Category Archives: American Culture Attacked

Atlanta Georgia Neighborhood Charter School Attempts To Remove Pledge Of Allegiance.


Atlanta Charter School Ditches Plan to Scrap Pledge of Allegiance

Written by James Murphy

Monday, 27 August 2018

Less than a day after announcing its plan to stop reciting the Pledge of Allegiance during its morning meeting, the Atlanta Neighborhood Charter School reversed that decision.

Principal Lara Zelski announced the initial decision to scrap the pledge on the school’s website in early August. The school planned to replace the pledge with a student-created document, which was to be called the “Wolfpack Chant.” According to Zelski, the new chant was supposed to be “an effort to begin our day as a fully inclusive and connected community.”

The decision to remove the pledge from the morning meeting seems to have been a product of a growing number of students and faculty refusing to participate in the pledge, perhaps inspired by some NFL players’ decision to kneel during the playing of the National Anthem prior to games. “Over the past couple of years it has become increasingly obvious that more and more of our community were choosing not to stand and/or recite the pledge,” Zelski wrote.

“Teachers and the K-5 leadership team will be working with students to create a school pledge that we can say together at morning meeting,” Zelski’s announcement stated. She further stated that she hoped the new Wolfpack Chant would “focus on students’ civic responsibility to their school, family, community, country and our global society.”

Zelski added that students who wished to do so would be allowed to say the pledge voluntarily, later in the day.

Shortly after posting the announcement, the outrage began. Social media quickly spread the rage and parents began complaining. Soon, those complaints reached the ears of Georgia House Speaker David Ralston (R) and gubernatorial candidate Brian Kemp, among others, who quickly and loudly denounced the decision.

“I’m sure our House Education Committee will examine whether taxpayer funds should be used to instill such a divisive ideology in our students,” Ralston posted online. Later, Ralston told Fox 5 Atlanta, “If the school is going to accept public funding, then I think they have an obligation to, at least, have dialogue with the community.”

But another state legislator, David Drier (D), who is a parent with two children enrolled in the school, believes the uproar was much ado about nothing. “There was, probably, a poorly thought out policy that wasn’t communicated well,” Dryer told Fox 5 Atlanta. “I think there are a couple of administrators and a few teachers that thought they were trying to helpful by doing this. But it wasn’t discussed with the board of directors. No one knew about it.”

Within a day, Zelski’s announcement was taken off the school’s webpage and replaced with a statement from Lia Santos, the chairwoman of the school’s governing board.

“In the past, the Pledge of Allegiance was recited during our all-school morning meeting, but at the start of the school year, the daily practice was moved to classrooms. This change was done in compliance with state law … and aligned Atlanta Neighborhood Charter School with most other schools in the state who also say the Pledge of Allegiance in individual classrooms,” the statement of Santos read.

“However, it appears there was some miscommunication and inconsistency in the rollout. Starting next week, we will return to our original format and provide our students with the opportunity to recite the pledge during our all-school morning meeting.”

So, apparently, this was all a miscommunication, a mix-up. Maybe that’s true, or maybe this is a case of leftist school administrators testing the line, seeing how far they can go before there is pushback on their anti-American stances. The words of Principal Zelski offer some clues as to what she, at least, was thinking. A “fully inclusive and connected community,” she wrote. As noted above, she also intimated that the new “Wolfpack Chant” would “focus on students’ civic responsibility to their school, family, community, country and our global society.”

One school in Georgia sought to expunge the Pledge of Allegiance and replace it with something less patriotic, to say the least, was quickly rebuffed. So, what? one might ask.

But it’s impossible to believe that Zelski and the Atlanta Neighborhood Charter School are the only ones to have thought of doing something like this. In a red state such as Georgia, actions like these can be dispatched with a few angry phone calls and some media attention, but that won’t be the case everywhere. Parents and anyone else concerned with the education of our young need to be alert to every sneaky move that schools make in regard to dismissing our national traditions and fight them every single time.

University Of Denver Hosts White Privilege Symposium Teaching Students White People Are Bad.

download (18)

University of Denver hosts ‘White Privilege Symposium’

Adam Sabes

Mississippi Senior Campus Correspondent@asabes10

Oct 31, 2018

The University of Denver is hosting a variety of workshops as part of the annual “White Privilege Symposium.”


Workshops offered include “White Accountability” and “Colored White: A Discussion On White Identity.”

The University of Denver will host and sponsor the annual “White Privilege Symposium,” (WPS) which is set up to “examine patterns, cultures, and systems that contribute to identity, power, and privilege,” on Friday and Saturday.

The symposium will feature breakout sessions such as “Anti-Racist Allyship: Avoiding The Pitfalls,” “Colleagial Check-In for POC: Needing Connection While Managing Whiteness,” “Colored White: A Discussion On White Identity,” “White Accountability,” and more, according to the symposium website,

[RELATED: Profs claim scientific objectivity reinforces ‘whiteness’]

“White Accountability” will explain why white people need to check their privilege in order to stop racism.

“Helping white people understand the difference between accountability and blame and challenging white people to use this knowledge to check their own white [privilege] and to dismantle the systems of racism that permeate this country,” is the stated purpose of the session.

Another workshop titled “Similar but Separate” seeks to explain the difference between black and brown women to the audience.

“We will explain the differences of black and brown women in Colorado,” that description states. “Many people believe black and brown women experience the same inequalities; however we do not.”

The “Anti-Racist Allyship: Avoiding the Pitfalls” workshop even criticizes the “good progressive or liberal” who considers themselves an “anti-racist ally.”The description asks progressives and liberals, “what happens when you are challenged, to think of yourself and your work differently?”

“Quite often, POC find ourselves disappointed, shocked, and saddened by how frequently the ‘ally,’ especially the white ally, reveals themselves to be anything but,” it explains. “How are folks engaged in this work really problematizing their own white fragility, defensiveness, tokenization of POC, etc., and how can you become an even better ally/accomplice?”

[RELATED: CUNY cuts class calling for ‘Abolition of Whiteness’]

When Campus Reform asked the University of Denver what the university is doing to sponsor the program, the school said it is letting the WPS use university space. If members of the community disagree with the content in the symposium, they are encouraged to come and discuss the issue, the school told Campus Reform.

“The University of Denver brings together people and communities with diverse and opposing viewpoints and we invite members of our community to engage in civil discourse regardless of subject. We strive to create an inclusive environment that fosters the intellectual growth of our students, alumni, and the greater, global community,” the school told Campus Reform. “Within that environment, we encourage each individual to engage in respectful discourse and the critical examination of ideas. Freedom of expression is crucial to the mission of the University of Denver.”

The UD Graduate School of Social Work is sponsoring the WPS as well as The University of Colorado-Denver.

Follow the author of this article on Twitter: @asabes10

Communists In Columbus Ohio Ban Celebrating Columbus Day.

Columbus, Ohio not celebrating Columbus Day

Published October 8

By Nicole Darrah | Fox News

Columbus, Ohio — the midwestern American city named after Christopher Columbus — is not celebrating the famed explorer’s federally recognized holiday, and will instead honor military veterans in its place.

The city has observed Columbus Day probably “for as long as it had been in existence,” a spokesperson for Mayor Andrew Ginther told The Associated Press. But this year, the capital city’s offices will remain open, and instead close on Veterans Day, which falls on Nov. 12.


The mayor’s office said the decision wasn’t made because many U.S. cities are replacing their observance of Columbus Day in favor of Indigenous Peoples Day, but rather because the city doesn’t have the budget to give its 8,500 employees off on both that and Veterans Day.

“We have a number of veterans who work for the city, and there are so many here in Columbus,” Davis said. “We thought it was important to honor them with that day off.”

The celebration of Columbus Day, held on the second Monday of every October, has become growingly contested in recent years, with more U.S. cities choosing to honor the nation’s indigenous people with their own day, which has been recognized by the United Nations since 1994.

The explorer’s history has been divisive as some historians claim Columbus committed atrocities against the Native Americans he encountered as he came to America.

Tyrone Smith, the director of the Native American Indian Center of Central Ohio, said the city’s move to not celebrate Columbus Day is “a victory for everyone.”

“The past is the past. It may not be pretty at times, but we cannot hold what happened back then against today’s society, regardless their bloodline,” he said. “The fact that the city of Columbus is taking action is a victory for everyone.”


But Joseph Contino, an organizer of the city’s 39-year-old Columbus Italian Festival, which is typically held on Columbus Day weekend, blamed the move on what he said is a politically correct culture.

“It’s very in vogue politically right now to do that. It’s not PC for me to say anything against indigenous peoples,” he said. “You can kick Christians, you can kick Catholics. That’s the message that it sends to us and that’s what it feels like; we’re Europeans and we lop Indians’ heads off. Which is just not true.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

City in Ohio says Columbus Day must go

By Lukas Mikelionis | Fox News

Published August 23, 2017

Last Update September 25, 2017

Ohio’s capital city may be named for Christopher Columbus, but that hasn’t stopped the city council of Oberlin, Ohio, from voting to abolish Columbus Day and replace it with Indigenous People’s Day.

The city, home of Oberlin College, is the first in Ohio to no longer recognize Columbus Day.

The council voted unanimously Monday after a public discussion with residents in which two sides clashed on whether the city should stop celebrating Columbus’ 1492 arrival to the Americas, the Columbus Dispatch reported.

“Columbus Day is a touchy subject for some folks. However, the history of Columbus Day speaks for itself,” a supporter of the change told FOX8.

But some residents came out against the change, claiming Columbus Day is about celebrating Italian-American heritage rather than the explorer.

“Columbus Day is a day of Italian-American pride. And I am really disheartened at the ease with which Oberlin City Council is doing away with a day that celebrates Italians,” one resident told FOX8.

