Middle School Student suspended for wearing Confederate Flag Shirt

By Lisa Coryell,

The Times of Trenton

Newspaper photo courtesy of the West family.

 A Kreps Middle School parent who says her daughter was suspended for wearing a sweatshirt emblazoned with the image of the confederate flag says the school overstepped its boundaries and violated her daughter’s right to free speech.

Jane West says she’s thinking about withdrawing her daughter, Torri Albrecht, from the school even as district officials insist that the flag — viewed by many as a racially charged symbol — was not the reason the girl was suspended.

“They’re saying that now because they know they really went too far this time,” West said. “If there wasn’t a problem with the sweatshirt, why did the vice principal call at 10 after 8 on Monday to demand that I bring a change of clothes for my daughter?”

“He told me he had a bunch of students and a bunch of teachers come into his office to say they were disturbed by it,” she said.

West said she told the assistant principal, Jermaine Blount, he was crazy if he thought she was coming out with a change of clothes for the eighth-grader.

“The Indian kids wear their turbans. The Jewish kids wear their yarmulkes. That’s their birthright,” she said. “I told him that Torri was born in Virginia. That flag is her heritage and I’m not telling her to take it off. He said ‘I guess she’ll have to suffer the consequences.’”

West said before heading to the school she called her daughter’s cell phone to tell her not to follow any orders to turn the sweatshirt inside out.

When she got to the school she was told that her daughter had been given a one-day suspension, she said.

No stranger to run-ins with school administrators at Kreps over issues involving her daughter, West said she’d had enough. She told her daughter to clean out her locker because she wasn’t coming back to school.

District Superintendent Edward Forsthoffer III disputed West’s account.

“No student was suspended for wearing an inappropriate shirt,” he said. He declined to say why Albrecht was suspended, citing student confidentiality policies.

Speaking in generalities, he said the district has a dress code that bans any clothing that causes a substantial disturbance in school.

“We’d rather be proactive than reactive,” he said. “Ninety-nine times out of 100, when asked, students say ‘OK, I’ll change.’ Some want to make an issue of it for ulterior motives. If there’s defiance involved, if there’s profanity involved (in the refusal to change clothing), certainly we’d have to respond appropriately.”

The battle flag of Confederate forces in the Civil War is widely regarded as one of the most controversial symbols from American history. Many see it as a symbol of racism while others consider it a part of familial and cultural heritage.

West says she and her daughter are in the latter group.

“We are so far from prejudiced,” she said. “My older daughter is biracial. For Torri this was about expressing herself. It was about saying ‘I’m from the South and I’m proud of it.’ She didn’t do it to cause hurt feelings.”

There's more.  See the full story here: http://www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/2011/11/east_windsor_teen_suspended_ov.html

Texas Sons of Confederate Veterans file Lawsuit against the DMV



Image from the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles

The Texas Division Sons of Confederate Veterans has filed a lawsuit in federal court against the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles, asserting  that the DMV infringed on the Confederate's free speech rights by refusing to issue a specialty license plate which would have featured a Confederate flag. Below is a press release from the Texas SCV which was issued in conjunction with the filing of the lawsuit: 

On  December 8th, 2011 a complaint was filed in pursuant of 42
U.S.C. §1983 to vindicate the rights secured to the “Texas Division Sons
of Confederate Veterans” by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the
Constitution.

The Texas SCV is a non-profit organization that works diligently to
preserve the memory and reputation of the Confederate soldiers,
emphasizing the virtues of their fight for the preservation of liberty
and freedom. Like many other non-profit organizations in Texas, the
Texas SCV sought from the State of Texas, through the Department Motor
Vehicles Board, approval of a specialty license plate, both to raise
awareness of their endeavors and to raise additional money to fund their
activities.

This action is in regards to the recent denial of the specialty license
application presented to the Department of Motor Vehicles Board by the
Texas Division Sons of Confederate Veterans. Currently, the SCV has
specialty automobile license plates available to vehicle drivers in
Georgia, North Carolina, Alabama, Maryland, Mississippi, Louisiana,
South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia.

The Texas SCV initially applied for a specialty license plate in Texas
with the Department of Transportation, the proper agency at the time, in
August 2009. That application was denied by the Department of
Transportation.

