Connie Chastain's Useless Information

Update: Connie is blocking me from linking to her blog. Here's the link to "Useless Information." http://one80dts.blogspot.com/2012/06/useless-information.html

It appears the almighty advocate of "Southern Heritage," Connie Chastain, took it upon herself to right wrongs of modern history. She brings to light in her recent post ("Useless Information,")all of the wrongs of current blogger historians Kevin Levin, Andy Hall, and Dr. Brooks Simpson. For some time now Connie has accused Kevin, Andy, Brooks, and myself of demonizing the South. Her recent post is no different.

Brooks Simpson at Crossroads has brought up the subject of white Southerners (i.e., the KKK) killing and terrorizing ex-slaves after the war. Kevin Levin loves to lament the plight of slaves in the Confederacy (he doesn't appear to say much about the plight of these same slaves before the Confederacy) and Andy Hall loves to lament the plight, after the war, of ex-slaves who assisted their masters during the war and turned into pitiable buffoons at veteran gatherings afterward.

I must admit in the past I wrote about the different aspects of hatred and racism in connection with old Confederate symbols.  In reality, none of the posts written by Kevin, Andy, Brooks or myself have anything to do with an attempt to "evilize" the South. The posts are all observations geared towards learning and a better understanding of history and the memory of historical events. Connie disagrees. To simplify, if Connie disagrees with one's arguments, she automatically presumes one has a motive or agenda against her "heritage." Instead of facing the arguments in the posts head on, Connie instead engages in logical fallacies. Amongst the fallacies are answering criticism with criticism and the famous straw man argument. The former also known as 'tu quoque' can be seen perfectly in Connie's recent post.

After making the above statement, Connie then asserts this:

Wonder what they'd say about this...

"Sick from Freedom shows that as many as 1 million of the freed slaves died from cholera or smallpox while the federal government, controlled by The Party of Lincoln for half a century after the war, did essentially nothing at all about it. Thousands of ex-slaves returned to work on the plantations where they were previously enslaved because the alternative was starvation and death from disease.

The main priority of The Party of Lincoln at that time (from 1865–1890) was its war of genocide against another colored race, the Plains Indians, in order to "make way for the railroad," as General Sherman himself announced. The U.S. army, aided by ex slaves known as "Buffalo Soldiers," eventually murdered some 60,000 Plains Indians, including thousands of women and children, while putting the rest of them into concentration camps known as "reservations." 

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/113789.html"

Unless they can find some way to evilize white Southerners with this information, it's useless to them, regardless of how truthful it is, so I suspect their response to be dead, ringing silence and emain [sic] so until hell freezes over...

And there are still folks who say the yankees "shed their sin" of slavery...

The above contains both Thomas DiLorenzo's review of Sick from Freedom  by Jim Downs with comments from Connie Chastain herself.  It appears that both DiLorenzo and Connie are advocating that as many as one million freed slaves died after the civil war from various diseases. All the while receiving little to no help from the Federal government or in this case, the party of Lincoln. This is an attempt at showing the faults of the United States government in order to ignore the atrocities committed by some Southerners (slaveholders). The truth however, is more complex.

Kevin Levin at Civil War Memory appreciates history books as well. He is currently reading Sick from Freedom. I'll leave Kevin's post to speak for itself but I also want to draw attention to the comments section of his post. Andy Hall demonstrates that DiLorenzo is misrepresenting the book's arguments and statistics. It appears this is all for the sake of meeting a pre-designated agenda. Given DiLorenzo's economics background, my guess is that he is attempting to demonstrate the failure of an overreaching federal government.  It seems Connie is jumping on the bandwagon of Jim Down's book, as Kevin rightly points out, without actually reading it. She even appears to side with DiLorenzo's assessment. All for the sake of being overly critical of the Northern United States.

I want to examine one more comment of Connie's. She states in the last paragraph:

Unless they can find some way to evilize white Southerners with this information, it's useless to them, regardless of how truthful it is, so I suspect their response to be dead, ringing silence and emain [sic] so until hell freezes over...

Notice Connie makes sure to mark differences of race. She has a history of citing numerous racial differences as well as the superiority of one race over another.  As far as a response of "dead, ringing silence," she could not be more wrong. The dialogue on Kevin's post provides ample noise to suggest hell has indeed froze over. To look more closely at Connie's accusation of evilizing the South, I want to draw attention to another one of Kevin Levin's posts entitled "Gettysburg Bound." In this Kevin tells readers that he will be giving lectures at the Civil War Institute's annual conference at Gettysburg College. At one of these lectures, Kevin will be speaking about "Northern racism on the eve of emancipation." Yes you read that correctly; the former sentence said "Northern." Kevin goes on to say this:

One of the difficulties that I’ve found while teaching the Civil War is getting students to appreciate the distinction between slavery and racism – that one could have firmly believed in the immorality of slavery while holding tight to a wide range of racist beliefs. Many of my students come to class with a naive view that pits evil southern slaveholders against a virtuous north.

Well that hardly seems like evilizing the South at all. Kevin does not have to evilize the South, some Southerners do that on their own. See below:

 This comes straight off of Connie Chastain's Facebook group "Backsass." It's amazing that I continue to be blocked from her blog and her Facebook group yet this mindset is perfectly acceptable. Pat Hine's antisemitism evilizes the South on its own. I do not know if Kevin is Jewish or not, but who cares? As a Southerner, this disgusts me. The South has a history of this sort of mindset; a history I thought most Southerners learned from.

