Confederate Truth

People hate Lee because he was a traitor and enemy of the US who led a war against the US killing hundreds of thousands of US soldiers.

Why do they hate Robert E Lee? The same reason they hate us. General Lee was a God-fearing Man.

2 Samuel 23:3 says: “He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God.”

General Lee feared God. He was a man of faith and prayer. One of his numerous General Orders he issued in 1862 read:“Habitually all duties except those of inspection will be suspended during Sunday, to afford the troops rest and to enable them to attend religious services.”

On one occasion when he issued one of these orders an Army chaplain wrote: “The work of grace among the troops widened and deepened and went gloriously on until there had beenthousands of professions of faith in Christ as a personal Saviour.”

John Cooke said: "He had lived, as he died, with this supreme trust in an overruling and merciful Providence; and this sentiment, pervading his whole being, was the origin of that august [majestic] calmness with which he greeted the most crushing disasters of his military career. His faith and humble trust sustained him after the war, when the woes of the South well nigh broke his great spirit; and he calmly expired, as a weary child falls, asleep, knowing that its father is near."

Lee had learned through personal hardship and tragedy to possess an unrelenting faith in the sovereign counsel of God, both in personal and national matters. Upon hearing of the death of his 23-year-old daughter, Annie, and unable to attend her funeral, he insisted that these words be carved on her tombstone: "Perfect and true are all His ways, Whom Heaven adores and earth obeys."

Like Job of old in the Bible, he trusted in God no matter the situation or heartache. He did not get angry with God, but entrusted his life and circumstances with God.

We would do well to follow his example.

With Robert E. Lee Camp 1640, Sons of Confederate Veterans – I just got recognized as one of their rising fans! 🎉

Which is funny, since I'm banned from that page.

Some old school lost cause BS right here.

"A Confederate Catechism" by Lyon Gardiner Tyler, 3rd edition.

Lincoln quote isn't Lincoln. Lee quote, right after he says slavery is the proper place for black people. Good job du***ss.

Truth, crushed to earth...

Just another guy who makes up BS because he doesn't know or refuses to believe the truth

Ezekiel was a Confederate soldier, sculptor, and the first Jewish cadet at VMI. He considered the Confederate memorial at Arlington National Cemetery to be his greatest work and is buried at the base of it.

You started the war. You FAFO. Descendants of Confederates should be the ones paying reparations

Your country never existed. It had zero actual presidents.

Ooooooooooooooooooh snap!!

When Helmerich Award winning Civil War Historian Shelby Foote was asked “what he considered was the most common denominator of the thousands of battles fought during the Civil War.” His immediate response was “slavery.” “The term states' rights,” according to Foote, was “made popular as a slogan often usurped by racists during the civil rights era.”

Shelby Foote: "There's always talk about slavery vs. states rights as the main cause of the war. But slavery was the issue that underlay all others."

🫡🫡🫡🫡

In this speech, Lincoln is talking about revolution. Him and Lee obviously agree since Lee said secession is nothing but revolution.

"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, --a most sacred right--a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the territory as they inhabit.”

-Abraham Lincoln, Jan. 12, 1847

October 31, 1861 – Winfield Scott relieved from duty as General-in-Chief, U. S. Army. https://buff.ly/3Mp1kun

"Jeff Davis Reaping the Harvest", Harper's Weekly, October 26, 1861

Lincoln also said in his 1st inaugural:

"One section of our country believes slavery is right and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute."

And you said in your 1st message to congress You mention slavery 24 times, states rights 5 times (and in relation to slavery) and said:

"Finally a great party was organized for the purpose of obtaining the administration of the Government, with the avowed object of using its power for the total exclusion of the slave States from all participation in the benefits of the public domain acquired by all the States in common, whether by conquest or purchase; of surrounding them entirely by States in which slavery should be prohibited; of thus rendering the property in slaves so insecure as to be comparatively worthless, and thereby annihilating in effect property worth thousands of millions of dollars. This party, thus organized, succeeded in the month of November last in the election of its candidate for the Presidency of the United States."