In 2009, the Texas Legislature amended the Transportation Code to
provide that the Department of Motor Vehicles, rather than the
Department of Transportation, was charged with issuing specialty license
plates. The license plate function moved to the new Department of Motor
Vehicles on November 1, 2009. At the time the Texas SCV reapplied with
the new governing department, to hopefully have a specialty plate in
advance of the Civil War Sesquicentennial, April 12, 2011. The official
public comments were heavily in favor of the Texas SCV’s application for
a specialty plate. Following commentary by both proponents and
opponents, the Board rejected the SCV plate at the hearing by an 8-0
vote without any discussion. At the same hearing, the Buffalo Soldiers
plate, without any discussion, was approved by a 5-3 vote. Since the
Department of Motor Vehicle Board has been charged with issuing
specialty license plates, the Sons of the Confederate Veterans plate is
the first, and only, to be rejected.

Through the members of the Department of Motor Vehicles Board, the State
of Texas has discriminated against the Texas SCV based on the ideas and
message that the Texas SCV supports, in clear violation of the First
Amendment. The Board seeks to bar the Texas SCV from expressing their
viewpoint while allowing all other groups to express their viewpoint:
this type of restriction is exactly the type which the First Amendment
is designed to erase. The only guideline that the Transportation Code
has to offer, which the Board referenced as its reason for rejecting the
plate, is that the Board can reject a plate “if the design might be
offensive to any member of the public…” This, however, cannot be the
standard. It is vague and indeterminable. Essentially, it is no
standard at all to say that the Board can discriminate based upon a
viewpoint if such speech is offensive to anyone. The First Amendment
clearly protects controversial speech. Additionally, even if simply
being “offensive to any member of the public” was sufficient to allow
for rejection, the State has approved numerous plates that are
“offensive to any member of the public.” In fact, the plate approved the
very same day as the Texas SCV plate was rejected – the Buffalo Soldier
plate – is offensive to Native Americans because the all-black cavalry
helped fight Native Americans in the Indian Wars from 1867-1888.

Accordingly, the Texas SCV seeks appropriate injunctive relief,
requiring the State of Texas to approve the Texas SCV’s application and
implement the specialty plate.

Granvel J. Block
Commander Texas Division
Sons of Confederate Veteran

Black South Carolina man refuses to take down his Confederate Flag

This young man known as GoGreen58, from Bluffton, South Carolina says:

"My college has forced me to take down my Confederate Flag, because they said I was violating a "Racism Code". The flag has been up for the last 2 months and no problems were happening around me, but now they want to say I'm violating a code. They cannot do this to me, because this is a public college and i have my rights to freedom of speech. The Sons of Confederate Veterans are on my side and  I have an attorney. If the housing department does not allow me to put it back up, after the letter has been sent. Then a HUGE LAWSUIT will take place, because the housing department is violating my rights of Freedom of Speech. I'm Black NOT African American and I Don't see the Confederate Flag as a RACIST SYMBOL!!!

Follow this link for the story on CNN:  http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-709533

Georgia Power backs down over Confederate Flag

Atlanta - Earlier this year, Georgia Power twice removed Confederate flags from the graves of veterans buried in the Yellow Dirt Baptist Cemetery located within the grounds of Plant Wansley.  When Georgia Power failed to respond to concerns of family members of the veterans buried in the cemetery, the families decided to contact the Georgia Division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans for help.  Following several weeks of activity by members of the local SCV camp, the Haralson Invincibles Camp #673, as well as support from the entire Georgia Division, Georgia Power spokesman Mark Williams finally acknowledged the families' concerns and admitted that Georgia Power and it's parent company, the Southern Company, do not have authority to control the cemetery where veterans are buried.

Family members have expressed their appreciation to the Sons of Confederate Veterans, the largest heritage preservation organization in the state and across America.  Georgia Division Commander Jack Bridwell spoke on behalf of the SCV, "We are happy to see that Georgia Power has finally acknowledged that it has no authority to remove flags from the graves of these veterans, and we are happy to have been able to provide help to these families who wished to honor their ancestors.  It is unfortunate that Georgia Power refused to honor the requests of the family members until our organization became involved.  We will continue to fight for the preservation of Southern heritage and the respect of veterans across Georgia whenever such violations as these by Georgia Power occur; and we appreciate the outpouring of appreciation shown to the SCV by local residents and elected officials of Heard County.

Defenders of the Confederate flags that decorate grave sites at the Yellow Dirt Baptist Church cemetery - photo from article by Josh Lindenbaum.

