Huge Confederate flag flying high over I-65

The Mexican War was fought in large measure to gain territory for the Southern expansion of slavery. Naturally the Northen states were not inclined to support such an endevour. There was no other compelling reason to take on the Texas Republic's fights, and in hindsight many good reasons not to. I doubt Texas would have survived intact on its own.

Andrew Johnson!?.. no doubt you probably meant to say Andrew Jackson.

You are correct, my bad.

I can cite many references by the Founders where they considered the states to be sovereign.

You won't find any references to sovereignty in the US Constitution though, what does that tell you?

Congress didn't have the power to excuse Lincoln's violations of various other parts of the Constitution or violations after the fact. As Taney said in ex parte Merryman:

Again, context is needed here. The capital was in danger of being cutoff and overrun. Troops were being attacked by mobs of confederate sympathizers. Rail lines, bridges and telegraphs were being shut down or burned. Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus as a last resort, not a first one, and with good reason.

actually, m.eSPINola posts like a FOOL. nothing more or less than that.

free dixie,sw

WELL SAID!

free dixie,sw

The Mexican War was fought in large measure to gain territory for the Southern expansion of slavery. Naturally the Northen states were not inclined to support such an endevour. There was no other compelling reason to take on the Texas Republic's fights, and in hindsight many good reasons not to. I doubt Texas would have survived intact on its own.

Actually Texas had survived on its own for almost 10 years before it joined the US. Mexico had even offered to give up any claims on Texas if Texas stayed independent, so either way Texas would have survived.

In annexing Texas, the US must have thought secession was OK since Texas had seceded from Mexico. Or, at least, secession was OK when it worked in the US's favor. Kind of two-faced of them to oppose secession later. However, Massachusetts passed a resolution that they seceded when Texas was annexed. It was never rescinded as far as I know, and I accept it as accomplished fact. It means that Kennedy and Kerry are not US citizens.

You won't find any references to sovereignty in the US Constitution though, what does that tell you?

You won't find where our states gave up sovereignty either. The Constitution would not have been ratified if there had been statements in the Constitution that states couldn't withdraw from the Union if it was no longer conducive to their happiness. States delegated some common tasks to the federal government, but the federal government was their creation and servant, not their master. (This is one area where we apparently disagree.)

It seems to me that Lincoln learned from observing the Mexican War -- he provoked an armed response precipitating war, just as had happened in the Mexican War; he ignored Congress as had been done during the Mexican War; he did unconstitutional things, just as he and others had alleged had been done during the Mexican War.

Again, context is needed here. The capital was in danger of being cutoff and overrun. Troops were being attacked by mobs of confederate sympathizers. Rail lines, bridges and telegraphs were being shut down or burned. Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus as a last resort, not a first one, and with good reason.

Lincoln didn't have the authority to do what he did, nor did he have the authority to stick American citizens in prison and hold them for more than a year with no charges brought against them. As the Supreme Court later said, "necessity" is not an excuse for not following the Constitution.

Well, yes, quite true. "One nation" NOW (after the one split off was defeated and merged back with The Republic). I guess that was your point. Agreed. I don't know if the Confederacy was a republic, though, in a classical sense of the word. Perhaps a 'confederation' would be more appropriate.

You have obviously bought the propaganda of the Left over the "Civil Rights" movement. You, also, obviously, collect uncomplimentary pictures of Police. Why?

You are also very, very confused as to what we fought in World War II. We were attacked, have you forgotten? We were defending the United States of America. But, since you seek to make a point about race and ethnicity, I suggest that you look a bit closer at Nazi Germany, as it will give the lie to your premise that the Communists would not have been able to corrupt U.S. race relations--or help other Socialists corrupt U.S. race relations--if there were not legitimate grievances.