“Ignorance and credulity have enabled unscrupulous partisans to mislead public opinion, both at home and abroad, as to create the belief that the institution of African slavery was the chief cause, instead of being a mere incident in the group of causes, which led to war. In keeping with the first misrepresentation was that of the position assigned to the belligerent parties. Thus, the North is represented as having fought for the emancipation of the African slaves, and the South for the increase and extension of the institution of African servitude as it existed in the Southern States.

Therein is a twofold fallacy. First, the dominant party in the North, in 1861, through their exponent, President Lincoln, declared, in his inaugural message, as follows: “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so; and I have no inclination to do so.”

This declaration was reinforced by quoting from the platform of the political convention which nominated him, an emphatic resolution, in these words: “Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depends; and we denounce the lawless invasion, by armed force, of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter under what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.”

Fitly, as to time and occasion, was the armed invasion of a State denounced as among the gravest of crimes, and so it remains, whether or not a State’s secession should be an accomplished fact.

If the State were still in the Union, it was a crime against the Constitution, which did not grant power to coerce a State (indeed the convention which formed that Constitution refused to give that power); if a State had withdrawn from the Union, it was a crime against humanity and justice to make war upon a neighbor’s late associate for the exercise of that sovereign right: in either case it was a crime against the hopes of mankind in destroying the fairest prospect for the success of federative government and substituting the theory of force for that of consent.”

The Honorable Jefferson Davis, A Short History of the Confederate States of America

The south paid less than 10 percent of the tariff and that includes the 4 southern states that didn't secede. There was no tariffs on exports so there was zero revenue from it.

Not to mention Calhoun died a decade before Secession started and the same year a South Carolina representative said this

Quoted from a speech by Hon. B.F. Perry, SC, House of Representatives, Dec. 11, 1850:

"In many instances of the highest importance and greatest moment, the policy of the United States has been in favor of the South and under the control of the South. ...I remember to have heard Mr. Calhoun say, not many years before his death, that the South always had, and always would control the Government when united. This is abundantly shown in our past history. Since the formation of the Federal Government, the Southern States have given to the Union, nine Presidents out of thirteen, and have had a very large proportion of all the Federal offices. Three fourths of this time the South have been in power, and have had control of the Government...."

Concerning expenditures of federal monies from the tariff he goes on to say:

"Lighthouses: More money spent on them in the South than the North. The majority of the money from the North to the South."

"Fortifications: The North has longer borders and coastline. Expenditures for the South including current projects, $19,215,266. Expenditures for the North - $8,749,897. Eighty percent of the money from the North."

“The North had adopted a system of revenue and disbursements in which an undue proportion of the burden of taxation has been imposed upon the South, and an undue proportion of its proceeds appropriated to the North… the South, as the great exporting portion of the Union, has in reality paid vastly more than her due proportion of the revenue."

-John C. Calhoun, Vice President of the United States

Reparations for the people who started and led a war against the US killing hundreds of thousands of US soldiers? This is probably the dumbest idea I have ever seen, even from the SCV

BTW Shelby Foote says

Helmerich Award winning Civil War Historian Shelby Foote was asked “what he considered was the most common denominator of the thousands of battles fought during the Civil War.” His immediate response was “slavery.” “The term states' rights,” according to Foote, was “made popular as a slogan often usurped by racists during the civil rights era.”

Shelby Foote: "There's always talk about slavery vs. states rights as the main cause of the war. But slavery was the issue that underlay all others."

Credit: Okie Ozark Piper and our friends at The Southern Perspective: The American Civil War

As Shelby Foote once said we used to live under a “Great Compromise” where people of both the North and South agreed to live in harmony and respectfully with each other in spite of the atrocities Southerners suffered during the Great War, but that compromise has been broken with the destruction and removal of our Confederate Monuments and misrepresentation of the war as it is taught in schools, so perhaps it is time for Southerners to demand justice and reparations for the illegal war forced upon her and the death, destruction, and theft of property of our ancestors.

