U.S. history.

During Reconstruction, he allowed Radical Republicans to go wild in oppressing and exploiting the South. Baier apparently knows little about Reconstruction that does not follow the latest liberal academic spin, distortions, and coverups from writers such as Eric Foner, who believes Reconstruction was an “unfinished revolution” and anti-Confederate zealot Ty Seidule, who indoctrinated West Point cadets to believe Robert E. Lee and Confederates were traitors.

Does Baier know that during Reconstruction, approximately 228,000 Confederate veterans were disenfranchised to assure Republican carpetbaggers would win elections and establish the South as a Radical Republican stronghold. Does Baier know that the largely black Radical Republican Union League militias also stirred up racial resentment and resorted to intimidation to keep blacks from voting Democrat.

The Radical Republicans of the Reconstruction era have been replaced by Radical Democrats in the Obama-Biden administrations.

Baier wrote an excellent book on President Eisenhower, and Grant had a noble side, but the problem with Baier’s new book is that in his attempt to upgrade Grant, he slanders the South and Southerners as racists and traitors. One politically prominent Fox Contributor called Confederates “traitors” in reviewing Baier’s book. Baier’s book will contribute to Southern alienation from a distorted, anti-Southern national narrative that is being pushed even by Fox News. As an antidote, I recommend U.S. Grant’s Failed Presidency by Philip Leigh, published in March 2019.

Republicans should win the 2022 and 2024 elections and avoid more disastrous policy mistakes and calls for Red State secessions if they can assure fair elections and resist virtue-signaling opportunities to slander and enrage Southerners.

Picture014

Link to The Times Examiner website: www.timesexaminer.com

Link to Mike Scruggs's columns at The Times Examinerhttps://www.timesexaminer.com/mike-scruggs

Link to Mike's book website:

https://www.universalmediainc.org/books/. His books are also available on Amazon and other places.

Charlottesville Untold, Inside Unite the Right by Anne Wilson Smith – A Review by Gene Kizer, Jr.

A Review of

Charlottesville Untold, Inside Unite the Right by Anne Wilson Smith

Shotwell Publishing, LLC, Columbia, S.C., Sept. 20, 2021, softcover, 396 pages, ISBN-13: 978-1947660588, thoroughly documented with footnotes, many of which contain QR codes so you can look at drone footage and such immediately as you read, $24.95 on Amazon.

by Gene Kizer, Jr.
Charlottesville-Untold-550 66K

IT IS CLEAR from Anne Wilson Smith's thorough, well documented and riveting book, that Charlottesville's inept, disgraceful Democrat leadership is the reason a person died and many were injured at the August 12, 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, home of Thomas Jefferson and the University of Virginia.

If the city of Charlottesville cared about the United States Constitution and free speech, they would have protected everybody's right to it and nobody would have died. But that does not make good headlines for the left, which never lets a tragedy go to waste.

I want to make it CLEAR that I am NO fan of the KKK or "white supremacy" whatever that means. I am an historian who is appalled at the fraud which passes for history in this day and age thanks to an utterly corrupt news media that is more like the propaganda ministry of the Democrat Party. By news media I mean CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC. the New York Times, the Washington Post, NPR, et al. ad nauseam, all of which are empowered by Big Tech, Google, Facebook and Twitter, that censor information for half of the country, not because it is false, but because much of it is true but harms the Democrat Party.

Academia is just as bad or worse. It is 100% liberal (I know the actual percentage is only 90% but the other 10 are not going to say a word). A real debate is impossible in academia because it is made up of liberals trying to out-liberal each other and all petrified the mob will show up at their office, or, God forbid, accuse them of being a racist (which is defined as anybody who disagrees with a Democrat) thus most of them are dishonest but they know the Democrat Party line.

We are living through a Marxist authoritarian revolution where the Democrat attorney general of the United States, Merrick Garland, just issued a memo instructing the FBI to investigate parents speaking at local school board meetings. Those parents are upset with racist Critical Race Theory, transgenderism to young children, and other abominations being taught widespread across the country and dividing us horribly.1

A Virginia Democrat gubernatorial candidate and former governor, Terry McAuliffe, recently said in a debate that parents have no right to interfere with what schools teach their children.

Pardon me, governor: THAT'S BULLSH_T. Anybody who thinks that should not be elected to anything, ever.

Charlottesville Untold says, about Anne Wilson Smith, that she is the author of Robert E. Lee: A Biography for Kids (which I own and find a well-illustrated, delightful book!).

There are 32 chapters in six parts, which organize the material well.

Smith has done posterity a favor by compiling so much information that has heretofore been hidden by the fraud media. She has interviews, video accounts, court records, police reports, timelines, the Heaphy Report commissioned by the city of Charlottesville to find out what happened.

The Heaphy Report is a non-political authoritative report released on December 1, 2017 described as an "independent investigation of Unite the Right and surrounding events led by Tim Heaphy and performed by his law firm Hunton & Williams."2 Heaphy is a former federal prosecutor.3 Smith writes:

For creation of the 200-plus page report, the City of Charlottesville paid $350,000. Investigators reviewed hundred of thousands of documents and electronic communications from the City of Charlottesville and numerous agencies and offices of the Commonwealth of Virginia. They reviewed thousands of photos and hundreds of hours' worth of video footage and audio recordings, some obtained from the internet, some submitted by witnesses, and some obtained from law enforcement sources. They interviewed 150 witnesses including law enforcement personnel; representatives and members of the right-wing protester groups and left-wing counter-protest groups that attended, as well as unaffiliated attendees. They also provided phone and internet tip lines for members of the public to submit information.

The report heavily condemned the Charlottesville Police Department leadership. Police Chief Al Thomas resigned on December 18, 2017.4

All of these official documents, the violence they describe, the critical communications among officials during the dramatic events, the bloody fights between mobs, the anarchy, most of the time with police standing around doing nothing, make this book an incredibly exciting read that is impossible to put down.

Smith sets the stage by going into detail on how the destruction of century-old monuments to Confederate heroes and war dead began. She discusses the compromise that brought the Confederate battle flag off the dome of the South Caroling State House where it had flown since 1962 as part of the Confederate War Centennial. South Carolina had supplied 60,000 soldiers to Southern armies in the War Between the States and 20,000 had been killed and another 20,000 maimed. In the entire war, 750,000 died and over a million were maimed out of a national population of 31 million. We lost 400,000 in all of World War II out of a national population of 150 million.

Though polls, even among a majority of blacks, showed that the Confederate flag over the State House was not a problem, virtue-signaling activists made it a problem so a legislative compromise was reached in 2000, the flag came off the State House and a historically accurate square Confederate battle flag such as Gen. Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia used in the war was placed next to the Confederate soldier's monument on the grounds in the front of he State House.

This calmed the issue until June 17, 2015, when Dylann Roof murdered nine churchgoers at Mother Emanuel AME Church in Charleston and soon thereafter was shown in pictures holding a Confederate battle flag. This gave then-Governor Nikki Haley a chance to advance her career by degrading her own state and the ancestors of her voters. Smith describes it well. After supporting the flag:

Haley pivoted to the need to remove the flag to promote "healing." Haley, born to immigrant parents as Nimrata Rhandawa, had risen to power as part of the "Tea Party" wave of Republican populism, becoming Governor in 2011. South Carolinians had embraced her as one of their own, and elevated her, twice, to the highest office in the state. In an almost unfathomable act of betrayal, Haley turned on the people who had elected her by allowing their cherished and honorable past to be defined by a deranged mass murderer.

That Haley believed that "healing" could be accomplished by purging the historical symbols of the founding population of her state is wildly misguided at best. Haley could have shown courage, statesmanship, and gravitas, promoting the healing she claimed to value using honest leadership to build bridges and foster understanding amongst Black and White South Carolinians, all of whom were grieving the murder of innocent churchgoers. Instead, she chose a path of short-sighted, self-serving opportunism, paving the way for what was to become a nationwide cultural purge that left a wake of destruction from which the country will never recover. She remains seemingly oblivious to the gravity of her transgression or the immensity of its impact.5

The flag came down on July 10, 2015 and that opened floodgates for the destruction of monuments all over the country as well as unnecessary hatred and division, and the current Marxist authoritarian revolution we find ourselves in. If Haley had been a leader, she would have encouraged the building of more monuments but she didn't. She joined the left in destroying a sacred monument and thus put herself in the same class as the Islamic State, when they destroyed monuments hundreds of years old. ISIS, Nikki Haley and the Democrat Party, peas in a pod.

Smith said she "learned that the rally in support of the statue of Robert E. Lee, perhaps the most admirable man our country has ever produced, was planned for August 12th in Charlottesville Virginia." She said "I resolved to go - in fact, felt I must - as a show of support for the first real demonstration of resistance to the cultural cleansing of the symbols of my forebears."6

Smith headed from Columbia to Charlottesville

. . . expecting something not unlike the many flag rallies I had witnessed over the years in Columbia, though on a larger scale. I did not anticipate that I would watch events unfold which would have a lasting national impact. I could not have known how catastrophically misrepresented this event would be to the American public. I was appalled as I watched the day's events solidified into a tragic and utterly false narrative that was to become cemented into the national psyche. I did not anticipate that I would be present at a defining event in modern American history, so noteworthy that from that time forward, every utterance of the city name will evoke its memory. "Charlottesville."7

Smith confirms that

. . . there were quite a few people, 'very fine people,' who showed up to oppose removal of the Robert E. Lee statue. These people have been accused by the most powerful voices in the nation of being "Nazis" and every other despicable name imaginable. None of them have ever been offered a platform to refute these accusations and tell their own version of the story. Not only are these individuals personally harmed by being prevented from addressing the accusations against them, but the nation as a whole has suffered under a tragic false impression of the events of August 12, 2017.8

The racist Wes Bellamy, Charlottesville City Council vice mayor, presents himself  "as a champion of equality and anti-racism, but his social media posts revealed an open hatred of White people." This is the man who agitated to take down the statue of Robert E. Lee and rename Lee Park. He is more typical than not of city leaders across the country who have voted to destroy century-old monuments that were built by a poverty-stricken South that had been devastated in the War Between the States but found money through bake sales and pennies from school children to honor their beloved war dead and heroes with fine monuments as statements to the future. Of course, the Democrat Party's Marxist Communist cultural revolution going on today has destroyed many of them.

Smith documents the racist Bellamy's tweets including the misspellings in the originals:

Lol funniest thing about being down south is seeing little White men and the look on their faces when they have to look up to you. @ViceMayorWesB Tweet 10/13/2012

So sad seeing these beanpole body White women in these sundresses smh...@ViceMayorWesB Tweet 10/18/2012

This nigga just said he don't have 2work as long as its White women walking the Earth. Lmaaaaaaaaoooooooo. That's some VA shit. @ViceMayorWesB Tweet 6/27/2010

lol people in here calling Thomas Jefferson a White Supremacist. . . . making a lot of valid points proving the accusation. Interesting... @ViceMayorWesB Tweet 5/14/2014

I really #hate how almost 80% of the Black people in here talk White. . . #petpeeve. #itstheniggainme. #dontjudgeme @ViceMayorWesB Tweet 3/30/2010

I DON'T LIKE WHIT (sic) PEOPLE SO I HATE WHITE SNOW!!!!! FML!!!! @ViceMayorWesB Tweet 12/20/2009

White women=Devil @ViceMayorWesB Tweet 3/3/2011

I HATE BLACK PEOPLE who ACT WHITE!!! (B U NIGGA) -- Jeezy Voice! @ViceMayorWesB Tweet 11/17/20099

That's Bellamy's beliefs but here's what Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, Allied Supreme Commander in World War II and later president of the United States thought about Gen. Robert E. Lee.

On August 1, 1960, a New York dentist, Dr. Leon W. Scott, wrote an angry letter to President Eisenhower excoriating him for having a 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."10

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.

Sincerely,

Dwight D. Eisenhower11

Just to give you a taste of why you can't put this book down, here is much of Chapter 11, Inside Lee, meaning Lee Park, with subtitle "In a combat zone without a rifle.", pages 103 to 109:

Not only did the Unite the Right attendees have to fight their way through a hostile crowd to attend the rally, but they were not even safe once inside the confines of the park. They found themselves surrounded by Antifa without and separated by barricades within. While throngs of police watched passively, attendees were attacked like caged animals. It was during this part of the day that Baked Alaska was sprayed in the eyes with a chemical agent which left him hospitalized and temporarily blinded.

The chaos inside the park continue until about 11:30 a.m. The young man from Appalachia, Chris, put it this way: "Once we were inside the park, everything really went to hell. We had anyone with a shield, anyone able-bodied was in front holding back protesters so they couldn't take the park. They threw rocks, piss bottles, bricks, and paint bombs." Chris observed fist fighting and people being attacked with clubs.

Chris recalls that he was hit with "rancid piss" and paint bombs, despite the fact that he was trying to stay away from the front lines. After being pelted with objects for a while, he began to get angry, and decided to go up to the front to fight back. He admits that at that point, he got in "a couple of scuffles."

Chris spotted plenty of men in uniform, both police and National Guard, standing near the park. "They had the means to break it up . . . They could've stopped it."

Eddie Miller reported a similar experience on the Political Cesspool podcast that evening. "What we found, you would not believe, once we fought our way into the park, we were barricaded on three sides, only one way out of the park... We were there for an hour and a half, taking all kinds of foreign missiles, bottles of water, sticks being thrown in, our people being spit, hit with pepper spray, they turned gas on us, they threw feces and urine on us. And you know what the police were doing? They were sitting there with their fingers up their rears, watching, some of them laughing. Watching us take all kinds of endless abuse."

On the same podcast, Brad Griffin of the League of the South reported, "When we got to the park, we found that Antifa was not penned by the police. The police allowed Antifa to attack our group. They attacked us with pepper spray, with bricks, with bear mace, with piss bombs, with literal human feces... The Antifa actually had like a canister of hair spray and a lighter, and actually turned it into a miniature flame thrower. I mean they had a literal flame thrower in Lee Park. They were throwing bombs and bricks. They were attacking our people... There were two dozen people on the ground, hit by mace, bricks, who were beaten trying to get into the park."

Gene recalls being fenced in to a "little bitty" area with "all this stuff flying through the air." There were nurses in his group who were pouring milk in the eyes of people who had been pepper-strayed. He did not see anyone in Nazi or Klan garb or any swastikas amongst the crowd.

Bill and his friend took cover under some oak trees on the south side of the park which deflected most of the projectiles. Bill had worn protective gear, but he took it off to get relief from the intense August heat.

While milling around the park, he and his friend talked to a few people. He spotted Kessler and a lot of different groups there. He recalls being amidst a thick crowd, "Pretty much hemmed in." At one point, part of the barricades were pushed down to assist some people who were being attacked that were trying to get into the park to safety. He noticed that the police were not separating the protesters and counter-protesters. He also noticed National Guard members atop a bank across the street. "There was a big police presence, but they didn't do a thing."

When Tom and his friends got into the park, they could see state troopers and cops. "There were barriers in the park between us and Kessler and his crowd." Tom got hit with a balloon full of blue paint, and his friend got hit with a hard projectile which they later identified as a condom filled with cement.

Tom remembered noticing, "Cops were just sitting there just chilling, and I guess they're not gonna do anything. And we're being assaulted here." He began to wish he had not turned down his friends' offers of the shield and helmet. "I felt kind of exposed," The Iraq War veteran said. "I felt like I was in a combat zone without a rifle. Then it became survival mode."

"[Antifa] were coming in waves trying to push into the park. I kept seeing them come and come and come. They are horrible, ineffectual fighters... a bunch of wimps."

Tom also said "The League of the South are the ones I remember because they really kept Antifa out of the park."

Other observers noted that the League of the South shield wall was critical in protecting rally attendees from the surrounding mob. Simon Roche, the visitor from South Africa, heartily praised the League of the South members who guarded the park entrance:

And once we occupied the park after much ado, the police stood by and watched as the Antifa attacked the people, our people, over and over and over again. Eventually, marvelously, I saw how a group of about twelve young, young, young men, very young men, took it upon themselves to form a barricade between the Antifa and the rest of us. They were all that stood between us and the Antifa, and nigh on one thousand of the people who had come there to defend their culture, their history, their values, and their norms, because that's what it comes down to. And I tell you, if there's an impression that I'll leave with from the USA, it is that of these young men who took it upon themselves, who volunteered to stand at the foot of these steps under the direction of Michael R. Tubbs and defend all those people by themselves, and over and over and over again they were hit and they were smashed, and one Black man ran up with a great pipe and he smashed one man on the side of the head in front of everybody before running away into the crowd. They were spat on. And feces was thrown on them - some feces landed on me. And there was urine and there was some evidence of condoms filled with seminal fluid. And it was just tremendous for me to see with my own eyes how a thin line of young men, 19, 20, 21, 22, stood there and withstood everything that was thrown at them.

Another attendee echoed Roche's praise, saying, "it was precisely the group most stigmatized by the MSM, the armored Alt-Righters with shields, who created what order existed."...

Once their large entourage arrived in the park, Jim recalls some of the female League of the South members were acting as medics for those who had been injured on the way. Some Sons of Confederate Veterans and older folks were already there. He noted "weird gates separating the middle of the park," and about 200 or so cops standing around in riot gear doing nothing.

"The park was surrounded by crazed Marxists," Jim recalls. They were throwing balloons with some kind of purple irritant that caused a light acid burn, as well as used tampons, urine, feces, and water bottles. The League of the South Members who were manning the shield wall would occasionally pull in stragglers who were arriving late and being attacked. "It was a scrum."

When Luke arrived at the park, he found himself on the side with the League of the South and some "Nazi weirdos," and thought "I do not want to be near those people." He saw rally attendees scuffling with a handful of Antifa that had gotten into the park, and one large Black man screaming at people. At one point, the Black man put his hand on his pistol grip. "I almost hit the deck."...

On the other side of the park, they spotted a more clean-cut crowd with Confederate and American flags and some young polo-clad Alt-Righters. Because of the barricade down the middle of the park, they had to exit back into the crowd of protesters to get to the other side. Luke and his party exited the way they had come in, then proceeded to walk around the park with their group in a square formation, with women and the elderly in the middle. They walked stone-faced forward, not wanting to start a fight by catching the eye of anyone of the surrounding sea of Antifa, who Luke describes as being "like a pack of hyenas." You can smell them ten feet away... They are gross people."