Leo Frank (Jewish), murdered by the Knights of Mary Phagan

The above picture is that of Leo Frank and those that murdered him. The murderers are famously referred to as the Knights of Mary Phagan. They are named after the little girl that Frank supposedly killed. A reading of the evidence tells anyone that the trial and conviction was the product of antisemitism.  The Knights, carried out a sentence that the Georgia state government attempted to stall. Two months later, the Knights burned a giant cross on Stone Mountain just outside of Atlanta Georgia. This act is seen as the introduction of the Second Ku Klux Klan.

It is completely fair to say that if Connie wants to accuse others of evilizing the South, she needs look no further than her own sheep. As a born and bred Georgian, this type of attitude and comment disgusts me. I closed my U.S. History class with this statement Connie, maybe you should heed the words.

The history of America is interesting, diverse and complex. It is one of kindness, freedom, and social mobility. A history that shows that anyone can come and make something of themselves. A history that provides examples of ordinary men and women doing extraordinary things. But it is also a history of blemishes. Imperialism, racism, slavery, and xenophobia have plagues America's past and present. You are the future. What type of America do you want? Do you want the America that advocates liberty and progress? Or do you want the racist, bigoted America?

Federal Judge Upholds City of Lexington's Confederate Flag Ban

Note the title, as the below post elaborates on, is not entirely accurate. The title should say "Federal Judge Upholds City of Lexington's City Ordinance Banning Flags." Because the SCV is the main group taking the city to court and claiming free speech violations, the Confederate flag is thrust to the forefront.

Excerpt from the Roanoke Times:

A legal battle to fly the Confederate flag from the street light poles of Lexington died today at the hand of a federal judge.

In a written opinion, U.S. District Court Judge Samuel Wilson dismissed a lawsuit against the city filed by the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

The lawsuit challenged an ordinance, passed last year amid public furor, that limited the types of flags that can be flown from city-owned light poles.

Lexington City Council's decision to fly only the city, state and national flags was "eminently reasonable," Wilson wrote in a 10-page opinion released late today.

The Sons of Confederate Veterans had claimed that the city abused their free speech rights — banning the battle flag because of its controversial nature.

But in granting the city’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit, Wilson wrote that the city’s alleged motivations do not override the fact that the ordinance is content-neutral on its face.

By allowing only flags that represent government to be displayed on its light poles, the city essentially banned all private displays, including not just the Sons of Confederate Veterans but also two universities and several fraternities that have previously been allowed access to the poles.

For that reason, the city argued, the ordinance did not shun a particular cause and thus was not subject to First Amendment attack.

Wilson agreed, writing that to allow "a city-owned flag pole to serve as a public forum could suggest that government has placed its imprimatur on private expression."

 Judge Samuel Wilson's entire opinion can be read here. In short, Judge Wilson acknowledges that the SCV is right that the city maintained an open public forum on the light poles, and that the city closed the public forum with city ordinance 420-205. The judge acknowledged that the new city ordinance is content neutral and does not target the SCV. Therefore, this is not a freedom of speech issue. The judge elaborates on the targeting issue in one of the footnotes:

The Rule 12(b)(6) standard, as interpreted by Twombly and Iqbal, require that the factual allegations in the complaint nudge the claims across the line from conceivable to plausible. The facts in SCV’s complaint show that the City has allowed several groups (including SCV) to fly private flags from city-owned flag poles. That SCV was the last group in a line of several to get the City’s permission to fly its flags, that a councilman who voted against SCV’s application moved City Council to establish a flag policy, or that private citizens spoke out against City approbation of the Confederate flag, does not render plausible the theory that the City sought to silence SCV’s message by enacting § 420-205.

  That last sentence is important because as Kevin Levin pointed out on his blog Civil War Memory, the SCV will still be able to fly the CBF and spread the "Southern Heritage" message. They just can't do it on city poles.

Lee and Grant's Dual

Here's a perception of fighting between Lee and Grant that breaks from old norms.

180 Degrees True South is Running from "Perfesser Simpson"

Recently a lot of crosstalk took place between Professor Brooks Simpson, author of cwcrossroads and Connie Chastain, ranter of 180 Degrees True South. Can't these two just get along? Sources say no.

Brooks if you want your face removed just let me know. Connie...I don't care.

The self proclaimed defender of Southern Heritage chimes in on Dr. Simpson's recent post with a flurry of her own defensive rhetoric, aka vomit. This post entitled, "Damnyankees Attack. Southerners Defend." is the latest of the spew. Historically this title is wrong;  the South fired first, carried out some invasions of their own, and ultimately lost. Connie professed in the past that she cares not for history and instead values subjective heritage. Taking this into account, it becomes obvious that Connie's title is commentary of the strife between herself and Professor Simpson. I once thought Connie carried sentimental feelings for Kevin Levin. She used to go on and on about him reminding me of the flirtatious young students I have in class. It seems that Connie directs her attention towards Brooks Simpson now. She writes about him constantly (romance novel forthcoming) and reads his posts everyday with a scented candle and red wine.

With that aside I think it is interesting to read the two posts above. Connie refers to Dr. Simpson's work as merely a critique or rather unjustified snarky commentary (paraphrase) on "Southern Heritage," (in quotes due to irony). It is easily noticed by viewing the website cwcrossroards that Dr. Simpson writes about a multitude of things. It just happens that Southern Heritage is one of them. Connie seems to be flabbergasted as to why. Now I could cite Michel-Rolph Trouillot's book Silencing the Past: Power and the Production of History which calls for Historians to stand and meet the injustices of pseudo history to answer 'why,' but I do not think I will. Mainly because those that have not read it would not understand, and because certain groups would simply disregard it as revisionists history. Odd that it is usually those that have not read the article are usually  the first to discredit it. In short I will simply say that maybe Dr. Simpson's approach to "Southern Heritage," parallels Richard Dawkins approach to ardent Creationists; he just cannot believe they are that dumb.

