Monday, May 09, 2011

Sacred Conviction

Biblical Authority and the Road to War in Antebellum America
By: Jonathan Harris

For the downloadable version click here
Sacred Conviction

Monday, May 02, 2011

Was the South Ignorant?

Propaganda Used to Justify Propaganda
By: Jonathan Harris

Ever heard the charge that the South was (and still is) full of a bunch of backward hicks who don't know anything about "real" education? This myth fits the progressive understanding like a well worn shoe. Once original sin is rejected man becomes perfectible. This is the basic problem with humanism. They think that all problems have their answer in some kind of psychological modification. From fascists to communists to the early Republican party (now represented more in the Democrat party) reeducation is one of the primary tenants. Take the children away from their parents and "reprogram them" through public education. This is why true conservatives are so against the federal public school system. Those who have studied history know what happened during Reconstruction when the North started their indoctrination campaign against America's children.The South, with its history of dueling, slavery, and military involvement, must be a violent culture and therefore by implication an "uneducated" culture---This justified the action. In 1865 educator Francis Waylard wrote President Lincoln stating, "The rebellion has tested the value of education. It has been a war of education and patriotism against ignorance and barbarism." Let's see if this fact really holds up. The graph below represents the number of educational institutions residing in the South compared to the rest of the nation in 1850.


In the words of James Williams in The South Vindicated, "The South, in 1850, had absolutely more colleges than the North, though her free population was more than 100 per cent. less. The proportion of public schools was smaller, but the proportion of private schools was greatly in excess." Guess it's not a lack of education that causes all the supposed "violent" behavior huh? Must be something in the water?

Thursday, February 17, 2011

The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Civil War

The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Civil War (The Politically Incorrect Guides)A Review
By: Jonathan Harris

The PIG series (Politically Incorrect Guides) has quickly become the hallmark of my bookshelf. I remember a couple years ago when I first read the PIG to the South. After finishing I quickly scooped up the PIG to Capitalism and the PIG to Islam etc. I've probably read or listened to about six of them now, and still enjoy picking up a new one. In other words, they have not let me down. They're simple, accurate (for the most part), and usually written by experts in the field. The last installment in the series that has made the bookshelf is called The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Civil War. As a result of my reading I would have to maintain that this book should be the introduction for every student of "Civil War" history, especially those who don't particularly care for history. H.W. Crocker III does a great job in his first two chapters, "A Country of Their Own" and "The Gunpowder Trail," of busting the myths most often associated with the "Lost Cause." Was it really about slavery?

Crocker points out a few notable things that seem to throw a wrench in the system of the Yankee establishment. When South Carolina seceded she pointed right back to the Declaration of Independence to justify her cause. Was she not seizing the same principle for which our forefather's fought in the American War for Independence? It is no coincidence that nation which heralded George Washington on their official seal claimed as its supporters the grandsons of the Jefferson, Washington, and Francis Scott Key. Were these patriotic symbols dying to promote a cause against which their own grandfathers fought so nobly? Needless to say, Crocker goes into more detail concerning the legal and philosophical arguments for secession. The objective reader will naturally conclude that not only was secession lawful, but it was also profitable.

When it comes to slavery Crocker is quick to point out the Northern hypocrisy that so often gets overlooked in our own day. Before Nat Turner's rebellion there were three times as many anti-slavery organizations in the South as there were in the North, but with the rise of a secular abolitionism, the debate became framed in a different light. Lincoln, who removed General Fremont from command when he attempted to free slaves in Maryland, and claimed that his goal was to preserve the union, not free slaves, also assigned the superior position of racial equality to the white man; as did General George B. McClellan who couldn't stand the stench of "billy goats or niggers." Contrast these sentiments with those of Jefferson Davis who freed and educated his slaves, Robert E. Lee who freed his slaves and believed in progressive emancipation, and Stonewall Jackson who illegally taught a negro Sunday School. It wasn't a simple "for or against" position on slavery that was the issue, it was more "what view of slavery do you hold to?" The Republican politicians and businessmen held to a form of civil slavery (state capitalism) for all men while retaining their racism for the black race. The Northern abolitionists also believed in a form of civil slavery (socialism) for all men while retaining their bigotry (i.e. encouraging raids and insurrections) against those who owned slaves (even if they did so out of a humanitarian motive to rescue and educate non-Christians from Africa).

