It is important to study history because the liberal
media has been using distorted (and often false) depictions, portrayals, and
teachings about history to persuade people to lean left for a very long time.
Liberal media and public schools often try to make it appear that centralised
US government and US government intrusions into race relations were and are
needed by pointing to examples in Southern history. But when the whole story
and each side of the issues are considered, those examples usually illustrate
the evils of big government and the importance of limited constitutional
government. (Incidentally, leftist theories, proposals, policies, and programs
usually sound ideal until you ask pointed questions, make comparisons, look for
hard evidence to support them, and consider the costs.)
When dealing with the history of race relations in the
South, movies, documentaries, docudramas, school textbooks, and even
encyclopedias often ignore important factors and details, or present a
distortion. Here are a few points to consider:
• Virginia was the first State to outlaw the African
slave trade (1778).
• During the American War of Independence all thirteen
States had slavery, and England had already abolished slavery, British
interference with the institution of slavery was among the specified reasons
for secession from the British Empire outlined in the Declaration of
Independence, the British insisted that the Americans just wanted to keep their
slaves, and the British actively recruited slaves that belonged to patriot
masters. (Does this mean the American War of Independence, the Revolutionary
War, was over slavery?)
• Why didn't the Bible prohibit slavery (slavery is
regulated in both the Old & New Testaments)? All men are equal in creation
and redemption, but at the same time all men are unequal in abilities, talents,
social station, etc. While all humans are of equal value as persons in creation
and redemption the Gospel does not change our positions in life. For example,
becoming Christians does not mean that a married couple cease to be married or
that either one has a change in gender or that the roles of headship and
helpmeet are nullified, and the existence of abusive husbands or wives does not
make marriage evil. (Galatians 3:28) Consider also that making slaves of war
captives and certain criminals was more merciful and advantageous than killing
them; the absence of black slavery would have meant death and not freedom for
most blacks that became slaves, and the black slaves were already slaves
enslaved by black Africans before they were bought by slave traders and brought
to America. (Of course, that is a broad statement made to be brief, and further
research is encouraged.)
• In 1776 slavery existed legally in every state of
the Union, and when the US Constitution was ratified it was neither a
pro-slavery nor anti-slavery document but would not have been ratified without
a recognition of slavery. After the American War for Independence the northern
states began to progressively remove their slave populations for the sake of
profit, as slavery was not very profitable in the north, and to reduce their
black populations and not for principles of morality as so many have been led to
believe. The northern States always protected the property rights of northern
slave owners and none of the northern States ever passed a law emancipating
anyone who was already a slave. It is important to note that the end of slavery
in northern States was gradual, usually through selling slaves to Southern
States or the Caribbean, and there is no credible argument that the institution
of slavery in the Southern States would have survived into the twentieth
century without the armed invasion of the CSA. (I do not argue for a return to
slavery, and I do not know of anyone who does; the point is that the abolition
of slavery was not the reason the USA invaded the CSA and the existence of
slavery in the CSA did not justify the armed invasion. The USA invaded the CSA
because of lust for money and power, not a desire to free slaves, and the
Confederate States fought because their country was invaded. Incidentally, when
Italy invaded and conquered Ethiopia in 1935 Benito Mussolini freed the slaves
and abolished slavery there, so why isn’t he honoured and celebrated in
Ethiopia?)
• It is easy to look back and make a blanket
condemnation of slave states and southern slave owners without considering the
whole situation, and it was hypocritical of northerners to condemn southern
slavery while condoning deplorable conditions in northern factories. Slaves in
the southern states often lived under better conditions and better treatment
than white factory workers in the north, and in many cases the conditions in
northern factories were worse than the worse southern plantations. Slavery did not
give slave owners an economic advantage over northern factory owners: northern
factory owners paid meager wages and were indifferent toward working conditions
and the lives of employees as employees were easily replaced while slave owners
had legal obligations to take care of their slaves and slaves were expensive to
replace.