Replace "Creationist"s with "Southern Heritage Folks," "Evolution" with "History," and "Bible verses" with "Random Southern quotes."

Of course this cannot go on anymore. Connie Chastain, the woman that defends Southern Heritage has gone underground. She deleted people from her group that posed a threat (disagreed) and blocked viewing permissions to her group. "Damnyankees Attack.....Southerners Flee".....makes sense given the large amounts of desertion in the Rebel Army during the Civil War.

Happy Appomattox Day Everyone!!!!

Happy Appomattox Day on this dazzling April 9th, 2012. It is on this day, nearly a century and a half ago, that the most destructive thing that ever happened to America ended....well at least for the Army of Northern Virginia. Kevin Levin over at Civil War Memory posted this video.

I thought this was a terrific video and I'd like to think both Mr. Levin for bringing it to my attention and the National Park Service for making such a terrific video. I immediately implemented it into the classroom and used it today to start our unit on the Civil Rights Movement. Does anyone else find it somewhat of a happy coincidence that I started the Civil Rights Movement unit on Appomattox day. It's nice when things work out.

The Yankee That Scared Connie Chastain: Multiculturalism and Racism Unleashed

 

Recent events demonstrate that yes; Connie Chastain is afraid of Yankees. In particular this Yankee, Joey Andrews. Beneath that bloodcurdling exterior lies a war crime waiting to happen. I first came into contact with this Napoleon of strategic games while in undergrad. I learned soon that Joey was anyone's intellectual match. He was a true Yankee that came to Tennessee like Sherman's flames through Georgia. I also remember the fascination of history the two of us shared while rooming together at that deep south Tennessee Baptist College known as Carson-Newman. I can even recall our first reenactment together. We had to galvanize (every Southerners worst nightmare) and dress as Yankees. I remember the thrill I had carrying the gun, shooting above people's heads and generally enjoying that 19th century feel. Joey took it quite differently. Every shot fired seemed to be personal as he shot at those Confederate souls....I'm also pretty sure that he did not elevate a time or two.

Fast forward to after graduation; I returned to Georgia for graduate school and Joey looked to the North for his higher education. I pursued the arts of Education and History while Joey looked to destroy people's lives (law). This brings us to the present. I have been introduced to the world of blogging and comparative pages on Facebook. In these groups I have come into contact with one Connie Chastain, self proclaimed Heritage advocate/Romance Novel writer/ and Huguenot. I know she's not really a French protestant but someone that acts with that level of superiority and pomposity all the time deserves a title that means as much as her opinions.....nothing.

Recently Joey engaged Connie in a thrill ride of a debate over the aspect of multiculturalism.  For those than want to see the debate in full, simply check out the 180 Facebook page.  I am sorry that I cannot find a direct link to the debate as it is either lost in the mess that is that group's wall or simply deleted. In any case, I made sure to copy the debate thread a while back which is posted below. Back on the topic of multiculturalism, it appears that Connie and a considerable number of Confederate "heritage" advocates hold on to the idea that multiculturalism is the leveling out or downgrading of European culture in order for other cultures to be equal. This position is held while also holding that European culture is superior in all aspects. This can bee seen in the arguments here. If the link is ever removed, I have screen shots.

UPDATE: The page is now set to private. Drop me a comment and I can send you the screen shot of the conversation. 


Pay special attention to the rhetoric both Joey and Connie use in the back and forth. Joey makes a point to use terminology of white vs black. Connie at first, attempts to make this a moot point by suggesting what seems to be equality amongst absurdities. Connie states this:

You're a white person who goes back in time to subSaharan Africa, you might find yourself being cooked and served as smorgasboard. You're a white person who goes back in time to an Arab country, you might find yourself being eunuch-ized (if you're a male) or concubine-ized, if you're a female, even a very, very young female.

This is an absolute absurdity historically but we won't even get into that. The point I want to show here is that she redirects Joey's point of white Europeans treating other cultures badly by pointing out that these other cultures do the same thing. Remember this is all taking place as Connie is trying to prove that European culture is superior yet she redirects an absurdity by saying, "Africans and Arabs are just as bad,"......is Connie arguing for Multiculturalism?

My favorite part of this exchange comes when Joey demonstrates the history and prestige of ancient Egypt. It is at this juncture that Connie demonstrates the true meaning behind the anti-multiculturalism argument. And it is basically what most of us guessed anyway.

(1) Egyptian society was not black culture. It was Egyptian. (2) Mesoamerican cultures practiced a particularly brutal form of human sacrifice. That may be superior to you. It isn't to me.

 I have to say at this point I am a little confused. This whole time I thought the argument was for or against African culture. Connie seems to see it only as Black culture. Last time I checked, Egypt was in Africa. I guess they are not black enough for Connie to represent black culture....or perhaps they are too white to exhibit it. I'll let you research for yourselves the differences between European and African cultures throughout history.

From this debate it is apparent that multiculturalism acts as the thin veil of racism for many people. We all owe Connie a huge round of applause for demonstrating this to us. We also owe Joey Andrews a beer and a steak for keeping on topic and making sure to engage in this circular debate long enough to reveal the true intent of some these unscrupulous characters. I can tell you all, that it is Joey's last debate with them on that forum sadly.

Shortly after this debate took place, Connie took it upon herself to remove Joey's membership from 180 South. For a woman that complains constantly about censorship and writes excessively about her comments being "sent to the cornfield," she had no problem sending Joey there.

So long my friend.....you will be missed.

Upcoming Shiloh Reenactment

I will be leaving in a few days to take part of the 150th Anniversary of the Battle of Shiloh. I am pretty excited about this. 6,000 overweight bearded men will convene to camp together and talk about the Confederacy. However, my interest of the battle is peaked a little bit and I came across this terrific video today.