Do you think that the German Socialists had a legitimate grievance against German Jews, industrious people, with above average intelligence, who had and were making major positive contributions to German Academics, Science, Music, and business? Or will you acknowledge that Hitler, employing a technique Marx had advocated in the 1840s, used the Jews as a scape goat to rally the hatred of people who wanted to blame someone else for their problems? The "Civil Rights" movement--and those on this thread who so hate the South--have used exactly the same technique against the traditional Southerners (whose States, interestingly, were the first in America where Jews were fully accepted into the mainstream of society).

When the far Left realized that "Class Warfare" was not working in America, they began to use race as a metaphor for Class, to turn the races against each other. To see the alternative, you might consider the address by Booker T. Washington at the Atlanta Exposition in 1895: Booker T. Washington. Had that wise and good man's counsel been followed, how much better off we would all be today, White and Black alike.

Brown vs. Board of Education was based upon Leftwing Sociology--such as Myrdal (a Swedish Socialist's) "American Dilemma"--and not on legal precedent. Even the radical reconstructionists, never expected anything that extreme. It has stirred up a great deal of problems in education, ever since. In my opinion, the Federal Courts should not be involved in local Education. Education, by its very nature is inherently local--and that goes for Congressional mandates, as to curricula and funding.

My opposition to the Fourteenth Amendment is based both upon its content and the method by which it was "ratified." I would have the same objection to the Fifteenth Amendment, but not the Thirteenth. In my opinion, suffrage should have remained where the Founding Fathers placed it, under the control of each State. That goes for the 19th, 24th and 26th Amendments, also. But that said, I have no expectation that the 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th, are likely to be repealed at any time soon.

When you suggest that the Southern State Governments in the 1950s were controlled by the Klan, you demonstrate your ignorance. Are you suggesting that James Byrnes, former Supreme Court Justice and Secretary of State of the United States, who became Governor of South Carolina in 1950, specifically to fight the Federal attack on States Rights, was a Klansman? Or that the Harry Byrd organization in Virginia was controlled by the Klan? You prattle pure nonsense.

Again, you mentioned Nazi Germany. It is indeed an excellent example--if you once understand it--of what we should not have to see in America. Hitler's first act upon seizing special powers, in a contrived emergency, was to abolish the rights of the German States. States' Rights are our guarantee against monolithic Government in America. It is a pity that you cannot see that.

William Flax

Thank you.

The pity is that the fanatics we encounter--as is typical with those with a propensity to that mindset--are totally unable to see that they are losing the debate. The tragedy is that much of the media, public education and the like in America today, are devoting a great deal of effort to feeding the disease.

Cheers!

YEP!

free dixie,sw

like that post. those nut-cases been getting to much history off of T V and the movies.

"You have obviously bought the propaganda of the Left over the "Civil Rights" movement. You, also, obviously, collect uncomplimentary pictures of Police. Why?"

What a typical pathetic nonresponse. The photos of the 'Klan cops' in question which you refused to issue comment, are from a website with a subsection entitled 'INTRODUCTION TO SEGREGATION IN THE SOUTH, 1961. (which never happened in your opinion) by David B. Fankhauser, Ph.D., Professor of Biology and Chemistry U.C. Clermont College, Batavia, Ohio.

"My opposition to the Fourteenth Amendment is based both upon its content and the method by which it was "ratified." I would have the same objection to the Fifteenth Amendment, but not the Thirteenth."

At least you clarified, as an 'American', your opposition to the Fourteenth Amendment. Really amazing you being so against due process & equal protection under the law, but then again if one apologies for both slavery & Southern segregation of the races, it's perfectly normal.

Why do you even bother linking anything stated by Booker T. Washington, when according to your views on constitutional amendments, the man would not be allowed to vote. Really pitiful.

I must conclude one of your core complaints relate to Section #3 of the the Fourteenth Amendment. The portion which reads '...to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.'

This part of Section #1 must be killing you: 'No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.'

The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified three years after the end of the Civil War during July of 1868, guaranteed basic civil rights to all citizens. (Gezzz how horrible!)

