April  2000  Archive

Return


Jerry Brewer's Reply:

U. S. Flag: Enduring Symbol of Racial Repression
There's an old country song that says, "Mama don't allow no fiddle playin'
in here." The next line says, "We don't care what Mama don't allow, we're
gonna play that fiddle anyhow."

That's the mindset of those who cast the Confederate flag in the historical
revisionist mould of racism and simply refuse to understand the bloody,
racist history of the Stars and Stripes. They don't care what historical
facts allow, they're "gonna play that Confederate hatred fiddle anyhow."

The most prominent racist organization of the 19th century was the federal
government. After the rape and subjugation of the South, greedy Yankee eyes
turned westward to the vast continent that stretched to the Pacific. But
the Indians who inhabited that land had to be rounded up and driven like
cattle onto "Reservations," and step by step, from the Sand Creek Massacre
in Colorado through the Greasy Grass fight (Custer's pay day) to its
culmination at Wounded Knee, the Stars and Stripes flew over the blue coats
who executed the federal government's genocidal policy.

While Abraham Lincoln was president in 1864, Colorado Cavalry troopers
developed a warfare prototype against the Cheyennes at Sand Creek that
would become standard operating procedure to rid the plains of Indians.
Under the command of Colonel John Chivington, the troopers launched a
surprise attack against a peaceful village of Cheyennes encamped at Sand
Creek, after leading them to believe the Americans had peaceful intentions.
It was the American flag that flew over this profoundly sad and treacherous
pogrom in which helpless women, children, the aged and infirm were brutally
and indiscriminately slaughtered

In a story in the University of Kentucky newspaper, "Kentucky Kernel,"
Nikole Wolfe wrote,
"'A Confederate flag is a symbol for two different moments in history, the
Civil War and the Civil Rights Movement,' said Tracy Campbell, an American
history professor at UK. 

Campbell agreed that the flag should be removed from the Statehouse in
South Carolina because it was placed there during the Civil Rights
movement, and, therefore, represents racial repression."

Like most who are saturated with leftist ideology, Campbell equates the
Confederate flag with racism, but ignores the bloody, documented history of
the Stars and Stripes as a symbol of government-mandated racism. Cheyenne
Chief Black Kettle was a prominent Peace Chief among his people who placed
his trust in Yankee promises and the Stars and Stripes, only to be betrayed
by both in their campaign to eradicate an entire race of people.

"When the attack began Black Kettle was convinced that there had been a
mistake and the soldiers didn't intend to kill them. Rushing from his lodge
with an American flag that had been given to him in 1856, he raised it with
a white flag of truce on his lodge pole. He was quickly joined by White
Antelope and both men urged calm among their people, saying they were under
the protection of the troops. But their appeals went unheeded as the
troopers continued firing indiscriminately. Bullets whizzed past them and
survivors of the massacre described the sound as bees buzzing and hail
hitting the lodge skins.
"Horrified at the carnage and fearing for their lives, the group that had
gathered at Black Kettle's lodge scattered. Many of them sought refuge in
the dry creek bed which was their only avenue of escape. White Antelope,
with upraised hands, ran toward the troopers crying for them to stop. When
he was within 15 or 20 feet of the line of troops they fired at him. With
bullets slicing the air and death all around him, he stood in the middle of
Sand Creek, chanting his death song. 'Nothing lives long, except the earth
and the mountains.'
"Fleeing up Sand Creek with his wife, Medicine Woman, Black Kettle heard
the mournful strains of the death chant. Medicine Woman was wounded nine
times, but managed to survive. Chivington's troops killed and mutilated
about 150 Indians, most of them women and children. After gunning down
White Antelope, the soldiers celebrated by cutting off his ears and nose.
In a final atrocity, they cut off his scrotum to be used as a tobacco
pouch. He was 75 years old." (Jerry Brewer, "Unto Thy People: The Story of
One Southron Family," Copyright 1996, p. 81).