This was done by a group of teenagers in Australia as a part of a school project. It is definitely worth praise in my opinion. They make use of good digital representation and commentary in order to bring Shiloh to life in their own unique way. Plus, this demonstrates an objective foreign perspective of the Civil War .Enjoy.

Happy Birthday Patrick Cleburne

UPDATE: I forgot to mention that along with this new praise Gen. Cleburne is receiving, the new Museum of the Confederacy branch opening at the Appomattox will have General Cleburne's Frock coat on display. 

Today is St. Patrick's Day in remembrance of a terrific man doing terrific things. That all powerful know-it-all Wikipedia has this to say of the momentous holiday.

a cultural and religious holiday celebrated on 17 March. It commemorates Saint Patrick (c. AD 387–461), the most commonly recognized of the patron saints of Ireland, and the arrival of Christianity in Ireland. It is observed by the Catholic Church, the Anglican Communion (especially the Church of Ireland), the Eastern Orthodox Church and Lutheran Church. Saint Patrick's Day was made an official feast day in the early seventeenth century, and has gradually become a celebration of Irish culture in general. The day is generally characterised by the attendance of church services, wearing of green attire and the lifting of Lenten restrictions on eating, and drinking alcohol, which is often proscribed during the rest of the season.
Saint Patrick's Day is a public holiday in the Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland,Newfoundland and Labrador and in Montserrat. It is also widely celebrated by the Irish diaspora, especially in places such as Great Britain, Canada, the United States, Argentina, Australia, and New Zealand, among others. Today, St. Patrick's Day is probably the most widely celebrated saint's day in the world.[1]

As I write I have friends that are currently roaming the streets of Savannah, GA engaging in this "Irish diaspora" celebration. Today is also a day to for remembrance of yet another great man. I am talking of course about Confederate Maj. General Patrick R. Cleburne.

Today is Patrick Ronayne Cleburne's 184th birthday. Cleburne hailed from Corke County, Ireland and after a brief stint in the British army, a Corporal in the 41st Regiment of Foot, immigrated to America. Cleburne settled in Helena, Arkansas where he began work as a pharmacist. The town accepted him as one of their own. By 1860 Cleburne was a naturalized American citizen. Because of the acceptance the town of Helena had given him, and because of the close personal friendships he made with residents in the town, Cleburne sided with the state of Arkansas and the southern states during the secession crisis. Cleburne joined the local militia and was admired amongst the men. They quickly voted him up the ranks from Private to Captain of the "Yell Rifles." When Arkansas left the Union, the "Yell Rifles" became the 1st Arkansas Infantry and Cleburne the men elected him Colonel. From here Cleburne set himself apart from other military commanders and rose to the  rank of Major General on December 13th 1862. This was the final promotion Cleburne received in Confederate service.

Cleburne excelled in command. He served with distinction at the battles of Shiloh, Richmond, Perryville, and Stones River. In 1863 Cleburne set himself apart yet again at the battles of Missionary Ridge, opposing General Sherman, and Ringgold Gap opposing Gen. John Hooker. At both battles Cleburne was outnumbered 4 to 1 yet still took the day. He received an official thanks from the Confederate Congress and was dubbed Stonewall of the West. Yet it is his proposition in the Winter of 1863-64 that he is most noted for.

In the winter of 1863 it was becoming obvious that the war was not far from over. The South had been checked in every Northern invasion. Turned back after the battle of Sharpsburg and then turned back again in '63 at Gettysburg, the South was unable to reach a decisive victory to convince the North to stop fighting. It is at this point that Cleburne issued a controversial proposal. Due to the depleted nature of the Confederacy's resources and man power, Cleburne called together the leadership of the Army of Tennessee and presented his plan of emancipating slaves and enlisting them into the Confederate army as arms carrying soldiers. Basically, let slaves fight for Southern Independence and give them freedom in return. "Pat Cleburne's Negro Enlistment Proposal" can be found here. Cleburne believed that with this 'high reward' of freedom that the slaves would face the fears of war with their masters leading them on. The proposal met some harsh resistance from certain Confederate Generals. Some would argue that due to this proposal Cleburne never ascended beyond the rank of Major General. Of course, one cannot overlook that he was in fact an Irishman.

The legacy of Cleburne is somewhat complex. He has incredible military accomplishments during the five years in which the Civil War was fought. He only recently received a dedication statue in Ringgold, GA at the site of his most famous battle. With the statue dedication, Cleburne stepped a new era of praise. But why? Why has this general been so long overlooked and only recently been massively praised? For some, myself included, this praise has always been there. I grew up in Ringgold and heard Cleburne's name a lot. This made me curious enough to research Cleburne several times over. Yet that is where this praise is usually limited to;  historians and locals. Large scale public reverence was non-existent. Recently however Cleburne's legacy has began to soar in the years preceding the 150th anniversary of the Civil War. He has a Graphic Novel dedicated to him and for a while there were talks of a movie deal. On November 30th 1864, Cleburne died leading his men forward at the Battle of Franklin. Accounts state his body was found inside of Federal lines. Despite the reasons for his recent rise, Cleburne remains a figure of the past worth studying. From this Historian...I salute you sir.

Where this division defended, no odds broke its line; where it attacked, no numbers resisted its onslaught, save only once; and there is the grave of Cleburne.  - William J. Hardee on learning of Cleburne's

 Books Worth Reading for Information on Patrick Cleburne:

Stonewall of the West: Patrick Cleburne and the Civil War by Craig L. Symonds
Invisible Hero: Patrick R. Cleburne by Bruce H. Stewart
A Meteor Shining Brightly: Essays on Major General Patrick R. Cleburne by Mauriel Phillips Joslyn
Cleburne and His Command by Irving Buck

[1] St. Patrick's Day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Patrick%27s_Day

Is the Confederate Flag a Hate Symbol?

