North Carolina Patriots of ’61 – General Thomas F. Toon

North Carolina War Between the States Sesquicentennial
www.ncwbts150.com
"The Official Website of the North Carolina WBTS Sesquicentennial Commission"

This was a man.

North Carolina Patriots of ’61 – General Thomas F. Toon of Columbus County

Born on June 10, 1840 in Columbus County, Thomas Fentress Toon was a farmer prior to attending Wake Forest College, rising to the senior class at that school when he joined the Columbus Guards No. 2 on May 20, 1861. He returned to Wake Forest to graduate in June 1861 and then rejoined his company.

The Columbus Guards had been raised in Columbus County and assigned to Company K of the 20th North Carolina. Toon mustered in as a private, elected lieutenant on June 18th, then captain to rank from July 22nd. A fellow captain in the regiment was his kinsman William H. Toon of Bladen County, who eventually rose to lieutenant-colonel of the regiment.

Shot by the enemy twice in 1862, he would end the war wounded a total of seven times and fought with conspicuous gallantry at Seven Pines, the Seven Days Campaign, South Mountain and Fredericksburg. Toon was elected colonel of the regiment on February 26, 1863 when his seniors in rank waived their own rights to promotion.

He led the 20th North Carolina Regiment during Stonewall Jackson's famous flank attack at Chancellorsville and was shot three times while leading his regiment through what he later described as "a perfect storm of shells and a mist of minie balls." He later returned to duty and sustained wounds twice more before the end of the war.

His regiment was heavily involved at Gettysburg from July 1-3, 1863, and his 20th North Carolina suffered horribly during the first day’s action with 65% casualties; and later the Mine Run Campaign and the bloody battles of the Wilderness and Spotsylvania. When General Robert D. Johnston (of Lincoln County) was wounded at Spotsylvania, Colonel Toon was promoted to the rank of brigadier general to date from May 31, 1864. He commanded the brigade during Gen. Jubal Early's Shenandoah Valley campaign and threatening advance on Washington City.

Toon received his last and most serious wound on March 25, 1865 during the assault on *Fort Stedman, near Petersburg. He was sent to a hospital in Greensboro, North Carolina on April 7th and recovered sufficiently to be present when General Joseph E. Johnston surrendered his army at the end of the month.

General Toon returned to Columbus County after the war and served as principal at Fair Bluff School. As a vocal advocate of public education in North Carolina, he was elected to the position of North Carolina Superintendent of Public Instruction in 1901. General Toon died in Raleigh on February 19, 1902, and is buried in that city in Oakwood Cemetery. Thomas F. Toon was honored with a State Historical Marker at Fair Bluff on August 26, 2000 by the North Carolina Sons of Confederate Veterans of Columbus County.

North Carolina Patriots of ’61 – General Thomas F. Toon

*The Attack On Fort Stedman, And (My Great Grandfather) Lest Darkness Fall Commemoration Of The Battle Of Fort Stedman/Fort Mahone

And just across the border…

Oleg Volk
Verbatim Post

A Californian living on the border with Arizona, Nevada or Oregon cannot legally buy a modern defensive rifle like an FAL or an AR15. His neighbors living just across the state lines in all the neighboring states can. Either Californians are all terribly untrustworthy, criminal and murderous or they are merely less free than their neighbors. Because criminals are already prohibited from buying or owning guns under federal law, so all the restrictions are on the law-abiding people who are not felons.

A resident of Illinois can look at the neighbors a few steps over the border with any neighboring state and know that they are able to carry sidearms legally. Either Illinoisans are all terribly untrustworthy, criminal and murderous or they are merely less free than their neighbors.

A person moving from New Jersey to the neighboring Pennsylvania pays lower taxes and gets so many civil rights back that the move feels like emigrating from the USSR. So we can safely conclude that residents of New Jersey are less free than their Western neighbors.

Having seen first-hand how much effort, time and risk my parents wagered on getting our family out of the USSR, I am at a loss why so few leave the oppressive, restrictive and overtaxed jurisdictions when the effort required to move is so much less. On the plus side, most people who live have more initiative and marketable skills than average, and so improve their new residences while their old locations decline further and further. The increase in geographic stratification is beginning to show, and hopefully illustrates why being more free is better than being less free.

The Fraudulent Strategy of Tolerance and Dialogue

Gates of Vienna
Verbatim Post

Back in October we posted an article about Sabatina James, a former Muslim who now lives in Germany and speaks out courageously on behalf of apostates.

The article below about Ms. James appeared a couple of weeks ago in Politically Incorrect. Many thanks to JLH for the translation:

Sabatina: “You Politically Correct Jornolists”
by Michael Stürzenberger
December 18, 2011

The latest edition of Der Spiegel offers Islam-critics a real treat: a four-page report on ex-Muslim Sabatina James who is known not to be reticent on the subject of the Most Peaceful of All Religions™. Editor Matthias Matussek — who until recently had a link to PI on his homepage — features the courageous woman, who is under permanent personal protection in Germany. She provoked him with the right words: “You will never publish something like this. You politically correct jornolists are too cowardly for that.”