Four years later, almost to the day, Black Kettle and Medicine Woman were
murdered by Custer's blue coats at the Washita River in what is now Western
Oklahoma. Custer, under the command of Sherman and Sheridan, utilized the
same tactics employed by Chivington, surprising the Cheyennes and
slaughtering innocent women, children, the aged and the infirm. That was in
November, 1868 and was carried out under the Stars and Stripes. Those are
the facts. Tracy Campbell can choose to ignore them and "play that fiddle
anyhow," but they are writ large on the pages of Yankee history and no
amount of Marxist revisionism can change them.

The Stars and Stripes, Professor Campbell, flew long before there was a
Confederate flag, and 135 years later it remains the most enduring symbol
of racism in American history.
Jerry C. Brewer
Native Texan, CSA


Nathan W.'s  Letter

I am a history major at a S.C. college in the upstate. It has become very clear to me that many people were 
must have been asleep in their American history classes. The thing that I am tired of is hearing how
the Civil War (aka The War of Southern Independence), was fought over the issue of slavery. This 
couldn't be further from the truth. Slavery was protected under the U.S. constitution. Many things led
to the Civil War. First you must understand that the North was looking out for its own interest. They 
was a plan just before the civil war to run a railway across the country to the pacific ocean. The Northern
politicians were doing everything possible to make sure it ran through their states. This angered many 
Southerners. On top of that issue the government had just passed new tariffs which put a huge 
economic strain on the South. By this time it was becoming clear to most southerners that the federal
government was corrupt and was becoming to powerful. For those reasons the south decided to succeed
from the union----which it had every right to do under the constitution. Slavery only entered into the 
equation when northerners need a moral reason to have infringed on the South's constitutional right
to form its own government. I encourage everyone to research the issue more. There are plenty of
factors that led to the Civil War, not just slavery. The Confederate flag represents a proud people who
were not going to allow the federal government to control their lives. For that reason the flag should
remain on the S.C. statehouse dome, forever! Deo Vindice!

Subject: T.I.G.E.R./John Ainsworth response to Chicora/Trinkley

Mr. Trinkley,

I have read with interest and amusement the writings of some of your detractors. You have responded bravely to the onslaught against your posted historical facts.

The problem I see with your detractors is that they do not clearly understand, or possibly just don't know how to express their understanding of, the larger picture of the causes (yes causes, plural, Not cause, singular) of the involvement of the several states in the unpleasantness that occurred between 1860 and 1861.

The time frame that I mention is the period in which the several United States decided on which side of this contest they would stand. You are right that there was racism in the South. I applaud you for being bold enough to make that statement in a public forum. You also make some great points concerning quotes from the time concerning the racist views of the South. I do begin to question your intentions though when you don't provide the larger picture. You draw the conclusion for your readers that "racism" and slavery were the major reasons for all of those Confederate soldiers going into battle.

Mr. Trinkley you must remember that revisionist history is full of great sound bites such as 'racism' and that revisionist history is full of great quotes. This is because revisionist history is filled to the brim with only one half of history. Leaving no room for the other half of history with it's quotes and facts. Your conclusions make a sound argument for a certain small aspects of history, but by no means a true and accurate account.

The major points that you either do not mention or slough off as inconsequential are;

* 1 Racism was a dominant aspect of American thought in both the North and the South. Racism - 1. the belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that ones own race is superior. 2. hatred or intolerance of another race or races.

The point here being, that the term 'racism' is too broad of a term to use to blanket this whole issue. Of the two Webster definitions above, the first definition could more appropriately define the way it was used in the South and the second would best describe the manner in which it was used in the North.

Again, even this is a broad brush. You must understand that those who believe that Blacks tend to be superior physically over Whites is a racist statement. I truly believe it to be a fact. A Black man who believes it to be a fact is a racist for merely making an observation. To believe that the Oriental race is more intelligent than the White race and the Black race is a raciest view. Again these are generalizations of characteristics and not absolutes. Remember the definition says "usually involving the idea that ones own race is superior" Mr. Trinkley; Are you a racist? Do you believe that there are no inherent differences between the races in any aspect whatsoever? We need to quit running from this term which has become a "label," and use it properly to describe honest observations.

