Secession, North and South

Secession, North and South

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

This we deny.

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

Neither allegation is true.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Virginia, the mother of States and of Presidents, declared that "The powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States, may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression," and that "every power not granted thereby remains with them (the people) and at their will."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

2 Andrews, footnote, page 23.

3 Andrews, footnote, page 210.

4 Andrews, page 153.

5 Andrews, page 162.

6 Andrews, page 212.

7 Andrews, page 61.

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

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

by Gene Kizer, Jr.

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

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

The Georgia Minutemen have been promoting this approach too.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our country has benefited mightily from Southern patriotism and blood.

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

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

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

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

[T]he overall mortality rate for the South exceeded that of any country in World War I and that of all but the region between the Rhine and the Volga in World War II.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We should get public support from veterans organizations.

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

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

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

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

She is, however, more intelligent that Jim Inhofe.

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

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

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

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


For the Sake of the Second Amendment, and State and Local Republicans, We Should Still Vote Republican

For the Sake of the Second Amendment,
and State and Local Republicans, We Should
Still Vote Republican

by Gene Kizer, Jr.

[PUBLISHER'S NOTE: Also included with this article is a brilliant piece entitled "Overcoming the Court's Abdication in Texas V. Pennsylvania" by conservative attorneys William J. Olson and Patrick M. McSweeney" dated December 24, 2020. It was first published in The Western Journal under title "TWJ Exclusive: New Legal Memo Brings Hope to Trump Supporters This Christmas". It is relevant to this article.]

The national Republican Party is as STUPID as you can get. Their poster child for stupidity is Sen. James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma.

Inhofe, who is chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, gave Elizabeth Warren a huge victory over millions of Republican voters in the South when he allowed her Section 377 into the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021, which requires that the names of century old U.S. Army bases in the South, such as Fort Benning and Fort Bragg, be changed.

Inhofe didn't need to do this. He has a Republican majority on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and President Trump is vehemently against it, but, again, Inhofe is an idiot.

Republicans desperately need voters to come out and vote in the Georgia Senate runoff in one week, which will determine who controls the U.S. Senate, yet Inhofe just spit in the faces of Republicans by guaranteeing that the two U.S. Army bases in Georgia — Legendary Fort Benning, Home of the Infantry, near Columbus, Georgia; and Fort Gordon, near Grovetown — will be forced to change their names, remove all monuments, change street and building names, and remove any mention of the Confederate ancestry of Georgians and other Southerners.

That ancestry means a great deal to tens of millions of Southerners who always vote Republican.

How are Republicans in Georgia supposed to get fired up to go vote in the runoff when Inhofe and the Republican Party has just spit in their faces and humiliated them?

Elizabeth Warren hates Republican voters. They are "Deplorables" to her and Hillary and the rest, ad nauseam.

To Warren's Massachusetts Puritan sensibilities, Republicans are all racist hayseeds for her to look down on, yet Inhofe just sided with her against President Trump and Republican voters.

The stupidity of the Republican Party knows no bounds.

Here's what President Trump said about Inhofe this past July:

Trump tweeted July 24th that he had spoken to Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe, Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, "who has informed me that he WILL NOT be changing the names of our great Military Bases and Forts, places from which we won two World Wars (and more!)."1

Inhofe LIED to President Trump and he lied to us when he said:

We're going to see to it that provision doesn't survive the bill. I'm not going to say how at this point.2

Elizabeth Warren is proud of her victory over Inhofe as she degrades him and millions of Republican voters who cherish their ancestors for fighting, sacrificing, bleeding and dying by the hundreds of thousands when the South was invaded.

That invasion occurred so that Elizabeth Warren's New England and the other Northern States could establish their economic control over the country. It had nothing to do with ending slavery.

It was about the same money and power that all wars are fought over as the North's War Aims Resolution clearly states. It was about preserving the Union, the source of Northern wealth and power, not ending slavery.

It was also about the Corwin Amendment for which Lincoln lobbied the states hard. It left blacks in slavery forever, even beyond the reach of Congress.

Of course, I don't even need to mention the six slave states that fought for the Union the entire war. If it was a war to end slavery, Lincoln would have started with his own slave states but he deliberately exempted them from the Emancipation Proclamation.

Elizabeth Warren gloats and rubs stinking manure into the faces of Inhofe and Republican voters:3


An intelligent person would know that ANYTHING from Elizabeth Warren would be revolting to the Republican base, but, then, there's Jim Inhofe, Elizabeth Warren and the Democrat Party's best friend. He is certainly no friend of President Trump or Republican voters.

What an insult to the patriotism and Southern blood spilled winning all of America's wars since the end of the War Between the States.

Around 44% of the United States Army today are Southerners, though the South is only 36% of the American population.4

President Trump has been the strongest supporter of Southern history, heritage and culture maybe in all of American history, and he has paid a price for it by the fraud and lies of the fake news media.

The Charlottesville violence shows how utterly corrupt the news media is because President Trump was perfect, and it is on video. Every word he said was perfect.

He said there were good people on both sides and he meant good people among the leftist protestors, and good people there to support the statue of Gen. Robert E. Lee.

Trump was crystal clear and it is irrefutable. There is no other way to interpret it.

The mainstream media in American in this day and age is the enemy of our country and democracy. They are abject liars, censors and suppressors of important news if it hurts the Democrat Party. Nobody should believe anything in the media without intense scrutiny.

The local news is sometimes accurate and non-biased but everything else is a horror designed to support the race-obsessed Democrat Party.

The associated press leads the way with its capitalization of the B in black, for black people, while leaving the w in white, for white people, lower case.

The associated press (which nobody should capitalize) is a propaganda organization that is in most newspapers across the country every day regurgitating the racist, woke identity politics of the Democrat Party.

We Should Still Vote Republican

As despicable as the Republican Party is (not counting President Trump, of course), we should still think clearly about the current situation and not shoot ourselves in the leg, though the temptation is mighty to lash out and punish national Republicans.

First, REPUBLICANS ARE GREAT ON THE STATE LEVEL and in state positions such as governor (with the exception of the cowardly Brian Kemp of Georgia, who is owned by Stacey Abrams).

There are Republican legislatures in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia and Wisconsin, and they still may play a big role in delivering the election of 2020 to the legitimate winner, President Donald J. Trump. Republicans have a majority of the State Houses nationwide.

Republican state legislatures have written good legislation in many places in the country protecting Confederate and other important historical memorials, statues, monuments, street names, etc.

Think about Virginia when in the hands of a Republican legislature. There was glorious Monument Avenue and all the Confederate statues, and Gen. Lee in the Capitol.

Today, since Democrats have taken over, woke Richmond is a bloodbath of destruction and anarchy, a horror of hate that will never heal, a true American disgrace.

We can be proud of the good Republicans in state legislatures and state offices across the country and should enthusiastically support them, vote for them, and force ourselves to vote for the national party because of them and President Trump.

Another HUGE thing is the Second Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms, which national Republicans support. They get it right on this one and will strongly defend the Second Amendment, while Democrats will destroy it.

Democrats will continue attacking gun and ammunition manufacturers and everybody associated with firearms. Their frivolous law suits will bankrupt the industry and they will destroy the Second Amendment that way.

Can you imagine how horrible it would be if you could not own a gun with which to protect your wife and children, your loves ones?

What if you had to rely on the government to protect you as political as it is today? You could end up like Mark and Patricia McCloskey in St. Louis, prosecuted, instead of rescued by the government. We would live in an even greater tyranny than we have now.

People in Europe and other places don't have firearms with which to defend themselves, even though self-defense and the defense of one's home and loved ones is the most basic human right.

How can you do that without a firearm in this violent world we live in as leftists defund the police, do away with bail, and let millions of criminals (and good Democrat voters) out on the street?

A few years ago, there was a terrorist attack on, if I recall correctly, the London Bridge, in London, England. Some of the terrorists ended up hiding in a pub but the patrons could do nothing but throw beer bottles at them. Good British citizens were at the mercy of filthy murdering terrorists when in a sane country, the terrorists would be at the mercy of armed British citizens.

Republicans empower citizens and not criminals. Democrats make no distinction.

Republicans will strengthen the Second Amendment so that American citizens can defend themselves and their loves ones with lethal force if necessary. There is no question about Republican commitment to the Second Amendment, and that is huge.

Other good things that Republicans will defend are the unborn. Republican legislation nationally and in states, keeps evil Democrats like Ralph "blackface" Northam, governor of Virginia (but more like fuhrer than governor) from killing babies after they have been born, as he has advocated; or killing babies as they are being born, as the New York legislature approved.

The strong support for our military and capitalism are other good reasons to keep voting Republican despite their enormous shortcomings.

We just have to hold them more accountable with Southern history. We should raise money and lobby them and make it clear, we do NOT change Confederate names of anything in the South, EVER.

Those names represent honor and valor, and if you don't understand that, you are a politically correct, woke fool who is unworthy of arguing with. You must be defeated politically. Period.

Actually, the base names are a rare exception where we have to defend Southern history on a national level. Most Southern history is preserved in state legislatures where Republicans rule and are an outstanding party. They deserve strong support from us.

Right now, we should definitely vote for the two Senate candidates in Georgia's runoff, January 5th, Georgia's current senators Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue.

President Trump is holding a rally in Dalton, Georgia on Monday, January 4th, and he wants us to support Loeffler and Perdue, and we should.

It ain't over for President Trump, who is the legitimate winner of the 2020 election.

If he is able to prevent Democrat Party and media corruption from disenfranchising his 74 million American voters, then Trump might be able to get Elizabeth Warren's Section 377 taken out of the NDAA for 2021, or somehow change it.

The following outstanding article by William J. Olson and Patrick M. McSweeney first appeared in The Western Journal December 24, 2020. It may be found at: I accessed it 12-30-20.

Here is an Editor's Note from The Western Journal that precedes this excellent article:

The Western Journal is presenting this memorandum, written by two prominent conservative legal scholars, essentially verbatim, with only enough editing to format it for the Op-Ed section of our website. This is the second memo by Messrs. Olson and McSweeney to be published exclusively by The Western Journal, and it, like the first, outlines a possible legal strategy for the Trump campaign to follow in the coming weeks. Prior to its publication here, it was sent to President Trump. — Ed. note

Overcoming the Court’s Abdication
in Texas v. Pennsylvania

William J. Olson & Patrick M. McSweeney
December 24, 2020

In refusing to hear Texas v. Pennsylvania, the U.S. Supreme Court abdicated its constitutional duty to resolve a real and substantial controversy among states that was properly brought as an original action in that Court. As a result, the Court has come under intense criticism for having evaded the most important inter-state constitutional case brought to it in many decades, if not ever.

However, even in its Order dismissing the case, the Supreme Court identified how another challenge could be brought successfully — by a different plaintiff. This paper explains that legal strategy. But first we focus on the errors made by the Supreme Court — in the hopes that they will not be made again.

Texas v. Pennsylvania

The Supreme Court declined to hear the challenge brought by the State of Texas against four states which had refused to abide by Article II, § 1, cl. 2 — the Presidential Electors Clause, which establishes the conditions and requirements governing the election of the President of the United States. In adopting that provision, the Framers vested in each State legislature the exclusive authority to determine the manner of appointing Presidential electors. The Framers’ plan was shown to be exceedingly wise, because we have now learned that allowing other state and private actors to write the election rules led to massive election fraud in the four defendant states. Individuals can be bought, paid for and corrupted so much easier than state legislatures.

In refusing to hear the case, the sole reason given was that Texas lacked “standing.” In doing so, all nine justices committed a wrong against: (i) Texas and the 17 states that supported its suit; (ii) the United States; (iii) the President; and (iv) the People.

The Court’s Many Wrongs in Texas v. Pennsylvania.

As Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist No. 78, courts have “neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment.” As such, in deciding cases courts have a duty to explain their decisions so the rest of us may know if they constitute arbitrary exercises of political power, or reasoned decisions of judicial power which the People can trust. In Texas v. Pennsylvania, all that the justices felt obligated to do was to state its — “lack of standing” — supported by a one sentence justification: “Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its election.” Resolving a case of this magnitude with one conclusory sentence is completely unacceptable.

The Supreme Court docket consists primarily of only those cases the High Court chooses to hear. However, just like when it agrees to decide a case, and in disputes where the original jurisdiction of the Court is invoked, it has a duty to decide cases properly brought to them. Two centuries ago, Chief Justice John Marshall construed the obligation of contracts clause in a decision where he wrote: “however irksome the task may be, this is a duty from which we dare not shrink.” Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. 518 (1819). Courts have a duty to resolve important cases even if they would prefer to avoid them. In Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), Marshall described “the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is” because “every right, when withheld, must have a remedy, and every injury its proper redress.” Abdication in a case of this sort is not a judicial option.

The Supreme Court’s reliance on standing as its excuse has had one positive result — provoking many to study the origins of that doctrine who may be surprised to learn that the word “standing” nowhere appears in the Constitution. There is compelling evidence to demonstrate it was birthed by big-government Justices during the FDR Administration to shield New Deal legislation, and to insulate the Administrative State from challenges by the People. Those who favored the Texas decision argue that standing is a conservative doctrine as it limits the power of the courts — but the true constitutionalist uses only tests grounded in its text. The true threshold constitutional test is whether a genuine and serious “controversy” exists between the States that could be resolved by a court.

The only reason given by the Supreme Court was: “Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its election.” In truth, Texas did make such a showing. When Pennsylvania violated the exclusive authority bestowed on state legislators in the Constitution’s Electors Clause, it opened the door to corruption and foreign intrigue to corrupt the electoral votes of Pennsylvania, and as Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist 68, that is exactly why the Framers created the Electoral College. During the 2020 election cycle, changes to the election process in Pennsylvania were made by judges, state office holders and election officials which would never have been made by its state legislature.

If the process by which Presidential Electors are chosen is corrupted in a few key states, like Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin by rigging the system in favor of one candidate, it becomes wholly irrelevant who the People of Texas support. That political reality presents a real “judicially cognizable interest” no matter what the Supreme Court decided. What happens in Pennsylvania does not stay in Pennsylvania, as electors from all States acting together select the President of the United States.

In the Federalist Papers, both James Madison and Alexander Hamilton recognized the need to combat “the spirit of faction” and the tendency of each State to yield to its immediate interest at the expense of national unity. They reasoned that the Constitution provided a solution to this centrifugal pressure while reserving a measure of sovereignty to each State. When differences arise between States that threaten to lead to disunion, the Republic can be held together, as Hamilton observed, either “by the agency of the Courts or by military force.” A constitutional remedy to enable the States to resolve their differences peacefully is the provision that permits any State to invoke the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to address and settle their differences.

In the vernacular, the Supreme Court blew it, threatening the bonds that hold the union together.