In this age of correcting every wrong done in history, the South stands on firm ground as people who were unjustly stripped of their rights and terrorized by the federal government. Perhaps it is time to demand “Reparations for the South!”

Of course, southern states didn't secede over taxes, they had all of the representation the US constitution afforded them, and they wanted independence to control slavery how they saw fit because slavery was their cultural difference. Then they attacked the US.

Better to die than willingly submit to tyranny…

What if 13 of the 28 countries in the European Union decided to leave the EU due to unfair taxes, inequitable representation and because they wish to form an independent Confederation while claiming cultural differences with the other member states.

Would the remaining EU members, at the behest of their president, decide to invade those countries that withdrew, crush the secessionists as if they were traitors and force them back into the EU.

Would a resulting war end in the deaths of hundreds of thousands with enormous property loss and destruction? Would martial law be imposed on the defeated countries and its citizens disenfranchised for 10 years?

Of Course this would never be tolerated today, but that’s exactly what Lincoln and the Northern states did in 1861. Even the Soviet Union split successfully without bloodshed.

~✟Robert✟~

Photo: Rick Reeves, Civil War Print, Army of Tennessee Cavalry CSA.

"If it was right to own slaves as property it was right to fight for it. The South went to war on account of slavery. South Carolina went to war - as she said in her Secession proclamation - because slavery would not be secure under Lincoln. South Carolina ought to know what was the cause for her seceding."

John S Mosby, Confederate commander.

"Slavery was undoubtedly the immediate fomenting cause of the woful American conflict. It was the great political factor around which the passions of the sections had long been gathered--the tallest pine in the political forest around whose top the fiercest lightnings were to blaze and whose trunk was destined to be shivered in the earthquake shocks of war."

John Brown Gordon, Confederate General

“If we ain't fighting to keep slavery, then what the hell are we fighting for?” Nathan Bedford Forrest, Confederate General

"Our people have come to this on the question of slavery. I am willing, in that address to rest it upon that question. I think it is the great central point from which we are now proceeding, and I am not willing to divert the public attention from it." - Lawrence Keitt, Congressman from South Carolina

"It is very certain that the immediate cause of the political agitation which culminated in the dissolution of the Union was the institution of slavery. The controversy arose between the extreme advocates and opponents of that institution, and the moderate people of both sections were drawn into the dispute. While the war raised other issues more vital to the Southern people than the continuance of slavery, there can be no doubt that they were fighting to maintain slavery or prevent its overthrow by the hands of their enemies." [Col. Charles Marshall, An Aide-de-Camp of Lee: Being the Papers of Colonel Charles Marshall, Assistant Adjutant General on the Staff of Robert E. Lee, pp. 39]

"The vandals of the North . . . are determined to destroy slavery . . . We must all fight, and I choose to fight for southern rights and southern liberty." [Lunsford Yandell, Jr. to Sally Yandell, April 22, 1861 in James M. McPherson, For Cause and Comrades: Why Men Fought in the Civil War, p. 20]

"A stand must be made for African slavery or it is forever lost." [William Grimball to Elizabeth Grimball, Nov. 20, 1860, Ibid.]

"This country without slave labor would be completely worthless. We can only live & exist by that species of labor; and hence I am willing to fight for the last." [William Nugent to Eleanor Nugent, Sept 7, 1863, Ibid., p. 107]

"Better, far better! endure all the horrors of civil war than to see the dusky sons of Ham leading the fair daughters of the South to the altar." [William M. Thomson to Warner A. Thomson, Feb. 2, 1861, Ibid., p. 19]

"A captain in the 8th Alabama also vowed 'to fight forever, rather than submit to freeing negroes among us. . . . [We are fighting for] rights and property bequeathed to us by our ancestors.' " [Elias Davis to Mrs. R. L. Lathan, Dec. 10, 1863 Ibid., p. 107]