The amount of quotes that could be provided from Northern Statesmen and (dis) Honest Abe himself, concerning "racist" comments and showing an intolerance of having "them" as neighbors could fill several volumes. I need not go there.

* 2 On what grounds do you believe the States that joined the Confederacy after April 15, 1861, were drawn into the war? North Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee, and Arkansas were drawn into the conflict ONLY after they were ordered to provide a military force to be used to invade and bare arms against the other seceding states. They felt that this was a criminal unwarranted act of aggression without Constitutional Authority. Which it was.

We see that Lincoln's War of Federal Aggression started against 7 States for one reason but was increased by 4 States for the reason that the aggression was without any authority and without law. In other words, four States joined the cause because they refused to join in the criminal act of violating the Constitution of the United States.

I see very little in Mr. Trinkley's writings that bring to light the criminal nature of the Federal position. It appears that it is OK to sweep criminal action under the carpet when the "victor" writes history. Mr. Trinkley clearly has knowledge of the time period, yet actively chooses to cover up criminal actions by misrepresenting the Southern side. He comments on history using the method of "Look at my carefully selected facts about the Southern States" but refuses to acknowledge the criminality of the Federal Government and the 4 other States that refused to join in that criminality.

 

* 3 Mr. Trinkley fails to mention that 30% of all slave states fought for the Union Army.

* 4 Mr Trinkley fails to mention that there are options to war. Was War the only option to this situation? Did the Northern State propose Amendments to the Constitution dealing with the slavery issue? The answer is yes they did. On March 2, 1861, with SC, Fla., Ga., Ala., Miss., La., and Texas already out of Congress the following Amendment was proposed "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 the State." What kind of slant have I just put on history by making this fact?

Mr. Trinkley obviously does not understand the Southern Cause. I can only hope that he does not assign the proud label of "Southerner" to himself.

In getting more focused on this flag issue, I must admit that I believe that it should come down. It truly has no place flying over the Capitol of one of the several American States. The flag pole is reserved for lawful flags of lawful governments. Any flag that flies in the top position should have a legitimate right to be there. The flag of the Federal Government has no place flying on that pole and should come down. I apologize for misleading you by the opening sentence.

In order to correct the criminality of the first war (1861-1865) and of the second war called Reconstruction (April 9, 1866 to April 18, 2000 and counting), the top flag must come down. It is a constant reminder of the Federal overthrow of the Constitution of the United States that we see today. It is a symbol of overthrowing lawful state Governments through force of arms, under the guise of preserving the governments that they overthrow, instituting new governments under the dictates of Congressional Action, completely changing the political body and their allegiance away from the free people of the American union to a Federally subjugated citizen, maintaining these governments by force, coercion and intimidation, and then call them "free governments" of the people, by the people and for the people.

We see a continuation of this mentality in the Federal Government today. Remember in Waco, Texas where, "for the safety of the children" they burned the children alive after poisoning them with tear gas and terrorizing them with tanks crushing their home. I would think that Mr. Trinkley will take this statement and run with it. Now I can be "labeled" any of several terms. Mr. Trinkley may "label" me "anti-government." Again, this would be a true statement, BUT only one half true. I am anti-illegal government but I am Pro-lawful Constitutional Government. I absolutely support all governments that operate within the parameters of the law which include not violating those rights that they have a sworn duty to guarantee.

The top flag represents Federal dominion. It has a proper place to fly. Over Federal property such as Post offices, military bases, and all federal territory that has not become a State. The Federal flag never flew over any State Capitol prior to the War of Federal Aggression.

Most people do not understand that the Reconstruction Acts are actual articles of War against the Constitution of the United States and are based upon principals that are contrary to the Object of the War for which 360,000 Northern Soldiers died. Did you here this? Do you write this as part of the history of the period? It is a FACT that Congress dishonored the deaths of 360,000 Union Soldiers by casting aside the Congressionally declared Object of the War and implementing Reconstruction.

Reconstruction was Unconstitutional and is what placed the top flag over Columbia. A criminal Act of Congress placed that flag there. It has no lawful place being there!