As the group proceeded around the park, an Antifa jumped on and attacked one of their men out of the blue, choking him. "Holy shit!" thought Luke. A militia member intervened, and forced the Antifa to stand back.

"I'm very thankful for the militia guys. They did more than any law enforcement officer that day."

They finally reached the other side of the park, where another shield wall was being manned by a polo-and-khaki-wearing Alt-Right crowd. Luke remembers that it was extremely hot while he and his party were waiting inside the park for the rally to start. The cops were ambling about, not really doing anything, while the Antifa that encircled the park were "acting as if possessed" and throwing things - gas bombs, smoke grenades, bottles of urine - and there were rumors among the crowd that others were being hit with even more dangerous chemicals. Luck himself had already been pepper sprayed by this point...

The chaos continue. Asked about his concern level, Luke described it this way: "If 1 is chilling, and 10 is Kandhahar province, I would say 7.5. It was as though a fort was being created in the middle of the park. Outside are crazy people who want to tear you apart, and the cops aren't doing anything."...

One attendee described his experience as the victim of the aforementioned tactic. "An Antifa toady stole the hat of one of our comrades, which served as both physical and dox protection. Naturally he sought to retrieve his property, in the process getting mobbed by the crowd and receiving a nasty laceration... (This is a common Antifa tactic - to provoke and isolate an individual, then swarm him. I entered the fray to recover the hat and prevent my friend from being swallowed by the crowd, and in the process receiving a series of clubs to the head and torso in a surreal sort of baptism into politically-motivated leftist American street violence."

The death of Heather Heyer is truly a tragedy and is squarely on the hands of Charlottesville Democrats who made the police completely ineffective that day. There is documentation of Heyer roaming with some mobs.

Smith writes:

Just a few days after the crash, Bro (Heyer's mother) visited the site of Heyer's death. In a statement that contributed to public confusion about the fatality, a tearful Bro told reporters that Heyer had died of a heart attack. "She died pretty instantly. She didn't suffer. She, um, died of a heart attack right away at the scene. They revived her briefly and then - not consciously, just got her heart beating again - and then her heart just stopped. So I don't feel like she suffered. That's been a blessing." Bro's statement attributing Heyer's death to a heart attack caused some to speculate that Heyer was not killed by the car crash at all. Theories swirled that Heyer, a 4-foot, 11-inch tall, 330-pound, smoker who had been walking around for hours in intense summer heat, died of natural causes which were merely exacerbated by the stress of being at the crash scene. However, the cause of death was ruled by medical examiners to be "blunt force injury."12

The Heaphy Report "did not find that a direct stand-down order had been issued" but police incompetence caused the same effect:

The planning and coordination breakdowns prior to August 12 produced disastrous results. Because of their misalignment and lack of accessible protective gear, officers failed to intervene in physical altercations that took place in areas adjacent to Emancipation Park. VSP directed its officers to remain behind barricades rather than risk injury responding to conflicts between protesters and counter-protesters. CPD commander similarly instructed their officers not to intervene in all but the most serious physical confrontations. Neither agency deployed available field forces or other units to protect public safety at the locations where violence took place. Instead, command staff prepared to declare an unlawful assembly and disperse the crowd.13

It appears that Chief Al Thomas illegally destroyed evidence or tried to. He was uncooperative with investigators.

The conclusions of the Heaphy Report state:

[P]olice planing for August 12 was inadequate and disconnected. CPD commanders did not reach out to officials in other jurisdictions where these groups had clashed previously to seek information and advice. CPD supervisors did not provide adequate training or information to line officers, leaving them uncertain and unprepared for a challenging enforcement environment. CPD planners waited too long to request the assistance of the state agency skilled in emergency response. CPD command staff also received inadequate legal advice and did not implement a prohibition of certain items that could be used as weapons.

CPD devised a flawed Operational Plan for the Unite the Right Rally. Constraints on access to private property adjacent to Emancipation Park forced planners to stage particular law enforcement units far from the area of potential need. The plan did not ensure adequate separation between conflicting groups. Officers were not stationed along routes of ingress and egress to and from Emancipation Park but rather remained behind barricades in relatively empty zones within the park and around the Command Center. Officers were inadequately equipped to respond to disorders, and tactical gear was not accessible to officers when they needed it.

CPD commanders did not sufficiently coordinate with the Virginia State Police in a unified command on or before August 12. VSP never shared its formal planning documents with CPD, a crucial failure that prevented CPD from recognizing the limits of VSP's intended engagement. CPD and VSP personnel were unable to communicate via radio, as their respective systems were not connected despite plans to ensure they were. There was no joint training or all-hands briefing on or before August 12. Chief Thomas did not exercise functional control of VSP forces despite his role as overall incident commander. There failures undercut cohesion and operational effectiveness. CPD and VSP operated largely independently on August 12, a clear failure of unified command.14

It would not surprise me a bit if much or all of this was done deliberately by Democrat leadership in Charlottesville. The more anarchy, violence and carnage that happened, the more the fraud news media would be able to lie and create a narrative to help Democrats, which is exactly what they did and continue to do to this day.

Even "President" Biden began his presidential campaign with a lie for which there is absolute proof that it is a lie, talking about President Trump's statement that there were very fine people on both sides. Trump unquestionably was referring to the people for and against Robert E. Lee's statue, not any other groups. But truth makes no different to our fraud news media when an advantage can be had for the Democrat Party.

The bottom line is what the Heaphy Report found, that:

The City of Charlottesville protected neither free expression nor public safety on August 12... This represents a failure of one of government's core functions--the protection of fundamental rights.15

Anne Wilson Smith has done an outstanding thing for truth and the public record by her guts with attending the Unite the Right rally and now, with this riveting book, giving voice to people who have been lied about endlessly by our disgraceful news media. Smith's putting all this into the public record is an invaluable thing for our country and posterity.

Everybody should buy this book, not only because it is an exciting read that is hard to put down, but because it is eye-opening as to the corruption of the Democrat Party and the fraud news media.

Our First Amendment rights do not cease to apply just because Democrats find somebody's speech objectionably. I find most of their speech objectionably but I would never, ever want them to be silenced. Let them bring it and be judged in full public view.

 

NOTES:


1 Mark Moore, The New York Post, "Legal group demands probe into Garland’s school parents memo," October 11, 2021, https://nypost.com/2021/10/11/america-first-legal-asks-doj-inspector-general-to-look-into-garland-memo/, accessed October 13, 2021.

2 Anne Wilson Smith, Charlottesville Untold, Inside Unite the Right (Columbia: Shotwell Publishing, 2021), 317.

3 Smith, Charlottesville Untold, xvi.

4 Smith, Charlottesville Untold, 317.

5 Smith, Charlottesville Untold, xii.

6 Smith, Charlottesville Untold, xiii.

7 Smith, Charlottesville Untold, xiv.

8 Smith, Charlottesville Untold, xvi.

9 Smith, Charlottesville Untold, 4.

10 Dwight D. Eisenhower in Defense of Robert E. Lee, August 10, 2014, Mathew W. Lively, https://www.civilwarprofiles.com/dwight-d-eisenhower-in-defense-of-robert-e-lee/, accessed 5-3-20.

11 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, https://www.civilwarprofiles.com/dwight-d-eisenhower-in-defense-of-robert-e-lee/, accessed 5-3-20.

12 Smith, Charlottesville Untold, 262.

13 Smith, Charlottesville Untold, 319.

14 Smith, Charlottesville Untold, 323-324.

15 Smith, Charlottesville Untold, 320.

Our Marxist Revolution, Guest Post by H. V. Traywick, Jr.

It might be asked that if these States were considered out of the Union under the Reconstruction Act of 1867 and under martial law, how could they ratify an amendment to the Constitution of a Union they were not in; and if they had never been recognized as being out of the Union, how could they be compelled to ratify it? The answer, of course, is Federal bayonets. Reconstruction was nothing short of a revolution on the same order as the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917.

Our Marxist Revolution
Guest Post by
H. V. Traywick, Jr.

[Publisher's Note, by Gene Kizer, Jr. : I'm proud to publish this article by Bo Traywick, which was published earlier this week by the Abbeville Institute Blog, and on historian and author Phil Leigh's blog, Civil War Chat. Phil also produced it as a podcast. There are links to the Abbeville Institute and Phil Leigh at the end of this article, as well as a link to Bo's website.

Everybody who wants to win this Marxist war on American history should subscribe to the Abbeville Institute Blog and Phil Leigh's Civil War Chat. Abbeville sends out scholarly articles daily, as well as videos, podcasts, and notifications of events and conferences. Phil sends articles, podcasts and videos several times a week.

Anytime you are arguing history or doing research, both of these sites are invaluable. Abbeville is loaded with some of the finest scholars and writers in the world, and Phil Leigh is one of the best analytical historians out there, especially on economic issues.

But back to Brother Bo: His writing always has a pleasant literary quality to it along with powerful, thoroughly documented history.

Below is Bo's bio from the inside cover of his book, Of Apostates and Scapegoats, Confederates in the "City Upon a Hill," followed by "Our Marxist Revolution."]

H. V. "Bo" Traywick, Jr. : A native of Lynchburg, Virginia, H. V. Traywick, Jr. graduated from the Virginia Military Institute in 1967 with a degree in Civil Engineering and a Regular Commission in the US Army. His service included qualification as an Airborne Ranger, and command of an Engineer company in Vietnam, where he received the Bronze Star. After his return, he resigned his commission and ended by making a career as a tugboat captain. During this time he was able to earn a Master of Liberal Arts from the University of Richmond, with an international focus on war and cultural revolution. He currently lives in Richmond, where he writes, studies history, and occasionally commutes to Norfolk to serve as a tugboat pilot.

In 2018 he published The Monumental Truth: Five Essays on Confederate Monuments in the Age of Progressive Identity Politics, and is author/editor of five other books: Empire of the Owls: Reflections on the North's War against Southern Secession (2013), currently in its third printing; Road Gang: A Memoir of Engineer Service in Vietnam (2014); Virginia Illiad: The Death and Destruction of "The Mother of States and Statesmen" (2016); A Southern Soldier Boy: The Diary of Sergeant Beaufort Simpson Buzhardt 1838-1862 (2016); and Starlight on the Rails: A Vietnam Veteran's Long Road Home (2018).

Two of his book have been awarded the Jefferson Davis Gold Medal for History by the Virginia Chapter of the United Daughters of the Confederacy, one of which, Empire of the Owls, has also been commended by the Virginia General Assembly for its scholarship.

Gen. Lee--by Pres. Davis CSA

Our Marxist Revolution

by Bo Traywick

THOMAS CARLYLE SAID that it takes men of worth to recognize worth in men.1 Among the many worthy men who recognized the worth of General Robert E. Lee was the savior of Western Civilization. Sir Winston Churchill said Lee was one of the noblest Americans who ever lived and one of the greatest captains in the annals of war.2 But now the Lee Monument in Richmond has been taken down. Our groveling scalawag Governor says Lee no longer represents the values of Virginia. Judging by the filthy graffiti that has desecrated the Lee Monument ever since the rioting of last summer, I would say no truer words have ever been spoken. We are in a Marxist revolution. Critical Race Theory merely replaces traditional class warfare with race warfare, with White people, and particularly Southern White people, the “oppressors,” and the conveniently long-dead Confederacy the scapegoat for all the racial ills in the country.

Ever since the Spring of 1864, we Southerners have been on the defensive. No war was ever won on the defensive, but we have spent barrels of ink explaining the righteousness of the cause our forefathers fought and died for, mistakenly confounding the many causes of secession with the single cause of the war, which was secession itself. That, is what the war was “about,” and what we were fighting for was the defense of our land from invasion, conquest, and coerced political allegiance – just as in 1776, when the thirteen slave-holding3 Colonies seceded from the British Empire. But, rather than taking the offensive and hammering our detractors with this simple Truth, we instead get ourselves into involved defensive explanations that cause their eyes to glaze over, and they calmly look at us and say “Slavery” or “racism” or “White supremacy.”

I take a different approach. I indict the hypocrisy of our detractors and their Myth of American History. The agitation over our Confederate monuments rests upon this fossilized myth, which proclaims that “The Civil War was all about slavery, the righteous North waged it to free the slaves, and the evil South fought to keep them. End of story. Any questions?”

Well, yes - and I don’t buy their myth. To think that the South went to war to keep their slaves, one must think that the North went to war to free them. The simple fact is, that it did not. Aside from the obvious fact of Lincoln’s bold disclaimer in his First Inaugural4 at the outset of the war, if the North were waging a war on slavery, why didn’t she free her own slaves? The simple fact that slavery was constitutional in the United States throughout the entire war5 is one of the most glaring omissions of historical fact buried under the colossal lie known as The Myth of American History. Do the grammar school histories indoctrinating our children or the Marxist professors of our highest universities of learning say anything about the self-righteous North’s arrant hypocrisy? When the various Northern States abolished slavery for its inutility in their industrializing society, they did not free their slaves. They sold them South before the respective abolition laws went into effect.6

So if the righteous North went to war to free Southern slaves, why didn’t the righteous Northerners first clean up their own back yards and free the rest of their own slaves? And why did Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation – issued halfway through the war when the South was winning it – say that slavery was alright as long as one were loyal to his government?7 And why did he admit West Virginia, a so-called “slave State,” into the Union six months later? And why did he – a documented White Supremacist8 - choose to inaugurate the bloodiest war in the history of the Western Hemisphere to, in effect, drive Southern slavery back into the Union? In his Second Inaugural, he claimed that the South was fighting to expand slavery into the Territories,9 but with the South out of the Union, the Confederacy had already given up all claims to any and all United States Territories, making Lincoln’s specious claim just another smelly “red herring” to cover the tracks of his murderous usurpation of power in waging war against the secession of the Southern States. Since Lincoln did not recognize the Southern States as being out of the Union,10 by his own definition he was committing treason under Article III, section 3 of the Constitution by waging war against them.

Secession is merely freedom of association writ large. There were many causes of secession, not least of which that Southerners no longer wished to be associated with those people who slandered and despised them so. But that begs the question of why those people waged the bloodiest war in the history of the Western Hemisphere to prevent their departure. To hear their vitriol, one would think they would have been happy to be rid of these Southern Apostates polluting what the New England Pilgrim Fathers called their “Citty upon a hill.” But they weren’t, for running like a river beneath their bigoted pieties was their avariciousness. With the South’s “Cotton Kingdom” out of the Union and set up as a free trade confederacy on the North’s doorstep, the North’s “Mercantile Kingdom” would collapse!11 So Lincoln rebuffed every Southern overture for peace and launched an armada against Charleston Harbor to provoke South Carolina into firing the first shot.12 South Carolina responded to Lincoln’s provocation at Charleston just as Massachusetts had responded to George III’s provocation at Lexington and Concord, giving Lincoln the war he wanted,13 but putting himself in the shoes of George III.

Virginia, “The Mother of States and of Statesmen,” stood solidly for the Union she had done so much to create, but when Lincoln called for her troops to subjugate the “Cotton Kingdom,” Virginia refused, indicted Lincoln for “choosing to inaugurate civil war,”14 seceded from the Union, and joined the Confederacy. Four other States – including occupied Missouri - followed her out. But after four years of arduous service, as General Lee said at Appomattox, the South was compelled to yield to overwhelming numbers and resources,15 and Lincoln drove the Southern States back into the Union at the point of the bayonet. Although John Wilkes Booth made a martyr out of America’s Caesar, Reconstruction cemented his conquest. With an Army of Occupation and the pretense of law, and with the Union Leagues stirring up racial hatred, a corrupt Northern political party transformed the voluntary Union of sovereign States into a coerced Yankee Empire pinned together by bayonets.

With her men killed and her land laid waste, the South, at the behest of General Lee, “accepted the situation.” In good faith she sent her representatives to the US Congress in December of 1865, but the Radicals were in control, and they were not allowed to take their seats. Thaddeus Stevens of Pennsylvania stated the Radical opinion: “The future condition of the conquered power depends on the will of the conqueror. They must come in as new States or remain as conquered provinces. Congress … is the only power that can act in the matter… Congress must create States and declare when they are entitled to be represented… As there are no symptoms that the people of these provinces will be prepared to participate in constitutional government for some years, I know of no arrangement so proper for them as territorial governments. There they can learn the principles of freedom and eat the fruit of foul rebellion…”16

In that session, the Thirteenth Amendment, abolishing slavery in the United States, was sent to the States and was ratified – three years after Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation. The Fourteenth Amendment was then proposed. This would gave illiterate Blacks the right to vote and serve on juries. It barred all ex-Confederates from Federal and State offices, and it required the Southern States to share in the payment of the Union war debt and repudiate their own. Tennessee ratified, but the ten ex-Confederate States that rejected it lost their identities in March of 1867 with the passage by Congress of the First Reconstruction Act.17

The Reconstruction Act of 1867 divided the ten Southern States into five military districts, with Virginia being designated as “Military District Number One.” It stipulated that each Southern State frame a new constitution that met with Yankee approval. This was to be done by a convention consisting of male delegates “of whatever race, color, or previous condition” - with the exception of all Confederate soldiers and most other Southern White people, all of whom were disfranchised. Then, when the legislature elected under this new constitution had ratified the proposed Fourteenth Amendment, that State would be declared “entitled to representation in Congress” – or, in other words, “readmitted into the Union.”

It might be asked that if these States were considered out of the Union under the Reconstruction Act of 1867 and under martial law, how could they ratify an amendment to the Constitution of a Union they were not in; and if they had never been recognized as being out of the Union, how could they be compelled to ratify it? The answer, of course, is Federal bayonets. Reconstruction was nothing short of a revolution on the same order as the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917.

Results? For the North? “The Gilded Age.” For the South? Grinding poverty in a land laid waste until the Second World War, and the curse of being ruled by little men. For the Blacks? A recent study of military and Freedman’s Bureau records has revealed that between 1862 and 1870 perhaps as many as a million ex-slaves, or twenty-five percent of the population, died of starvation, disease, and neglect under their Northern “liberators”!18 Freed from their master’s care, “Father Abraham, The Great Emancipator,” had told them to “root hog, or die.” Black enfranchisement in the South, and the disfranchisement of Southern Whites, were merely cynical Northern political tools to cement the North’s conquest, and once she had achieved it with her so-called “Reconstruction,” the North abandoned her Black puppets – or “useful idiots” as the Communist Vladimir Lenin would have called them - to the upheaval she had wrought in Southern society and turned her attention to the Plains Indians, who were in the way of her trans-continental railroads. But that’s another story - let the Indians tell you that one.