She was referring to her portfolio of horror pictures of beheaded Christians. Matussek describes them as “splatter photos from the hot zone of the battle of faiths in the 21st century.” Of course, he did not publish any of these pictures — that might make the negative popular opinion even worse, and even this most Islam-critical author of Der Spiegel is not up to that. For the rest, however, his article offers several tough-as-nails comments by the attractive woman from Pakistan, who gives a merciless accounting of her former religion. She has decisively turned away from Allah and the Prophet, of which her father said:

“Anyone who turns her back on our faith has earned death.”

Since then, she has been on the run. From her own family and any possible commissioned Muslim murderers. Despite this permanent threat, she fights on undeterred and continues to explain things Besides that, she promotes Christianity, whose message of loving your neighbor seems to have pervaded her. She is “on a mission,” as noted by the village minister who baptized her.

Matussek also cites pamphlets in which Sabatina puts the following provocative questions to German and Austrian citizens:

“What would you do if leaving the Church was punished with death?”

“How much tolerance would you have, if someone was going to kill your children because they have Christian given names?”

All of this can be read on the first double page of the fascinating Spiegel article. But it gets better: She calls Islam “religious fascism.” “German understanding” for this totalitarian ideology she calls “blind.” For her, the only “sensible politician” in this country is Family Minister Kristina Schröder, who, revealingly, had a link to PI on her homepage in 2007 and 2008. The estimate of 3,000 forced marriages published by Schröder is “ten times” what Sabatina estimates. Commenting trenchantly on Mrs. Merkel’s silence:

And the chancellor says nothing about being ashamed that such a thing is happening in Germany.

She coldly sloughs off the Turkish prime minister, who in all seriousness offers Germany his “help” in this matter”

“Erdogan of all people. Every third woman in Turkey is forcibly married. State president Gül married his wife when she was 15. Before he helps, Erdogan ought to see that no Christians are being killed in Turkey.”

This appears on pages 140 and 141 of the Der Spiegel edition that is available today.

At this time, Sabatina James is in demand among church organizations. At the beginning of October, the Catholic Sunday Paper for Germany published a cover story with quite a few tough quotations.

Last Wednesday she was the invited speaker at the Benedictine Foundation in Munich. This foundation does not wish to make a public impression of being Islam-critical. A caller who would have liked to attend the presentation was told, “We are pro-Islamic.” It was “unfortunately a closed group” to which no outside attendees were invited. There could be no better description of the double standard of such Catholic organizations. They know very well the danger of Islam, but do not wish to express this publicly — out of fear, because of political correctness, or in deference to the fraudulent strategy of tolerance and dialogue. At any rate, they listened to what Sabatina James had to say. Later, they will not be able to maintain that they “knew nothing about it.”

Obama As Marxist

Via Billy

Revised History
Verbatim Post

by Al Benson Jr.

Since shortly after his election, I have contended that Barack Obama was a Marxist. Some commentators have labeled him a socialist, but not as many as should have. Mostly, with what we refer to as the :”news” media, his leftist politics gets a pass. They didn’t expose him during his election campaign and they will seek to cover up any allegations dealing with his Marxism as the ranting of “low-level terrorists and right-wing extremists.” One writer, in a paper in Illinois put forth the assertion that Obama was not a socialist but a centrist. if you can honestly look at his actions and his associations and label him a centrist you really have blinders on. Welcome to the land of Polyanna.

There has been a small handful of folks out there that have sought to warn the populace about his Marxism but they have been mostly shut out. After all, Obama was the “dream candidate,” the “candidate for hope and change” and so no one wanted to hear anything “negative” about him–and what the media knew they were not about to reveal. So the American electorate, fat, dumb and bemused with “Reality shows” on television, elected a Marxist as president and most of them still don’t realize it. Most of them don’t even know what a Marxist is. They can tell you (by reading the supermarket tabloids) who slept with who last week and who is breaking up with who this week, but the leftist political views of the man they elected president is something that is way over their heads. Mind you, it’s not that they are apathetic, it’s just that they don’t know and they don’t care.

One of those that has been trying to warn the public about Obama’s Marxism is a man named John Drew. Bet you never heard of him. The media is not too keen on giving him and coverage, so that’s not by accident. Mr. Drew is an award-winning political scientist who earned his Ph.D. from Cornell and has taught political science and economics at Williams College.