Round Two:  The United States Must Enter the Fray

Fortunately, that might have been only the first round in the fight to preserve the nation. A strategy exists to re-submit the Texas challenge under the Electors Clause to the Supreme Court in a way that even that Court could not dare refuse to consider. Just because Texas did not persuade the Justices that what happens in Pennsylvania hurts Texas does not mean that the United States of America could not persuade the justices that when Pennsylvania violates the U.S. Constitution, it harms the nation. Article III, § 2, cl. 2 confers original jurisdiction on the Supreme Court in any case suit brought by the United States against a state. Thus, the United States can and should file suit against Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin. Like the Texas suit, that new suit would seek an order invalidating the appointment of the electors appointed by those four defendant States that refused to abide by the terms of the Presidential Electors Clause. That would leave it to the state legislatures in those four states to “appoint” electors — which is what the Constitution requires.

When those four States violated the Constitution by allowing electors who had not been appointed in the manner prescribed by the state legislature, the United States suffered an injury. Indeed, there could hardly have been a more significant injury to the nation than that which corrupted its Presidential election.

The United States has a vital interest and a responsibility to preserve the constitutional framework of the Republic, which was formed by a voluntary compact among the States. As with any contractual relationship of participants in an ongoing enterprise, no party is entitled to ignore or alter the essential terms of the contract by its unilateral action.

The President who has sworn to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution has the right and the duty to order the U.S. Department of Justice bring such an action in the Supreme Court — and should do so quickly.

Reasons for Great Hope at Christmas

In rejecting the invocation by the State of Texas of the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to resolve the dispute between Texas and four other States that refused to abide by the terms of the Presidential Electors Clause, for now, a majority of the Justices foreclosed the use of that constitutional safeguard by Texas to provide a peaceful means of resolving the controversy that has deeply divided States and the citizens of this Republic as at no time since the 1860s.

That consequence is too dangerous to be allowed to stand.

If the same case previously brought by Texas were now brought by the United States of America, there is every reason to believe that the Supreme Court would be compelled to understand it must hear it and decide it favorably.

Although outcomes are never certain, it is believed and hoped that a majority of the Supreme Court could never take the position that the United States has no business enforcing the process established in the Constitution by which we select the one government official who represents all the People — The President of the United States.


(from "For the Sake of the Second Amendment, and State and Local Republicans, We Should Still Vote Republican")

1 "President Trump, GOP ally vow Confederate base names won't change", July 24, 2020,, accessed 7-29-20.

2 Ibid.

3 Elizabeth Warren's tweets come from Dissident Mama, "You don't want us? We don't want you!", Friday, December 18, 2020., accessed 12-30-20.

4 Historian Phil Leigh, "Exploding the Lost Cause Myth,", accessed 12/16/20.

Our Confederate Ancestors: The Christmas Raid of Gen. John Hunt Morgan

Merry Christmas!
A Series on the Daring Exploits of Our Confederate Ancestors in the War Between the States.
The Christmas Raid of Gen. John Hunt Morgan

by Robert L. Thompson
(a Confederate cavalryman who rode with Morgan)

Original article entitled "Morgan's Raid into Kentucky" by Robert L. Thompson, 2904 Pine Street, St. Louis, in Confederate Veteran magazine, Vol. 13, No. 12, December, 1905. Gen. Morgan's Christmas Raid was a non-stop two-week cavalry raid by 4,000 Confederates launching from Tennessee into Kentucky and back, each man carrying only "Horse and gun with forty rounds of cartridges." It took place from December 22, 1862 to January 5, 1863.

"Thunderbolt of the Confederacy," Gen. John Hunt Morgan, born in Alabama in 1825, spent most of his life in Kentucky.
"Thunderbolt of the Confederacy," Gen. John Hunt Morgan, born in Alabama in 1825, spent most of his life in Kentucky.

LATE IN DECEMBER, 1862, Gen. John H. Morgan, with nine regiments of mounted troops and one company of scouts, made what was known as his Christmas raid through Kentucky. There were Breckinridge, Chenault, Cluke, Duke, Gano, Grigsby, Johnson, Smith, and Ward, all regimental commanders, and Capt. Tom Quirk of the scouts. During Gen. Morgan's invasion of Kentucky the battle of Murfreesboro, Tenn., was fought between Gens. Bragg and Rosecrans. It was said at the time that Gen. Morgan's purpose for entering Kentucky was to get in the rear of Gen. Rosecrans's army, cut his communication, and otherwise menace him and draw his attention while Gen. Bragg attended to him in the front. Gen. Morgan's part of the work was well performed.

John Hunt Morgan.
John Hunt Morgan.

I was a private in Company F, 9th (Breckinridge's) Regiment. We left Alexandria, Tenn., in the night. Early next morning we had crossed the State line and were in Tompkinsville, Ky. Another day and night's hard ride brought us to Glasgow, where early in the morning we encountered a foe, who struck back with such force that our chief ordered us to withdraw, and by a rapid flank movement we passed around him and proceeded straight to the Louisville and Nashville Railroad at Munfordville. There we found the enemy strongly posted in a stockade. We had with us a little battery of three or four funs that Gen. Morgan named the "Bull Pups." Our usual method of attack was to drive in the pickets or shoot them down or get shot down, as some of our gallant advance guard did at Glasgow, then dismount, surround the garrison, fire a few shots with small arms, throw in a few shells from the battery, when the enemy, finding it useless to hold out longer, would display a white flag, and the job was finished.

John & Martha "Mattie" Morgan. She gave birth to a daughter after he was killed in 1864, her name, Johnnie Hunt Morgan.
John & Martha "Mattie" Morgan. She gave birth to a daughter after he was killed in 1864, her name, Johnnie Hunt Morgan.

Our next step was to parole the prisoners, destroy their guns, and move on to the next. Accompanying Gen. Morgan there was a young man, George A. Ellsworth, a telegraph operator, who would now and then cut the wire, attach his instrument, and send misleading dispatches to the Federal authorities in Louisville or Nashville. I saw him one day seated on the roadside with his battery attached to a wire fingering the key, while Gen. Morgan and staff sat on their horses about him. They all seemed to be in a good humor, as though they were indulging in humorous messages.

Morgan's Raiders.

Early on the morning of December 27, our regiment attacked a body of Federals in Elizabethtown, Ky. They had taken refuge in the courthouse and other buildings in the town. The battery was brought forward in a dash and took position on a little hill south of the town. Our regiment followed the artillery double-quick, and formed along the base of the hill between the battery and town, so that the shells thrown into town passed over our heads. We dismounted and advanced in full view and range of the enemy. We had to cross a narrow bottom through which ran a creek that was full to its banks, caused by incessant rain of the night before. We plunged through the water waist deep---at the place I crossed---holding our guns above our heads, and entered the town.

Map with details of the Christmas Raid.

As I passed along a street I remember keeping close to the wall of a house that I might be shielded from bullets, when three Federal soldiers came out of the house with guns and approached me. I said: "Surrender." They put their guns down, and I ordered them to the rear. I then entered the house they came out of, and found it to be a hotel with breakfast on the table, but saw no landlord or guests. Other Confederates came in, and together we ate the breakfast, and during the whole time we were eating the little battery on the hill was being worked to its full capacity. When we had finished our breakfast and went out on the street again, we saw white handkerchiefs tied to ramrods hanging out of the courthouse windows. We then knew that the boys in blue had surrendered, and I was glad. A member of my company told my comrades that when I saw the three Federal soldiers coming toward me with their guns I had thrown my gun down and rushed on them with my fists, demanding their surrender, but that was a joke. However, I never did tell the boys how badly scared I was at the time, but I do not mind telling it now.

Morgan next to his horse, Black Bess.
Morgan next to his horse, Black Bess.

After the prisoners were paroled and their guns destroyed, together with some other government property in the town, we moved out a few miles north of town, stopped, and fed our horses. If I remember correctly, nearly all of Gen. Morgan's force was bunched there that morning. While we were feeding Gen. Wolford's Federal cavalry came up and attacked our rear guard. Our regiment was ordered to form and assist in holding the enemy in check, while the main part of our little army passed the Rolling Fork, a swift-running stream immediately in our front. We met with some loss that morning, quite a number being wounded. Among the officers there was Col. Duke, who received a wound on his head from a fragment of a shell. We crossed the Rolling Fork in safety, and then went forward at a swifter gait than before. Gen. Wolford followed us, but he never caught up any more.

Morgan's 2nd KY Cav Regmt earlier in 1862, before Christmas Raid.
Morgan's 2nd KY Cav Regmt earlier in 1862, before Christmas Raid.

It was then on to Bardstown, within forty miles of Louisville then to Springfield and Lebanon, then south to Burksville, where we recrossed the Cumberland River, thence back to Tennessee again. I had no personal knowledge of what any of the other regiments did on the trip; I remember only the part that mine took. That the others performed their part well is quite certain, as it is well known that there were no drones or sluggards who rode with Morgan.

Reward poster issued a year later.
Reward poster issued a year later.

With the exception of Gano's and Ward's regiments, quite all of Morgan's men were Kentuckians. Most of Gano's were Texans, and all of Ward's were Tennesseans. With but few exceptions, Morgan's troopers were young men, quite a number being boys under age. Gen. Morgan was only thirty-eight. My colonel was twenty-six, and there was not an officer in the regiment whose age exceeded thirty, except one, and he was not over forty. Capt. Tom Henry Hines, of Company E, who escaped prison with Gen. Morgan one year later, was but twenty-one. In Company H there was little John Kemper, aged thirteen, who rode a pony and carried a carbine. I was sixteen, and the youngest soldier in my company.

Mort Kunstler print of John Hunt Morgan's Ohio Raid, July 14, 1863.
Mort Kunstler print of John Hunt Morgan's Ohio Raid, July 14, 1863.

If I am not mistaken, Gen. Morgan's official report of the expedition stated that we had been fourteen days in the saddle, and I can well believe it true; for if we ever stopped for any purpose, except to fight or feed our horses, I have no recollection of the time or place. There was no wagon train followed us loaded with commissary stores and camp equipage, not even an ordnance wagon or an ambulance. Horse and gun with forty rounds of cartridges was what each man started with. I supposed we were expected, if we should run short of ammunition, to capture what we needed, which we did, and more than we had use for. How we were expected to obtain food for ourselves, I do not know. It seems that the soldiers' needs of sleep and food were not considered; only the horse he rode must be fed. If from any cause we halted, night or day, for a few minutes, we slept during the interval. Stops were seldom made. It might be that the guide had lost his way, when we would stop to establish the right direction, etc. At such times we would snatch a moment's sweetest sleep, either leaning over on our horses' necks or dropping down on the cold earth, holding the horse by the bridle. The loss of sleep is very likely the cause of my recollection of its seeming more like a dream than a reality, although the services rendered were quite real and earnest. The command was "Go forward" and "Close up" all the time, night and day, through rain, snow, and mud; no rest or sleep, but a constant prodding forward. I do not remember the results accomplished, the loss or gain or victor's spoils. I only remember the arduous service and that most of us escaped, being thankful now that it is all past and will never happen again and that I am still alive and able to tell the tale.

Morgan's grave, in Lexington Cemetery, Lexington, KY. He was surprised in Greeneville, TN and killed Sept. 4, 1864.
Morgan's grave, in Lexington Cemetery, Lexington, KY. He was surprised in Greeneville, TN and killed Sept. 4, 1864.

BETRAYAL: Republicans in the Senate Guarantee US Army Base Names in the South WILL Change

Republicans in the Senate Guarantee U.S. Army
Base Names in the South WILL Change

No More Fort Benning Thanks to Senate Republicans
No More Fort Bragg Because STUPID Republicans Aligned with Elizabeth Warren Against Their Own Voters

How Stupid Can You Be

Despite President Trump's Brilliant, Strong Leadership,
the National Republican Party Is Doomed
They Are WOKE But Soon Will Be Irrelevant
by Gene Kizer, Jr.


I have been voting Republican for 50 years, and proudly so. I have voted in every election since I was 18, local, state and national. I have only voted for one Democrat in my life, a Senate candidate 45 years ago, and I still regret it.

But, except for President Trump, many national Republican leaders are stupid, cowardly and weak.

The national Republican Party is 100% responsible for the imminent changing of the names of United States Army bases in the South that were named mostly for Confederate generals as a powerful gesture of reconciliation in the years following the War Between the States, after 750,000 had died and another million were wounded.

Below, is Section 377 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021, and when you read it, you will be OUTRAGED at Senate Republicans who control the Senate and did not have to do this, whatsoever, yet went out of their way to include a provision by Elizabeth Warren to rename the bases.

Senate Republicans are too stupid to understand that all the red states that give the Republican Party its national power, are in the South.

President Trump understands, which is why he has defended the Confederate battle flag and Confederate monuments over and over, as the symbols of honor, patriotism and tribute to war dead that they are. He adamantly opposes renaming our Southern bases.

Those bases are, in some cases, a century old and helped us mightily to win two World Wars and numerous other conflicts. They train some of our nation's most elite troops. I know some of those troops, personally, and love them all deeply.

There is a practical and smart reason, too, that Southern bases are named for Confederate soldiers: Confederate soldiers, fighting for constitutional government and the rights of their sovereign states when they were invaded, exhibited valor such as the world had never seen despite being outnumbered four to one and outgunned 100 to one. They are the ancestors of Southerners serving today who were inspired by them to serve in much higher numbers than their peers from other regions, as the following proves:1

The military valor of the South is unsurpassed in the history of the world, and that's why Confederate named bases need to stay Confederate. That is what President Trump knows.

The death statistics in the War Between the States are now between 650,000 and 850,000. These are the widely accepted statistics of historian J. David Hacker of Binghamton University.2

Drew Gilpin Faust in her excellent book, This Republic of Suffering, Death and the American Civil War, uses the earlier statistics of 620,000 total deaths compiled by William F. Fox, and she writes that those deaths were "approximately equal to the total American fatalities in the Revolution, the War of 1812, the Mexican War, the Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II, and the Korean War combined.3

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

Faust says the rate of death "in comparison with the size of the American population, was six times that of World War II. A similar rate, about 2 percent, in the United States today would mean six million fatalities.4

Confederate soldiers "died at a rate three times that of their Yankee counterparts; one in five white Southern men of military age did not survive the Civil War.5

Faust quotes James McPherson who writes that "the overall mortality rate for the South exceeded that of any country in World War I and that of all but the region between the Rhine and the Volga in World War II.6

To personalize some of those statistics, Confederate Col. George E. Purvis was quoted in Confederate Veteran magazine, March, 1897, from an article he had written about Union Gen. Henry Van Ness Boynton and the Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park.

Gen. Boynton, with great respect for the courage of the Confederates he faced, wanted to make it a sacred memorial, not just to Union valor, but American valor.