Now lets talk about the flag that is flying in the position of honor over Columbia. The Confederate Navel Jack does not only represent the racial beliefs of Southerners, again the racial beliefs of the Northern States were of a nature that easily could be called "racist" without any question whatsoever.

The Confederate flag represents the principals of free government, of both a people willing to stand up for their beliefs against overwhelming odds and a people willing to stand up against violations of the fundamental laws of the land. That flag represents honor commitment and duty to country and law. The Federal flag represents aggression against law and dishonoring it's people by using them as political pawns and then casting them aside when the political gain has been made.

Remember these words of the Supreme Court and James G. Blaine ( Republican Rep. in Congress during Reconstruction) Concerning Reconstruction and the coerced 14th Amendment;

* Supreme Court- &;A bill to restrain the defendants who represent the executive authority of the government, from carrying into execution certain Acts of Congress, inasmuch as such execution would annul and totally abolish the existing State Government of Georgia, is not within the jurisdiction of this court.&; Ga. v. Stanton, Dec. 1867

* Where in the Constitution is Congress delegated the authority to annul and abolish States? It does not exist.

ex parte McCardle - The Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction to rule upon the Constitutionality of Reconstruction. The case was argued, and the arguments completed. Before the Court could issue their decision, Congress enacted a law which took away the Supreme Courts jurisdiction to hear the case. The bill was vetoed by the President as Unconstitutional and was passed over his veto by Congress.

* This is a Federal cover-up of the overthrow of states rights and the Constitution of the US

* James G. Blaine stated- ;As the vicious theory of State-rights had been constantly at enmity with the true spirit of Nationality, the Organic Law of the Republic should be so amended (14th Amendment) that no standing-room for that] heresy would be left; and;

Of the representatives on the floor of the Fortieth Congress from the eight States lately in rebellion, only two were Democrats. The senators were unanimously Republican. Of the aggregate number about one-half were natives of the South;

* The states are no longer for state Citizens; but instead represent anyone born in the United States who is subject to Congress.

The first section of the Constitutional amendment (14th) which includes these invaluable provisions is in fact a new charter of liberty to the citizens of the United States; is the utter destruction of the pestilent heresy of State-rights, which constantly menaced the prosperity and even the existence of the Re-public;

* On this new national (federal) Citizenship;

Its opening section settled all conflicts and contradictions on this question by a comprehensive declaration which defined National citizenship and gave to it precedence of the citizenship of a State. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. These pregnant words distinctly reversed the origin and character of American citizenship."

* Are these the objects for which 360,000 Union soldiers died? The destruction of States rights and reversing the origin and character of American citizenship? Do you understand that he is stating that the American people's rights no longer come from local self government, but instead from Washington? Look back to the top flag. It reversed, or better stated overthrew, our form of government under the Constitution of the United States.

Mr. Trinkley, your interpretations of history are nothing more than an effort to cover up the overthrow of both the United States Constitution and the States Rights of the several states. It is a slanted interpretation that covers up the criminality of the Federal Government at the expense of the Southern people, their States and their history (heritage).

South Carolinians need to reclaim and reestablish their lawful State Constitution put aside by Reconstruction. It was never changed by the people. It still exists in law. Stop fighting to keep the bottom flag and start fighting to remove the flag of conquest from the top position. If they win the fight to re institute lawful government of right, then they can fly whatever flag they want in the bottom position.

I will end with this quote from Andrew Johnson concerning the Reconstruction Acts and how they are to be corrected;

The remedy must come from the people themselves. They know what it is and how it is to be applied; With abiding confidence in their patriotism, wisdom, and integrity, I am still hopeful of the future, and that in the end the rod of despotism will be broken, the armed heel of power lifted from the necks of the people, and the principles of a violated Constitution preserved.

I urge all Americans to join the Re-establishment Movement. Re-establish lawful State government and put the Federal Government back into it's 10 mile square with the lid firmly closed.