Which grouping of American citizens should be denied basic civil rights in your opinion?

Since you stated equal opposition to the Fifteenth Amendment which race(s) would be restricted from voting?: 'The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

In Southern states, in place of the Fifteenth Amendment, for almost 100 years was Southern state instigated & enforced ultra-violent voter intimidation, and later also 'grandfather clauses' and 'poll taxes' in order to prevent some Americans from voting. Are you also proud of that portion of 'Southern history' and wish it was never altered?

In terms of the Nineteenth Amendment, do you believe the ladies should not be able to cast their votes either?

It's already been stated but for the record once again so everyone can view this, you favour a repeal of the Twenty Forth Amendment so Americans citizens would once again for forced to pay a 'poll tax'. Would this be another federal tax, a state tax or a combination of both?

Do you favour the voting age should revert to age 21? (Twenty sixth Amendment) Or, would any alterations or repeal of the Twenty Sixth Amendment only be applicable for those particular Americans 'allowed' to vote, under your guidelines?

"Are you suggesting that James Byrnes, former Supreme Court Justice and Secretary of State of the United States, who became Governor of South Carolina in 1950, specifically to fight the Federal attack on States Rights, was a Klansman? Or that the Harry Byrd organization in Virginia was controlled by the Klan? You prattle pure nonsense.

You wish it was "prattle" & "nonsense" as you defend another hero from the party of Robert 'KKK' Byrd. Let's read a Byrd quote:

"I am a former kleagle of the Ku Klux Klan in Raleigh County and the adjoining counties of the state.The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia."

And another Klan quot from 'The Byrd' you feebly attempt to defend:

"It is necessary that the order be promoted immediately and in every state of the Union"

In order to maintain the Southern vote FDR appointed Democrat Jimmy Byrnes, a notorious segregationist from South Carolina. Also appointed to gather votes in the Deep South, another 'former' member of the Ku Klux Klan, Democrat Senator Hugo Black of Alabama. You know as well as everyone else during Jim Crow nobody got elected senator in states like South Carolina or Alabama unless they shared the views of the Klan.

Your like minded pal 'stand watie' made the following observation: "A Secret History of the KKK", the NATIONAL HQ of ALL the various klan groups was CLEARLY identified as being in OHIO." (There has to be multiple reasons for that location)

"Again, you mentioned Nazi Germany. It is indeed an excellent example--if you once understand it..."

You have no idea with whom you are speaking.

The position you disgustingly hold on the Shoah is crystal clear when previously reviewing your 'Myth of the Holocaust'.

The "Civil Rights" movement--and those on this thread who so hate the South--have used exactly the same technique against the traditional Southerners (whose States, interestingly, were the first in America where Jews were fully accepted into the mainstream of society).

Anybody who asserts that Jews were better accepted in Alabama than in New York is -- to be blunt about it -- smoking crack.

Anybody who asserts that Jews were better accepted in Alabama than in New York is -- to be blunt about it -- smoking crack.

Union General Grant issued an order EXPELLING Jews from Union territory. Halleck informed Grant that, 'The President has no objection to your expelling traitors and Jew peddlers'.

The Confederate Secretary of State/War and Attorney General, Judah P. Benjamin, was Jewish. Both Benjamin and David Yulee of Florida served as US Senators. Philip Phillips of Alabama served as US Representative. David Emanuel was Governor of Georgia in 1801. Adolph Meyer of Mississippi served as US Representative, as did David S. Kaufman of Texas.

'Before the Civil War there was also likely a higher proportion of Jews among the white population of the South than in the Northeast.'
Jonathan Glaser in American Judaism, cited by Eli N. Evans, Provincials: A Personal History of Jews in the South, Chapel Hill, NC: UNC Press (2005), p. 43.

The neo-confederates continuously harp about General Grant's Order #11, while deliberately ignoring President Grant's appointments of numerous Jewish Americans to key positions during his two term, post-Civil War presidency.