Despite acknowledging their errors, however, neither Georgia Power nor the Southern Company have issued an apology to the families for removing the flags; nor have they restored the flags that were originally taken by Georgia Power employees.  Georgia Power spokesman Konswello Monroe previously admitted that the company took the flags in a statement to the media: "Yes, we did remove those flags that were put up October 8, and we will be monitoring. If they are put back up we will remove them once again."  The families of the veterans buried in the cemetery have not yet decided whether or not to press charges for the theft of the flags or the violation of the state and federal laws which protect the graves and flags of veterans.  Family members and SCV leaders will be meeting within the next several days to discuss whether or not to have warrants issued for the arrest of Georgia Power officials.

For more information about Georgia Power's decision to restore the Confederate flags at the Yellow Dirt Baptist Cemetery, please contact Jack Bridwell, Division Commander of the Georgia Sons of Confederate Veterans at 1-866-SCV-in-GA or online at www.GeorgiaSCV.org . 

Thanks to Marshall Hester for submitting this story.   

=

Ten Reasons for Secession

By J. Michael Hill

A 2009 Zogby poll revealed that about one out of every five Americans believe that States have a right to peaceably secede from the United States and become independent republics. A similar percentage says that they would support a secession movement in their own State.

The greatest support for secession came from the South, where almost 26% of those polled supported a peaceful break with Washington, DC.

What is behind this increasing support for secession and independence? Perhaps the answer is this: hard reality has finally trumped the myth of a sacred, indivisible union. In other words, many citizens are beginning to see the hand writing on the wall, and the message is alarming.

There are at least ten good reasons for Southern secession in early 21st-century America:

1.  The U. S. government is an organized criminal enterprise; secession is the only way to return to legitimate government.

2.  The U. S. economy is failing; secession makes economic sense.

3.  The South’s unique history and culture is worth protecting.

4.  The criminal nature of the bank bailouts and the Fed.

5.  A dysfunctional national electoral system, secession may be the only way to restore integrity to elections.

6.  Third World immigration into the South, secession removes the federal government's interference and lack of performance.

7.  Organic community vs. the globalism of the elites.

8.  The implementation of an American police/surveillance state.

9.  The Christian South v. secular America, secession provides the opportunity to return to Our Founding Principles.

10.  Because we think we can rule ourselves better than we are being ruled by DC, secession is a path to American Liberty.

Can you think of some other reasons for secession?

About the Author:  Dr. J. Michael Hill, a former professor of History at Stillman College, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, is president of the League of the South. 

You may learn more about the League at www.dixienet.org

Confederate Symbols become issue in U.S. Presidential Race

This image provided by the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles shows the design of a proposed Sons of Confederate Veterans license plate. Eleven years ago, when the NAACP stepped up a campaign to remove the Confederate battle flag from statehouses and other government buildings across the South, it found an opponent in then Lt. Gov. Rick Perry. Perry argued that states should honor their history and decide on appropriate displays. A related issue may rise this fall when Texas decides whether to allow specialty license plates featuring the Confederate flag. Photo: Texas Department Of Motor Vehicles / AP       

WILL WEISSERT, Associated Press 

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — Eleven years ago, when the NAACP stepped up a campaign to remove the Confederate battle flag from statehouses and other government buildings across the South, it found an opponent in Rick Perry.

Texas had a pair of bronze plaques with symbols of the Confederacy displayed in its state Supreme Court building. Perry, then lieutenant governor, said they should stay put, arguing that Texans "should never forget our history."

It's a position Perry has taken consistently when the legacy of the Civil War has been raised, as have officials in many of the other former Confederate states. But while defense of Confederate symbols and Southern institutions can still be good politics below the Mason-Dixon line, the subject can appear in a different light when officials seek national office.

For Perry, now Texas governor for 11 years and in the top tier of Republican presidential candidates, a racial issue is already dogging him.

He took criticism over the weekend for a rock outside the Texas hunting camp his family once leased that had the name Niggerhead painted on it. Perry's campaign says the governor's father painted over the rock to cover the name soon after he began leasing the site in the early 1980s and says the Perry family never controlled, owned or managed the property. But rival Herman Cain, the only black Republican in the race, says the rock symbolizes Perry's insensitivity to race.

A related issue may rise this fall when Texas decides whether to allow specialty license plates featuring the Confederate flag. The plates have been requested by the Sons of Confederate Veterans, a nonprofit organization Perry has supported over the years. A state board he appointed will decide.

The NAACP says its initiative against "glorification" of slave-state symbols remains ongoing. "The romanticism around the Old South," said Hilary Shelton, director of the NAACP's Washington Bureau. "It's a view of history that ignores how racism became a tool to maintain a system of supremacy and dominance."

Perry campaign spokesman Mark Miner did not return messages seeking comment on the matter. But Granvel Block, the Texas Division commander of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, said the organization appreciated Perry's position on such issues.

