Naming commission epitomizes the degradation of American history

Naming commission epitomizes the degradation of American history
Its lead historian, Conner Williams of Yale, calls Confederates traitors
King George III called the American Colonists traitors too, so Confederates are in good company
Two articles below obliterate the Confederates as traitors fraud

[Publisher's Note, by Gene Kizer, Jr. - In the secession debate in the South in the year leading up to states seceding, the most widely quoted phrase came from the Declaration of Independence:

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

The "Form of Government" destructive of the ends of self-government in the South was the federal government dominated by the Northern majority that had sent terrorists like John Brown into the South to murder, rape and rob Southerners. Ohio and Iowa protected Brown's terrorist sons from extradition to Virginia to stand trial then Northerners celebrated Brown as a hero when brought to justice.

Before that it was Hinton Helper's The Impending Crisis that called for the throats of Southerners to be cut in the night. The Republican Party - the party of the North pledged against the South - as Wendell Phillips proudly proclaimed, printed hundreds of thousands and distributed them coast to coast as a campaign document in 1860.

There was also massive taxation that caused Southerners to pay three-fourths of the country's taxes while three-fourth of the tax money was being spent in the North. Henry L. Benning, for whom Fort Benning, Georgia used to be named, said "Eighty-five millions is the amount of the drains from the South to the North in one year, - drains in return for which the South receives nothing." 1

Benning then predicted the bloody war with precision:

The North cut off from Southern cotton, rice, tobacco, and other Southern products would lose three fourths of her commerce, and a very large proportion of her manufactures. And thus those great fountains of finance would sink very low. . . . Would the North in such a condition as that declare war against the South? 2

That's not something Connor Williams would understand because he is a politicized historian working for a political commission established by the most historically ignorant, virtue signaling, characterless politician in American history, Elizabeth Warren, his fellow New Englander, who claimed she was an Indian for years to game the Affirmation Action system at Harvard when she is as white as the pure driven snow.

The real traitors are traitors to truth and falsifiers of history as exemplified by the naming commission, which knew the Confederate Memorial in Arlington National Cemetery symbolized the reconciliation of North and South, but deliberately left that out of their report to Congress.

The reconciliation theme is not a "my interpretation of history versus theirs." It is indisputable and was established by Arlington National Cemetery itself - in numerous places and in great detail - in their application for ANC's Historic District to be on the National Register of Historic Places. That application was approved in 2014.

How could reconciliation not be the theme when four presidents - William McKinley, Teddy Roosevelt, William Howard Taft and Woodrow Wilson - with veterans North and South, blessed it and enthusiastically participated in its construction and dedication. Another president, Warren G. Harding, sent a message of condolence to the Arlington funeral of the Confederate Monument's famous sculptor, Moses Ezekiel, himself a VMI Confederate soldier.

The year before the Confederate Memorial was dedicated, 1913, was the  fiftieth anniversary of the Battle of Gettysburg with its famous handshakes across the wall by the old Union and Confederate veterans.

The Confederate Memorial was the brainchild of former Union soldier and later president, William McKinley, who said:

. . . every soldier's grave made during our unfortunate civil war is a tribute to American valor . . . And the time has now come . . . when in the spirit of fraternity we should share in the care of the graves of the Confederate soldiers . . . The cordial feeling now happily existing between the North and South prompts this gracious act and if it needed further justification it is found in the gallant loyalty to the Union and the flag so conspicuously shown in this year just passed by the sons and grandsons of those heroic dead.

But this is what naming commission vice chair Ty Seidule said in his hate screed, Robert E. Lee and Me, on page 162:

Of the thousands of monuments around the country to the Confederacy, the one in Arlington National Cemetery angers me the most. Every year, the commander in chief sends a wreath, ensuring the Confederate monument receives all the prestige of the U.S. government. That's why it riles me so much. . . .

Seidule admits that the Confederate Memorial stands for reconciliation, but if he had put that in the naming commission's report to Congress, it would be obvious that the Confederate Memorial is not in the naming commission's remit, therefore they could not have it destroyed and satiate Seidule's personal hatred.

In Robert E. Lee and Me, Seidule continues on page 162:

I know both political parties and white citizens in the North and South brought the country back together after the tremendous bloodletting and destruction of the Civil War. The posts named for Confederate officers during World War I also served to knit white America back together as it fought a common foe. And it worked, but we must recognize that reconciliation came at a steep and horrifying cost. African Americans paid the price with lynching, Jim Crow segregation, and the loss of the franchise. The price for white reconciliation remains far too high. (Bold emphasis added.)

