Monday, March 4, 2013

We Are All Just Prisoners Here

Corey sez, "As for taking the money for Ft. Sumter...your (sic) kidding me right... give in to secessionists?"

Why not?  There's nothing wrong with secession.

Corey's concept of "union" is "a prison for states." A sort of political Hotel California where "you can check out any time you like but you can never leave."

The colonial patriots did not fight a war for independence from the crown just to incarcerate themselves and their posterity in a prison for states for all time.


  1. Connie, you do know that the Great Virginian George Washington said that there were four things needed to preserve the country...the first was an indissoluble Union.

    That would be a Union that could not be know...broken up unilaterally just for the sake of...oh I don't know...preserving slavery.

    History is much more fun when you let it be more complicated that you want it to be Connie.

  2. Corey, the union was not dissolved when the Southern states seceded from it. It wasn't "broken up unilaterally" (for any sake whatever).

    Dissolving, breaking up would mean there would be no states left, no parties to the Constitution, and the government would cease to function -- indeed, cease to exist.

    There were 22 states left in the union and it functioned with that reduced number, did it not? Despite Lincoln's extra-constitutional shenanigans. It only required ratification by nine states to create the union, and 22 is more than twice nine.

    Despite this, the north didn't have what it took to make it as a nation on its own, without Dixie. Or, at least, enough northerners believed this that they fought a war to subjugate the South and bludgeon it back into the union.

    The right of the people to alter or abolish their government both predates and transcends the U.S. Constitution (or any other country's government-authorizing document or principle). But look, Southerners didn't want to abolish or destroy the U.S. government; they just wanted their states to no longer be governed by it; that is the extent they wanted to alter it -- they wanted it to govern fewer states. They weren't trying to bully the north and destroy its government. (Bullying is a yankee concept and activity.) They really didn't care what kind of government the north had, so long as they weren't a party to it anymore.

    You're really obsessed with blacks and slavery, aren't you? Perhaps that's a function of living in a race-obsessed nation when your own county is, like, 98 percent white....

  3. Corey,
    You believe the cost of more than 670,000 lives, more than one million wounded and maimed, generations of bitterness and forced poverty, mass destruction of private and public property...
    All this was worth it? Regardless of the bankers whom lincoln feared, why did he not seek peace in the stead of war? As he so said in his first Inaugural Address, except for the collections of the tariff, there would be no war. Why not peace in stead? "Blessed are the peacemakers..."
    Was it really worth it?
    I adamantly state/shout/proclaim NO!!

  4. Jimmy,

    What bankers are you refering to?

    Have you read Lincoln's first inaugural speech fully?

    And did not the president/government have the right to collect the taxes at Charleston...I believe that is in the Constitution?

  5. Corey,
    there is a famous internet quote of lincoln saying he hates the CSA but fears bankers. I can not find substantiation of it.
    However, I did find a site that makes the claim that lincoln was in extreme variances with powerful international banking interests.

    One thing I like to claim is this. "I do not know because I was not there." Therefore, we are compelled to rely on those who, without fear, research all available historical sources and write about what they found. I.E. - History Books, and/or Historical Websites.

  6. You said..."One thing I like to claim is this. "I do not know because I was not there." Therefore, we are compelled to rely on those who, without fear, research all available historical sources and write about what they found. I.E. - History Books, and/or Historical Websites."

    And that site you provided had no sources to their claims or quotes.


  7. Jimmy, that sounds like a quote I've seen in various places on the Internet, "Before me, I have the Confederacy, which I loathe, and behind me the bankers, which I fear." I've never see it sourced or substantiated.

    That may be fabricated, though it's possible Lincoln may have expressed such sentiments, but with different words. Sometimes, "quotes" like this are things that have gradually gotten changed with repetition.

    A similar example is where Lincoln is quoted as saying, "Let the South go? But what would become of my tariff?" or, alternately, "Who would pay for the government?"

    In fact, those are misquotes of a conversation Lincoln had with Col Baldwin, a pro-Union Virginia Secession Delegate -- testimony given in Feb 1866. The conversation occurred on April 4, 1861.

    "He [Lincoln] said something about the withdrawal of the troops from Sumter on the ground of military necessity.