Col. Purvis writes that Gen. Boynton and a friend had visited the Chickamauga battlefield on a quiet Sunday morning in the summer of 1888 and heard singing in a church nearby. The general's thoughts went from those sweet sounds to the hellish and "fearful horrors of that other Sunday, when the very demons of hell seemed abroad, armed and equipped for the annihilation of mankind" almost a quarter of a century earlier:7

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

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

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

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

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

Around 44% of the United States Army today are Southerners, though the South is only 36% of the American population.8

The patriotic South believes in America and our military, and they are enthusiastic to serve and die for it.

Of course, a liberal like Elizabeth Warren cares nothing about that but the DOD and United States Army should. President Trump does, but idiot Republican leaders like Sen. Jim Inhofe, are traitors to their own party and constituents.

This Southern military tradition goes back to America's founding, to the Revolutionary War, which was won in the South, and to the War of 1812 , also won in the South at the Battle of New Orleans while some traitorous New England States were collaborating with the British and committing treason with the Hartford Convention.

Unted States Army bases in the South, as I said, include Fort Benning, Georgia, Home of the Infantry;

United States Army, Fort Benning, Columbus, Georgia - Home of the Infantry.
United States Army, Fort Benning, Columbus, Georgia - Home of the Infantry.

and Fort Bragg, North Carolina, Home of The Airborne and Special Operations Forces.

United States Army, Fort Bragg, Fayetteville, North Carolina.
United States Army, Fort Bragg, Fayetteville, North Carolina.

Here is Section 377 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2021. It is a good bill except for Elizabeth Warren and Jim Inhofe's horrible, idiotic requirement to rename the Army bases in the South.

Prepare to be OUTRAGED.


Sen. James M. Inhofe is from Oklahoma where there are no Army bases named for Confederate soldiers. He is SOLELY responsible for the base names being changed. Republicans hold the Senate, and Inhofe is chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

He added the base name change provision then shepherded it through the Senate with Mitch McConnell's help.

Inhofe did not have to do that, but when he did, he GUARANTEED the base name changes would be in the final bill because it was in the House bill. If you have something in both the House and the Senate version of the bill, it has to be left in and reconciled by House and Senate negotiators.

Inhofe knew this but went against President Trump then lied to the public about it. Here's what President Trump said about Inhofe this past July:

Trump tweeted July 24th that he had spoken to Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe, Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, "who has informed me that he WILL NOT be changing the names of our great Military Bases and Forts, places from which we won two World Wars (and more!)."9

Inhofe LIED to President Trump and he lied to us when he said:

We're going to see to it that provision doesn't survive the bill. I'm not going to say how at this point.10

Inhofe KNEW he was LYING. That's why he didn't say how. He knew there was no "how." It couldn't be done because HE, Inhofe, put the base name change in the bill, then shepherded the bill through the Senate with Mitch McConnell's help.

That kind of lying, backstabbing BETRAYAL is what we get from Republican leaders in Congress, and it was completely unnecessary. Inhofe could have left it out and preserved the base names forever.

Inhofe is worse than Nikki Haley in South Carolina when she was Republican governor and used the Mother Emanuel AME Church murders by Dylann Roof to promote her career. She had no problem with the square, historically accurate Army of Northern Virginia battle flag on the State House grounds commemorating the 40,000 out of 60,000 South Carolina Confederate soldiers who were killed or wounded in the War Between the States when South Carolina was invaded, until she realized she could use them to advance her career. Over 20,000 were killed.

Don't let a tragedy go to waste as Democrat Rahm Emanuel famously said and Nikki Haley was listening.

She had that war memorial removed in disgrace and started the entire chain of Confederate monument removals across the country and the hatred and division that that has caused, but she didn't care. She had important personal goals to achieve.

She knew the battle flag next to the Confederate monument memorialized war dead and widows, orphans and the enormous suffering of Reconstruction. That flag represented the blood of hungry, barefoot South Carolinians who fought and were maimed and died when the state was invaded.

It had NOTHING to do with Dylann Roof, but that didn't matter. Virtue signaling Haley drooled over the media attention she would get by bullying the legislature and removing the flag, and it worked. She got her name out there and advanced her career on the suffering of people, the least of whom had more character than her.

Thank you Sen. Jim Inhofe for helping Elizabeth Warren while spitting in the faces of Republican voters.

Stupid Republicans think Confederate history is what their Democrat colleagues and the fake news media say it is, but they don't believe either of them on any other issue and they shouldn't. The Democrat Party is corrupt to the core as we have see with the first coup d'etat that led to the Mueller investigation and Russia Hoax and before that, the FBI spying on Trump's campaign, and now, with this huge widespread election fraud that has stolen the election from President Trump and given it to the most corrupt, undeserving candidate in history.

If this stands, this is the beginning of the end of our country and everybody knows it.

The 55 to 60% of the country who are non-liberal, non-Democrats, can be beat around for a while but they will sure as hell not take this long term, and not much longer.

Already we live in a tyranny of cancel culture and the obliteration of our First Amendment free speech rights by the fake news media, Google, Facebook and Twitter. They censor us, cancel us, and suppress all the news they don't want us to hear, such as Joe Biden and Hunter Biden's deep corruption with the Chinese and Ukranians and others. Polls show that at least 10% of Biden voters would not have voted for him had the New York Post stories about Hunter Biden's laptop and all the Biden corruption around the world that it revealed, not been deliberately suppressed until after the election.

Thanks to the Democrat Party and weak, STUPID Republicans, our country is now nearly as bad as Communist China. Google, Facebook, Twitter, and their executives who are getting ready to join the Biden administration, have destroyed the United States Constitution and our republic. Free speech is gone. They rule with violence and law breaking in the streets, and Democrats will enshrine mail-in voting in law, and Republicans will never win another election.

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

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

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

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

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

Inhofe's bill will cause Arlington National Cemetery to be renamed because Arlington is controlled by the NDAA each year. Arlington National Cemetery is on Gen. Robert E. Lee's estate. If Arlington's name escapes Inhofe's bill, certainly any mention of Robert E. Lee at Arlington National Cemetery won't, yet the cemetery is on land once called Arlington House and owned by Mary Anna Custis Lee, great-granddaughter of Martha Washington and wife of Robert E. Lee.

I guess mentioning Martha Washington is OK but any mention of Robert E. Lee and Mary Anna Custis Lee will have to go.

Do you see how SICK all this is? Thank you Democrat Party hatred of America and war on American history, and thank you Jim Inhofe.

Instead of destroying the history and grand heritage of Republican voters, Republican leaders in Congress, when they had the power, should have broken up Google, Facebook  and Twitter.

We all saw the employee meetings of Google where some of them were crying and vowed never to let a Republican win again.

Republicans didn't take them seriously and now Google, Facebook and Twitter have destroyed the Republican Party, stolen a presidency of the United States, and are now more powerful than the United States Constitution.

Republicans have allowed our country to become an abject tyranny and there is no way out.

Before the next four years are over, Democrats will enshrine into law mail-in voting so they can cheat every time like they did this time. This will go nicely with packing the Supreme Court and bringing in new Democrat states. We will be a one party country the way California is a one party state.

What a disgusting thought that is but you can thank chickenshit Republicans for it, and they are getting ready to pay a price.

President Trump is so loved because he is the first Republican to really fight.

A national Republican leader who fights is so refreshing to the Republican electorate because it is so rare in a party with so many who want to be loved by liberals and are willing to dishonor themselves to get there. Think John McCain and Mitt Romney and other RINOs.

The Republican Party SHINED under President Trump with so many brilliant accomplishments but now comes Jim Inhofe to put a black stain on them and weaken the structure so that Republican have to think, why the hell should I vote Republican? They don't represent me. Inhofe represents Elizabeth Warren and people who hate me.

Of course, President Trump is such a fighter and has governed so brilliantly, that the rank and file would follow him across a desert of fire if necessary, barefoot, with no water and with burning glass on the sand for hundreds of miles.

We are with you President Trump.

State Republicans in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin and other places better jump into action right now. They better do everything they can to root out election fraud and act according to the Constitution.

We must make sure that every single ballot cast in this election is legitimate, and none were scanned multiple times, no dead people voted, or illegal aliens.

Every time a fraudulent ballot was cast it disenfranchised a legitimate American voter.

We can not allow machines to flip votes from Trump to Biden. The corrupt Dominion machines in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin must be forensically examined and confirmed to be OK, or not, and if not, as a ton of evidence suggests, then electors must be chosen by the legislatures in those states as the Constitution requires.

The Supreme Court better get some guts too and stop acting like a cowardly group of undignified clowns scared of their own shadows. They better learn from Justices Thomas and Alito and stop letting the country down. Texas's law suit was a good one and laid all the corruption out. Every state in the Union has been severely damaged by the election fraud in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan, and the criminals must be held accountable.

This situation is a lot more serious than some are taking it. There is not going to be a shake hands with Biden and try harder next time.

Losing is OK but being cheated and robbed is NOT, and for the future of our country, can not and will not be tolerated under any circumstances.


1 Gene Kizer, Jr., "Republicans, There is No Downside to Defending Southern History," July 30, 2020,, accessed 12-17-20.

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

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

4 Ibid.

5 Ibid.

6 Faust, This Republic of Suffering, xii.

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

8 Historian Phil Leigh, "Exploding the Lost Cause Myth,", accessed 12/16/20.

9 "President Trump, GOP ally vow Confederate base names won't change", July 24, 2020,, accessed 7-29-20.

10 Ibid.

Don’t Mess with Texas! Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin at the Supreme Court

Don't Mess with Texas!
Texas Sues Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan
and Wisconsin at the Supreme Court

Texas Is Immediately Joined by 17 Other States.

by Gene Kizer, Jr.

The Law Suit Is Below and Is FASCINATING. It Lays Out Massive Election Fraud. President Trump Is Petitioning to Join the Suit too. Encourage YOUR State to Join in!

The outrageous election fraud of 2020 can not stand.

It must be litigated and criminals go to jail and, where applicable, be tried for treason and executed. The latter suits me best. Each execution would be an event to celebrate.

The illegalities of the 2020 election are bad enough but the suppression of legitimate news by Google, Facebook, Twitter and the "mainstream media" (I can't mention them without first wanting to throw up, then becoming enraged) also can not be tolerated.

We now know that the New York Post story about Hunter Biden's laptop and his allegedly corrupt influence peddling with China, Ukraine, and others, which was deliberately suppressed by Google, Facebook, Twitter, the NY Times, the Washington Post, NPR, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN (what a joke), The Atlantic, and all the rest of it, would have swung over 10% of Biden voters away from him. That alone would have given President Trump the election.

That 10% of Biden voters have said they would not have voted for Biden if they had they known of the allegations against Hunter and Joe Biden including the interview with Tony Bobulinski, whom Tucker Carlson interviewed for almost an hour before the election.

Bobulinski was, for a while, Hunter Biden's business partner. Bobulinski gave times, dates, amounts of money, and provided devastating evidence against Hunter and Joe Biden.

Bobulinski is sincere, honorable and imminently believable. That's why our despicable corrupt media covered it up.

American citizens deserved to know this but tyrannical, immoral Google, Facebook, Twitter and the fraudulent mainstream media, denied over half of us.

This is unconscionable corruption.

There are anti-trust suits now against Google and Facebook, and I hope soon against Twitter too. All should be broken up.

They are all worse than the Communist governments around the world. They are worst than Russian oligarchs and South American dictators.

We can not allow them to trample our First Amendment rights. Who the hell elected them to anything! They are despised by over half the country.

They are all hard-left partisans who hate us Deplorables with our God, guns and patriotism.

If the Supreme Court throws out illegal votes in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, or grants other relief to the plaintiffs such as ruling that the legislatures in those states should approve the electors -- WHICH IS UNQUESTIONABLY CONSTITUTIONAL -- then Trump wins because each of those four states has a Republican legislature meaning each has a Republican majority in both the House and Senate.

Right now the electoral count, which is a total fraud, is Trump 232, verses Biden, 306, but Georgia has 16 electoral votes, Pennsylvania, 20, Michigan, 16, and Wisconsin, 10. Together they total 62 electoral votes.

If you add those 62 to Trump's total -- because he did win those states -- after you read Texas's law suit, there will be no doubt in your mind -- and you remove those 62 from Biden, Trump wins 294 to 244. That is the legitimate count in the 2020 election.

Many people in the know believe this election is part of a "color revolution" which is used by the CIA and others against governments around the world at times. The corrupt election is stolen by massive fraud including with voting machines like the oft-mentioned Dominion Voting Systems with its ties to the Clinton Global Initiative and high up Democrat leaders and activists.

Dominion Voting Systems' machines were either pre-programmed with thousands of Biden votes already loaded before election day, and/or programmed to switch Trump votes to Biden after Trump reached a certain number, thus guaranteeing that Trump could not win.

In a color revolution, an election is stolen by fraud then there are massive demonstrations, violence and anarchy in the streets.

Of course, that is poised to happen here should Trump win back this election that has obviously been stolen.

When it does, President Trump should invoke the Insurrection Act and put down the threat with 100 times the force and violence being used by the criminals in the street. They should be arrested en mass and thrown in jail and the whole thing thoroughly investigated because this is treason that threatens our country's very existence.

It is not funny or OK any longer. The rule of law and legitimate government of the United States must prevail.

Here is Texas's brilliant law suit against Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin that is currently before the United States Supreme Court and has been joined by 17 other states who are protecting the votes of their citizens. Those votes have been nullified by the alleged corrupt, illegal Democrat Party machines in the biggest cities of Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

I want to warn you. This is some damn good reading.

Texas Law Suit Against Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin at SCOTUS, PAGE 1.
Texas Law Suit Against Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin at SCOTUS, PAGE 2.
Texas Law Suit Against Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin at SCOTUS, PAGE 3.
Texas Law Suit Against Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin at SCOTUS, PAGE 4.
Texas Law Suit Against Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin at SCOTUS, PAGE 5.
Texas Law Suit Against Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin at SCOTUS, PAGE 6.
Texas Law Suit Against Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin at SCOTUS, PAGE 7.

“[T]hat form of government which is best contrived to secure an impartial and exact execution of the law, is the best of republics.”
—John Adams


Our Country stands at an important crossroads. Either the Constitution matters and must be followed, even when some officials consider it inconvenient or out of date, or it is simply a piece of parchment on display at the National Archives. We ask the Court to choose the former.

Lawful elections are at the heart of our constitutional democracy. The public, and indeed the candidates themselves, have a compelling interest in ensuring that the selection of a President—any President—is legitimate. If that trust is lost, the American Experiment will founder. A dark cloud hangs over the 2020 Presidential election.

Here is what we know. Using the COVID-19 pandemic as a justification, government officials in the defendant states of Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (collectively, “Defendant States”), usurped their legislatures’ authority and unconstitutionally revised their state’s election statutes. They accomplished these statutory revisions through executive fiat or friendly lawsuits, thereby weakening ballot integrity. Finally, these same government officials flooded the Defendant States with millions of ballots to be sent through the mails, or placed in drop boxes, with little or no chain of custodyi and, at the same time, weakened the strongest security measures protecting the integrity of the vote—signature verification and witness requirements.