""In 1868, U.S. Grant was elected President of the United States. He never expressed or engaged in any anti-Semitic act for the rest of his life. He never apologized for General Order Number 11. Grant's administration was extraordinary in that Grant appointed more Jews to more governmental positions than any previous President. He nominated a Jew to be Secretary of the Treasury. He ordered the American State department to help the Jews in Rumania when they were savagely attached in anti-Semitic rioting. Grant was the first President to attend a Jewish religious service when he officiated at the dedication of Washington, D.C.'s conservative Adas Israel synagogue."

"1868 saw the passage of the 14th amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Federal law would be dominant over State law. North Carolina, the last State to require a belief in Christianity to hold elected office, officially changed its laws in 1868. Jews in the Civil War era had undergone a radical transformation in America. They were now truly Americans, equal with Christians in opportunity and freedom. Jewish organizations began to stand up and represent Jewish interests on a national basis. Prejudices remained but no longer would federal, state or local law prohibit Jews from the promise of America."

By Jerry Klinger - President of the Jewish American Society for Historic Preservation.

In relation to President Lincoln, Rabbi Dr. Tzvi Hersh Weinreb, executive vice president of the Orthodox Union (Manhattan), writes the following:

"The critical point, for Jews, was that they be fully included in the memorials for Lincoln. The slain president’s friendship with Jews and the gratitude Jews felt toward him made them especially eager to participate as equals in the rites of national mourning. In New York, some 3000 Jews marched in Lincoln’s funeral pageant, at least half a dozen Jewish leaders sat on the dais, and one of the 6 speakers from among the clergy was Samuel Isaacs – granted coequal status with the others.."

Rabbi Weinreb is also vice-president of the Rabbinical Council of America, NY, NY.

like that post. those nut-cases been getting to much history off of T V and the movies.

It was a sad day, when the so called "newsmedia" began to try to manipulate public opinion, rather than simply report the news. The conversion of the movie industry into a propaganda mill, intended to move America to the Left, was even sadder.

But I think you also need to look at what the NEA driven public school curriculum has been doing to many of our youth.

It is not a pretty picture.

William Flax

I do not know whether you are seriously deranged, stupid or just another Leftist liar, but you post #750, violates just about every rule of civility as well as academic integrity.

Your posting of pictures of Robert Byrd of West Virginia--a Liberal New Deal Democrat--as well as quotes from Senator Robert Byrd--in response to my comments about the Harry Byrd organization in the Old Dominion, is an example of the mean spirited, intellectually dishonest tactics that have discredited your entire argument. If you are not deranged or stupid, you know perfectly well that Harry Byrd was a descendant of the William Byrd of Colonial Virginia fame, and no relation to Robert Byrd. That Harry Byrd was the most Conservative man in the United States Senate for a third of a century; that before that as Governor of Virginia, he put through the touhgest anti-Lynching law of any State; that his integrity was never questioned. That the Conservative wing of the Republican Party had only the highest respect for Harry Byrd, who though he remained a Democrat, frequently helped achieve bipartisan Conservative majorities on key issues, particularly those addressing waste and extravagance in Government.

Your suggestion that I would disenfranchise Booker T. Washington is also a lie. Point to one place in any of my writings where I suggest such a thing. The fact that I believe that suffrage is properly left to the States, certainly does not suggest anything of the sort. Washington, by the way, would have had no truck with your hate mongering. He was, at all times, a loyal Southerner, working for good will, and against bigots like yourself.

Finally, you treat us to this little outburst:

"Again, you mentioned Nazi Germany. It is indeed an excellent example--if you once understand it..."

You have no idea with whom you are speaking. The position you disgustingly hold on the Shoah is crystal clear when previously reviewing your 'Myth of the Holocaust'.

I have a pretty good idea with whom I am speaking. You have identified yourself as an intellectually dishonest fellow, promoting ill will between Americans. That makes you unworthy of respect. I do not care if you are wealthy, or have some form of power and influence, you have kept to yourself in this thread. You have demonstrated that you are not worthy of the respect of rational men.