Read the rest of the story here:  http://www.chron.com/news/article/Perry-once-defended-Confederate-symbols-2201378.php

Confederate Re-enactment: Comissioning of the Sunny South Guard



Sunny South Guard Confederate Re-enactors in Tampa
Photo by Phil Walters

Story Submitted by Marshall Hester

   GENERAL JUBAL A. EARLY CAMP 556, Tampa,Florida, co-sponsored an authentic re-enactment of the 1861 commissioning ceremony of the Sunny South Guard Regiment, which later became the 4th Florida Infantry Regiment. The event was held September 17, 2011, near the site of the original ceremony in downtown Tampa  It was organized by the Tampa Bay 150 Committee (co-chaired by Early Camp judge advocate David McCallister) and attracted re-enactors from across Florida.

Sons of Confederate Veterans Commander-in-Chief Michael Givens' addressed the gathering, which included his son Chandler portraying a Sunny South Guard volunteer and his daughter Olivia portraying a presenter of the regimental flag. Event co-sponsors and participants also included the Augusta Jane Evans Wilson chapter 2640 United Daughters of the Confederacy, Confederate Cantinieres chapter 2405 UDC, the 3rd Florida Regimental Brass Band, Company K 7th Florida Infantry, The Sunny South Guards Company K 4th Florida Infantry, the Peace River Artillery and living historian Marko Sumney. Early Camp aide de camp Brian Gilmore portrayed regimental commander Capt. John T. Lesley. Veterans of Murfreesboro, Chickamauga and Franklin, the regiment was surrendered after Bentonville. It was organized with 983 officers and men and lost forty-two percent of the 468 engaged at Murfreesboro, forty percent of the 217 at Chickamauga, and eighty-nine percent of the 172 at Missionary Ridge. The regiment surrendered 23 men in April, 1865

Bill O'Reilly Spins the Abraham Lincoln Myth

Open Letter to Bill O'Reilly

from Valerie Protopapas

Dear Sir:

Bill O'Reilly

Obviously, you are not a stupid man but sadly, your intellect seems non-existent when it comes to your judgment about American leaders. You have stood foursquare against the current socialist trends in the federal government. You have condemned the excesses of Congress and the Administration and the ever growing centralization of power in Washington as well as the trashing of the Constitution. You have mentioned time and again that such excesses are diametric to the founding principles of the nation, flying in the face of that same document—and I have applauded you for your public defense of those republican (with a lower-case “r”) principles and the men (and women) who have championed them.

Yet, the other evening, I heard you—yet again—claim that the “gold standard” of American leadership was none other than President Abraham Lincoln. I actually became so enraged I turned off the TV! I could not bear to listen any longer. All that we currently endure we do so because of Abraham Lincoln! It was Lincoln who embraced the movement of power away from the Sovereign States and the People as envisioned by the Founders. It was Lincoln who adopted the socialist/communist ideologies brought into the United States from Europe with the arrival of the so-called “48ers,” the mostly German followers of Marx fleeing their failed revolutions in Europe. However, it is also true that Lincoln had adopted those same policies independently before he was influenced by Europe’s socialist upheaval. Did you know that Marx adored Lincoln for the very reason that he worked to centralize power in the federal government? And did you know that Lincoln’s government and military was filled with Marxists and socialists? It was Lincoln who abandoned all constitutionally imposed restrictions on the federal government and the presidency when he planned and initiated war against states performing an act guaranteed to them in the Constitution—that of secession from a union that was no longer in the best interest of their people. It was Lincoln who deliberately and with malice brought that war to fruition—a war that cost over a million lives both military and civilian and destroyed an entire section of what had been the united (lower-case “u”) States for a century or more. And the list goes on and on. There is no more infamous lie in the annals of American history than Lincoln’s analysis of the causes of the so-called “Civil War”—“…and war came.” War didn’t “come,” Lincoln brought it into existence in what proved to be a successful attempt to prevent the loss of eleven Southern states and the 75% of the federal revenues paid by those States. Indeed, the South, by Lincoln’s time, had become nothing more than a politically impotent economic colony supplying endless revenues to the rest of the Union while being driven ever deeper into poverty.