“Columbus Day is a day of Italian-American pride. And I am really disheartened at the ease with which Oberlin City Council is doing away with a day that celebrates Italians.”— Oberlin, Ohio, resident

“It sounds a little ridiculous. I think we should keep American holidays they way there are,” seconded another Oberlin resident.

Others argued that Indigenous People’s Day could be celebrated — but on a different date — to avoid pitting Italian-Americans and Native Americans against each other.

Proponents of the move, meanwhile, claimed the Native Americans who live in the area ought to be honored.

Councilwoman Sharon Pearson quoted Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to justify the change.

“It’s never too late to do the right thing,” she quoted, according to the Morning Journal. “And I think that it is time for us as a community to take the words of our indigenous people and do the right thing.”

“It’s never too late to do the right thing. And I think that it is time for us as a community to take the words of our indigenous people and do the right thing.”— Sharon Pearson, Oberlin, Ohio, councilwoman

According to the 2010 U.S. Census, only 0.2 percent of Oberlin residents are American Indian or Alaskan native.

Columbus has been among the historical figures recently targeted by left-wing activists and local governments looking to remove any references to figures associated with mistreatment of minorities.

Last Saturday, according to the Columbus Dispatch, around 100 protesters rallied in Columbus, demanding the local city government to remove statues of Christopher Columbus.

“Christopher Columbus was an agent of and continues to be a symbol of the genocide of the indigenous peoples of the Americas,” rally attendee Elissa Washuta said.

“Charlottesville is not an anomaly,” claimed one of the demonstration organizers, Tynan Krakoff, referring to the Virginia city where violence erupted earlier this month. “There are symbols and institutions of white supremacy everywhere.”

On Monday, New York City Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito said a 76-foot statue of the explorer at Columbus Circle in Manhattan could be the next to go following a review, the New York Post reported.

The council speaker made her objection while condemning another statue – that of Dr. J. Marion Sims – which some residents want removed, saying he is known to have conducted medical experiments on slaves.

Mayor Bill de Blasio has also reportedly said he will “look at that and make decisions accordingly” regarding the statues in the city.

“We’re going to look at all statues and monuments that in any way may suggest hate or division or racism, anti-Semitism — any kind of message that is against the values of New York City,” the mayor said.



The “democratic socialists” of the present time propagate a hodgepodge of contradictory positions – OCTOBER 10, 2018

Another name for the neo-Marxism of increasing popularity in the United States  is cultural Marxism.”

This theory says that the driving force behind the socialist revolution is not the proletariat — but the intellectuals. While Marxism has largely disappeared from the workers’ movement, Marxist theory flourishes today in cultural institutions, in the academic world, and in the mass media. This “cultural Marxism” goes back to Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937) and the Frankfurt School. The theorists of Marxism recognized that the proletariat would not play the expected historical role as a “revolutionary subject.” Therefore, for the revolution to happen, the movement must depend on the cultural leaders to destroy the existing, mainly Christian, culture and morality and then drive the disoriented masses to Communism as their new creed. The goal of this movement is to establish a world government in which the Marxist intellectuals have the final say. In this sense, the cultural Marxists are the continuation of what started with the Russian revolution.

Lenin and the Soviets

Led by Lenin, the perpetrators of the revolution regarded their victory in Russia only as the first step to the world revolution. The Russian Revolution was neither Russian nor proletarian. In 1917, the industrial workers in Russia represented only a small part of the workforce, which mainly consisted of peasantry. The Russian Revolution was not the result of a labor movement but of a group of professional revolutionaries . A closer look at the composition of the Bolshevist party and of the first governments of the Soviet state and its repressive apparatus reveals the true character of the Soviet revolution as a project that did not aim at freeing the Russian people from the Tsarist yoke but was to serve as the launchpad for the world revolution.

The experience of World War I and its aftermath showed that the Marxist concept of the “proletariat” as a revolutionary force was an illusion. At the example of the Soviet Union, one could also see that socialism could not function without a dictatorship. These considerations brought the leading Marxist thinkers to the conclusion that a different strategy would be required to establish socialism. Communist authors spread the insight that the socialist dictatorship must come in disguise. Before socialism can succeed, the existing culture must change. Control of the culture must precede political control.

Cultural Control Rises in Tandem with Political Control

Helping the neo-Marxists was the fact many of their efforts in taking control of culture happened parallel to the encroachment of the state on individual liberties. Over the past decades, at the same time when so-called political correctness has been on the rise, the American government obtained a vast arsenal of repressive instruments. Few Americans seem to know that the U.S. is still under emergency law that has been in force since George W. Bush used the executive privilege to declare a state of national emergency in 2001. In the same year, 9/11 opened also the path to push through the Patriot Act . From a score of around 95 points, the Freedom House“Aggregate Index of Freedom” of the United States has fallen to 86 points in 2018.

Moral Corruption

The way toward the rule of the cultural Marxists is the moral corruption of the people. To accomplish this, the mass media and public education must not enlighten but confuse and mislead. The media and the educational establishment work to put one part of the society against the other part. While group identities get more specific, the catalog of victimization and history of oppression becomes more detailed. To turn into a recognized victim of suppression is the way to gain social status and to obtain the right to special assistance, of respect and social inclusion.

The demand for social justice creates an endless stream of expenditures deemed essential — for health, education, old age, and for all those people who are “needy,” “persecuted” and “oppressed,” be it real or imaginary. The flood of never-ending spending in these areas corrupts the state finances and produces fiscal crises. This helps the Neo-Marxists accuse “capitalism” of all evils when, in fact, it is the regulatory state that provokes the systemic failures and when it is the excess of public debt that causes the financial fragility.

Politics, the media, and the judiciary never pause at waging the new endless wars: the war on drugs or against high blood pressure or the campaigns that assert the endless struggle against fat and obesity. The list of the enemies grows every day whether racism, xenophobia, and anti-Islamism. The epitome of this movement is political correctness, the war against having one’s own opinion. While the public tolerates disgusting expositions of behavior, particularly under the cult of the arts, the list of prohibited words and opinions grows daily. Public opinion must not go beyond the few accepted positions. Yet while the public debate impoverishes, the diversity of radical opinion flourishes in the hidden.

The cultural Marxists drive society morally into an identity crisis by the means of the false standards of a hypocritical ethics. The aim is no longer the “dictatorship of the proletariat,” because this project has failed, but the “dictatorship of political correctness” whose supreme authority lies in the hands of the cultural Marxists. As a new class of priests, the guardians of the new orthodoxy rule the institutions whose power they try to extend over all parts of the society. The moral destruction of the individual is a necessary step to accomplish the final victory.

Opium of the Intellectuals

The believers of neo-Marxism are mainly intellectuals. Workers, after all, are a part of the economic reality of the production process and know that the socialist promises are rubbish. Nowhere was socialism established as the result of a labor movement. The workers have never been the perpetrators of socialism but always its victim. The leaders of the revolution have been intellectual party politicians and military men. It was up to the writers and artists to conceal the brutality of the socialist regimes through articles and books and by films, music, and paintings, and to give socialism a scientific-intellectual, aesthetic and moral appearance. In the socialist propaganda, the new system appears to be both fair and productive.

The cultural Marxists believe that someday they will be the sole holders of power and be able to dictate to the masses how to live and what to think. Yet the neo-Marxist intellectuals are in for a surprise. When socialism should come indeed, the “dictatorship of the intellectuals” will be anything but benign — and not much different from what happened after the Soviets took power. The intellectuals will be among the victims. This was, after all, the way as it had happened in the French Revolution, which was the first attempt of a revolution by intellectuals.  Many of the victims of the guillotine were prominent intellectuals who had earlier supported the revolution — Robespierre among them.

In his play about “Danton’s Death,” the dramatist Georg Büchner famously had a person say: “Like Saturn, the revolution devours its own children.” Yet more appropriately one should say that the revolution eats its spiritual fathers. The very same intellectuals who nowadays promote cultural Marxism will be the first in line if their project of conquest should succeed.


Contrary to what Marx believed, history is not pre-determined. The march through the institutions has gone far but there is not yet been a full take-over. There is still time to change course. To counteract the movement, one must note the inherent weakness of cultural Marxism. To the extent that the neo-Marxists altered classical Marxism and eliminated its basic tenets (deepening proletarianization, historical determinism, total collapse of capitalism), the movement has become even more utopian than previously socialism ever was.

As the successors of the New Left, the “democratic socialists” of the present time propagate a hodgepodge of contradictory positions. Because of the character of this movement as a promoter of group conflict, neo-Marxism is ineffectual to serve as an instrument of gaining coherent political power as it were necessary for a dictatorship. Yet this does not mean that the neo-Marxist movement has no impact. On the contrary: because of its inherent contradictions, the ideology of cultural Marxism is the main source of the profound confusion that has grabbed almost every segment of the modern Western societies and which is about to swell into even more dangerous proportions.

The War On White Heritage And American Culture By Communists

The War on White Heritage

Sam Francis, American Renaissance, July 2000
Posted on June 25, 2015

After years of bitter controversy, the South Carolina legislature voted in May to take down the Confederate battle flag that has flown over the state capitol in Columbia since 1962 and to move it to “a place of honor” at the Confederate Soldiers Memorial located on the capitol grounds. The legislature’s vote on the flag is regarded as a defeat for the defenders of the flag, mainly a coalition of Southern traditionalist groups and Civil War buffs, and a victory for the opposing coalition that demanded the removal of the flag: the NAACP, Big Business, and an odd partnership of political liberals and conservatives.

Many white Americans, especially those outside the South, have shown little interest in the controversy and wonder why it even exists. They regard the issue as one of exclusively Southern, historical, or black interest and fail to see the larger implications of the controversy for themselves. The fact is, however, that the conflict over Confederate symbols is not only about those symbols or even about honoring the Confederacy, but also about issues of national and racial heritage with which all white Americans should be concerned regardless of what they think of the Civil War or where they live.