He recently wrote an article for http:www.americanthinker.com in which he stated: “I had been a leader of the Marxist students at Occidental College myself, starting in 1976 when I formed the precursor of the Democrat Socialist Alliance on campus. The young Obama I knew was a Marxist socialist who would have been quite comfortable with Communist Party members like his Hawaii mentor Frank Marshall Davis, retired domestic terrorists like Bill Ayres, or active socialist politicians like Illinois State Senator Alice Palmer.” Here is a man who knew Obama in college when they were both Marxists. Isnt it interesting that no one who was supposedly looking for information on Obama’s college days ever found this man?

Mr. Drew further continued: “When I talked politics with the young Obama, he expressed a profound commitment to bringing about a socialist economic system in the U.S….which would occur in his lifetime, through a potentially violent Communist-style revolution. In this context, I saw my report on young Obama as a key piece of evidence suggesting a profound continuity in his belief system.”

On another blog spot a writer sought to take Mr. Drew to task for not passing this information along until Obama was almost through the first term of his presidency (let’s hope his first term is his last). Mr. Drew responded: “I tried to get my story into the mainstream media in 2008. I left e-mails for Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly. I posted all about young Obama’s Marxist ideology at the NYT The Caucus Blog Site. I tried contacting the Swift Boat people.” It seems that many of the mainstream “conservatives” were just not that interested in a Democratic presidential candidate that was a Marxist. Unfortunately, if you stop to reflect on it, this tells us a lot about where the leadership of the “conservative” movement is really at. And it doesn’t seem to be where the average American conservative thinks it is. The shabby way the “conservative” leadership is treating Ron Paul is ample evidence of that. What they really want in the White House is another establishment (RINO) Republican–another big government “conservative” and if they can’t get that they’d rather have Obama back than Ron Paul. They realize that Obama is a proponent of big government just like they are.

I have mentioned in a previous article http://www.theobamafile.com which deals with Obama’s Marxist background. The author of that file wrote: “Barack Obama was born of Marxists; mentored by a communist writer and activist; spent his college days hanging around radical activists; worked as a radical community organizer, learning the radical tactics of the communist, Saul Alinsky; attended a radical church; was introduced to Chicago politics by a communist in the home of another communist…and had radicals working on his campaign and in his administration. The fact is, Obama has been around Marxists, of one kind of another, since the age of 12.” So what else can you expect out of him but what you’re getting? There are 93 pages of documentation in the Obama File detailing Obama’s Marxist and socialist activities and associations. I would invite any skeptics to check it out on the Internet. It’s probably one of the reasons Obama wants to cencor the Internet, so this kind of documentation will be unavailable to anyone checking out his background.

Still another blogger commented “How Obama ever got elected is beyond me. It’s more than just the media covering up for him, it’s the pure laziness of the electorate…” This man may have a valid point about the laziness of the electorate. How many voters today are willing to do the homework to find out who these candidates really are and where they are coming from? It’s much easier just to go to the polls and pull the lever down that you’ve been told to pull down. That is consistent with the public school educations of most people today–jus go and do what you’re told like a good little socialist robot. Don’t think and don’t ask too many questions–a nation of programmed sheep!

Well folks, for those of you who have computers, there is lots of material out there now that will tell you about Obama and his Marxist background and proclivities, so don’ t take my word for it. Check it out for yourself. Do a Google search on Obama/Marxist and see what you come up with.

J. P. Morgan on Lincoln

Via Billy

"I supported President Lincoln. I believed his war policy would be the only way to save the country, but I see my mistake. I visited Washington a few weeks ago and I saw the corruption of the present Administration and so long as Abraham Lincoln and his Cabinet are in power, so long will the war continue, and for what? For the preservation of the Constitution of the Union? No! But for the sake of politicians and governmental contractors."

-- J. P. Morgan (April 17, 1837 - March 31, 1913), American financier and banker

Link

J. P. Morgan on Lincoln

Washington’s “Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians”

Via midnightrider, L&P

It is that time of year again: Time for the Judicial Watch annual roster of Washington’s “Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians.” The purpose of the list, which is widely distributed in the press, is to put the spotlight on some of DC’s most unethical politicians who have undermined the rule of law and abused the public trust. This list is a powerful tool to educate Americans about the bipartisan problem of corruption in Washington and about Judicial Watch’s critical work in holding corrupt politicians accountable to the rule of law.

The “Top Ten” list for 2011, in alphabetical order, includes: Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL); Former Senator John Ensign (R-NV); Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL); Attorney General Eric Holder; Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL); President Barack Obama; Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA); Rep. Don Young (R-AK); Rep. Laura Richardson (D-CA); and Rep. David Rivera (R-FL).

Now, after reviewing the year’s top scandals, we just could not stop at ten corrupt politicians so we’ve added seven additional names in a category we call “Dishonorable Mentions.” And they include in alphabetical order: Former Senator John Edwards (D-NC); Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA); Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA); Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano; Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA); Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY); Rep. Hal Rogers (R-KY) Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius.

