Slave Port Unearthed - In Brazil

"Not far from here at least 500,000 Africans took their first steps into slavery in colonial Brazil, which took in far more slaves than the United States and where now half of its 200 million citizens claim African descent."

Story here.

Speaking Of Lincoln Day Proclamations

Congressman Allen West makes his proclamation at a Lincoln Day Dinner. And he does mention slavery, so all the professional historians and pundits should be happy.

I sure hope he runs for President one day. 

Son Of Veteran Passes Away

That headline would not normally draw your attention - unless you know it was the son of a Confederate Veteran. 

James Brown Sr., 99, of Tellico Village, one of the last real sons of a Confederate veteran, died Thursday afternoon in a Farragut nursing home, his son, James Brown, said Saturday afternoon.

As the great-great grandson of three Confederate Veterans, I think its important to acknowledge and honor one's fathers. Story here.

Is The Lincoln Proclamation Missing Something?

Update: A comment made at CWMemory in response to this post: "The reason so many people were upset over the Confederate History Month proclamation is because slavery was so integral to the Confederacy’s reason for existence. For a CHM proclamation to gloss over it is a pretty big omission. For a Lincoln proclamation to ignore his racial views, not so much."

No, of course not. Man, you just couldn't make this stuff up. And, of course, the conversation descends into personal insults. Are these folks predictable, or what?


(End up update.)



Would anyone like to offer some thoughts on these two excerpts from the Lincoln Day bill in the Virginia Senate?

During the Civil War, Lincoln's family in Virginia were slave owners and Confederates, 

and . . .

That the Governor be requested to call upon the citizens of the Commonwealth to commemorate this day with appropriate tributes, programs, and events that honor the memory and legacy of Abraham Lincoln

Hmmm . . . slave-owning and "rebellion" were part of Lincoln's legacy here in Virginia yet we're being asked to "honor" that legacy? Kinda bucks the current trend, doesn't it? It's almost as if the proclamation is mentioning that in a positive tone as it sandwiches it in amidst all of the complimentary statements about Lincoln. And where's all the condemnation of "celebratory history?" Seems those same academics have backslidden on their own religion of objectivity and attitudes toward heroes. Help me, I'm confused.

But this proclamation also leaves out quite a bit of President Lincoln's legacy. In light of all the negative hoopla last year over McDonnell's Confederate History proclamation, I'm having difficulty reconciling all the celebration over this proclamation, with all the hysterical objections we heard over the Confederate History proclamation. It just doesn't add up. Am I the only one who sees the inconsistencies here?

The biggest complaint regarding McDonnell's CHM proclamation was more about what he left out than anything else. As already noted, there are parts of Lincoln's "legacy" left out of this proclamation as well; which was the same complaint we heard from the "objective" academics over the Confederate History Month proclamation. For example:

• Lincoln's fondness for black minstrel shows, his frequent use of the "N" word, and his repeating racial jokes
• His support of pre-Civil War "Black laws" which denied basic rights to blacks in Lincoln's native Illinois
• His support for fugitive slave laws (returning runaways to their masters)
• His support of colonization (shipping all those of African descent to either Africa or South America)
• His Emancipation Proclamation Act - which actually allowed slavery to continue in states where he could have ended it, but really did nothing in states where he lacked the power to end it
• His desire to keep slavery from spreading to other states and territories was motivated by his desire to protect jobs for whites
• His support for the Corwin amendment (expressed in March of 1861), which would have specifically codified the unfettered legality of slavery in the U.S. Constitution forever

None of this is new information. Anyone who's studied Lincoln's life knows all this. Executive editor of Ebony Magazine, Lerone Bennett, Jr. has written a book pointing all this out; and much more. These facts, no matter how some scholars will spin them, are undeniable. Yes, I understand that his attitudes were not uncommon among 19th century Americans. And, yes, I understand and believe that Lincoln was morally opposed to slavery. But so were Stonewall Jackson and Robert E. Lee, as well as other Confederates. Painting either side in that epic struggle with broad 21st brushes in order to score political points today is the worst kind of presentism. All I'm asking for is consistency.