Southern traditionalists and Civil War buffs honor the Confederate flag and similar symbols for a variety of reasons, but those symbols are as much a part of general American history as the “Don’t Tread On Me” rattlesnake flag of the American Revolution or the Lone Star flag of the Republic of Texas. Until recently, few Americans saw any difference between honoring and displaying those historic banners of American legend and honoring and displaying the Confederate battle flag or the several other flags associated with the Confederacy.

Only with the advent of the “civil rights” era and of mandated racial equality have the Confederate flag and all other symbols associated with the Confederacy been singled out for attack, and of course the reason is that these flags and symbols are the emblems of a government and culture that was based on slavery and racial inequality. In an age in which the egalitarian imperative is absolute and “racism” is virtually a religious taboo, continuing to honor and display these symbols in public–especially by state and local governments–constitutes an outright act of resistance to the dominant egalitarian orthodoxies.

Moreover, the NAACP, which has been crusading against Confederate symbols for decades, is increasingly tipping its true hand, revealing that behind its overblown rhetoric about the flag (a 1991 NAACP resolution characterized the Confederate flag as “an odious blight upon the universe” and “the ugly symbol of idiotic white supremacy racism and denigration” [sic]) and the Confederacy lies another, far broader, and much more radical agenda. The NAACP and similar groups want the removal and erasure not only of Confederate symbolism but also of a wide range of symbols and icons from American history that have no association with the Confederacy or the ante-bellum South. The purpose of this attack is to emphasize that American civilization itself is “racist” and that virtually all the symbols, icons, heroes, songs, and institutions of the American past or at least its most important and defining ones have to be discarded or radically reconstructed to suit the new “anti-racist” dogmas the NAACP upholds.

In launching this broad attack on the historic symbolism of America, the NAACP is embarking on what is almost explicitly a revolutionary course, intended eventually to lead to the destruction of the traditional civilization of the United States and the establishment of a new, purportedly egalitarian, and essentially totalitarian order that replaces the real, historic traditions of the American past with the fabricated propaganda and “Afrocentric” racial mythology of which the NAACP approves.

In this new order, whites–whether Southern or not–would be denied any public affirmation of their cultural and historical identity, and the denial of their identity would more easily allow their cultural and political subjugation to the non-white majority that has been projected to emerge in the United States in the next half century. The end result of the attack on Confederate symbolism, in other words, is not merely the disappearance of the Confederate flag, “Dixie,” and other symbols and customs of interest mainly to Southerners and Civil War buffs but, in time, the eradication of all symbols from pre-1960s America that suggest a white-based or “Eurocentric” public identity. With their disappearance and the cultural and racial dispossession it represents would come the racial domination of white Americans by the non-white majority of the next century.

The crusade against Confederate symbolism is so far the most developed part of the anti-white attack on American civilization, and the NAACP and other black nationalist groups have emphasized such symbols because, given their historical association with slavery, they can more easily build a case against them and attract the support of white allies. Given the power of egalitarian propaganda, few mainstream leaders, either conservative or liberal, are willing to defend Confederate symbolism, and some of the most effective enemies of the flag have been Republicans, “conservatives,” or white Southerners themselves.

In the 1990s, the war on public Confederate symbolism escalated dramatically, with the NAACP demanding the removal of Confederate flags flown over state capitols in Alabama as well as South Carolina. In the former state, the governor removed the flag after a state judge ruled in 1993 that flying it violated state law. Also in 1993, the white liberal Democratic governor of Georgia, Zell Miller, sought to alter the design of his state’s official flag, which contains a Confederate battle flag, on the grounds that it would be an “embarrassment” to the state during the Olympic Games scheduled for 1996. The governor’s efforts were unsuccessful. In Mississippi, there are current demands to remove the Confederate battle flag in the corner of the state flag, and the governor has appointed a commission to consider doing so. There are also controversies about the state flags of Arkansas and Florida, which contain designs either symbolizing the Confederacy or resembling its flag.

In addition to attacks on the flag, songs such as Virginia’s state anthem “Carry Me Back to Ole Virginny” and Maryland’s “Maryland, My Maryland” have also been attacked as “racist.” At the University of Mississippi, the Confederate flag and similar symbols, including the football team mascot, “Colonel Reb,” a caricature of a Confederate officer, have been banned by the university administration.

Virginia, and especially the state (and Confederate) capital of Richmond, has been the scene of some of the most bitter and far-reaching attacks on Confederate symbolism. The construction of a statue of black tennis player Arthur Ashe in 1995-96 on Richmond’s Monument Avenue–famous for statues honoring Confederate leaders–was intended to disrupt the symbolism of the monuments. In 1999, another controversy erupted in Richmond over a mural that displayed a picture of Robert E. Lee. Black city councilman Sa’ad El-Amin demanded that it be removed and threatened violence if it were not. “Either it comes down or we jam,” he said. The Lee portrait was later firebombed and defaced with anti-white invectives and racial epithets (“white devil, black baby killer, kill the white demons”). Earlier this year Mr. El-Amin and other blacks on the city council voted to remove the names of Confederate generals from two bridges in the city and rename them after local “civil rights” leaders. El-Amin also announced that “Monument Avenue is on my list of targets.”

The NAACP also embarked on a campaign to force the Virginia governor to cancel annual proclamations of April as “Confederate History Month” and threatened a boycott of the state if the custom were continued. “Anything less” than promising not to issue the proclamation again “is unacceptable,” Salim Khalfani, state director of the NAACP, proclaimed. On May 10, Republican Governor James Gilmore reached a “compromise” that consisted of a promise to “reconsider” Confederate History Month and to meet regularly with NAACP leaders if they did not proceed with plans for a boycott. It is probable that proclamations of “Confederate History Month” will be discontinued.

It has been in South Carolina, however, that the most protracted controversies over the Confederate flag have taken place. The state legislature in 1961 enacted a public law mandating that the Confederate battle flag be flown over the state capitol dome beneath the American flag and the state flag. Contrary to what the flag’s enemies have asserted, this was not so much defiance of the “civil rights” movement as the desire, encouraged by the U.S. Congress and President Eisen-hower, to mark the centennial of the Civil War. The flag at that time was largely uncontroversial, and it remained so until the early 1990s.

In 1994, the NAACP announced it would boycott the state unless the flag were removed, but a populist campaign under the leadership of the Council of Conservative Citizens (CofCC) was able to prevent the flag’s removal, and in the gubernatorial campaign of that year, the Republican candidate David Beasley promised he would not seek to take down the flag. Soon after being elected, however, Gov. Beasley embarked on a campaign to do just that. Flag supporters and the CofCC went on to lead a movement to unseat the governor for his betrayal. Gov. Beasley was defeated in his re-election campaign in 1998; he has since acknowledged that his reversal of position on the flag was the main reason for his defeat.

In 1999 the NAACP returned to the fight, announcing yet another boycott. This time the boycott attracted the support of liberal organs like the New York Times and Washington Post. The Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the National Urban League, the African Methodist Episcopal Church, and the National Progressive Baptist Convention all canceled conventions in South Carolina. The state Chamber of Commerce told Republican lawmakers that “businesses were considering cutting off campaign contributions to lawmakers who support the flag,” and major foreign corporations that have built plants in the state–BMW and Michelin Tire–also demanded that the issue be “resolved quickly” (meaning that the legislators accede to black demands).

Flag defenders were by no means idle during the controversy, and in October, 1999, and January 2000, they staged mass demonstrations in Columbia. Nevertheless, the charges of “racism” lobbed at anyone who defended the flag, threats to the $14.5 billion-a-year tourism industry, and the general desire for acceptance by the cultural mainstream all led to a “compromise” measure that relocated the flag to the Confederate Soldiers Memorial. As Julian Bond, national president of the NAACP, remarked, “Money talks.”

But the removal of the flag in South Carolina can be expected only to unleash an even more frenetic crusade against Confederate symbols. As Dr. Neill Payne, executive director of the Southern Legal Resource Center, remarked just afterwards, the vote simply means that it is now “open season on all things Confederate.” Flag enemy Georgia state Rep. Tyrone Brooks explained, “It’s like the civil rights movement. Once we win in South Carolina, we move to Georgia. Once we win in Georgia, it’s on to Mississippi.” The vote in South Carolina only encourages the NAACP and its allies and creates further problems for the mainstream conservatives and businessmen whose principal concern is to avoid controversy.

Indeed, while the main reason for the retreat in South Carolina was fear of the boycott, the NAACP not only refused to call off the boycott after the vote but threatened to intensify it unless the flag were removed from the capitol grounds entirely. NAACP national executive director Kweisi Mfume complained that “to take it from the top of the dome where you had to strain to see it, and move it to a place where anyone coming down the main street will see it is an insult.” Even as the House voted to adopt the compromise measure, black demonstrators burned Confederate and Nazi flags at the Confederate Soldiers Memorial and then sprayed anti-white invectives on the monument itself.

The premise of the compromise was an acknowledgment that while the Confederacy is an important and legitimate part of the South Carolina heritage, it is not (as flying the Confederate flag over the capitol might be taken to imply) the whole or the dominant part of it. Yet the NAACP’s demand that any honoring of the flag be abolished refuses to concede that the Confederacy has any legitimate place in South Carolina or American history at all. The rejection of the Southern and American past was implicit in signs carried by black anti-flag demonstrators last winter that read, “Your Heritage Is Our Slavery.” In rejecting the heritage of the South as merely one of their own enslavement and exploitation, blacks are in effect affirming that they are not part of the culture and nation that are the present-day product of that heritage. What they presumably want celebrated and honored is not the real heritage of the South, in which blacks played a major if subordinate role and from which blacks have derived much of their own cultural identity, but the total extirpation of those parts of the Southern past they find “offensive” (i.e., anything that does not glorify blacks) and the rewriting of the past to magnify and glorify the achievements of their own race.