The gradual peace and reconciliation after Reconstruction came in part from the South’s “acceptance of the situation,” and in part from the North’s recognition of the South’s difficulty in suddenly assimilating millions of Africans into a European population that had been steeped in Western civilization for thousands of years. As such, since the North had gotten what she wanted out of the war and Reconstruction – which was control of the Federal Government and its finances - she was content to let the South deal with her own domestic problems in peace. However, when hopeful Southern Blacks started moving North to the Promised Land in the Great Migration, they found themselves relegated by a cold Northern racism into segregated ghettoes, and discovered that the Northern rhetoric about social equality was a political sham.

The invention of television gave Northern politicians and demagogues a way out of this embarrassing situation by giving them the means to divert Black attention from de facto Northern segregation onto the codified segregation in the South, but their demagoguery provoked racial agitation that broke into urban race riots up North. Desperate, guilt-ridden Northern White Liberals were driven to devise further crusades upon which to divert the attention of their credulous and unwanted Black population onto Southern scapegoats. First came the self-righteous “Freedom Riders” protesting Southern segregation – locked arm-in-arm with Black protest marchers - and posting their Progressive virtues before the TV cameras for all to see. But while they were delivering tutorials on proper race relations to the benighted Southerners, the Blacks up North were burning their cities down - and they have been doing so ever since, forever compelling Desperate White Liberals to devise new crusades upon which to post their virtues.

Their latest crusade is against Confederate Monuments. But when all of the Confederate monuments have been vandalized and torn down, who will their next targets be? Be assured that these self-righteous, Latter-Day Puritans will not rest, for crusading, witch-burning and virtue-posting is in their DNA. It came over in the Mayflower. Meanwhile, Monument Avenue in Richmond is a desecrated and vandalized shambles; Thomas Jefferson is under assault at UVA; W & L has repudiated General Lee; and VMI has repudiated “Stonewall” Jackson, while her Cadets who fought and died at the Battle of New Market and are buried on Post under Sir Moses Ezekiel’s “Virginia Mourning Her Dead” have become an embarrassment – and a rebuke.

As the mania of Identity Politics and Radical Equity for every conceivable definition of race, gender, and species reaches the point of absurdity in the Victimhood Olympics, we have been carried away into Babylon, with women being sent into combat while men push baby buggies around town; with girls becoming Boy Scouts and men “choosing” to be women; with children “deciding” their gender and being given access to the bathroom of their choice in school; with anarchy ruling the classrooms and teachers being assaulted by their students; with history being taught as Marxist indoctrination and Critical Race Theory; with conservative speakers at colleges being hounded off campus by Antifa and Black Lives Matter mobs; with “affirmative action” and race-norming instead of merit and SAT scores determining college admissions; with laws being made to conform to barbaric behavior instead of barbaric behavior being made to conform to the law; with convicts being released to create racial parity in prisons; with the National debt approaching an unimaginable thirty trillion dollars; with the US Government printing money and running riot with it like teenagers with a bottle of whiskey and their daddy’s car keys, while the homeless wander the streets and beg on every corner as the Third World pours in across the open borders;  and on, and on, and on… As one commentator said recently, we have become so open-minded that our brains have fallen out.

Do not hope to reason with these people, for trying to reason with them is like singing hymns to a fence post with a boom box perched on top of it blasting gutter-grunts from some Hip-Hop Rapper. I know whereof I speak, for I was once a Virginia Flagger on the sidewalk before the VMFA and faced these mobs. These are the same people who spat on us at the airport when we returned from Vietnam, so I quit before prison would become my portion, but not before I had gotten one protester arrested and convicted for “curse and abuse.” If Reconstruction was calculated like the Communist Bolshevik Revolution in Russia in 1917, today’s “Woke Revolution” is fanatically mindless like the French Revolution and its bloody Reign of Terror. I am waiting for the Confederate monuments to be replaced with the guillotine.

Progressives consider the march of history to be a linear march towards a secular Utopian perfection, where the oppressive Laws of God have been repealed. It began with the New England Puritans. While Southerners were following Daniel Boone through the Cumberland Gap, these Yankee Utopians were burning witches in John Winthrop’s “Citty upon a hill”; and while Southerners were five hundred miles west of the Mississippi in Texas defending the Alamo, these Yankee Utopians were a hundred miles west of the Hudson in New York, establishing their collectivist, Free-Love communes, and setting themselves up as the standard by which all true Americans should be measured. In this they have been remarkably successful, to the point where today they have the inmates running the Equality Asylum. But as the Preacher says in the Book of Ecclesiastes, “Consider the works of God, for who can make that straight which He hath made crooked?”

The righteous Progressives and their “Social Justice Warriors” love to claim they are on “The Right Side of History.” But Southerners know that history is not a linear march that will end in a rosy Utopia, but a cyclic March of Folly where rosy Utopian dreams end in totalitarian nightmares. Thus Southerners are and always have been Apostates in this Brave New World, where “all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,” as Kipling wrote.19

Southern monuments speak Truth to this Power with disdain, and stand as an indictment and a rebuke against the levelling mediocrity of these times. Lee, Jackson, and Stuart were heroes in the Classical mold of Hector, breaker of horses under the walls of windy Troy, or the fierce Achilles, or the brave Odysseus, or the dauntless Aeneas. No wonder the Heathen rage at our Confederate monuments, for these little men who swarm about in this age without a name are shamed by them. As Tennyson wrote, “Yea, they would pare the mountain to the plain, to leave an equal baseness”.20

The Reverend Dr. Robert Lewis Dabney, one-time Chief-of-Staff of “Stonewall” Jackson, wrote that Southerners know in due time they will be avenged through these same disorganizing heresies which will redound upon the North. Are we not seeing it now, with the godless anarchy that radicals have wrought, and with their blasphemous demands for Equity to “correct” the works of God? In Classical Greek mythology, Icarus in his hubris flew too close to the sun, but Nemesis brought him down. The Social Justice Warriors with their “Woke Revolution,” their “Equity,” their mob rule, and, most of all, with their hubris, forget that man is merely the Master, not the Creator of the world. So let these arrogant and successful wrongdoers flout their disdain for our Confederate monuments and all they stand for. As Dr. Dabney said, “we will meet them with it again, when it will be heard; in the day of their calamity, in the pages of impartial history, and in the Day of Judgement”.21 Meanwhile, keep your powder dry, and when they come to your door to take you away in the tumbril to the guillotine, let them be in for a surprise.

NOTES:


1 Thomas Carlyle, Latter-Day Pamphlets, IV: “The New Downing Street” in The Works of Thomas Carlyle, 12 vols., Library ed. (New York: John B. Alden, 1885) 8: 134.

2 Sir Winston Churchill, A History of the English Speaking Peoples, 4 vols. (New York: Dodd, Mead & Co., 1958) IV: 170-3.

3 See the 1790 US Census in Thomas Prentice Kettell, Southern Wealth and Northern Profits (New York: George W. & John A. Wood, 1860) pg. 120.

4 “First Inaugural Address” (1861) in Charles W. Eliot, LL D, Ed. The Harvard Classics. 50 vols. (New York: P. F. Collier & Son, 1910). Vol. 43, American Historical Documents, 43: 334.

5 See Article XIII of the US Constitution, ratified December 18, 1865.

6 Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 2 vols. Trans. Henry Reeve (New York: D. Appleton, 1904) The Henry Reeve text as revised by Francis Bowen (New York: Vintage Books, 1954) I: 381-2.

7 “Emancipation Proclamation” (January 1, 1863), Eliot, Vol. 43, pg. 345.

8 Lerone Bennett, Jr., Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincoln’s White Dream (Chicago: Johnson Publishing Co., 2000) pgs. 183-214.

9 “Second Inaugural Address” (1865). Eliot, Vol. 43, pgs. 451.

10 ---. “First Inaugural Address” (1861). Eliot, Vol. 43, pgs. 336-7.

11 Gene Kizer, Jr., Slavery Was Not the Cause of the War Between the States: The Irrefutable Argument (Charleston and James Island, S. C.: Charleston Athenaeum P, 2014) pgs. 56-69.

12 Charles W. Ramsdell, “Lincoln and Ft. Sumter,” The Journal of Southern History, Vol. 3, Issue 3 (August 1937) pgs. 259-88, in Kizer, pgs. 197-248. See also John Shipley Tilley, Lincoln Takes Command (Chapel Hill: U of N. C. P, 1941) pgs. 179-87, 266-7, 306-12, with documentation from original sources, including the Official Records.

13 “If the Union were to undertake to enforce by arms the allegiance of the confederate States by military means, it would be in a position very analogous to that of England at the time of the War of Independence,” quoted in Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 2 vols., Trans. Henry Reeve (New York: D. Appleton, 1904) II: 425.

14 Gov. John Letcher, letter to Sec. Simon Cameron, April 16, 1861, in the Richmond Enquirer, April 18, 1861, pg. 2, col. 1. Microfilm. The Daily Richmond Enquirer, Jan. 1, 1861 – June 29, 1861. Film 23, reel 24 (Richmond: Library of Virginia collection).

15 “Lee’s Farewell to His Army” April 10, 1865. Eliot, Vol. 43, pg. 449.

16 Thaddeus Stevens, “The Conquered Provinces,” Congressional Globe, 18 December 1865, 72, in Walter L. Fleming, ed. Documentary History of Reconstruction: Political, Military, Social, Religious, Educational and Industrial, 1865 to 1906, 2 vols. (Cleveland: The Arthur H. Clark Co., 1906) I: 148.

17 Acts and Resolutions, 39 Cong., 2 Sess., 60, in Fleming, ed. Documentary History, I: 401-3.

18 Jim Downs, Sick from Freedom: African-American Illness and Suffering During the Civil War and Reconstruction (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2012) passim. See also John Remington Graham, The American Civil War as a Crusade to Free the Slaves (South Boston, VA: Gerald C. Burnett, M. D., 2016) pg. 11.

19 Rudyard Kipling, “The Gods of the Copybook Headings,” http://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/poems_copybook.htm.

20 Alfred, Lord Tennyson, Idylls of the King, “Merlin and Vivien,” The Works of Tennyson, Hallam, Lord Tennyson, Ed. (New York: The Macmillan Co., 1932) pg. 386.

21 Prof. Robert L. Dabney, D. D., A Defense of Virginia, [and Through Her, of the South,] in Recent and Pending Contests against the Sectional Party (1867; Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle Publications, 1977) pg. 356.

Visit the Abbeville Institute for articles, podcasts, books, videos, blog, conferences, events:
https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org
Visit Phil Leigh's website for books, podcasts, articles, blog at:
Civil War Chat | By: Phil Leigh (wordpress.com)
Visit Bo Traywick's website at:
www.HVTraywickJr.com

Slaughter at Cainhoy, The Worst Racial Violence in the South Carolina Lowcountry During Reconstruction, Part Two, Conclusion

The wounded were lying in the chapel attached to the residence, and every one of them had not only been horribly mutilated, but they as well as the dead, had been robbed of their clothing. . . . The mattresses were literally soaked in blood.

Part Two, Conclusion, of
Slaughter at Cainhoy
The Worst Racial Violence in the South Carolina Lowcountry During Reconstruction
by Gene Kizer, Jr.
Brick Church, a/k/a White Church, near Cainhoy, SC, site of a bloody political ambush Mon., October 16, 1876.
Brick Church, a/k/a White Church, near Cainhoy, SC, site of a bloody political ambush Mon., October 16, 1876.

THE RECORD OF JOINT MEETINGS in the Charleston area had been good in spite of the Charleston riot of September 6th. There had been a joint meeting at Strawberry Ferry and successful joint meetings "on Johns Island, on Edisto Island and at other points." Nobody was suspecting trouble when a joint meeting was scheduled for "Brick Church, about three miles from Cainhoy, in the parish of St. Thomas and St. Dennis," to take place Monday, October 16, 1876.1

Democrats chartered the steamer Pocosin which left that morning with around 150 men on board including many black Democrats. At the last minute word was sent that Republican leader Bowen wanted to ride, and the steamer waited until he was aboard with 150 black Republicans including "McKinlay, Cyrus Gaillard and other prominent speakers."2

The day was beautiful and the trip very pleasant with Democrats "firing their pistols at such objects in the river as attracted their attention." Little did they know how valuable that ammunition would be a couple hours later. When they arrived, many Democrats were low or out of ammunition, not suspecting any trouble.

Republican Bowen knew their ammunition was low. He "started off in a buggy as soon as he could land, and must have reached the Brick Church half an hour or more before the arrival of the Democrats." Cainhoy villagers "provided wagons and other vehicles to convey" the Democrats to the church. They were very friendly and everybody was having a good time.3

A Mr. William Venning had also gone ahead and when he got there he found "a large body of negroes, well armed with muskets and rifles," and he heard them say that "they would not suffer Delany, a colored Democrat, to address the meeting." Mr. Venning also heard Bowen say to the blacks "hide your guns," which they did.4

The speakers platform was on a small hill. To the left of the platform "was an old brick building (an old kitchen), with only part of the walls standing." The church was 150 feet in front of the platform. There was a small building to the right of the church, used as a vestry.5

Bowen "called the meeting to order," the Eutaw band brought by the Democrats played a "lively air" and the speaking began. Democrat "W. St. Julien Jervey was the first speaker" followed by black Republican W. J. McKinlay "who seemed nervous and excited" and "began a very violent speech." The black Republicans, apparently thinking McKinlay was the black Democrat Delany, gave the signal and the massacre began.6

There were 40 to 50 black Republican muskets hidden in the chimney of the old building to the left of the speakers stand. The whites had found them but not said anything about them under instruction from George Rivers Walker who said:

I am sure that it was part of a plot to make the whites seize these arms as an excuse for bringing on a row; but at the time I advised that the guns be watched but not molested. Suddenly the whites by the old house saw emerging from pines and swamp at the back of the 'stand' detachments of negroes armed with muskets, which they pointed toward us. At the same moment a confusion was raised on account of the supposed Delany taking the stand, this commotion probably being the signal for the detachment to appear.7

The whites did not seize the guns until they saw the detachment of blacks with guns "at full cock." At that point, whites "made a rush for the chimney filled with guns, loaded, as I (George Rivers Walker) am told by all, with powder only." Venning and two others said the first shots were fired by the negroes advancing from the swamp. Walker said he "saw the negroes pouring volleys into these unarmed boys."8

The whites ran toward the vestry by the church sometimes returning fire from "small pocket pistols, but, of course, against volleys of buckshot, slugs and broken pieces of lead fired from muskets, the negroes retiring behind the pines, the pistols were useless." Walker said "I saw Abram Smith, a negro trial justice, on the stand firing at some boys and men who were running away and defenceless."9

The blacks went into the woods to reload which gave the whites a slight breather. Walker said that Bowen was at the vestry and asked for a white volunteer to go with  him to try and persuade the blacks to break off the attack. Walker immediately volunteered. Bowen told him to stop the Democrats from firing while they went, so Walker said "'Democrats, reserve your fire while I go with Mr. Bowen', and they strictly obeyed."10

Walker goes on to say that Bowen, at first, had some success stopping the attack even though he believed Bowen was responsible for setting it up in the first place. The effort was short lived because:

. . . suddenly Cyrus Gaillard, an incendiary negro, pushing Mr. Bowen and myself aside, called out to the negroes, "Mister Bowens, we can't listen to you now. Come on, boys; we've got 'em, now let's kill the sons of b______," and, rushing past us, he incited them to recommence; and I solemnly swear that they fired again on the whites without provocation, and without a shot being first fired by them.11

Walker found himself in trouble when he heard a black say "'Shoot that son of a b_____.'" He jumped behind a tree as the shot went off and ran "tree to tree for 200 yards back to the vestry" with  shots being fired at him constantly.

Whites tried to make a stand at the vestry but "the rain of shot was too hot to be met with half a dozen pistols at a two hundred yard range" so they retreated to Cainhoy.12 The boat took some of the wounded and "the boys and unarmed men" back to Charleston while 40 men stayed behind in Cainhoy to protect the women and children, many of whom apparently had to be rounded up. They spent a terrifying night "encamped around the residence" of the Rev. E. C. Logan:13

. . . When not on picket duty we were nursing the wounded, the night was very cold and the previous day being warm we were all without overcoats, and when morning and reinforcements came we thanked our God for protecting us from the 300 armed demons who we momentarily expected to attack us; . . .14

Another account said:

The wounded were lying in the chapel attached to the residence, and every one of them had not only been horribly mutilated, but they as well as the dead, had been robbed of their clothing. . . . The mattresses were literally soaked in blood.15

Another of the victims, a kindly old man in  his seventies named William E. Simmons, "an old, crippled and silver-haired white man"16 who had come out just to visit some friends and look at some property he had once owned got trapped in the vestry and was shot through the windows then:

. . . the devils must have dragged him out, chopped him with an axe, broke, by beating, almost all his bones, then shot him while lying on the ground with a musket, for we found below him on the sill to the vestry door and in the ground the holes made by the buckshot. As we picked him up the broken bones grated together, though he was at the time twelve hours dead.17

The only black Republican casualty was John Lachicotte, an old black man killed. No black Republicans had been wounded.18

Mr. Thomas Whitaker, mentioned earlier, who had been shot in the stomach at close range with buckshot then hacked so that big slices of flesh were missing from his body, dictated these last words to his mother. They were written as he was dying next to Rev. E. C. Logan "at whose residence the unfortunate man breathed his last:"

My Dear Mother -- I am very seriously wounded. They took off my shoes and cursed me for a d____d Democrat, saying that I came here to raise a row. I told them I did no such thing; that I only came here to hear the speaking. I send you my love. I wish I could come to see you, and I will do so if I am ever able. I am trying to put my trust in the Lord, and I hope to be forgiven my sins and meet you in heaven. Thomas Whitaker.19

Sworn statements began appearing in the newspaper two days after the massacre such as the following:

State of South Carolina,

Charleston County,

Personally appeared J. C. Boyce, who being first duly sworn, testified as follows: I saw the first shot fired at the Brick Church, St. Thomas and St. Dennis, on the 16th of October, 1876. I am positive it was fired by the negroes. No gun was seized by the Butler Guards until the negroes with cocked muskets were advancing on the whites.

Sworn to before me this 16th day of October, 1876. George Rivers Walker, Notary Public.