• The Constitution of the Confederate States of
America made the first clear prohibition against the slave trade (not the US
Constitution).
• Not all blacks in the Antebellum South were slaves.
Some were indentured servants with a specified duration of service. In the
Upper South about ten percent of blacks were free and made a living as laborers
and tradesmen. In the Deep South less than two percent of blacks were free, but
those were often rich and owned slaves.
• There were both black and white slaves in the
Antebellum South. While interracial marriage was taboo in free society, it was
allowed among slaves as a mixed child was considered black and black slaves
cost far more than white slaves. When slavery was abolished most white slaves
migrated to West Virginia or Northern States and most black slaves stayed with
their former masters as employees.
• Only 4.8% of Southerners owned slaves, according to
the 1860 census.
• Nat Turner's Rebellion in 1831 did not advance the
cause of black slaves, it put this in reverse. About sixty whites, mostly
abolitionists and non-slaveowners, were killed in their sleep. This naturally
horrified white southrons and hurt the abolition movement in the South.
• Abraham Lincoln was a Marxist and a friend of Karl
Marx, and the Republican Party was started by Marxists to centralize the US
government. Opposition to oppressive taxation and the centralization of the US
government led to Southern Secession. (Even today, while there are
conservatives in the Republican Party, the Republican Party is not the
conservative party. The Republican Party stays just to the right of the far
left to attract conservatives.)
• Abraham Lincoln was not against slavery, he just
opposed the spread of slavery, he was planning to deport all black people, and this plan was hindered by his assassination.
• Abraham Lincoln’s wife owned slaves, and they were
not freed until the Thirteenth Amendment. Why didn’t the Great Emancipator
start with his own family?
• Both sides of The War of Northern Aggression
(1861-1865) had slaves until the Thirteenth Amendment.
• Slavery did not become an issue of The War of
Northern Aggression (1861-1865) until about two years after the war started.
Abraham Lincoln made it an issue because he needed a moral high ground as the
armed invasion of the Confederate States of America was carried out without
constitutional or congressional authorization.
• The Emancipation Proclamation gave the Confederate States the choice to quit fighting and keep slavery or their slaves would be freed if they kept fighting and gave them a deadline of January 1, 1863. The Emancipation Proclamation only called for the
emancipation of slaves in areas where the US government had no power to do
anything about slavery and specified the areas, even counties. It was not ratified until December 6, 1865, and was merely a propaganda tool that did not
free a single slave. Slavery was abolished by the Thirteenth Amendment, not the Emancipation Proclamation. Transcript of the Proclamation
• General Robert E. Lee was an abolitionist and
General Ulysses S. Grant and General William T. Sherman were slaveowners that
opposed the abolition of slavery.
• Did the South start the war by firing the first
shots? Study the events leading to the Battle of Fort Sumter and consider: How
would the USA respond if another country voiced hostility towards the USA and
then not only refused to leave a military garrison which they held within US
borders but sent a fleet of warships & troops to that garrison claiming
this was necessary to bring supplies to 85 men?
• What about the argument that the war saved the Union
and was necessary because state secession would destroy the Union? Consider:
What was that mysterious entity that had military forces capable of conquering
the CSA after various States had seceded?
• What about the argument that the war was necessary
to save the republic and thus protect freedom? When Rome changed from a
republic into an empire, it maintained the facade of being a republic and so
did the USA. The War of Northern Aggression (1861-1865) changed the USA from a
republic into an empire which has become a politically correct police state.