I've written about the Confederate Battle Flag before examining its dual meaning to many people. For some there is the vision of hate, and for others it is the symbol of pride. The video above is a survey of public opinion. The "Appalachian Online," which is the newspaper of Appalachian State University is responsible the production of this video. I think it adds some interesting perspectives to reflect on. What are your thoughts?

Happy Slave Narrative?

This is a terrific letter from a Mr. Jourdon Anderson to his former master Colonel P.H. Anderson. The date of the letter places the events immediately after the Civil War and is in response to the Colonel's letter requesting Jourdon to come back and work on his land. Jourdon's reply letter is quite hilarious. Enjoy.

LETTER FROM A FREEDMAN TO HIS OLD MASTER.

[Written just as he dictated it.]

Dayton, Ohio, August 7, 1865.

To my old Master, Colonel P. H. Anderson, Big Spring, Tennessee.


Sir: I got your letter, and was glad to find that you had not forgotten Jourdon, and that you wanted me to come back and live with you again, promising to do better for me than anybody else can. I have often felt uneasy about you. I thought the Yankees would have hung you long before this, for harboring Rebs they found at your house. I suppose they never heard about your going to Colonel Martin's to kill the Union soldier that was left by his company in their stable. Although you shot at me twice before I left you, I did not want to hear of your being hurt, and am glad you are still living. It would do me good to go back to the dear old home again, and see Miss Mary and Miss Martha and Allen, Esther, Green, and Lee. Give my love to them all, and tell them I hope we will meet in the better world, if not in this. I would have gone back to see you all when I was working in the Nashville Hospital, but one of the neighbors told me that Henry intended to shoot me if he ever got a chance.

I want to know particularly what the good chance is you propose to give me. I am doing tolerably well here. I get twenty-five dollars a month, with victuals and clothing; have a comfortable home for Mandy,—the folks call her Mrs. Anderson,—and the children—Milly, Jane, and Grundy—go to school and are learning well. The teacher says Grundy has a head for a preacher. They go to Sunday school, and Mandy and me attend church regularly. We are kindly treated. Sometimes we overhear others saying, "Them colored people were slaves" down in Tennessee. The children feel hurt when they hear such remarks; but I tell them it was no disgrace in Tennessee to belong to Colonel Anderson. Many darkeys would have been proud, as I used to be, to call you master. Now if you will write and say what wages you will give me, I will be better able to decide whether it would be to my advantage to move back again.

As to my freedom, which you say I can have, there is nothing to be gained on that score, as I got my free papers in 1864 from the Provost-Marshal-General of the Department of Nashville. Mandy says she would be afraid to go back without some proof that you were disposed to treat us justly and kindly; and we have concluded to test your sincerity by asking you to send us our wages for the time we served you. This will make us forget and forgive old scores, and rely on your justice and friendship in the future. I served you faithfully for thirty-two years, and Mandy twenty years. At twenty-five dollars a month for me, and two dollars a week for Mandy, our earnings would amount to eleven thousand six hundred and eighty dollars. Add to this the interest for the time our wages have been kept back, and deduct what you paid for our clothing, and three doctor's visits to me, and pulling a tooth for Mandy, and the balance will show what we are in justice entitled to. Please send the money by Adams's Express, in care of V. Winters, Esq., Dayton, Ohio. If you fail to pay us for faithful labors in the past, we can have little faith in your promises in the future. We trust the good Maker has opened your eyes to the wrongs which you and your fathers have done to me and my fathers, in making us toil for you for generations without recompense. Here I draw my wages every Saturday night; but in Tennessee there was never any pay-day for the negroes any more than for the horses and cows. Surely there will be a day of reckoning for those who defraud the laborer of his hire.

In answering this letter, please state if there would be any safety for my Milly and Jane, who are now grown up, and both good-looking girls. You know how it was with poor Matilda and Catherine. I would rather stay here and starve—and die, if it come to that—than have my girls brought to shame by the violence and wickedness of their young masters. You will also please state if there has been any schools opened for the colored children in your neighborhood. The great desire of my life now is to give my children an education, and have them form virtuous habits.

Say howdy to George Carter, and thank him for taking the pistol from you when you were shooting at me.

From your old servant,

Jourdon Anderson.^[1] 

Upon some further research; this particular letter is a hot piece for many that are studying the Civil War era and concentrating on the issue of slavery. However, to say the least, the provenance of the letter is a bit shaky. The letter was originally reprinted in L. Maria Child's The Freedmens Book in 1865. The letter also appears in newspapers around the same time which can be seen here. Child, the author of The Freedmen's Book is no stranger to the issue of black people in bondage publishing several books on the topic. Her noteworthy publications include: An Appeal in Favor of That Class of Americans Called Africans; the short story "Slavery's Pleasant Homes: A Faithful Sketch"; and Isaac T. Hopper: A True Life.[2][3]

There are some who claim or might claim that given Child's history in advocating slave emancipation that there is a motive to write such articles/letters out of thin air to advance an 'agenda.' There is also the noticeable dialect that a former seemingly uneducated slave seems to have right after the end of the war. Jourdon did not write the letter himself which is indicated by the dictation note. It does seem very proper. Looking at census records around that time reveals some information that might shed some light on the subject.