It is clear, by the public admission of the naming commission's vice chair, that the Confederate Memorial and all the Army bases named for Confederates came about because of the reconciliation of our great country and therefore NONE of them are in the naming commission's remit as is required for the naming commission to have any say about their future.

In other words, the naming commission, based on lies caused by the deliberate omission of historical facts, arguably illegally, stated that the Army bases named for Confederates are in their remit and should be changed, and Moses Ezekiel's world-class 109 year old monument in Arlington National Cemetery should be destroyed.

A law suit should be filed immediately on these grounds.

The Army bases and the Confederate Memorial in Arlington National Cemetery are not in the naming commission's remit. They do not commemorate the Confederacy. They commemorate the reconciliation of our country and to everybody except Ty Seidule, that is a good thing.

We should make this a fight to remove the horribly damaging Wokeness now in our military that has caused the United States Navy to use a drag queen for recruiting, and blesses men in women's barracks and showers. How out of touch with reality can you get.

Below are two articles annihilating the historical fraud that Confederates are traitors. Confederates are the heroes of American history, heirs to the Founding Fathers, who fought a good fight on constitutional principle then rejoined our country with enthusiasm. That's why 44% of the United States military has historically been recruited in the South.

One of the articles I wrote as a letter-to-the-editor of the Charleston Post and Courier responding to a person who had called the crew of the Confederate submarine H. L. Hunley, traitors. The Hunley was the first submarine in history to sink an enemy ship in combat.

The second is from Lloyd Garnett, recently published on the Abbeville Institute blog as "The 'Confederates Were Traitors' Argument Is Ahistorical."

Following Garnett's piece are several important links to Defend Arlington and the fight to prevent the degradation of Arlington National Cemetery, which would occur if the 109 year old Confederate Reconciliation Memorial is destroyed, leaving over 500 graves in concentric circles around a mangled shaft in our nation's most sacred burial ground.

This will tear the fabric of our nation in such a way that it can never be repaired.]

Obliterate the Sophism that Confederates Were Traitors

Posted on June 30, 2019 by Gene Kizer, Jr. | 7 Comments

Confederate submarine H. L. Hunley, December 6, 1863, on dry land in Charleston for repairs, famous painting by Conrad Wise Chapman.
Confederate submarine H. L. Hunley, December 6, 1863, on dry land in Charleston for repairs, famous painting by Conrad Wise Chapman.

The following is a letter-to-the-editor of the Charleston, SC Post and Courier September 15, 2018 by Gene Kizer, Jr. defending the crew of the Confederate submarine CSS Hunley against a letter-writer's accusation that they were traitors. It applies to all Confederates. This letter was not published by the Post and Courier but has been published in the Abbeville Institute Blog ("Confederate Soldiers Were Not Traitors," October 3, 2018) and other places.

Dear Editor of the Post and Courier,

A letter writer on September 12, 2018 is adamant that the proposed museum for the Confederate submarine H. L. Hunley should not be incorporated into Patriot's Point because Patriot's Point honors the U.S. Navy and those "who defended the U.S. and its Constitution" whereas the CSS Hunley crew were traitors.

He is correct that the Hunley's sinking of the USS Housatonic to become the first submarine in history to sink an enemy ship in combat was an historic event, but he errs grievously when he says the Hunley should also be remembered "for their pardons for treason." That is fake history.

The Hunley crew gave their lives for their country. They were not charged with treason and nobody associated with the Hunley sought a pardon.

The writer is confused about our country's founding because nowhere in the U.S. Constitution in 1861 did it say the Federal Government had a right or obligation to wage war against any state in the Union for any reason.

The country was not centralized in those days and each state was sovereign and independent and had been since the Colonists won the Revolutionary War. King George III agreed to the Treaty of Paris, September 3, 1783, which stated:

Article 1st. His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz, New-Hampshire, Massachusetts-Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New-York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free, sovereign and independent states . . . .

No state ever rescinded its sovereignty or gave up its independence.

In fact, three states were so protective of their independence that they insisted, before they would join the new Union, that they could secede from it if it became tyrannical in their eyes. Those states were New York, Rhode Island and Virginia. Because all the states were admitted to the Union as equals, the acceptance of the right of secession demanded by New York, Rhode Island and Virginia, gave that right to all the other states.