As for my "Myth of the Holocaust." You never reviewed such a thing of mine, because I never wrote such a thing. You are a liar, pure and simple. You do, indeed, illustrate the techniques of Nazi Germany--and deserve the same level of respect as one would accord one of Herr Goebbels underlings in the Propaganda Ministry.

Here is something you might like to chew on, along those lines. It was one of the very first things I ever posted on the internet: Compulsion For Uniformity.

William Flax

Anybody who asserts that Jews were better accepted in Alabama than in New York is -- to be blunt about it -- smoking crack.

Your ignorance is pathetic. Jews were not accepted into New York Society in the 19th Century, much less before 1860. On the other hand, Judah P.Benjamin, afterwards Secretary of State for the Confederacy, and one of the ablest legal minds of his time, was actually the man chosen to present the legal Southern Argument for secession, when the Southern Senators were saying their farewells to their Senate comrades in early 1861.

While Jefferson Davis delivered merely a short, heartfelt explanation of their position, Benjamin delivered a lengthy legal analysis of the issues, in terms of internationally accepted legal principles well understood by the Founding Fathers, and reflected in their writings, which to my knowledge has never been really answered.

And Benjamin was not the only Jewish Senator from the 1860 South.

You are either a mean spirited rascal, or just plain ignorant of what you write about. Indeed, your whole reason for being on this thread is to spread hatred. What a pitiful performance.

William Flax

I had also intended to provide a link to material on Harry Flood Byrd, the great Virginia Senator, discussed. Sorry for the omission--I let the "big lie" techniques of the poster, get under my skin. For more on Harry Byrd:

Harry Byrd Of Virginia.

It's a real shame you are only capable of constructing walls & hurling insults instead of actually responding to questions coupled with quotes, and or, commenting that slavery & Southern segregation 'might' have at least inflicted pain & harm on those caught in the dilemmas. However, since it's a free country you are entitled to whatever views you see fit.

In terms of the "Myth of the Holocaust" my wording for your website listing i.e. "Cult Of "The Holocaust - Golden Calf Of The Twentieth Century" which is even worse! Is/was this title not listed on your website? I never stated you wrote it but having as a link is just as bad.

Usage of the derogatory term "Cult" when speaking in terms of the Jewish Holocaust during World War II has a very negative connotation, as if the Shoah (Holocaust) is somehow a distorted invented 'myth', as though it never happened. Then the wording "Golden Calf Of The Twentieth Century" Survivors & relatives of those which perished should be overjoyed by this repugnant display?

Definition of 'myth'= 'An ancient legend of a god, a hero, the origin of a race, etc.; a wonder story of prehistoric origin; a popular fable which is, or has been, received as historical. A person or thing existing only in imagination, or whose actual existence is not verifiable.'

Do you actual feel this appropriate wording? "Cult Of The Holocaust - Golden Calf Of The Twentieth Century

Let's see if your capable of a normal response regarding "Cult Of The Holocaust - Golden Calf Of The Twentieth Century in relation to switch and bait tactics along with the non-stop barbs.

Did you not state you were in opposition to various amendments to the Constitution?

No comment here either? "In terms of the Nineteenth Amendment, do you believe the ladies should not be able to cast their votes either?"

Same deal here, no forth coming response on your end to what I wrote below:

"In Southern states, in place of the Fifteenth Amendment, for almost 100 years was Southern state instigated & enforced ultra-violent voter intimidation, and later also 'grandfather clauses' and 'poll taxes' in order to prevent some Americans from voting. Are you also proud of that portion of 'Southern history' and wish it was never altered?"

This was one of your comments in a previous posting: "My opposition to the Fourteenth Amendment is based both upon its content and the method by which it was "ratified." I would have the same objection to the Fifteenth Amendment, but not the Thirteenth."