Mr. William S. Venning, Jr. testified under oath in a sworn statement that he had arrived before the Democrats. Here is part of his testimony:

. . . Bowen had arrived in advance of them (the Democrats). The negroes had almost all arrived, and were mostly armed with muskets. I heard the negroes say: If Delany speaks we'll have a row and take him down. C. C. Bowen said distinctly in my hearing: "Conceal your muskets." They (the negroes) at once did so until the row began, when they jerked them out and began firing on the whites, who were mostly unarmed, and those who were armed only with pocket pistols. I saw the row begin. The negroes suddenly ran for their arms and began charging the whites with muskets at full cock before a shot was fired. And I solemnly state that it is my firm belief that they fired first. I was in a position to see the contrary had it occurred, and I am sure the negroes fired first; but even were I wrong, no white man fired until the negroes were advancing on them with muskets presented as aforesaid. W. S. Venning. Sworn to before me this 16th day of October, A.D. 1876. George Rivers Walker, Notary Public.20

A man named James Jeffords, Cainhoy resident, told a News and Courier reporter that "as far back as ten days ago a negro named George Brady told him that he did not want to see any of his (Mr. Jefford's) family hurt, and that there would be trouble when this meeting (Cainhoy) took place." Mr. Jeffords came to Charleston and tried to "see some of the Democratic executive committee but failed to find them."21

There were several slightly different accounts of the way it started. A Mr. C. C. Leslie, in his statement, said "several women (Republican) who had been guarding the guns in a house near by rushed towards the house and the Republicans gave a yell and rushed for the guns also." This set off "a general stampede" and "the negroes rushed in every direction, picked up guns from the bushes, and began a sharp musketry fire upon the Democrats."22

Black Democrat J. R. Jenkins, whose life had been saved by white Democrats when Jenkins was turned over to federal troops during the King Street riot five weeks earlier, testified that he "heard a colored man cry, 'look out! look out!' and rush forward and fire a pistol into the air."

He says "upon this signal the Republicans rushed for the kitchen nearby and for the swamp, and in a few moments they returned with guns in their hands and the firing began. Jenkins said "before the firing commenced Bowen went around among the negroes whispering," and "that he had been with the negroes nearly an hour before the Democrats came up."23

It was also reported by several witnesses that during the fight, Bowen disappeared among the blacks who were firing from the swamp.

In the final count, five whites had been murdered and mutilated, and 15 to 50 wounded, many seriously. Among the wounded were three black Democrats. Only one black Republican was killed and none were wounded.24 The boy who had his right eye torn out, Walter Graddick, "recovered but was maimed for life."25

None of the offenders, even the well-known Cyrus Gaillard, were ever brought to justice because it would have been Bowen's responsibility to do so.

Bowen told Republican Governor Chamberlain that the whites had started the fight by shooting the old black Republican, Lachicotte. That was refuted in several sworn statements of witnesses who maintained Lachicotte was not shot until the fighting had been going on a while and he was shot in retaliation for him shooting a Democrat.

To sum things up, Bowen rode on the Pocosin with the Democrats and observed them wasting most of their ammunition amusing themselves. Upon arriving at Cainhoy, Bowen went straight to Brick Church and was seen among the blacks who had muskets, whispering to them and telling them to hide their muskets.

Guns that had been hidden by black Republicans in the kitchen to the left of the speakers platform were discovered by white Democrats but the whites suspected it was a trick so nothing had been done about them until whites spotted a "militia like" group of blacks moving out of the swamp behind the speakers platform with muskets cocked.

At that point the whites rushed to get those guns but they were apparently a trick all along. They were loaded with powder but no projectile, so it was as if they were loaded with blanks. Several people reported later that the guns had been loaded with powder only so were worthless in a fight.

It is likely, based on sworn testimony, that the blacks moving out of the swamp with muskets had done so on a signal, which was supposed to be the black Democrat Delany speaking.

However, black Republican McKinley was mistaken for Delany and things started as McKinley began speaking.

At the same time, one account has black women running out of the kitchen and shouting that the whites have found the guns and that starting it.

Another account has a brown-skinned Republican firing a shot in the air and that starting it.

No matter what, it seems certain that Delany was the signal for the black women to run out of the kitchen, or for the brown-skinned Republican to fire a shot to alert the black militia to come out of the swamp and start the attack.

In responding to Bowen's statement that the whites killing Lachicotte started everything, a Dr. Thomas S. Grimke, in a sworn statement on the 19th of October, 1876, said that:

. . . Lachicotte "was not killed until long after the attack began, I should say ten minutes at least, though in order to be strictly certain and exact I will and do assert that heavy firing had been going on for some time before he fell."26

Neither the King Street Riot of September 6, 1876, the Cainhoy Massacre five weeks later or federal troops pouring into South Carolina during the presidential campaign could deter white and black Democrats from electing former Confederate General Wade Hampton their governor.

The News and Courier, which was SO much more honest and honorable than its descendant, today's woke race-obsessed Post and Courier, editorialized the day after Cainhoy that "The Democrats know that they can carry the colored people with them, if they get a chance to talk to them; . . ."27

The News and Courier was right. Not only did the Democrats "carry the colored people with them" in 1876, Democratic policies put in place by Gov. Hampton persuaded large numbers of blacks to vote Democratic two years later.

Reconstruction in South Carolina ended when federal troops were removed in April 1877.28 It is too bad that the damage caused by almost a decade of Republican violence, race hatred and corruption by carpetbaggers and scalawags in South Carolina and across the South, caused a backlash against blacks within a decade that lasted until the 1960s.

That is the real legacy of Reconstruction.

 


1 "Bloody Work at Cainhoy," News and Courier, Tuesday, October 17, 1876.

2 "The Crime at Cainhoy," News and Courier, Wednesday, October 18, 1876.

3 "Bloody Work at Cainhoy," News and Courier, Tuesday, October 17, 1876.

4 "The Cainhoy Slaughter," News and Courier, Tuesday, October 24, 1876.

5 "Bloody Work at Cainhoy," News and Courier, Tuesday, October 17, 1876.

6 Ibid.

7 "The Cainhoy Slaughter," News and Courier, Tuesday, October 24, 1876.

8 Ibid.

9 Ibid.

10 Ibid.

11 Ibid.

12 Ibid.

13 "The Crime at Cainhoy," News and Courier, Wednesday, October 18, 1876.

14 "The Cainhoy Slaughter," News and Courier, Tuesday, October 24, 1876.

15 "The Crime at Cainhoy," News and Courier, Wednesday, October 18, 1876.

16 Ibid.

17 "The Cainhoy Slaughter," News and Courier, Tuesday, October 24, 1876.

18 Melinda Meek Hennessey, "Racial Violence During Reconstruction: The 1876 Riots in Charleston and Cainhoy," South Carolina Historical Magazine, Vol. 86, No. 2, (April, 1985), 108-109.

19 "The Crime at Cainhoy," News and Courier, Wednesday, October 18, 1876.

20 Ibid.

21 Ibid.

22 Ibid.

23 Ibid.

24 Hennessey, "Racial Violence During Reconstruction," 108-109.

25 Alfred B. Williams, Hampton and His Red Shirts, South Carolina's Deliverance in 1876 (Charleston, S.C.: Walker, Evans & Cogswell Company, Publishers, 1935), 272.

26 News and Courier, Friday, October 20, 1876, editorial page.

27 News and Courier, Tuesday, October 17, 1876.

28 Louis B. Wright, South Carolina, A Bicentennial History (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc. and Nashville: American Association for State and Local History, 1976), 15.

Slaughter at Cainhoy, The Worst Racial Violence in the South Carolina Lowcountry During Reconstruction, Part One

Old Mr. Simmons, a decrepit man of seventy, took refuge inside the vestry, but the devils must have dragged him out, chopped him with an axe, broke, by beating, almost all his bones, and then shot him while lying on the ground. . . .

Part One of
Slaughter at Cainhoy
The Worst Racial Violence in the South Carolina Lowcountry During Reconstruction
by Gene Kizer, Jr.

During the presidential campaign of 1876, a political meeting took place at beautiful Brick Church near Cainhoy, South Carolina, Monday, October 16, 1876. It ended shortly after it started when Republican blacks savagely attacked the mostly white Democrats and shot, beat, hacked, mutilated and robbed them, killing five white men out of the group and severely wounding several others. An eyewitness, confirming the brutality of the attack, stated:

. . . Mr. Whitaker met with a worse fate, for he was brought in alive, suffering fearfully from buckshot through his stomach, and huge hacks of flesh taken out of him by an axe or hatchet. . . .

Daly (18 years old) was also left on the ground when wounded. His head was hacked in five places when found.

Poor Walter Gradick, a mere boy, had his eye gouged out, and was cruelly beaten and wounded. . . .1

All the victims had been stripped of their clothing and robbed.

The Brick Church, a/k/a White Church, north of Cainhoy in Berkeley County, S.C.
The Brick Church, a/k/a White Church, north of Cainhoy in Berkeley County, S.C.

This happened during the eighth year of Congressional Reconstruction in South Carolina, which began in 1868. Only three of the original eleven Confederate states were still occupied: South Carolina, Florida and Louisiana. In the other eight, white Democrats, often with black support, had regained control of their governments.2

There was despair and hopelessness among Southern whites during much of Reconstruction, especially in South Carolina. Of 60,000 Confederate soldiers supplied by South Carolina to Southern armies in the war, 20,000 had been killed and another 20,000 maimed. The war in its totality had claimed 750,000 dead and over a million maimed. It is hard to fathom the grief and heartbreak from all that though Basil Gildersleeve, a Confederate soldier from Charleston who today is still considered the greatest American classical scholar of all time, tried in his book, The Creed of the Old South, published 27 years after the war:

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.3

Reconstruction had begun this way for most white Southerners:

For some time now a straggling procession of emaciated, crippled men in ragged gray had been sadly making their way through the wreckage to homes that in too many instances were found to be but piles of ashes. These men had fought to exhaustion. For weeks they would be found passing wearily over the country roads and into the towns, on foot and on horseback. It was observed that 'they are so worn out that they fall down on the sidewalks and sleep.' The countryside through which  they passed presented the appearance of an utter waste, the fences gone, the fields neglected, the animals and herds driven away, and only lone chimneys marking spots where once had stood merry homes. A proud patrician lady riding between Chester and Camden in South Carolina scarcely saw a living thing, and 'nothing but tall blackened chimneys to show that any man had ever trod this road before'; and she was moved to tears at the funereal aspect of the gardens where roses were already hiding the ruins. The long thin line of gray-garbed men, staggering from weakness into towns, found them often gutted with the flames of incendiaries or soldiers. Penniless, sick at heart and in body, and humiliated by defeat, they found their families in poverty and despair.4

Blacks and whites could have adjusted to their new relationship after the war but the most unscrupulous people in all of American history, carpetbaggers and scalawags out for plunder and political advantage, did not want peace. They could not make money and hold power with peace, so they created racial hatred and division using violence and lies for their political advantage, not unlike the Marxists in America today with their "systemic racism" invention, and racial hate like Critical Race Theory, and fraud like the 1619 Project.

If it is true that history repeats itself, then the methods of control during Reconstruction and the methods of control of American Marxists today match perfectly. Of course, it's not exactly true that history repeats itself. It's the manifestations of human nature that repeat themselves over and over throughout time because human nature does not change.

So, South Carolina endured the lawlessness and corruption of an entrenched Republican Party loaded with carpetbaggers and scalawags for over eight long years. White frustration was epitomized by lawyer George Rivers Walker, son of the British consul in Charleston, who was at Cainhoy. Walker identifies a black Republican named Cyrus Gaillard as the one who kept the massacre going by telling other blacks to keep shooting the whites.5 Walker laments that taking legal action against Gaillard would be a waste of time because:

. . . first, the Republican trial justices will throw all obstacles in my way; when I say Republican I mean by it always Carolina Republican, for you know my Northern education prevents my holding any prejudices against bona fide Republicans of the North - then Bowen has complete control of the sessions, and the prosecuting officer, Buttz, is too well known for you to doubt the futility of my effort. . . .6

Walker is referring to the Republican sheriff of Charleston County, Christopher Columbus Bowen, and his protege, Solicitor C. W. Buttz.

Christopher Columbus Bowen, corrupt Republican sheriff of Charleston County during much of Reconstruction.
Christopher Columbus Bowen, corrupt Republican sheriff of Charleston County during much of Reconstruction.

Both Bowen and Buttz owed their positions solely to Republican political corruption, and Bowen maintained vice-grip control over black voters in Charleston County.

Early in the War Between the States, Bowen, a Georgia native, was in Jacksonville, Florida looting as the Confederate army pulled out.7

Later, Bowen was in the Confederate cavalry under Col. William Parker White. Bowen was court-martialed by White for forging a pass which extended a leave and enabled him to draw his pay.8 As a result, Bowen plotted to murder White. The plot was discovered and Bowen put in jail.

He was still in jail in Charleston at the end of the war but was released by federal troops entering Charleston when "former Confederate officials changed places with robbers, thieves, murderers and drunks."9

Bowen was typical of the men that raped and plundered the South during Reconstruction. In 1866, the Freedman's Bureau brought charges against Bowen for selling cotton "belonging to a freedman and instead of giving the money to the farmer, had kept it himself." He ended up in jail in Castle Pinckney for that but was eventually released.10

Bowen was charged with bigamy "twice during 1871."11 He got off the first time but was convicted the second time and went to jail. His wife pleaded with President Grant and got him a "good Republican pardon" so by July of 1871, he was again free.12

In 1872, Bowen was elected sheriff of Charleston County. Expenses had been "$20,000 a year to run the sheriff's office" in 1868. After 1872, when Bowen took over, "expenses doubled to $40,000 a year."13 Voting irregularities were also frequent with Bowen.

A respected Northern journalist was shocked by Bowen and Buttz and wrote to the News and Courier which published his statements October 15, 1874:

This candid and impartial observer tells the American people that the notorious C. C. Bowen . . . and his ally and protege C. W. Buttz, the prosecuting attorney of the country, are already at work to control the ballot boxes. . . . Never in my life as a stranger to all this sort of legal horror have I ever felt a sense of terrorization like the present.14

Bowen and Buttz were rotten to the core which is why white South Carolinians, along with thousands of blacks, had had enough of Reconstruction by 1876. Walker, who was almost murdered at Cainhoy, summed up the situation for all South Carolinians:

And now that these demons (Republicans) are rendering it unsafe for a man to go armed even through the country, Chamberlain (Republican governor) orders the whites to disarm, and calls for the United States troops to enforce his order, and at the same time arms the negro militia to murder us. My wife and all the ladies are in the greatest excitement. The negroes in our parish are most threatening, and while they outnumber us twenty to one, we are ordered to disband our organizations for defence and to disarm.15

The Mississippi Plan Adopted

Desperate South Carolina Democrats adopted a strategy that had worked in Mississippi the previous year and had as its main component the direct confrontation of corrupt Republicans at their own meetings. Gen. S. W. Ferguson of Mississippi, who had been born in South Carolina, explained to a group of Democrats at a big rally in Charleston August 25, 1876, that in Mississippi, they went to Republican meetings and when the Republicans lied, Democrats, face to face, "clinched them then and there" and "denounced the corrupt leaders" saying they were "liars and thieves."16

White Democrats were trying to discredit Republicans who were telling poor blacks that if whites get back in power, they will reestablish slavery and other such lies.

Racist Republicans also used violence and whippings on any black who did not vote Republican and on many blacks simply for being friendly to whites.

There were other methods of ostracism within the black community too, and all this added up to Republican intimidation to keep blacks voting Republican so carpetbaggers and scalawags could continue at the public trough.17 All of this is exactly like the Marxist left's "Cancel Culture" today.

Democrat whites at Republican meetings were to be courteous to blacks but not deceive or flatter or make promises, just plain talk, man to man, which they reasoned would cause blacks to respect them.

Democrats were also to form black Democrat clubs and to protect black Democrats. They were to be ready for violence but under no circumstances initiate it which would bring the Northern press down on them.18

Other parts of the Mississippi Plan included boycotts of Republican businesses and pressure on black employees of Democrats to vote Democratic, the same kind of pressure Republicans had been using for eight years.

However, at no time did Democrats threaten to whip blacks who didn't vote Democrat nor did they encourage black women to reject black men for being Democrats, nor did they ever tell blacks that Republicans would eventually turn on them and sell them back into slavery.

The Mississippi Plan was immediately put into effect. Republican meetings that Democrats attended became known as "joint meetings" with "division of time." Throughout the campaign, Democrats, black and white, went to Republican meetings and had their say.

Republicans were always invited to Democrat meetings but few came because of the difficulty of defending the party's record of corruption and public theft. Joint meetings with division of speaking time were agreed to in Charleston County by Republican leader Bowen, and his Democrat counterpart, Charles H. Simonton, Chairman of the Democratic Executive Committee.19

A successful joint meeting took place at Strawberry Ferry on Thursday, August 31, 1876.20 There were approximately 300 whites in attendance and a similar number of blacks, though black voters in this area numbered over 600, to 25 whites. This was a stronghold of Bowen's. Everybody had had a good time, the discussions were lively, but things had gone well.21

This was not a good sign for Bowen and the Republicans as they "noted with growing dismay and fury the slow but steady additions to the number of negroes enrolling in Democratic clubs, for one reason of another."22 As thousands of blacks began supporting Democrats during the campaign of 1876 and even riding as red shirts, violence against them by Republican blacks increased dramatically.

This black Republican violence against black Democrats was demonstrated in a bloody riot in Charleston on Wednesday, September 6, 1876, some five weeks before Cainhoy.

That night, the Democratic Hampton and Tilden Colored Club of Ward 4 met in Archer's Hall (corner of King and George Streets). Outside, scores of armed and angry black Republicans had gathered and were threatening the black Democrats.

When the meeting was over, the black Democrats were put in the middle of the 45 or so whites, to protect them from the black Republicans, and they marched quietly up King Street toward Marion Square, called Citadel Green back then, with Republican blacks on both sides of King Street cursing and jeering at them the whole way. Journalist Alfred B. Williams writes:

The Hunkidories and Live Oaks, negro Radical Republican secret organizations, had gathered their forces and were massed, waiting, in King Street, armed with pistols, clubs and sling shots, the last made with a pound of lead attached to a twelve inch leather strap and providing a deadly weapon at close range.23

As the white and black Democrats got to St. Matthews Church "a mob of 150 negroes, armed with staves, clubs and pistols, came yelling after them, hurrahing for Hayes and Wheeler."24

The whites stopped, a black rioter ran up and "knocked the first white man he met in the head with a 'slung shot,' and the crowd immediately behind him fired a pistol into the crowd of whites, shouting that they would have the colored Democrats out even if they had to kill every man in the crowd to do it."