The right of secession was not questioned during the antebellum era. It was taught in places like the United States Military Academy at West Point in famous texts such as William Rawle's "A View of the Constitution of the United States of America." The New England states with their Hartford Convention almost seceded over the War of 1812, but the Southern boys under Andrew Jackson defeated the British in New Orleans and ended the war. New England threatened secession again with the admission of Texas in 1845. Even Horace Greeley believed in the right of secession ("let the erring sisters go") until he realized the loss of his Southern manufacturing market and cotton threatened to destroy the Northern economy, and along with it, his wealth and power. Then he wanted war.

In the Constitutional Convention of 1787, the Founding Fathers called for the Constitution to be ratified by each state through a special convention of the people to decide that one issue, rather than through their legislatures. If they ratified it through their legislatures, a later legislature might rescind the ratification of an earlier legislature, therefore a convention of the people was a more sound basis for a state to approve the Constitution.

When the Southern States seceded, they followed the exact precedent set by the Founding Fathers in the Constitutional Convention of 1787. Each Southern state called a convention of the people (commonly called a secession convention), elected delegates as Unionists or Secessionists, debated the single issue of whether to stay in the Union or leave, then seven states voted to secede. Four rejected secession for the time being.

When the guns of Fort Sumter sounded, there were more slave states in the Union (eight, soon to be nine) than the Confederacy (seven). Of course, the four that had rejected secession, immediately seceded when Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteers to invade the South because they did not believe the Federal Government had a right to invade a sovereign state or coerce it to do anything.

Secession was their legal right and they did it properly. So, the idea that the crew of the CSS Hunley were traitors, is ludicrous.

I might remind the letter writer that the Hunley crew's ancestors, like all Confederate ancestors, gave our country independence because the Revolutionary War was won in the South.

And the Hunley crew's descendants, being from the South - a region that reveres military service - helped mightily to win every other American war.

Patriot's Point represents the highest ideals of American valor and patriotism, and there is none greater than that exhibited by the crew of the CSS Hunley.

The Hunley museum should not only be at Patriot's Point, it should be the star of Patriot's Point. The Hunley is only part of the story of the Siege of Charleston, which was one of the longest sieges in history. Anyone who has seen some of the hundreds of pictures of Charleston destroyed from the Battery to Calhoun Street by Union shelling from ships such as the USS Housatonic, knows there is a tremendous story here. The Confederate semi-submersible cigar-shaped vessels (Davids) that harassed the Union blockade as well as the ironclads, Palmetto State and Chicora, and blockade runners, are not as well known as the Hunley but just as fascinating. All of this should be told at Patriot's Point.

Patriot's Point could become one of the greatest historical assets on the planet. With Fort Sumter, Fort Moultrie, and the new International African-American Museum coming soon, Charleston could dominate history tourism like nowhere on earth and take us to a level we can't even imagine right now.

Gene Kizer, Jr.
Charleston Athenaeum Press
Charleston, SC


The "Confederates Were Traitors" Argument Is Ahistorical

Published on the Abbeville Institute Blog, May 4, 2023, by Lloyd "Doc" Garnett.

SUPPORTERS OF THE ERASURE & DESTRUCTION COMMISSION, aka Naming Commission, are fond of displaying their ignorance regarding the legal framework of the United States under the Constitution. Never is their misapprehension more evident than when they declare that Confederates were “traitors.”

The charge is so unarguably counterfactual as to be absurd. While forgiveness (not forgetfulness) should be our Christian impulse, it is our duty to our birthright to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” – which is to say, our individual and political sovereignty under God – to firmly set the record straight.

Setting the historical record straight is not a matter of rehashing bygones, which ought to be left as bygones. Rather, understanding the important Constitutional arguments involved then, is critical to grasping the political and social arguments now. As the current arguments by the ignorant and the malevolent have today devolved into riotous violence, injury and destruction of property, iconic art and symbolic reminders of our worthy heritage, it should be obvious that appreciation for the concept of “government by consent of the governed” is at stake.

FIRST, we must start with the plain language and known intent of the Constitution, which was adopted within the living memory of some, and by the parents and grandparents of many, who lived through the events of 1860 -1865.

By that Constitution, the Southern States had, as all states today have, the Right to Withdraw from the Union, to assume/resume the powers they previously delegated to the Federal government, and establish such governmental arrangements as the people of the respective, sovereign States desire. Nowhere in the Constitution is withdrawal by a sovereign State prohibited. This is not an accident or an oversight by the Framers. It is intentional.