Presently, evidence of material illegality in the 2020 general elections held in Defendant States grows daily. And, to be sure, the two presidential candidates who have garnered the most votes have an interest in assuming the duties of the Office of President without a taint of impropriety threatening the perceived legitimacy of their election. However, 3 U.S.C. § 7 requires that presidential electors be appointed on December 14, 2020. That deadline, however, should not cement a potentially illegitimate election result in the middle of this storm—a storm that is of the Defendant States’ own making by virtue of their own unconstitutional actions.

This Court is the only forum that can delay the deadline for the appointment of presidential electors under U.S.C. §§ 5, 7. To safeguard public legitimacy at this unprecedented moment and restore public trust in the presidential election, this Court should extend the December 14, 2020 deadline for Defendant States’ certification of presidential electors to allow these investigations to be completed. Should one of the two leading candidates receive an absolute majority of the presidential electors’ votes to be cast on December 14, this would finalize the selection of our President. The only date that is mandated under the Constitution, however, is January 20, 2021. U.S. CONST. amend. XX.

Against that background, the State of Texas (“Plaintiff State”) brings this action against Defendant States based on the following allegations:


1.         Plaintiff State challenges Defendant States’ administration of the 2020 election under the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2, and the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

2.         This case presents a question of law: Did Defendant States violate the Electors Clause (or, in the alternative, the Fourteenth Amendment) by taking—or allowing—non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors?

3.         Those unconstitutional changes opened the door to election irregularities in various forms. Plaintiff State alleges that each of the Defendant States flagrantly violated constitutional rules governing the appointment of presidential electors. In doing so, seeds of deep distrust have been sown across the country. In the spirit of Marbury v. Madison, this Court’s attention is profoundly needed to declare what the law is and to restore public trust in this election.

4.         As Justice Gorsuch observed recently, “Government is not free to disregard the [Constitution] in times of crisis. … Yet recently, during the COVID pandemic, certain States seem to have ignored these long-settled principles.” Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, New York v. Cuomo, 592 U.S. ____ (2020) (Gorsuch, J., concurring). This case is no different.

5.         Each of Defendant States acted in a common pattern. State officials, sometimes through pending litigation (e.g., settling “friendly” suits) and sometimes unilaterally by executive fiat, announced new rules for the conduct of the 2020 election that were inconsistent with existing state statutes defining what constitutes a lawful vote.

6.         Defendant States also failed to segregate ballots in a manner that would permit accurate analysis to determine which ballots were cast in conformity with the legislatively set rules and which were not. This is especially true of the mail-in ballots in these States. By waiving, lowering, and otherwise failing to follow the state statutory requirements for signature validation and other processes for ballot security, the entire body of such ballots is now constitutionally suspect and may not be legitimately used to determine allocation of the Defendant States’ presidential electors.

7.         The rampant lawlessness arising out of Defendant States’ unconstitutional acts is described in a number of currently pending lawsuits in Defendant States or in public view including:

•         Dozens of witnesses testifying under oath about: the physical blocking and kicking out of Republican poll challengers; thousands of the same ballots run multiple times through tabulators; mysterious late night dumps of thousands of ballots at tabulation centers; illegally backdating thousands of ballots; signature verification procedures ignored; more than 173,000 ballots in the Wayne County, MI center that cannot be tied to a registered voter;ii

•         Videos of: poll workers erupting in cheers as poll challengers are removed from vote counting centers; poll watchers being blocked from entering vote counting centers—despite even having a court order to enter; suitcases full of ballots being pulled out from underneath tables after poll watchers were told to leave.

•         Facts for which no independently verified reasonable explanation yet exists: On October 1, 2020, in Pennsylvania a laptop and several USB drives, used to program Pennsylvania’s Dominion voting machines, were mysteriously stolen from a warehouse in Philadelphia. The laptop and the USB drives were the only items taken, and potentially could be used to alter vote tallies; In Michigan, which also employed the same Dominion voting system, on November 4, 2020, Michigan election officials have admitted that a purported “glitch” caused 6,000 votes for President Trump to be wrongly switched to Democrat Candidate Biden. A flash drive containing tens of thousands of votes was left unattended in the Milwaukee tabulations center in the early morning hours of Nov. 4, 2020, without anyone aware it was not in a proper chain of custody.

8.         Nor was this Court immune from the blatant disregard for the rule of law. Pennsylvania itself played fast and loose with its promise to this Court. In a classic bait and switch, Pennsylvania used guidance from its Secretary of State to argue that this Court should not expedite review because the State would segregate potentially unlawful ballots. A court of law would reasonably rely on such a representation. Remarkably, before the ink was dry on the Court’s 4- 4 decision, Pennsylvania changed that guidance, breaking the State’s promise to this Court. Compare Republican Party of Pa. v. Boockvar, No. 20-542, 2020 U.S. LEXIS 5188, at *5-6 (Oct. 28, 2020) (“we have been informed by the Pennsylvania Attorney General that the Secretary of the Commonwealth issued guidance today directing county boards of elections to segregate [late-arriving] ballots”) (Alito, J., concurring) with Republican Party v. Boockvar, No. 20A84, 2020 U.S. LEXIS 5345, at *1 (Nov. 6, 2020) (“this Court was not informed that the guidance issued on October 28, which had an important bearing on the question whether to order special treatment of the ballots in question, had been modified”) (Alito, J., Circuit Justice).

9.         Expert analysis using a commonly accepted statistical test further raises serious questions as to the integrity of this election.

10.       The probability of former Vice President Biden winning the popular vote in the four Defendant States—Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—independently given President Trump’s early lead in those States as of 3 a.m. on November 4, 2020, is less than one in a quadrillion, or 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000. For former Vice President Biden to win these four States collectively, the odds of that event happening decrease to less than one in a quadrillion to the fourth power (i.e., 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,0004). See Decl. of Charles J. Cicchetti, Ph.D. (“Cicchetti Decl.”) at ¶¶ 14-21, 30-31. See App. 4a-7a, 9a.

11.       The same less than one in a quadrillion statistical improbability of Mr. Biden winning the popular vote in the four Defendant States—Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin— independently exists when Mr. Biden’s performance in each of those Defendant States is compared to former Secretary of State Hilary Clinton’s performance in the 2016 general election and President Trump’s performance in the 2016 and 2020 general elections. Again, the statistical improbability of Mr. Biden winning the popular vote in these four States collectively is 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,0005. Id. 10-13, 17-21, 30-31.

12.       Put simply, there is substantial reason to doubt the voting results in the Defendant States. . . .

The above is a VERY SMALL portion of this lengthy lawsuit.
Download a PDF of the ENTIRE LAWSUIT by clicking here and send it to everybody you can! It is 1.3 mg. Save it to your computer and email it to your list and post it on your website.
Here is the PDF on the Texas Attorney General's website. Copy and paste this:
Encourage your state, if it isn't one of the 17 already standing with Texas, to
This should be an overwhelming effort by those who love America and the rule of law because there is no tomorrow for our country if we lose.



i See

ii All exhibits cited in this Complaint are in the Appendix to the Plaintiff State’s forthcoming motion to expedite (“App. 1a151a”). See Complaint (Doc. No. 1), Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. v. Benson, 1:20-cv-1083 (W.D. Mich. Nov. 11, 2020) at ¶¶ 26-55 & Doc. Nos. 1-2, 1-4.

Join the Abbeville Institute the Premier Organization in America for the Study of that Glorious Place South of the Mason-Dixon Line.

Join the Abbeville Institute,
the Premier Organization in America for the Study of
that Glorious Place South of the Mason-Dixon Line.

by Gene Kizer, Jr.

If I was on Jeopardy! and Alex Trebek (God Bless him! Rest in peace, Alex!) asked me to name one personality from the Old South that is typical of the scholarly firepower and spirit of the Abbeville Institute, I would unhesitatingly state Alexander Hamilton Stephens, "Little Alec," as his friend Robert Toombs called him, and I would cite as proof his brilliant two volume set of over 1,200 pages, A Constitutional View of the Late War Between the States; Its Causes, Character, Conduct and Results. Presented in a Series of Colloquies at Liberty Hall.

Or perhaps Albert Taylor Bledsoe, or William Gilmore Simms, maybe Edgar Allan Poe or Joel Chandler Harris. If the question extended into the 20th century maybe Douglas Southall Freeman or Richard Weaver, maybe C. Vann Woodward, definitely Shelby Foote, William Faulkner and D. W. Griffith.

There are too many to list but the point is, you can find all of their spirits and SO many others from our rich Southern culture alive and well at the Abbeville Institute.

Join and support the Abbeville Institute!

Abbeville Institute newsletter, Fall, 2020, front cover.
Abbeville Institute newsletter, Fall, 2020, front cover.

America desperately needs the discourse and scholarship the Abbeville Institute is injecting into this pathetic "woke" twenty-first century we find ourselves in.

We are in an uncharted time in American history when as a country we desperately need the good sense and character of Southerners who are grounded, solid and proud of the fact that we founded this great nation and impressed our values on it from the beginning with Georgia Washington and Thomas Jefferson, to Robert E. Lee.

Just like before World War II, when the German American Bund and their Nazi and anti-Semitic propaganda was warmly welcomed in many Northern cities, penetrating the South was much more difficult. We know who we are and we like what we know.

At the Abbeville Institute, you might meet your future spouse, perhaps a like-minded individual in a lecture full of ladies and gentlemen enjoying and contributing in a fun learning atmosphere.

There are Podcasts, excellent Blog Articles daily by email (Thank you Dr. Brian McClanahan!), Seminars like this one I went to in 2018: Charleston, SC: Attacking Confederate Monuments and Its Meaning for America. It featured several distinguished speakers, then an open bar and dinner in the evening with keynote address by former Georgia Congressman, Ben Jones, whom you might know better as "Cooter" in the Dukes of Hazard! It was GREAT and there were hundreds of people (maybe over 1,000!) there at the Crowne Plaza Hotel in North Charleston. They have events like this all over the country. Check out their Past Events and Photo Gallery.

There are Audio Lectures and YouTube Videos.

They have done 17 week-long Summer Schools at beautiful Camp Saint Christopher on Seabrook Island, South Carolina where the food and atmosphere is excellent, and the days are long with relaxing evening discussions after the day's activities.

I don't want to leave out anything because there is also a Review of Books, the Clyde Wilson Library (great articles by, you guessed it, Clyde Wilson!), the Abbeville Institute Press, and Recommended Books, Music and More.

Their Purpose and Principles are stated in a video by founder, Don Livingston.

There is a Contact Form and Article Submission Information.

Please DONATE to this outstanding organization (I do NOT get a commission for this! This promo in my blog is a labor of love because I want to be effective for the truth of Southern history and this is one way to do it!).

To give you a taste of what to expect out of the Abbeville Institute, here is an article from their Fall, 2020 newsletter that came out recently. The emphasis is theirs. Article is entitled:

The Charleston City Council Signals Its Virtue to the Left
Tearing Down the Monument to South Carolina's
Greatest Statesman.

On June 24, in the middle of the night, the city's magnificent monument to John C. Calhoun was destroyed. You have to wonder why. Calhoun has been judged by many to be a model of statesmanship. A senate committee chaired by John F. Kennedy ranked him among the top five senators of all time. And he was the first American to work out an original political philosophy, his Disquisition on Government is in league with the work of great modern political philosophers such as Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, and Hume. Nineteenth century British philosophers, John Stuart Mill and Lord Acton admired it, and it is studied around the world today.

Why was the monument to this great statesman reduced to rubble? What was so horrible that even Clemson University removed his name from the Calhoun Honors College, which sits on the ground of his plantation and home and was given by the family to create the university?

The answer is that in a Senate speech given in 1837 Calhoun said, "slavery is a positive good." Historians have taken him to mean that slavery "abstractly considered" is a good thing and have presented Calhoun as a moral monster, against which a self-congratulatory American liberalism defines itself. There is no excuse for this because the senate stenographer records that Calhoun strongly, "denied having pronounced slavery in the abstract a good." All he said was that given "existing circumstances" in the United States, it was the best arrangement for the African population and the country. What were those circumstances? And what was the morally right thing to have done about slavery in antebellum America?

First, slavery was not a wrong peculiar to the South. Massachusetts, in 1641, was the first colony to legalize the slave trade. New England ran a slave trade with Africa for 170 years. As of 1860, the wealth of the Northeast was built on financing, servicing, shipping, and insuring slave produced staples. By some estimates the North received 40 cents of every dollar made by the planters. From the first, most federal revenue came from the South's vast export trade. In short, slavery was a national wrong. So, the morally right thing would have been a nationally funded program to emancipate slaves, compensate the planters, and integrate the African population into American society.

Yet during the entire antebellum era, no Northern leaders ever put forth a nationally funded plan of compensated emancipation and integration. Integration was especially out of the question. The constitution of Lincoln's Illinois prohibited any free blacks from entering the state. Every state in the Midwest and West either prohibited or severely restricted their entrance. The Republican Party platform of 1856 said, in part, that: "all unoccupied territories of the United States, and such as they may hereafter acquire, shall be reserved for the white Caucasian race, a thing that cannot be except by the exclusion of slavery." Lincoln agreed, saying the region should be kept free of "the troublesome presence of free Negroes."

Lincoln explained why no national plan of emancipation had been put forth. If slaves were freed without civil rights most would be thrown in to vagabondage and crime which would make them worse off. But neither could they be emancipated with civil rights because he said: "My own feelings will not admit of this," nor would those of the "great mass" of Americans. He concluded: "We cannot, then, make them equals." And he confessed: "If all earthly power were given to me, I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution." So, he kicked the can down the road.

Next to colonizing blacks abroad, Lincoln (and the North) favored segregation. "What I would most desire," he said, "is a separation of the white and black races." By this he meant continental segregation, keeping the North and West white and the South bi-racial. Slavery, he said, might last a "hundred years" if confined to the South. A virtually all white North and West was not a pipe dream. By 1860, it was nearly a fact. Blacks in New England were a mere 0.8 percent. In the rest of the North, 1.8 percent, and in the West, 1.1 percent. By contrast, blacks in the Upper South were around 20 percent. In the Deep South, 42 percent.

But many anti-slavery advocates were not content with confining blacks, slave and free, to the South. They urged policies that would gradually lead to the extinction of blacks. The Republican controlled House Committee on Emancipation Policy said in its 1862 report: "the highest interests of the white race, whether Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, or Scandinavian, requires that the whole country should be held and occupied by these races alone." The extinction would happen "naturally" because it was thought blacks were structurally inferior, and without the cradle to grave care of the plantation system, could not compete with whites in a free market in labor. They would die out or move to racially mixed Mexico or be willing to accept federally funded colonization.