Whites shot over their heads to cover other whites who rushed the black Democrats to safety with the federal troops at the Citadel.25

The Citadel in 1865 on Citadel Green, today's Marion Square. It's now an Embassy Suites.
The Citadel in 1865 on Citadel Green, today's Marion Square. It's now an Embassy Suites.

With the black Democrats safe, the 45 or so whites then "retreated backwards up King Street, facing the negroes and keeping them off as well they could by returning the fire from the pistols of the mob." Suddenly, as the whites got to John Street, "the negro mob was reinforced by another multitude of blacks who swept out of John street and cut off the retreat of the whites." This mob was yelling "blood!"26

It became a hand to hand fight. Some policemen arrived but were "powerless to restrain the infuriated mob."

After 25 or so of the whites were beaten senseless, it looked like it might stop then it started back. Pistols "were going off every moment, and amid the firing Policeman Green fell shot through the abdomen, and Mr. J. M. Buckner, white, was shot through the abdomen."27

Finally, police reinforcements arrived and separated whites and blacks but when a detail left with the wounded "the fighting immediately began again." Soon blacks had complete control of King Street and the riot lasted until midnight. It had raged a mile along King Street from Cannon Street to Wentworth28 and the whole time whites had had to "stay in their homes with shivering and terror stricken families because any white man venturing on the street alone invited death uselessly."29

A reporter had observed "a mob of negroes chasing a white man, who had hardly a vestige of clothing upon his person, and covered with blood from a dozen wounds." He "was knocked down several times with brickbats or clubs, and several pistol shots were fired at him." He was rescued by a policeman and taken home "in an almost lifeless condition."30

Final casualties total one white man dead, over 50 beaten severely. No black Republicans had been killed and only a handful had been injured.31 The white man who died, Buckner, had been part of the escort protecting the black Democrats. He had a wife and child at home.

Whoever planned the ambush had their timing thrown off when the whites stopped to face the first mob. If the whites had gone just a block further up King Street, or their formation had fallen apart, or they had broken and run, there was no way they would have been able to get the black Democrats to safety at the Citadel. Since the black Democrats were the object of the mob, they certainly would have been murdered along with several whites who were determined to protect them.

There were no more night riots in downtown Charleston during Reconstruction because whites perfected their communications network and could put hundreds of armed men in the saddle quickly. The day after the riot a thousand white members of the Butler Guards and Charleston Light Dragoons patrolled the streets from sun down to sun up for the next three months, in force, and there was no more trouble at night.32

Charleston Light Dragoon, 1888 sketch by Edward Laight Wells.
Charleston Light Dragoon, 1888 sketch by Edward Laight Wells.
Charleston Light Dragoons, 1895 picture.

Five weeks later, with the election fast approaching, Democrats got careless and walked into another ambush, this time at Cainhoy, 12 miles up the Wando River from Charleston.

Next week, September 30, 2021, Part Two, Conclusion, of Slaughter at Cainhoy, The Worst Racial Violence in the South Carolina Lowcountry During Reconstruction.

NOTES

1 "The Cainhoy Slaughter," News and Courier, Tuesday, October 24, 1876, front page.

2 Kenneth M. Stampp, The Era of Reconstruction, 1865-1877 (New York: Vintage Books, 1965), 186.

3 Basil L. Gildersleeve, The Creed of the Old South, 1865-1915 (Bibliolife Network; reprint, Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1915), 26-27.

4 Claude G. Bowers, The Tragic Era, The Revolution after Lincoln (Cambridge, MA: The Riverside Press, 1929), 45.

5 "The Cainhoy Slaughter," News and Courier, Tuesday, October 24, 1876, front page.

6 Ibid.

7 Robert Douglas Mellard, Christopher Columbus Bowen: A Scalawag Discovers Opportunity in the New World of Reconstruction Politics, Master Thesis, University of Charleston and The Citadel, 1994, 15.

8 Ibid, 6.

9 Ibid, 16.

10 Ibid, 22.

11 Ibid, 67.

12 Ibid, 70.

13 Ibid, 88-91.

14 The News and Courier, October 15, 1874, as cited in Robert Douglas Mellard, Christopher Columbus Bowen: A Scalawag Discovers Opportunity in the New World of Reconstruction Politics, Master thesis, University of Charleston and The Citadel, 1994, 97.

15 "The Cainhoy Slaughter," News and Courier, Tuesday, October 24, 1876.

16 "To Live and Die in Dixie," News and Courier, August 26, 1876, front page.

17 David Duncan Wallace, South Carolina, A Short History, 1520-1948 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1951), 572.

18 Bowers, The Tragic Era, 513-14; "To Live and Die in Dixie," News and Courier, August 26, 1876.

19 Melinda Meek Hennessey, "Racial Violence During Reconstruction: The 1876 Riots in Charleston and Cainhoy," South Carolina Historical Magazine, Vol. 86, No. 2 (April, 1985), 107.

20 "'No Intimidation'," News and Courier, September 1, 1876.

21 Ibid.

22 Alfred B. Williams, Hampton and His Red Shirts, South Carolina's Deliverance in 1876 (Charleston, S.C.: Walker, Evans & Cogswell Company, Publishers, 1935), 37-41.

23 Williams, Hampton and His Red Shirts, 121.

24 "A Bloody Outbreak," News and Courier, Thursday, September 7, 1876.

25 Ibid.

26 Ibid.

27 Ibid.

28 "A Night of Excitement," News and Courier, Friday, September 8, 1876.

29 Williams, Hampton and His Red Shirts, 122.

30 "A Bloody Outbreak," News and Courier, Thursday, September 7, 1876.

31 Hennessey, "Racial Violence During Reconstruction," 106.

32 Williams, Hampton and His Red Shirts, 126-27.

Our Confederate Ancestors: A Year with Forrest, by Rev. W. H. Whitsitt, Part Two, Conclusion

A Series on the Daring Exploits of Our Confederate Ancestors in the War Between the States.

About eleven o'clock they laid the first ambuscade, but Forrest contrived to discover it in advance and, instead of walking into it, caused us to dismount and get into line and crawl up close to the enemy's position.

It would have made too much noise to have brought up a piece of artillery by horse power so soldiers were harnessed to it and dragged it to a point within two hundred yards of the enemy's line.

When the proper moment arrived, he ordered the cannon to open and the cavalry likewise so that we surprised the enemy instead of them surprising us. I walked along the line where they had been formed and found it littered from end to end with small bits of paper. It looked as if every man in their column must have employed the leisure afforded by that stop to tear up all the private letters found upon his person. It was clear that their alarm had become serious and would help us much if we could keep it up.

Part Two, Conclusion, of
A Year with Forrest

Address by Rev. W. H. Whitsitt, D.D., before R. E. Lee Camp, Confederate Veterans, of Richmond, Va., in Confederate Veteran magazine, Vol. XXV, No. 8, August, 1917.

Forrest-42K

[Publisher's Note, by Gene Kizer, Jr. : This article, Part Two of Rev. Whitsitt's "A Year with Forrest," is one of the most exciting and inspiring I have ever read. It shows clearly what a genius Forrest was. Forrest's men were motivated by the fearlessness of their leader and became fearless themselves.

For example, Forrest, with only 475 Confederates, chased a Yankee unit made up of over 1,500 well armed men, across Tennessee and forced (tricked might be a better word) them to surrender as detailed in this article.

Forrest was relentless, on top of his enemy the whole way, anticipating their moves, designing traps, waging a psychological war to keep them scared and running.

Southerners needed brilliant leaders because they faced such overwhelming odds. They were outnumbered four to one and outgunned a hundred to one. The Yankee army was always well fed, well clothed and armed with advanced weaponry.

Southerners were usually hungry, ragged and always had inferior weapons.

The North had a huge pipeline to the wretched refuse of the world which is why 25% of the Union army was not born in America. Tens of thousands of foreigners poured continually into the North with only the shirts on their backs to find the Union Army recruiter waiting on the docks with fat enlistment bonuses.

The South had to build their country from scratch but the North started with a powerful army, navy, merchant marine, a functioning government, a stable financial system and most of the nation's manufacturing. Their horses to carry their cannons and cavalry were always well fed, healthy and replaced immediately when they were killed.

There were 19 marine engine factories in the North. Zero, in the South.

Gen. Grant did not mind losing men. He could easily replace them. Southerners could not.

Yet Southerners killed in battle roughly the same number of Yankees as they killed of us, and Southern ingenuity and valor such as displayed by Nathan Bedford Forrest, Stonewall Jackson, Robert E. Lee and so many others, are second to none among all nations and all time.

Lincoln knew if he allowed such people as native Southerners with their talent and spirit to form their own country on his Southern border with 100% control of King Cotton, they would soon eclipse the Yankee empire as the greatest, most powerful nation in history.

That's why Lincoln started his war as fast as he could. He had to keep other nations from supporting the South like the French had done for the Colonists in the Revolution.

Lincoln had to cut off the South from the rest of the world quickly so he sent his invasion fleets with hundreds of troops and armaments to Fort Sumter and Fort Pickens to get the war started, then he announced his naval blockade before the smoke had cleared from the bombardment of Fort Sumter.

Despite the outcome, the intelligence, resourcefulness and valor of Southerners is there for all to read and understand. Their true federal republic based on powerful sovereign states is exactly what the Founding Fathers wanted for America.

Can you imagine Forrest, Lee or Jackson giving billions of dollars of sophisticated weaponry, Blackhawks, night-vision goggles, etc. to murderers like the Taliban?

The Taliban are Biden and Blinken's new buddies while Biden and Blinken work against former American military personnel and others who are struggling to get our citizens and friends out of Afghanistan.

We are being led by traitors and the most incompetent fools in American history.

"President" Joe Biden has disgraced and dishonored our country and our military in the eyes of the world so that even European parliaments have passed resolutions in disgust.

Biden has armed Taliban terrorists with our own weapons and the Taliban is now bringing in Al-Quida, ISIS and all the others.

Just like Obama gave ISIS their caliphate, which was destroyed in a few months by President Trump, Biden has gone further, and Americans will die. Because of Biden and Blinken, we no longer own the night.

What is it with Democrats and their love of terrorists and people who hate America?

It is as if the Democrat Party hates white Americans so bad they would arm terrorists because they are non-whites, rather than protect majority-white America.

Why couldn't Biden have sent drones to destroy the night-vision goggles and Blackhawks?

I'll tell you why.

Because Biden, Blinken and company are such idiots they removed the military first and put us at the mercy of the Taliban.

They then were afraid if they destroyed those weapons with drones, there would be a bloodbath even worse than currently taking place, and the photo-ops would be bad for Democrats.

So, they gave billions of dollars of highly sophisticated weaponry to our worst enemies knowing our media, which are the most corrupt propagandists in the history of the printed word, would cover for them.

What utter incompetence and treason.

This Federal Government that the "Federals" in the War Between the States forced on our nation is corrupt almost beyond repair, and the national Republican Party is feckless and cowardly. Without a strong leader like Trump, Republicans will never hold these traitors accountable.

Our founding documents are clear that the PEOPLE are the Sovereign in our country. Not Big Tech with its censorship, or the racist, Marxist Communist Democrat Party with its Critical Race Theory they are forcing on everybody.

Wake up America. We are still the greatest nation in history despite this internal onslaught by our America-hating enemies on the left.

It's time they experience that Righteous Might of the American people that FDR spoke about on December 8, 1941, the day after Pearl Harbor was attacked by the Japanese and we entered World War II.

The things we face today are worse than that day of Infamy because there are traitors in our country at the highest levels, and they intend to make us a totalitarian tyranny with them in charge.

I can't imagine a more horrible fate for our children and grandchildren. All one has to do is go to any violent, drug infested Democrat big city to witness a crumbling civilization. People defecate in the street, laws decriminalize theft which makes thievery so rampant no business can survive. Bail laws put criminals back on the street before the ink is dry on their arrest warrants so they can prey again on innocent citizens.

The Southern border is wide open and every single month hundreds of thousands of unknown people, drug dealers, terrorists, thousands with third world diseases who are also COVID positive with new strains of the plague flow into our country but that doesn't matter because they are all future Democrat voters.

As others have observed, we are witnessing a Marxist Communist takeover of the United States of America in real time and it is being orchestrated by the Democrat Party. This is undoubtedly a foreign invasion enabled by Democrat traitors and there is nothing we can do about it at the moment.

The Democrat Party is at war with our country as we know it so they can enrich themselves and rule forever.

The American Sovereign, the People, better wake the hell up and fast because time is running out.]

Part Two, Conclusion, of
A Year with Forrest
by Rev. W. H. Whitsitt

ON THE 23d of April, 1863, we were ordered from Columbia to Courtland, Ala., and at Town Creek, not far away, we found our old adversary, Gen. G. M. Dodge, again with a large force of infantry and cavalry.

Their purpose was to afford a proper send-off to the expedition of Col. A. D. Streight, who had a commission to visit Bragg's rear and do all the damage he might find possible in Georgia and elsewhere.

General Dodge pressed us sorely all day of the 27th and also the 28th, but at midnight of the 28th a messenger appeared in our camp near Courtland to announce that a body of about twenty-five cavalry had passed through Mount Hope at dusk and had taken the road to Moulton.

It was then "Boots and saddles!" and at 1 a.m. of the 29th, the same hour at which Streight quitted Moulton, Forrest set out to pursue him.

The troops of Colonel Streight were brave and formidable. They were select and seasoned infantry from Indiana, Ohio, and Illinois, who had been mounted on mules especially for this expedition. In action they always dismounted just as we did, and they were practiced and patient fighters.

During the forenoon of the 20th, we reached Moulton and followed the enemy to Day's Gap, a distance of seventeen miles, where we found him in camp a little after midnight. It was suspected that with all his excellencies as a commander Colonel Streight was too slow of motion for the business he had in hand.

He had been three and a half days on the march when we struck him and had traversed a distance of only sixty-five miles. What was the use of mounting his command if they were to be marched at the rate of infantry? If he had moved forty miles a day during these three days and kept up that pace, he could have reached Rome and Atlanta in spite of the world, the flesh, and the devil. He must have considered that he was on a May-day frolic; he seemed to be trying to coddle the negroes. After we had come up with him he moved at the rate of fifty miles a day and threw in some fighting besides.

At nine o'clock on the mornig of the 30th of April, Forrest prepared to engage Streight in this camp upon Sand Mountain. Our regiment, which for this expedition was commanded by Captain McLemore, was sent with Biffle's 9th Tennessee to climb the mountain by another gap and gain the enemy's rear. Forrest hoped to hold him with a portion of Roddy's Brigade until we might catch him in that trap. But the engagement at Day's Gap was too brief for our purpose. Streight evidently apprehended the nature of our game and slipped out of the trap.

When Forrest found us in the road on Sand Mountain, he sent General Roddy and his brigade back to the Tennessee River to observe the movements of General Dodge, and, with the two Tennessee regiments mentioned and his escort and a section of Ferrell's Battery, he closely followed the enemy, although our number was less than half of theirs.

They had whipped Roddy in the initial encounter on the morning of the 29th and captured two of the guns of Morton who commanded after the death of Freeman. But we forced Colonel Streight to deliver battle again about sunset and when it was concluded the two pieces were left spiked on the field.

This was the first night battle I had witnessed. The pine trees were very tall, the darkness of their shade was intense, the mountain where the enemy was posted was steep, and as we charged again and again under Forrest's own lead it was a grand spectacle.

It seemed that the fires which blazed from their muskets were almost long enough to reach our faces. There was one advantage in being below them: they often fired above our heads in the darkness.

This battle closed about 9 p.m., and shortly afterwards the moon rose in great splendor. It seemed to have been sent for our special behoof.

I have said there is no reason to suppose that the old man had read Caesar's commentaries either in English or in Latin, but he followed the tactics of Caesar as if by instinct. His military lore in this emergency was expressed in the following command: "Shoot at everything blue and keep up the scare."

To execute this order he compelled us to hang upon the very heels of the enemy all the way. There was constant peril of ambuscade, but we waited for the moon to rise before pressing close upon the enemy after nightfall. By daylight we generally kept in sight and were able to see them and almost always to open the fighting when they attempted to surprise us.

About eleven o'clock they laid the first ambuscade, but Forrest contrived to discover it in advance and, instead of walking into it, caused us to dismount and get into line and crawl up close to the enemy's position.

It would have made too much noise to have brought up a piece of artillery by horse power so soldiers were harnessed to it and dragged it to a point within two hundred yards of the enemy's line.

When the proper moment arrived, he ordered the cannon to open and the cavalry likewise so that we surprised the enemy instead of them surprising us. I walked along the line where they had been formed and found it littered from end to end with small bits of paper. It looked as if every man in their column must have employed the leisure afforded by that stop to tear up all the private letters found upon his person. It was clear that their alarm had become serious and would help us much if we could keep it up.

At two o'clock the next morning, when most of our command had fallen asleep on horseback, we were ambuscaded at the ford of a difficult mountain stream and caused some losses, especially among the animals. We in our turn were thrown into a degree of confusion here, but they were too much frightened to press their advantage.

Indeed, most of those who fired upon us were drawn up on the other side of the stream. A small detachment lay in the undergrowth at the foot of a steep causeway upon which we were marching down to the river, but they ran away as soon as they had discharged their pieces. Wyeth declares that this ambuscade at two o'clock on the morning of May 1 was "practically a repetition" of the one attempted at eleven o'clock. It was a more serious affair; and after crossing the river, a branch of the Black Warrior, the General permitted us to get down and sleep from 3 to 5 a.m.

Colonel Streight seemed to have no proper ideas of what a cavalry soldier can endure. Possibly his men, having been only recently promoted to saddle, were galled and wearied by the novelty of the exercise. He was taking his ease as if no enemy were near when we found him at Blountsville next morning, May 2.

We immediately put his column in motion and kept it on the run to the Black Warrior, where he was compelled to fight us to obtain a crossing.

Here we were allowed a rest from 6 p.m. until the moon arose about eleven while two companies of Biffle's 9th Tennessee were detailed to hang upon the enemy's rear throughout the night.