Let's look at the two proclamations in another way, and this is a point I've raised before. Of the two proclamations - Confederate History Month and the Lincoln Day proclamation - which of the following is "lesser known" history:

• The Confederacy's association with slavery?

• Lincoln's racist attitude toward blacks?

The answer is obvious. And I'm not alone in suggesting that more folks are ignorant of Lincoln's views than are of the Confederacy's connection to slavery.

Back in February of 2009, the Wall Street Journal interviewed Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. about his book and PBS series on Lincoln and race. Here's how the WSJ introduced the interview:

Racial jokes? Shipping freed slaves to Africa? These aren't the sorts of things most people generally associate with Abraham Lincoln, whose 200th birthday is on Feb. 12. In a new book, "Lincoln on Race & Slavery," and a new series airing Feb. 11 on PBS, "Looking for Lincoln," Harvard professor and documentary filmmaker Henry Louis Gates Jr. takes a fresh look at the 16th president. (Emphasis mine.)

So knowing this, which proclamation - if you were to have to choose one - is there more of a need to reveal that lesser known aspect of history? And, knowing the obvious answer, why aren't the same academics and history bloggers criticizing the Lincoln proclamation the way they criticized the CHM proclamation? I think we all know the answer.

All this being said, I've never been one who thinks that every time an early American historical figure like Lincoln, Jefferson, Lee, Washington, etc  or whoever, is mentioned that we need to follow with a laundry list of their sins and failures. Most semi-educated Americans already know that aspect of our history. The constant need to dredge all that up and repeat it tells us more about the dredger than it does the dredgee:

If you talk about a good aspect of a great man or generation, you are expected to immediately follow up with a list of their flaws and mistakes as well. If you don’t, you’re seen as a rube who has swallowed the traditional version of history and isn’t in on the new “secret” information that has been revealed. The self-satisfaction of those who consider themselves in the know and like to give you the “real scoop” is invariably palatable. ~ Brett McKay

However, if that is to be the standard for remembering someone's legacy, then let's at least be consistent. Having one set of rules for some figures and another for others simply reveals what many Americans already suspect know - that many academic historians aren't really as objective and non-partisan as they want us all to believe. Their "professionalism" has it's limits. Personally, I don't have a big problem with giving Lincoln his day - as long as the record includes the whole story, as was demanded for Confederate History month. We do want to be consistent and objective, don't we?

Debunking Homeschool Myths With Humor

For all of my ill-informed, group-think academic buddies. This is, in addition to being quite truthful, also quite funny. I think this young man may very well be the first successful homeschooled, stand-up comedian - at least the only one I've ever come across.

A related post can be read here.

Juan Williams Endorses Homeschooling

Too bad some in academia would prefer to criminalize it. You'd think they'd be more focused on the utter failure of government schools. Not the case. They're more interested in control than successful methods which bypass their institutions and make them appear not so wise - which is actually the truth.

As one article points out:

It [the video] also exposes the entrenched educational establishment bent on stifling school choice options and preserving its monopoly on state education dollars.

Again, its all about money, power, and control. They don't want parents to keep much of any of the three.

Professor Harry Jaffa Corrects President Obama

Charles Johnson gives the details at BigGovernment.com and writes the following:

“[Barack Obama] didn’t get it right,” says Harry V. Jaffa, professor emeritus of Claremont McKenna College, senior fellow at the Claremont Institute, and author of two influential books on Lincoln. Jaffa was referring to this quotation from President Obama.

“I’m a Democrat. But I believe what Republican Abraham Lincoln believed: That Government should do for people only what they cannot do better by themselves, and no more.”

Professor Jaffa noted that this quotation leaves a lot out. The 93-year-old Jaffa, by memory, recited the full statement from Lincoln’s speech, “The Nature and Objects of Government, with Special Reference to Slavery” (July 1, 1854):

“The legitimate object of government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done, but cannot do at all, or cannot so well do, for themselves in their separate and individual capacities.”