In addition to the first two chapters, Crocker fills his book with two other sections on battles and famous generals. They read like a biographical story and have the same literally appeal. Thus, even for those who aren't a fan of the Southern viewpoint will find good historical information concerning battles and generals in this work.

The last chapter tackles the question, "What would have happened if the South did win?" Crocker destroys the Nazi-Confederate connection that is so often made in our modern media, instead placing the connection where it should have been all along: at the feet of Abraham Lincoln. All in all, this book is a great read, and a great gift to give those who want an introduction to the "Civil War." Order your copy by clicking the link below.

In addition to this soft-copy version being available for purchase, there is an audiobook available for free for all those who own an amazon.com account. Simply go to Amazon.com for more details.

Monday, January 10, 2011

The Jewish Confederates

Discriminated Against Just Like the Rest of Us
By Jonathan Harris

In Thomas C. Mandes Washington Times article More Than 10,000 Jews Fought For The Confederacy we find that "The largest ethnic group to serve the Confederacy. . . was made up of first-, second- and third-generation Jewish lads." Mandes goes on to quote Rabbi Korn of Charleston who stated, "Nowhere else in America - certainly not in the Antebellum North - had Jews been accorded such an opportunity to be complete equals as in the old South." Officers Abraham Myers and Adolph Proskauer joined the ranks of the nations finest men in defending what they deemed to be northern aggression. V.M.I cadet Moses Jacob Ezekiel represented their view well when he stated, "We were not fighting for the perpetuation of slavery, but for the principle of States Rights and Free Trade, and in defense of our homes which were being ruthlessly invaded." It's unfortunate that in the years following the War for Southern Independence the myriads of Jewish immigrants who settled in the North possessed no introduction to the previous struggle of their very own kinsmen who were predominately Southerners.

In fact, one of the most important officials in the confederate government was of Jewish descent. Judah P. Benjamin:

. . .was a member of the Louisiana House of Representatives and a U.S. Senator Louisiana; he was the second Jewish senator in U.S. history. Following the formation of the Confederate States of America, he held three different Cabinet posts in the government of Jefferson Davis. He was the first Jewish Cabinet-member in a North American government, and the first Jew seriously considered for nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court (he declined an offer of nomination twice).

In contrast to this was the way the Northern army treated her Jewish soldiers. "Gen. Robert E. Lee allowed his Jewish soldiers to observe all holy days, while Gens. Ulysses S. Grant and William T. Sherman issued anti-Jewish orders." One of the most infamous anti-Jewish orders issued by Grant was referred to as General Order Number 11 and it expelled all Jews from Kentucky, Tennessee and Mississippi. Lincoln later reversed Grant's order- an order that would never have been needed to be reversed in the Confederate army.

Last week I had the privilege of visiting the Skirball (Jewish) Cultural Center near Los Angeles, California. While there I noticed an exhibit on the way Jewish people were treated during the "Civil War." Not surprisingly Grant's order was viewed as the typical white racism of the time, and Lincoln's revocation was hailed as a monumental accomplishment toward multiculturalism. What was missing though was the Confederacy. It was as if it really didn't matter to Jewish history that Judah P. Benjamin was one of the most influential Jewish men in American history or that the vast majority of Jews fought for the South. When I asked a docent why this was the case she told me that at one time there was a whole section on Mr. Benjamin, but things had to be "moved around." I immediately knew what that meant. Someone complained. Not only has Confederate history been whitewashed but so has Jewish history. What seems to matter now is how the Jewish socialists who came to America in the 1880s and 1920s seem to view their history, and for them the Confederacy is not a part of it. How long before American history itself completely vanishes in the name of political correctness? We've already witnessed a major Southern university loose its mascot, symbol, and fight song because of their association with the Confederacy, a fraternity loose the ability to allow confederate uniforms to be worn to its traditional balls, and a "Confederate History Month" castigated by every major media outlet. Cultural genocide is on the march and traditional values will not be spared. Their memory will be erased from the annals of time unless we pass it down to our children. After all, we can't rely on the culture we live in to do it for us.