#1) The first Founding Document (“The Declaration of Independence”) was approved by all 13 colonies. In it or by it, they each and collectively declared themselves to be free and independent, sovereign States, and asserted their right of secession from Great Britain as fundamental to government by consent.

#2) When the question was posed in the Constitution Convention, whether the proposed United States could prevent a State from leaving the proposed Union, the idea was summarily rejected. James Madison (“The Father of the Constitution”) advised the assembled delegates, that any attempt to assert such control would doom ratification because the States would never assent to prohibiting the very action by which their independence was gained. As the States had so recently fought a very bloody and costly war defeating the most powerful nation on Earth to assert that very right, Madison’s belief is indisputable.

#3) Whereas the Preamble of the preceding Articles of Confederation referred to establishing a “perpetual Union,” the Framers of the new government’s Constitution deliberately deleted the word “perpetual” from the document.

#4) The Bill of Rights, specifically Amendments IX and X clearly must include the right of the people of any State to withdraw from the Union, as it is not otherwise prohibited anywhere in the Constitution… to this day.

#5) Virginia, Rhode Island and New York all reserved the right to withdraw and/or to resume all of the powers delegated to the Federal government as a caveat to their ratification of the Constitution and joining the proposed Union. These three States were accepted by their sister States into the Union with this caveat. As the Constitution specifies that all States must be treated equally, the caveat demanded by Rhode Island, New York and Virginia was thus automatically applicable to ALL of the States.

#6) All of the States ratifying the new Constitution, had to first secede from the previous government under the Articles of Confederation. This they each did independently, with Rhode Island being the last to secede from the first and join the second, in 1790, three years after the first state, Delaware did so. By seceding from Great Britain and again, from the government under the Articles of Confederation, it is manifest that the overarching right of secession was embraced by them all.

#7) It was therefore clearly and universally believed that the sovereign States had the right to withdraw (secede) from the Union. The right of secession was even taught at West Point, using the textbook A View Of the Constitution of the United States by William A. Rawle, who was one of the foremost Constitutional scholars of the day. A native and lifelong resident of Philadelphia, Rawle was personally well acquainted, met and freely corresponded with a number of the Framers.

[Publisher's Note: It seems that the naming commission's Ty Seidule would know this since he was in the history department at West Point for years and retired from there. It would also seem that lead historian, Yale's Connor Williams, would know it too.

Connor Williams SHOULD know a lot about traitors since Yale is in Connecticut and the Hartford Convention of Hartford, Connecticut arguably was the most treasonous affair in American history. Of course they did have the right to secede from the Union but their timing, while the United States was engaged in a bitter war with the British, hurt the American war effort enormously. Patriotic Americans were deeply concerned that Massachusetts, Connecticut and other New England states might join the British.

Fortunately, Andy Jackson and the Southern boys whipped the British at the Battle of New Orleans and won the war for America, which let the Hartford Conventioneers off with just egg, and Benedict Arnold-type embarrassment, on their faces.]

#8) Acting in Convention, the New England States asserted their right and threatened to secede at least 4 times – over the Louisiana Purchase of 1803, the War of 1812 (several New England states effectively “sat out” and did not participate), the War with Mexico and the admission of the Republic of Texas as a sovereign State. No one questioned the New England States’ right to do so.

SECOND: Therefore, having the Right to Secede and to form a new government of their choosing, South Carolina and the six States who first joined her, had the right to defend themselves against a hostile military invasion and naval blockade of South Carolina’s only deep water harbor and most important access to international markets (as well as to resist the massive, violent, overland military invasions that were launched upon them soon after).

“But, but, …” some irrelevantly feel compelled to declare, “the Confederates fired the first shot at Fort Sumter!” Apparently, they hold that by “firing the first shot” a country is guilty of starting a war, regardless of provocation.

By this logic, the United States was guilty of starting the War with Japan! In the early morning of December 7, 1941, before any attack on Pearl Harbor was even anticipated, the U. S. Navy sank a Japanese submarine. This was the first shot fired in America’s war with Japan, and Americans fired it. No one credibly asserts that the U. S. started World War II. The comparative analogy to what occurred 81 years earlier in Charleston Harbor is solid.