We were summoned at the appointed moment and moved forward to find Colonel Streight next morning at Wilber's Creek, where Biffle's detail was relieved and Forrest again took the chase in hand.

About 11 a.m. of May 3 we came in sight of Black Creek Bridge and perceived that it was on fire, which indicated that the enemy were all on the other side.

They marched away after a brief season, assured of a respite of half a day before we should be able to cross the creek and catch up with them again; but Miss Emma Sanson piloted the General to a ford, and we were soon across the deep and swollen stream.

It was about four o'clock in the afternoon when we struck Colonel Streight in Gadsden, four miles away on the banks of the Coosa River. Why should he be sauntering at Gadsden during those precious hours?

It seemed as if he had made up his mind to fail. He ought not to have failed. He recruited his horses almost every mile. It was a common thing to find standing in the highways the wagons and carriages of citizens from which he had removed the horses, leaving his exhausted mules in the place of them. Our horses were falling out constantly and we had no means whatever of renewing the supply.

At Gadsden, Forrest took a picked company of about two hundred of his best mounted troopers and followed the retreating enemy, fighting him every step of the way to Turkey Town, where, after nightfall, Streight planned an ambuscade; but, as usual, Forrest saw his game and got the best of it.

In the encounter that was occasioned by the Confederate flank movement the Federal Colonel Hathaway, with many others, was killed, and immediately all the hopes of Streight seemed to be crushed.

When we caught up with Forrest about nine o'clock, I learned that Hartwell Hunt, one of my dearest friends, had been killed in the skirmish, and the rest of the night was filled with grief.

During the half hour he remained in Gadsden, Forrest had procured a courier to go on horseback by a route on the opposite side of the Coosa River and advise the city of Rome of its peril. Col. John H. Wisdom was the man who rendered that service, but he was not a member of our command.

At Turkey Town Streight also dispatched a force of two hundred picked men to go forward and capture the city, which was about sixty miles distant; but Colonel Wisdom outrode them and saved the day.

The bottom was carefully removed from the bridge that led across the river, the State militia was under arms, and Rome was rescued from peril. When Streight's advance guard arrived, they were beaten off with small exertion and the doom of his expedition was sealed.

We rested at Turkey Town until the moon had risen, receiving strict orders to be mounted and on the road at midnight.

There was a disturbance when the General rode up and found us in line at the edge of the road; but our colonel settled it by claiming a difference of two minutes in watches, during which time we wheeled into column on the road and resumed the march.

Pursuing the enemy with renewed vigor, we found that he had burned the bridge by which he had only recently crossed Chattanooga River. Though the stream was swollen, we were ordered to plunge in, and we got across by swimming a few yards in the middle of it.

There was a deal of trouble about the cannon, but they were finally pulled across, while the ammunition was transferred by means of canoes that the citizens provided.

Before ten o'clock in the morning we bore down upon the enemy's camp, and, finding him unprepared for battle, General Forrest sent Captain Pointer with a flag of truce to demand his surrender. Colonel Streight replied that he would be glad to meet General Forrest and discuss the question  with him.

When the message was delivered, Forrest remarked: "If he ever talks to me, then I've got him." The old man had large experience and skill in such emergencies, and before noon the surrender had been accomplished.

The place was crowded with undergrowth and Streight proposed to march down the road until they should find an open field suitable for the business of laying down his arms.

Forrest gave assent, and in a few minutes we were in the road, which shortly became a lane with immense fields of growing cotton on each side. That was the longest lane I ever traveled. It may have been a mile, but it seemed ten miles in length.

Streight had about fourteen hundred and fifty men, and we had about four hundred and seventy-five in line. We were drawn up on both sides of them, and every man of them carried a loaded rifle and some likewise loaded pistols. If they had concluded to renew the struggle, it is difficult to understand how any of us could have escaped alive.

Forrest galloped up and down the column and busily gave orders to the courier to ride to the road and order imaginary regiments and imaginary batteries to stop and feed their animals and men.

But the regiments of Starnes and Biffle and Ferrell's Battery, which had been depleted to skeleton proportions, were the only available troops within a hundred miles.

Finally the lane came to an end and there was a field of broom sedge on the right-hand side. Colonel Streight led the way and his troops were shortly formed in line. Then at the word of command they dismounted, stacked arms, remounted, and rode away.

There was an inexpressible sense of relief when they had parted company with their arms and ammunition; but we did not venture to suggest the fewness of our numbers until we had delivered them safely to the keeping of the guards whom the government had dispatched to Rome to receive them.

Our victory was embittered by a message that Stonewall Jackson had been wounded in a battle in Virginia, which was announced shortly after we reached Rome. I can never forget the sorrow and foreboding it produced.

On the way back to Columbia, Tenn., a messenger arrived bringing tiding of the death of Gen. Earl Van Dorn, and Forrest was ordered shortly afterwards to take his place in command of the cavalry on the left wing of Bragg's army.

The retreat of Bragg from Shelbyville began late in June, 1863, and the duty of covering his rear was assigned to Wheeler and Forrest.

At Tullahoma on the last day of the month, the advance of Rosecran's army began to press against our brigade now commanded by Col. J. W. Starnes of the 4th Tennessee Cavalry, and in the encounter, this great soldier was fatally wounded by a sharpshooter. His loss was deeply deplored, and his name is revered by all who appreciate courage and capacity.

The alleged inefficiency of the general in command had become more glaringly apparent during the retreat from Shelbyville and especially in the maneuvers that preceded the struggle at Chickamauga.

Forrest, who enjoyed opportunities to observe every failure at close range, was fully convinced that the situation could not be improved as long as Bragg should be retained.

The fighting at Chickamauga was more trying than the average. We always dismounted and acted as infantry, but here we were in the same line with our veteran Confederate infantry regiments.

We held a portion of the front line all the morning of the 19th of September and found the enemy duly stubborn. Wyeth affirms that it was 1:30 p.m. when Cheatham's Division relieved us and pressed on toward Chattanooga. I always supposed it was 4 p.m. when Cheatham appeared. At any rate, the day was very long indeed.

When Cheatham took our place and went in, I must concede that the music became more lively than any we had made. We immediately got on our horses to take position of his flank and keep it from being turned. There was a short pause as the column was going into line, and half a dozen of us, standing with our horses' heads together, were listening to the tremendous din, when a grapeshot that had passed almost a mile of undergrowth struck Coleman, of Company F, in the stomach. He fell from his horse and was dead in three minutes.

Severe as the battle of the 19th had been, that of the 20th was still more trying.

We were in line with the troops of Gen. John C. Breckinridge on the right wing, and I have a distinct recollection of the appearance of that officer as he rode along just behind our column shorty after daylight.

The action did not begin till 9:30 a.m., but we had been ready since 6:30. When it finally opened, we played the part of infantry again and kept up with the advance of Breckinridge, but that was not very great.

We were face to face with General Thomas, a foeman worthy of our steel, who contested every inch of the ground. My impression is that this was the loudest noise and the longest day of my life, and the night which followed it was also memorable for its discomforts.

On Monday morning, September 21, Forrest pursued the enemy almost into Chattanooga and found him apparently engaged in evacuating the town. If General Bragg had pressed forward before noon of that day, there might have been a great victory.

Forrest claimed that when he went in person to inform General Bragg of the importance of immediate action he caught him asleep and that after he got him awake Bragg objected that his army had no supplies.

When Forrest suggest that there were abundant supplies in Chattanooga, no reply was made, and he turned from the commanding general in unconcealed disgust.

The friction had become so decided that it was now impossible for the two officers to  cooperate harmoniously and on the 28th of September, Bragg issued an order for him to turn over his command to General Wheeler.

He obeyed without delay. There was no sign of discontent or mutiny.

No farewells were spoken to his companions in arms. He passed our camp at the head of his escort as if employed on customary occasions. We were not informed of the action that had been taken until he was on his way to West Tennessee to found his fortunes anew and rise to the dignity of lieutenant general of the Confederate States army.

So long as we followed Forrest we enjoyed the respect of the army.

If we passed a regiment of infantry, they would heap the customary contempt upon us; but when it was suggest that we belonged to Forrest's people, they changed tune, and they fraternized with us as real soldiers, worthy companions in arms. They inquired about our battles and our leader and wondered at his genius and success. We were heroes even to the infantry.

But when Wheeler took command of us, all of that was changed.

The infantry could not be appeased, and it was vain to reply. General Wheeler was a brave and honorable man, but nobody ever accused him of genius.

Forrest was an extraordinary genius. He developed a new use for cavalry; and that was his specific contribution to the art of war.

All the other maxims of the great masters came to him by nature. He was equally at home in infantry, cavalry, and artillery.

By the readiness of his initiative he kept the whole campaign before his eye and could strike a blow at a distance of a hundred miles before anybody dreamed it was conceivable.

He could discern the exigencies of the field of battle swiftly and surely. He had the sanest initiative I ever observed, not blind, not foolhardy; balance, when retreat was essential he could perform it with more dispatch and repose than anybody.

It was hard to find a soldier with  intellect so strong and fertile and safe, whose will was so healthy and prompt and resistless, whose organization was so much of the hair-trigger variety, whose military education and military maxims were so admirable.

If he could have commanded the Western Army after Shiloh--but I will not indulge vain regrets.

In a letter to the Cincinnati Inquirer George Alfred Townsend recites an interview he held with Lee at Appomattox C. H., in which he inquired: "General Lee, who is the greatest general now under your command?"

Lee replied with grave deliberation: "A man I never saw, sir. His name is Forrest."

I am no military critic, but my affection inclines me to say that the War between the States developed three incomparable geniuses for war, all on the Southern side--Lee, Jackson, and Forrest.

When I first met General Forrest, he was already a famous man. He was in command of troops raised in Middle Tennessee, some 1,800 men, almost all of them raw recruits.

Colonel Starnes's regiment, the 4th Tennessee Cavalry, had seen much service; four companies of Russell's 4th Alabama were also trained men.

The other were newly enlisted--Dibrell's 8th Tennessee, Biffle's 9th Tennessee, and Freeman's Battery. These made up the famous Forrest Brigade.

General Forrest was a man of remarkable appearance, over six feet tall, somewhat muscular in build, powerful and graceful, giving an impression of solidity and completeness; while neatly dressed and groomed, he apparently took no thought of dress or accouterments and was altogether devoid of personal vanity.

 

NOTE: This article is verbatim from the original by Rev. Whitsitt in Confederate Veteran except for occasionally breaking up a long paragraph to make online reading easier, and occasionally adding or taking away a punctuation mark. No words or sentences were changed in any way.

Our Confederate Ancestors: A Year with Forrest, by Rev. W. H. Whitsitt, Part One

A Series on the Daring Exploits of Our Confederate Ancestors in the War Between the States.

There were two brigades of infantry close at hand, numbering in all about five thousand men, and the country swarmed with cavalry, but these did not count for much. The Northern generals still proceeded on the sleepy idea that it is the main function of cavalry to serve as eyes and ears for infantry. Forrest had gotten beyond that standpoint long before, and no cavalry trained upon the ancient maxims was able to stand against us.

Part One of
A Year with Forrest

Address by Rev. W. H. Whitsitt, D.D., before R. E. Lee Camp, Confederate Veterans, of Richmond, Va., in Confederate Veteran magazine, Vol. XXV, No. 8, August, 1917.

Forrest-42K

[Publisher's Note, by Gene Kizer, Jr. : Rev. Whitsitt's address recounts a year with Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest mostly in Tennessee and often around the area of SCV national headquarters at Elm Springs in Columbia, Tennessee where Gen. Forrest and his wife, Mary Ann Montgomery Forrest, will be laid to rest in a little over a week.

We are blessed to have one of the greatest cavalry soldiers of all time and his beloved wife back home with us, inspiring us now as he did his compatriots during the war. It is as if Forrest is once again commanding Confederates, charging into the enemy, winning battles, except it is our honor to do so today.

SCV members should pilgrimage every year to Elm Springs and other inspiring places and come away determined to spread the true history of the South far and wide, and obliterate our woke, ignorant enemies.

A good way to celebrate the return of Gen. Forrest and his wife to those who love them, is with the powerful words of another Tennessean, Edward Ward Carmack (1858-1908), in his "Pledge to the South." Carmack was a United States senator from Tennessee and before that a member of the House of Representatives. These words were spoken on the floor of the House:

The South is a land that has known sorrows; It is a land that has broken the ashen crust and moistened it with tears; A land scarred and riven by the plowshare of war and billowed with the graves of her dead; But a land of legend, a land of song, a land of hallowed and heroic memories. To that land every drop of my blood, every fibre of my being, every pulsation of my heart, is consecrated forever. I was born of her womb; I was nurtured at her breast; And when my last hour shall come, I pray God that I may be pillowed upon her bosom and rocked to sleep within her tender and encircling arms.

The Latin phrase, gaudium certaminis, is mentioned in this article and it means "the joy of battle" which describes That Devil Forrest and his Confederate compatriots to the letter.]

Part One of
A Year with Forrest
by Rev. W. H. Whitsitt

I JOINED THE ARMY at Winchester, Tenn., the latter part of April, 1862. Having taken my only sister to school at that place in the autumn of 1861, after the battle of Shiloh I decided to visit her; so about the middle of April I went to Murfreesboro, where the Federal lines were established.

I stopped with Prof. George W. Jarman, who the net morning took me to a lonely spot on the bank of Stone's River, where I took off my boots and small clothes and waded the stream. Replacing them on the farther shore, I waved mute thanks and farewells to my guide and friend and took my way on foot to Winchester, avoiding the turnpikes and traversing the entire distance of sixty miles by dirt roads.

I met at Winchester the cavalry battalion of Col. James W. Starnes, which had just come over from Chattanooga on a scouting expedition, and found a vacant saddle in Company F of this command.

Company F had been raised in the beginning by Starnes, who commanded it until he was promoted to the office of lieutenant colonel and put in charge of the battalion, when he was succeeded in office by Captain McLemore.

The men were recruited in the vicinity of Franklin, eighteen miles south of Nashville, where I was brought up, and I had been acquainted with a number of them in their homes. It was a choice body of troopers, most of them coming from families of wealth, position, and culture. It would have been difficult to have selected in either army a company possessing nobler blood and truer breeding than Company F.

Not long after my connection with it the period of one year for which the battalion originally enlisted ran out, and they enlisted again for three years, or during the war, and were then reorganized as a regiment, Starnes being chosen as full colonel. The following notice of Colonel Starnes is selected from many others found in the biography of General Forrest by Dr. Wyeth:

This man was James W. Starnes, who signally distinguished himself on that occasion and had won the lasting regard and friendship of Forrest, a friendship which endured until at Tullahoma in 1863 the leaden messenger of death brought to an untimely end a career full of the promise of great deeds in war. A new regiment was now organized, with Starnes as colonel, and took its place with Forrest as the 4th Tennessee Cavalry. It was destined to become famous and to sustain throughout the war the reputation it was soon to win west of the Tennessee, ending its career in a blaze of glory in a brilliant charge at Bentonville, N. C., in the last pitched battle of the Civil War.

This estimate of the importance and services of the regiment is not overdrawn. The 4th Tennessee Cavalry was the finest fighting machine I ever saw on horseback.

Our armament at the outset was something pitiful to behold. Nearly the entire command were provided with muzzle-loading, double-barreled shotguns. There were scarcely thirty long-range rifles in the regiment.

The shotguns were fowling pieces that had been contributed by gentlemen in the practice of hunting birds and other game. They were loaded with buckshot and at short range constituted a most effective weapon, but at the distance of two hundred yards they were worse than useless.

This weapon imposed a peculiar sort of tactics upon the Southern cavalry during the first year of the war. Fighting on foot, which subsequently became almost universal in the cavalry service, was rare at this time.

It was the custom during the first year to charge up to a point within twenty yards of the enemy's line and to deliver the two loads of buckshot. Then those who were fortunate enough to own pistols went to work with these, while the others would load their pieces for two rounds more.

But matters hardly ever got to that point. The enemy were generally thrown into disorder by the first two rounds of buckshot. It was a favorite expedient to march all night and at the earliest dawn of day to line up before a camp of infantry and deliver a couple of charges of buckshot into the tents before anybody could wake up. But if the camp was large, the men on the opposite side of it would grasp their long-range guns and drive off the cavalry without much trouble. Indeed, it was a part of the game to run away when the long-range guns were brought into full operation.

The month of June, 1862, was a gloomy period, but the operations of Jackson in the Valley of Virginia and of Lee and Jackson in the Seven Days' battles around Richmond gave sensible relief.

The whole State of Tennessee had previously been imperiled. It seemed difficult to prevent the capture of Chattanooga and even of Knoxville, but shortly afterwards the whole scene had changed. Kirby Smith was preparing to invade Kentucky, and the regiment of Colonel Starnes was moved up to the vicinity of Cumberland Gap, where they scouted the adjacent country in Tennessee and Virginia.

At the opportune moment, when roasting ears were in season, we entered Kentucky at Big Creek Gap and marched upon Richmond. Our regiment was placed in a brigade commanded by Colonel Scott, of Scott's Louisiana Cavalry, and took an active part in the battle of Richmond.

When the defeat of the enemy's infantry appeared to be certain, we were sent to take a position on the turnpike leading from Richmond to Lexington, along which we found the enemy retreating in much confusion.

They commonly surrendered without parley; but on passing through a dense cornfield just before we reached the main road we encountered a party who made resistance and shot through the neck my messmate and close friend, Private James Powell, killing him on the spot.

The weather was intensely warm; but we were not allowed to cease pursuit until we had taken Lexington, Frankfort, Shelbyville, and were in the neighborhood of Louisville.

The soldiers were hopeful and contented as long as they were kept engaged. But after the earliest spurt of energy General Smith seemed to require a season of rest. We did not understand all the details, but we felt that there was need of more activity. Finally it was announced that General Buell had entered Louisville without a pitched battle with Bragg.

It was a special mercy for us that General Buell was not more vigorous and successful in the military art. If he had been a genuine soldier, we might have had some trouble getting out of Kentucky; but after delivering battle at Perryville we got off very light and made good our escape to Tennessee.

Our brigade did not arrive in time to share in the conflict at Perryville; but we covered the retreat for a day or two, and then our regiment was ordered to report to General Forrest at Murfreesboro, the bulk of the army having traveled by way of Cumberland Gap to Knoxville, thence by rail to Chattanooga and Murfreesboro.