History provides numerous examples (e.g. Roman Empire) that demonstrate that
respect for local self-government makes liberty important, but as the centre of
power keeps absorbing all of the political life an empire must sacrifice
liberty and local self-government to secure the union and protect itself from
attacks from without and insurrections from within, and this happened in the
USA: The US government has not kept its part of treaties signed with
Confederate Generals but has consistently violated those agreements. The US
government steadily absorbs all of the political life, routinely exercises
powers that are not constitutionally mandated, usurps State's Rights and
defrauds the States of their sources of revenue, the rights of the individual
are often sacrificed for the sake of unity and to protect the US government
against the possibility of insurrection, the US Congress routinely passes laws
which encroach upon the right of the individual to his own life, liberty, and
property as well as his right of self-government, and the US Supreme Court
often issues decrees which contradict or change the US Constitution and usurp
legislative power. The requirements or qualifications for becoming a citizen of
a State or being eligible to vote are now determined by the US government and
not a State because of enforcement of an Amendment (14th) that was never
ratified by the States. The First Amendment is used to restrict State and local
governments (and even businesses & individuals) even though it says nothing
about State or local government. The purpose of the Second Amendment was to
prevent the US government from becoming a police state by giving the people the
ability to use guns as a last resort to resist governmental tyranny and
oppression, but the right of the people to keep and bear arms is disregarded or
usurped by the US government. (Consider that when the Bill of Rights was
ratified the word "militia" usually meant the general population of
adult males, and this definition is still in some modern dictionaries.)
Soldiers in the National Guard can be (and have been) placed on US federal
active duty against the will of their State to keep them from obeying their State
government or to even use them against their own State. Many more examples
could be given but these should suffice for now. (Incidentally, if you believe
you are really free try to start your own business and watch how many
government agencies crawl out of the woodwork to demand their cut.)
• Arguments that US intrusions were justified by
racism in the South tend to be one-sided and hypocritical. For example, you
have likely heard that Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens said that
the negro is not equal to the white man and subordination to the white race is
his natural and normal condition, but were you aware that Abraham Lincoln and
other US leaders made similar statements?
• Liberia became an independent black republic in
1846, and in 1860 the CSA issued a decree that all slaveowners had to give
their slaves the option of deportation.
• In 1860 the CS Congress passed legislation requiring
the abolition of slavery by 1886, and every Confederate State had programs for
the progressive abolition of slavery.
• State secession was not necessary to preserve
slavery: In 1860 slavery was already protected by the US Constitution and that
protection could only be removed by an amendment to the US Constitution
abolishing slavery, and in 1860 there were fifteen slave States out of
thirty-three States in the Union before the Southern States seceded (Article V
of the US Constitution requires ratification by three-fourths of the States for
an amendment to become part of the US Constitution). On March 2, 1861, the US Congress
proposed the Corwin Amendment to try (unsuccessfully) to persuade the
Confederate States to return to the Union, and the Corwin Amendment read as
follows: “No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize
or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with
the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or
service by the laws of said State.”
• State Secession was legal. If State Secession was
unconstitutional the US Constitution would never have been ratified. The US
government was created by the States for the benefit of the States and owes its
existence to the States that formed the USA. The Preamble to the US
Constitution clearly says the US government exists to serve the States. The
phrase "which shall be made in Pursuance thereof" means that the
Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution (Article Six, Clause two) only applies
when the US government is acting in pursuit of constitutionally authorized
powers that are clearly defined and limited to those powers necessary for its
function, and the Tenth Amendment further clarifies that the authority of the
US government is limited to those powers clearly defined and specified in the
US Constitution. The purpose of the Guarantee Clause of the US Constitution
(Article Four, Section Four) is to make sure the US government is a
representative government to each State and prevent the US government from becoming
a majoritarian democracy (mob rule) that disregards the rights of less
populated States and entrusts charismatic personalities with unchequed power.