The black demand for the total extirpation or rewriting of the past is not confined to the South and the Confederacy, however, but also extends to symbols associated with other ethnic groups. Earlier this year the Boston Housing Authority asked residents of public housing to remove displays of shamrocks–which it likened to swastikas or Confederate flags–because this symbol traditionally associated with the Irish was “unwelcome” now that black residents vastly outnumber those of Irish heritage.

But the non-white demand for the erasure of white ethnic and cultural symbols also includes the major symbols of the entire American nation and its past. Indeed, Randall Robinson, a black activist who played an important role in lobbying for sanctions against South Africa to end apartheid, writes that America “must dramatically reconfigure its symbolized picture of itself, to itself. Its national parks, museums, monuments, statues, artworks must be recast in a way to include . . . African-Americans.” It does not seem to matter to Mr. Robinson that the historical events many of these cultural monuments commemorate might not have included blacks; the past must be recreated to include them.

Black rejection of not only the Confederate but the American heritage is clear in the removal of the name of George Washington from a public school in New Orleans. On Oct. 27, 1997 the Orleans Parish School Board, with a 5-2 black majority, voted to change the name of George Washington Elementary to Dr. Charles Richard Drew Elementary (Drew was a black surgeon who made advances in preserving blood plasma); the school itself is 91 percent black. “Why should African-Americans want their kids to pay respect or pay homage to someone who enslaved their ancestors?” asked New Orleans “civil rights” leader Carl Galmon. “To African-Americans, George Washington has about as much meaning as David Duke.”

The same school board also has stripped the names of Confederate Generals P.G.T. Beauregard and Robert E. Lee from schools, under a policy adopted in 1992 that prohibits naming schools after “former slave owners or others who did not respect equal opportunity for all.” Southern slave owners and Confederate generals are, of course, mainly of Southern and local interest, but George Washington is probably the most significant national symbol in the American pantheon. The New Orleans school board decision, the New York Times commented at the time, “underscores the maxim that history is written by those with the power.” In this case, those who have the power are blacks who insist on celebrating their own race and discarding the national heroes of whites.

But Washington is by no means the only American icon to be rejected for his “racism.” In 1996, white former Marxist historian Conor Cruise O’Brien published an article in The Atlantic Monthly arguing that Thomas Jefferson should no longer be included in the national pantheon because of his “racism.” Again, Jefferson, second only to Washington perhaps, is one of the major heroes of the national saga. Rejecting Washington and Jefferson as well as the Confederacy and all slave owners (including many who signed the Declaration and the Constitution and all but two of the first seven presidents of the United States) by itself would effectively alter American history and the American national identity so radically as to be unrecognizable. That is precisely what the Afro-racists plan to do.

The editor of Ebony magazine Lerone Bennett, Jr. is the author of a recent book denouncing Abraham Lincoln for his “racism.” As described in Time magazine (May 15), Mr. Bennett says “Lincoln was a crude bigot who habitually used the N word and had an unquenchable thirst for blackface-minstrel shows and demeaning ‘darky’ jokes,” and he also discusses Lincoln’s remarks about blacks in the debates with Stephen Douglas and on other occasions, as well as his plan to remove blacks from the United States to colonies in Central America. While Bennett’s facts about Lincoln are substantially correct, his book is intended as an attack on and debunking of a major president regarded by many Americans as an iconic figure especially associated with the abolition of slavery and the triumph of egalitarianism.

In February, the New Jersey Senate debated a bill that would have required students in public schools to memorize part of the Declaration, but the bill’s sponsor withdrew it after angry attacks by black lawmakers. As the Associated Press reported, “They objected to the clause that says, ‘All men are created equal’ because when the Declaration was written, that basic democratic principle did not apply to black people.” As black state Sen. Wayne Bryant said, “It is clear that African Americans were not included in that phrase. It’s another way of being exclusionary and insensitive . . . You have nerve to ask my grandchildren to recite [the Declaration]. How dare you? You are now on notice that this is offensive to my community.” He claimed that the bill would involve “reliving slavery.”

The assault on the historic American identity is not mounted only by blacks. Indians and Hispanics in the western part of the United States engage in much the same erasure of white, European symbols and the construction of symbols that glamorize their own cultures. In 1994, the city of San Jose, California, rejected a proposal to construct a public statue of Col. Thomas Fallon, the American soldier who captured the city for the United States in the Mexican-American War, and voted instead to build a statue of the Aztec god Quetzalcoatl.

In San Francisco in 1996, American Indians denounced the relocation to a place outside city hall of a statue honoring the Catholic missionaries who founded the city. The statue shows a reclining Indian with a Franciscan monk standing over him. The American Indian Movement Confederation opposed its relocation, saying that the statue “symbolizes the humiliation, degradation, genocide and sorrow inflicted upon this country’s indigenous people by a foreign invader, through religious persecution and ethnic prejudice.” As in South Carolina, whites compromised–by adding a plaque that read, “With their efforts over in 1834, the missionaries left behind about 56,000 converts–and 150,000 dead. Half the original Native American population had perished during this time from disease, armed attacks and mistreatment.” The statue, designed to commemorate the missionaries’ compassion for the Indians, had been transformed into a confession of genocide. At the demand of the Catholic Church, however, the words “and 150,000 dead” were omitted.

The black and other non-white attacks on historic symbols and icons, therefore, are by no means confined to those associated with the Confederacy but extend to symbols associated with anything non-whites find “offensive.” Given the standards by which the NAACP and similar racial extremists select their targets, there is no reason they should not demand the abolition of the American flag and the U.S. Constitution itself. The Constitution indirectly refers and gives protection to slavery several times, and the American flag flew over a nation in which slavery was a legal and important part of the economy and society far longer than the Confederate flag flew over the four-year Confederacy.

Indeed, the factual premises of the NAACP–that American history is inseparable from recognition of racial inequality and racial differences–are generally correct. As I wrote in American Renaissance in January 1999, throughout American history, “We–Americans in general and our public leaders in particular–repeatedly and continuously recognized the reality and importance of race and the propriety of the white race occupying the ‘superior position,’ and indeed it is difficult to think of any other white-majority nation in history in which recognition of the reality of race has been so deeply imbedded in its thinking and institutions as in the United States.” Given that history, there is virtually no figure, event, or institution of the American past that would not be “offensive” to non-whites today and the obliteration of which they could not as logically demand as they do that of Confederate symbols.

I also wrote, “You cannot have it both ways: either we define the American nation as the product of its past and learn to live with the reality of race and the reality of the racial particularism and racial nationalism that in part defines our national history, or you reject race as meaningful and important, as anything more than skin color and gross morphology, and demand that anyone, past or present, who believes or believed that race means anything more than that be demonized and excluded from any positive status in our history or the formation of our identity. If you reject race, then you reject America as it has really existed throughout its history, and whatever you mean by ‘America’ has to come from something other than its real past.”

It is, of course, the latter course, of rejecting the real past of the United States, that the NAACP and other non-white racial extremists have taken, and that rejection is what makes them extremists. It does not seem to occur to them that there are other “heritages” in the United States besides their own or other communities to which such symbols as Washington and Jefferson, the Declaration and the Confederacy, mean something other than the enslavement and exploitation of blacks.

The indifference and hostility of non-whites to symbols and icons of white heritage and identity expose the central fallacy of the “multiracialism” that our current political and cultural elites promote. Its premise is that different races and ethnic groups can all “get along” with each other, that they can live together in egalitarian harmony, and that, as President Clinton said in 1998, “we can strengthen the bonds of our national community as we grow more racially and ethnically diverse.”

But the reality is that the egalitarianism and universalism of the “civil rights” era have led to the rediscovery of race and the rebirth of racial consciousness among non-whites and hence to the animosity that non-whites feel toward whites and their heritage. It is racial consciousness, not egalitarianism and universalism, that fuels the non-white crusade against the American past, and obviously, if “multiracialism” means that some races with more consciousness, more solidarity, and more power can boycott and bludgeon out of existence the symbols of other races and the cultural legacies the symbols represent, then multiracialism promises nothing but either perpetual racial conflict or merely the same kind of racial supremacy that used to exist in the United States–though with a different supreme race whose rule would be perhaps considerably more draconian than that of whites. Of course, whites can always try to buy temporary peace and harmony by agreeing to every demand of non-white radicalism and abandoning the symbols of their own heritage. That, of course, is exactly what whites today are doing, though every concession merely leads to further demands from non-whites.

It may be that the coalition of Southern traditionalists and Civil War buffs who have been the main defenders of the Confederate flag has committed a tactical error by trying to define the flag as purely a Southern symbol. By doing so, they may have encouraged white Americans outside the South and white Southerners who are indifferent to the Confederacy to believe that the controversy does not have implications for them. Indeed, some of the more zealous attacks on “Yankees” by Southern traditionalists may only have alienated non-Southern whites, and by dwelling on the “Southern-ness” of the flag and its meaning in the Civil War, its defenders may have unnecessarily alienated potential allies.

What the racial assault on the Confederacy and other non-Confederate symbols really shows, however, is not only the dangerous flaws of multiracialism and the inexorable logic of the racial revolution of this century but also that today regional differences among whites–like many other cultural and political differences–are no longer very relevant. It shows that Southerners and “Yankees” today face common enemies and common threats to their rights, interests, identity, and heritage as whites, and that the forces that have declared war on them and their heritage define themselves as well as their foes not in political, regional, or cultural terms but in terms of race. Whites who have been indifferent to the fate of the Confederate flag and similar symbols in the recent controversies should not be surprised, therefore, when historical symbols important to their own identity come under assault from anti-white radicals in the future.

And it is as a race that whites must now learn to resist the war being waged on them. So far from being a symbol of a lost and forgotten cause relevant only to a dwindling band of Confederate loyalists, the Confederate flag and the battles swirling around it today should serve as reminders to all white men and women of a simple lesson: Unless they forsake the many obsolete quarrels and controversies that have long divided them and learn to stand, work, and fight together for their own survival as a people and a civilization, the war against them that their self-proclaimed racial enemies are waging will not permit them or their legacy as a people and civilization to survive at all.