As Japan was merely suspected in November/December 1941, of having launched a war fleet possibly against the United States’ interests in the Pacific, the Lincoln government was by contrast, known to have launched a war fleet to reinforce and resupply Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor.  By International Law, all countries have sole jurisdiction over their harbors and Charleston Harbor was subject to the jurisdiction of the CSA.

The purpose of Lincoln’s blockading and reinforcing fleet was not to put down a rebellion or insurrection, as he claimed. Rather, the new Confederacy wished only to withdraw and form their own nation, NOT overthrow the USA. So, Lincoln’s actual intent was to defeat the fledgling new nation before it could fully affect its sustainable independence.

The shots fired at Fort Sumter by the Confederates were for the purpose of defending its harbor against further attack and blockade, as they knew additional U.S. warships and reinforcements were on the way. A successful reinforcement of Fort Sumter would close that vital harbor and severely damage Southern independence hopes. And certainly, they reasoned that Lincoln’s military and naval subjugation efforts would not stop with just Charleston Harbor.

Thus, the Confederates having lawfully withdrawn from the Union and formed a new government and nation, according to the desires of the people of the respective sovereign Southern States, opened fire to take possession of Fort Sumter. That action was necessary to assert the new nation’s rights, which are the rights of ALL nations to protect and defend its borders, territory, harbors and access to sea lanes and commercial interests.

When subsequently, Lincoln announced a full scale military invasion of the seven seceded States, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Arkansas and Missouri, until then pro-Union, were vehemently appalled by the Constitutional violation of this long accepted right to secede from a hostile government and to govern themselves. Those five States’ popular opinions changed virtually overnight from pro-Union to pro-secession, and they severed their Union bonds to defend their sister Southern States and themselves from illegal and violent coercion. The people of the seceded States believed they had a lawful right and a moral obligation to do so.

From the cornerstones of the Founding as detailed in The Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, the building blocks of the Confederates’ intellectual fortress against the defamation of “treason,” is summed up by the following question:

IF the right of government by consent is legitimate (It is!) , and IF it is not prohibited by the Constitution (It’s not!), and IF ALL nations have a right to defend themselves against foreign military and naval  aggression (They do!) , and IF the former U.S.A. military, naval and civilian government officials’ previous oaths were to defend the U. S. Constitution and to obey lawful orders, etc. (They were!) , and IF by their resignations, the Southerners concerned were no longer bound by that oath (They weren’t!) … then how could they be guilty of treason?

The answer is that they could not because they were not.

This fact unavoidably came slowly to be understood by the victorious USA’s legal scholars, jurists and eventually, reluctantly, by its politicians soon after the exigencies of warfare had ended and the many questions and challenges of re-establishing governance began to take precedence.

After the Southern armies had surrendered or voluntarily disbanded, CSA President Jefferson Davis was incarcerated by the Yankees for two years with the aim of prosecuting and convicting him of treason and then hanging him.

In attempting to build a case against Davis, however, two successive U.S. attorneys general, and the first two “Independent Counsels” in U.S. history, all independently concluded that Davis and the Confederates could not be justly convicted of treason.

It is believed by many that a majority on the U.S. Supreme Court believed so, as well, and were desperate to avoid ruling on the question. In his seminal The Civil War – A Narrative, Vol. III, pages 1035 -1039, Shelby Foote describes the evolution among Davis’s captors, would be prosecutors and President Johnson’s Cabinet, of the realization that Davis was not guilty of treason. Further, they rightly feared that to subject the question to a trial would result not only in Davis’s acquittal but that his acquittal would support the legality of secession!

Highly respected legal experts, in Washington City and all across the North, including the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Salmon P. Chase, had reluctantly reached this same conclusion. Caught in a legal bind, and thus out on a legal limb all by himself, Federal Justice Underwood, the presiding judge, finally dismissed the charges against Davis, using a convoluted, incoherent argument claiming justification by the newly ratified 14th Amendment, ex post facto.

Thus, by a legalistic pretense, did Justice Underwood save the bloody, deadly, costly military conquest of the Southern people, from being civilly, peacefully reversed in the Court of Law!


In no way, can the issue of slavery be related to the charge of “Traitor,” which is  wrongly assigned by mostly ignorant and a few malevolent accusers against the long dead Confederates. Slavery, morally wrong then as now, was nevertheless legal. And if one supported a lawful activity, it could not be grounds for a charge of treason. If one supported lawful slavery as grounds for lawful secession, even that could not be grounds for treason, either.