How is this a guarantee, since the US Constitution is a piece of paper that
cannot enforce itself? The US Constitution is a compact between the several
free and independent States as clearly stated in the preamble. As free and
independent States (See the Declaration of Independence & Articles of
Confederation) in a voluntary union each State has a constitutional right to
secede if they believe the US government is abusing its power or working
against their interests, such as if the US government imposed an oppressive tax
that could impoverish some States while leaving other States virtually tax free
(this happened in 1860) or if there is a breach of contract, such as if the US
government denies or overrides the Tenth Amendment rights and powers of a
State. It was the US government that ignored and disregarded the US
Constitution, and the Southern States would not have seceded if States’ Rights
were respected. Secession, State & Liberty
• In the decades preceding the War of Northern
Aggression (1861-1865) and subsequent sudden (all at once) abolition of slavery
numerous southern statesmen, clergy, and southern abolitionists warned of
dangers in the sudden emancipation of all slaves (and naturally nobody in the
South wanted a repeat of what happened in Haiti), and those predictions came
true. The US government abolished slavery for political purposes and not for
moral principles or humanitarianism, and this became obvious during the so-called
Reconstruction of the South.
• The Fourteenth Amendment was never ratified by the
States. It was ratified by Congress and declared to be ratified by then
Secretary of State William Seward. The 14th Amendment Is Unconstitutional
• During the so-called Reconstruction of the South
(1865 – 1877) US intrusions, US extremes, martial law, political corruption,
and the excesses of the Republican Party, the Union League, and the Freedmen's
Bureau, and increasing black-on-white crime, provoked reactions and attitudes
that lasted for generations. The Fourteenth Amendment was used to keep white
Southrons from voting or holding public offices and the Fifteenth Amendment
made illiterates the overwhelming majority vote in the South, and this enabled
carpetbaggers, scalawags, and other radicals to take advantage of a bad
situation, use and exploit freed slaves, and win elections with unrealistic and
outrageous campaign promises. (Southern Legislatures and statesmen tried in
vain to persuade the US Congress to delay ratification of the Fifteenth
Amendment until the freed slaves learned to read and were assimilated into free
society.) The US government tried to remove white southrons from the political
life of their communities and States and establish black dominance in the
Southern States at a time when whites and blacks in the South were among the
most dissimilar cultures in the world. (An old trick of tyrants and empires is
to keep ethnic groups pitted against each other to keep them from recognising
their common enemy.) The US government gave black people special rights,
discriminated against white southrons, and made it easier for blacks to get
away with crimes against white people, and all of this was enforced through
martial law. As a result, many white southrons resorted to vigilantism, which
often led to disregarding the importance of hard evidence so that innocent
people suffered. US government extremes provoked extremes, such as the Ku Klux
Klan. While the original Ku Klux Klan was primarily political in nature, and
members were ordered against abuses, hooded activities and a code of silence
started dangerous trends both within and without the KKK. (The Ku Klux Klan
became famous for white robes and hoods, and soon so many people and groups were
wearing white robes and hoods as a disguise while committing heinous crimes
that the Ku Klux Klan outlawed the robe and hood in October of 1869.
Eventually, rogue elements and non-KKK members performing atrocities in the
name of the KKK led KKK leaders to permanently disband the Ku Klux Klan in
1877.) All these fostered resentments and we-versus-they attitudes that lasted
for generations.
• During the so-called Reconstruction of the South
racial segregation in the South was started by blacks when blacks in general
separated from white institutions and established separate churches, clubs,
societies, schools, and neighborhoods.
• The murder of Emmitt Louis Till in Money,
Mississippi (August 28, 1955), was an early catalyst for the so-called Civil
Rights Movement. The murder of Emmitt Till was used to justify US government
intrusions and is still used to demonise the South. In school I was taught that
Emmitt Till was in Mississippi visiting relatives in 1955 and was lynched just
for whistling at a white woman. Looking at details of the case and considering
the accounts and statements of friends and relatives who were with him when he
flirted with a white woman makes me think the case got so much media coverage
because northern liberals and southern scalawags saw an opportunity to stir up
racial tensions and further demonize the South. Consider: Suppose a group of
white boys were in a black neighborhood in Chicago (or Atlanta, Birmingham,
Detroit, etc.) and one of them, a white teenager from another State, on a dare
flirted with a married black woman, taking her hand and then putting his hands
on her waist while using vulgarity as he propositioned her and bragged to her
about fornication with other black women and then whistled at her as a friend
or cousin pulled him away from her. Could this arouse any negative reactions in
the black community? Is it possible that a jealous black husband might decide
to deal with him personally and could even become violent?