Within a few days I will do a point for point of Mr. Trinkley's comments on "Myths." I do not have the time right now. What we will find is that there are problems with both the Southern and Northern slant. We must live with our history "warts and all." We are not a perfect people and neither were our forefathers. The one thing that we can do is go back to obeying the law and honoring our forefathers even with their faults.

I am respectfully,

John C. Ainsworth,

Founder, T.I.G.E.R.

Truth In Government, Everyone's responsible


Russell J. Ottens  answers column by Leonard. Pitts:

Dear Sirs;

It should be quite embarrassing to have someone as ignorant as 
Leonard Pitts, Jr. write editorials for your paper. In his April 13th 
piece, he contends that honoring Confederate heritage is little more 
than a celebration of racism. If the brilliant Mr. Pitts took some 
time to study history, he’d know that racism was prevalent 
throughout all of the United States in the 1860's and even more 
virulent in the Northern states. Horsecar lines were segregated in 
Northern cities and blacks were bodily thrown from the cars if they 
attempted to ride with whites. During New York’s 1863 draft riots, 
a black orphanage was burned to the ground and blacks were hung 
from lamp posts or thrown into the East River because the white 
populace refused to lay their lives on the line in support of Mr. 
Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation. Mr. Lincoln himself made 
numerous racist statements and his dream was to ship all the 
blacks back to Africa. Mr. Pitts also needs a reminder that slavery 
was legal in the United States from July 4, 1776 until December of 
1865, eight months after the end of the War for Southern 
Independence. Not a single slave ship was registered to a 
Southern port. West Virginia was admitted to the Union as a 
slave state in 1863, so don’t try to tell me that the North fought the 
war to end slavery. There were half a million slaves in loyal Union 
states throughout the course of the war, so that concept is nothing 
more than “a romantic lie.” The North just refused to let go of its 
Southern money tree, plain and simple.

It may disturb Mr. Pitts that many states proclaim April 
Confederate History month, but he should be equally disturbed by 
February being designated Black History month. If an 
unromanticized black history were presented, facts like blacks 
selling blacks into slavery, black slave owners in the United States, 
and 100,000 black Confederate soldiers would not be conveniently 
omitted. I suggest Mr. Pitts tries a little research before he writes 
his next romantic editorial.

Russell J. Ottens


Connie Ward's Reply to Scalawag 

Michael Trinkley, Ph.D.
Director Chicora Foundation, Inc.
PO Box 8664  Columbia, SC 29202
803/787-6910    www.chicora.org

Mr. Trinkley, you are a Southerner born, "breed" and educated? And I'm
trying to convince myself or others "that the South is being prosecuted"?
Ph.D. indeed.
Formally, I have a high school education, but the self-education I've
continuously engaged in since 1967 has proved to be of better quality in many respects than that received by some degree-holders I've worked for and with over the years. 

Moreover, I've been personally involved in politics at the federal (Congressional) level for most of the last decade -- and I've therefore been practically educated about
propaganda. I know propaganda when I see it and your website reeks of it..

I wrote the following about the NAACP's current campaign to totally
demonize Confederate heritage in preparation for eradicating it -- but my
observations certainly fit the anti-Southern, anti-Confederate sentiments coming from others, including your website:

"Every time NAACP spokesmen get in front of the media and single out the
Confederate flag as a symbol of 'slavery and racism,' they are -- by deliberately
leaving out the rest of the truth about African slavery, including the culpability of their
own race --attempting to pin total, unique and irrevocable guilt for 400 years of
transnational, intercontinental slavery on the relatively small population of white
people (6 million) living in the South during the 4 years the Confederacy existed -- most of whom did not own slaves. They are saying that anyone today who honors the flag and their Confederate ancestors is the equivalent of a Klansman..." (witness the totally
fabricated "klan photo" used in Columbia, S.C.)