I asked you: "Why do you even bother linking anything stated by Booker T. Washington, when according to your views on constitutional amendments, the man would not be allowed to vote. Really pitiful."

You state very clear opposition to both the Fourteenth Amendment, Fifteenth Amendment. If neither amendments were ratified how would it have been possible for Booker T. Washington to vote, especially if he were residing in Southern states during the era of Jim Crow? This is extremely puzzling. You can't have it both ways. Yet you responded with this: "Your suggestion that I would disenfranchise Booker T. Washington is also a lie. Point to one place in any of my writings where I suggest such a thing.

How is it a "lie" when you are against the very amendment allowing Black Americans the vote in the post Civil War period. Southern States did not allow Black citizens their right to vote after Federal troops were mistakenly removed from former states in rebellion.

I am attempting understand your full meaning. If certain states, as in 'states rights', prohibit or make extremely difficult for Black Americans to vote, would you be in agreement, since it's a 'states rights' issue?

In terms of Klan associated cops depicted in the photographs I supplied you found it very convenient not to respond: "The photos of the 'Klan cops' in question which you refused to issue comment, are from a website with a subsection entitled 'INTRODUCTION TO SEGREGATION IN THE SOUTH, 1961. (which never happened in your opinion) by David B. Fankhauser, Ph.D., Professor of Biology and Chemistry U.C. Clermont College, Batavia, Ohio."

Care to comment on this now?

"I must conclude one of your core complaints relate to Section #3 of the the Fourteenth Amendment. The portion which reads '...to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."

And...:

"This part of Section #1 must be killing you: 'No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

I take it it's 'no comment' as well? "Since you stated equal opposition to the Fifteenth Amendment which race(s) would be restricted from voting?: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."

Once again on the 'Poll Tax & Grandfather Clause'. Do you believe if selected states return to one or the other, states in question should be allowed to actually impose taxes on American citizens in order to vote or not vote if the voter could not afford to pay the 'Poll Tax' or simply refused as being unconstitutional? In 1944 (Democratic) Senator Burnet R. Maybank of South Carolina said: "Regardless of the Supreme Court decision and any laws that may be passed by Congress, we in South Carolina are going to do whatever we can to protect our white primaries." Do you agree?

Do you also agree with this comment stated by John D. Long, a legislator from South Carolina: "As for the Negro voting in my primary," he said, "we'll fight him at the precinct meeting, we'll fight him at the county convention, we'll fight him at the enrollment books, and, by God, well fight him at the polls if I have to bite the dust as did my ancestors!" Agree?

"Political equality is a question it were as well for the Negro race to forget in the South", said the Waterboro, South Carolina, Press and Standard. Was this type of ranting correct?

"Our Southern duty is to get around the decision in more ways than one," added the widely syndicated Southern columnist, John Temple Graves. Any comment here?

In conclusion, this statement of mine you did not comment on, I wonder why? "You know as well as everyone else during Jim Crow nobody got elected senator in states like South Carolina or Alabama unless they shared the views of the Klan."

You seem to believe that I need to respond to every silly, off the wall and insulting question, you chose to pose. My views are fully developed at my web site. There is not the slightest secret where I stand.

That said, I will examine some of your points and questions, not to satisfy your bigoted myopia, but for the instructional benefit it may have for others, seeking ways to deal with the fanatic mindset. You begin with this comment: It's a real shame you are only capable of constructing walls & hurling insults instead of actually responding to questions coupled with quotes, and or, commenting that slavery & Southern segregation 'might' have at least inflicted pain & harm on those caught in the dilemmas. However, since it's a free country you are entitled to whatever views you see fit.

I am a bit dubious about your acknowledgment that it is a free country, since most of your rant, the past few days has been directed in an attack on traditional minded Southerners, who chose to celebrate their history and honor their forebears. But my comments on the merits of your argument were elicited by the intellectually dishonest tactics that you employed. Anyone who knows me, knows that my usual debate tactics are to civily listen to an oponent, and then respond to his argument, not his personality.