• The Pleggy VS Ferguson decision of 1896, which made
racial segregation the official US government policy for over fifty years, was
repudiated in the Brown VS Board of Education decision of 1954, and both US
Supreme Court Decisions were based on interpretations of an Amendment
(Fourteenth Amendment) that was never ratified by the states and therefore is
not lawfully part of the US Constitution. The Brown VS Board of Education
decision of 1954 was a means to expand US government power. For example, efforts
to use the National Guard to block enforcement of Brown VS Board of Education
were countered by deploying federal troops and federalising the National Guard
of a resisting State, and in these and other ways the US government violated
the US Constitution to enforce a power not delegated to the US government by
the US Constitution.
• During the Civil Rights Movement the US government instituted policies and programs that may have appeared noble at first glance but were obviously designed to expand US government power and pit blacks and whites against each other (An old trick of tyrants is to keep different ethnic groups pitted against each other to keep them from recognising their common enemy.). The efforts of social engineers to change hearts
through legislation and court orders tend to be self-defeating, and a closer
look will also reveal that leftist policies and programs often hindered,
directly or indirectly, the promised “progress.” For example, in the early
1950s, before coerced racial integration and egalitarianism, various businesses
(e.g., coffeehouses, etc.) in Birmingham, Alabama, and Atlanta, Georgia, and
other southern cities took down “White Only” signs because of realization that being
open to everyone could mean more money and would not hurt anything.
• In the decades preceding and during the so-called
Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and '60s numerous southern statesmen and
clergy warned of dangers in the race-mixing movement and racial egalitarianism
and those predictions came true. Look at the years and decades since and
seriously consider: Did racial egalitarianism and coerced racial integration
produce racial harmony or foster civil unrest and increasing black-on-white
crime (which the liberal media tries to censor) while infringing on State sovereignty
and increasing US government power? The US intrusions involved were reminiscent
of the so-called Reconstruction of the South. The attempts of social engineers
to change hearts through legislation and court decisions are self-defeating and
social programs purported to alleviate racial tensions and produce racial
harmony, such as racial egalitarianism and Ex Post Facto Laws, usually have the
opposite effect.
• During the so-called Freedom Marches of the 1960s,
which were often held without a court order or a parade permit (which helped
the media put the police and southern communities in a bad light when the
police did their duty and enforced the law), demonstrators smoked marijuana,
spat on or assaulted police officers, fornicated in the open, and afterward the
local authorities were left with the problem of dealing with the tons of
garbage left by demonstrators, which included used condoms, beer cans, whiskey bottles, drug paraphernalia,
and feces, and these aspects were ignored by the liberal media so that the
Freedom Marches could arouse national sympathy and encourage US government
intrusion while fostering resentment and opposition among Southrons.
• During the so-called Civil Rights Movement of the
mid twentieth century, the extremely high percentage of black crime, along with
the very high rates of black-on-black and black-on-white violent crime and the
high rates of illegitimacy and venereal disease in the black community, made
many white southrons concerned about the potential repercussions of diversity
and desegregation. (This is not saying all blacks were criminals or sexually
irresponsible. But lightly dismissing these factors as irrelevant did not
change minds and hearts or calm the situation. Negative racial attitudes that
are based on negative experience and observation are not changed by merely
saying it is wrong to think that way.)
• All-white colleges in the South (e.g., University of
Mississippi & University of Alabama) were not merely required to racially
integrate; they were forced to enroll black students that previously would have
been rejected if they had been white because they did not meet the required
standards. This fostered resentment and racial polarization. (This was not
about the right to a college education as there were black colleges in the
South.)