Though it forms no part of our public history, what I shall call the "extinction thesis" was widely held in Northern society and at the highest level. Consider Theodore Parker. He was the very exemplar of radical abolitionism, a charismatic minister, and a supporter of John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry. Yet he was so convinced of black inferiority that he declared: "When slavery is abolished the African population will decline in the United States and die out of the South as out of [New England (Abbeville italics)]." Horace Bushnell was an abolitionist and one of the North's distinguished theologians. It did not bother him that emancipation would mean the extinction of blacks: "since we must all die, why should it grieve us, that a stock thousands of years behind, in the scale of culture, should die with few and still fewer children to succeed, till finally the whole succession remains in the more cultivated race." Charles Francis Adams, grandson of John Quincy Adams, said that emancipation means "the inferior [blacks] will disappear . . . before the more vigorous race." And Reverend J. M. Sturtevant, president of Illinois College said that with emancipation, blacks would "melt away and disappear forever from the midst of us." The Yankee sage, Ralph Waldo Emerson agreed: "the black man" in America, he said, is "destined for museums like the Dodo."

Southerners were excoriated in Congress without mercy for perpetuating the "evil" of slavery. Calhoun challenged anti-slavery Northern senators that if they really believed slavery, as practice in the South, was an unmitigated evil, they were morally bound "to put it down." But that would mean paying their share in the cost of emancipation and in allowing free blacks to settle in their societies. It also meant losing the enormous profits gained from servicing the institution. None of that was acceptable. So, despite all the handwringing and vilification, slavery was to remain. In saying slavery was a positive good, Calhoun was being intentionally outrageous to jar the Yankee critic out of ideological posturing about slavery (which only inflamed passions, was morally corrupting, and produced no positive good for the slave or the country), into examining the actual practice of slavery to see what good it produced.

Calhoun was a man of the nineteenth century who believed in progress, and he viewed slavery as an evolving, progressive institution. The Africans had arrived a demoralized people, torn from their tribal roots and devoid of a European culture. Calhoun considered it a great achievement that (unlike in the North), blacks, slave and free, had become an integral part of Southern society through the plantation household. Masters and slaves attended the same church. Their lodgings were often in the same yard and sometimes the same house. Calhoun took pride in the fact that in the arts of "civilization": some had "nearly kept pace" with their masters. And he put no limit on what they might achieve or how the institution of slavery in the South might evolve.

He argued that as to physical well-being, slaves were arguably better off than Yankee factory workers who could be cast aside after years of service if they became ill or were otherwise not useful. Some corroboration for his argument can be found in Time on the Cross, a study of the economics of Southern slavery by Robert Fogel, a Nobel laureate in economics, and Stanley Engerman, an authority on slave economies. Historians, they say, have exaggerated both the cruelty of slavery and the abolitionist's belief in the inferiority of blacks. They show (as Calhoun argued) that slavery was an evolving institution. As international markets became more competitive, planters educated slaves in valuable production, engineering, and management skills that required initiative and more responsibility. These qualities, the authors say, could not be generated by force alone but required incentives in pecuniary gain as well as more liberty and respect.

By 1860, the institution for a great many slaves, had evolved into a condition of what the authors call "quasi-slavery" and "quasi-liberty," which intimated eventual emancipation. By 1860 nearly half the blacks of Maryland were free. When John Brown invaded Harpers Ferry to start a slave uprising, there were 1,251 free blacks and 88 slaves. The first man he killed was a free black man going about his work. As of 1860, free blacks in the South owned property worth $25,000,000 or $800,000,000 today.

If Calhoun's vision of slavery as a progressive, evolving institution is rejected, what alternatives did Northern anti-slavery advocates provide? They were the following. (1) The abolitionist's demand for "immediate and uncompensated" emancipation. This was pure fantasy and morally reprehensible because it failed to acknowledge the North's responsibility for the origin and continuation of slavery. (2) Colonization abroad was impractical because few blacks wanted to leave, and few Northerners wanted to pay. (3) The policy of continental segregation confined slavery to the South where it would eventually die out, leaving the nation virtually free of blacks. But given the great racial imbalance in the South, the "dying out" would be long drawn out and painful for the black man before he became what Emerson called the "Dodo" in a "museum."

All the Northern anti-slavery alternatives were fantasies, mere attempts to escape the presence of blacks. None confronted the true moral challenge, namely a national program of emancipation, compensation, and integration. But worse, there was not concern for the welfare of blacks as there was in Calhoun's vision. All were about the interests of white Northerners. And that disposition continue into and after the War. The Emancipation Proclamation was a mere military measure designed to cause a slave uprising to end the War. No provision was made before hand to care for those freed. When Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens asked Lincoln how he was to provide for the mass of slaves, he replied: "Root hot!" (from the saying "Root hog or die"). Recent studies show that tens of thousands died of starvation an disease, uprooted by the Emancipation Proclamation and from the care of the plantation.

After the War, the vast western territory could have provided farms to give the freedmen a fresh start, and there was a great demand for labor in postwar Northern industry. But both land and jobs were closed to the freedmen in favor of European immigrants. In contrast, the railroads were given more land than the territorial size of Germany!

Finally, Lincoln would not allow the South to secede and work out an eventual emancipation on its own terms. He invaded and conquered the region not to free slaves (as he repeatedly confessed) but to prevent secession in order to build a regime of economic nationalism controlled by the New York-Chicago industrial axis. The death toll for the invasion, if civilians and the humanitarian disaster of the Emancipation Proclamation are included, is around a million.

When Calhoun's vision of slavery as an evolving progressive institution is compared to the Northern anti-slavery alternative of continental segregation and the macabre Darwinian notion of gradual black extinction through emancipation to achieve an all-white America, the Yankee alternative appears morally reprehensible. In some respects, Calhoun's vision is morally superior. It is certainly not worse. In any case, Calhoun does not deserve the treatment meted out by historians who treat his limited, circumstantial defense of slavery as a reprehensible universalist attachment to bondage---something he explicitly disowned.

Antebellum America is a strange and complex place but not to the one-dimensional Woke mind of Charleston's mayor and city council. They made rubble of the monument to one of America's greatest statesmen and political thinkers because he endorsed "white supremacy," as if the Northern segregation and extinction policies of Lincoln, Bushnell, Parker, and Emerson did not. This impious act has impoverished the rich and complex cultural inheritance that should be passed on to the youth of South Carolina, black and white. Students will see no reason to read Calhoun and, consequently, will be bereft of the wisdom contained in his philosophical explanation of how tyranny arises in the American system and how it can be prevented.

Experience has shown that thoughtful black students, given the opportunity to gain a clear-eyed view of the continental segregation and extinction policy of Northern anti-slavery, often come to see Calhoun as an honorable and humane man seeking to do the best, given the constraints of his time, and are more inclined to take down a monument to Lincoln who talked about freedom abstractly but did nothing to ameliorate the condition of black people before or during the War.

Writing in the Ashes by Douglas Southall Freeman

Writing in the Ashes

by Douglas Southall Freeman

Chapter II of his book,

The South to Posterity
An Introduction to the Writing of
Confederate History

(New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1939. The spelling
and citation are Douglas Southall Freeman's.)

The South to Posterity by Douglas Southall Freeman - Title Page.

Sherman marched to the sea; the forts of Mobile fell one by one after a defense worthy of Troy; and, on Palm Sunday, 1865, when the first touch of green was coming to the forests of Midland Virginia, Lee surrendered. It is impossible fully to realize now what the death of the Confederacy meant to the South. For four years the two had been synonymous. A common cause never had unified the South completely, even when it was the Confederacy; but the blows delivered on the anvil of war from Sabine Pass to Harpers Ferry had brought the Southern States nearer a welding than ever they had been. Then, suddenly, the South found itself eleven conquered States---each one of which felt itself in a strange manner the guardian of a disembodied Confederacy and the defender of its history. Neither the Poland for which Sienkiewicz wrote nor the Czecho-Slovakia of our own time affords more than a crude analogy. Even while the ashes still smoldered, Southerners began to write in them "vindications of Southern rights," memorials of the fallen, personal narratives and military and political apologia.

Some of the first works on the constitutional basis of secession were written during the five years when the proudest of American individualists were under military rule. Many of their own newspapers fell into the hands of those who usually are grouped together as "carpet-baggers and scallywags." From the lips of bitter radicals in Congress, all Confederates received like denunciation as "rebels." They were disfranchised. None of them had larger security than was represented by military paroles, and some had not even that. Their former servants were their political masters and were incited against them. Around them were all the evidence of what war costs in widows' tears and orphans' woe, in death and in poverty. Leaders in every State felt that where the war had taken so hideous a toll, they should prove to posterity that the struggle was one for constitutional right. So, from many pens, there began to flow defences of the South.

The longest of these is Alexander H. Stephens' Constitutional View of the Late War between the States issued in two volumes in 1867.1 This surely is one of the most unusual books ever written in the United States by a man of high intelligence. Vice President Stephens had a feeble, deformed figure, and was more boy than man in appearance, but he was blessed with a keen mind and impressive eloquence. After the war he received at his Georgia home, Liberty Hall, a number of old-time Northern friends. With them he argued for days on the constitutional issues of the struggle, and ere long he decided that he would present the Southern case in dialogue. He introduced three fictitious individuals to debate with him---Judge Bynum from Massachusetts, who represented the radical Republican viewpoint, Professor Norton, of Connecticut, who spoke for conservative Republicans, and Major Heister, a Pennsylvanian and a Northern War Democrat. With these personages, Mr. Stephens discoursed on the constitution for some 1200 printed pages. In this day the reading not less than the method of presentation has its associations with Job, but every argument on every phase of the right of secession is set forth.

Douglas Southall Freeman, c. 1916, approx. age 30, as the new editor of the Richmond News Leader.
Douglas Southall Freeman, c. 1916, approx. age 30, as the new editor of the Richmond News Leader.

In sharpest contrast to Mr. Stephens' maximum opus stands that brief classic of American political argument---Is Davis a Traitor?2 This little book, written at white heat and published in 1866, is probably the most dazzling product of the near-genius of Alfred T. Bledsoe, Kentucky born, a graduate of West Point, lawyer in Illinois, professor of French and later of Mathematics in the University of Mississippi and the University of Virginia. War Clerk Jones, who presently will appear, gives an unhappy picture of Doctor Bledsoe while assistant Secretary of War, as a groaning mountain of flesh much averse to the routine work he had to do; but when one reads Bledsoe's argument on secession or follows him through the pages of the Southern Review, one gets an entirely different picture. Doctor Bledsoe was counsel for the defence, to be sure, but he was a great advocate and a most discerning analyst. If any Americans are either curious or dubious concerning the issues raised in 1861, Bledsoe is the supreme Southern authority.

Following Bledsoe and Stephens, so many Southerners devoted themselves to the presentation of the constitutional argument that a convinced audience quickly grew tired. Even the Reverend J. William Jones---a man who never heard any story of the Confederacy otherwise than with reverence---had to admit at a later time in the Southern Historical Society Papers that he could not attempt to publish all the Confederate memorial addresses. His reason doubtless was that these speeches usually were a mere restatement of the argument on the right of secession.

Two later incidents may serve to illustrate how far the South went. Twenty years ago a young Southerner was asked to go into the Northern Neck of Virginia as one of two speakers at a Confederate reunion. His senior and principal was a State official born early enough to have some memory of the war. As they made their way on a little yacht to the place of meeting, the younger man made bold to ask the orator of the evening what his subject would be, in order that duplication might be avoided. The elderly politician spread himself in the amplitude of his deck-chair and answered: "Well, I shall relate briefly the outstanding events of the period during which the constitution of the United States was drafted; then I shall trace the pernicious development and expose the fallacy of John Marshall's theory of nationalism, and I shall vindicate beyond all cavil the right of secession; from that I shall pass to the events of the war and shall pay tribute to General Lee, to General Jackson and to the private soldier; and I shall conclude, of course, with a tribute to Southern womanhood." He essayed all for which he contracted, though nodding heads were not lifted at the last to his lofty flight in praise of Southern women---as if they needed praise.

The other instance concerned a Southern staff-officer who wrote one most useful book in the eighteen-seventies and, after almost thirty years, decided to write a second. He prefaced a valuable historical narrative with a long discourse on secession and sent the whole to a Northern publishing house. The editor-in-chief praised the manuscript but said that, in his opinion, the case for secession had been stated so often that the book would lose its effectiveness if preceded by a detailed argument on the subject. After some exchanges, the author had to choose between the excision of the essay on secession and the rejection of the manuscript by a firm that would have printed it expansively and would have circulated it widely. The old Confederate did not hesitate. He demanded the return of the manuscript and issued his book through a local printing house---with every word of the paper on secession in proper place. That was wholly characteristic of the mind of the Southern survivors of the war. Always their cry was, "Hear me for my cause. . . . "

An older Douglas Southall Freeman, still hard at work.
An older Douglas Southall Freeman, still hard at work.

Next to the men who wrote in the ashes the vindication of the South were those authors who memorialized the dead. These writers had begun their labors ere the battles ended. Their children have continued it. Every year witnesses the publication of volumes that are primarily memorials to Confederates who may have been dead this half century. Some of these books represent little more than ancestor-worship and have scant historical value. Others include letters of war-date or early reminiscences that occasionally illuminate some of the many dark passages of Confederate history. Several memoirs of known importance still are in manuscript.

Perhaps the most distinguished of the memorialists was Robert Lewis Dabney. This able, conservative divine was forty years of age and was teaching in the Union Theological Seminary of the Presbyterian church in Virginia when, in 1860, he was asked informally if he would accept the pastorate of the Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church, New York City. The same year he was offered a professorship at Princeton. He declined both proposals because he felt the South needed him.3 By the spring of 1862, he was a major on the staff of "Stonewall" Jackson and was following the bloody course of the Army of the Valley from Front Royal to Winchester and back again to Cross Keys and to Port Republic. In Jackson he found his idol, and to the service of that amazing man he devoted his whole heart.

After Jackson was killed, Major Dabney was asked by the general's widow to prepare a Life of the fallen leader. Doctor Dabney proceeded to write more than a biography. It shaped itself as a memorial, succession of moral lessons, a review of the Southern cause and an expose of the misdeeds of the North. This labor Dabney was completing when the Confederacy perished. An English edition was issued in 1865, but this was revised slightly for American publication and was not in final form until April 1, 1866. Mrs. Jackson was most anxious that General Lee read the biography before it appeared in this country and, on a visit to Lexington, she brought the manuscript with her. General Lee read it, as he said, for the delight of the narrative---it was one of the few books on the war that ever he read---and to his embarrassment he found several instances where Major Dabney manifestly had asserted more for Jackson in respect to the strategy of the Army than the records justified or "Old Jack" ever would have dreamed of crediting to himself.