This part of the argument could be left at the last sentence above (PERIOD). But some, imbued with 158 years of relentless victors’ propaganda to the contrary, might require some supporting context. If so, I will attempt it as briefly as I can.

“In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country” wrote Robert E. Lee, years before the war. He was probably correct about the prevailing opinion, North and even South. However loathe I may be to disagree with Marse Robert, based on my extensive reading, I believe most were amazingly ambivalent.

Here, we should note that a nationwide, orderly, peaceful emancipation of the slaves was never seriously put forth. Some Southerners freed their slaves voluntarily and without compensation. So, some Southerners talked of government sponsored, compensated and gradual emancipation to allow for peaceful and efficient societal adjustment. But Northern interests, having decades before rid themselves of slavery, mostly by selling their slaves via New England slave traders, would not hear of it.

In lieu of peaceful and orderly emancipation, a few Northern “radical abolitionists” actively funded and supported violent abolition, such as John Brown’s infamous, murderous rampages in Kansas and Virginia. Prior to John Brown’s Raid on Harpers Ferry, there were more Emancipation Societies in the South than in the North. But the celebratory Northern reaction to “Bleeding Kansas,” Brown’s murders and the refusal by Northern States to extradite escaped participants and co-conspirators, resulted in a hardening of Southern attitudes. White Southerners, outnumbered in some communities by Blacks, were understandably fearful of bloody revolts and vengeful reprisals such as John Brown’s, Nat Turner’s, Denmark Vesey’s, a half dozen others from New York to Louisiana, and the most “successful” genocidal bloodbath in Haiti. Thus, did the previously growing, general Southern appetite for emancipation begin to dramatically wane.

Without getting too deep into all of the complexities and myriad views of slavery, who profited, the tangled interests, whether and how to end it, etc., suffice to say with respect to the specific charge of treason: Slavery was legal from before the beginning, to after the end of the war.

[Publisher's Note: New York, Boston and other New England cities carried on an illegal slave trade until years after the War Between the States though the slave trade had been outlawed by the U.S. Constitution in 1808. W. E. B. Du Bois said in his famous book, The Suppression of the African Slave-Trade to the United States, that in 1863, during the war, Boston and New York were the largest slave trading ports on the planet.]

When the war was launched by Lincoln to “preserve the Union,” there were seven Confederate States, all of which permitted slavery, and nine Union States that permitted slavery. There were more Union “slave states” than Confederate when the war was started. Four “slave states” joined the Confederacy upon Lincoln’s announcement of war to prevent secession. Five “slave states” remained in the Union. Later, a sixth “slave state,” West Virginia, would secede from the Confederacy and join/re-join the Union.

Slavery would not become illegal in the United States until the ratification of the 13th Amendment, which occurred AFTER the war was over. Ironically, the first state to ratify the Constitution, Delaware, which remained in the Union throughout the war, was the last state to end slavery after ratification of the 13th Amendment.

So if support of lawful slavery were somehow tantamount to the crime of treason, the slaveholding Union States of New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri (Claimed by both the Union and the Confederacy), and later, in West Virginia (admitted to the Union during the war as a “slave state”) … and in the slave holding territories of Oklahoma and New Mexico, would have suffered no end of prominent gallows.

At no time, did Lincoln or the Republican Congress declare that ending slavery was an objective of the war. In fact, Lincoln specifically, adamantly said the opposite many times. In fact, Lincoln even said in his first inaugural address that he supported adoption of an Amendment to the Constitution, which would ensure that slavery would be perpetually allowed by the Constitution. Known as the “Corwin Amendment,” it was passed by the Republican Congress and ratified by five Union states including Lincoln's Illinois until the war made it moot.

The Republican Congress’s official “War Aims Resolution” did not even mention slavery, much less declare abolition as an objective.

As for the much vaunted and ballyhooed  “Emancipation Proclamation,” only those who haven’t carefully read and analyzed it fantasize that it freed a single slave anywhere.

To put the bizarre allegations of the “slavery = treason” connection away: When the war was started to prevent Southern independence, there more slave states in the USA than in the CSA. The Emancipation Proclamation did not free the slaves, and West Virginia was admitted to the Union as a “slave state” during the war after the Emancipation Proclamation was published. Slavery remained legal in the Union until after the war. Lincoln specifically stated ending slavery was not an objective of the war. And the Republican led U. S. Congress formally omitted any mention that the abolition of slavery was a war aim.