• Forced racial integration required extra buses,
extra bus drivers, extra fuel, and other expenses amounting to billions of
dollars that State governments and the US government did not have for a program
that did not produce racial harmony or improve education. Coerced racial
integration naturally provoked civil unrest and racial polarization, especially
after racial segregation had been official US government policy for over half a
century.
• During the so-called Civil Rights Movement of the
mid-twentieth century (and since), numerous movies, TV shows, and novels promoted the stereotypes
that black people are oppressed victims and white southrons are monsters or
imbeciles or both, sensationalized and distorted news reports and
docudramas and other distorted media portrayals of the South fostered white
guilt and white bleeding hearts among whites and a victim mentality and hate-white mentality among blacks. For example, some aspects of the official narrative on the Freedom
Summer Murders (June 1964 in Philadelphia, Mississippi) leave me with doubts
and questions about the official narrative:
-An anonymous informer gave the FBI a general location
of the bodies. Instead of having the work crew dig from one end of the earthen
dam to the other, a federal agent marked the spot where he wanted them to start
digging and just happened to pick the exact location of the bodies (33:31).
(Coincidence? Really?)
-In this TV documentary made a few decades ago the
narrator said that the informer who told the FBI the location of the bodies is
known only as Mr. X because he still lives in the area (which seems to assume
that the KKK would not know the identity of the only Klansmen or Klansman that
knew the location of the bodies). The True Story Of Mississippi Burning | FULL EPISODE | The FBI Files
-How did the FBI confirm the Klan membership of “Klan
members” that provided evidence, signed statements, or testified against the Ku
Klux Klan?
-Why was it unnecessary for Klan members that provided
evidence, signed statements, or testified against the KKK to change identity or
location?
-What was the hard evidence against the men convicted
in this case? (Not saying there wasn't any, just curious about what it was.)
• The Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not give non-whites
equal rights as racial equality was already the law of the land; the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 made discrimination through egalitarianism and racial quotas
inevitable, and reinforced the stereotype that black people cannot succeed on
their own merits. If you put a group of small children in a room together and
give one child a stick and the right to use the stick against the other
children at will, the other children will submit to the child with the stick
while resentments and tensions increase, and the other children might unite
against the child with the stick; race cards and woman cards have a similar
impact on a society.
• If black people were not allowed to vote in Alabama
and other Southern States prior to the Voting Rights Act of 1965, then how do
you explain the black counties and black cities in Alabama and other Southern
States with black public officials and all-black electorates prior to 1965?
Prior to 1965 the state of Alabama and other Southern States required basic
literacy and a basic knowledge of the US Constitution and State government to
be eligible to vote. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 did not give non-whites the
right to vote as they already had the constitutional right to vote for almost a
century; it secured the vote for illiterates that would have been ineligible to
vote prior to 1965 even if they had been white. (While universal suffrage may
sound like a noble cause, this inevitably results in a majoritarian democracy,
mob rule, that gives unchequed government power to charismatic personalities.)
• In 1967 the US Supreme Court held State
Miscegenation Laws to be unconstitutional, in the Loving vs Virginia decision,
which was an interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Beginning in 2013
Loving vs Virginia has been cited as precedent in US federal court decisions
that held state laws restricting same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional, and
this should not have been a shock or surprise to anyone. It is interesting that
those who argue that miscegenation laws and restrictions against same-sex marriage
violated civil rights by restricting the choice of a marriage mate and are
therefore unconstitutional do not always apply the same argument to other
marriage laws that restrict the choice of a marriage mate. What about state
laws that limit the number of times someone can divorce and remarry? What about
state laws that raise the age at which teenagers can marry even with parental
consent? What about state laws prohibiting first cousins from marrying?