    Said I, "That will never do, under heaven. You have been President a month to-day, and if you intended to hold that position you ought to have strengthened it, so as to make it impregnable. To hold it in the present condition of force there is an invitation to assault. Go upon higher ground than that. The better ground than that is to make a concession of an asserted right in the interest of peace."

    "Well," said he, "what about the revenue? What would I do about the collection of duties?"

    Said I, "Sir, how much do you expect to collect in a year?"

    Said he, "Fifty or sixty millions."

    "Why, sir," said I, "four times sixty is two hundred and forty. Say $250,000,000 would be the revenue of your term of the presidency; what is that but a drop in the bucket compared with the cost of such a war as we are threatened with? Let it all go, if necessary; but I do not believe that it will be necessary, because I believe that you can settle it on the basis I suggest."

    The question dealt solely with the revenue -- the duties -- collected in Charleston, which obviously would not be enough to "pay for the government." On the other hand, the revenue was something Lincoln was concerned about -- or at least that he pretended to be concerned about; he may have just found it a convenient spark for starting the war....

  8. Col Baldwin's testimony can be found here:

  9. Another interesting thing; I've never seen any flogger take on Greg Loren Durand's "America's Caesar" ebook about Lincoln. I don't think they can deflect or refute it with the usual excuses ("It's heritage, not history,") so they choose to ignore it.

  10. No one takes it on like no one takes on the Kennedy is not real scholarship.

  11. Floggers say the same thing about the SHPG, but they light into it quite frequently. Double standard...

    Besides, saying "it's not real scholarship" doesn't prove it's not real scholarship. If that were true, btw, it should be very easy to shred the book. That nobody has done it makes it look like they're skeered to try....

  12. Shredding a book takes time and effort Connie. One has to write a review, proofread, etc. etc. and submit it. Here lies the issue. For starters, most Historians seeking publication of a review are not going to go after online neo-confederate books. They are going to review the big publishers with the big names to either reinforce the author's argument, or shred it to pieces. On top of that, when the review is submitted there is no guarantee an academic journal would publish the review. The reviews are peer reviewed (in most cases double blind) before they are published. There are multiple issues that. With my schedule, I don't have the time to read an ebook for fun. I have papers to grade, papers to write, and I am currently reading through about twelve books for my two classes. You'll have to forgive the "floggers" for spending the 10 or so minutes it takes to write up a response to the big "heritage" advocates of the internet.

  13. Does anyone know about the book outside the regular few?

  14. Good heavens, Rob, a formal review in a scholarly journal isn't the only way to "take on" a book or anything else. I figured you would have got a clue when I mentioned that floggers "take on" the SHPG and other private citizens on social media. They have personal BLOGS where they could do it, if they weren't skeered to. I think they're skeered to.

    They haven't been skeered to take on the Kennedy Brothers books, despite Corey's claims to the contrary. See next comment....


  15. Google Search Indexes

    At Civil War Memory

    Al Jazeera Reports on the Sesquicentennial - Civil War Memory
    Apr 14, 2011 – Where History, Memory, and Education Intersect ... interpreter, Michael Allen and the Kennedy brothers (aka the Civil War's Statler and Waldorf) ...

    Deep Thoughts With the Kennedy Brothers - Civil War Memory
    Dec 17, 2011 – Bonus Material: “Adolf Hitler admired Lincoln's attack upon state's rights and emulated Lincoln by destroying the last vestiges of “statal rights” in ...

    Mainstream Media Tackles Confederate History ... - Civil War Memory
    Apr 12, 2010 – This entry was posted in Civil War Culture, Current Affairs and tagged .... CNN and Fox didn't chose the Kennedy bros as their “historians.” 2.

    =======At Crossroads=======

    History as Identity and Ideology | Crossroads
    Apr 16, 2011 – I always find interesting what the Kennedy brothers have to say. Indeed, at times you can simply play all four of these interviews simultaneously, ...

    An Embarrassment to Southerners and Southern Heritage ...
    Aug 11, 2011 – Dilorenzo, The Kennedy Brothers and so many more real educated Southernors, so to you thumbs down to this nose in the air elitist blogger.