Lee had the difficult task of telling this to Mrs. Jackson and, in so doing, he pursued the familiar masculine method of obscuring what he did not think it tactful to say in plain terms. One point, among several, involved a sharp difference of opinion concerning the unhappy affair at Falling Waters, Sept. 19, 1862, when Gen. W. N. Pendleton, chief of artillery, rode to Army headquarters at midnight and reported that he feared all the reserve artillery of the Army had been captured. Jackson went back to the Potomac the next morning, quickly drove the enemy into the river and secured the position with slight loss of men or equipment. Gen. D. H. Hill, who worshipped Jackson almost as profoundly as did Dabney, was satisfied that the manuscript was correct in its account of the episode and in its emphasis on the importance of the service Jackson rendered. General Lee, who had Doctor Pendleton as his rector as as one of his chaplains at Washington College, felt that the artillerist's blunder had been exaggerated.

What was Doctor Dabney to do? He would not accept Lee's account as accurate; but neither he nor Mrs. Jackson would have thought for a moment of writing what the General disapproved. The conclusion was to pursue a strange course: Doctor Dabney struck out his own version of the incident and substituted that of General Lee without a word of explanation concerning the authorship, and in order that he might not assume responsibility for the general's statement, he put it in quotation marks. There it stands today on pages 577-78 of Dabney's Life and Campaigns of Lieut. Gen. Thomas J. Jackson.4

This, of course, throws light on Dabney's own convinced opinion as well as on the esteem in which General Lee was held; but it was not more than an incident in its relation to a book which is remarkable despite the pitfalls that Doctor Dabney set for himself by his inclusive and moralizing treatment. His bitterness offends; his constant assumption that the Almighty was a Southern partisan shocks the present-day reader. The essential accuracy of his book, written in a time of misery and confusion, is a tribute to his memory, his diligence and his mental capacity. Seldom is it studied nowadays, because it has been superseded by Henderson's dazzling Stonewall Jackson, but the fact is Henderson leaned so heavily on Dabney as to accept even his mistakes. As further evidence of the vigor of the mind of Dabney, it may be noted that if he had not been cited here as the first distinguished Confederate biographer, he would have deserved a place amongh those who expounded the principle of States' rights. His Defence of Virginia and the South is a powerful paper.

While Dabney's memorial to Jackson was in the press, General Lee was planning a memorial to his soldiers. In a letter of July 31, 1865, to most of his general officers, he said: "I am desirous that the bravery and devotion of the Army of Northern Virginia be correctly transmitted to posterity. This is the only tribute that can now be paid to the worth of its noble officers and soldiers." To one of his comrades he was more specific: "I shall write this history," he said, "not to vindicate myself, or to promote my own reputation. I want that the world shall know what my poor boys, with their small numbers and scant resources, succeeded in accomplishing."5 In the autumn of 1866, to fiery old Jubal Early, who was preparing his own narrative of operations, Lee wrote: "I would recommend . . . that, while giving facts which you think necessary for your own vindication, you omit all epithets or remarks calculated to excite bitterness or animosity between different sections of the country."6 What Lee desired, most of all, were official reports, returns of the Army, and similar documents that had been lost or destroyed when his records had been burned by panicky teamsters on the retreat from Petersburg.

It developed that his own letter books, which contained all except his most confidential communications to the President, had escaped the flames. General Longstreet's papers for the last months of the war were placed at his disposal. Several other officers sent in duplicates of their reports. The most valuable of these, from the standpoint of the historical investigator, were those of Gen. Cadmus M. Wilcox, to whose thoughtfulness we owe one of the few adequate reports on the siege of Petersburg. These documents General Lee supplemented with many newspaper clippings, but he must have discovered early that adequate materials for the last year of the war could not be assembled until access could be had to the Confederate archives, which had been captured and carried to Washington. Permission to use those records was denied at the time to Confederate historians. Amid his many labors at Washington College, General Lee found scant leisure to pursue the collection of papers from other sources, and, apparently, he never wrote any part of his intended narrative. He may have decided that passion still deafened the ears of the nation; he may have realized the truth could not be told without damaging the reputation of men he respected. In his fine sensitiveness of soul, he may have been deterred by the tactless suggestion that the book would be very profitable. Nothing could have been more repulsive to him than the thought of gaining in purse by relating the tragedy that had been enacted in the blood of the South's best.

Perhaps it is well that General Lee did not write his memorial of his Army. His letters how him not without skill in that type of composition. The revision he gave his military reports, which Col. Charles Marshall compiled, always added to their clarity. For sustained historical narrative, Lee had no aptitude. His introduction to his edition of his father's Revolutionary memoirs demonstrates that. More fundamentally, his character was such that he never could have brought himself to place blame where it was due. Any detailed military work from his pen would have been written in the reserved spirit of his letter to Mrs. Jackson, a propos of Dabney's mistakes, and would have raised more questions than it settled.7

Very different from anything that Lee might have written about his Army was the first conspicuous personal narrative, which, ironically enough, was not the work of a combatant but of a clerk. John Beauchamp Jones was a Baltimorean, born in 1810, who spent some of his boyhood in Kentucky and Missouri and came back to his native city in time for Poe to commend him as one who was editing the Saturday Visitor "with much judgment and general ability."8 Jones married Frances Custis, from the Eastern Shore of Virginia and doubtless a member of the same fine stock as the first husband of Mrs. George Washington. Because magazine editing was not a profitable occupation, Jones supplemented it by much writing on his own account. The list of his novels is formidable, but only his Wild Western Scenes attracted a large audience. This sold to 100,000 copies prior to the war and had the added distinction of a Confederate edition.

From Baltimore, Jones went to the vicinity of Philadelphia, where, from 1857 to the outbreak of the war, he edited the weekly Southern Monitor. He started South on April 9, 1861, journeyed to Richmond, went on to Montgomery, and came back to Richmond when the capital was moved. He had begun a diary the day before he left home. On April 29, he made this entry: "At fifty-one I can hardly follow the pursuit of arms; but I will write and preserve a diary of the revolution . . . To make my diary full and complete as possible, is now my business."9 It did not remain his exclusive business, but the diary was given authority of a sort by Jones's access to confidential records after he was made a clerk in the War Department. Through months dark or hopeful, he wrote almost daily, long entries or short, until April 19, 1865. On that date his diary ends abruptly. Apparently he went back to the Eastern Short and subsequently returned to Philadelphia to negotiate for the publication of his Rebel War Clerk's Diary.10 It was in press when, on Feb. 4, 1866, Jones breathed his last.

Gamaliel Bradford overshot the mark when he spoke of Jones as the Confederate Pepys.11 Little that was Pepysian appears in Jones's diary except for his insatiable curiosity; but much that was no less illuminating than the gossip of the Secretary of the Admiralty was recorded by the War Department Clerk. Full of absurd prejudices---even extending them to so great a man as Gen. Josiah Gorgas---Jones had a singularly large number of military incompetents among his favorites. The special, the well-nigh unique value of his diary is that it holds up a mirror to the hopes and fears of the city in which he labored. Whether Jones had this in mind when he began, it is impossible to say. Neither may one be sure that he realized the certain fame that would come to a man who set down what generals never saw and newspapers thought unworthy or report. In any event, he did this service while McClellan threatened and Grant thundered outside Richmond, and he has his reward. If not in the text, at least in the footnotes, he is more often quoted by historians than any contemporary writer on the Confederacy. He is a model for the emulation of any author who may not hope to write formal history. Reputation and the gratitude of posterity await any observant person in a center of population who will register accurately the daily comments of a few persons daily on the trend of events. The diary of such a citizen of Rome wold be prized above the lost books of Livy.

Jones serves the historian, also, on two other matters concerning which information is scant---prices and weather. He studied prices with the most intensive care, because he scarcely earned enough to keep his family alive and he tried always to be forehanded in maintaining a small reserve of provisions. From his pathetic accounts of his triumphant purchase of a peck of peas and his tragic relation of the failure of a scheme of co-operative buying in North Carolina, one has a glimpse of what the war meant in hunger and anxiety. A student of domestic science could reconstruct a surprising story of family economy from Jones's pages. It might not be Orchids on Your Budget, but it would demonstrate that thrift in the sixties was an art advanced beyond anything the domestic guides of our day have had the temerity to pronounce attainable. As for the weather, Jones frequently recorded rains or hot waves when the historians of campaigns never mentioned them.

Aside from his discountable bias and the display of occasional credulity, Jones had only one serious fault as a chronicler of life in the Confederate capital: he could not resist the temptation of posing as a prophet---after the event. A reader scarcely can blame the poor war clerk for desiring to say "I told you so," but occasionally one is provoked to discover that Jones wrote into his diary facts he could not possibly have known at the time he professes to have recorded them. In short, one has to deal with a glossed text; and, if it were worth while, one probably could identify most of the glosses and restore the original.

One this score it may be interesting to not that while there are occasional glosses in other documents and some instances of the suppression of records, Confederate historical literature is relatively free of deliberate frauds. Doctor Charles A. Graves years ago proved forgery of the letter in which General Lee is made to tell his son Custis that "duty is the sublimest word in the English language."12 The language is almost a direct steal from Kant, but the clumsy and obvious forgery may have been executed solely for his own amusement by some idle young officer who came across Lee letters in the loot of Arlington. Of course one finds endless instances where the imagination has soared with time and distance. In the case of only one writer is there reasonable suspicion of extensive forgery.

While Jones's diary was having its first reading---and not a friendly reading by Southern politicians---a number of men in different parts of the country were seeking to establish magazines that would be a depository of historical as well as of general literature. The aim seemed reasonable, but, unfortunately, all plans overlooked the poverty of the people. Gen. D. H. Hill made one of the bravest struggles with his monthly entitled The Land We love, which was published in Charlotte. The first issue bears date of May, 1866, and the last issue was for March, 1869. It is, perhaps, more important for General Hill's views on education than for the historical articles it published; but first and last it included much of Jackson from Hill's pen, and a series of articles, all too brief, by Wade Hampton. Its miscellaneous historical anecdotes were diverting if unimportant.

More remarkable in every way was the Southern Review, a quarterly which Doctor Bledsoe began soon after he completed Is Davis a Traitor? General Lee had said after the war to Bledsoe, "Doctor, you must take care of yourself; you have a great work to do; we all look to you for our vindication." Bledsoe took this perhaps more seriously than it was meant, and to his magazine he devoted immense effort. Doctor Edwin Mims states that in the average issue Doctor Bledsoe had from three to five articles, and that for one number he write all but one article, or a quarterly of about 250 pages.13 They were not superficial articles, either. Bledsoe put into nearly all of them the rich resources of his powerful mind. His was the voice of conservatism but never was it apologetic. Like a valiant rearguard his face always was to the foe. After he died in 1877, his Review expired within two years, but it had become a distinct monument to his peculiar abilities. Much of it is deadly memorial now; but occasionally, when one turns to a subject of special sacredness to Bledsoe, one feels precisely as if one were talking in the Round Church of the Templars, and a knight suddenly rose from the floor and brandished his blade.

Like Bledsoe, John Esten Cooke wrote in the ashes but not with slowly diminishing heat. He did not write for bread alone. In his devotion to Stuart and the cavalry corps he determined that the Beau Sabreur of the Confederacy should not lack his literary monument and, in 1867, he published Wearing of the Gray.14 This was a series of personal sketches of the most renowned cavalrymen of the Army of Northern Virginia. Judged photographically, some of the pictures were out of focus, but Cooke "caught" Stuart precisely as a fortunate artist now and again gets a sitter in characteristic and revelatory pose. Nothing that has been written since Cooke's day has changed a line in the laughing face of Stuart.

Cooke gave in his book an interesting example of the manner in which myths develop quickly through the uncritical acceptance of stories which recount feats on the border line of the attainable. Perhaps the three Southern generals concerning whom the most extreme stories were told during their fighting years were "Stonewall" Jackson, Bedford Forrest, and Turner Ashby. The last-named of these three, a romantic, fearless figure, with a long beard and complexion almost as dark as a Moor's, commanded Jackson's cavalry through the winter of 1861-62 and during the following spring. Ashby was not accounted a good army administrator and he insisted upon maintaining the independence of his command; but in every retreat and in all the advances of the Army of the Valley, he was closest to the enemy. His troopers regarded him as invincible, much as their companions of the "foot cavalry" thought Jackson invulnerable. In the bivouacs, a tale that credited Ashby with some superhuman feat had only to be told to be believed. After a few months there was no appeal to the modest Ashby for the verification or denial of any of his alleged exploits, because he was killed in action near Harrisonburg, June 6, 1862. Cooke must have heard from some of Ashby's troopers many a tale of the fallen officer's prowess and, in his Wearing of the Gray, he wrote down this one:

Jackson slowly retired from Winchester [in March, 1862], the cavalry under Ashby bringing up the rear, with the enemy closely pressing them. The long column defiled through the town, and Ashby remained the last, sitting his horse in the middle of Loudoun street as the Federal forces poured in. The solidary horseman,15 gazing at them with so much nonchalance, was plainly seen by the Federal officers and two mounted men were detached to make a circuit by the back streets, and cut off his retreat. Ashby either did not see this maneuver, or paid no attention to it. He waited until the Federal column was nearly upon him, and had poured a hot fire; then he turned his horse, waved his hate above his head, and uttering a cheer to defiance, galloped off. All at once, as he galloped down the street, he saw before him the two cavalrymen sent to cut off and capture him. To a man like Ashby, inwardly chafing at being compelled to retreat, no sight could be more agreeable. Here was an opportunity to vent his spleen; and charging the two mounted men he was soon upon them. One fell with a bullet through his breast; and, coming opposite the other, Ashby seized him by the throat, dragged him from the saddle, and putting spurs to his horse, bore him off. This scene, which some readers may set down for romance, was witnessed by hundreds both of the Confederates and Federal army.

To reaffirm his faith in this story, the devoted Cooke made it the subject of one of the woodcuts of his book. Ashby is seen in the act of gripping the second Federal trooper by the throat  at the instant a Union column, in most orderly array, is two doors down the street.

Actually, as recorded by Ashby's chaplain, Reverend J. B. Avirett, in a book16 which appeared the same year as Cooke's, here is what happened:

Fighting and falling back slowly, Ashby retarded the advance of the enemy until Jackson effected the evacuation of Winchester, which was completed on the night of the 11th of March. On the morning of the 12th, as the enemy continued to advance, the Confederate infantry retired by the turnpike leading up the Valley to Staunton. Skirmishing almost to the limits of the town, Ashby, as quiet as if on dress parade, followed his men down the street, and though followed closely by the enemy, coolly stopped to take a biscuit offered him by a noble-hearted lady.17

Perhaps the difference between history and myth could not be better illustrated than by the difference between a momentary pause for a biscuit and the bloody affray that Cooke had been assured hundreds of men in two armies had seen.

President Davis was not a man about whom myths gather, though Pollard and others accused him during the war of every political crime short of treason. The end of hostilities found Mr. Davis probably the most unpopular man in the wrecked Confederacy, but after he was taken to Fort Monroe, Virginia, and was put in irons, the entire South was outraged. He seemed to the Southern soldiers to be suffering vicariously for them. Forgotten speedily were all the old resentments and complaints. A prisoner, he had larger affection than he had enjoyed at any time after the winter of 1861-62.