(Incidentally, the USA is the only country with restrictions against first
cousin marriage, and those States that restricted it did so based on claims and
data that were later disproved.) Why haven’t they challenged the
constitutionality of those laws? Have you considered the possibility that
liberals just did not consider those other marriage laws to be issues as useful
or effective in centralising government? Whether you agree or disagree with
miscegenation laws, it is obvious that this issue should not have been decided
by the US government as it was a violation of the Tenth Amendment for the US
government to intrude in such matters. As with many other US Supreme Court
decisions, the Loving vs Virginia decision did not actually protect a
constitutional right but did expand US government power. (If you research
Loving vs Virginia some aspects of the case might arouse questions and
suspicions about how and why it became a criminal case, went to trial, and went
to the US Supreme Court. E.g., the lack of evidence that Mildred Loving had
black ancestry or enough black ancestry to be classified as a black woman under
Virginia laws; Mildred Loving was American Indian and marriages between white
people and American Indians were not illegal in Virginia.)
• On August 8, 1925, and then on September 13, 1926,
the KU Klux Klan held massive parades in Washington DC in which thousands of US
Flags were displayed but not a single Confederate Flag was seen. The Ku Klux
Klan began using the Confederate Battle Flag in its rituals and demonstrations
in the 1950s, and before then the Ku Klux Klan identified with the US Flag and
identification with the Confederate Battle Flag was individual and not
organizational. It is argued that the Confederate Battle Flag is a racist
symbol because of its use by white supremacists but note that those white
supremacists also rally around the Holy Bible, the Cross, and the US Flag. Note
also that many slave ships flew the US Flag while no slave ship flew any
Confederate Flag, the CSA made allies of American Indians and were planning to
admit the Indian Territory as a State into the CSA following the war, and
during the War of Northern Aggression the USA also waged genocide against
American Indians.
• Note that the Confederate Battle Flag was a BATTLE
FLAG. Confederate troops were not fighting for slavery or racism, they were
fighting to defend their country against armed invasion.
• In 1956 the design of the Georgia State Flag was changed to include the
Confederate Battle Flag to honour Confederate veterans and memorialize
Confederate soldiers. In 1986 the NAACP was struggling financially and
needed a cause to boost membership and funds, so they made resolutions early in
1987 condemning Confederate symbols as racist and calling for their removal. During the movement to remove the Confederate Battle
Flag from the Georgia Flag the CBF anti-flaggers argued that the design of the
1956 Georgia Flag was chosen as an act of defiance to the Supreme Court desegregation decision, and
an important aspect of the arguments or debates was largely ignored: The CBF
supporters could document their claims but the CBF anti-flaggers could not
document their claims. Why the Georgia Flag was changed in 1956
We are experiencing repercussions of US government
intrusions, expansions of US government police powers, and intrusions upon
personal rights, being made the law of the land during the so-called Civil
Rights Movement, which were enabled by the continual demonization of the South
and were applauded by many well-meaning people that were guided by wishful
thinking, utopian dreams, and the assumption that the Civil Rights Movement was
a noble cause. For example, discrimination against Christian business owners should
not have been a surprise, as the US government has denied the right of business
owners to decide who they will or will not do business with, and the right to
determine the criterion for deciding who to hire or not hire, for over half a
century.
This is not saying that black people have always had
it good, this is simply saying that the way things were handled or accomplished
was often wrong and often caused more problems than were solved.
I am not expecting you to take my word on anything, I
am hoping this will encourage you to do further research, even if for no other
reason than to prove me wrong.
The True South by H.K. Edgerton
Historical Ignorance and Confederate Generals
Judge John Sammons Bell - Why the Georgia Flag was changed in 1956
Why the Civil War Wasn’t About Slavery
Secession, State, and Liberty
The 14th Amendment Is Unconstitutional - Judge L.H. Perez
Southern Heritage-Bible Baptist Publications
Kennedy Twins
The Confederate Reprint Company
SEA RAVEN PRESS