It was Lincoln who embraced—and profited from—Hamilton’s “American System,” which today we call “crony capitalism” and which is really nothing other than the enemy of free enterprise, fascism. Lincoln was supported for the presidency by the economic interests of states such as Pennsylvania to which he promised a high tariff to protect their manufactured goods and a continuation of the flow of capital from the South to the North. Lincoln had been a lawyer with one of the railroads supported by such tax-funded largesse and was so successful that he was allowed to choose the eastern terminus for the contemplated trans-continental railroad. It is interesting—and revealing—to note that the property he chose for that site just happened to be owned by him! Lincoln’s sobriquet at that time—Honest Abe—was bestowed by his contemporaries for the same reason that the sobriquet “Little John” was bestowed upon Robin Hood’s very large lieutenant. In other words, it was a reference to behavior diametric to the appellation and therefore not a complement.

Finally, if you think that we had election fraud in 2008, Lincoln made use of the military to assure his re-election, something that was by no means guaranteed in November of 1864. General Benjamin (Beast) Butler was sent to New York from which he triumphantly informed Lincoln that no Democrats had been permitted to vote. The same happened in other states such as Ohio where both Lincoln and Lincoln’s war were not popular. Soldiers were permitted to vote in areas in which they did not live to assure his re-election. Meanwhile, their presence at the polls was a warning to those who might vote Democrat. In fact, in many instances the ballots were color-coded so that the party chosen by the voter was immediately obvious to those partisan “poll watchers” and many Americas were “discouraged” from voting if a wrong color ballot was observed.

There is so much more on Lincoln’s illegal, unconstitutional and immoral actions that is a part of the public record and yet, he continues to be revered, even worshipped, by people who despise and reject the things for which he stood and on which he acted. Even the popular belief that Lincoln “freed the slaves” or, in fact, had any feeling for them individually or as a group is nonsense, proven over and over by his own words and actions. He cared nothing for slavery and even less for “the African” and was willing to put slavery into the Constitution in the original 13th Amendment (Corwin) if it would keep the Southern states compliant.

Even the claim so often made that he fought the war to “preserve the union” is a lie though many Northerners were deceived and indeed fought for that stated purpose. First, a union is by its nature voluntary. Coercion at the point of a bayonet is nothing but conquest and occupation, not “union.” Then, Lincoln, his government and all of the states who fought ostensibly to preserve the Union were traitors according to Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution. Indeed, the only act defined as treason in that document is the waging of war against any of the signatory states and aiding and abetting in that war. If there was ever an act more worthy of the taint of treason and the openly guilty parties more exposed to public view, it has to be America’s “Civil War” in which the federal government—or should I say, the President—declared war on seven (later eleven) signatory states and initiated total war against them. Of course, all of those who supported or permitted this war were themselves traitors to a greater or lesser degree. It is ironic that the taint of treason was spread so liberally—and so successfully—on states that had acted constitutionally in attempting to remove themselves from a hostile and eventually murderous “union” while the actual traitors have been lauded to the skies historically as heroes and “true Americans.”

No, Mr. O’Reilly, your “stand” against those attempting to make of what remains of this nation another “Peoples’ Republic” cannot be believed so long as you refuse to acknowledge where America started to leave the path of Aristotle, Locke and the Founding Fathers and embrace the governing theories and actions of Hobbes and Marx. Actually, you have only two choices: understand and admit that “the nation’s greatest president” was a traitor and a murderer (over a million dead) and repudiate his “vision” for the nation—a federal tyranny—or cling to delusion, deception and myth and, by doing so, render your own message null and void and yourself foolish at best and dishonest at worst. You cannot have Lincoln and liberty.

Valerie Protopapas
Huntington Station, New York

Confederate Re-enactment Ceremony Honors Tampa Bay History

Veterans of Tampa Bay’s own Sunny South Guard will be honored for their duty and sacrifice Saturday, September 17, 2011 at the Poe Plaza in downtown Tampa during a free historical re-enactment.

Tampa, FL –On Saturday, September 17, 1861, 100 of Tampa Bay’s most prominent

citizens formed a civilian militia to protect hearth and home after President Lincoln

called up 70,000 troops to force Florida to re-join the union. They marched off to

defend Florida, in what would become the CivilWar.When the company returned, it

was missing a third of its men. Those that remained went on to become mayors,

sheriffs, State Representatives, and Senators and even a Governor of Florida.

It was sacrifice like this that led the Veterans Administration (VA) to provide

veterans benefits to Confederate and Union soldiers, alike. This is the spirit with

which the Tampa Bay Sesquicentennial Commission will be staging an historical reenactment

of the Flag Presentation Ceremony to the Sunny South Guard that

originally took place on that date in 1861 when Florida seceded from the Union and

joined the Confederate States of America. This free re-enactment will happen just

steps from it’s original Old Fort Brooke location, at 201 N. Franklin Street in

downtown Tampa. During the event, dignitaries will recognize descendants from

the original pioneer families who settled here, and fought for Florida and her sister

states.