Notice the difference? The emphasis is on need to have done, not on government doing the action. “That distinction was missing form his quotation,” Jaffa explains. But Obama has repeatedly invoked this misleading Lincoln quotation on both the campaign trail and during his presidency.

End quote. You can read the complete piece here.

Throughout 2010, we were treated to repeated criticisms of the Tea Party about how they twisted history to advance their political agenda. Which, as Gordon Wood has pointed out, isn't exactly true. That TP criticism came largely from pseudo-historians and big government-loving academics and bloggers. But as I've pointed out numerous times, these same self-appointed defenders of truth (their version) were utterly silent when the OWS twisted history and President Obama misquoted Lincoln and the Declaration of Independence time and time again to advance their political agenda. And, of course, the reason for their hypocrisy is that they support Obama's agenda. In other words, they are phonies and anything but objective scholars imparting non-partisan observations. I do applaud Jaffa for at least pointing out Obama's deceitfulness with Lincoln's words.

Moreover, shouldn't a graduate of Harvard and a Constitutional Law Professor be held to a higher standard than a bunch of fly-over country, Tea Party activists?

I'll also be posting some thoughts on the proposed Lincoln Day holiday here in Virginia. Once again, academic historians and bloggers show their hand.

The Evil Rich

**Update: "A new report just out from the Internal Revenue Service reveals that 36 of President Obama's executive office staff owe the country $833,970 in back taxes. These people working for Mr. Fair Share apparently haven't paid any share, let alone their fair share." More here.

Wow, what a teachable moment. The left delights in railing against the "evil rich" - the one percenters - while they so lovingly spend everyone else's money (after they scim off the top). But things aren't always as they seem.

WHO'S GREEDY? Obama Gave 1% to Charity, Romney Gave 15%

I'm not a big fan of Mitt Romney, but the numbers do reveal quite a bit don't they? Like the old Soviet dictators in Russia who claimed to be for the poor, downtrodden "worker", the elitist left in the United States are often the most generous with your money, not theirs. They jet about the world on the taxpayer's dime gorging themselves on expensive caviar while they decry the evils of capitalism and Wall Street. Puke me a river.

Rant completed. Those of you on the left may now return to Never-Never Land.

Rutherford Institute Sues Lexington Over Flag Flap

Update: What do you think of this statement regarding Lexington's flag ordinance?

The key is that the city did not target Confederate flags, although clearly eliminating those was the driving force in its decision.

Have you ever read a clearer contradiction than that? It takes quite a bit of talent to contradict yourself so clearly in just one sentence.  Try to reconcile the two thoughts:

"The city did not target Confederate flags"

Yet . . .

"clearly eliminating those was the driving force in its decision."

Now, repeat the statements over several times to yourself. Am I missing something here? How can someone "not target" an object while simultaneously being motivated to "eliminate" that same object? Perhaps one can close his eyes and aim? I know one thing for sure - I certainly would not want that type of argument made on my behalf before a judge. That would be like saying, "Sure, I drove my car into a crowd of people where I knew Mr. Smith was standing, but I really wasn't trying to hit Mr. Smith, even though everyone knows I don't like him." Yet you've got other CW bloggers linking to that article in order to support the City's decision. Brilliant.

Perhaps closing one's eyes and aiming is a good analogy. And if that's the approach they take in court, it will probably produce the same results.

"The Rutherford Institute has come to the defense of a civil war heritage society that was prohibited from flying the Confederate flag despite the fact that other organizations were allowed to fly their flags. In filing a First Amendment lawsuit against the City of Lexington, Virginia, Institute attorneys allege that city officials exhibited hostility toward the Confederate flag and engaged in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination against the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) when they adopted an ordinance limiting use of the flag standards to the display of national, state and city flags. The complaint also alleges that the ordinance violates a 1993 federal court injunction which protects the SCV’s right to display the Confederate flag within the City of Lexington."

More here.