    16 « April « 2011 « Crossroads
    Apr 16, 2011 – I always find interesting what the Kennedy brothers have to say. Indeed, at times you can simply play all four of these interviews simultaneously, ...

    The Civil War in Popular Culture « Crossroads
    Apr 16, 2011 – I always find interesting what the Kennedy brothers have to say. Indeed, at times you can simply play all four of these interviews simultaneously, ...

    Life in My Profession « Crossroads
    Apr 16, 2011 – I always find interesting what the Kennedy brothers have to say. Indeed, at times you can simply play all four of these interviews simultaneously, ...

    ======At Dead Confederates========

    “Ninety-eight percent of Texas Confederate soldiers never owned a ...
    Apr 28, 2011 – Dead Confederates, A Civil War Era Blog .... Likewise, the Brothers Kennedy are not going to be swayed by any of this stuff. They've assembled ...

    Andy Hall | Dead Confederates, A Civil War Era Blog | Page 5
    Jan 1, 2013 – Read all of the posts by Dead Confederates, A Civil War Era Blog on Andy Hall. ... hearing a voice I new — my brother Lew's voice — calling my name. .... a single sentence,” the correct response is, “who is Donnie Kennedy?“ ..
    Newer Posts - Dead Confederates, A Civil War Era Blog
    Dec 29, 2012 – Dead Confederates, A Civil War Era Blog ..... kindred by distinctly hearing a voice I new — my brother Lew's voice — calling my name. .... states' rights into a single sentence,” the correct response is, “who is Donnie Kennedy?

    Even ol' Corey the Denier has managed to have The Kennedy Brothers and at least one of their books, in a reference at his blog:....

    ========The Blood of My Kindred=======

    Southern Heritage Defenders | The Blood of My Kindred
    Aug 6, 2011 – ... to prove that what their ancestors did during the War of the Rebellion was correct…or as the Kennedy Brothers say..”The South Was Right”.

  16. The Kennedy's Brother's books have been out for quite some time. I bought one in high school and read it. I only became knowledgeable of "American Caesar" when you referenced it. Other than Corey's post about the guy reprinting books for sale, I just knew him as a David Bartonesque pseudo-theologian.

  17. Also, those citations you provided, if I'm not mistaken, were taken from video interviews, not their books.

  18. Rob, it's "America's Caesar."

    "American Caesar"is a biography of Douglas MacArthur by William Manchester.

    A hardcover version of America's Caesar is available at It was published by Crown Rights in 2001 and was the third edition, so it has been written and published longer than that.

    It used to be advertised frequently on proSouthern sites. You may not have been familiar with it, but the way Levin, Simpson and Hall rake proSouthern websites and groups (mostly heritage but independence, too) with an ultra-finetoothed comb, looking for something to slander, I suspect they've known about it for a good while. The way they love to trash anything proSouthern, I'm surprised they've managed to resist tearing into Durand's book (and Durand).

    What's a pseudo-theologian, and who is the authority for assigning that designation?

    What citations are you referring to? Video interviews with who? I provided no citations in my blog post (unless you count the Eagles video) and none in this comment thread but the reference to Durand's book and the testimony of Col. Baldwin. My comment timestamped March 8, 2013 at 3:26 AM is a Google search index, not citations.

  19. I was referencing the citations of Hall and Levin that you posted in the comments thread. I can remember the Sesame Street reference specifically. It was from a video, not their book.

    Also, there is the possibility that Hall and Levin do not search the internet for things to nit pick. There are a couple of sources to go to, namely because they are vocal (SHPG) or things that gain national attention. The majority of the time, I hear about this stuff before I see their writings on the issue.

    A Pseudo-theologian is someone that does not have the credentials to be a theologian, nor the scholarship to warrant the status of "amateur." Which isn't a slight on the scholarship but mainly in recognition that said researcher did not "go pro" so to speak. A quick search revealed some of Durand's biblical scholarship, has been taken on.

  20. Sorry, wasn't finished....

    I may look into "America's Caesar." I've done a couple of Google searches of the author and the book. It seems like "Caesar" is thrown around a lot by "Heritage" advocates describing both Obama and Lincoln. Of course, maybe they've all read Durand's book.