Leftwing organizations and their followers are using extreme and
inflammatory language designed solely for its effect in creating loathing for Confederate
history, heritage, and descendants, and your scholarly but very biased website sentiments are assisting them.  Maybe your website is "well researched and completely factual" -- but it isn't factually complete. In other words, it's not the whole truth and as such, it has the same impact as a dangerous lie.  Yes, I know what Alexander Stephens said in his Cornerstone speech, and I've read the writings of other Old South leaders. Your "proof" of your version or interpretation of the war (including cut-and-paste quotations) has been tried by others, and a group of professors who support the flag in South Carolina recently had this to say about such attempts by anti-flag scholars:

" The scholars we contradict violate another elementary rule of scholarship by asserting
that sweeping historical judgments may be established by cutting and
pasting snippets of quotations. To the contrary, such judgments are justified only by deep knowledge of the context. They quote some Confederate statements that secession was undertaken solely for the defense of slavery. Yes,
Confederate leaders said some of the words attributed to them. They also
said a great many other things during the course of the war and the years of political strife that preceded it. We have attached to our statement, to show how the game is played, our own collection of snipped quotations on the causes of the war."

If you haven't read the entire statement from these professors, you ought to, especially their examples of how cut-and-paste quotes (like yours from Stephens and
Davis) can "prove" anything. Later in this email, I'll do a little of this myself. See how
you like it..

One reason I'm in this fight is to point out the blatant, mendacious
attempt by some (who seem to get the lion's share of PR) to define the entire South by a partial, negative element and ignore (or lie about) the good and positive elements. These are people who focus solely on that negative element and magnify it to such gargantuan proportions, it blots out the good and positive aspects of the South and our Confederate history, so that Dixie becomes total evil. This is like trying to define all
Milwaukeeans by Jeffrey Dahmer.

Here's an example. When I was a girl in central Alabama, a bomb went
off in a Birmingham church one Sunday morning and killed four little black
girls. The people in my small, blackbelt town -- whatever their personal beliefs about
desegregation -- were horrified and deeply distressed by that event; I witnessed this. Yet some time later, I read in a national magazine that every white person in Alabama was as guilty of murder as the men who detonated the bomb. I knew better, from personal experience.

But how many readers outside the South, who didn't know it was a lie, were influenced to hate Southern whites as murderers -- because of that magazine's lie?

The other main reason I'm in this fight is to point out that the vast majority of the people
who single out the South's "sins" virtually always purposely ignore the
same sins in other countries, nations, peoples, cultures and regions -- and even go so far as to magnify their "virtues" to the level of mendacity and bizarre fantasy. The point, of course, is to compare these "paragons of virtue" to the "barbaric slaveowners and racists of the South" and thus "prove" that Southerners are evil.

Here's another example of this. Recently, a woman wrote a Washington
Post editorial that said Confederate soldiers were fighting so Southern slaveowners could keep their "right" to "kill their slaves on a whim."

How many millions of Americans read that lie? And here's another
question: How many of them know these words of a man who lived back then that contradict this lie?

"...the negro slave in every southern State was still a person,
protected by all the laws which punish crime in other persons... ... no master could take the life of or maim his slave without being held responsible under the criminal laws of any southern State, and held to a responsibility as rigid as though that negro had been a white man... How, then, is it asserted that these are not persons in the eye of the law, not protected by the law as person. The venerable Senator from Kentucky knows very well that this is not the law in any State of the Union where slaves are held, but that everywhere they are protected; that the criminal law covers them as perfectly as it covers the white men." Jefferson Davis, from a speech on the Senate floor, 1860.

You tell me to come out of the dark. I'm not in the dark and I suggest that you climb down
out of your left-leaning ivory tower and take a quick peek at the truth:
there is an effort afoot to wipe out not just Confederate heritage but the South's
distinctiveness as a region.  If that's what you support, then consider me an adversary.

Understand something. Our Confederate ancestors were most assuredly no
worse than any other human beings in this world, and they were probably a lot
better than many. We aren't going to hate them because some people wish it, and try to force us to with egregious half-truths and outright lies.