I have never advocated slavery, so get off the tangent that suggests that I have. I have simply responded to your efforts to demonize those who held slaves. As for segregation? Ohio is not a segregated State. I have not advocated that it become one. The social customs of other States are not my business. However, when ideologues, seek to impose a monolithic social value system on Americans, I protest.

I am also aware of the terrible harm that has been done--especially to Negro youth, but some White youth also--by the mindless determination to deliberately mix people up, whether vis bussing or other "affirmative" means. If you live in New York, and want to look at the situation more closely, you should get hold of the Armstrong Study in the 1940s, which showed what the actual effect--alienation, delinquency, etc..--of forcing all children into schools, where they were assumed to have the same aptitudes, really was. (The study was in the New York public school system, but it describes psychological alienation--a result of the normal child's defensive mechanisms--that have been observed in virtually every major urban school system, over the past two generations.)

Education is inherently a local matter. Courts and Federal Legislators need to keep their noses out of local education.

You next take up--and completely distort--an article I wrote on the Nazi slaughter of Jews:

In terms of the "Myth of the Holocaust" my wording for your website listing i.e. "Cult Of "The Holocaust - Golden Calf Of The Twentieth Century" which is even worse! Is/was this title not listed on your website? I never stated you wrote it but having as a link is just as bad. Usage of the derogatory term "Cult" when speaking in terms of the Jewish Holocaust during World War II has a very negative connotation, as if the Shoah (Holocaust) is somehow a distorted invented 'myth', as though it never happened. Then the wording "Golden Calf Of The Twentieth Century" Survivors & relatives of those which perished should be overjoyed by this repugnant display?

You have either not read the essay, or have again shown a total lack of intellectual integrity, for you have totally distorted the nature and thrust of the article: The Cult Of The Holocaust. The last thing that the article is is a denial of the slaughter. It does endeavor to put the slaughter into a more realistic light than the term "Holocaust," which conjures up the idea of an explosive conflagration, intense but soon over, would imply. The reality was a deliberate, cold-blooded but methodical slaughter--one of the major examples of the cruel savagery of the Socialist mindset--the same one which emerges in a more preliminary form in the endless rhetoric of hate, being spewed against the American Southern tradition, today.

My essay also suggests that the correct response to the Marx/Hitler demonization of the Jews, is to return to a focus on the strength of the Mosaic tradition, rather than endlessly focusing on the terrible body count.

If you are really concerned with the horror--and not just pretending, to try to make a point--you should stop aping the tactics that led to it. Hitler had been in power, shouting "big lies," against the Jews for nine years, before the commencement of the sytematic slaughter. Marxists, in general, in Germany, had been demonizing the Jews as responsible for Capitalist excesses for about a hundred years, before the slaughter started.

Marx had recommended the focus on a single enemy approach in the 1840s. Hitler adopted the suggested scape goat from the other Leftist movements, in order to win the battle for the streets. But by 1942, the Nazis had become so swept up in the rhetoric of demonization, that they undermined their war effort, to divert considerable resources to the attempted extermination of all Jews under their control.

The Jews had been targeted, not because they were failures, but because they had succeeded. And the lies told about them, caused others to blame them for all of the problems that those less successful had experienced. Year by year, the hate became more focused, while those who knew better were intimidated into not opening their mouths--into not even protesting--until it was simply a given, that a people who had produced far more than their proportionate share of leaders in many fields, were totally ostracized.

If you really give a damn about preventing a recurrence of this vicious idiocy, why do you play the same game against the Southern White tradition, in America? Why do you disparage the one people in America, who at the very time the German Socialists were already deeply into the demonization of Jews, accepted Jews fully into the mainstream of their ante-bellum society? If you are not a fool, you are a hypocrite.