He had this additional good fortune. The chief surgeon at Fort Monroe, and medical director of the X Army corps, was Doctor John Joseph Craven. This interesting man, born in utter poverty at Newark, N. J., in 1822, had schooled himself while working in a chemical establishment. When the magnetic telegraph was invented, Craven quit the factory and joined the crew that was constructing the first line from New York to Philadelphia. He made some of the pioneer discoveries in electrical insulation but failed to procure a patent. Turning to new adventures, he joined a party of Forty-Niners and went to California, where he had no better fortune. On his return to Newark he devoted himself to medicine and, on the outbreak of hostilities, became surgeon of a New Jersey regiment. He must have had exceptional administrative capacity, for he son was made medical director of the Department of the South and in 1864 received like appointment for a corps.

It was by the sheerest chance that this physician, simple, able, understanding and with a native antagonism to cruelty, should have been summoned to advise on the treatment of President Davis. To him Mr. Davis owed the lessened rigor of treatment and to him, no less, the South owed its first dispassionate picture of the imprisonment. Doctor Craven was mustered out of service January 27, 1866. and thereafter was free to write as he pleased. His Prison Life of Jefferson Davis appeared that year.18 Based on a diary Doctor Craven kept while at Fort Monroe and supplemented with reports of many conversations, it was an honest book. Had Doctor Craven been a Confederate himself, instead of an avowed Republican enemy of slavery, he could not have been more candid, nor could he have presented more clearly the courage, the character and the high intelligence of President Davis. He wrote while Mr. Davis still was a prisoner, but in the last paragraphs of his little volume he asked a question that may have had some influence on public opinion. These were his final words: "For the crime of treason, not one of these---not the humblest official under the late rebellion---was one whit more or less guilty than the man whom they elected their titular President; and if any other crimes can be alleged against him, in the name of justice, and for the honor of our whole country, both now and in the hereafter, are not his friends and suffering family entitled to demand that he may have an early and impartial trial as provided by the laws of our country?"19 It is pleasant to record that his fine-spirited man continued a life of generous usefulness to his death past three score and ten. No less is it pleasant to note that in the summer of 1939 the United Daughters of the Confederacy unveiled a tablet in his honor at Fort Monroe.

Mr. Davis found another early defender in Frank H. Alfriend, last editor of the famous Southern Literary Messenger.20 In 1868 Alfriend answered through his Life of Jefferson Davis the allegations of Pollard.21 It has to be admitted that Alfriend was as partial to Mr. Davis as Pollard was hostile, and that he started as many fires of controversy as he extinguished. For twenty years, Alfriend's early attempt to portray the life of the Confederate President, market as it inevitably was by errors and omissions, was considered by the critics of Mr. Davis as virtually his own apologia,22 though in actual fact the book apparently was written without the President's authorization. Only one letter from Mr. Alfriend to Mr. Davis appears in Rowland's collection23 and that bears a date long after a mournful event had changed the spirit of Confederate historical writing.


1 Philadelphia (National Publishing Co.).

2 Baltimore (Innes).

3 Cf. T. C. Johnson, Life and Letters of Robert Lewis Dabney; Richmond (The Pres. Comm. of Publication), 1903; p. 198 ff.

4 Edition of 1866, New York (Blelock).

5 J. William Jones, Personal Reminiscences of General Robert E. Lee; New York (Appleton), 1874; p. 180.

6 Ibid., p. 221.

7 A letter from Lee to Doctor A. T. Bledsoe, somewhat similar in content to that addressed Mrs. Jackson, led Gamaliel Bradford to remark: "This letter, like many others, goes far to reconcile me to the loss of the memoirs Lee did not write. I feel sure that with the best intentions in the world he would have left untold a great deal that we desire to know." Lee the American; New York (Houghton Mifflin), 1912; p. 151.

8 10 D. A. B., p. 182.

9 I J. B. Jones, Swiggett edition, New York (Old Hickory Bookshop), 1935; p. 29.

10 Philadelphia (J. B. Lippincott and Co.), 1866.

11 American Mercury, December, 1925.

12 Reports Virginia Bar Asso., 1914, pp. 176-215; 1915, pp. 299-315; 1917-18, pp. 288-291.

13 Edwin Mims, "Southern Magazines" in 7 The South in the Building of the Nation; Richmond (The Southern Publication Society), 1909-13; pp. 464-65.

14 New York (E. B. Treat & Co.).

15 Op. cit., p. 74.

16 The Memoirs of General Turner Ashby and His Compeers; Baltimore (Selby & Dulany), 1867.

17 Op. cit., pp. 155-156.

18 New York (Carleton).

19 Op. cit., 1st ed., p. 377.

20 Cf. J. W. Davidson, Living Writers of the South; New York (Carleton), 1869; p. 18.

21 Chicago (Caxton).

22 Cf. J. H. Reagan to Jefferson Davis, 7 Rowland, Jefferson Davis, Constitutionalist, Jackson, Miss (Miss. Dept. Archives and History), 1923, p. 563.

23 Ibid., p. 528.

Bogus Conclusions of “False Cause” Book: Guest Post by Historian Philip Leigh

Bogus Conclusions of “False Cause” Book:
Guest Post by Historian Philip Leigh

Published on his blog, Civil War Chat,
November 6, 2020


“No man is so blind as one who will not see.”

I am delighted to publish this outstanding guest post with video links by historian and author Philip Leigh, critiquing an interview given by College of Charleston professor Adam Domby about Domby's book, The False Cause: Fraud, Fabrication, and White Supremacy in Confederate Memory.

From 2012 to 2015, Phil Leigh contributed 24 articles to The New York Times Disunion Series, which commemorated the Sesquicentennial of the Civil War. He was one of Disunion's most frequent contributors. He is the author of seven books on the Civil War and Reconstruction including his latest, Causes of the Civil War. Visit his Civil War Chat Blog, which includes almost a decade of in-depth articles on history, and history in today's silly woke world, as well as videos he has produced to go along with his written articles. Also visit his Amazon Author Page.

1. Link to Domby’s interview with the Avery Research Center June 16, 2020.

2. Link to Phil Leigh's YouTube video November 5, 2020 entitled False Conclusions of Adam Domby's *False Cause* Book.

From Phil Leigh

While watching a seventy-minute interview with Professor Adam Domby about his book, The False Cause, I was surprised at the number of errors, biased interpretations and even endorsement of “extralegal” conduct by anti-statue mobs. The False Cause focuses on Civil War and Reconstruction memory, particularly involving Confederate memorials.

First, and foremost, Domby erroneously proclaims that the signature Confederate statues erected in Southern courthouse squares between 1900 and 1920 were chiefly installed to celebrate white supremacy. In truth, they were erected because the old soldiers were fading away. The typical surviving Confederate veteran was aged 60 in 1900 and 80 in 1920. Moreover, memorials for both Federal and Confederate soldiers surged during the war’s semicentennial from 1911 to 1915. Additionally, prior to 1900 the postbellum South was too poor to fund many memorials. Even in 1900 the region’s per capita income was only half the national average. Finally, after the sons of Confederate veterans eagerly joined the military to help win the 1898 Spanish-American War, Union veterans realized that their former rivals were also Americans who deserved their own memorials.

Second, Domby wrongly singles-out Southerners as racist without mentioning Northern racism. Consider, for example, the widespread obsession with defeating black heavyweight boxing champion Jack Johnson.

Johnson became the first black to hold the title in 1908. Since most white boxing fans were outraged that a black had become champion, promoters searched for a white boxer to beat Johnson. In 1910 they matched him against previous champion Jim Jeffries who had earlier retired undefeated. San Francisco novelist Jack London had summoned The Great White Hope, “Jim Jeffries must now emerge from his Alfalfa farm and remove that golden smile from Jack Johnson’s face. Jeff, it’s up to you. The White Man must be rescued.”

The bout attracted unprecedented attention. Led by The New York Times, the mainstream press was hostile toward blacks: “If the black man wins, thousands and thousands of his ignorant brothers will misinterpret his victory as justifying claims to much more than mere physical equality with their white neighbors.” After Johnson won the fight, race riots erupted in New York, Washington, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Omaha, Columbus, St. Louis and Wilmington, Delaware.

It took boxing promoters another five years to find a white fighter, Jess Willard, to beat the aging Johnson in 1915. When his victory was displayed on a bulletin board updated by telegraph in New York’s financial district the roar from the streets “would have done credit to a Presidential victory,” according to the New York Tribune. “For a moment the air was filled with hats and newspapers. Respectable businessmen pounded their unknown neighbors on the back” and acted like gleeful children.

Third, Domby sarcastically disparages the fighting qualities of the Confederate soldier. He suggests that the Civil War would have lasted far longer than four years if Southern warriors were any good. He’s merely repeating a common but flawed analysis taught by academics. America’s Revolutionary War, they argue, lasted eight years, which was twice as long as the Civil War. But that remark overlooks the relative casualties.

Soldier deaths during the Revolutionary War totaled 25,000, which was 1% of the population. In contrast, at least 300,000 Confederate soldiers died during the Civil War, which was about 5% of the available white population. (Assuming a larger 400,000 Northern soldiers died during the Civil War their loss ratio would have been only 1.8%.) Thus, the Confederate death ratio was five times the rate of the Revolutionary War in half the time. Such casualties were unsustainable. If America were to engage in a war today and endure the same proportional losses, the number of dead soldiers would total nearly 17 million.

Fourth, to support his assertion that Confederate statues are “all about” white supremacy Domby referred to businessman Julian Carr’s speech at the 1913 Silent Sam statue dedication at North Carolina University. Carr notoriously boasted of whipping a black woman shortly after the War as punishment for insulting a white woman. In the telling of the story Domby makes a number of ommissions and misrepresentations.

First, his claim that Carr was the most prominent speaker is dubious. There were five others including the state’s governor and the university’s president. None made racist remarks, nor are there any such words engraved into the statue.

Second, although the nineteen-year-old Carr’s racist incident is indefensible, Domby fails to explain that he later became a major benefactor to blacks. His was among the first Southern textile mills to employ blacks in production work as opposed to maintenance. His donations to black education included the North Carolina College for Negroes, presently known as North Carolina Central University (NCCU). The school’s black founder praised Carr:

I have never known the first time for him to fail to give to any enterprise which he thought would benefit the colored people or to lend his influence in their behalf. . . I have known scores and scores of colored people who were the recipients of his kindness and generosity. . . I have never known a colored person too poor or ignorant who went to General Carr for assistance who did not receive the same.

Third, Carr also helped black educator William Gaston Pearson who was born a slave in 1858 and worked as a youth at the Carr Factory. Carr recognized his potential and financed his education at Shaw University where Pearson graduated in 1886 at age 28. Thereafter, Pearson began teaching in Durham. In 1922 he became principal of Durham’s Hillside Park High School. In 1931, Hillside was accredited by the Southern Association of Secondary School and Colleges, a major achievement for a black high school during the Great Depression. Pearson also made other business, religious, and educational contributions to the Durham community.

Even if, for purposes of argument, it is assumed that Southerners seceded for slavery, it is not the reason they fought. The North could have let the first seven cotton states secede in peace but instead chose to coerce them back into the Union. Thus, they fought to protect their homeland from invasion. As historian William C. Davis put it,

The widespread Northern myth that Confederates went to the battlefield to perpetuate slavery is just that, a myth. Their letters and diaries, in the tens of thousands, reveal again and again that they fought because their Southern homeland was invaded. . .

Fifth, Domby excuses such present acts as mob destruction of Confederate memorials by explaining that any laws protecting them justify that opponents use so-called extra-legal means to demolish them. Since “extra-legal” is merely a euphemism for illegal, Domby’s argument is the same as the one the Ku Klux Klan used. The Klan argued their extra-legal conduct was necessitated by the ironclad control of the voting apparatus of Carpetbag regimes. Even though he condemned the KKK, South Carolina’s last Carpetbag governor (Daniel Chamberlain) considered it a predictable result:

No excuse can be framed for its outrages, but its causes were plain . . . It flourished where corruption . . . had climbed into power and withered where the reverse was the case. What is certain is that a people of force, pride, and intelligence [when] driven to choose between [temporary] violence and lawlessness and [permanent] misrule will infallibly choose the former.

In his farewell address to the Massachusetts legislature in January 1866, Republican Governor John Andrew warned that Reconstruction should require no humiliation in the South and that it should ally with “the natural leaders” of the region. He prophetically explained that if such men were not taken in as friends, they would resume their leadership as enemies. Republican Reconstruction architects Thaddeus Stevens and Oliver Morton ignored Andrew’s advice.

Chamberlain ultimately concluded that Radical Reconstruction was born of sinister motives, cruelly exploited Southern blacks and was destined to die of its own inadequacies. In retrospect he was certain "there was no possibility of securing good government in South Carolina through Republican influences. . . The vast preponderance of ignorance . . . in that party, aside from downright dishonesty, made it impossible.” The blacks, he felt, were egregiously abused. “Race was used as the tool of heartless partisan leaders.” Blacks were “mercilessly exploited for the benefit of a political [Republican] party, and heartlessly abandoned when the scheme had failed.”

Sixth, Domby makes the common mistake of citing the Declaration of Causes for secession of such states as Mississippi and South Carolina as so-called proof that the Civil War was all about slavery. Yet he ignores the sectional conflicts that are revealed by comparing the constitutions of the CSA and USA.

Unlike the Federal Constitution, the Confederacy’s did not permit protective tariffs. Southerners were ahead of their time in recognizing the benefits of Worldwide free trade. They also outlawed public works spending, which were instead to be financed by the states themselves. Since Southerners disliked crony capitalism their constitution prohibited subsidies for private industry, which were arguably allowed under the “general welfare” clause of the Federal Constitution.

The Confederate Constitution only permitted spending for military defense, repayment of national debt, and the operating costs of the Central Government, not pork barrel spending. In order to further discourage pork spending the President was given a line item veto and bills were normally introduced to Congress by the executive branch. If Congress originated a bill it would need a two-thirds majority to pass as opposed to a simple majority for one proposed by the President. Although her constitution authorized one, the Confederacy never formed a Supreme Court. As a creature of the Federal Government, Confederate leaders, their parents and ancestors had observed that the U. S. Supreme Court tended to make rulings that increasingly concentrated power in the Central Government, which was contrary to the South’s tradition favoring states’ rights.

Seventh, even though Domby states, “Anytime you have someone trying to prevent a topic from being debated, it is a sign they are on the losing side” he never responded to my request to be interviewed on this YouTube channel.

In sum, Domby’s interview by the Avery Research Center suggests that his research merely follows the predetermined conclusion of cloistered academics regarding the reasons for Confederate memorials. Presumably his only purpose was to find evidence that the statues were erected to celebrate and enforce white supremacy, particularly up to 1920. But given the wartime loss ratios noted earlier, only a cynic could reach such a conclusion. To repeat for emphasis, if America were to fight a war today with the same loss ratio as the Confederates, our soldier deaths would total about 17 million. Nobody can doubt that 30 years later the families would badly want to build memorials to both the dead and survivors before they faded away.