    Durand's profile picture has him wearing a farb Confederate Uniform holding a Confederate flag. The dedication of his book says:
    his book is dedicated to the brave Confederate soldiers who paid the ultimate price to preserve Liberty for their posterity. Their Cause is not lost. Deo Vindice!

    I must say, it seems like the direction of his "research" was predetermined before actually writing the book.

    The introduction left a lot to be desired. For starters, what axioms of warfare is he referring to? Did he make these up or is he citing military officers, historians, philosophers, etc. How he transfers those "axioms" into the "War Powers" of the President is beyond me. But he is already mistaken if he believes Lincoln is the beginning of such action. Washington was the beginning of such action. From the introduction, I can sense a biased from the author indicating that he has a prearranged reason for writing the book rather than an idea to investigate. He is unsatisfied with the current political environment and wants to project his political view onto the past. I'd imagine this book is popular with anyone that both despises the current political climate and already projects that on the past. The introduction leaves me thinking there is nothing new.

    Not to worry Connie, I haven't given up on Durand yet, I'll read the whole book this summer.

  21. "A Pseudo-theologian is someone that does not have the credentials to be a theologian, nor the scholarship to warrant the status of "amateur.""

    Well, Jesus was a "pseudo-theologian" by this standard. As were any and all Christian preachers, teachers, etc. until, I think, the Catholic church became enamoured of themselves and decreed some such quote-unquote ""official"" schooling from themselves was required before anyone could preach the Gospel.

    And of course along comes the American edumcated elite who declare, from their luxurious ivory towers, what shall and what shall not be considered "scholastic", nevermind if some lowly high school graduate performs the exact kind/type of research, writes a properly annotated history book. Just because he does not reside in their ivory towers with them, he is summarily dismissed from being considered, let alone seriously.


  22. For the second time, Rob, I posted no citations. Citations are references to an authority or a precedent. All I did was a Google search and I posted what showed up in the resulting index.

    Maybe we need to do quick review here of how this started. After posting the pertinent part of Col. Baldwin's testimony in a comment timestamped March 7, 2013 at 9:59 AM, I wrote,

    "Another interesting thing; I've never seen any flogger take on Greg Loren Durand's "America's Caesar" ebook about Lincoln. I don't think they can deflect or refute it with the usual excuses ("It's heritage, not history,") so they choose to ignore it.

    Corey came back with, "No one takes it on like no one takes on the Kennedy is not real scholarship."

    I did a Google search of Levin's, Simpson's and Hall's blogs to see if they had ever mentioned America's Caesar and/or Greg Loren Durand and nothing came up to indicate they have. I then did a Google search for Kennedy Brothers, and I posted here what showed up in Google's indexed results.

    So they won't "take on" the Kennedy Brothers' books because they're "not real scholarship," Corey says, but we can see even in these very abbreviated Google descriptions the derision, the mockery, the smearing of the Kennedy Brothers themselves. Based on what, do you suppose? The jobs they hold? The kind of cars they drive? Or because of what they've written in their books? That's how they "take on" the Kennedys' books -- by smearing the authors.

    And why do they go to the SPHG? I mean, if they won't "take on" books written by Southern heritage advocates because they're not "real scholarship" -- why zero in on a social networking group where nobody is, or to my knowledge, claims to be experts in civil war scholarship? They feel very comfortable smearing and ridiculing the Kennedys and the SHPG, but not a single comment, per google, about Durand and his book. I just find that ... interesting.

    You send me to the website of a theologian criticizing another theologian. I'm neither interested nor impressed with that. I'm a preacher's daughter, not a theologian's daughter. In my view, theologians are the lawyers of the religious realm -- concerned with the letter of the law, not the spirit -- while men like my father are concerned with helping and guiding people, using Biblical teachings, with their spiritual and earthly lives... not arguing arcane doctrine.

    Incidentally, those who credential theologians are ... human beings, just like the people they are credentialing. In fact, there is no earthly credential, award, status, title, grant, honor, degree that transcends the human authority that bestows it. Humanity is its own glass ceiling.

    This is why I am very impressed with knowledge and its acquisition, but have so little respect for establishment education -- i.e. "scholarship." It's just a bunch of people who look over what somebody has written, and they say, "We like that, so we're gonna give you this status." People who hand out that kind of status value knowledge based on *how* it was acquired -- not *that* it was acquired. So a self-education person, even if they know as much as or more thatn the credentialers, is considered by them to be an ignorant rube. If you don't get your knowledge the way they got theirs, you might as well have not got it at all. Ludicrous.