Now the list below, remember, is in alphabetical order

MORE

Jan 13 Ed Bearss 1862 Valley Campaign

The best book I've read on this is Stonewall Jackson's Valley Campaign, Shenandoah 1862 by Peter Cozzens

PENDER CIVIL WAR

ROUNDTABLE

310 East Baker St.

Tarboro, NC 27886

We all are awaiting the arrival of Ed Bearss for his words on the 1862 War in the Valley. The loyal Confederates confront and attack the hapless Federal armies and make a legend of General Thomas Jackson in the Valley. Ed will lead us through the major events. Bearss has what might best be called a battlefield voice, a kind of booming growl, like an ancient wax-cylinder record amplified to full volume—about the way you'd imagine Teddy Roosevelt charging up San Juan Hill.

Jan 13 Ed Bearss 1862 Valley Campaign, Feb 23 Antietam Discussion, March 27 Randy Watkins Petersburg, April 26 Sam Craghead Shenandoah, May 24 Donny Taylor Bentonville, June 28 Chris Grimes NC River forts

Good mornin 'NC..................

One step out of the sound booth, after near a liter of KY. Bourbon DeLuxe and about 18 TX. Shiner Bock beers, the last vocal track for the new CD is laid down in the early mornin' hours, ......can ya tell the smile on this ole illannoy breed is genuine? Hope so cause it is...........photo by Pam

T

Professor David Blight Teaches Us Something

I would say, he admitted something.:) Sit down and read a Yankee admit that is was not all about slavery!:) Just love it.

Old Virginia Blog
Verbatim Post

Though I don't think its quite what he intended. I'll explain later on in this post. I've responded here before to Yale History Professor and Civil War scholar David Blight's essays. (See here.) Any objective reader will notice that Blight's tone and approach to Civil War history is becoming increasingly partisan and political. There's also an edgy, frustrated, and condescending element in some of his essays. I'll be the first to defend his right to take that approach, but let's not pretend he's playing the part of an "objective historian" simply analyzing history. And I'm not the only one to notice. Professor Blight surrendered any right to that claim with his very public 2008 endorsement of Barack Obama for President. This public political endorsement was signed by a number of well known academics "as historians." It is quite the juvenile read.

In one of his recent Sesquicentennial essays, Blight succumbs to his liberal political leanings and uses the WBTS to support his political views. In a Kansas City Star piece titled, The Civil War at 150: The Past in the Present? Blight makes the following "observation":

The conservative movement in America, or at least its most radical wing, seems determined to repeal much of the 20th century and even its constitutional and social roots from the transformative 1860s. The Civil War is not only not over, it can still be lost.

Read more here: http://civilwar150.kansascity.com/articles/civil-war-150-past-present/#storylink=cpy

The conservative movement in America, or at least its most radical wing, seems determined to repeal much of the 20th century and even its constitutional and social roots from the transformative 1860s. The Civil War is not only not over, it can still be lost.

That's right. Professor Blight believes that the Civil War is still being fought. It's not the first time he's stated that a separate nation still exists and is in a state of "war" with the rest of the nation. In a piece published in 2010 after Virginia's Confederate History month controversy, Blight asked, "Why doesn't the Confederacy just fade away?" Uh, I believe it did - that would have occurred in 1865 for you non-Civil War buffs. (As already noted, I responded to that piece here.)

(Before you read the rest of my post analyzing Blight's more recent Past in the Present article, I recommend you read that piece in it's entirety here.)

As in the 2010 piece, Blight expresses his dismay as to why so many people find the Confederacy interesting:

Why is the Confederacy, a mere four-year experiment in revolution to preserve a slaveholding society, still so interesting to so many people?

As you will see, Blight's incorrect and overly-simplistic summation about the reason for the "revolution" is actually refuted - by his own words. But he is right about Americans' fascination with the Confederacy. I've mentioned a number of anecdotal evidences of this in the past. In one of those posts, I made an observation about this fascination as it relates to most of the Civil War magazines. You can read that post - Are "Lost Causers" Funding America's Civil War? - here and a post related to the cultural aspect of this fascination here.

In both the 2010 piece, as well as the more recent one, Professor Blight seems rather frustrated with the preeminence of the study of, and fascination with, the Confederacy. I detect more than a hint of jealousy and resentment. Yes, even historians have their preferences and preferred perspectives. Both Robert Krick and James Roberston have made note of this reality. (Also see this post.) Professor Robertson once commented on this in an interview when asked about the competing perspectives between some Civil War scholars:

'The majority are Pro-Union. The overwhelming majority [of scholars] are Pro-Union, yes. We southerners are in the minority."