Thank You Phil Leigh!

The Massive Election Fraud of 2020 Can Not Stand

The Massive Election Fraud of 2020
Can Not Stand

by Gene Kizer, Jr.


No Republican will ever win another election if things stay as they are now.

Democrats have discovered the perfect way to "win" every election from now on.

They don't need to pack the Supreme Court.

They don't need to make Puerto Rico and DC states.

They don't need to open the southern border.

They don't even need Antifa and Black Lives Matter in the street.

All they have to do is what they are doing right this minute: Continue with massive mail-in voting. Then make it permanent.

Send ballots to everybody even if they didn't request one, so whoever gets it can vote, regardless of whether they are the registered voter.

Never allow voter rolls to be cleaned up so dead people, and people who have moved, can keep voting.

Get rid of the signature-match and postmark requirements so you can submit as many ballots as you need.

Enable counting for days after election day so you can add votes where necessary, and do not, under any circumstances, let the other party observe anything even though they have a legal right to do so.

There is strong direct evidence documented by hundreds of affidavits and overwhelming circumstantial evidence that voter fraud is occurring. If Democrats were not cheating in places like Philadelphia and Detroit, they would want the other party to observe.

Instead, they cover up windows in counting places and ignore the law and court orders that require them to allow Republicans to observe the counting.

It only takes a few corrupt places to win an election through vote fraud. Philly, Detroit, Atlanta, Milwaukee. There's four right there. Philadelphia is renowned for it's election fraud.

There is no doubt that massive election fraud has taken place and it has been coordinated. These are the same ruthless, corrupt people who gave us two coups d'etat that resulted in the Russia Hoax that President Trump had to deal with for three years, and a political impeachment based on a perfect phone call about Biden's influence peddling, which we now know was true thanks to Hunter Biden's laptop.

Think about how compromised Joe Biden is in dealing with China, thanks to his and Hunter's influence pedding, and Iran, with the nuclear deal in which Joe Biden and Obama guaranteed the world's largest exporter of terrorism a nuclear bomb and billions of dollars in cash to spread their terrorism all over the world.

Attorney General Barr should appoint a special counsel right now to look into Biden's well-documented influence peddling. Investigations are underway but this requires a special council like Mueller with an unlimited budget.

However, one won't be appointed because Republicans never play to win the way Democrats do. That's why Durham didn't announce anything, before the election, about his investigation of the first coup d'etat; and now, he will be shut down.

Obama and Biden, with their blessings, gave ISIS a caliphate.

Trump destroyed all that, but it will now be revived.

Think about Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation and Diane Feinstein holding Blasey Ford's false accusations until just before the vote, which is a popular Democrat technique. These people are the sleaziest but they play to win, and usually do, like now.

Feinstein's husband, Richard C. Blum, is a part owner of the voting machine company, Dominion Voting Systems, used widely across the country and in all the battleground states. It was developed with money from the Clinton Global Initiative. James Howard Kunstler observes:

Then there are the janky numbers in all those other states where the Dominion vote tabulation software was used: 130,000 here… 27,000 there… et cetera. By the way, the company that puts out this Dominion product is partly owned by Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein’s husband, Richard C. Blum; one of its top executives is Nancy Pelosi’s former chief-of-staff; and the software’s development was funded by the Clinton Global Initiative in 2014. I guess they know a good thing when it jumps up and bites them on the lips.1

Software glitches in systems using Dominion Voting Systems software shifted thousands of votes from Trump to Biden in Georgia and Pennsylvania. In Georgia, software updates were done the night before the election, which is unheard of.

The errors were supposedly corrected but how many hundreds of other places around the country did not catch them and correct them? There should be a full scale investigation of voting machine fraud and specifically Dominion Voting Systems, which starts out suspect due to its ties to Diane Feinstein, Pelosi, and the Clinton Global Initiative.

Kunstler also notes the method used by the CIA to interfere in elections of other countries. He writes:

I supposed you've also seen rumors about the Intelligence Community's election-meddling software programs, HAMR ("Hammer") and Scorecard allegedly being employed in last week's election, but that is only a rumor so far. Sidney Powell, lawyer to General Michael Flynn, dropped it on the airwaves, and recall that General Flynn was the Director of the DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency), so there's a chance that he knows about these programs in excruciating detail. There's also reason to believe that General Flynn retains connections to many loyal intel techies who worked under him, and are capable of sussing out the situation. Also, by the way: do you suppose that any of this election-medding software was used to ensure Joe Biden's mysterious out-of-nowhere victory in the Super-Tuesday primary? Hmmm. . . .? 2

Trump was on a fast track to reelection with a booming economy and foreign policy wins all over the world.

Then COVID-19 hit and gave Democrats their chance with mail-in ballot fraud, which enabled them to manufacture thousands of ballots, whatever they needed.

They knew they had one chance to negate everything Trump has done to Make America Great Again and they were not going to lose it. They were going for it, like they did with Obama's corruption of the FBI and CIA, the spying on Trump's campaign, the Russia Hoax and three-year Mueller investigation.

Now, if this election stands, there is no limit on Democrat deep state corruption and power.

The worst thing is the end of all the investigations such as John Durham's, so now Democrats and a corrupt FBI will get clean away with a coup d'etat to spy on and remove a duly elected American president.

There's a good chance Eric Holder will be back in charge of the Justice Department and he will take care of Jim Comey and his other Democrat allies.

Donald Trump, Jr. has been encouraging his father to declassify everything related to the ongoing investigations to get it all out there, and that definitely should be done.

Another horrible thing for America is that Big Tech - Google, Facebook, Twitter, et al. - will get away completely with destroying free speech for half the country. We will now be 100% under Big Tech's control. Everything we say or think now has to be approved by Google, Facebook and Twitter, and that will get worse.

With their monopoly power they are more like public utilities who should not be allowed to censor and discriminate against anybody but they do brazenly. Imagine other public utilities discriminating against citizens. What if the power company decided to cut off your power because you are a MAGA supporter to teach you a lesson and make an example out of you to scare others.

No public utility should be able to discriminate like Google, Facebook, Twitter, et al. discriminate.

Big Tech and the corrupt mainstream news media have total control of America now.

If Republicans are truly out of power, then there will be no way to break up those monopolies and restore our freedom of speech and thought.

Think about Twitter censoring the president of the United States who was tweeting the legitimate New York Post story of Tony Bobulinski's credible testimony against Hunter and Joe Biden in order to defend his personal honor.

Republicans let us down like they always do.

That is the refreshing thing about President Trump. He fights, and fights hard, and wants to pay back people who wrong him. There is something so honest and gratifying about that.

Republicans like Mitt Romey, a/k/a Pierre Dilecto, never fight hard. They are the first to buckle because they want to be liked by the corrupt news media, but President Trump called out the media over and over. That's why they hate him. That, and the fact that he has been effective in spite of their constant attempts to destroy him.

President Trump is not the enemy of democracy but the mainstream news media is. They and Big Tech hide information Americans need because it helps the Democrat Party, information like the Bobulinski interview of October 22, 2020 shown at and Hunter Biden's laptop reports from the New York Post, which show clearly Joe Biden's illegal influence peddling, and the money he and Hunter made with the Chinese Communists, the Ukrainians, and others.

Sidney Powell, former federal prosecutor and current lawyer for Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, said on Nov. 8th that top Democrats are using the aforementioned Dominion Voting Systems to commit election fraud:

They have invested in it for their own reasons and are using it to commit this fraud to steal votes. I think they've even stolen them from other Democrats in their own party who should be outraged about this also.4

She said Dominion has about a third of the voting machine market with customers in 28 states and Puerto Rico "including all of the battleground states."

In a Fox News interview with Maria Bartiromo Sunday, November 8, Powell said:

There has been a massive and coordinated effort to steal this election from We The People of the United States of America to delegitimize and destroy votes for Donald Trump. To manufacture votes for Joe Biden. They've done it in every way imaginable, from having dead people vote in record numbers, to absolutely fraudulently creating ballots that exist only for voting for Biden.

She goes on:

We've identified over 450,000 ballots that miraculously only have a vote for Joe Biden on them and no other candidate. If you look at Florida where things were done right you can see that that is how the rest of the country should have gone. But they also used an algorithm to calculate the number of votes they would need to flip. And they used computers to flip those votes from Trump to Biden and from other Republican candidates to their competitors also.5

Here's the Sidney Powell video:

Statistical analysis shows that Biden votes far exceed Democrat down-ticket votes making those votes statistically improbable.

In a Pamela Geller article entitled "MORE PROOF OF FRAUD: Republicans Won 28 or 29 Most Competitive House Seats, Added 3 State Legislatures, Did Not Lose a Single House Race - But Joe Biden Won!!?", Maria Bartiromo interviewed Republican Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy who told her "Republicans won 28 or 29 of the most competitive US House seats. Republicans did not lose one single House seat! The Republicans also took control of three more state [legislatures]."6

The mathematical evidence of voter fraud is overwhelming. It is convincingly laid out in an article with information from MIL-OPS, "a Defense Department site approved for discussion among military officers and military retirees with appropriate military specialities." It goes into great detail with charts and graphs and explanations of things like Benford's Law.

The article title is "Overall Multi-State Data: Mathematical Evidence"7 and it was posted by Pamela Geller November 8, 2020, and notes from The Gateway Pundit, "Voter Fraud in Wisconsin - Massive Dump of Over 100,000 Ballots for Biden All the Sudden Appear Overnight."

It also states under heading Mathematical Evidence, subheading Statistical Impossibilities in Wisconsin and Michigan, November 5, 2020:

In both Michigan and Wisconsin, several vote dumps occurred at approximately 4am on Wednesday morning, which showed that Joe Biden received almost 100 percent of the votes. President Trump was leading by hundreds of thousands of votes in both states as America went to sleep, and turnout in the state of Wisconsin seems to be particularly impossible.

The usual explanation of the corrupt media is that most of the mail-in ballots came from Biden supporters but that can not be true:

This is particularly concerning considering Republicans led in mail-in ballots requested and mail-in and in-person ballots returned leading up to and at the start of election day.

According to NBC News on election day before the polls opened, in Michigan, Republicans led 41% to 39% in Mail-in Ballots requested. Republicans also led 42% to 39% with Mail-in and in-person ballots returned.

In Wisconsin on election day before the polls opened, Republicans led Mail-in Ballots requested 43% to 35%, and Mail-in and early in-person ballots returned 43% to 35%. Almost ALL of the ballots found, while most in the country were sleeping, after the officials stated they would stop counting, were for Joe Biden.

Under subheading Former Politicians of Blue Cities Chime In, Rod Blagojevich, former corrupt governor of Illinois who was sentenced to 14 years in prison but pardoned by President Trump several years into his sentence, says there is no question what went on in Philadelphia, Milwaukee, Detroit and other cities:

In big cities where they control the political apparatus and they control the apparatus that counts the votes, and they control the polling places and the ones who count the votes, it's widespread and it's deep . . .

In "How They Stole the Election" by Vasko Kohlmayer, November 9, 2020, he writes:

It was a combination of vote harvesting and fraud that Biden has come out on top. In some areas of Wisconsin, turnout for Biden was nearly 90 percent. One analyst pointed out that this is 5.5 standard deviations above the average. Such a thing is not practically possible given that the odds against it are 1 in 52,910,052. It is like flipping a coin and getting heads twenty-five times in a row.8

It is now obvious that the presidential election of 2020 has been stolen by massive fraud and corruption by the same people who have given us two coups d'etat in the past four years, and it can not stand.

A Republican fundraiser, Bill White, has put together a reward of $1 million dollars "for evidence of voter fraud." He has already raised over $14 million dollars:

White is based in Atlanta, where the Trump campaign has dispatched dozens of lawyers for a narrowly contested vote count led by Republican Rep. Doug Collins. He said Atlanta's Trump campaign and GOP headquarters have received 'literally hundreds of calls' reporting fraud since the election.9

Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick also "will pay up to $1 million 'to incentivize, encourage and reward people to come forward and report voter fraud.'"10

People who have evidence that leads to an arrest and conviction will get a guaranteed payout of $25,000.11

To report election fraud, call President Trump's hotline at (888) 503-3526 or go online and report it at:

We have to have faith in the integrity of our elections or we don't have a country.

These charges have to be thoroughly investigated.

The only thing that will satisfy me is a manual vote count in Philadelphia, Detroit, Milwaukee, Atlanta and other places where fraud is highly suspected.

Republicans and Democrats together need to look at EVERY SINGLE BALLOT that was cast, and count only clearly legitimate ballots.

If that is done, and President Trump loses, I will accept that we lost a fair fight and I will continue to have faith in our wonderful country.

But if fraud is proven, then people need to go to jail jail jail. Something on the scope of what is obviously happening now is so destabilizing for our country that it should be considered treasonous and people be executed for it. That should be the law.

This kind of corruption can not stand. The gauntlet is down. The good guys have to win this fight because who the hell wants to live in a banana republic where your elections can be stolen by the lowest scum of society.

It angers me greatly that they have done this to our magnificent country.

Failure to root out this fraud and hold people accountable is not an option.


1 "Fore!" by James Howard Kunstler, November 9, 2020,, accessed 11/11/20.

2 Ibid.

3 Tony Bobulinski Statement on Hunter Biden, October 22, 2020: "Tony Bobulinski, a former business associate of Hunter Biden, son of former Vice President Joe Biden, made a statement about business dealings in China. He said he would turn over electronic evidence of Biden family involvement.", accessed 11/11/20.

4 "Sidney Powell: People with links to powerful Democrats using Dominion voting machines to 'steal' votes", by Joseph Simonson, Political Reporter & Daniel Chaitin, Breaking News Editor, November 8, 2020,, accessed 11/11/20.

5 Ibid.

6 "MORE PROOF OF FRAUD: Republicans Won 28 or 29 Most Competitive House Seats, Added 3 State Legislatures, Did Not Lose a Single House Race - But Joe Biden Won!!?" by Jim Hoft, Gateway Pundit, November 8, 2020, in The Geller Report,, accessed 11/11/20.

7 "Overall Multi-State Data: Mathematical Evidence", posted by Pamela Geller November 8, 2020,, accessed 11/11/20.

8 "How They Stole the Election" by Vasko Kohlmayer, November 9, 2020, in,, accessed 11/11/20.

9 "Top Trump bundler offers $1M reward for evidence of voter fraud" by Katherine Doyle, White House Correspondent, November 10, 2020,, accessed 11/11/20.

10 "Texas lieutenant governor offers $1 million for reports about voter fraud in 2020 election" By Mark Moore, November 11, 2020,, accessed 11/11/20.

11 Ibid.