"Even though he was tired of the war, wrote a Louisiana artilleryman in 1862, ' I never want to see the day when a negro is put on an equality with a white person. There is too many free [n-word]s. . . now to suit me, let alone having four millions.' " [George Hamill Diary, March, 1862, Ibid., p. 109]

"A private in the 38th North Carolina, a yeoman farmer, vowed to show the Yankees ' that a white man is better than a [n-word].' " [Jonas Bradshaw to Nancy Bradshaw, April 29, 1862 Ibid.]

"A farmer from the Shenandoah Valley informed his fiancée that he fought to assure 'a free white man's government instead of living under a black republican government.' " [John G. Keyton to Mary Hilbert, Nov. 30, 1861, Ibid.]

"The son of another North Carolina dirt farmer said he would never stop fighting the Yankees, who were 'trying to force us to live as the colored race.' " [Samuel Walsh to Louisa Proffitt, April 11, 1864, Ibid.]

"Some of the boys asked them what they were fighting for, and they answered, 'You Yanks want us to marry our daughters to the [n-word]s.' " [Chauncey Cook to parents, May 10, 1864, Ibid.]

"An Arkansas captain was enraged by the idea that if the Yankees won, his 'sister, wife, and mother are to be given up to the embraces of their present dusky male servitors.' " [Thomas Key, diary entry April 10, 1864, Ibid.]

"Another Arkansas soldier, a planter, wrote his wife that Lincoln not only wanted to free the slaves but also 'declares them entitled to all the rights and privileges as American citizens. So imagine your sweet little girls in the school room with a black wooly headed negro and have to treat them as their equal.' " [William Wakefield Garner to Henrietta Garner, Jan 2, 1864, Ibid.]

"[If Atlanta and Richmond fell] we are irrevocably lost and not only will the negroes be free but . . . we will all be on a common level. . . . The n*gro who now waits on you will then be as free as you are & as insolent as she is ignorant.' " [Allen D. Chandler to wife, July 7, 1864, Ibid.]

"The South had always been solid for slavery and when the quarrel about it resulted in a conflict of arms, those who had approved the policy of disunion took the pro-slavery side. It was perfectly logical to fight for slavery, if it was right to own slaves." [John S. Mosby, Mosby's Memoirs, p. 20]

“Without slavery, there would not have been at the time any reason for the breakup [of] the old government, with it, there was an eternal strife dispute and quarrel between the North and South.” – Lieutenant William E. Smith, 4th Georgia
Infantry

“[I vow] to fight forever, rather than submit to freeing negroes among us…. We are fighting for rights and property bequethed to us by our ancestors.” – Captain Elias Davis, 8th Alabama Infantry

“This country without slave labor would be
completely worthless. We can only live
and exist by that species of labor; and
hence I am willing to fight to the last.” –
Lieutenant William Nugent, 28th Mississippi
Infantry

“The vandals of the North are determined to destroy slavery…. We must all fight, and I choose to fight for southern rights and southern liberty” – Private Lunsford Yandell, Jr., Kentucky Cavalry

A. J. Smith, who served as a private in Company F, Fourth Tennessee Cavalry, Forrest's
Brigade, Army of Tennessee, said after the war:

"I am proud to know that I am a Confederate veteran. I lost one leg trying to keep the "n*****" from being on equality with the white people."
Mamie Yeary, Reminiscences of the boys in gray, 1861-1865 (Dallas: Lamar & Smith Publishing House, 1912), 692.

WE FOUGHT SO RICH FOLKS COULD KEEP THEIR SLAVES!

Said no Confederate Veteran ever….

~✟Robert✟~

Photo: Confederate Veteran Reunion

This is just a typical lost cause mythology twist on a story to make Lee sound better. The story was originally told by a former Confederate Lt Colonel William LeRoy Broun in 1905 and is almost entirely opposite.