Confederate Battle Flag is a Christian Symbol


History of the Confederate Flag

The best-known of all Confederate flags the battle flag is often erroneously confused with the national flag of the Confederacy. The battle flag features the cross of St. Andrew (the apostle was mar
tyred by being crucified on an X-shaped cross), and is commonly called the “Southern Cross.” A large degree of the Southern population was of Scottish and Scotch-Irish ancestry, and thus familiar with St. Andrew, the patron saint of Scotland. The stars represented the eleven states actually in the Confederacy, plus Kentucky and Missouri.

The Army of Northern Virginia was the first to design a flag with the cross of St. Andrew, and Gen. P. G. T. Beauregard proposed adopting a version of it as the standard battle flag of the Confederate army. One of its virtues was that, unlike the Stars and Bars, the Southern Cross was next to impossible to confuse with the Stars and Stripes in battle.

The Confederate battle flag eventually developed wide acceptance throughout the Confederacy, but it was by no means the only battle flag. The Stars and Bars continued to be used, and after it was replaced with a new national flag, that flag the “Stainless Banner”also appeared on the battlefield. In addition, some states used their own flags in combat.

The Confederate battle flag, called the “Southern Cross” or the cross of St. Andrew, has been described variously as a proud emblem of Southern heritage. In the past, several Southern states flew the Confederate battle flag along with the U.S. and state flags over their statehouses. The Southern Caucus provides information to promote our southern heritage.

The Congress of the Confederate States of America (CSA) convened a meeting and decided on this as the first formal flag of the CSA in March of 1861. It was a slight modification of the already existing flag of the USA. It was formally known as the Stars and Bars, and comprised 3 stripes in this order: red, white, red. On the upper left corner was a deep blue square which had a circle of 7 stars in it. A unique moment of a lesson of Confederate flag history was on the battle flag. This is how it got its name. History points to the flag, however, was soon rejected due to some problems that it posed. During the battle in Virginia, between Manassas and Bull Run Creek, this confederate flag history caused a lot of serious confusion. Because it bore a striking resemblance to the flag of the U.S. (stars and stripes), soldiers from the North and the South were often confused about who belonged to which part. This tiny mistake resulted in the death of many soldiers and hence it was decided to alter the design of the flag, a lesson in history.

The history reflects creation of a Confederate flag was one of the first decisions of the new country. The job of designing the flag was given to the new Committee on the Flag and Seal.

Victory Bible Baptist Church

When I see a Confederate flag I sometimes think of the Lord Jesus Christ and his twelve disciples, the very founders of our Christian faith. If you will, please take a moment to look at the flag on the front page of this tract. You will notice there are thirteen stars in all, but one star is in the very middle of the flag. In Revelation 22:16, Jesus says that he is “the bright and morning star.” The center star on the Southern flag should remind us of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the other twelve stars, pointing out in four different directions, should remind us of the fact that Jesus sent his twelve disciples into all the world with the Gospel (Mat. 28:18-20).

Actually, the “X” shaped cross on the Southern flag dates as far back as sixteenth century Scotland, maybe even further. Andrew, the brother of Peter, was one of Jesus’ very first disciples (Mat. 4). It is traditionally believed that, in the first century, Andrew did missionary work in Greece and Asia Minor. Fox’s Book of Martyrs indicates that he was actually martyred in Edessa, Greece, on an “X” shaped cross with two ends in the ground. Some legends hold that his remains were later moved to Scotland. Whether they were or not, we can’t be certain, but it is a well established fact that, as a commemoration of Andrew’s devoted life and his martyrdom, the people of Scotland did use this “X” design on their flag. It became known as St. Andrew’s Cross.

In the 1800’s, many people from Scotland migrated to America’s southland. With them came St. Andrew’s Cross, which soon evolved into the Southern Cross. The colors changed, and stars were added, but the cross is still there for all to see.

Now, perhaps this would all be meaningless symbolism, except for the fact that so much preaching was done in the South between 1700 and 1850 that great revivals broke out and hundreds of thousands of sinners (white and black) found Jesus Christ as their Saviour. Such spiritual transformations occurred throughout the South under preachers like George Whitfield and John Wesley that our land became known as “the Bible belt.” This is a wonderful part of our heritage, and our Southern flag bears witness to it.

When I see a Confederate flag I am reminded of the origin of that “X” design, and I am reminded of the fact that many of our confederate soldiers were Christian men. Stonewall Jackson and Robert E. Lee, chief leaders of the Confederate military, were both Christian men, and they heavily influenced others under their command for the cause of Christ.

Before Jackson died in 1863, he said, “Let us pass over the river and rest under the shade of the trees.” I too am a Christian, and I’ll pass over that river one day and rest with General Jackson. When I do, I’ll not be ashamed in his presence because I didn’t desecrate the flag for which he died. I didn’t associate it with hate, bigotry and racism. I wasn’t among the unlearned masses who allowed their minds to be poisoned by the venom of the liberal establish-ment. By God’s good grace, I learned the truth about the Confederate flag, and I did what I could to teach others.

I am so thankful that I have all eternity to spend with some of the greatest men who have ever lived. It is true that many of our brave men never received the Lord Jesus Christ as their Saviour. Even though they were great men in this present world, they never prepared for the next world. Such men are in Hell right now, according to God’s word, and I find it truly sad that I’ll never have the honor of meeting them.

However, there are some great men in Heaven whom I will meet. In addition to meeting my Lord in person and thanking Him for saving me, I’ll also meet the man who fearlessly led the Israelites through the Red Sea. I’ll meet the man who slew a thousand Philistines with the jawbone of an ass. (That must have been a sight! Maybe God has it on video!) As a blood-bought child of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, I’ll one day meet the man who, as a young shepherd boy, had the courage to charge on a heathen giant and lay him flat with one smooth stone. I believe I’ll even meet George Washington, a man who had about as much courage in battle as anyone who ever lived. I’ll meet some fellow Tennesseans by the name of Andrew Jackson and Alvin C. York. General Lee will be there, right along with his partner in battle, Stonewall Jackson. These men will be in Heaven, not because I like them, and not because they were great men, but rather because they all had one thing in common: they all enlisted under the greatest Captain of all (Heb. 2:10). They knew the Lord Jesus Christ as their own personal Saviour. They understood that they were sinners standing in great need of a Saviour. In spite of the fact that they stood tall in the eyes of their fellow men, they all understood that they stood as sinners in the eyes of God, so they took the only cure for sin that God has provided: faith in Jesus Christ.

Jesus left his glorious home in Heaven to come to this earth and die for your sins. He shed his blood and died to save you from a burning Hell. Will you show your appreciation by placing your trust in him, or will you dishonor him by ignoring the great sacrifice that he made for you? Just as you believe in remembering those who’ve fought for freedom and died, should you not also show your appreciation to God’s Son for the price He paid for you?

“Why,” you may ask, “did Jesus have to die for me?” He died for you because you are a sinner:“For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.” (Rom. 3:23) You were born with a sin nature, just as all men are, so Jesus Christ came to REDEEM you from your fallen sinful condition. Satan is a thief who has led mankind into sin, death, and Hell, but Jesus Christ, the Captain of our Salvation, came to lead men back to Heaven.

Romans 6:23 says, “For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Jesus said, “The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.” (John 10:10) Jesus bled and died so that YOU could have ETERNAL LIFE. He was a good soldier and a good Captain indeed!

But he was far more than that. Please notice these inspired words from Romans 5:6-10: “For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.” Read it again, please. Friend, Jesus Christ was much more than a good soldier. A good soldier will die for other good men, but Jesus Christ died for his EMEMIES! You, as a sinner in this world, are an enemy of God (James 4:4; Col. 1:21), but Jesus still came and died for you! Jesus is a GREAT soldier! He’s the greatest soldier to ever live.

In fact, God the Father in Heaven was so pleased with Jesus Christ that he RAISED him from the dead after three days in the tomb! The word of God says that “. . . Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures.” (I Cor. 15:3-4)

Great men like Stonewall Jackson and Albert Sidney Johnston died for their country, but they never walked out on death. Jesus Christ came up from the grave – a Victor over death – to offer eternal life to all who believe on Him. Jesus, the Captain of our salvation, said, “I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.” (Rev. 1:18)

Do YOU want to walk out on death one day? Perhaps you admire Generals Lee and Jackson, but do you know their Lord and Saviour?

I often see Confederate flags, bumper stickers and license plates being displayed by my fellow Southerners who know the Southern cause is right, and I sincerely appreciate their stand. However, most of these well-meaning people are totally unaware of the fact that if the thousands of Confederate soldiers who died in the Civil War could speak to them today, they would have one chief message: DON’T LIVE WITHOUT JESUS CHRIST, AND DON’T DIE WITHOUT HIM. Those who didn’t know Jesus are regretting it right now, and those who did know Him are truly blessed.

In the two day’s fighting at Shiloh, over 23,000 American men slipped into eternity. Some went to Heaven; most probably didn’t. Over 51,000 American soldiers died in a three day period at Gettysburg. Some went to Heaven, because some had received the Lord Jesus, but most probably slipped into Hell forever.

They say the North won the Civil War. I don’t believe that. Satan won the Civil War by convincing thousands of grown men, on both sides, to die for their country without preparing to meet their Maker. DON’T LET HIM BEAT YOU!

Jesus is the WAY, the TRUTH, and the LIFE (John 14:6). Why not confess that you are a lost sinner and that you need a living Saviour today? Why not show your appreciation to the greatest Soldier to ever live by joining His army today? Why not turn your back on the devil and fight the good fight for Jesus Christ?

Ephesians 2:8-9 says, “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” You cannot save yourself. Only the blood of Jesus Christ can wash your sins away: “Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God.” (Rom. 3:24-25) If you could earn your salvation, then Jesus came and died for NOTHING. If God wanted you to “do good” and earn your salvation, then he would have never sent his Son to pay for your sins.