When we found General Forrest, he had a handful of raw troops with which he was trying to take Nashville, then held by a garrison of ten thousand infantry commanded by General Negley.

I first saw him about the 1st of November, 1862, when I was ordered to report at headquarters for service as a guide, and I rode with him all day and between the Nolensville and Granny White Pikes. It was my first experience of the grave responsibility of acting as guide for a considerable body of troops.

General Negley was short of provisions and on that day had led a large force out the Franklin Pine as far as Brentwood to replenish his depleted stores.

On this day I got my first conceptions of the gaudium certaminis. It was in Forrest a genuine and extraordinary passion. The whole tone and frame of the man were transformed; his appearance and even his voice were changed. It was a singular exaltation, which, however, appeared to leave him in absolute control of his faculties. He was never more sane nor more cool nor more terrible than in the moment of doubtful issue.

We camped that night at Nolensville, twelve miles away, and were in the saddle almost daily for a week entertaining the garrison at Nashville and trying to worry them into submission before relief might appear.

We had lost our shotguns in Kentucky and were now armed with Enfield rifles, and henceforth fought chiefly as infantry.

Forrest always like to charge on horseback, but he had an unerring judgment in selecting the psychological moment for such an entertainment. He always sent one of his trustiest officers to assail the enemy in the rear, and at the earliest signs of disorder in their ranks he was glad to ride amongst them.

He had likely never studied any maxims of war, but he seemed as if by instinct to understand the value of sending a force to the rear and adopted that method even in this initial fight at Sacramento, Ky.

In the fight at Murfreesboro, in July, 1862, he had also adopted the policy of beating the enemy in detail. He was swift in movement, fierce in assault, and persistent in pursuit. He had not obtained these secrets from Caesar's commentaries; they must have come to him by instinct. He was a born soldier, not made.

If by any possibility he could have succeeded Albert Sidney Johnson at Shiloh, the war in the West might have run a different course. But the government at Richmond never took him seriously until it was too late, and one of the greatest natural masters of the military art was buffeted by outrageous fortune almost to the wrecking of his career and to the entire destruction of his country's hopes.

He was no bully nor barbarian, but a gentleman of such admirable presence that he would be observed among a thousand.

But when the passion of battle was upon him, he was the most inspiring figure in the army.

In religion he was deeply devoted to the Cumberland Presbyterian Church and a regular attendant, but I am not sure that he was a communicant. His veneration of his mother's religion and his wife's religion was beautiful to witness, and the Rev. Herschel S. Porter, pastor of the Cumberland Church in Memphis, was his standard of excellent in pulpit performance.

In the opening skirmish at Nashville I found Capt. Samuel L. Freeman, who had been one of my teachers at Mill Creek Academy, on my mother's farm, and later at Mount Juliet Academy, near Lebanon. Just prior to the war he had entered upon the practice of the law in Nashville.

In the autumn of 1861 Freeman raised a company of artillery and on departing for the camps intrusted to me his law library, with the request that I should keep it safe till he returned to claim it.

About noon the General rode up to Freeman's Battery, which at the moment was engaged in a lively duel with Negley's Artillery, and there I greeted my beloved master, six feet in height, a type of friendly dignity, shy, womanly modesty, reposeful courage--every inch a soldier.

In due time we were recalled from Nashville to Murfreesboro, whence we were ordered to Columbia, in Maury County, where Gen. Earl Van Dorn was placed in command of us.

Toward the middle of December we set out for the Tennessee River, and crossing it at Clifton, we commenced operation in West Tennessee with the purpose of crippling Grant, who was then pressing against Vicksburg, and also to prevent him from sending help to Rosecrans to Stone's River.

We had less than two thousand troopers and Captain Freeman's battery of artillery. I was never sensible of the perils of that expedition until I read an account of it in Dr. Wyeth's history of Forrest.

We crossed about the 16th of December, and immediately all the great resources of the enemy were brought to bear to capture us.

The first town we struck was Lexington, where we captured Colonel Ingersoll, of Illinois; but he had not then become famous, and we made nothing of him.

We made a feint against Jackson and after driving the enemy within his intrenchments worked upon the railroads and burned many bridges to the north--south of the town.

We captured Humboldt, Trenton, Union City, and other places of smaller note.

But the problem of recrossing the Tennessee River was ever before us. It was patrolled by gunboats, but Forrest had sunk his two small ferryboats in a secluded spot where no gunboat could find them and had left a guard to watch them.

On the 27th of December we became aware that forces were converging from every direction to assault us.

There were two brigades of infantry close at hand, numbering in all about five thousand men, and the country swarmed with cavalry, but these did not count for much. The Northern generals still proceeded on the sleepy idea that it is the main function of cavalry to serve as eyes and ears for infantry. Forrest had gotten beyond that standpoint long before, and no cavalry trained upon the ancient maxims was able to stand against us.

Instead of moving immediately back to Clifton, raising the sunken ferryboats, and recrossing the Tennessee, Forrest, holding apposition between these two infantry brigades, concluded to attack and capture one of them before the other could come up in his rear, and take them home with him as prisoners of war.

It was a daring conception, but he considered that he was equal to it, notwithstanding the fact that Gen. G. M. Dodge, with  two other full brigades of infantry and some cavalry, was taking position between him and Clifton.

We attacked Dunam's Brigade at Parker's Crossroads by sunrise of December 31, 1862, hoping to beat and crush it before any of Fuller's Brigade might arrive on the ground.

We had done the work for Dunham by twelve o'clock, but Fuller just then closed in on our rear. In thirty minutes the surrender would have been completed, but in that nick of time Fuller charged us and compelled us to retreat without the prisoners who were rightfully our own.

By daylight next morning our advance had reached the river.

The two ferryboats were raised from the bottom and brought over to the west side, and the work of recrossing was begun. It was completed without incident the following morning, and we made our most respectful salutations when the enemy arrived an hour later and began to shell the woods on our side. What Jackson accomplished in the Valley of Virginia was hardly more masterful than the skill of Forrest in extricating his small force from this most perilous situation.

Early in February, 1863, General Wheeler, who was in command of the entire cavalry services of Bragg's army, led a force to attack Fort Donelson and was defeated. The weather was intensely cold, and the enemy was admirably intrenched.

Forrest formally protested, but the attack was made in spite of him.

There was a bloody slaughter, in which our regiment suffered greatly, and Forrest notified Wheeler that he would be in his coffin before he should ever fight again under his command.

Forrest understood better than Wheeler when to risk a desperate encounter.

On March 5, 1863, we fought the battle of Thompson's Station under the command of Gen. Earl van Dorn and captured the entire force of the enemy's infantry, a fine brigade under Colonel Cogurn, of Indiana; but Van Dorn permitted two regiments of cavalry and a battery of artillery to escape.

Forrest got in the rear and rendered the escape of the infantry impossible. It was here that we captured Maj. W. R. Shafter; but as he had not yet been to Cuba, we heard little of him.

In one of the engagement of this day Capt. J. R. Dysart, of Company D, who was standing in a position just above me on the uneven ground, was shot through the head and fell over upon me with a severe crash. I thought for an instant that I myself had been killed.

On the 24th of March, 1863, we left Spring Hill, midway between Franklin and Columbia, and daylight next morning found us at Brentwood, midway between Franklin and Nashville, where we captured and brought away about eight hundred prisoners.

This was a perilous expedition as Nashville, the base of supplies of the Federal army, and Franklin also were held by a large force.

On our retreat we had gotten across the last pike by which we could be attacked from Nashville and, considering ourselves at last somewhat secure, had halted for dinner. While we were thus engaged Gen. Green Clay Smith, who had been sent down from Franklin to pursue us, rushed upon our rear guard and occasioned some confusion.

Forrest soon got a regiment in line, and just then Starnes, who was returning from a scouting expedition down the Hillsboro Pike toward Nashville, fell upon the flank of the enemy.

Observing the confusion occasioned by that incident, Forrest instantly led a charge against the enemy and easily shook them off.

It was the common verdict  that General Smith displayed little stomach for fight. If Forrest had been in his position, he would have fought the Confederates every foot of the journey to Harpeth River. That stream was in league against us, being swollen by the freshets of springtime; and if Smith had shown any vigor, he would have given us much annoyance.

On the 10th of April, under Van Dorn's command, a reconnoissance was made in force from Spring Hill against Franklin, with the hope of relieving the pressure upon Bragg at Tullahoma.

By an unaccountable oversight the enemy's cavalry were permitted to assail our column on the right flank as we were marching down the turnpike toward Franklin. It was the brigade of General Stanley, which was striving to get in our rear.

The first we saw of them the 4th United States Regulars were charging down the hill along the base of which we were marching. They struck Freeman's Battery, and before a single piece could be brought into action it had been captured. Many of the men escaped, but Captain Freeman was taken.

We quickly rallied and recovered the guns and prisoners, but in the melee Captain Freeman was killed. The piece with which he had been slain was held so close to his face that the skin about the eyes was deeply burned with powder.

Some of his fellow prisoners reported that he had offered no resistance; but our pursuit was so rapid that he could not keep up with his captors, and rather than give him up they concluded to take his life.

He was the idol of the brigade, and it was hard to forgive the gentlemen of the 4th Regulars. Possibly the deed was done by no rightful authority; it may have been the conceit of some irresponsible private soldier.

The next day was Sunday, and I officiated at Freeman's funeral.

General Forrest stood at the side of the grave, his tall form bent and swayed by his grief. It was a sight to remember always, the sternest soldier of the army bathed in womanly tears and trembling like an aspen with his pain. The whole army sympathized in the mighty sorrow. . . .

 

To be continued next week, September 16, 2021.

Facing Racial Realities, Measuring an American Dilemma – Guest Post By Leonard M. “Mike” Scruggs

“Murder rates in these cities showed blacks were at least 18 times more likely to be arrested for murder than whites, and Latinos were about 5 times more likely to be arrested for murder than whites.

Contrary to the supposition of many, violent crime offenders are more likely to be arrested if they are white, for example, 22 percent more likely for robbery and 13 percent more likely for aggravated assault.

There is in reality a bias against whites, probably because greater legal and public relations precautions are called for in dealing with minority offenders. . . . "

Facing Racial Realities
Measuring an American Dilemma

Guest post by
Leonard M. "Mike" Scruggs


[Publisher's Note, by Gene Kizer, Jr. :
Mike Scruggs has given us a good analysis of the latest book from Charles Alan Murray, a brilliant American political scientist who follows facts, science and numbers the way most Americans did before the age of wokeness.

That he is hated by virtue signaling liberals tells you all you need to know. Murray scares the hell out of them because he proves with conclusive facts what everybody knows but many are afraid to say.

Here is the short Introduction to Murray's book, Facing Reality: Two Truths about Race in America, by the author. It is quickly obvious that Murray is a very thoughtful man asking the right questions and determined to find the right answers for the good of our country.

I DECIDED TO WRITE this book in the summer of 2020 because of my dismay at the disconnect between the rhetoric about "systemic racism" and the facts. The uncritical acceptance of that narrative by the nation's elite news media amounted to an unwillingness to face reality.

By facts, I mean what Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan meant: "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not to his own facts." By reality, I mean what the science fiction novelist Philip Dick meant: "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away."

I do not dispute evidence of the racism that persists in American life. Rather, I reject the portrayal of American society and institutions as systemically racist and saturated in White privilege. What follows is a data-driven discussion of realities that make America a more complicated and much less racist nation than its radical critics describe.

Of the many facts about race that are ignored, two above all, long since documented beyond reasonable doubt, must be brought into the open and incorporated into the way we think about why American society is the way it is and what can be done through public policy to improve it.

The first is that American Whites, Blacks, Latinos, and Asians, as groups, have different means and distributions of cognitive ability. The second is that American Whites, Blacks, Latinos, and Asians, as groups, have different rates of violent crime. Allegations of systemic racism in policing, education, and the workplace cannot be assessed without dealing with the reality of group differences.

There is a reason that reality is ignored. The two facts make people excruciatingly uncomfortable. To raise them is to be considered a racist and hateful person. What's more, these facts have been distorted and exploited for malign purposes by racist and hateful people.

What then is the point of writing about them? Aren't some realities better ignored? The answer goes to a much deeper problem than false accusations of systemic racism. We are engaged in a struggle for America's soul. Facing reality is essential if that struggle is to be won.

Following Mike's bio and article are links to The Times Examiner website, Mike's outstanding columns, and to his books.]

Mike Scruggs is the author of two books - The Un-Civil War, Shattering the Historical Myths; and Lessons from the Vietnam War, Truths the Media Never Told You - and over 600 articles on military history, national security, intelligent design, genealogical genetics, immigration, current political affairs, Islam, and the Middle East.

The abridged version of The Un-Civil War sold over 40,000 copies and won the prestigious D. T. Smithwick Award by the North Carolina Society of Historians, for excellence.

Mike holds a BS degree from the University of Georgia and an MBA from Stanford University. A former USAF intelligence officer and Air Commando, he is a decorated combat veteran of the Vietnam War and holds the Distinguished Flying Cross, Purple Heart, and Air Medal. He is a retired First Vice President for a major national financial services firm and former Chairman of the Board of a classical Christian school.

Facing Racial Realities

By Mike Scruggs

(First published in The Times Examiner, 12 July 2021)

Measuring an American Dilemma

Charles Murray’s just published book, Facing Reality: Two Truths about Race in America, comes just as Neo-Marxist Critical Race Theory (CRT) doctrines have become major social justice engineering ideology and policy for the Biden Administration and Democrat Party leadership.

Facing Racial Reality 396 Pixels 56K

Murray is one of the most renowned and courageous political scientists in the U.S. and the world. He has a BA degree from Harvard and MS and PhD degrees from MIT. He is also the author of Losing Ground (1984), The Bell Curve (1994), Coming Apart (2012), and Human Diversity (2020).

Charles Murray speaking at the 2013 FreedomFest in Las Vegas, Nevada.
Charles Murray speaking at the 2013 FreedomFest in Las Vegas, Nevada.

CRT is not a cure for racism, it is racism of the most vicious, hateful, and unforgiving kind. It is flagrantly anti-white, anti-Christian, anti-family, anti-capitalist, anti-history, and knows no truth or moral standard but power.

CRT is an immediate threat to our military effectiveness and the integrity of our educational institutions. It is a protection racket that is corrupting American corporations and university administrations, and a divisive threat to public order and safety.

Murray points out, however, that CRT follows over 60 years of misguided affirmative action policies that have been weakening American commitment to what he calls the “American Creed.”

Samuel Huntington described this American Creed as “embracing the political principles of liberty, equality, democracy, individualism, human rights, the rule of law, and private property.”

Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights….”

Jefferson meant by “equality” that all men were of equal human dignity in the eyes of God and thus must be treated with equal human dignity and consideration under the laws of men. This was understood by his peers. He did not mean that all men were equal in every personal characteristic or entitled to equal outcomes in life.

Murray further points out that an essential understanding of the American Creed is that people should be judged according to their character, merit, and work as individuals rather than circumstances of birth or status.

The most dramatic words of Martin Luther King’s momentous August 1963 speech to 250,000 people at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington were that his children would “not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” He was pleading for a more complete fulfillment of the American Creed.

But it only took a few years for the transformation of well-intentioned affirmative action policies into a political bargain that made race and gender more important than character and merit.

Under the cloak of civil rights and virtue-signaling political rhetoric, American civil rights and opportunity were slowly being molded into a race and gender conscious system of government pressured preference. Moreover, those who dared protest were shouted down by lockstep government, academia, and the media.

Murray summarizes the transition from affirmative action to blatant racial, ethnic, and gender preferences in three paragraphs:

The phrase ‘affirmative action’ originally referred to initiatives by colleges and corporations to seek out qualified Blacks who were being overlooked for educational and job opportunities.  It was a needed policy in the mid-1960s and legally innocuous. But it soon morphed into aggressive affirmative action, meaning government-sponsored affirmative preferential treatment in determining who gets the education and the jobs.

Working-class and middle-class Whites who now see themselves as second-class citizens in the eyes of the government are not making it up…They are now told by government officials, college administrators, and corporate human resources managers—to get in line behind minority applicants for admission to elite colleges and for employment and promotion in attractive white-collar jobs. Well-to-do Whites can find ways to circumvent this problem, but working-class and middle-class Whites cannot…It has long been my view…that aggressive affirmative action is a poison leaking into the American experiment. We are now dealing with nearly sixty years of accumulated toxin. It is not the only cause of the present crisis, but it is a central one.

I think it is fair to conclude that the American job market is indeed racially biased. A detached observer might even call it systemic racism. The American job market systematically discriminates in favor of racial minorities other than Asians.

The main purpose of Murray’s book, however, is to inform the public and policy makers on two important truths that cannot be ignored for a rational and just society.

First, although the overlap of cognitive abilities (intelligence) among self-identified racial or ethnic groups is tremendous, many decades of careful scientific research give overwhelming evidence that there are persistently significant differences in the averages and distributions for cognitive abilities in these groups.

Government, academic, economic, military, and other policies that do not consider this give unwise and unjust advantages to the lower testing groups and unjustly disadvantage higher testing groups. A society that rewards racial and gender preferences hurts itself and will probably decline.  The American Creed emphasizing individual character and merit benefits the nation and most individuals.

Most Americans would like to believe that all races and ethnic groups have the same average and distribution of cognitive abilities, and this wishful thinking is almost an ideology, but it is not based on decades of data and analytical, fact-driven science.

A large component of these differences is thought to be genetic, but some are rather obviously due to selective migration. There are other important factors that are not fully understood.  It is possible that these things will gradually change for reasons we do not now comprehend, but we cannot base near term decisions on uncertainties many decades away.

Cognitive tests are valuable because they are predictive. If they are not predictive, they fail the bias or practicality tests.

Cognitive ability tests are not only predictive of academic achievement, they are positively predictive for every job but especially analytically demanding jobs. They are also modestly predictive of income levels.

Perseverance, hard study, and hard work can overcome a lot of cognitive ability points but cannot move someone from average to a competent test pilot, doctor, chemical engineer, or accountant.

Murray gives the average scores and percentiles for Americans of Asian, European, Latin American, and African origin on page 38 of his 151-page book. I would prefer not to risk over-sensationalizing such numbers, but only to say that, for example, if we analyzed the most recent medical school graduates in the United States, we might find Asians the most over-represented, whites over-represented, Latinos a bit under-represented, and blacks under-represented but still common.