I'll have more to post about this soon. City officials in Lexington have demonstrated, over and over again, their embarassing incompetence when it comes to handling their rich Civil War and historical heritage. This is just the latest example.

Metal Detecting Post #59 - The Mine Run Campaign

Lord willin', this coming March, I will be participating in an invitational relic hunt not too far from the area featured in this video.

It Was Unanimous

One of the animating issues of our Founding had a great day in court today:

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that police must obtain a search warrant before using a GPS device to track criminal suspects. More here.

That is wonderful news and a solid smackdown to an ever-growing and intrusive government. When I served as a Magistrate for the Commonwealth of Virginia, the issuance of search warrants was, for me, one of the most serious and sobering of the responsibilities I had. I denied my share due to lack of probable cause. And, when in doubt, I always erred on the side of caution and denied, advising the law enforcement officer why he did not have probable cause. Of course, they could always try again. Sometimes they got it right the second time, sometimes they didn't. 

Our constitutional republic worked very well today. For that we should all be very thankful. This decision was a great victory for liberty.

On The Wrong Side Of History

If you're a liberal today, you've somehow ended up on the wrong side of history. That is a vast cultural disaster, but much more for victim nations than it is for the self-preening West. Twisting liberalism into a pretzel is a feat of mis-education and propaganda the likes of which we have not seen since the rise of mass electronic media. Most "liberals" today do not believe in freedom, but support tyranny. That inversion of history has been accomplished by mass propaganda.

More here at the American Thinker.

They Ain't-a Fergettin!

New Logo For Academic Historians

The politicization of the Civil War by academic historians politically left of center seems to be growing in popularity these days. My recent post about one of David Blight's essays was just one example. But he's by no means alone. I had read an article back in the summer written by another academic who's apparently feeling a bit embarrassed at having supported Barack Obama for President. I can certainly understand that. So he, like Blight, descends to bottom feeding, lashing out and insinuating that those who are flying Confederate flags and who are politically conservative are racists, violent, blah, blah, blah - the typical refrain from  the left when they have have nothing of substance to say - which is most of the time.

The latest article to which I'm referring was written by Professor Glenn W. LaFantasie who teaches Civil War History at Western Kentucky State (Heads up to parents considering colleges for their kids). You can read Professor LaFantasie's piece here at Salon - the perfect forum for nonsense. By the way, when I was growing up, a "salon" was where women went to get their whatever done. Has that changed? Maybe you go to Salon magazine to get done? Wikipedia notes this about "Salons":

Salons, commonly associated with French literary and philosophical movements of the 17th and 18th centuries . . . The historiography of the salons is far from straightforward. The salons have been studied in depth by a mixture of feminist, Marxist, cultural, social and intellectual historians.

Aahhh, now it all makes perfect sense. But I digress.

LaFantasie has his shorts all in a knot over Kentucky's SCV license plate efforts and prattles on about how Kentuckians who simply wish to honor their Confederate ancestors are in love with slavery, are cannibals, kitten-killers, puppy-eaters, and haters of all things pure and virtuous, etc, etc. Once again, blah, blah, blah. He opens this literary masterpiece with the exact same "observation" as our friend David Blight made and writes:

"The Civil War has not ended." 

These fellas just can' t let go and move on, can they? That's right - them thar fellas just ain't-a-fergettin! The memo and talking point has evidently now been faxed, texted (Is that a word?), and emailed to all the establishment, pro-Obama academic historians - the War Between the States is still being fought! Yessirree Bob - now there's a winning campaign strategy! So, all you neo-Confederate boogie-men, gird yer loins, dust off Great-Grandpa's old musket, pull the moth-eaten butternut and gray out of the closet, fire up Dixie as yer iPhone ringtone, practice yer Rebel Yell, shoe ole Lucy, grow an ugly beard, plant some magnolias, stock up on chewin' tobaccy, fill up the jug with sweet tea (or corn liquor), pack some fatback and hardtack, practice yer "what fer's" and yer "y'all's" and yer "over yonders" and yer "git dem damn yankees" and yer "Hell no we ain't-a fergettin's", saddle up and ride to the sound of the guns - Yee-hah!!!