“Veterans understand what it means to fight for your country, and to make the

ultimate sacrifice—no matter how popular or unpopular the war,” said David

McCallister, co-chair of the Sesquicentennial Commission. “On this day, we’ll be

honoring descendants of some of Tampa’s most prominent family members who

stepped up to the task when duty called, a honor-worthy act, regardless of political

position”

The re-enactment is being hosted by the Tampa Bay Sesquicentennial Commission, a
group of historical re-enactors, genealogists, descendants of Tampa’s pioneer

families, as well as other civic-minded individuals and organizations interested in

preserving Tampa Bay’s rich history.

Back in 1861, Hillsborough County also included present-day, Manatee and Pinellas

Counties. In June of that year, 100 of the “darling” sons of Hillsborough County

organized themselves into an infantry company known as the Sunny South Guards

and offered themselves to Florida for her defense. Upon receiving orders to report

forWar duty and prior to their departure to Jacksonville in September, the ladies of

Tampa Town presented a company flag in a spectacular, moving presentation

ceremony. It was held at the officer’s barracks at Fort Brooke, Tampa’s militia

headquarters which was captured from Federal hands when Florida seceded.

The unit would be designated the 4th Florida Infantry, Co. K, and assigned to

Hardee’s Corps in the Army of Tennessee, CSA. The “Guards” were engaged at

Murfreesboro and Jackson, and participated in the Campaigns of the Army from

Chickamauga to Nashville and saw action in North Carolina. Some of these men will

killed in the line of duty, some were held as prisoners of war, while others returned

home to help re-build the economy.

The re-enactment will depict the historic events of that day and will include the 11

young ladies that represented each of the States of the Southern Confederacy. Each

will recite a poem and participate in the singing of the “Bonnie Blue Flag.” Up to 100

men in early war attire will portray the Sunny South Guardsmen listed on the Roll of

Honor (see link below to view the Roll and read bios). Onlookers in civilian attire

will represent the families of the men and townspeople who participated in the

ceremony. A special appearance by a re-enactment brass band, the 3rd Florida

Regimental Band, Co. B "St. Augustine Blues"(aka Ancient City Brass Band) in period

civilian attire will play “Dixie” at the end of the flag presentation. One of Florida’s

most famous re-enactors, Thomas Jesse, Cmdr. of the Department of the Gulf, CSA,

will be portraying then US Army Colonel Robert E. Lee.

The Company’s Captain, John T. Lesley, was reported by Tampa Tribune Historical

writer DB McKay in the 1960s to have accepted the flag and said, “Ladies and my

fellow countrymen. It is with humble words, yet in a prideful spirit, that I accept on

behalf of my fellow soldiers of the Guard this beautiful banner of the youthful

Confederate Republic, being delivered to witness before God and the world defense

of the freeman’s inalienable rights as defined by constitutional law.” Lesley, who

was wounded in action, later served as the Mayor of the City of Tampa, Hillsborough

County Sheriff and Florida State Senator.

The re-enactment begins at 3pm a 1860’s brass band concert, followed by the

ceremony and flag presentation re-enactment at 4pm. From 5 to 6pm, guests will

enjoy watching history come alive as re-enactors mix, mingle and discuss the lives

and times of 1861. (Peace River Artillery cannon display)

###

To learn more, visit

http://www.tampabay150.org.

To read the names of the soldiers being honored, visit

http://www.tampabay150.org/roll%20of%20honor.html

Thanks to Marshall Hester for submitting this story.

Confederate Flags on Parade in Brandon, Florida

The Sons of Confederate Veterans Gen. Jubal A. Early Camp 556, Tampa, carried the Colors forward with a vanguard position at the Brandon, Floirida Independence Day Parade, July 4, 2011.  Early Camp's colour guard, led by camp Lt. Commander Wayne Sweat, advanced in front of a camp-sponsored Dixie-themed float.  Camp members and friends gave away 1,400 miniature Confederate Battle Flags to the 50,000-plus spectators.  Early Camp, commanded  by Mike Herring, is home to one of the largest Confederate Battle Flag displays in the United States, a massive banner towering above the I-75 and I-4 junction near Tampa.

Thanks to Marshall Hester for submitting this story and photo.