"General Robert E. Lee was present, and, ignoring the action and presence of the n*gro, arose in his usual dignified and self-possessed manner, walked up the aisle to the chancel rail, and reverently knelt down to partake of the communion, and not far from the negro. This lofty conception of duty by Gen. Lee under such provoking and irritating circumstances had a magic effect upon the other communicants (including the writer), who went forward to the communion table. By this action of Gen. Lee the services were conducted as if the negro had not been present. It was a grand exhibition of superiority shown by a true Christian and great soldier under the most trying and offensive circumstances."

Broun makes it very clear that Lee's presence at the communion rail reflected defiance and disdain for the black man's actions, not an embrace of them in the mutual brotherhood of Christ.

NO MATTER WHAT… LEE WILL ALWAYS BE MY HERO…

Let the statue of Robert E. Lee, and the schools that bear his name, remind us all of a Sunday in 1865 at St. Paul’s Episcopal Church, where Lee worshiped when in Richmond. That Sunday, with the wounds of war still raw, a black man walked down the aisle of St. Paul’s and knelt to receive Communion. The whites in attendance weren’t certain if they could, or should, take Communion with a black man. For a moment no one knew what to do. Then came a rustle, the scrape of boots on the floorboards, and the congregation looked up to see Lee walking down the aisle to kneel beside that black man, by his own example teaching those around him the way of respect and tolerance.

Travis [>

https://www.propublica.org/article/how-grad-student-discovered-largest-us-slave-auction?utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR3gsjltOouepHDBb8ewTsXxs6RGFShO6Unml_fVpoLTcI8zFDpwCK09nOc

How a Grad Student Uncovered the Largest Known Slave Auction in the U.S. Lauren Davila made a stunning discovery as a graduate student at the College of Charleston: an ad for a slave auction larger than any historian had yet identified. The find yields a new understanding of the enormous harm of such a transaction.

Our country was formed by an agreement that 3/4 of the 13 members would agree to form a union. So long as 9 said yes, the other 4 agreed by default. Unlike the Articles of Confederation which all 13 had agreed. This means the US was formed by a majority rule over a minority. States were free to secede, even the US Supreme Court ruling of Texas vs White ruled that unilateral secession was unconstitutional, not secession in itself.

If the southern states were legally seceded, they weren't part of the plural "them" or "their" United States. If the states were sovereign and not part of the US, then overtaking US property, firing on US ships, threatening US soldiers, and attacking and overtaking a US Fort would be considered acts of war against the US.

If the states were still in the Union, as Lincoln proclaimed, and nothing more than an insurrection, then the US had the constitutional right to suppress it, so it wouldn't be considered treason under the constitution.

Militia Clause
ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 15
The Congress shall have Power To ...provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions....

And our “Confederate Catechism Addendum” continues. I hear this all the time. Tiffany, like many younger folks doesn't understand how our country (a "union") was formed. She had a lot to say, and all of it was wrong. Credit Carl Jones for the below:

Secession is not "treason". It is rather a means of separation, or removing oneself from a contract that was freely entered into. Nothing in the constitution denied any State the right of secession and nothing in the constitution gave any branch of the general government the authority to prevent a State from leaving. The "union", and thus the general government, was created by the States and was subservient to them, not the other way around.

Article III of the constitution defines treason against the United States as "making war against them (not it), or giving aid and comfort to "their" (again, plural) enemies."

If the States were out of the union Lincoln invaded without provocation (sailing war ships into Charleston Harbor was an act of war as his entire cabinet advised him), If the States were still in the union as he proclaimed, then it was in fact his administration who committed "treason" by definition under Article III.”

They don't teach this in our education system. There's a reason for that. “Tiffany” is today’s example.

August 8th, 1863 – Andrew Johnson Frees His Slaves https://buff.ly/3KvOols

August 8th, 1863 – Lee Offers Letter of Resignation to Davis https://buff.ly/3s3ifeI

Taking traitors slaves away, step 1.