I am not going to comment on your silly citation of a Leftwing text book. I was very active in 1961 in the debate over the "Civil Rights" movement, and was in first hand contact with many of the prominent players on both sides, and will tell you that the Klan (one should better ask which Klan, as there were a great many small attempts to revive one, usually among the less educated)was not a major player. They would have liked to be, but few took them seriously. Your writer is simply smearing the opposition by association.

As for my position on the various Constitutional Amendments, which imposed strictures on the States' Right to control suffrage? Why do you pretend that I am being evasive? Although it has nothing really to do with this thread--which is about Southerners proudly displaying one of their historic flags, to celebrate their proud history--I pointed out to you that I opposed those Amendments. How silly can you get.

What is there about Article I, Section 2, of the Constitution you do not understand? It leaves it up to the States--where it should have remained--to determine suffrage within their borders. It merely defines Federal Suffrage as being the same as that provided in each State for the more popular branch of its State Legislature.

What you obviously oppose is to me the bedrock of the American tradition--the non-monolithic nature of our Federal Republic. It was not the Founders' intention to create something like the Third Reich, where one Will prevailed. It was broad enough and tolerant enough to allow the Puritans in New England to put each other in stocks, if they chose, for sleeping in Church; and broad enough and tolerant enough to allow the Planters in Virginia to celebrate Christmas with all the gusto their forebears had employed in the great Manor Houses in Great Britain; and broad enough to allow the people in Rhode Island to take their more eclectic view of Freedom, and the people in Georgia to sort out and deal with some of those transported types, according to their own ways and devices.

To recur to what you choose to call a "Holocaust," and I a "cold-blooded, systematic Socialist slaughter:"

Call it what you will, it would not have been likely, had someone stood up to preserve the rights of the German States, not to be subsumed into the Nazi monolith, in the early 1930s; had someone stood up and pointed out that it is not the function of the Central Government in a Federation of sovereign States with varied cultures, to impose a single monolithic value system on all its peoples.

Such a preservation of local rights to be different--of the rights of peoples to preserve their traditional values--might also have stopped the other great European deliberate, systematic slaughters of the 20th Century, such as the one where Stalin killed off the skilled farmers of Russia and the Ukraine, by imposed and enforced starvation.

Of course, both Stalin and Hitler had bought the environmentalist nonsense, that implies that the State--the collective--can remake people by remaking their environment. They assumed that whatever skills their victims possessed, would be easily replaceable. Well, they were not, and the effects of their Socialist mania will haunt Europe for some time to come.

I posted #759, without noticing that I had failed to respond to this gem, which was too good an example to overlook: "You know as well as everyone else during Jim Crow nobody got elected senator in states like South Carolina or Alabama unless they shared the views of the Klan."

The quotes are yours, quoting yourself, as though this was too good a point to let go. What does it tell us? Nothing to your credit.

1. Senator Underwood of Alabama was denied the Democratic Presidential nomination in 1922, because of the enmity of the Klan--particularly in the Midwest. He came close, but close did not do it.

2. What is really clear, however, in your statement, is that you are taking a very, very cheap shot. What stand of the Klan are you referring to? From the context, I assume that you are not claiming that every Senator endorsed lynching--or are you? If you are, that is an absolute lie. If you are saying that every Senator from the South supported some of the segregation policies, you are right. But what does the Klan have to do with that? By the precise same token, every Senator from New York, from 1940 to 1965, supported the Communist view on race relations.

Do you feel that the last makes a fair point?

I have in some posts gone into the Socialist and Communist origins of the "Civil Rights" movement. But I have never suggested that all who later embraced it were either Communists or Communist sympathizers.

And speaking of cheap shots, do you intend to apologize for your posting of the wrong Byrd, the other day? Or for that matter, your posting of a doctored picture of the West Virginia Byrd, while you were at it?

If you have a valid point, you should not have to resort to dishonest arguments to support it. If you do not have a valid point--and I do not believe that you do--you need to find another subject, where your thoughts may have more validity.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site