Noted Civil War historian Robert K. Krick has also made mention of the "overwhelming" bias of Civil War scholars. I heard him refer to "anti-Confederate" historians in more than one conference I attended where he was one of the speakers. So, there is this "friction" of perspectives when analyzing the War Between the States. I think what frustrates academics like Blight is that his perspective, for the most part, is falling on deaf ears among many, if not most, Americans. They're simply not getting "their" message out as much as they'd like, or as much as they think they should - this despite the fact that Blight's perspective (as pointed out by James Robertson and Robert Krick) dominates academia. That does have to be rather frustrating. Thus, the questions asked in an almost whining, pleading tone, "Why doesn't the Confederacy just fade away?" and "Why is the Confederacy . . . still so interesting to so many people?" (Other CW bloggers have noticed Blight's obsession in regards to America's fascination with the "Lost Cause" and Confederate history - see Dimitri Rotov's post here.) As I've already opined, I think Blight's piece is more politics than history. Blight weds his disdain for the Confederacy with his disdain for modern conservative politics. And, as I've already noted, I'm not the only one to come to that conclusion. The Star's ombudsman received more than one complaint about Blight's article. One reader commented:

He's letting his personal politics make him oblivious to an obvious fact, and I don't care if you want to dismiss that as a tea party thing or not. ... The political commentary was unneeded in an otherwise excellent package of information . . .

Another expressed this criticism:

Why did The Star feel that his view was so important that if be [sic] featured in the front section and not in the editorials where it belonged? I think in the interest of fairness, it was improperly placed. I also think that a conservative academic with an understanding of history different from that of Mr. Blight would not be placed in such prominence in the Star.

Ah yes, the general public is much more astute at sniffing out the leftist political leanings of many academic historians than most in the profession realize. Many academics truly believe that the majority of Americans buy their claim to objectivity and superiority. That arrogant, false self-confidence is part of the reason for their diminishing respect and, in my opinion, why they are having difficulty convincing the masses. But I digress. In the The Past in the Present piece, Blight expressed this opinion:

Indeed, yesterday’s secessionists and today’s nullifiers have much in common. Both are distinct minorities who have suddenly seized an inordinate degree of power.

Blight is, of course, referring to conservative Republicans like Rick Perry and other state officials who are becoming increasingly unhappy and frustrated with the federal government's overreach. But Professor Blight appears to be ignorant for calls of secession from his end of the political spectrum.

He's letting his personal politics make him oblivious to an obvious fact, and I don't care if you want to dismiss that as a tea party thing or not. ... The political commentary was unneeded in an otherwise excellent package of information,

Read more here: http://adastrum.kansascity.com/?q=node/1261#storylink=cpyIn Blight's piece, he goes on to tie modern political arguments to the Civil War. If he consciously made an effort to appear objective, he failed. For example, Blight writes: Indeed, yesterday’s secessionists and today’s nullifiers have much in common. Both are distinct minorities who have suddenly seized an inordinate degree of power.Blight is, of course, referring to conservative Republicans like Rick Perry and other state officials who are becoming increasingly unhappy and frustrated with the federal government's overreach. But Professor Blight appears to be ignorant for calls of secession from his side of the political spectrum.

Speaking on ‘The McLaughlin Group’ the weekend after George W. Bush’s victory, panelist Lawrence O’Donnell, a former Democratic Senate staffer, noted that blue states subsidize the red ones with their tax dollars, and said, "The big problem the country now has, which is going to produce a serious discussion of secession over the next 20 years, is that the segment of the country that pays for the federal government is now being governed by the people who don’t pay for the federal government." A shocked Tony Blankley asked him, "Are you calling for civil war?" To which O’Donnell replied, "You can secede without firing a shot."

The above quote is from Salon Magazine, 16 November 2004. And there's more. Bob Beckel who was, at the time, a senior political analyst for Fox News and who has also worked as a Democratic Party strategist and consultant, made the following comments after the 2004 election:

"I think now that slavery is taken care of, I’m for letting the South form its own nation. Really, I think they ought to have their own confederacy," Mr. Beckel said on the "Fox and Friends” program.

The above quote is from the Washington Times, 9 November 2004. That's not all Professor Blight conveniently overlooked. There was the "Let's Ditch Dixie" piece that appeared in Slate Magazine after the 2000 election. That piece included these comments:

The United States doesn't have to refight the Civil War to set matters right. Rather, North and South should simply follow the example of the Czech Republic and Slovakia: Shake hands, says it's been real, and go their separate ways. And if the South isn't inclined to leave anytime soon, then we should show them the door by seceding unilaterally.

And . . .

Economically and socially, secession will be painless for the North. The South is a gangrenous limb that should have been lopped off decades ago." [How nice. Shows what many elites really think about Southerners, doesn't it?]

The author of the Slate piece was Mark Strauss, not someone who could be easily dismissed as some left-wing, hack-blogger. (Left-wing, yes. Hack, no.) He's a journalist and senior editor at Smithsonian Magazine and has written for a number of other left-leaning publications including The Washington Post and The New Republic.