  23. Citations are references to published or unpublished material. You cited Hall and Levin when you referred to them Connie. This argument of semantics game you have is ridiculous. It does nothing to further the conversation.

    I'm ignoring your remarks about the back and forth with Corey. I didn't comment on him, I commented on you.

    Already answered. Probably because they are vocal and come in swarms to harass their blogs, sort of like mine. A counter search reveals them and thus the retaliation. Ultimately, I can't speak for them so why don't you ask Hall and Levin why they do what they do.

    You asked of a "pseudo-theologian" then maintain you don't care about theologians....The website I sent you to, is one of a pastor. I can't find records indicating that Duran is a pastor, but he sure likes to play theologian in his writings. Thanks for demonstrating an extreme biased on this subject by the way.

    Actually, humanity created the title of study of theology, therefore humanity dictates the theological principles by which to classify one a theologian.

    That's a gross generalization and one you like to use to demonize academia. You were never in the fight for an advanced degree in these fields so you really can't comprehend what it is currently like. "Amateur" historians are cited are honored all of the time by academia for impressive work.

  24. Ironic that the northern populace thought they could ignore the C9nstitution and expect the Southern States to remain obligated to it --

    "These [northern] very States are among the loudest in their demands for unconditional submission on the part of the South to the election of Lincoln. The inviolability of the Union is the magic word with which they summon the South to submission. The South responds by holding up before them a Constitution basely broken—a compact wantonly violated. That broken Constitution and violated compact formed the only Union we ever recognized; and if you would still have us to love and preserve it. Restore to it that vital spirit of which it has been robbed by your sacrilegious hands, and make it again what our fathers made it—a Union of good faith in the maintenance of constitutional obligations. Do this, and the Union will find in all this land no truer or more devoted supporters than the ever-loyal sons of the South." -- Robert Toombs

  25. ci·ta·tion

    5. the act of citing or quoting a reference to an authority or a precedent.

    From Google
    A quotation from or reference to a book, paper, or author, esp. in a scholarly work.

    From Merriam-webster
    2 a : an act of quoting; especially : the citing of a previously settled case at law; b : excerpt, quotation

    From the Free Online Dictionary
    1. The act of citing.
    2. a. A quoting of an authoritative source for substantiation. b. A source so cited; a quotation.

    From Oxford Dictionaries
    1 a quotation from or reference to a book, paper, or author, especially in a scholarly work:

  26. Thanks for proving my point in two parts. One, you did cite/quote an authority. Two, you are continuing your argument of semantics.

  27. @ Jimmy

    Christ wasn't a theologian, he was a prophet. Pretty serious difference there. Also, theology is not limited to Christianity. I wish the towers were luxurious, they are underpaid but made of passion. Honestly Jimmy, where do you get these arguments?

  28. Rob, please. A search engine index is not a scholarly authority. Google is not a book, paper, author or scholarly work.

    Semantics -- which deals with the the meaning of words -- is a legitimate approach in an argument.

    Christ most certainly was a theologian. Prophet and theologian are not mutually exclusive. There is a big difference between a teacher and a national guardsman, but they're not mutually exclusive, either, and there are people who are both. Commenting on Christian theology is not limiting theology to Christianity.

    Re: luxurious ivory towers, see the section headed "Modern Usage" --

    I didn't ask or expect you to comment on my back and forth with Corey. I related it simply to show you the background of the discussion.

    Your concept of "swarm" is most interesting. The floggers -- heck, Simpson all by himself -- pick on and harass the SHPG more than its members "swarm" his blog. I don't need to ask the floggers, though, because I'm convinced I know exactly why the are so obsessed with the SHPG and other heritage advocates, and have said so on my blog.

    There may be some people in academia who honor the work of amateur historians for impressive work, but they sure keep it hidden from the general public. And the floggers aren't among them. Floggers have a history of ridiculing people (especially Southern heritage advocates) who don't come by their knowledge exactly as the floggers did (or think they should).


Comments are welcome, but monitored.