Civil War Myths and Misinformation

By Thomas J. DiLorenzo

When James M. Buchanan was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1986 the first thing he said at his George Mason University press conference was that the award "does not make me an instant expert in everything." Buchanan was well aware – and amused – at how previous recipients of the award had made fools of themselves by viewing the award as a license to pontificate about anything and everything, whether they knew anything about the subject or not.


No such modesty and sense of reality occupies the mind of a more recent Nobel laureate, Paul Krugman. As a New York Times columnist he has always done what all New York Times columnists do – pretend that he does in fact know everything about everything. A case in point is his March 29 New York Times blog entitled "Road to Appomattox Blogging." After mentioning how the Times has a special "Disunion" blog to commemorate the 150th anniversary of the start of the war, Krugman gives a hilarious, elementary-schoolish rendition of his "take" on the "Civil War."

Krugman said he has always been infatuated by the "symbolism" of Lee’s surrender at Appomattox, with "Lee the patrician in his dress uniform," compared to General Grant, who was "still muddy and disheveled from hard riding." Krugman is apparently unaware that by the late 1850s, on the eve of the war, Robert E. Lee was in his thirtieth year as an officer in the United States Army, performing mostly as a military engineer. He was hardly a "patrician" or member of a ruling class. Grant, by contrast, was the overseer of an 850-acre slave plantation owned by his wealthy father-in-law. The plantation, located near St. Louis, was known as "White Haven" (which sounds like it could have been named by the KKK) and is today a national park. (On the "White Haven" Web site the National Park Service euphemistically calls Grant the "manager" of the slave plantation rather than the more historically-accurate word "overseer").

In 1862 Lee freed the slaves that his wife had inherited, in compliance with his father-in-law’s will. Grant’s White Haven slaves were not freed until an 1865 Missouri emancipation law forced Grant and his father-in-law to do so. The fact that Lee changed clothes before formally surrendering did not instantly turn the 36-year army veteran into a "patrician," contrary to the "all-knowing" Krugman’s assertion.

Krugman goes on to assert that the North’s victory in the war was a victory in "manners" by a region that "excelled at the arts of peace." Well, not really. What the North "excelled" in was the waging of total war on the civilian population of the South. The Lincoln administration instituted the first federal military conscription law, and then ordered thousands of Northern men to their death in the savage and bloody Napoleonic charges that characterized the war. When tens of thousands of Northern men deserted, the Lincoln administration commenced the public execution of deserters on a daily basis. When New Yorkers rioted in protest of military conscription, Lincoln ordered 15,000 soldiers to the city where they murdered hundreds, and perhaps thousands of draft protesters (See Iver Bernstein, The New York City Draft Riots). It also recruited thousands of European mercenaries, many of whom did not even speak English, to arm themselves and march South to supposedly teach the descendants of James Madison, Patrick Henry, and Thomas Jefferson what it really meant to be an American. Lee Kennett, biographer of General William Tecumseh Sherman, wrote of how many of Lincoln’s recruits were specially suited for pillaging, plundering and raping: "the New York regiments were . . . filled with big city criminals and foreigners fresh from the jails of the Old World" (Lee Kennett, Marching Through Georgia, p. 279).

The North waged war on Southern civilians for four long years, murdering at least 50,000 of them according to historian Jeffrey Rogers Hummel. It bombed cities like Atlanta for days at a time when they were occupied by no one but civilians, and U.S. Army soldiers looted, ransacked, and raped their way all throughout the South. The "arts of peace" indeed.

As for the war being a victory of "manners," as Krugman says, consider this: When the women of New Orleans refused to genuflect to U.S. Army troops who were occupying their city and killing their husbands, sons and brothers, General Benjamin "Beast" Butler issued an order that all the women of that city were to henceforth be treated as prostitutes. "As the officers and soldiers of the United States have been subject to repeated insults from the women . . . of New Orleans," Butler wrote in his General Order Number 28 on May 15, 1862, "it is ordered that thereafter when any female shall, by word, gesture, or movement, insult or show contempt for any officer or soldier of the United States, she shall be regarded and held liable to be treated as a woman of the town plying her avocation." Butler’s order was widely construed as a license for rape, and he was condemned by the whole world. Ah, those Yankee "manners."

Krugman celebrates the victory of "a democratic nation" (the North) in his blog. But during the war the North was anything but "democratic": Lincoln illegally suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus and imprisoned tens of thousands of Northern political critics without any due process; shut down hundreds of opposition newspapers; deported Congressman Clement Vallandigham of Ohio for criticizing him; threatened to imprison Chief Justice Roger B. Taney for issuing the (correct) opinion that Lincoln’s suspension of Habeas Corpus was unconstitutional; censored all telegraphs; rigged elections; imprisoned duly elected members of the Maryland legislature along with Congressman Henry May of Baltimore and the mayor of Baltimore; illegally orchestrated the secession of West Virginia to give the Republican Party two more U.S. senators; confiscated firearms in the border states in violation of the Second Amendment; and committed a grand act of treason by invading the sovereign states of the South (Article 3, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution defines treason as "only" levying war against the states, or giving aid and comfort to their enemies).