And perhaps Professor Blight is unaware that he endorsed a secessionist for President in 2008. Freehawaii.org notes that, "In 1993 the 103rd Congress unanimously signed into Public Law the Apology Bill. America publicly admitted to illegally overthrowing its ally and trading partner the Sovereign Kingdom of Hawaii and falsely imprisoning the beloved Queen Liliuokalani. Since then, America, has done everything it can to avoid the consequences of this Bill. The inevitable result will be the restoration of a sovereign Hawaii."

The official 2008 Democratic Party platform (which President Obama supported) reads:

"We support the efforts for self-determination and sovereignty of native Hawaiians, consistent with principles enumerated in the Apology Resolution and the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act."

Sounds like secession to me. I suppose, in Professor Blight's mind, its ok to call for secession if you're a leftist, but not ok if you're a conservative. Interesting logic.

And, of course, Blight finds it necessary to default to the lowest common denominator and suggest that anyone who disagrees with his leftist ideology is a racist.

Both [modern conservatives and the Confederacy) claim their mantle of righteousness in the name of “liberty,” privatization and racial exclusion (one openly, the other using code that keeps it largely a white people’s party). Both vehemently claim the authority of the “Founders.”

Really? "Racial exclusion"? Hmmm . . . I suppose Alan West, Herman Cain, Nikki Haley, Bobby Jindal, Marco Rubio, and a whole host of others didn't get that memo. Blight should be ashamed. Blight then goes on to a laundry list of "accomplishments", ostensibly due to the Civil War and the subsequent increase in federal power. Some of the items are, indeed, accomplishments - others, not so much. Social Security is bankrupt - not exactly what actuaries would call a success. And Blight was careful in what he listed. He also left out bankrupt medicare, the nation's overall bankrupt status, our "wise" government banning light bulbs based on hocus-pocus, politically driven "science", disastrous wars abroad, the gross negligence and failure of our public school system, our Indian reservation debacle, etc, etc, etc. With few excpetions, its the states where the real success stories lie, not with the far off, out of touch bureacrats in Washington. Sorry Professor, but that is soooo 1930's. Just ask the old Soviet Union and modern Europe. Centralization just doesn't work out so well in the long run. It's smothering and restricts liberty. History proves it.

Blight's frustration with conservatives and their rejection of "big government" - as it relates to his perspective on the WBTS - must be all that more annoying for him in light of a recent Gallup poll which found that Americans' fear of big government near an all-time high.

The 64% of Americans who say big government will be the biggest threat to the country is just one percentage point shy of the record high . . .

It would appear that most Americans aren't sold on all the benefits of a large federal government which Professor Blight seems to be so enamored with. Another message from academia that just ain't selling. These two things has to be driving academia crazy: fascination with the Confederacy and an overwhelming fear of big government.

Professor Blight concludes with this paragraph:

The Civil War is not only not over, it can still be lost. As the sesquicentennial ensues in publishing and conferences and on television and countless websites, one can hope that we will pursue matters of legacy and memory with one eye on the past and the other acutely on the present.

The title of this post is about what Professor Blight is teaching us. I think you can come to your own conclusion based on my comments above, but there's also the obvious conclusion that can be drawn from Blight's last paragraph, as well as his other comments (and even Beckel's): And that is these folks really do know deep down that the American Civil War was over much more than just slavery. They've admitted it - whether they intended to or not. After all, slavery in America was abolished almost 150 years ago but, according to Professor Blight and others, we're still fighting the war over the same political issues. Thus, the American Civil War was over much more than just slavery. What other conclusion could one possibly draw?

Indeed, yesterday’s secessionists and today’s nullifiers have much in common. Both are distinct minorities who have suddenly seized an inordinate degree of power.

Read more here: http://civilwar150.kansascity.com/articles/civil-war-150-past-present/#storylink=cpy

W

Snowmobile hill climb crash (GoPro camera)

Roundabout via Cousin Bill

Tarboro restaurant named to the “top 100 best” list

Goodness, our laid back Southern town of 12K.

On the Square, a Tarboro restaurant owned by Inez (a Tarboro native), and Tom Ribustillo, has been designated one of the top 100 eateries in the United States. According to the website for the San Francisco Business Times, the “top 100” were located in 34 states. North Carolina and California tied for first place, with ten restaurants each on the list.

MORE

The Larry Kroger Award for Most Promising Newcomer:

Congratulations TL, Sir. Sometimes we think we're hammering a wall, then lo and behold.

TL In Exile and BS Footprint (tie)

The moment you've been waiting for is here.

The votes are in. The anxious nominees' fingernails have been chewed down to the quick. And at least one blogger just excused himself to go to the bathroom (number two, apparently).

So we're more than pleased to announce the winners of the 2011 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards, the most prestigious new media awards in the conservative blogosphere. Or, at the very least, in the 993 area code.