According to U.S. Census records [below], there was only one P.H. Anderson in Wilson County Tennessee in 1860.[4] In Wilson County there is a 'community' today known as "Big Spring." It appears that it is a town that is no longer in existence.[5] According to the 1860 census, P.H. was thirty-seven in 1860 making him roughly forty-two at the time of Jourdon's letter. He had a personal estate of $92,000 making him a very wealthy 'farmer' as the census shows. "Miss Mary" (Wife) and "Miss Martha" as said by Jourdon appear on the census as well as five other children. One of these being Patrick H. Anderson Jr. We can assume from this that the P. in Colonel Anderson's initials stands for Patrick. Patrick Jr. is listed at thirteen years of age at the time making him eighteen in 1865 when the letter is written. It is likely that Jourdon's use of the name "Henry" applies to Patrick Jr. as the letter is directed at the Colonel. To add one more detail to establish the validity of Jourdon's letter is the mention of George Carter at the end of the letter. According to the U.S. census there is only one George Carter living in Wilson County in 1860, who holds the occupation of carpenter.[6] The use of real people in this section of the letter indicates a case for validity.

Five years after the letter was written, Jordan Anderson shows up on the 1870 census in Dayton, Ohio. He is listed as a Hostler, which is an occupation dealing with horses like a stable boy. He is listed as forty-five years old alongside his wife Amanda (Mandy) at thirty-nine. Along with Jordan and his wife are five children: Amanda; James; Felix; William; and Andrew. The entire family with the exception of William and Andrew are listed as having been born in Tennessee where P.H. Anderson has his farm. All children are listed as going to school as mentioned in the letter except for Andrew who is one at the time of the census.[7]

As historians we would like nothing better than the smoking gun but more often than not we are left only with the trail. This trail suggests that the letter is real. The people are real and are in the right locations as presented in the letter. The only thing that seems to be missing from the evidence are the original letters. But even without the originals we are able to use the copies which appear at the same time and trace the story backwards. The theory presented here is that the letter is legitimate, written by Jourdon, intended for Colonel P.H. Anderson and not just advancing an emancipation agenda. As always, this is open to debate and improvement.

Jourdon Anderson Census

P.H. Anderson Census

George Carter Census

[1] Child, L. Maria. The Freedmen's Books. Boston, (Ticknor and Fields, 1865). p266. [Retrieved from, http://www.gutenberg.org/files/38479/38479-h/38479-h.htm#Page_265]
[2] http://deila.dickinson.edu/slaveryandabolition/author/ChildL.html
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lydia_Maria_Child
[4] U.S. Census, Wilson County, Tennessee 1860
[5] http://www.roadsidethoughts.com/tn/big-spring-xx-wilson-profile.htm
[6] U.S. Census, Wilson County, Tennessee 1860
[7] U.S. Census, Dayton City, Ohio 1870




UPDATE: The comments below contain excellent information regarding the lives of P.H. Anderson and Jourdon/Jordan Anderson. 

Occidental Sings my Praises

I'd like to thank Brooks D. Simpson for bringing to my attention that Hunter Wallace, a regular commentator at the SHPG, has sought to include me in his blog The Occidental Dissent. If you scroll down the page, you will find this short passage:

"This is what civilization in Philadelphia has become thanks to White and Jewish liberals like Andy Hall, Kevin Levin, James Epperson, Rob Baker, Corey Meyer and Brooks D. Simpson: Northern Whites abandoning their city to the Black Undertow, their freedom taken away by federal and state civil rights legislation, while the black criminals move into the vacuum and run wild, and corrupt African-American politicians like Marian Tasco feast upon the economic remains of civilization." [12/31/2011]


What a way to end out 2011. To clarify for some of you, I am from Georgia born and bred. I am far from a liberal. I'm Methodist, not Jewish. I don't really recall my hometown city of Ringgold having anything of a large minority population that would constitute a "Black Undertow." The rest like the former is utter nonsense. Not that there is anything wrong with a Northerner or a Jew, or a Black person etc., which Hunter disagrees with in the remainder of that blog post on Quakers in Pennsylvania; I just find it fascinating that I am being demonized using words that are not demonic to the average person. However, any intelligent person that spends a short time on Wallace's blog will notice the obscenities he spouts so I have to say, whatever words he wishes to use to demonize me I will continually accept as a compliment. On a side note, please stop portraying yourself as a true Southerner.

You can access others listed in Wallace's post at these sites.

Andy Hall               http://deadconfederates.com/
Kevin Levin            http://cwmemory.com/
James Epperson     http://www.civilwarcauses.org/
Corey Meyer           http://kindredblood.wordpress.com/
Brooks Simpson     http://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/

"True or Not?" - Connie Chastain

UPDATE: Andy Hall at Dead Confederates has written a wonderful post on Forrest's Klan involvement. 

Connie Chastain over at SHPG, or as Brooks Simpson calls it, "The gift that keeps on giving," has posed a new question. Take a look.

This new uproar about Silas Chandler can only be in response to Kevin Levin's new co-authored article in the Civil War Times, which is available now. This new article by the way, has already seen some scrutiny by certain SHPG advocates to which Kevin has issued a challenge.  But back to Connie's question.

Primary Source evidence? I don't know of any that says Nathan Bedford Forrest organized and founded the Ku Klux Klan. So that means....none?  How about Nathan Beford Forrest's overall involvement with the klan? Well, we can use Google and our good friend wikipedia to run a small search that might have some results.

Wikipedia - Ku Klux Klan

Scroll down to the notes section and look at  "38." 

An oral account from an eye witness does count as a primary source.  So.....one?

This is not an attempt at history from Connie Chastain, nor has she ever made such attempt. She simply does not care about history. It does not fit her agenda. This is just another step in pushing "Confederate Heritage." Kevin Levin and Myra Chandler Simpson have put in the man hours to present a piece of scholarship. What we should do is peer review it. What this is above is just another attempt to be argumentative and to bash others. Connie's attempt at critique this time, is an irrelevant gesture to the understanding Silas Chandler. What she is advocating is that if we accept one, we must accept the other. I'm not buying it. If there is one primary source account that says Forrest was in the Klan, I'm not buying that either. There is nothing there to cross reference and so I say not determinable. If someone would like to drop a comment below referencing more material on that matter, I would be more than grateful. However, in regards to Silas; it has been shown on numerous occasions that the information saying he is a Confederate soldier is misinterpreted by many. Most information about him exists on the internet in the "Black Confederate" pages of SCV websites.