Krugman is right about democracy in a sense: Democracy is essentially one big organized act of bullying whereby a larger group bullies a smaller group in order to plunder it with taxes. The "Civil War" proved that whenever a smaller group has finally had enough, and attempts to leave the game, the larger group will resort to anything – even the mass murder of hundreds of thousands and the bombing and burning of entire cities – to get its way. After all, in his first inaugural address Lincoln literally threatened "force," "invasion" and "bloodshed" (his exact words) in any state that refused to pay the federal tariff, which had just been more than doubled two days earlier. He followed through with his threat. This is "the kind of nation I believe in," says Paul Krugman.



Thomas J. DiLorenzo is professor of economics at Loyola College in Maryland and the author of The Real Lincoln; Lincoln Unmasked: What You’re Not Supposed To Know about Dishonest Abe and How Capitalism Saved America. His latest book is Hamilton’s Curse: How Jefferson’s Archenemy Betrayed the American Revolution – And What It Means for America Today.


Copyright © 2011 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

Southern National Congress Statement on Just War and Defense

With the American Empire currently waging unnecessary, illegal and unconstitutional wars on three fronts:  Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, I am republishing the 2008 statement made by the Southern National Congress concerning Just War and Defense.

Remonstrance and Petition for a Redress of Grievances

Just War and Defense 

We, the Delegates of the Southern States, in Congress assembled, make the following Findings and Affirmations:

The Southern States and People of the nascent United States played a pivotal role in the War of Independence. Without their contribution and sacrifice, America’s freedom from England could not have been won. Thereafter, Southerners have faithfully served in every conflict, representing a disproportionate share of the enlisted ranks and officer corps of the U.S. Armed Services, and sadly, of the killed and wounded as well.

Although subjected to unjustified aggression in the War Between the States and cruel exploitation thereafter, the Southern People, at the urging of their former Confederate leaders, embraced the obligations of citizenship and have proven to be among the most loyal and patriotic Americans.

Southerners have won a reputation for courage, valor, and martial prowess in all the country’s conflicts. We have rallied to the colors whenever called with an intensity of devotion that has been an example to the rest of the country and cannot be doubted.

Regrettably, since the beginning of the twentieth century and most recently the so-called Global War on Terror, the United States Government has embarked on a path of imperialism and military adventurism that has not brought us greater security but has actually made us less secure. This policy of aggressive war abuses the willingness of Southerners—indeed, of all Americans—to risk our lives in defense of the country. Moreover, these endless wars are as staggering in their costs as they are tragically unnecessary, with an enormous human price in dead, maimed, and displaced; and in untold billions of dollars, contributing to the current economic crisis that threatens the very foundations of our society.

Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution grants the exclusive power to declare war to the U.S. Congress. But the President and Executive Branch have usurped this power and levied aggressive war without just cause and through deceiving the People as to the threats, necessity, and costs of these conflicts. The Congress has failed in its Constitutional responsibility to check an imperial Executive, while improperly authorizing the use of force and appropriating funds for an unconstitutional, undeclared war.

The right of the People to petition the Government for a redress of grievances is recognized by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Therefore, we, the Delegates to the First Southern National Congress, remonstrate against unnecessary war and the use of armed force to establish American hegemony across the globe, and petition the Government of the United States to:

Refrain from the use of deception and fear to institute aggressive, unjustified, and undeclared military actions.

Restore the sovereign authority of the States and the People and obey the Constitution by levying war only with a proper declaration of war issued by the U.S. Congress.

Observe moral law and the long-established law of nations regarding just war, under which conflict is exercised with a just cause, right intention, probability of success, proportionality, and respect for the immunity of non-combatants.

______________________

Adopted 6 December 2008 by the First Southern National Congress at Hendersonville, North Carolina and ordered to be transmitted to the Delegations to the United States Congress of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia; to the President of the United States, and to the State Governments of these Southern States.

On Behalf of The Fourteen States, Officers, and Board of Governors of The Southern National Congress

Thomas Moore
CHAIRMAN

Learn more at the Southern National Congress website:  http://www.southernnationalcongress.org/