This would not be the result of discrimination but of differences in the upper ranges of cognitive abilities.

Non-Hispanic whites and Asians make up 66 percent of the U.S. population, but we could expect them to be 85 percent of those with cognitive abilities competitive for medical school.

Most people insist on knowledgeable doctors with good judgment. If we do not include cognitive ability as a variable in evaluating human resources, we are headed for academic, economic, military, and health services ruin.

Again, differences in average cognitive ability can change for various reasons over time, but usually a fairly long period of time. The gap between white and black test scores shrank by one-third from 1972 to 1987 but then leveled off. What was happening from 1972 to 1987 that stopped?

Two parent families apparently make a big difference in educational achievement.

Latino scores are getting better because recent immigrants include many with higher skill levels.

Asians continue to improve because Asian migration is highly selective for high technology jobs.

The simple solution is operating according to the American Creed of judging individual character and merit and tossing quota pressures in the trash can of failed and dangerous ideas.

The Second reality that we must face is that there are significant racial and ethnic differences in the incidence of violent crimes. Most people of all races are generally law-abiding, but the differences are important for evaluating public law enforcement policy.

Murray studied the violent crime arrest rates for thirteen cities. The ratio of black to white arrests averaged 9.6 to one. The worst cities were Washington at 19.9 to one and Chicago at 14.5 to one. The ratio of Latino arrests to white averaged 2.7 to one. Many Hispanic crime rates, however, are quite low.

Murder rates in these cities showed blacks were at least 18 times more likely to be arrested for murder than whites, and Latinos were about 5 times more likely to be arrested for murder than whites.

Contrary to the supposition of many, violent crime offenders are more likely to be arrested if they are white, for example, 22 percent more likely for robbery and 13 percent more likely for aggravated assault.

There is in reality a bias against whites, probably because greater legal and public relations precautions are called for in dealing with minority offenders.

According to the Federal Bureau of Justice Statistics, black violence against whites is 5.7 times more common than white violence against blacks. A police officer is 18.5 times more likely to be killed by a black assailant than an unarmed black man is to be killed by a police officer.

There are many other considerations and many nuances that deserve more mention on these subjects, but they cannot be adequately covered in a single short article.

Our task now is to reject false narratives and virtue-signaling and seek truth measured by reality.

We must, of course, reject CRT, which insists on equal outcomes that lead only to folly, misery, and tyranny.

Wisdom can only be found in truth. In that spirit, we must embrace the principles of freedom that preserve the dignity and rights of individuals and the common good.

Picture014

Link to The Times Examiner website: www.timesexaminer.com

Link to Mike Scruggs's columns at The Times Examinerhttps://www.timesexaminer.com/mike-scruggs

Link to Mike's book website:

https://www.universalmediainc.org/books/. His books are also available on Amazon and other places.

H.R. 4994 Will Defile and Dishonor Sacred Battlefields

H.R. 4994 Will Defile and Dishonor Sacred Battlefields
Called the "No Federal Funding for Confederate Symbols Act," It Removes Monuments to Southern War Dead in All National Parks and on All Federal Public Land
This Is Nothing But the Shameful Use of Hatred for Political Gain
It's Based on the Sponsor's Extreme Ignorance of History
But Despite How Vile This Legislation Is, Cowardly Stupid Republicans Have Destroyed More Southern Memorials than Antifa, BLM and the SPLC Combined, Times 100
by Gene Kizer, Jr.

U.S. Representative Adriano Espaillat of New York's 13th District, who brags everywhere online that he is the first formerly illegal immigrant elected to the United Stated Congress,1 has once again introduced an unconscionable and unhistorical piece of trash into the United States House of Representatives as H.R. 4994.2

This is an immoral piece of legislation that desecrates sacred battlefields on which hundreds of thousands of Americans died in a war that killed 750,000 and maimed over a million.

Most likely, Espaillat has given no thought to the long-term hatred and division this kind of legislation promotes. He is feeding the Democrat Party hate monster.

Or maybe he has thought long and hard about it, and this is exactly what he wants. He has introduced this legislation before.

George Orwell warned in 1984 about erasing history so that a society is unmoored, untethered, removed from its foundation and thus easy to control the way Big Brother controlled Oceania. Knowledge of the past, like the roots of a tree, give a society its strength and confidence. That's why destroying history is a prime Marxist Communist tactic.

Of course, human nature never changes and Orwell and the people alive in the 1930s and '40s lived through this exact same thing. That's why Orwell wrote: "Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the PRESENT controls the past." (emphasis added).

For Espaillat and his party, it is about putting forth a fraudulent historical dialog in the present so they can interpret the past in ways that benefit them politically (like the constant emphasis on slavery, which is part of our history but does not define our country in any way), thus they control the future with the past.

That's why "President" Biden and so many other Democrats support the 1619 Project though its primary thesis -- that the American Revolution was fought because the Colonists thought the Brits were about to abolish slavery -- is a total, complete and utter fraud without one iota of evidence. It was fabricated by a racist, Nikole Hannah-Jones,3 then of the New York Times, whose goal she has admitted repeatedly is reparations.

She still got a Pulitzer Prize for the 1619 Project, mainly because the Pulitzer board is controlled by the New York Times and Washington Post.

Both of those newspapers also got Pulitzers for reporting as serious news the hoax that Trump colluded with Russia, which proves that Pulitzer Prizes are corrupt and meaningless today.

I don't agree with Espaillat on anything though he seems like a nice enough guy. He replaced Charlie Rangel of New York who I also did not agree with on anything but he too was a personable fellow.

Espaillat was born in Santiago, Dominican Republic in 1954. He came to America with his mother and sister in 1964 at nine or 10 (accounts vary). They overstayed their visas and were illegal for a while but eventually got green cards. Espaillat became a naturalized American citizen in the early 1980s (his late 20s).

U.S. Rep. Adriano Espaillat, D. NY, sponsor of H.R. 4994, 8-10-21.
U.S. Rep. Adriano Espaillat, D. NY, sponsor of H.R. 4994, 8-10-21.
He has a large online presence and there are many references to his former illegal immigrant status and his being the first formerly illegal immigrant in the U. S. Congress, but I could find no reference to his naturalization ceremony and his becoming an American citizen until I found a Real Clear Politics article from 2016 that mentioned with no detail that he had become a citizen. It states he "stayed without documentation for more than a year after his visa expired. He ultimately became a U.S. citizen in his late 20s."4

It is as if he is proud to have once been an illegal immigrant but not proud to be a naturalized U.S. citizen which is surprising because so many who become naturalized citizens are seen at the most touching, wonderful ceremonies, crying, so happy to now be American citizens.

Of course, so many in the Marxist socialist Democrat Party today hate America so celebrating being illegal verses being a happy new American citizen is typical from their standpoint.

Espaillat "worked as a community activist before becoming the first Dominican-American elected to the New York legislature in 1996. He stayed in the General Assembly for more than a decade before moving up to the state Senate in 2010." After Rangel retired, Espaillat won Rangel's House seat and took office in 2017.

Espaillat is a liberal and most of his pet issues are social justice and immigration issues.

It appears he is influenced by the Southern Poverty Law Center from the way his bill is written. Why would a New Yorker make it his annual crusade to erase Confederate monuments that he admits are mostly in the South?

Sec. 2. FINDINGS., items (3) and (4) both regurgitate the SPLC's wildly inaccurate hate campaign against all things Confederate with the SPLC's listing of Confederate memorials so that they can be targets for local vandals and activist efforts.

SPLC's campaign is like something the Nazis would have done in Germany to get rid of all Jewish memorials. Erase the history and degrade the historical memory of your political enemies and you weaken them. To the SPLC it is never live and let live, and support each other as Americans. They always act like they want to kill you, vandalize your property, steal from you, erase you.

However, Sec. 2, items (1) and (2) are a provable fraud. Here is the entire bill, calling out Espaillat's extreme ignorance of history:

117th CONGRESS
1st Session

H. R. 4994

To prohibit the use of Federal funds for Confederate symbols, and for other purposes.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

August 10, 2021

Mr. Espaillat (for himself, Mr. Evans, Mrs. Beatty, Ms. Meng, Mr. García of Illinois, Ms. Bass, Ms. Schakowsky, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Mr. Raskin, Mr. Cleaver, Mr. Brown, Ms. Lee of California, Ms. Velázquez, Mr. Pocan, Mr. Rush, Mr. Huffman, Ms. Jacobs of California, Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney of New York, Mr. Costa, Mr. McNerney, Mr. Kilmer, Ms. Tlaib, Ms. Escobar, Ms. Brownley, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Carson, Ms. Norton, Ms. Kelly of Illinois, Mr. Sean Patrick Maloney of New York, and Mr. Pappas) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committees on Armed Services, and Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned


A BILL

To prohibit the use of Federal funds for Confederate symbols, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the “No Federal Funding for Confederate Symbols Act”.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds the following:

(1) The Confederate battle flag is one of the most controversial symbols from U.S. history, signifying a representation of racism, slavery, and the oppression of African Americans.

[Publisher's Note: Item (1) above, as stated, is a complete fraud. The Confederate battle flag is a more pure symbol of American patriotism and valor than the American flag. I love our American flag, and it flies in front of my house, but it is a national flag that flew over all the New England slave ships carrying on the slave trade and making millions for New York, Boston and the North.
Rep. Espaillat's New York, in 1862, during the War Between the States, 54 years after the slave trade had been outlawed by the United States Constitution, was STILL, along with Boston, Massachusetts the largest slave-trading ports on the planet. New York, Boston and other New England cities were still making millions in the slave trade here and in other places around the world and they did so until 1888 when Brazil finally abolished slavery.
Here's what W. E. B Du Bois wrote in his book, The Suppression of the African Slave-trade to the United States of America, 1638-1870 (New York: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1896), reprint; 179. He is quoting his footnote #2, page 179, from "The Slave-Trade in New York" in the Continental Monthly, January, 1862, p. 87:

The number of persons engaged in the slave-trade, and the amount of capital embanked in it, exceed our powers of calculation. The city of New York has been until of late [1862] the principal port of the world for this infamous commerce; although the cities of Portland and Boston are only second to her in that distinction. Slave dealers added largely to the wealth of our commercial metropolis; they contributed liberally to the treasures of political organizations, and their bank accounts were largely depleted to carry elections in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut.

The Confederate battle flag had nothing whatsoever to do with race, slavery or the oppression of African Americans. That is an SPLC and Democrat Party lie.
The Confederate battle flag was a command and control device on some of the bloodiest battle fields in world history. The color bearer was shot down always almost immediately but it was such an honor to carry the flag somebody always picked up the blood soaked flag and advanced it.
Battle flags were often made from the clothing of a loved one or something from back home. They were sacred in the minds of the men who loved them and willingly died for them on hallowed battle fields across the country that Rep. Espaillat and the Marxist Democrats want to desecrate.
The Confederate battle flag never flew over a slave ship as the American flag did for 80 years after the Constitution outlawed the slave trade.
The Confederate battle flag is the most pure symbol of valor and the fight for independence in American history, and it is on the same level in terms of honor as the American flag.
You can argue that the Confederate battle flag is on a higher level than the American flag because the battle flag was always just a soldier's flag on bloody battlefields. It was never a national flag.
We can not help it that the battle flag was such a powerful symbol of honor and valor that many groups wanted to be associated with it and carried it, and some, like the Ku Klux Klan today, have no claim to it whatsoever.
The Confederate battle flag until recent years was ubiquitous in the South and even in the North, among blacks and whites. All regions thought of it in terms of nothing but honor and valor.
As late as the 1990s, national polls showed an overwhelming majority of people considered the battle flag simply a symbol of the pride of Southerners in their gallant ancestry, and even black people polled showed a majority had no problem with the Confederate battle flag.
The NAACP's constant campaign against the flag in the 1980s and today the SPLC's constant hate toward everything Confederate has changed some minds as those activist organizations knew would happen because they have the fake news media that nobody trusts in their pockets; but that does not change the true meaning of the Confederate battle flag.
It was a soldier's flag on some of the bloodiest battlefields in all of history and its honor is above reproach.]

(2) The Confederate flag and the erection of Confederate monuments were used as symbols to resist efforts to dismantle Jim Crow segregation, and have become pillars of Ku Klux Klan rallies.

[Publisher's Note: Item (2) above is another Espaillat fraud and lie and it displays Espaillat's ignorance of history.

Jim Crow laws started in the North and were there for years before moving South. The South was a bi-racial society always. The North was, as people like Espaillat would say today, "white supremacist," as well as slave traders.

See "The Real Jim Crow, Now Northern Jim Crow Laws Moved South" by Mike Scruggs (link in footnote below).5

Here are several pictures from the height of the Jim Crow era in the early 20th century showing the Ku Klux Klan with only the American flag. No Confederate battle flags in sight.

1-45K
2-39K
3-43K
4-44K
Ku Klux Klan with the American flag, early 20th century, height of Jim Crow era.
Ku Klux Klan with the American flag, early 20th century, height of Jim Crow era.

Also see esteemed historian C. Vann Woodward, The Strange Career of Jim Crow, A Commemorative Edition with a new afterword by William S. McFeely, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 17. Woodward writes:

"One of the strangest things about the career of Jim Crow was that the system was born in the North and reached an advanced age before moving South in force."]

(3) There are at least 1,503 symbols of the Confederacy in public spaces, including 109 public schools named after prominent Confederates, many with large African-American student populations.

(4) There are more than 700 Confederate monuments and statues on public property throughout the country, the vast majority in the South. These include 96 monuments in Virginia, 90 in Georgia, and 90 in North Carolina.

SEC. 3. FEDERAL FUNDS RESTRICTION.

(a) In General.—Except as provided in subsection (c), no Federal funds may be used for the creation, maintenance, or display, as applicable, of any Confederate symbol on Federal public land, including any highway, park, subway, Federal building, military installation, street, or other Federal property.

(b) Confederate Symbol Defined.—The term “Confederate symbol” includes the following:

(1) A Confederate battle flag.

(2) Any symbol or other signage that honors the Confederacy.

(3) Any monument or statue that honors a Confederate leader or soldier or the Confederate States of America.

(c) Exceptions.—Subsection (a) does not apply—

(1) if the use of such funds is necessary to allow for removal of the Confederate symbol to address public safety; or

(2) in the case of a Confederate symbol created, maintained, or displayed in a museum or educational exhibit.

Rep. Espaillat's bill is political hate and he is ignorant of American history.

Somebody ought to do some digging and see how much money he is getting from the Southern Poverty Law Center and other groups to promote this hateful political fraud.

Republicans are worse than this.

The most dishonorable man in the United States Senate, Oklahoma Republican Sen. Jim Inhofe, then head of the Republican-controlled Senate Armed Services Committee in 2020, promised President Trump he would not change the names of United States Army bases in the South such as Fort Bragg and Fort Benning.

President Trump did not want the base names changed because we won two world wars from those bases and others. Most of those Confederate base names were a century old.

But INCREDIBLY STUPID AND DISHONEST JIM INHOFE, showing that he has NO HONOR or character, marshaled through Elizabeth Warren's request to change all the base names in the South from their current Confederate names.

The Confederate base names in the South were a gesture of reconciliation from the Union Army and Federal Government to the South after the War Between the States to bring our great nation back together. As such, they, themselves, are history lessons, but Inhofe is a dishonorable fool and traitor to his then president and party.

When his NDAA was announced which required the base names be changed, it happened just before the two senate runoffs in Georgia in January of this year and with two bases in Georgia -- legendary Fort Benning, and Fort Gordon -- many many Georgians were DISGUSTED with Republicans and did not vote in the runoffs.

Who can blame them. You support the Republican Party with money and voting and campaigning with all your might then Republicans like Inhofe FU*K you over in order to give Elizabeth Warren a victory over Republican voters.

HOW STUPID CAN YOU BE?

If you are Jim Inhofe, the answer is stupid to infinity and as stupid as he is characterless and dishonorable.

And as a result, all of us have to pay for Inhofe's lying and lack of character, and Democrats win.

Thanks IDIOT INHOFE, the most dishonorable man in the United States Senate and the STUPIDEST REPUBLICAN IN HISTORY.

It was not just the base names, it was all things Confederate on the military posts so all street names, memorial names, building names, everything. Jim Inhofe and the Republicans have destroyed more Southern memorials than Antifa, Black Lives Matter and the SPLC combined, times 100.

The monument destroyers are mostly Republican whose voters are way better than they are getting from the lying, despicable national party.

The national Republican Party is a cowardly disgrace but it is possible to influence them. They MUST be made to respect Confederate war memorials and they can be. Their voters are in the red state South.

We have GOT to get through to them. There is no hope with racist, woke Marxist Communist Democrats but there is still hope with Republicans who are only stupid and cowardly. We have to MAKE them wake up, open their eyes and start serving their voters once and for all.

The time is way past for being nice. It is time to RAISE HOLY HELL.

Notes:

1 "Alumnus Adriano Espaillat, First Dominican American And Formerly Undocumented Immigrant To Serve In Congress, Named Queens College 2020 Commencement Speaker", January 29, 2020, Alumnus Adriano Espaillat, First Dominican American and Formerly Undocumented Immigrant to Serve in Congress, Named Queens College 2020 Commencement Speake – CUNY Newswire, accessed 8-26-21.

2 H.R.4994 - No Federal Funding for Confederate Symbols Act, https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/4994/text, accessed 8-26-21.

3 Jordan Davidson, June 25, 2020, "In Racist Screed, NYT’s 1619 Project Founder Calls ‘White Race’ ‘Barbaric Devils,’ ‘Bloodsuckers,’ Columbus ‘No Different Than Hitler’",

https://thefederalist.com/2020/06/25/in-racist-screed-nyts-1619-project-founder-calls-white-race-barbaric-devils-bloodsuckers-no-different-than-hitler/, accessed 8-26-21.

4 James Arkin, RCP Staff, November 17, 2016, "New Lawmaker Was Once an Undocumented Immigrant", https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/11/17/new_lawmaker_was_once_undocumented_immigrant.html, accessed 8/26/21.

5 Mike Scruggs, June 23, 2021, "The Real Jim Crow, How Northern Jim Crow Laws Moved South", https://www.charlestonathenaeumpress.com/the-real-jim-crow-how-northern-jim-crow-laws-moved-south-guest-post-by-leonard-m-mike-scruggs/, accessed 8-26-21.