These awards recognize a variety of blogs and websites operating in the conservative hemisphere of the Internet, all of which have worked tirelessly to protect America from Statism -- some in very unique ways.

So, without further ado, may I have the envelopes, please?

MORE

So Who Is Behind The Ron Paul Attacks?

Via Billy

GINGRICH’S NEOCON THINK TANK BEHIND RON PAUL ATTACKS )

The US State Dept funds a group called the FDD – Foundation for Defense of Democracies. This is a neocon think-tank where the Ron Paul attacks are originating. Specifically from a guy named James Kirchick. And guess who’s an advisor at FDD? Newt Gingrich.

google: Gingrich Skulking Behind Ron Paul Attacks

Source: http://www.activistpost.com

Gingrich a “Distinguished Advisor” at Think-Tank Where Ron Paul Attacks Originated. Tony Cartalucci, Contributing Writer

Activist Post

GOP presidential contender Newt Gingrich, a corporate-financier sponsored Council on Foreign Relations member also was a “distinguished advisor” at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD), a warmongering, Neo-Con think-tank and the architects of both the costly unending wars America has been fighting for the last 2 decades and the resulting war profiteering. The FDD is also the same think-tank from which attacks against Ron Paul are being launched via FDD “fellow” James Kirchick.

MORE

Police is real smart

I was told that your GT score was the same as your IQ, but my GT was 136 and my IQ was 118 unless your IQ can rise over the years, but I've heard that isn't so. My mother sent me to *Dr. Morgan to have my IQ tested at 12 because of my horrible grades in school, but he said that I wasn't stupid, just lazy!:)

* The Dr. Morgan who went with his daughter and her child to Australia to prevent the child being taken by the father. I sent him a letter where he was staying at a motel there and we corresponded for awhile. A true gentleman.

Vox Popoli
Verbatim Post

I'd always suspected as much, but now we know with certainty:

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upheld a lower court’s decision that the city did not discriminate against Robert Jordan because the same standards were applied to everyone who took the test.

“This kind of puts an official face on discrimination in America against people of a certain class,” Jordan said today from his Waterford home. “I maintain you have no more control over your basic intelligence than your eye color or your gender or anything else.”

He said he does not plan to take any further legal action. Jordan, a 49-year-old college graduate, took the exam in 1996 and scored 33 points, the equivalent of an IQ of 125. But New London police interviewed only candidates who scored 20 to 27, on the theory that those who scored too high could get bored with police work and leave soon after undergoing costly training.

Most Cops Just Above Normal The average score nationally for police officers is 21 to 22, the equivalent of an IQ of 104, or just a little above average.

In other words, from my perspective, American police officers are quite literally retarded. Which, with a few exceptions, pretty much corresponds with my experience. However, in light of this, I may have to rethink my estimate of public school teachers as averaging 90 IQ. That might be overly generous.

Anyhow, it's not exactly a mystery why the police are so willing to completely disregard the U.S. Constitution as they go about performing their "duties". Chances are they haven't read it, and if they've read it, they haven't understood it. Nor has anyone troubled to teach it to them.

A Dangerous Man

The Excavator

The publisher of the New Hampshire Union Leader said that "Ron Paul is a dangerous man."

He's right, and he's wrong. Ron Paul is dangerous, but in the same way the American founding fathers were dangerous. He is an incorruptible, tenacious, and principled fighter in freedom's corner. The thugs and tyrants in Washington are right to fear him and call him dangerous.

Peace and freedom are dangerous notions to the war criminals in Washington and Tel Aviv, and to the media maggots who shamelessly defend them in the establishment media. According to these undeclared enemies of America and freedom, we must all accept endless war and permanent slavery like slaves.

But not all of us wish to be slaves. Some of us are dangerous because we think for ourselves rather than blindly trust our hijacked and fascist governments.

Dr. Paul should be dangerous to those in power who fear justice and truth and hate to see the U.S. constitution restored. He is a rebellious, moral, and courageous American with a huge global following. It is obvious why such a remarkable man is unfairly smeared as a racist, isolationist, and conspiracy theorist.

But he is none of these things. Dr. Paul is a genuine American hero and revolutionary, not a dangerous racist.

The new world order cabal's only option against Dr. Paul is a smear campaign. They are out of bullets. They have to wage a useless media war and try in vain to neutralize him by destroying his good name because it would not look well if the shadow CIA assassinated him.

But since everybody anticipated the media onslaught against Dr. Paul after the ludicrous media blackout, it has not been effective. There is no surprise element in the newsletter-racism smear. 2012 isn't an exact repeat of 2008. The tricks and smears have lost their poisonous sting. The American people have not been swayed by the media's hateful and dishonest smear campaign against Dr. Paul.

Dr. Paul has what puppet Obama and the Republican retards do not: the love of the American people. Yes, love. It is a powerful force in politics. Don't underestimate a people's love for a good, old doctor who has the best interests of his country, and humanity, at heart.