After you read through  LaFantasie's cliched rant - thinly veiled as historical commentary -you get to the real crux of what seems to be motivating him:

Even so, the battle flag will not go away, no matter how divisive it continues to be. All I have to do here in the land of thoroughbreds and fried chicken is check my rearview mirror on the interstate. Inevitably what I see is an 18-wheeler bearing down on me with a Confederate battle flag stretched across its radiator. In a split second, every frame of Stephen Spielberg’s first movie, “The Duel,” flashes through my brain. Maybe it’s time for me to remove the “Obama ’08″ bumper sticker from the back hatch of my Jeep.

So, Professor LaFantasie "fears" those who display Confederate battle flags because he displays an Obama '08 bumper sticker? Really? LaFantasie, like so many other academic historians, presents us once again with a textbook example demonstrating how out of touch they are with most Americans. (See here and here.) You see, it isn't those who display the Confederate battle flag whom most Americans fear. Oh no, no, no, no, no. Actually, it's the reelection of Barack Obama (who so many academic historians like LaFantasie supported in 2008) that most Americans fear.

As a matter of fact, a recent poll reveals that this fear is quite strong and represents a very healthy majority. You see, some fears are actually rooted in reality rather than emotion. The poll details, which appeared under the headline Americans, 2-1, Fear Obama's Reelection, can be read here.


This is what is really eating at historians like David Blight and LaFantasie. It really is driving academia crazy that a majority of Americans aren't surrendering their minds to the "superior" intellect and wisdom of academia and swallowing their propaganda when it comes to historical perspective and political pontifications - which are increasingly one in the same. LaFantasie reveals his frustration with us commoners when he notes:

Either way, in my opinion, the Confederate battle flag remains an icon of hate, not heritage. It belongs in museums, where it should freely be displayed. If it is placed on a license plate, it deserves to be splattered with mud. Saying that, however, will not endear me to my Kentucky neighbors or my students, most of whom — despite my efforts to convince them otherwise . . .

And . . .

. . . still erroneously believe, no matter what historians say, that the Cause stood for states’ rights . . . 

Many Americans, particularly many Southerners, observe academia's agenda-motivated analysis and respond with a collective yawn. This infuriates and frustrates the "professionals." Academic historians then fume, pout, and spout forth even more of what caused the yawn to begin with. While not providing much real value, the whole spectacle does, nonetheless, make for some great entertainment.

But I can't let that first excerpt of LaFantasi's go without further comment. Note this rather curious statement about the Confederate battle flag:

It belongs in museums, where it should freely be displayed.

How much more Orwellian doublespeak language could one use? "Freely" displayed - but only in museums? Right Professor. And I'm sure your idea of a proper display would include "interpretative" text making sure it's remembered as an "icon of hate."

Conclusion:

As Professor David Blight's frustrating lament Why Doesn't the Confederacy Just Fade Away demonstrates, academic historians are simply having trouble dealing with the reality that the average American won't open wide and swallow their proclamations like good little subjects should. We won't bow down and marvel at their brilliance and superiority. We can, and do, read for ourselves, think for ourselves, analyze for ourselves and come to our own conclusions. History is a serious subject and should be approached seriously, but it's not rocket science.

Academic historians should just let it go. The WBTS is over. Slavery in the U.S. ended 150 years ago. The U.S. has made dramatic progress in race relations and opportunity for all. The overwhelming majority of Southerners who wish to celebrate their Confederate heritage and honor their ancestors have no hatred in their hearts for anyone. And, politically speaking, the violence and lawlessness you all seem to be so concerned over emanates from your end of the political spectrum. Analyze that.

I do agree with Professor  LaFantasie about one thing though. He should definitely remove that Obama bumper sticker - not out of fear that some trucker with a Confederate flag will run him down, but out of fear of embarrassment.