August 6th, 1861 – First Confiscation Act https://buff.ly/3QtzXC5

July 18, 1864 – Horace Greeley Peace Negotiations https://buff.ly/44Mfqg7

The Confederate Constitution made several changes to the US constitution, mostly involving the protection of slavery. I kind of doubt he means he was fighting to defend the US constitution. If so why change it?

“When the South raised its sword against the Union’s Flag, it was in defense of the Union’s Constitution.”

-General John B. Gordon, CSA

Ft Sumter wasn't South Carolina property, they ceded all rights to the property in 1836, it was federal government property. There was no land where Ft Sumter was built by the Army Corps of Engineers, it was built on a man-made island of granite & seashells from New England in 1829. It was built by the US Army, it was built on US property, it was paid for by US Taxes and manned by US soldiers. The contents of the Fort were paid for by US Taxes.

Geographically it was US federal property. Same as Washington DC or any other base, fort, mint, armory, etc

"The Congress shall have Power To ...exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Er****on of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings...."

ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 17

Enclave jurisdiction also may exist as a result of a federal reservation of legislative authority over an area at the time a state is admitted to the Union, or based upon a particular cession by the state of that authority. The ceding state retains no authority in a federal enclave unless it specifically reserved such rights at the time it consented to the purchase, or made the cession, which South Carolina did not do.

Under South Carolina law, Fort Sumter belonged to the US government (along with the older Fort Moultrie and Castle Pinckney). Any attempt to claim something else would fail in any honest South Carolina court.

In the House of Representatives, December 31st, 1836​

"The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor's message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:

"Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.

"Also resolved: That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded.

"Also resolved, That the Attorney-General be instructed to investigate the claims of Wm. Laval and others to the site of Fort Sumter, and adjacent land contiguous thereto; and if he shall be of the opinion that these parties have a legal title to the said land, that Generals Hamilton and Hayne and James L. Pringle, Thomas Bennett and Ker. Boyce, Esquires, be appointed Commissioners on behalf of the State, to appraise the value thereof. If the Attorney-General should be of the opinion that the said title is not legal and valid, that he proceed by seire facius of other proper legal proceedings to have the same avoided; and that the Attorney-General and the said Commissioners report to the Legislature at its next session.

"Resolved, That this House to agree. Ordered that it be sent to the Senate for concurrence. By order of the House:
"T. W. Glover, C. H. R."​

"In Senate, December 21st, 1836​
"Resolved, that the Senate do concur. Ordered that it be returned to the House of Representatives, By order:
Jacob Warly, C. S."

Via Valerie Protopapas

Fort Sumter - what nobody seems to know:

The original agreement where the national government gained possession of Fort Sumter and Fort Moultrie was executed in 1805 and reads in part:

“That, if the United States shall not, within three years from the passing of this act, and notification thereof by the governor of this State to the Executive of the United States, repair the fortifications now existing thereon, or build such other forts or fortifications as may be deemed most expedient by the Executive of the United States on the same, and keep a garrison or garrisons therein, in such case this grant or cession shall be void and of no effect.”

The fortifications had not been repaired by April 1861, much less in 3 years. Indeed a full 56 years had passed between the signing of the lease and the events of April, 1861. Fort Sumter had been empty until it was garrisoned December 26, 1860 when Major Robert Anderson moved his troops from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter in response to South Carolina’s secession; this FIRST act of the so-called Civil War was done even though there was an existing agreement in place between the federal government and the government of South Carolina leaving Anderson AT MOULTRIE without interference by EITHER side.

With regard to Sumter, the United States had failed to fulfill its responsibilities in the lease agreement with South Carolina and that fort had legally reverted to South Carolina. Hence, not only did Anderson destroy parts of Fort Moultrie, but he and his troops illegally invaded and occupied territory that had reverted back to South Carolina.

~✟Robert✟~