Friend, just as a military victory can establish national freedom for millions of people, Christ’s victory over sin and death can establish SPIRITUAL freedom for you. Because of Jesus, your sins can be washed away and forgiven FOREVER! “. . . Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood.” (Rev. 1:5)

Why not make Jesus Christ YOUR Captain right now? Romans 10:9-10 says, “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.” Why not bow your head right now and ask the Lord Jesus Christ to come into your heart and wash your sins away? You won’t find a better friend anywhere! He DIED for you, and He AROSE for you! Now He invites you to be His very own.

Will you call upon the Lord Jesus today or will you let him fade into the past like an unknown soldier and miss your opportunity to be a soldier in the greatest army ever assembled? “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” (Rom. 10:13)

If you have received the Lord Jesus Christ as your Saviour, please contact us for some free literature to help you grow as a Christian. Also, start attending a Bible-believing church (King James Bible), and speak with the pastor about water baptism and church membership.


“Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set.” Proverbs 22:28

“My son, fear thou the LORD and the king: and meddle not with them that are given to change.” Proverbs 24:21

The very mention of the name Abraham Lincoln brings two things to the mind of the average American: the saving of the Union and the freeing of the slaves. What usually does not come to one’s mind is the fact that Lincoln was a big government socialist who sought a more centralized Federal powerhouse in Washington.

Abe Lincoln was born in Kentucky in 1809, moved to Illinois in 1830, announced an interest in politics in 1832, was elected to the Illinois legislature in 1834, and he began practicing law in 1836. So, prior to becoming President in 1860, Lincoln held his own political views and fought for them.

In order to understand his political views, one must first understand the basic political climate of the first half of the 1800’s. Between our nation’s independence in 1776 and the Civil War in 1861 there were basically two main political camps. One camp was what we might call the constitutional camp, patterned after the views of such great Americans as Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe and later Andrew Jackson and John C. Calhoun. This camp was similar to the conservative camp of our day in that it believed in a very limited Federal Government. The opposing political camp, what one could rightfully call the socialist camp, was patterned after the views of men like Alexander Hamilton and Henry Clay. This camp believed thatWashington should be empowered greatly by involving the Federal Government in the American economy, largely through high protectionist tariffs, a centralized national bank with a common currency and corporate subsidies. In short, the socialist camp believed that Americans couldn’t care for themselves, so a big brother government had to be set up and empowered.

In 1832, when announcing his run for the Illinois legislature, Abe Lincoln told everyone which of the two political camps he belonged to:

I presume you all know who I am. I am humble Abraham Lincoln. I have been solicited by many friends to become a candidate for the legislature. My politics are short and sweet, like the old woman’s dance. I am in favor of a national bank . . . in favor of the internal improvements system and a high protective tariff.

In plainer words, Lincoln believed in pulling as many tax dollars as possible into Washington and then letting “big brother” Government decide how to spend it.

Now, suppose you are a constitutional conservative and this man is running for President. If he is elected, he and his political camp will shove their socialist agenda down your throat. Suppose you are a Southerner whose state does much foreign trade. Lincoln’s “high protective tariff” will harm your state’s economy, and “honest Abe” will use the tax revenue to extend his power and expand his agenda for bigger and more centralized Government. Is this the kind of country your forefathers had in mind? Is this the kind of country you want to live in and raise your children in, or would you possibly be interested in starting a new country?

Now, let’s deal with some lies that are commonly taught about Abraham Lincoln. Of the some 16,000 volumes that have supposedly been written about the man, there are three “whoppers” which keep surfacing over and over. We’ll tackle them one at a time.

Whopper Number One:
“Lincoln was The Great Emancipator”

In the 1970’s, the Pittsburgh Steelers were a great football team. They had a great coach, a great offense, a great defense and several great players who went to the Pro Bowl numerous times. This great team didn’t win just one Super Bowl; they won four Super Bowls in a six-year period. They were great at football because they labored hard to be great at football. The life-long ambition of most of the men on the team was to play professional football and play it well on a great team. By the end of the 1970’s, it could be truthfully said that these men had accomplished what they set out to accomplish many years before as high school athletes. Their success was not incidental. It was the good fruit of their many years of hard work. Winning four Super Bowls was an appropriate reward for their labor.

The same could be said of the San Francisco Forty Niners of the 1980’s, or the Chicago Bulls of the 1990’s. Their great accomplishments were consistent with their many years of hard work. That is, they accomplished the thing that they worked for, not something different than what they worked for.

Bill Clinton just happened to be President during the stock market boom of the late 1990’s, and many have been so naïve as to credit him for the boom. However, no one can seem to put their finger on anything that Clinton did to bring this boom about. In fact, the most significant thing that Clinton ever did to the American economy was done in 1993 when he gave us the largest tax increase in our nation’s history! History books may be written so as to cause future Americans to view Bill Clinton as a “great” President, but very few people living today would view him as such. We know too much about the man to make such a mistake.

Abraham Lincoln is unworthy of being called “the great emancipator” simply because he spent very little of his life working to end slavery, and those living in the 1800’s knew this very well. True, slavery ended “on his watch,” and he was the author of the Emancipation Proclamation, but does this make him “great?” Does taking advantage of a social movement make a man great, especially when the man didn’t stand and fight for the movement’s cause until he had seen the political benefits of doing so?

Lincoln practiced law for twenty-three years, yet never once did he defend a run-a-way slave. Six years before being elected President, on October 16, 1854, Abe Lincoln said,

The whole nation is interested that the best use should be made of the [new] territories. We want them for the homes of free white people.

Would a man destined to be a Great Emancipator make such a statement? On August 21, 1858, only two years before being elected President, Abraham Lincoln made the following remarks in a debate with Senator Stephen Douglas:

I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality; and insomuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary.

Perhaps you were required to memorize Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address in school, but was anyone required to memorize the above quote? No, because the above quote doesn’t fit the god-like image that has been given to Lincoln. It’s hard to be recognized as a Great Emancipator with quotes like the above one floating around!

If Lincoln’s heart beat so heavily for freeing the slaves, then why didn’t he attempt to accomplish this with peaceful emancipation like so many other nations had done? In Lincoln’s own lifetime there were numerous examples of ending slavery without war (Argentina, 1813; Chile, 1823; Mexico, 1829; Bolivia, 1831; Peru, 1854, and others as well), so why did Lincoln need a war? The answer isn’t that hard: one doesn’t need a war to end slavery, but one does need a war to force a big centralized government on an independent and free people.

In an 1862 letter to Horace Greely, editor of the New York Tribune, Lincoln said,

My paramount objective in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union.

Mind you, that was in 1862, while Lincoln was serving as President and after the Civil War had begun. Here, from Lincoln’s own words, one can see that the war wasn’t fought to end slavery and the man is unworthy of being called “the Great Emancipator.”

Whopper Number Two:
“Lincoln Was A Good Dictator”

Even the most liberal historians will usually confess that Abe Lincoln was indeed a dictator, but they argue that this was acceptable under the circumstances and that he was a good dictator. Clinton Rossitor, in his book, Constitutional Dictatorship, writes that:

Dictatorship played a decisive role in the North’s successful effort to maintain the Union by force of arms . . . one man was the government of the United States . . . Lincoln was a great dictator . . .

This is scary stuff, indeed, because it shows that at least some Americans are willing to live under a dictatorship as long as they can call it a good one. With enough media spin and cover up, even the likes of Adolph Hitler could be made to look “good.” God save us from any Dictatorship, be it bad or good, but I suppose a good one would be preferred to a bad one by most.

But was Lincoln a good dictator? In the book, The Real Lincoln, author Thomas Dilorenzo lists several of the dictatorial acts of President Lincoln. Some are printed below. As you read the following list of Lincoln acts, please ask yourself if a good man would do such things:

Invade the Southern states with 75,000 troops without Congress issuing a Declaration of War, as required by our Constitution.

Imprison thousands of Northern people (not POW’s) without trial (some estimates claim that as many as 13,000 political prisoners were held by Lincoln.)

Arrest newspaper publishers who criticized him.

Censor all telegraph communication.

Create new states without the consent of the citizens of those states.

Order Federal troops to interfere with Northern elections.

Deport a Northern member of Congress for criticizing his tax policy.

Confiscate private property, including firearms, in violation of the second amendment.

Establish a secret police force for arresting those who were disloyal to his war policies.

Arrest members of the clergy who refused to say prayers for him.

Place the entire states of Kansas and Kentucky under martial law.

Order the Postmaster General to stop delivery of newspapers which wrote against his war policies.

Order 39 Indians to be put to death without having proven their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Repeatedly allow his armies under such commanders as Sherman and Sheridan to attack civilians by destroying their livestock, their possessions, their homes, and their towns, and often raping their women (hundreds of accounts of rape – Sherman wrote in his memoirs that Lincoln even enjoyed hearing him tell of such attacks.)

On November 7, 1861, the Maryland state legislature stated the following regarding Lincoln’s dictatorial war: the war now waged by the Government of the United States upon the people of the Confederate States is unconstitutional in its origin, purposes and conduct; repugnant to civilization and sound policy; subversive of the free principles upon which the Federal Union was founded, and certain to result in the hopeless and bloody overthrow of our existing institutions.

Was Lincoln a good dictator? Only in the eyes of those who choose to ignore the clear facts of history.

Whopper Number Three
“Lincoln Saved the Union”

As I’ve already tried to point out, Lincoln’s political views were not those of our founders–certainly not those of Jefferson and Madison–so one would not expect Lincoln to lead the nation after the ideas of our founders. Take the list of abuses given in the previous section, for instance. How many signers of our Declaration of Independence would approve of such conduct by a sitting U.S. President? None, I should think. Well then, “the Union” which existed before the Lincoln years must have been very different from the one that existed after the Lincoln years, or else dictatorial powers would not have been needed in order to “save” it. French historian and writer, Alexis de Tocqueville, well described America’s early union in his work, Democracy in America:

The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the States; and in uniting together they have not forfeited their nationality, nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people. If one of the states chooses to withdraw from this compact, it would be difficult to disprove its right of doing so, and the Federal Government would have no means of maintaining its claims directly either by force or by right.