Heroes Belong On Pedestals

Update: Since Michael Aubrecht offered a snyopsis of my recent posting, allow me to take a moment to return the favor. His most recent postings seem to be focused on one of two things: a rather strange fascination with the sex lives of the founders and wordy parroting of academia's boring and self-serving, self-aggrandizing emphasis on the sins of past generations of American patriots.


Moreover, Michael evidently doesn't appreciate quoting other sources ("cutting and pasting" in his words) to support one's position. I must assume he believes his knowledge alone is sufficient to settle an argument. His desire to please other academics and get better gigs is causing him to morph into one himself. Allow me to lazily cut and paste another appropriate quote for the likes of Michael:

What most frustrates Americans is that we are a happy, optimistic, can-do people ceaselessly harangued by media solons, delusional academics, post-sovereign Eurocrats, and the Democrats who love them. While we free and feed the world, they can’t tell us enough that we’re racist, imperialist, torturing louts. We know it’s a libel, an endless stream of slander. But we also know it’s an absurd libel. We’re tired of hearing it, but taking it too seriously would give it power it doesn’t deserve. - Andrew McCarty, National Review online (Emphasis mine.)

My original post here was nothing personal against Michael - just what he wrote and the position he took regarding the hero status of Stonewall Jackson. If he's going to blog, he needs to grow some thicker skin. Since you can't comment on posts at his blog, he must expect that others are going to disagree from time to time and offer a counterpoint somewhere else. So how does Michael respond to my rebuttal and admiration for Stonewall Jackson? By suggesting that those who view Jackson and other Confederates soldiers as heroic and possessing admirable traits (as our Governor recently did here) are racist. So typical, so shallow, so vapid, so non-thinking, and so predictable. Since Michael violated rule #4 for commenting here, you will have to visit his blog to read further thoughts by him as he will no longer be commenting here.

End of update.

History blogger Michael Aubrecht recently posted a piece titled, Taking Stonewall Down Off The Pedestal. Actually, heroes belong on pedestals - literally and figuratively. That's why we put them there.

If you talk about a good aspect of a great man or generation, you are expected to immediately follow up with a list of their flaws and mistakes as well. If you don’t, you’re seen as a rube who has swallowed the traditional version of history and isn’t in on the new “secret” information that has been revealed. The self-satisfaction of those who consider themselves in the know and like to give you the “real scoop” is invariably palatable.
~ Brett McKay

The Red Herring argument that these men were flawed (as if we didn't already know that) does not negate the need for heroes - nor the fact that Stonewall Jackson belongs among that select group of men. Happy Birthday General Jackson.

For a more realistic and mature look at Jackson, I would recommend James Robertson's essay: “STONEWALL” JACKSON: CHRISTIAN SOLDIER Of course, Robertson's award winning biography is also a must read for serious students of both Jackson and the WBTS.
 

City Of Lexington In Civil Contempt

For those interested in the facts and the legal issues involved in the Lexington flag flap, you can go to this link and read the actual suit filed against the City of Lexington by the Sons of Confederate Veterans. The pleading reads, in part:

". . . the Defendants are in violation of, and therefore in civil contempt of, the Consent Decree entered on August 13, 1993 . . ."

Knowing the back story, it's quite clear the SCV has a very strong case. The City of Lexington really is going to have a difficult time explaining the sequence of events on this issue. It's rather apparent what their intent was in passing the flag ordinance. That, I believe, will be the trap that snares them - and they set it themselves.

PC Example

I've read academics on other history-related blogs claim they're not even sure what political correctness is. They typically respond that way when someone in their field is accused of PC due to a silly, shallow, and immature approach to history. Of course, they're either lying or extremely ignorant. But, just for those folks, here ya go:

Students at a new Utah high school are facing disappointment after their choice for a new school mascot was rejected for one of the strangest reasons possible: Board members deemed it might be seen as offensive to middle-aged women.

BTW, my wife, who I think would concur with me that she is middle-aged, graduated from a high school which had the "Cougar" as its mascot. The Cougar does not offend her, but stupidity does.

Now, if you want to find out why the animal is so offensive, you can read the story here.