Connie Ward 


G. M. Forsythe    Reply to Southern Attacker

You refer to the "cause indelibly stained by slavery" but make no
mention of the fact that the Southern Constitution specifically forbade
slavery. You also conveniently omit the fact that the north never
mentioned that slavery was the reason for their invasion of the south
until Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, several years into the war.
You also conveniently omit the fact that slaves existed in the north
during and even after the war, and that every single slave brought to
this country on a non-European ship came on a ship flying the Stars and
Stripes. So the US Constitution, which never mentioned slavery until
long after the war was over, and which counted slaves as only 3/5 of a
human being, was TRULY the Constitution of Slavery. The
mischaracterization of the Southern cause as slavery was a convenient
way for the invaders to make themselves feel good by tarring their
enemies by re-writing history. Unfortunately, schools that are subject
to Federal mandates teach this pabalum to unsophisticated children who
swallow it just like so much Jonestown Kool-Aid, and people who get
published in the media such as yourself, continue the charade.

 While you speak of hate, you conveniently omit the hatred that was
showered upon members of the clergy in Columbia, SC by the brigands of
Sherman's horde. This goes beyond simply burning orphanages, stealing
communion services for their silver, and raping women both black and
white. This goes to deliberately profaning altars, mocking clergy for
their faith in God, and threatening their very lives. What is this if
not vindictive hatred? Never was such deliberate malice employed against
civilians in the north on the rare occasions when the Confederate army
got north of the Mason-Dixon Line such as the battles of Sharpsburg or
Gettysburg. To be sure, there are now haters on BOTH sides of this
dispute, but having been in both camps (the northern camp when I was a
state-educated youth), I have seen much more self-satisfied
condescension and hatred in the northern camp. When speaking of hatred,
let it be remembered that the KKK, during its period of greatest
activity, had its largest contingent in the state of Indiana, not in a
Southern state. Let it also be noted that the KKK ALWAYS marches with
more people waving the Stars and Stripes than the Confederate Battle
Flag. NOW which flag is the flag of hate?

Speaking of hate, why don't you look at the venom which the NAACP has
suddenly decided to unleash at the state of South Carolina. Where was
this hate 5 years ago? Did you ever stop to consider WHY it just came
about at this time? Why did they do and say NOTHING substantive for 37
YEARS?? Wasn't this same flag flying on the SC State House ALL THIS
TIME? WHERE WERE THEY??? Nothing else changed during this whole time,
most of which was after the Civil Rights campaigns of the 60's! Did it
take this long for them to DECIDE to be hurt?

 No, the Confederacy was no more a white racist government than the
Federal government was. Remember, the Federal government insisted on
SEGREGATION among its troops. Black soldiers fought in separate units,
unlike the Confederate Army which had integrated units. Doesn't fit
with what the history books tell you, does it?

Now I ask you, "When will YOU confront the obvious?"

G.M. Forsythe 


Greg Lance - Watkins  From Britain wrote:

You may well question some of the figures below but there is NO argument with 
the broad data.    Something to think about...

"In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 
20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and 
exterminated.

"In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million 
Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

"Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million 
Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and 
exterminated.

"China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million 
political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and 
exterminated.

"Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000
Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

"Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 
Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

"Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one
million
'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated."

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century
because of gun control: 56 million.

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, ask them "Who do YOU 
want to round up and exterminate?" With guns, we are citizens. Without them, 
we are subjects.

Something to think about... Don't let the liberal media control your mind 
with their propaganda blitz. They want to blame crime on gun ownership to 
justify eventual gun
confiscation, but their soft on crime law enforcement and pro-violence and 
immoral entertainment industry is the real cause.

Most of the politicians in both parties are controlled by the liberal 
establishment.
In effect, we have a one party system. They deserve academy awards.

The Bible says, "A strong man armed protects his home."

(If you value your freedom, Please send this on to all of your
friends.)
Good luck & if I can help you in your efforts in defense of the British 
peoples and our Nation or the rights and freedoms of any peoples against the 
EU, NAFTA, WTO, IMF, OWG, NWO etc. please just ask. Do visit our shop, if 
you are ever in the area, we are open from 10.30ish. till 5.30pm., 6 days a week.

Regards,
Greg
Greg Lance - Watkins,
The Welsh Assembly,
c/o Glance Back Books,
17 Upper Church Street,
CHEPSTOW,
NP16 5EX
Monmouthshire,
Britain.


Return