Lincoln clearly did not save this Union because it is nowhere to be found today. In fact, it was nowhere to be found after Lincoln’s war was over. The Union which emerged after the Civil War was a Union of states which had surrendered far more power to the Federal Government than ever before. The states before the war had delegated (not surrendered) very limited powers to Washington. After the war, Washington enjoyed more power than ever and Lincoln’s un-American agenda was implemented. Lincoln’s acts were widely recognized as being un-American and unconstitutional, even by Northerners. Many Northern newspapers condemned Lincoln’s acts openly. The Albany (NY) Atlas and Argus, Nov. 1, 1860 wrote these words:

We sympathize with and justify the South because their rights have been violated to the extreme.

On November 13, 1860, the New York Journal of Commerce claimed that Lincoln and company wanted to
seek to regulate and control people in other communities.

The Cincinnati Daily Press, on November 21, 1860, wrote that the Southern states had every right to secede:

We believe that the right of any members of this Confederacy to dissolve its political relations with the others and assume an independent position is absolute.

On December 17, 1860, the New York Tribune really spoke out for the South when they wrote these words:

If tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southerners from the Federal Union in 1861.

Before the Lincoln years, it was generally understood that states reserved the right to secede from the Union if they chose to do so. Our Declaration of Independence says that governments receive their powers “from the consent of the governed.” The founding document then goes on to say That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.

After taking office, Abraham Lincoln didn’t believe the above for a minute. He believed in “saving the Union” in spite of the “Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.”

Some suggest that the South should have waited for Lincoln to become “destructive” before pulling out of the Union, but his long held political views were clearly destructive to anyone who cherished the America formed by our founders. Lincoln had made it clear that he was going to change America forever. Waiting for him to literally do so would have been like a woman waiting for a rapist to enter her bedroom window before running out the door. The only thing that the Southern states needed in order to know that the time had come to secede was to see Lincoln win the Presidency.

So, did Lincoln save the Union? No, he forever changed the Union and set our nation on the course of self-destruction. Andrew Jackson said it best when he said that:

Our government is not to be maintained or our Union preserved by invasions of the rights and powers of the several States . . . its true strength consists in leaving individuals and States as much as possible to themselves . . . not in binding the States more closely to the center.

Since the Union before the Lincoln years was clearly different from the Union after the Lincoln years, the notion that Lincoln “saved” the Union cannot be true. The sovereign rights of the states are gone forever, and centralized power in Washington is here to stay—thanks to Mr. Lincoln, the creator of the new Union.

The Truth about Southern Slavery

“And if thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee; thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bondservant: But as an hired servant, and as a sojourner, he shall be with thee, and shall serve thee unto the year of jubile: And then shall he depart from thee, both he and his children with him, and shall return unto his own family, and unto the possession of his fathers shall he return. For they are my servants, which I brought forth out of the land of Egypt: they shall not be sold as bondmen. Thou shalt not rule over him with rigour; but shalt fear thy God. Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.” Leviticus 25:39-46

Before getting into this message, please allow me to make one thing clear. I am a Bible-believing Christian. I’m not just a Christian; I am a Bible-believing Christian. That is, I believe every single word and sentence from Genesis 1:1 through Revelation 22:21. It matters not to me if you, your family, your friends, your church or your preacher do not believe all of the Bible. I believe it all. I believe that God is a good God with no unrighteousness in Him. If God’s word says that all have sinned, then all have sinned. If God’s word says that Hell is a place of weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth, then that’s what Hell is like. If God’s word said that the earth was round when everyone else thought it was flat, then the earth was round when everyone else thought it was flat. God’s word is always right, regardless of how few people agree with it. I apologize to no one for the goodness and accuracy of God’s holy words.

According to our opening text from Leviticus chapter twenty-five, God approves of slavery when certain guidelines are followed. This doesn’t mean that He approves of all slavery, but it does mean that He approves of some slavery. The text is quite clear about that. If you’ve never heard or read of a preacher making such a statement, I’m sorry, but you can see the Scripture for yourself.

Another passage dealing with slavery is Deuteronomy 15:12-18:

And if thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee. And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him go away empty: Thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy winepress: of that wherewith the LORD thy God hath blessed thee thou shalt give unto him. And thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in the land of Egypt, and the LORD thy God redeemed thee: therefore I command thee this thing to day. And it shall be, if he say unto thee, I will not go away from thee; because he loveth thee and thine house, because he is well with thee; Then thou shalt take an aul, and thrust it through his ear unto the door, and he shall be thy servant for ever. And also unto thy maidservant thou shalt do likewise. It shall not seem hard unto thee, when thou sendest him away free from thee; for he hath been worth a double hired servant to thee, in serving thee six years: and the LORD thy God shall bless thee in all that thou doest.

Clearly, slavery is endorsed in the Bible, but with certain guidelines or rules. If one should suggest that this is an Old Testament practice and that the New Testament does not endorse slavery, we only have to turn to I Timothy 6:1-2:

Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort.

“These things teach and exhort” is obviously one of the most disobeyed commands in all the Bible, for not one Christian out of a thousand would say that God approves of slavery, yet there it is in plain black and white for all to see. If you disagree, your argument is not with Bro. Melton; your argument is with God.

It wasn’t until modern times that people practically started having heart attacks every time the word “slavery” pops up. Slavery, in its various forms, has been a part of human history for thousands of years. To think of slavery only in the narrow context of seventeenth century Americais being shallow to say the least. As we’ve already seen, the Bible addressed the slavery issue long before the Civil War, and there are numerous books that one can read to learn more about the institution of slavery throughout history. The average American’s concept of slavery is a few brutal scenes that he saw on the “Roots” television series, which bear very little resemblance to the truth.

According to the Bible, God’s infallible words, slavery is not always wrong. There is a right way to have slavery, and, as the Scriptures state, many slaves love their masters and prefer this kind of slavery over being set free: Deu. 15:16.

I am not saying that America was right in starting slavery in the first place. I am saying that slavery was brought here, like it or not, so was it all bad slavery, or did it sometimes agree with the sort of slavery that we’ve just read of in the Bible? You can decide for yourself shortly as we quote from some former slaves.

It is commonly stated that slavery began in America when twenty African slaves were purchased from some Dutchmen in the South at Jamestown, Virginia, around the year 1620. What is not commonly stated is the fact that only seventeen years later America would send out her very own slave ship, but this ship would not sail from a Southern port. It sailed from Salem,Massachusetts, a Northern state. The slaves at Jamestown in 1620 were not requested by anyone. They were offered to be sold, and the offer was accepted. The ship that sailed out in 1637 was sailing from a Northern port for the purpose of purchasing slaves for a profit. Since that time, many slave ships have sailed from Northern ports, and many of them sailed under an American flag. So far as we know, the Confederate flag has never flown over a slave ship.

The first colony in America to legalize slavery was not in the South. It was the Northern colony of Massachusetts. The first state of the Union that attempted to stop the importing of slaves was not a Northern state. It was Virginia.

Slavery was big business in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Due to industry and angry white people who grew tired of losing their jobs to the much cheaper slave labor, slavery did not prove profitable in the North, so the Northern states didn’t utilize slave labor as much as the South. However, they certainly did profit from it by trading for slaves in Africa and selling them to the South. So, in reality, money was the reason for the Northern states continually increasing slavery in America, and money was their reason for moving it out of the Northern states. The notion that the Yankees ridded themselves of slavery because of moral reasons is just plain false.

Now, about slavery in the South: How bad was it? The Bible does not declare that slavery in and of itself is evil; only that certain abuses of slavery are evil. Was racism a major problem in the South, or do we just assume that it was?

The South Was Right, by James and Ronald Kennedy, quotes some interesting words that were written by English abolitionist James Buckingham. This English gentleman visited America in 1842 and then wrote about his observations. Here’s what he wrote:

This is only one among the many proofs I had witnessed of the fact, that the prejudice of color is not nearly so strong in the South as in the North. [In the South] it is not at all uncommon to see the black slaves of both sexes shake hands with white people when they meet, and interchange friendly personal inquiries; but at the North I do not remember to have witnessed this once; and neither in Boston, New York, or Philadelphia would white persons generally like to be seen shaking hands and talking familiarly with blacks in the streets. So, what is all this talk about Southern prejudice? If slavery was so horrible in the South, then why would any black person be seen shaking hands and conversing with whites? If slavery had driven the wedge between the races that so many suppose, why didn’t Mr. Buckingham make a note of it, especially since he was opposed to slavery to start with? The fact is that if one could leave our present year and go back to personally visit the Southland of the mid 1800’s, he would be very surprised to find that most slaves were not resentful toward their white masters because their masters had treated them well. That is, many slave masters practiced Scriptural slavery, similar to the kind that we read of in Leviticus 25 and Deuteronomy 15. As a result, many slaves loved their masters and respected them greatly.

The book previously mentioned by the Kennedy brothers contains some actual quotations from former slaves. These quotes were gathered during a Government survey in the 1930’s. Read the following words slowly and carefully and then ask yourself, “Did Roots really tell me the truth and give me a balanced understanding of slavery?”

Former slave Isaam Morgan:
Any time a slave worked over time or cut mo’ wood dan he s’pose to, Massa pay him money for it, ‘cause when ever one of us slaves seen somp’n we lak, we did jus lak de white folks does now. Us bought it. Massa never whupped none of his slaves . . . No’m none of our slaves tried to run away. Dey all know’d dey wasm well off . . . dey [Yankees] offered me a hoss iffen I would go nawth wid dem, but I jus couldn’t leave de Massa eben dough I did want dat hoss mighty bad.

Former slave Simon Phillips: People has the wrong idea of slave days. We was treated good. My Massa never laid a hand on me the whole time I was wid him . . . Sometime we loaned the Massa money when he was hard pushed.

Former slave Mary Rice: Massa Cullen and Mistis Ma’y Jane was de best Massa and Mistis in de worl! Once when I was awful sick, Mistis Ma’y Jane had me brung in de Big House and put me in a room dat sot on de ‘other side of de kitchen so she could take kere of me herself cause it was a right fur piece to de quarter and I had to be nussed day and night . . . I was happy all de time in slavery days, but dere ain’t much to git happy over now . . .

Former slave Elija Henry Hopkins: I was fed just like I was one of the [masters] children . . . You see, this discrimination on color wasn’t as bad then as it is now. They handled you as a slave, but they didn’t discriminate against you on account of color like they do now. In slavery times, a poor white man was worse off than a nigger.

Former slaves Sarah and Tom Douglas: Slavery times wuz sho good times. We wuz fed an’ clothed an’ had nothing to worry about . . .

Former slave Jane Georgiana:
De times was better fo’ de war . . . I goes to church an sings an prays, and when de good Lord teks me, Ise ready to go, and I specs to see Jesus an’ Ole Mistis an Ole Master when I gits to de he’benly land!

Former slave Gus Brown, speaking of his former master:
I know I will see him in heaven, and even though I have to walk ten miles for a piece of bread [in the Great Depression] I can still be happy to think about the good times we had then . . . The Yankees didn’t beat us, we wuz starved out! . . . I am a Confederate veteran . . .!

Former slave Cora Gillam, speaking on the North’s attempt to “reconstruct” the South after the war: I’ll tell you lady, if the rough element from the north had stayed out of the south the trouble of reconstruction would not have happened . . . they tried to excite the colored against their white friends. The white folks was still kind to them what had been their slaves. They would have helped them get started. I know that. I always say that if the south could have been left to adjust itself both white and colored would have been better off.

When Confederate President Jefferson Davis died, thirteen of his former slaves sent a telegram to his family: We the old servants and tenants of our beloved master, Honorable Jefferson Davis, have cause to mingle our tears over his death, who was always so kind and thoughtful of our peace and happiness. We extend to you our humble sympathy.

Was Southern slavery all evil? No it wasn’t, not according to the people who were there and told their story about it. Yes, there were many cases of abuse, but such cases make up the exceptions, not the normal slave/master relationships. To claim that all slavery was evil and destructive because of some cases of abuse would be like claiming that all families are evil and destructive because of the fact that some parents neglect and abuse their children. All parents should not be judged in the evil shadow of the abusive ones. The same principle applies to slavery in the South.

Many slaves became Christians because their Christian masters allowed them to attend church services and hear the Gospel. Had they been left in Africa they would likely have died without Christ and gone to Hell forever. Many slaves lived long lives only because their masters gave special care to them when they were sick. Slave women often gave birth to many children because their masters cared enough to see that their health needs were met. There were many good masters who refused to allow their slave families to be divided up, even when doing so meant financial gain for them. Slaves were sometimes “bailed out” of legal troubles by their masters, and many slaves served as their master’s close friends and personal bodyguards. Because of this closeness between the masters and the slaves, even after the war was over and the slaves were free, most of them refused to move northward and escape the land of their servitude. The fact that our Southland is still populated by a good portion of black people is a living testimony to the fact that Southern slavery was not at all like we’ve been taught.

Like it or not, slavery is a part of our Southern history, and we cannot change that, but we can change our attitude about it. We can stop hanging our heads in perpetual shame and start telling people the truth about Scriptural slavery in general and Southern slavery in particular. We can honor God and our Southern heritage by displaying a true balance when dealing with the slavery issue. May God be our Helper.

“A false balance is abomination to the LORD: but a just weight is his delight.” Proverbs 11:1James L. Melton, Pastor Bible Baptist Church, Sharon, TN

Southern National Covenant

Our forefathers’ worst nightmare has now come upon us. They created a free government, limited in its powers and a servant to the people. But today the United States has become an empire, fast decaying into tyranny; and we their children have become strangers and subjects in the land our fathers won. Instead of a free and just social and political order, today we are threatened by a Godless national culture and a corrupt, despotic federal government that knows no limits to its power.

Our political leaders, setting themselves above the law, have forged an unholy alliance with large corporations and the international money cartel. These elites have purchased the lawmakers who are sworn to serve the People, enabling them to expropriate our wealth in the greatest act of plunder in human history. Through threat of force, government seizes half of all we make for taxes, yet it is still not enough to satisfy the vaulting greed of our rulers. Thus government spends staggering sums above its revenues, saddling our People with debt so colossal that it cannot be repaid to the fifth generation. To service this debt, the government-banking alliance has stolen our Constitutional and God-ordained right to sound money and has given the power to create money out of nothing to corrupt, private banking interests. Federal law forces us to use only this bank-created money; and because it must be borrowed into existence, our once free people have become enslaved to debt. The burden of confiscatory taxation, combined with runaway federal spending and a currency manipulated to benefit the ruling elites, has brought our country to the brink of bankruptcy and economic collapse, with all the political and social turmoil that must inevitably follow.

The federal regime has loosed upon us floods of immigrants, strangers to our laws and language embodying cultures and values contrary to those upon which our nation was founded, who are displacing us on the soil our fathers won with their sweat and blood. Fomenting hostility between the races and regions, our rulers have destroyed hope and spread despair. Injustice, tyranny, corruption, and deceit are the hallmarks of their governing. They call good evil and evil good, the recompense for which is divine judgement. Accelerated by dishonesty and corruption at every level of society and swept along by daily torrent of official lies, America is plunging toward the abyss. We watch transfixed with horror at the destruction of a once free and prosperous country and are forced to acknowledge the American political and economic system is no longer sustainable. It has become a long train of abuses, evidencing a design to reduce us under absolute despotism. Thus it cannot be salvaged or redeemed, only replaced.

We Southerners proclaim our right to be free of these evils our ancestors warned against and shed their blood to prevent. The seeds of our deliverance remain alive within our faith, culture, and historic principles of governance of individual liberty, rule of law, and impartial justice. Southern culture is founded on the enduring and permanent: trust in God, family, tradition, manners, property, community, loyalty, courage, and honour. We know that free and just government cannot derive from laws, regulations, bureaucracies, and ideologies. It springs only from the soil of faith and love, watered by struggle and sacrifice, and the harvest of which is liberty, justice, prosperity, and peace.

Before all the nations of the earth we affirm that we are a separate and distinct People, with an honourable heritage worthy of the respect of all mankind. Bound together by a shared history, faith, and blood, we have endured hardship and tragedy but have also enjoyed the fruits of Christian civilisation built by God’s grace and the works of our hands. Under heaven, we possess the right to govern ourselves in our own land under our own laws, customs, and religion.

With more sadness than anger we recognize that the country our forebears bequeathed to us no longer exists. By depending on the central government’s increasingly worthless currency, its loans, subsidies, and payments, its putrescent schools, and its false promises of security, we have forged our own chains. But if we have forged our chains, we can also sever them.

We are left us with no recourse but to look to our own counsel to secure our welfare. We must “abjure the realm,” withdrawing our support from the tyrannical government and corporate institutions created for our enslavement. Then we must work to restore the power of our States, the first bulwark of freedom, self-government, and Southern identity. As our forefathers did, we must establish a new foundation for law and government by all honourable means.

Therefore, with humble trust in the Sovereign Lord of Nations, and in the name of the Southern Nation and People whom we serve, we the Delegates of the fourteen Southern States, in Congress assembled September 12, 2009 in Delta, Alabama, make and publish this Covenant, to which we invite all Southerners who yearn for liberty and justice to join us in subscribing.

By this Covenant we corporately pledge ourselves to the protection of our Southern cultural heritage and to the defence of liberty and justice for the Southern People and States. We bind and oblige ourselves, as we are by God and nature tied, with our lives, fortunes, and sacred honour to stand in defence of our native soil and People, contrary to this perverse and infamous regime now arrayed against the South. We swear that we will be ever ready to use all our best endeavours for her preservation, and that we will not cravenly and shamefully bow the knee to tyrants. By this bond, each of us faithfully promises to assist one another as the need demands. All of which before God we most solemnly vow and promise to adhere to and never to turn from, all the days of our lives.

In mutual support of one another as Christian Southerners, we covenant together

To renounce the evils of corrupt government that our forebears warned against, and to resist by all honourable means acts of federal tyranny, as our circumstances permit and as the Lord leads.
To seek to revive our local economies, working together to promote every man’s prosperity as our own and toward freeing ourselves from the snare of the Empire’s worthless money and perpetual debt which are the lifeblood of tyranny, and seeking a return to honest public money in daily use — gold and silver coin or currency backed by gold and silver.

To support every measure which restores the sovereignty of our State and local governments, and the sovereignty of the Southern people.

To resist any Federal statute or Presidential directive that threatens our fundamental freedoms of speech, press, assembly, exercise of religion, and petition for redress, freedom from illegal search and seizure, and the right of due process under law.

Never to allow ourselves willingly to be disarmed nor submit to the confiscation of our means of lawful self defence; nor comply with any firearms registration scheme, which is the certain precursor to confiscation.

We declare before God and men that we earnestly desire to restore a Godly order in our respective States by peaceful means. We seek only that which may turn to the honour of God and the increase of peace and justice in our States and communities. Yet the growing evils of the time may not grant us the choice of peaceful means of redress. In such a pass, when criminal violence may be directed against one of us by the state, our fortunes shall be as their fortunes, their wives or husbands as our wives and husbands, their children as our children, their losses as our losses, and injuries done them as injuries to our own persons; and we shall not rest till they be delivered.