In a sane and normal world, Ron Paul should be awarded a Nobel Peace prize for his tireless efforts to build a strong bridge of friendship and respect between America and the rest of the world.

But we don't live in a sane and normal world. We live in an insane and abnormal world, that's why evil warmakers like Barack Obama are given Nobel Prizes while peacemakers like Ron Paul are smeared as racists, isolationists, and conspiracy theorists.

It is a shame that the liars and sycophants in the American state media are attacking the only man in the 2012 presidential race who desires to save America from national bankruptcy and a catastrophic world war in the Middle East.

But we should not be mad at these media maggots. Petty pawns do not deserve our righteous anger. Our fight for freedom and peace is against the evil eye of power, not the worthless and shameless scum who are slaves to it.

Indentured Servitude

There will be, in the coming months, the opportunity for the Supreme Court to look out upon the landscape of America and decide whether or not the government has obsolute power over the individual. The Court will rule on the individual mandate required of the healthcare law derisively called Obamacare.

What are the chances that the Court will decide in the people's favor? The Court does not see us as individuals capable of exerting any political pressure at all. They are comfortable in their roles as some form of extra-governmental majesties. Theirs is a world where their decisions are final and complete. There is no means of reversal, or appeal. Their word, more than any other governing body, is law.

Ask yourself if they really want to start undoing that fact. What could possibly induce them to recognize the power of the individual over the state? They are as much the federal government as any bureaucrat, and yes, there are a few of the Constitutional persuasion among them, we know their names, but the others are not. The key is Justice Kennedy, a moderate and a big government type who understands his place as the moderator, the decision-maker among decision makers. It is his and really his alone to make this judgment.

And so, after a few hundred years, we are really no further removed from King George III than were our forefathers.

MORE

Famous Urinals I Have Known

Note: Ron Unz, an internet friend of mine and publisher of The American Conservative, has by years of programming created a site, Unz.org in which, among other things, he has scanned and made searchable back issues of magazines, many no long extant, till slightly before the Big Bang. For hisorians, it has got to be like Fort Knox, only better. For the rest of us, just lotsa fun. Give it a shot if so disposed.

It was getting late in Ajijic when Vi and I headed for the Camaleon. The narrow streets were empty and somber. Gringos do not go out as much as they once did now that the narco wars have reached the town.

Light and music poured from the door. For some reason I thought of what the country must have been like in 1900, a wilder and cruder time with dirt streets and few people. Not much law, less schooling, raw tequila and suchlike bust-head in adobe cantinas, horses, guns, and rattlesnakes. Not a great world, but I would love to have seen it.

We took our usual table next to the fireplace. It is seldom lit. When it gets really hellishly cold here, you might need a light sweater. We ordered drinks and I wondered at the strangeness of life. (I know, I'm the only one who has ever done that.) I mean, what am I doing with an exotic Mexican woman in a town in Jalisco? (The exotic part is absurd, but I like saying it.) I communicated this to Vi. She responded that I wasn't exactly what she had expected when she was fifteen either.

MORE

Winchesters, Lugers, Smith and Wesson, Colts, Antique Guns, Modern Guns, Firearms, Swords, Ammunition, Militaria

Via Cousin John

JoeSalter.com — DownEastAntiques.com

Confederate Items

Displaying 16 items.

Item	Description	Price	Details	Buy
10527	The Forlorn Hope, Rappahannock River	$195.00
11591	Arming the Glorious Cause	$45.00
12552	Louis Froelich Arms Maker To the Confederacy	$59.95
13997	Unidentified & Unmarked Confederate Bayonet	$1095.00
14054	Book The Tailahassee Skipper	$30.00
14290	Slave Rental Receipt	$750.00
15613	M-1860 Spencer Rifle w/ Original Sling & Bayonet	$4995.00
17152	Boyle & Gamble Confederate Staff And Field Sword	$3995.00
17937	Cut Down US Musket Possible Confederate	$495.00
18162	Lot (5) U.S. Civil War Books	$125.00
18392	Confederate Carbines & Musketoons Book	$80.00
18414	British Pattern 1860 Bayonet	$495.00
18655	Confederate Revolvers Book	$100.00
18667	British Pattern 1853 Commercial Rifled Musket	$995.00
18882	The Big Guns Book	$80.00
6485	Sharps New Model Saddle Ring Carbine M. 1863	$1495.00

Occupiers kicked out of Iowa coffee shop

Via The Blaze

New High: 48% Say Most Members of Congress Are Corrupt

Evidently the majority of Americans are stupid.

The belief that politicians use their office for personal gain is growing.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 48% of Likely U.S. Voters believe that most members of Congress are corrupt. Just 28% disagree, and another 24% are not sure. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

The Blue Danube

Via Brother Henry

HERE

Auld Lang Syne