So to answer your question Connie; not. Forrest is in the lead 1-0 with my preliminary search. My question is, have you actually read the article yet?

A True Confederate's Genealogy

I am not sure how I missed this before  but David Tatum, an officer of the SHPG runs his own blog, A True Confederate.   Recently David has posted snippets of his family record for the world to see. Let me start by saying I think this is a fabulous idea. Bringing genealogy to the mass public to help in research is always a good idea and I encourage it. I can remember the countless hours my Grandfather and I spent combing through libraries in the hopes of finding the name of the ship Maurice Baker traveled to Virginia on in 1640. How wonderful it would have been to have some outside influence and thoughts come in to that search. Even if they were dead wrong the new addition can reveal a truth and spur a new direction. Why just look at the inquisitive nature of David, Kindred Blood and myself as we try to figure out what random words mean in David's snippet of genealogy in order to reveal the larger picture.

(Please go to David's blog as I do not have his permission to post his snippet of information.)

If anyone knows what "Sound Bacon" is, please let me know. What I want to address however, is David's original comments when making this post.

"This post shows the weekly food allowance for the slaves owned by an ancestor."

As it does. The document indicates this very well. What some of the items are on that list, is obviously still in the works.

"I can see it now - a Yankee blogger crying / " But what did the owners eat"?[sic]"

I'm not a Yankee....and I try not to cry so I guess I will have a go at this. I do not consider that a relevant thought. It is probably a safe bet that masters ate better than the slaves, so I will just move on from that pointless question.

(The "Yankee Bloggers" follow up) ""What type of home did the owners have as compaired to the slaves"?[sic]"

Pretty much the same premise as above. 

"Yea I guess that's fair / but what do the CEOs of major companys [sic] have for dinner as opposed to the guy in the mail room? And what about living conditions ?"

This is where I take a different path than David. I don't think either questions are really the interest here. I am much more interested in solving the issue of what exactly the slave rations were for W.H. Tatum's slaves in 1840. After that chestnut is cracked, then I can move on to broader questions. But making the comparison of CEOs of major companies to their workers is not the same comparison as master to slave. Though I agree this modern corporate feudalism is a seemingly justified comparison, it still is improper. We have to keep schema in mind. The 21st century mindset cannot co-exist with the 19th century mindset. In order to have a better understanding, historians have to attempt to simulate the mindset of that time. We do this by using resource material such as primary source documents. After all, the worker of that major company can leave. Yes he will probably starve and be unemployed, but he still has that freedom.A slave cannot.

This is not however, a slam on David or his attempt at researching genealogy. It is just an example of why proper methodology is important when researching history and sometimes even genealogy.

Silas Chandler Coming to the Forefront

"he is pictured alone and out from behind the shadow of Andrew Chandler." - Kevin Levin

Coming to news stands near you is a new article about Silas Chandler. This new publication in the Civil War Times is co-authored by Kevin Levin at Civil War Memory and Myra Chandler Simpson, a descendant of Silas.  I am looking forward to reading this article in the hopes of it shedding some light on the life and narrative of Silas and his involvement in the Civil War.

For those of you late to the game, Silas Chandler has been a figure of myth and legend so to speak for some time. He has appeared on many websites over the years under the guise of Black Confederate (Here, Here and Here).

Recently on an episode of Antique Roadshow, Silas took main stage again when a famous photo of him and one Andrew Chandler. Andrew's family owned Silas as a slave and Andrew took him to war.

This presentation thrust Silas back on to center stage and I am hopeful the recent attention and appeal will bring this new article by Levin and Simpson to a more diverse crowd.

I want to thank both Levin and Simpson for taking the time and putting in the work and man hours to make a publication such as this possible. I am looking forward to the read and analysis.

Black Confederate Naval Officer Blown Out of Proportion

Royal Diadem (Ann Dewitt) and the folks at the SHPG are at it again. In their never ending quest to unearth the great and elusive unicorn (Black Confederate);  they have brought up the story of Moses Dallas.

"Gary, we keep presenting facts," yes, but lets look at those facts. Upon making a deeper inquiry, Moses was a slave that was given the rank of Captain in order to drive the boat. This rank carried no authority with it as the rank of captain usually would. In this snippet of information that Royal presents, it appears as though Moses's salary is being increased. This is not the first instance that slaves would be paid for their work in Confederacy. In defense of Vicksburg Gen. Pemberton paid slaves to dig trenches. In most cases the pay was not given to the slave but to the slave's master. There were a few Confederate Naval Pilots that were slaves. This is mainly due to their previous work navigating rivers and coastlines. They were basically being used. In Moses's case, this seems to be exactly the issue. Using a research based narrative entitled  "Water Witch", which can be found on the Georgia Department of Transportation's website, we can see the entire quote: "I have also been compelled to increase the pay of Moses Dallas from $80 to $100 per month in order to retain him. He is a colored pilot and is considered the best inland pilot on the coast." This quote was taken from the Navy and Marine Living Historical  Society. From the quote we can tell that the pay increase was in order to "retain," Moses.  Pay special attention to that word, retain. Why was retention important in a time of war when conscription was already in place? That is because Moses lived as property of another. The Confederacy rose the pay in order to keep him. This means someone at that time moved to get Moses back and pay had to be increased. This makes me think that the pay was going to the master and not to Moses. I cannot assume that for certain as documentation is not provided.

A little more about Moses, he died in a raid in 1864. This was a raid performed by the Confederate Navy on a Union ship. Why Moses was there taking part is not known. He might have been brought by his master, forced to row one of the boats alongside the Union ship. The account given of  his death, doesn't even mention him actually fighting but rather just standing and watching. Until something else presents itself to further our knowledge of his death, it is stuck in limbo. There is an amazing story though about his death being faked and Moses becoming a Union Naval Pilot. This is a great Counterfactual but the story does not have enough proof to be valid in my opinion. Of course when dealing with the definition of proof the SHPG has, maybe there is enough after all. 

Leading the Black Confederate Narrative to the Promised Land

I sincerely hope this is not the best they can do in regards to proving the Black Confederate myth. Snippets from Primary Sources have been used by groups such as the SHPG for some time now to prove their position. It would seem that these 'amateur historians' need to read Marc Bloch or study some historiography. You cannot take random unique accounts and claim them as fact. Why? Because there is no validity in it. If  I wrote down that Russians attacked the United States today, and a hundred years from now someone uncovers that; does that mean it happened? Absolutely not! Find more sources proving the same thing. Cross reference and use cross examination to make sure your sources can stand on their own. I hope they make this effort. Of course, this is the same group that advocated the entire company of confederate cooks, so I won't hold my breath.

What Does the Battle Flag Mean?

For weeks I carried on with an intriguing task of observing, engaging and debating points of view with certain people belonging to the Facebook group Southern Heritage Preservation Group (SHPG). One thing I learned is that this group is in actuality a Confederate Heritage group as they overlook the other two hundred plus years of Southern History (only counting since independence). Then one day, much to my displeasure, I found that I could no longer access their fine group. I had been blocked. Blocked by the very group that expresses rage and claims censorship when their comments are removed from certain sites. In simple  terms, as Historian Michel-Rolph Trouillot would say, I had been silenced. Thankfully and mainly because of the internet's usage as a playground, I worked my way back to a point of observation once more. Keep in mind that I cannot engage or debate anymore, I only have the ability to observe. Tonight is my first look at SHPG since my hiatus and I found some statements and materials right off the bat.

I would agree with Connie's statement. Not wholeheartedly of course. The flag does have a Confederate and American South history behind it. What that history is interpreted as is another matter.  I have seen the flag in photos across the globe. It is heavily recognized as more than just "A symbol of the Confederacy and the American South" but also  one of secession and disunion. This can be observed in Italy even today.  There is however much more to the flag. Something that Connie ignores in her own context and explains that this other outlook is merely rednecks and bigots taking over the flag and using it for personal gain. Nonetheless, this other interpretation exists and deserves to be studied and recognized as having a history with the Confederate Battle Flag.

It needs to be realized that the Confederate Battle Flag (CBF) is also very much associated with the Ku Klux Klan. It can be, and has in the past been seen as a symbol of racism. I realize that might not have been the intent just as much as I realize the American flag can bee seen in that context. 

The Ku Klux Klan did use the American flag as their symbol for years until about 1940 when they began heavy use of the CBF.  Confederate Heritage advocates will also be the first to deflect the issue of slavery under the CBF by stating that slavery existed forever under the American flag. This is also true. No one denies or doubts this at all. So the real question is why does the American flag not carry the image of "racism" or the image of "slavery" in the manner that the CBF does.

Well, to take a shot as to why, my guess would be that the United States government under the American Flag at one point or another was proactive is doing away with these absurdities.

Emancipation Proclamation - Freed slaves in the South, allowed Blacks to fight for the Union

13th Amendment - Abolished Slavery

The Force Acts of 1870 - In this act, the government banned the use of terror, force or bribery to prevent people from voting because of their race 

Civil Rights Act 1964 - outlawed major forms of discrimination against blacks and women, including racial segregation. It ended unequal application of voter registration requirements and racial segregation in schools, at the workplace and by facilities that served the general public ("public accommodations").

That's not the Confederate Guard

Now I will say, because I am sure that I will hear the argument or statement, that the United States has had its fair share of bigotry. With that bigotry though, came the responsibility to do right and right it did on several occasions. I think we can put the United States Flag argument to rest but I would like to turn back to the CBF for a moment. Though advocates will outright deny slavery's HUGE involvement in starting the Civil War, it is a fair argument that the CBF is less associated with that institution. It was the soldier's flag, not the Confederate Nation's flag. It was also certain groups that used the CBF to promote racism and not the Confederacy (Though the large portion of those groups resided in the former Confederacy). It is important to remember that symbols carry with them multiple meanings and the addition of more people can mean even more interpretations. 

His interpretation costs 20k CLICK HERE

So the question is why should they be ashamed? Well, you shouldn't be. If you are a particular person that has ancestry which does not include slavery but merely fighting for your home, there is no reason to be ashamed. Keep in mind however, that some find your symbol offensive.

As the above shows, the Nazis totally ripped off the Hindus. The difference is, you don't see many Hindus flying their symbol as 60ft banners near the interstate or putting them on t-shirts. It might have something to do with 6 million people dying but that's just a guess. Perhaps the key is consideration. Several hundred thousand people were in bondage, and perhaps view that flag as a chain holding them down. So many were hurt, killed, and not allowed freedoms in the 20th century; and most of them recognize the flag as a reminder of that. Consideration is the key word of the day.

Falling Behind

I realize I am way behind on a post I was supposed to have up over a month ago. I can assure you the comments on the Jefferson Confederate Statue unveiling is on its way. I've got a stack of papers a mile high and an annotated bibliography due in Historiography so I am swamped for the moment. Until then, I invite you to look at this.

What kinds of questions does this raise?