The charge of “treason” against the Confederates is refuted by facts and logic. Neither secession, which was lawful, nor the institution of slavery, which was also lawful, constituted rebellion, insurrection or treason by the lawful authority of the governing U. S. Constitution.

We should not stand quietly by as “know nothings” distort our history, defame our ancestors and mischaracterize the essence of government by consent of the governed. Grave harm will fall upon succeeding generations of Americans regardless of ancestry, if we do.

PLEASE NOTE: This began as an informal email conversation among friends, a couple of whom asked me to clean it up for submission to the esteemed Abbeville Institute. All unassailable facts and logic, I have merely remembered from the works of many great historians, patriots and thinkers. As I’ve been reading about the events in question for over 60 years, I wish to express my debt and gratitude to far more people than is possible. However, among those still with us who continue to contribute their hard work, research, clear thinking and inspiration, I sincerely thank Clyde Wilson, H. V. (Bo) Traywick, Jr., Philip Leigh, Samuel Mitcham, Jr., Boyd Cathey, Thomas DiLorenzo, Gene Kizer, Jr., James and Walter Kennedy and the indefatigable Ann McClean… along with a regiment of like minded friends and family too numerous to list by name.

Lloyd Garnett

Lloyd Garnett is a retired “jack of several trades,” avid reader, observer and a Virginian.

Links to Important Resources

Defend Arlington Fundraising Site where you can help save Moses Ezekiel's MAGNIFICENT 109 year old Confederate Reconciliation Memorial in Arlington National Cemetery by Buying Outstanding Merchandise featuring BEAUTIFUL images from the monument. Art critics have said that every image on the monument is a work of art by itself. There are all kind of things like shirts, hats, hoodies, clocks, art prints, tote bags, note cards, stickers, ipad skins and cases, cell phone cases and skins, wall art, coasters, mugs, pins, throw pillows, water bottles, journals, magnets, etc.! ALL PROCEEDS GO TO THE DEFENSE FUND! Go spend some time on this site! You will love it!

Shop Now

Defend Arlington's recording of the 35 or so speakers on behalf of the Confederate Memorial at Arlington National Cemetery that took place Wednesday, March 15, 2023 in a virtual meeting of the Remember and Explore Subcommittee of Arlington National Cemetery.

View testimony which starts at 1:38:59.

Here is a link to Defend Arlington's donation page that states:


Please Donate Now -- THANK YOU!

Click Here to Donate AND Share on Facebook, et al.

Defend Arlington update with link to February 28, 2023 Tucker Carlson interview with Christopher Bedford on the Confederate Reconciliation Memorial in Arlington National Cemetery.

Defend Arlington update, Tucker Carlson segment on YouTube

Hot off the press! Here is a link to the new 385 page PDF from Defend Arlington that flips pages as you read. It contains all the great scholarly white papers gathered up by Defend Arlington to make sure that Woke ignorance DIES at Arlington National Cemetery.

Defend Arlington's 385 Page Book of White Papers

Here is a link to an informative nine minute video, "The Arlington Confederate Monument," produced by the Abbeville Institute.

The Arlington Confederate Monument

Here is a link to the outstanding scholarly PDF white papers written for Defend Arlington. You can download them all with one click. Please share them far and wide, especially the letter from Defend Arlington's attorney, Karen C. Bennett, to Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin.

PDF White Papers from Defend Arlington

Here is link to an excellent video refuting point by point a historically false Prager University video by Ty Seidule, who is naming commission vice chair. This one is produced by Bode Lang and entitled "The Civil War Was Not for Slavery."

Click Here for Bode Lang's excellent video

Here is a link to an excellent video of a Georgia lady calling out Elizabeth Warren and her Massachusetts hypocrisy.

Click Here for Georgia Lady Teaching Elizabeth Warren a Lesson

Here are important Southern Legal Resource Center links. SLRC mailing address is: Southern Legal Resource Center, 90 Church St., Black Mountain, NC 28711-3365.

Click Here to donate to the Southern Legal Resource Center

Click Here to follow on Facebook

Click Here to go to their website

Take action TODAY!

1 Henry L. Benning, "Henry L. Benning's Secessionist Speech, Monday Evening, November 19," delivered in Milledgeville, Georgia, November 19, 1860, in Freehling and Simpson, Secession Debated, Georgia's Showdown in 1860, 132.

2 Ibid.

Posted in Uncategorized.

Please click "About Us" on the menu bar for a brief bio. Thank you!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *