“I have reviewed in these pages several books that address the War Between the States—its onset, and its aftermath—and Jeff Paulk’s new book may be the most impressive of these. Mr. Paulk is Oklahoma Division Commander of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, and his book consists of no less than 387 letters, written over the course of 17 years, along with 7 essays. It is Paulk’s unflagging persistence that makes his book so impressive. He is a fighter for truth and justice who never gives up, no matter how unfavorable the chances of success seem to be.” - The Mises Institute’s David Gordon on Defending Southern Heritage

Dear Hillsdale College, 3/12/18

I take exception to your following statement:

“The second crisis was the crisis over slavery that culminated in the Civil War.”

Good grief people. If you are going to attempt to teach history, at least get it right and don’t swallow the Marxist rewritten version which has been shoved down our throats for 150+ years. Slavery was NOT the cause of the “Civil War”, and there has NEVER been a civil war in America. Two independent countries were fighting; the South was fighting an illegal invasion which was forcing it to pay excessive and unconstitutional tariffs, and for its independence. The North was fighting to force the South back into the union to subjugate it and plunder its natural resources. You need to read the Corwin Amendment and the Crittenden-Johnson Resolution, both of which prove the War was not about slavery. I give you a quote from “Truths of History”, by Mildred Lewis Rutherford, page 14, “Simon Cameron, Lincoln’s Secretary of War, wrote to General Butler in New Orleans: ’President Lincoln desires the right to hold slaves to be fully recognized. The war is prosecuted for the Union, hence no question concerning slavery will arise’. “

Had the North not invaded, there would have been no war. The North was not on some glorious moral crusade to “end slavery”, and neither was the South fighting to protect and perpetuate slavery. If it was about slavery, then I ask you this; why did the North not free the more than 420,000 slaves remaining in the union AFTER the Southern states had seceded? You can’t be fighting to free slaves from someone else while keeping them in bondage in your own country. Also, why was West Virginia allowed to join the union on the condition it could keep its slaves? (West Virginia was illegally and unconstitutionally formed).

The reason we are seeing all this cultural genocide against all things Southern and Confederate is due to the fact that the truth about our history is not taught. Marxist lies, half truths, and propaganda have been spewing from the “authorities” in academia since the War ended. For your educational enlightenment, I shall send you one of my free True History CDs for you to read. It will take you a long time. There is a lot of truth in it that is not taught in the government indoctrination centers or the Marxist universities. I had planned on taking your free course on the Constitution, but you can’t even get the War of Northern Aggression right, so why should I trust that you have it right concerning the Constitution? As long as you are “carrying water” for the Marxist agenda, I will not waste my time on any of your courses, and will post this on Face Book to get the word out concerning your position on the War.

Unreconstructed,

Jeff Paulk

Tulsa, OK

“Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, --a most sacred right--a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with , or near about them, who may oppose their movement. Such minority, was precisely the case, of the Tories of our own revolution.” --Abraham Lincoln, from the Congressional Record, Jan. 12, 1847 (Of course, Lincoln backed away from this view when faced with losing the revenues from the South.)

In his 1801 First Inaugural Address one of the first things Thomas Jefferson did was to support the right of secession. “If there be any among us who wish to dissolve the Union or to change its republican form,” the author of the Declaration of Independence said, “let them stand undisturbed, as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.”

“Nine out of ten people of the North,” Greeley wrote on February 5, 1861, “were opposed to forcing South Carolina to remain in the Union,” for “the great principle embodied by Jefferson in the Declaration . . . is that governments derive their just power from the consent of the governed.” Therefore, if the southern states wanted to secede, “they have a clear right to do so.”

“The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the States; and these, in uniting together, have not forfeited their Nationality, nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people. If one of the States chose to withdraw its name from the contract, it would be difficult to disprove its right of doing so…” -Alex de Tocqueville

After the election of Thomas Jefferson, the Federalist Party in New England was so upset that for more than ten years they plotted to secede. The party actually held a secession convention in Hartford, Connecticut, in 1814. Although they ultimately decided not to leave the Union, nobody really questioned the fundamental right of secession. In fact, the leader of the whole movement, Massachusetts Senator Timothy Pickering, said that secession was the principle of the American Revolution. Even John Quincy Adams, who was a staunch unionist, said in an 1839 speech about secession that in “dissolving that which can no longer bind, we would have to leave the separated parts to be reunited by the law of political gravitation to the center.” Likewise, Alexander Hamilton said, “to coerce the states is one of the maddest projects that was ever devised.” These men, and many others, understood that there was a right of secession, and that the federal government would have no right to force anybody to remain in the Union. (Charles Pitts)

“If you bring these leaders to trial, it will condemn the North, for by the Constitution, secession is not a rebellion. His [Jefferson Davis] capture was a mistake. His trial will be a greater one. We cannot convict him of treason.”-- Salmon P. Chase, Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, 1867

“With these qualifications we may admit the same right in the people of every state in the Union, with reference to the general government, which was exercised by the people of the colonies with reference to the supreme head of the British Empire, of which they formed a part; and under these limitations have the people of each state of the Union a right to secede from the Confederated Union itself.” -President John Q. Adams (Emphasis mine.)

“If any state in the union will declare that it prefers separation with the 1st alternative, to a continuance in union without it, I have no hesitation in saying, ‘Let us separate.’ I would rather the states should withdraw, which are for unlimited commerce & war, and confederate with those alone which are for peace & agriculture. I know that every nation in Europe would join in sincere amity with the latter, & hold the former at arm’s length by jealousies, prohibitions, restrictions, vexations & war.” (Letter from Jefferson to William Crawford, June 20, 1816)​

“Each state, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution.” -James Madison, Federalist No, 39, 1788

At the outbreak of the War for Southern Independence in 1861 the vast majority of Northern opinion leaders still believed that a right of secession was fundamental, and that the South should be allowed to go in peace. The abolitionist Horace Greeley, editor of the New York Daily Tribune and the preeminent journalist of his day, wrote on December 17, 1860 that “if tyranny and despotism justified the American Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861.” (Howard Perkins, Northern Editorials on Secession).

Most of the top military commanders in the war (on both sides) were educated at West Point, where the one course on the U.S. Constitution was taught by the Philadelphia abolitionist William Rawle, who taught from his own book, A View of the Constitution. What Ulysses S. Grant, Robert E. Lee, and others were taught about secession at West Point was that to deny a state the right of secession “would be inconsistent with the principle on which all our political systems are founded, which is, that the people have in all cases, a right to determine how they will be governed.” -by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

It is quite clear that those who call Confederates “traitors” (and some of them are supposedly well-educated people) have no idea what they are talking about. It matters not one iota to me how many letters a person has behind their name, because, in all probability, those letters and degrees came from some Marxist-spouting university that is filling young heads with mush and teaching them, if they are from the South, to be ashamed of their heritage and history.

The truth is on our side. All the opposition has in its ammunition box is blanks. Oh, there are some sharp cookies out there who can give a convincing argument, but they usually take things out of context, twist the truth, or just flat out lie.

Arm yourself with truth so that you can stand up against the arrows of the enemy.

“I have reviewed in these pages several books that address the War Between the States—its onset, and its aftermath—and Jeff Paulk’s new book may be the most impressive of these. Mr. Paulk is Oklahoma Division Commander of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, and his book consists of no less than 387 letters, written over the course of 17 years, along with 7 essays. It is Paulk’s unflagging persistence that makes his book so impressive. He is a fighter for truth and justice who never gives up, no matter how unfavorable the chances of success seem to be.” - The Mises Institute’s David Gordon on Defending Southern Heritage

The Honorable Michael Urbanski Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building One Columbus Circle NE Washington, DC 20002-8003

15 September, 2025

Dear Judge Urbanski,

Stonewall Jackson High School opened in 1960 and had this name until the liberal and historically ignorant Shenandoah Valley School Board changed it in 2020 to Mountain View High School, believing that doing so “sent a message condemning racism”, as you stated. This was in the aftermath of George Floyd’s death, when a plague of name changes and monument removals took place to erase Confederate names. Contrary to popular belief, Floyd was not murdered, but died by his own hand due to a drug overdose. But the Cultural Marxists seized this opportunity to do what they could to eliminate as much recognition of Confederate symbolism as they could, and we saw numerous Confederate monuments removed and destroyed, and with the help of fellow communist Senator Elizabeth Warren, who was instrumental in establishing the Naming (Shaming) Commission, military bases had their Confederate names removed, and the Reconciliation Memorial disappeared from Arlington National Cemetery. Fortunately, we are seeing a reversal in this movement, which is being corrected by President Trump and DOD Secretary Pete Hegseth.

General Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson was a devout Christian who not only bravely led his men against Lincoln’s illegal invasion of his homeland, but led a Sunday School for blacks, free and slave, at the Lexington Presbyterian Church in Lexington, Virginia. Jackson sought to elevate the black man through religion, literacy, and opportunity. This can hardly be seen by anyone as “racist”.

In 2024, the Shenandoah Valley School Board voted 5-1 to restore the name of this school to its former, and proper, name. Evidently, there must have been a much needed change in the board membership. This reversal has ignited heartburn in the historically ignorant who have been indoctrinated with the false narrative of “the war was all about slavery”. It is difficult to overcome 160 years of lies and propaganda which has been pushed by academia, the media, Hollywood, and politicians. It is difficult, but many of us who know the truth of our history are “pushing back” and trying to get the truth out there.

There seems to be an issue with black students attending any school named after a Confederate hero, yet I have neither seen nor heard of any similar issues concerning white children attending the 116 schools named after the communist tool, fraud, plagiarizer, rioter, and womanizer, Martin Luther King. It seems we have a huge double standard going on here. You cite the 1st Amendment rights of blacks, which has nothing to do with the name of a school, but do not offer the same consideration for white students who attend Martin Luther King, Jr. Middle School in Richmond, Virginia.

You seem to have an issue with the honoring of General Jackson’s legacy. A legacy of bravery, honesty, integrity, devotion to God and country, and teaching blacks about God, and how to read and write. I respectfully suggest that you back off of this issue and leave the school name alone.

Sincerely,

Jeff Paulk Oklahoma Division Commander Sons of Confederate Veterans

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.”

When the states freely acceded into the Union, they reserved the right to secede from it. Some states, like New York, stated,

“That the power of government may be resumed by the people whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness; that every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by the said constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the government thereof, remains to the people of the several States, or to their respective state governments, to whom they may have granted the same.”

Massachusetts stated,

“That it be explicitly declared, that all powers not expressly delegated by the aforesaid constitution, are reserved to the several States, to be by them exercised.”

The last paragraph of the Declaration of Independence states the following:

“That these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved of all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do.”

What did Abraham Lincoln have to say about secession in 1847?

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

It appears that he was for it before he was against it. Secession was taught at West Point (though the Yankees who control the internet will not admit to it) in a book by William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States.

Massachusetts threatened to secede several times and was never threatened with war for it to remain in the Union. New York threatened to secede also, and was never threatened with war to make it remain in the Union. Why, then, were the Southern States not allowed to secede peacefully? Those opposed to secession say, “Yes, but they only threatened to secede, they never actually did it.” Doesn’t matter. The use of force was never threatened against them to keep them in the Union. Everyone at that time knew secession was a legal option.

What did Thomas Jefferson have to say about secession?

“If any state in the union will declare that it prefers separation with the 1st alternative, to a continuance in union without it, I have no hesitation in saying, “Let us separate.” I would rather the states should withdraw, which are for unlimited commerce & war, and confederate with those alone which are for peace & agriculture. I know that every nation in Europe would join in sincere amity with the latter, & hold the former at arm’s length by jealousies, prohibitions, restrictions, vexations & war.” (Letter from Jefferson to William Crawford, June 20, 1816)​

The South was not allowed to leave peacefully because 85% of the federal revenues came from the South. The South was paying excessive tariffs to the North and getting very little in return, while the Northern industrialists, railroads, and banking were benefiting from the Southern tariffs. What does the Constitution say about taxes? Article I, Section 8; “but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.” In other words, you can’t tax one section of the country for the benefit of another section. Lincoln stated in his first inaugural address that the collection of the tariffs would continue “by force if necessary”. He made his threat of war with this statement. The South had 1/3 of the population, yet was shackled with 85% of the revenue payments. Besides this, for many years the South had been lied about and slandered in Northern newspapers and pulpits. The radical abolitionists wanted to violently put an end to slavery in the South. The South was hated by the socialists of the North, and the people of the South were looked upon as less than human. Yankees put all the blame for slavery upon the South, even though it was the New England slave trade that brought the slaves to the U.S., flying Old Glory high upon their ships loaded with human flesh. (Can you say “hypocrite”?)

The South had enough of this abuse and unfair treatment, so it exercised its right to secede and formed its own country. It seceded from the Union just as the original 13 colonies seceded from Great Britain. How can one call the Confederates traitors if they don’t consider our Founding Fathers to be traitors? They both did the same thing for the same reasons. They both exercised their right to be free from a tyrannical and overgrown government. Most of the North was in favor of letting the South go in peace, but Lincoln said, “Let them go? Let them go? Who will pay for the government?” After the war, some wanted to try Jefferson Davis and others for treason. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Salmon P. Chase said this could not be done. He said that if any Confederate was tried for treason, what had been won on the battlefield would be lost in the courtroom. It was well known that what the South had done was not illegal and did not violate the Constitution. It was Lincoln that violated the Constitution on numerous counts during his illegal war against the South. Lincoln’s greed and lust for power cost the lives of over 1,000,000 people in a needless war, counting disease and starvation. Money, greed, and power – that is what most wars are fought over. The War of Northern Aggression was no different. So, don’t fall for the lame statement from the other side that the South committed treason. It was Lincoln who committed treason. How? Let’s take a look at Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution:

“Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them (states), or adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”

Who called for 75,000 troops to invade the South? Who levied war against a people who only wanted to be left alone? “But”, you say, “the South was not part of the U.S. then because they had left.” Correct, BUT, Lincoln did not acknowledge their leaving and did not consider the Southern States to be out of the Union. He called it a “rebellion” that he was putting down. So, in his mind, he was attacking other states within the Union. And look what has become of this country post Appomattox. Lincoln implemented the big centralized government we are shackled with today. He destroyed the Republic of the Founders, and things have gone downhill since then. So don’t let anyone tell you that your Confederate ancestors were traitors. That title belongs to Lincoln and his army of terrorists.

Another point that needs to be made is this: If secession was “illegal”, why did Northern legislators try to amend the Constitution in order to make secession illegal?

“In the months before Lincoln’s inauguration, Representatives Daniel E. Sickles of New York, Thomas B. Florence of Pennsylvania, and Orris S. Ferry of Connecticut proposed constitutional amendments to prohibit secession. This would suggest that members of Congress understood at the time that secession was in fact constitutional; otherwise, why bother outlawing it? The proposals were testimonials to the truth of Chief Justice John Marshall’s statement in Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) that “limitations of a power furnish a strong argument in favor of the existence of that power.”

On March 2, 1861, two days before Lincoln’s inaugural and after seven states had seceded, Senator James R. Doolittle of Wisconsin submitted yet another proposed constitutional amendment that said, “No State or any part thereof, heretofore admitted or hereafter to be admitted into the Union, shall have the power to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the United States.” There would be no point in doing this if secession were already unconstitutional.”

(The Real Lincoln, by Thomas J. DiLorenzo – pages 290, 291)

The war of 1861-1865 was a very great oddity in that secession as a constitutional right had been accepted by both sides before the first gun was fired upon Ft. Sumter. There never was a stronger secessionist movement than in New England during the War of 1812. Secession as a right was conceded during the antebellum period by leading constitutional scholars in the United States from the North and the South. And the underlying principle was reaffirmed by the United States in 1860 with ample support from the North and the South. Secession was the “official” question over which the war was fought. Yet both sides had earlier agreed on this question.

(A Constitutional History Of Secession, by John Remington Graham, page 377)

Our public schools and universities have fed us a trainload of garbage for many decades, and most people have swallowed it. So-called “historians” push the Yankee viewpoint while slandering and ridiculing the Southern point of view, which, by the way, happens to be the truth. Again, it is the victors who write the history. With the track record our government and media have in dispensing the “truth”, your skepticism should come down on the side of the establishment. No, you should not take what I tell you at face value either. Do your own research, but be aware that the internet primarily carries water for the “accepted narrative” pushed by academia, Hollywood, the media, and politicians. The truth is out there. If a bumpkin like me can learn the truth, most anyone can.

“I have reviewed in these pages several books that address the War Between the States—its onset, and its aftermath—and Jeff Paulk’s new book may be the most impressive of these. Mr. Paulk is Oklahoma Division Commander of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, and his book consists of no less than 387 letters, written over the course of 17 years, along with 7 essays. It is Paulk’s unflagging persistence that makes his book so impressive. He is a fighter for truth and justice who never gives up, no matter how unfavorable the chances of success seem to be.” - The Mises Institute’s David Gordon on Defending Southern Heritage

Representative Alvin Holmes Alabama State House, Room 525-A, Montgomery, AL 36130

20 July, 2011

Dear Representative Holmes,

I read today about your opposition to the funding of Confederate Memorial Park, and how you plan to try and get it discontinued. This park serves to honor the brave soldiers who fought, not to preserve slavery as is falsely taught in the schools and by the NAACP, but to defend their sovereign homeland from an invading army illegally waging war, killing and raping women (black and white), burning crops and homes, and killing innocent civilians.

Sir, I submit to you that our history, the history of your ancestors and of mine, has been grossly rewritten for the purpose of pitting the black race against the white race, and to do away with our heritage and culture. This is tragic and obscene and must be rectified. I call your attention to one fine, brave black man, Mr. H. K. Edgerton of Ashville, NC, who is a former leader in the NAACP. He has learned about the mythology and outright lies perpetrated against the South, and the rewriting of our history. This gallant man is doing all within his power to educate people, young and old, about our true history.

Enclosed is a True History CD (in MS Word format) which contains 25 MB of information about our true history, and also contains information about Mr. Edgerton, and also about Holt Collier, a former slave. I respectfully ask that as you have time, you will spend some of it going through this CD and reading about our true history. Might I suggest that you start with the folder “Introduction to True History”, then proceed as you like. It will take quite some time to go through all of it, and I admit to you that I have not read every word myself, so there are sure to be some spelling errors. This information has been compiled over a period of time and put on CD for educational purposes.

I was born and raised in Bullock County, Alabama and hold Alabama and its heritage dear in my heart, and it is heartbreaking to see how your history, and mine, has been hijacked and mutilated for selfish and political reasons.

Thank you for your time sir.

Respectfully,

Jeff Paulk

(Born and raised in Union Springs, AL, now living in Tulsa, OK)

One of the older heads and strong spirits of the community. He was frank, that is the custom of Negroes to be in contrasting his present condition with that of slavery. He complained: “I done had a harder time since I been free that when I was a slave. I never had such a hard time in my life as I’m having now. I’m saying this for myself. I ain’t saying hit for nobody else. I wish I had stayed a slave. In slavery my master and mistress tuk care of me. I lived down in the quarters but I was always up at the house. Them quarters was ‘ranged just like a garden. Here was a row and there was a row, and up there was the white folks’ house. My mother had to see atta all the chillin in the quarters ‘cause they kepts so much fuss. I was small and light and done ‘bout most as I pleased. “In slavery days”, he reminisced, “we et peas, onions, hog head, liver, cow’s milk, butter, Irish potatoes, and everything what grows in a garden. That’s why I’m here now. I’m just living on the strenk of that. Hit’s the strenk of that done kept me alive. I had three chillun by my first wife and fifteen by my second wife. We had frolics. We had them in the white folks’ yard. The white folks made you play and run and jump. Your feet an’ things had ter be washed and you had ter be all clean and white ter set at table. We had guitars and blowing quills. We had the best kinda time. The only thing I didn’t like they kept me in shirt tails so long. I thought I was too big fer ter be in my shirt tail and ever’ time they come round and tell me ter jump my shirt tail would fly up, and I’d say, ‘You gotta put some pants on me.’ I was keeping company wid my lady frien’, going cross the creek, and I looked and there my shirt tail was a floating.”

Zack Ivey (Macon County, Alabama)

“I well remember when de war came. Old massa had told his folks befo’ de war began dat it was comin’, so we was ready for it.

Beforehand the master called all the servants he could trust and told them to get together all of the silver and other things of value. They did that, he exclaimed and afterward they took the box of treasures and carried it out in the forest and hid it under the trunk of a tree which was marked. None of the Negroes ever told the Yankees where it was so when the war ended the master had his silver back. Of course the war left him without some of the things which he used to have but he never suffered. Then de war came and we all went to fight the Yankees. I was a body servant to the master, and once a bullet took off his hat. We all thought he was shot but he wasn’t, and I was standin’ by his side all the time.
I remember Stonewall Jackson. He was a big man with long whiskers, and very brave. We all fought with him until his death.”

“We wan’t beaten, we wuz starved out! Sometimes we had parched corn to eat and sometimes we didn’t have a bit o’ nothin’, because the Union mens come and tuck all the food for their selves. I can still remember part of my ninety years. I remembers we fought all de way from Virginia and winded up in Manassah’s Gap.” -Gus Brown, Alabama

“Things sure better long time ago then they be now. I know it. Colored people never had no debt to pay in slavery time. Never hear tell about no colored people been put in jail before freedom. Had more to eat and more to wear then, and had good clothes all the time ’cause white folks furnish everything, everything. Had plenty peas, rice, hog meat, rabbit, fish, and such as that.” -Sylvia Cannon, South Carolina Slave Narratives

“I’ seems to think us have more freedom when us slaves”
-Abmstead Barrett Texas

“Freedom is all right, but de ni**ers was better off befo’ surrender”
-Tempe Herndon Durham, North Carolina Slave Narratives

“Didn’t have so much sickness in them days, and naturally they diden’t die so fast. Folks lived a long time than” -Aunt Sally Georgia slave narratives

“My mother was always right in the house with the white people and I was fed just like I was one of their children. They even done put me to bed with them. You see, this discrimination on color wasn’t as bad then as it is now. They handled you as a slave but they didn’t discriminate against you on account of color like they do now.”
-Elija Henery Hopkins, Arkansas Slave Narratives

“We had better then than now cause white men lynch an burn now and do other things they couldent do then” -Henry brown South Carolina Slave narratives

“De missus...rock me ter sleep an put me ter bed in her own bed. I wuz happy den...untill dem yankees come we wuznt happy at de surrender an we cussed old Abraham Lincoln all ober de place” - John Beckwith North Carolina Slave Narratives

“I was happy all de time in slavery days, but dere ain’t much to git happy over now…”
-Mary Rice, Alabama Slave Narratives

“I wish times were like they use to be when we belonged to the white folks; we had better times then.” -Ben Wall, Mississippi Slave Narratives

“Master called all the slaves up and said ‘you is just as free as I am. You can stay or go as you please’. We all stayed. In slavery times the old folks was cared for and now there ain’t no one to see to them.” -Smith Simmons, Alabama Slave Narratives

“Our food them was a-way better that the stuff we gets today.” [post slavery]
-Emma Jones, Georgia Slave Narratives

‘druther be alivin’ back dere dan today ‘caze us at least had plenty somp’n t’eat an’ nothin’ to worry about” -Henry Cheatam, Alabama Slave Narratives

“All de slaves cried when de Yankees come, an dat most uv ‘em stayed on a long time atter de war. My manmy plowed an done such work all de time uv slavery out she done it case she wanted to do it an not ‘cause dey make her...All de slaves hate de Yankees an when de southern soldiers came late in de night all de niggers got out of de bed an holdin torches high dey march behin de soldiers, all of dem singing We’ll hang Abe Lincoln on de Sour Apple Tree. yes mam, dey wuz sorry dat dey wuz freeman’ dey ain’t got no reason tu be glad, case dey wuz happier den dan now” -Alice Baugh North Carolina

“More humble , affectionate, anxious to be allowed to remain as they are than the outside world, the readers of Mrs. Stowe would ever conceive. Not one expressed the slightest pleasure at the sudden freedom.” [One old SC slave wept bitterly and rolled on the ground after hearing of slavery being abolished.] -Mary Chestnut, speaking of her slaves after the war

“ I believe our slaves are the happiest three millions of human beings on whom the sun shines, into their Eden is coming Satan in the guise of an abolitionist”
-James Hammond, plantation owner before the war

“Old master dead an’gone and old mistis too, but I member’em jus’lak dey was,when dey looked after us whenst we belonged to em or dey belonged to us I dunno which it was....de times was better fo’de war...i goes to church and sings an’ prays, an’ when de good lord teks me, i’se ready to go, en I specs to see jesus an’ old mistis an’ old master when I gets to de he’benly mand” -Jane, Alabama Slave Narratives

Clearly we can see by their own words that the majority of Southern slaves were well treated. The Bible lays out rules for the treatment of slaves, as well as how they are to behave towards their masters.

It is wrong for the South to continue to be blamed for the institution of slavery. Slavery was not a “Southern thing”, it was an “American thing”. The New England Yankees worked the slave trade and sold slaves to both Northerners and Southerners (while flying Old Glory on their ships). But, the self-righteous Yankee continues to point his finger at the South, blaming it for slavery, while the North profited greatly from the industry. We get it all the time from so-called “journalists”, academia, the media, and politicians. Enough already! It is time for the narrative to change by burying the Yankee Myth and teaching the truth. That is what the grand aim is here, to teach the truth.

“I have reviewed in these pages several books that address the War Between the States—its onset, and its aftermath—and Jeff Paulk’s new book may be the most impressive of these. Mr. Paulk is Oklahoma Division Commander of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, and his book consists of no less than 387 letters, written over the course of 17 years, along with 7 essays. It is Paulk’s unflagging persistence that makes his book so impressive. He is a fighter for truth and justice who never gives up, no matter how unfavorable the chances of success seem to be.” - The Mises Institute’s David Gordon on Defending Southern Heritage

SCV CIC Charles Kelly Barrow P.O. Box 59 Columbia, TN 38402

13 July, 2015

Dear CIC Barrow,

You state in your letter that in 2000 there was a “political compromise” to place the Confederate Battle Flag beside the Confederate Soldier’s monument. The Confederate Battle Flag was also removed from the South Carolina Capitol Building as the result of a “political compromise” and placed to the location where it was just removed on 10 July, 2015. Compromise is surrender. Period. I’ll say it again – compromise is surrender. We have NO room whatsoever to give in to these cultural terrorists. They have already proven that when you give them an inch, they’ll take 100 miles. There should have been NO compromise in the relocation of these flags. Our SCV leadership failed us in this, and we now see the result of that failure.

We are being attacked on all sides and the enemy is going so far as wanting to make it a “hate crime” to even be in possession of a Confederate flag. While the discussion is being had about license plates, plans are being put forth to dig up the remains of General Nathan Bedford Forrest in Memphis, TN, among other great atrocities in the works. The SCV has not, in my opinion, taken a serious approach to the dangers we have faced from the cultural terrorists, and it may now be too late. Too much time focusing on re-enactments and grave markers, (not that these should be ignored by any means), and not enough effort spent in taking the fight to the enemy instead of just having “knee-jerk reactions” when they attack us. Other Confederate organizations have wanted to join forces with the SCV in the past in order to become a more formidable foe against our enemies, but the SCV would have nothing to do with this. This was a fatal mistake on the part of the SCV. In failing to form a more powerful opposition to the cultural terrorists, we have allowed the enemy to gain ground and momentum.

Education is the key to overcome 150 years of Marxist rewritten history. We have needed spokespersons confronting the media, and every other enemy with the facts that prove our side is right, and theirs is wrong. Being proactive instead of reactive is what we have needed to be all about. Getting the facts of the true accounts of history out there is what we have needed for decades. What do we do now? I honestly don’t know. It would seem that any efforts now would be like peeing on a forest fire. The sharks are in a feeding frenzy with the latest blood they have drawn in the removal of the Confederate Battle Flag from the South Carolina capitol grounds. Maybe now the SCV will reconsider joining forces with the other various Confederate organizations to combat the tsunami of attacks we are now faced with. I just hope it is not too late.

Deo Vindice

Jeff Paulk Camp Daniel N. McIntosh #1378 Tulsa, OK

Northern Tariffs on the South

“One of the major clashes between the North and the South was over the issue of tariffs. The South, believing that it was being made to bear an unequal share of the tax burden due to the tariff, and receiving little of the benefits from the tariff, came to near bloodshed because of this issue. Even Northern newspapers admitted that the tariff as then constituted was nothing less than a means to plunder the South for the benefit of the North. In December of 1860 the “Daily Chicago Times” cautioned its readers of the dangers of pursuing such policies. Some Northern newspapers even had the temerity to suggest that a lower tariff rate might help hold the country together. Although this seemed to be a good and logical solution, Lincoln and his supporters found such ideas to be inconceivable. It must be remembered that Lincoln was a supporter of Clay’s ‘American System.’

According to this system, big government had every right and even a duty to pass laws and perform tasks that would, according to the logic of the advocates of big government, advance the national well-being. Therefore, high tariffs to protect domestic (Northern) industries; national banking and currency; and, the use of Federal funds to support local industries, also known as ‘internal improvements’; were a mainstay of Republican political philosophy -- one would just as soon expect the pope to become a Baptist as to expect Lincoln to turn away from his ‘American System.’ The ‘American System’ provided Lincoln and the Republican Party a means to bestow special privileges on those wealthy men who helped to finance the Republican cause. This system has not only survived Lincoln and the nineteenth century but is alive and well to this day.”

(From Red Republicans and Lincoln’s Marxists, by Walter D. Kennedy and Al Benson, Jr., pgs. 96-97)

Let me remind our readers what the Constitution says about taxes in Article I, Section 8:

“. . . but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.”

The word “shall” means “definitely” will happen. It does not mean “perhaps”, or “maybe”, or “if you feel like it”. It means that this is how it will be. But, that is NOT how it was. The Constitution was being violated with the exorbitant tariffs extracted from the South, resulting in the South carrying about 85% of the federal revenue burden.

The following is an excerpt from an article written by Jack McMillan, Ph. D. entitled Tariffs, Not Slavery:

“With the election of Lincoln, the South realized northern manufacturers and bankers would have their puppet in the White House. Again Professor Adams states, “...Lincoln was supported in his bid for the presidency by the rich industrialists of the North. He was their man and he had long been their lawyer... No sooner had Congress assembled in 1861 than the high tariff was passed into law and signed by Lincoln. The Morrill Tariff, as it was called, was the highest tariff in U.S. history.” Adams also notes, “Secession by the South was a reaction against Lincoln’s high-tax policy. In 1861 the slave issue was not critical... The leaders of the South believed secession would attract trade to Charleston, Savannah, and New Orleans, replacing Boston, New York, and Philadelphia as the chief trading ports of America, primarily because of low taxes.” Note the Confederacy lowered taxes!”

Here is what K. Lance Spivey said in his article The Morrill Tariff of 1861: The True Cause of Secession and the War of Northern Aggression, on September 20 2017:

“In 1860, tariffs on imported manufactured goods were responsible for approximately ninety-five percent of

the United States’ government’s revenue. In that year’s Presidential election, Republican candidate, admirer of

the late Henry Clay, and former Whig, Abraham Lincoln, campaigned for the Morrill Tariff, which was part of

the Republican Party Platform. The tariff would raise the average tax on imported manufactured goods from

approximately fifteen percent to thirty-seven percent immediately, to be increased to forty-seven percent

within three years. This was nearly identical to the 1828 Tariff of Abominations which had caused the

constitutional crisis of 1832 and nearly led to the secession of South Carolina and the use of armed force by

the United States government against South Carolina. In spite of this, on May 10, 1860, the House of

Representatives, thirty-sixth United States Congress, December 5, 1859 – March 27, 1861, voted on the Morrill

Tariff, House Resolution 338, and passed it with a vote of one hundred and five to sixty-four.”

Writing from London in 1861, a political analyst favoring the Northern cause (Karl Marx), summarized what the major British newspapers were saying:

“The war between the North and South is a tariff war. The war, is further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery, and in fact turns on the Northern lust for power.”

Beloved British author, Charles Dickens, also wrote in a London periodical:

“The Northern onslaught upon slavery is no more than a piece of specious humbug designed to conceal its desire for economic control of the Southern states.”

British political analyst John Spence, writing in 1862, explained,

“The [7] cotton States had indeed seceded… but why? Because, as we have seen, political power had passed into the hands of the North, and they anticipated from the change, an utter disregard of their interests, and a course of policy opposed to the spirit of the Constitution, and to their rights under it. Was it possible to offer to the world more prompt or convincing proof than this tariff affords, that their apprehensions were well founded?”

Clearly, the tariff issue was a big deal with the South. It was experiencing wealth redistribution by the way of its wealth being redistributed to the North. Not fair. Not constitutional. If you still believe The War Of Northern Aggression was fought concerning the issue of slavery, your government indoctrination was successful, at least from the viewpoint of the socialists.

“I have reviewed in these pages several books that address the War Between the States—its onset, and its aftermath—and Jeff Paulk’s new book may be the most impressive of these. Mr. Paulk is Oklahoma Division Commander of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, and his book consists of no less than 387 letters, written over the course of 17 years, along with 7 essays. It is Paulk’s unflagging persistence that makes his book so impressive. He is a fighter for truth and justice who never gives up, no matter how unfavorable the chances of success seem to be.” - The Mises Institute’s David Gordon on Defending Southern Heritage

United States District Court Middle District of Alabama Chief Judge Mark E. Fuller c/o Ms. Debra P. Hackett Clerk of Court U.S. District Court P.O. Box 711 Montgomery, Alabama 36101-0711

4/30/2009

Dear Mr. Fuller,

As you are no doubt aware of the deplorable and illegal actions of Auburn City Councilman Arthur L. Dowdell in the removal of Confederate flags from the graves of Confederate Veterans in the city of Auburn, I implore you to see that justice is administered in this case. It is absolutely inexcusable for anyone to remove anything from a grave, and was this case reversed in that a white person removed flags from graves in a black cemetery, it would be all over the national news and the person would be charged with a “hate” crime.

Might I add that the following Alabama Statute prohibits such action?

SLAV-7-23.1

(a)Any person who willfully or maliciously injures, defaces, removes or destroys any tomb, monument, gravestone or other memorial of the dead, or any fence or any enclosure about any tomb, monument, gravestone or memorial, or who willfully and wrongfully destroys, removes, cuts, breaks or injures any tree, shrub, plant, flower, decoration, or other real or personal property within any cemetery or graveyard shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor.

Mr. Dowdell, and millions of people like him, is needlessly “offended” by the display of our Southern heritage simply because they have been taught lies and the history of our great South has been rewritten. Our children sit in public schools studying curriculum written by liberals who, for decades, have been waging war and genocide against our heritage. True history is not taught in our schools, and we have many Southerners who have been brainwashed, or to be politically “correct” or expedient, will refuse to defend the heritage of their ancestors. It is time for this to turn around. Atrocities such as Mr. Dowdell’s grave desecration open up opportunities for people to research and learn the truth about our history.

Mr. Dowdell should not be given special consideration just because he is black. There is no doubt that a white person would be brought to justice for such an offense. Therefore, I ask that you do the right thing here in seeing that the law is adhered to. Your job requires it, the people request it, and our fallen heroes demand it.

Respectfully,

Jeff Paulk

In addition to covering up the truth, there are evil organizations, like CAIR, who are pushing to erase all of our American history and have a version of “history” put into the curriculum that tells us what great contributions the Muslims made to the founding and progress of this country. I’m not making this up. My good friend, Dr. Carole Haynes, has been fighting this battle in Texas, and I’m sure that Texas is not the only state in the cross hairs of CAIR. We are being attacked from within by academia, Hollywood, the media, and politicians, and from without by the likes of CAIR, the SPLC, and George Soros, among others.

(Read more on this here: https://drcarolehhaynes.com/index.php/articles/islam/609-should-texas-fund-muslim-education )

The War of Northern Aggression is one of the most, if not the most, critical periods in our history. It was a war that never should have happened, followed by twelve years of horrible occupation and terrorism, called “Reconstruction”. The term had nothing to do with rebuilding the devastation of the war-torn South, but everything to do with remaking and reshaping America into the type of centralized, imperial empire most of our Founding Fathers detested and warned against. We have, in fact, become what our Founders fought to escape, and what our Confederate ancestors fought to prevent.

Our students today cannot understand what happened during that period in history if they are not taught the truth about what happened. By not understanding what happened then, it is impossible to understand why we are where we are today. One must understand the past in order to understand the present. By not understanding it, we end up with a distorted concept of patriotism and “Americanism”.

Most public school history books are filled with the Yankee fairy tales of “the war was fought to free the slaves” in the South, but never mentions that there were slaves in the Union during the War, or that there were free blacks who owned slaves during that time. They praise Lincoln for his Emancipation Proclamation and say that it “freed the slaves”. Another fairy tale. It freed nobody, and reading it proves that. We are never taught anything about the Corwin Amendment, supported by Lincoln, which would have forever made it illegal to abolish slavery if the seceded States would return and ratify it.

If you do not understand, or know the truth, about our history, you are not alone. The vast majority of our “journalists” and “historians” do not know the truth, but simply regurgitate the “Yankee talking points” that they have heard over and over again. Our universities continue to crank out socialist teachers who pass along their indoctrination to young minds in our public schools, and the cycle continues. We must reach our young people with the truth if we are ever to change the “accepted narrative”, which is a false narrative.

It is rarely, if ever, taught that there were slaves north of the Mason-Dixon Line. It is not taught at all that the slave trade was operated out of New England and that these ships flew the U.S. flag. It is not taught that the slaves were already enslaved by their own people in Africa before any New England Yankee ever acquired them.

Our children need to be taught that the War was not about slavery, and that cultural and economic issues contributed much more to the War than slavery did. With 85% of the federal revenues being paid by the South, Southerners grew tired of the economic drain and transfer of wealth taking place.

The history books do not teach how the War changed this country from a Constitutional Republic to a consolidated democracy. Lincoln implemented the large centralized government we are still shackled with today. A government that continues to grow, feeding on the very citizens it is supposed to serve. We continuously hear politicians and journalists talking about “our democracy” as if that is what this country has always been. None of our founding documents contain the word “democracy”. Our Founders worked hard to give us a Republic because they feared a democracy. Lincoln and his illegal war changed this country to its very core. We have only ventured farther from the principles of our Founding Fathers with each administration since Lincoln.

We have never recovered from the War of Northern Aggression, and the War has never ended. Yes, I know, the shooting stopped in 1865, but the war upon our heritage, culture, history, and ancestors continues today. Our monuments have been defaced, destroyed, and removed. The names of our schools have been changed. Right here in Tulsa, Lee Elementary School had its name changed to Council Oaks. The name was changed from someone who was opposed to slavery (Robert E. Lee) to recognize the first council of the Creeks, who owned slaves. Slavery was codified into the laws of the Muskogee Nation in 1811. Can you see how idiotic that was? Tulsa Public Schools went from “honoring someone who fought for slavery” (though he didn’t), to “honoring those who had nothing to do with slavery” (yet they did). The reason given for removing the names of Confederate soldiers from schools is because they “fought to defend slavery”. But, the vast majority of Confederate soldiers did not own slaves. Why would they be fighting for something that only a fraction of the Southern population was involved in? They were fighting in defense of their homes and country from an invading army.

No, we are not taught the truth. It is up to each of us to learn the truth and pass it on to our children and grandchildren. If enough us us will do this, maybe one day we will see the narrative change from one of fairy tales to one of truth.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/theres-only-one-flag-real-patriots-should-fly

Dear Mr. Stark, 25 July, 2026

Your above linked article starts off with this erroneous statement:

“The Confederacy has always stood for a rejection of America.”

But we should expect no less from a typically indoctrinated person. You tell another lie right here:

“The Confederacy stood for slavery, secession, and an armed rejection of the American experiment. Its banner represents neither American conservatism nor respect for the constitutional order.”

That’s right, I said “lie”, because that is exactly what it is. The Confederacy did not stand for “a rejection of America’. It stood for a preservation of the principles upon which our Founders established this country. The South was being financially raped by the North by the way of tariffs. I give you Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution: “but all Duties, Imposts, and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States”. With the South paying 85% of the federal revenues, this was hardly “uniform”.

On your idiotic statement about the South “stood for slavery” and “rejection of the American experiment”, your public school indoctrination is coming through loud and clear. The South was already in the process of gradual emancipation of the slaves it acquired from the New England Yankee slave traders, who were flying Old Glory (that racist rag) on the masts of their slave ships. The “American experiment” is precisely what the Confederacy was trying to preserve, and it is precisely what the despot and tyrant, Lincoln, destroyed. He admitted so himself. The Confederate banner represents the exact same principles as the Betsy Ross flag; resistance to tyranny, independence, and the right to self-determination. Something Lincoln oddly supported, until the Southern states put it into practice.

For 160 years we have had the Yankee Myth shoved down our throats telling us our ancestors were “traitors” and that the war was “all about freeing the slaves”. Hogwash! No Confederate was ever tried for treason. Salmon P. Chase did not want this to take place because it would have exonerated the South and condemned the North. And the “all about slavery” issue is debunked by the fact over 429,000 slaves were in the Union during the war (1860 Census), Lincoln supported the Corwin Amendment which would have FOREVER made it illegal to abolish slavery if the South would ratify it, and West Virginia was admitted (illegally) into the Union as a slave state.

You make other false statements in the Daily Wipe, er , Wire, such as “The moment the Confederacy was founded, it was identified as an enemy of foundational American values and crushed with sweeping force.”

The Confederacy, as stated previously, fought to preserve the foundational principles of American values. It being “crushed by a sweeping force” is hardly accurate since the Confederacy stood against the most powerful military force on earth for four years, being outnumbered in many battles 3, 4, and 5 to one, yet won quite a number of those battles, including the first big one, First Manassas, where the federals were routed right back to Washington. The war should have ended that day, but the Confederacy did not want Washington. It wanted only to be left alone.

Had Lincoln not invaded, there would have been no war. His terrorist armies murdered, looted, burned, and raped their way across the South. The victor writes the history. The “history” taught in our government indoctrination centers (public schools) and Marxist propaganda factories (universities) is rewritten “history”. You need to purge your mind of the propaganda you have swallowed and learn the truth.

Jeff Paulk Oklahoma Division Commander Sons of Confederate Veterans

“I have reviewed in these pages several books that address the War Between the States—its onset, and its aftermath—and Jeff Paulk’s new book may be the most impressive of these. Mr. Paulk is Oklahoma Division Commander of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, and his book consists of no less than 387 letters, written over the course of 17 years, along with 7 essays. It is Paulk’s unflagging persistence that makes his book so impressive. He is a fighter for truth and justice who never gives up, no matter how unfavorable the chances of success seem to be.” - The Mises Institute’s David Gordon on Defending Southern Heritage

Dear Governor Abbott, 1/4/19

Due to the lack of historical knowledge possessed by most people today, we are seeing our Confederate monuments and plaques being removed, as well as the names of schools, streets, and parks being changed. The cultural genocide crowd says that these Confederate memorials pay tribute to slavery and slave owners, and that this is what the War of Northern Aggression was all about. That is completely false. Our Confederate ancestors fought an illegal invasion to defend their families and homes from Lincoln’s devil army of murderers, looters, arsonists, and rapists. The war was waged against the South to force it back into the Union for the continued collection of excessive tariffs, and for Lincoln to establish a strong centralized government, the same one we are shackled with today. Our brave dead Confederates deserve to be honored for their fight against tyranny and for independence. They fought for the exact same reasons as did their colonial ancestors who took up arms against Great Britain.

I implore you, sir, to not remove the plaque on the State Capitol building honoring the Children of the Confederacy. This cultural genocide has got to stop, and it has to be done by people like yourself who hold prominent positions and have the authority to do so. Erasing our history is wrong, and it does not change our history. If our schools taught the truth about our history, we would not be seeing all this anti-Confederate and anti-South activity taking place. It is particularly disturbing to see Southerners in positions of authority who have jumped onto the cultural genocide band wagon and think it to be politically expedient to rid the South of her war memorials. Do not be like the many scalawags in office today who have committed this grievous atrocity against the memory of our fine Confederate soldiers. Most people want these memorials to remain. It is only a few historically ignorant people voicing their displeasure who are causing all of this to take place. Do not cave in to the few that have no clue of our history. Stand firm for what is right. Our ancestors fought for us, though they lost. Should we not fight for them?

Respectfully,

Jeff Paulk

Tulsa, OK

You can Google The History Channel, the U.S. National Park Service, The NY Times, and a host of other sources and you will get pretty much the same story; Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest and his men “massacred in large numbers” the Union forces overtaken at Ft. Pillow, the majority of those killed being black. In all fairness, The History Channel does not come down firmly on the side of the Yankees, and does say the subject is still debated.

The “official story” of what took place at Ft. Pillow has more to do with fabricating some re-election propaganda for Lincoln than it does with telling the truth. Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest is probably the most slandered of our Confederate heroes. The top two WWII generals, Patton and Rommel, were admirers of Forrest, and his tactics are studied in military academies worldwide today. One of the greatest slanders against Forrest is that he killed black Union soldiers who were trying to surrender at Ft. Pillow. Not only is this not true, but he rode his horse in between black soldiers and some of his men who were about to fire on them, saving their lives. But we never get informed of that version. We only get the Yankee-fabricated one.

The fact is, Forrest had such a reputation among the Union soldiers for the generosity he showed towards his captives that it is recorded by both sides that many times the Union prisoners would applaud Forrest when they read the terms, as they were usually paroled for prisoner exchange.

In April of 1864, General Forrest led 1,500 Confederates to Ft. Pillow along the Mississippi River. The Union forces had only 557 men, with 262 of those being a Negro militia unit. During the entire battle, Negro troops yelled taunts and profanities at the attacking Confederates. Forrest thought that the Union command would see that their defense of the fort was useless and surrender. Forrest was known for intimidating Union forts into surrender with little or no fight.

In the Battle of Ft. Pillow, Forrest had his horse shot out from under him while carrying a flag of truce. This was a clear violation of the rules of engagement. As General Forrest tried a number of times to get the inhabitants of the fort to surrender, he had a second horse killed, and a third one was badly injured.

The Yankees knew they had three steamships coming down the Mississippi with reinforcements and sent notes to Forrest begging for more time to consider surrendering. Forrest had already positioned troops to block the steamboats from landing. As Forrest’s men attacked the fort, 14 Confederates were killed and 86 were wounded. Both commanders of the fort were killed. 228 of the 557 Union troops were taken prisoner and 32 or more wounded were allowed medical care at the fort hospital. The rest of the Yankee troops either died, drowned in the river, or deserted. When the Confederates charged the fort, only the white troops resisted. As was common in so many battles, the black troops broke rank and panicked. Many escaped out of the back of the fort and jumped into the Mississippi River. It is believed that many drowned, and some deserted.

During a truce, 228 Union prisoners, black and white, were turned over to the Union army in good condition. The entire battle was over in less than 20 minutes, as opposed to the fort being “under siege for days” as sometimes reported. Nearly 1,000 Confederate soldiers stormed the fort after making human ladders to breach the earthworks.

Lincoln needed to boost his chances of re-election and needed to vilify the South. He didn’t want the word of this humiliating defeat getting out to the public, so the “massacre” was invented. Pro-Lincoln Congressmen decided that it would be good for Lincoln’s campaign if the word was put out that General Forrest massacred black troops who were trying to surrender.

In Cairo, IL, about 100 eyewitness accounts were taken of what actually took place at the battle. Almost all were thrown out because they did not align with the story that the pro-Lincoln committee wanted. Officers of the Negro regiment admitted there was no effort to surrender to the Confederates.

A slanderous report was drawn up and 40,000 copies printed for distribution. It stated that it was the Confederates, not the Union soldiers, who violated the flag of truce at Ft. Pillow, and that the Confederates yelled “no quarter” and “black flag” as they stormed the fort. It also stated that Forrest gave the order to kill the black troops. Of course, none of this is true, but it became the “official report”.

General Nathan Bedford Forrest’s tactics and training were extremely effective. This is why the Confederacy repeatedly changed his command so he would continually have new soldiers. The Confederacy knew that under his command, he would continually be producing elite fighting men.

So, there is another Yankee myth, “The Ft. Pillow Massacre”, that never happened. As the famous comedian, Jerry Clower, used to tell about Nugene Ledbedder; “he would climb a tree to get to tell you a lie when he could stand on the ground and tell you the truth”. That seems to be the way it is with “those people”, as General Robert E. Lee called them. They will go through great extremes to lie to us rather than tell the truth.

“I have reviewed in these pages several books that address the War Between the States—its onset, and its aftermath—and Jeff Paulk’s new book may be the most impressive of these. Mr. Paulk is Oklahoma Division Commander of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, and his book consists of no less than 387 letters, written over the course of 17 years, along with 7 essays. It is Paulk’s unflagging persistence that makes his book so impressive. He is a fighter for truth and justice who never gives up, no matter how unfavorable the chances of success seem to be.” - The Mises Institute’s David Gordon on Defending Southern Heritage

(New Times newspaper)

Dear Miss Shammas, 12/24/18

In regard to your article on 12/20/2018 in the Broward palm Beach New Times about Florida Rep. Mike Hill, you state that “Many of the tributes glorify members of the renegade army that declared war on the United States…”. Well, it was not the Confederates who declared war on the United States. In fact, the U.S. Congress did not even declare war. Lincoln illegally invaded the South to put an end to self-government and states’ rights. What you call a “renegade army” was a well disciplined and courageous army comprised of whites, blacks, Indians, Mexicans, Jews, Irish, and more, led by incredibly brave, moral, Christian men, who were defending their homeland from an illegal invasion of murderers, rapists, looters, and arsonists. The Confederates fought, victoriously, against insurmountable odds until halfway through the war when Lincoln announced his Emancipation Proclamation, which was merely a war measure, as he stated.

The war was going badly for the Union at that time. Lincoln hoped that by “freeing the slaves” it would cause a slave uprising in the South and that Confederate soldiers would desert their places on the battlefield and return home. It did not happen. The much lauded Emancipation Proclamation also freed not one solitary soul. For proof all one needs to do is simply read it. What did happen was that over 200,000 union soldiers deserted, another 120,000 evaded conscription, and over 90,000 Northern men avoided conscription by fleeing to Canada, while thousands more hid out in the mountains of Pennsylvania to avoid the enrollment officers.

Lincoln’s illegal, and avoidable, war marked the end of the government that our Founders established and ushered in the large, overpowering, centralized government with which we are shackled today. When our Confederate ancestors took up arms against Lincoln’s invading army, it was in support of the U.S. Constitution. Lincoln repeatedly violated the Constitution. He committed numerous illegal acts, including the shutting down of over 300 Northern newspapers that did not agree with his illegal war, and imprisoned thousands of Northerners who had the gall to say anything against what he was doing. Several peace delegations were sent to see Lincoln in hopes of avoiding a war. He refused to see or acknowledge any of them.

The South was paying 85% of the federal revenues and getting almost nothing in return, while the Northern railroads, industrialists, and bankers were reaping the benefits. This was wealth redistribution. Once the South seceded, this transfer of wealth would be stopped. Lincoln could not bear that, so he forced the legally seceded states back into the union with an illegal war. Nobody was fighting to end or to save slavery. Slavery was a dying institution and most of those who were involved in it desired to see it end. If the war was about “freeing the slaves”, as we so often are told, why did the North not free the more than 429,000 slaves still in the Union AFTER the South seceded? Slavery was not the issue. Money, greed, and power were the issues.

Our brave dead Confederates deserve to be honored with monuments, and to have schools, streets, and parks named after them. The destruction of their memorials is cultural genocide and is no different than the actions of Hitler or ISIS. The media, Hollywood, and politicians continuously spout forth the false narrative of the Confederacy “fighting for slavery”, but the true historical facts simply do not bear this out, as is evidenced by thousands of letters from both Union and Confederate soldiers, as well as civilians from that time. Since Reconstruction, our government schools have indoctrinated young people to believe the lie that the war was about “freeing the slaves”, and that Southerners were “traitors” for leaving the Union. The South fought for the exact same reasons as did our colonial ancestors when they seceded from Great Britain. 150+ years of Marxist indoctrination is hard to overcome, but those of us who know the truth will continue to work to spread the truth.

Jeff Paulk

Tulsa, OK

As stated numerous times before, it is up to us to learn the true accounts of our history. If we rely on academia and the media, we will never know the truth.

The events of July 1864 in Roswell and New Manchester (Sweetwater Factory) represent one of the most harrowing accounts of civilian targeting during the War of Northern Aggression. This was not a “collateral damage” situation; it was a deliberate, top-down policy of forced deportation and economic warfare.

General Sherman considered the textile mills of Georgia as legitimate military targets. However, his orders went beyond destroying the machinery; he targeted the labor force—which consisted almost entirely of women and children. In early July 1864, Federal cavalry under General Kenner Garrard reached Roswell. The Roswell Manufacturing Company and the Ivy Mills were producing “Roswell Gray” cloth for Confederate uniforms.

The owner of the Roswell mills, Theophilus Roche, attempted to protect the factory by flying a French flag, claiming French neutrality. This angered Sherman and he ordered that the mill be burned. He declared the act of flying the French flag to be an act of “high treason”. That raises an interesting question. How can one be invading another country and accuse citizens of that country of treason? Such are the workings of the Yankee mind.

New Manchester suffered the same fate a few days later with the New Manchester Manufacturing Company. The factory, town, and homes were put to the torch. Sherman’s orders were as follows:

“I warrant you to arrest all the people, women and children as well as men, and take them to some convenient point... and then send them under heavy guard to Marietta, and thence to the North.”

Nearly 400 women and children from Roswell and approximately 100 from New Manchester were arrested. They were charged with treason for “aiding and abetting the rebellion” by simply working in the mills and trying to make a living. The women were treated as “prisoners of war” and not afforded the formal protection usually given to soldiers.

The women were piled into wagons, and some forced to march, to Marietta, Georgia. The Georgia Military Institute had been converted into a prison. The women were held there for a week under incredibly unsanitary conditions. They underwent verbal abuse from the Federal soldiers during this time. From there, they were loaded onto boxcars and sent to Louisville, Kentucky and Jeffersonville, Indiana. The trip was made during the heat of July with little food or water.

Upon reaching their destination, the women and children were dumped and told they were “free”. Here they were, hundreds of miles from their homes, and without money, food, or water. They were mostly looked upon as “Rebel trash”. Work was very difficult to find and many were forced into menial labor or lived in refugee shacks provided by the Christian Commission. Many of the children and elderly died from disease and malnutrition during the first winter in Indiana and Kentucky.

After the War, very few ever made it back to where their homes had once been. Those that did make it back found the ruins of their homes and town destroyed by the Yankee invaders. There is one story in particular that I read about which tells of a woman who walked all the way home after the War, only to find that her husband had remarried, thinking her to be dead. To this day, many descendants of the Roswell mill workers are still trying to trace ancestors who vanished into the North after 1864.

The ruins of the New Manchester mill still stand in Sweetwater Creek State Park. In Roswell, a monument was finally erected in 2000 to honor the 400 women whose lives were uprooted by Sherman’s scorched-earth policy—a rare formal acknowledgment of a civilian deportation that was largely downplayed in Union records for decades. I never learned about any of this in school. Did you? If you did, you were one of the very few. This is just one of the numerous atrocities committed against Southern civilians. You can read about many more in the book Union Terror, by Dr. Jeffrey F. Addicott.

Primary Sources

The account of the mistreatment and removal of civilians from Roswell and New Manchester is documented through military orders, official reports, and first-hand accounts found in the Official Records of the War of the Rebellion.

“I have reviewed in these pages several books that address the War Between the States—its onset, and its aftermath—and Jeff Paulk’s new book may be the most impressive of these. Mr. Paulk is Oklahoma Division Commander of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, and his book consists of no less than 387 letters, written over the course of 17 years, along with 7 essays. It is Paulk’s unflagging persistence that makes his book so impressive. He is a fighter for truth and justice who never gives up, no matter how unfavorable the chances of success seem to be.” - The Mises Institute’s David Gordon on Defending Southern Heritage

https://angrystaffofficer.com/2021/06/20/we-believe-in-making-treason-odious-u-s-veterans-of-the-civil-war-attack-the-lost-cause/

Dear Angry Staff Officer, 4/6/22

Wow! Your government/public school/Marxist indoctrination seems to have been deeply planted and quite successful. Calling Confederates “traitors” is one of the tired old lies we hear frequently, when the truth is that Lincoln and his hoard of murderers, looters, arsonists, and rapists were the real traitors by waging war on other states in order to force these legally seceded states back into a union it wanted no part of for the continued collection of unconstitutional and excessive taxes which went to benefit the northern bankers, industry, and railroads. Why was no Confederate ever tried for treason? President Jefferson Davis waited two years in prison for a trial he wanted, but never happened because U.S. Supreme Court Justice Salmon P. Chase stated that no Confederate could be tried for treason due to secession not being illegal, and if any Confederate were tried, what was won on the battlefield would be lost in court.

The popular and accepted narrative for the War of Northern Aggression is that it was fought “to free the slaves”. If that is so, it continues to puzzle me why the “righteous and glorious North” did not first free the more than 429,000 slaves in the Union. The illegal war waged upon Southern civilians was a prelude of what was coming to the American Indian. The wholesale slaughter of old men, women, and children, looting, burning of homes, churches, schools, libraries, barns, and crops, the gang raping of women, white and black, was the training the Grand Army of the Republic received for its future missions into the west.

As for the issue of slavery, just where is it believed Southerners got their slaves? Did they just go out and pick them off a tree? No. New England Yankee slave traders built the slave ships and sailed them to Africa and traded goods for already enslaved Africans and brought them here, selling them to both northerners and Southerners. Oh, their ships were flying Old Glory, not the Confederate Battle flag.

Since Occupation (Reconstruction), when northern school teachers were sent South to indoctrinate young children, the fabricated tale of “Honest Abe” and the “righteous cause” he pursued has been shoved into the minds of school children. The result is that most people do not know the truth about our history. They believe the myths taught in our schools and universities, what the media tells them, and what they see on PBS, the History Channel, and what is cranked out by Hollywood. It has long been stated that the first victim of war is truth, and that has certainly been the case when it comes to the War of Northern Aggression. Now we are seeing Confederate monuments defaced and removed, and the names of schools, streets, parks, and soon military bases, being renamed in an effort to further denigrate the honorable Confederate soldier who was fighting because his homeland was being invaded. Had there been no invasion, there would have been no war. This cultural genocide and hate for everything Southern and Confederate was conceived in the bowels of hell and is indefensible. Most Confederate soldiers owned no slaves and were poor farmers with a strong Christian faith. They fought an invasion of Unitarians and socialist rejects from the failed European socialist revolution of 1848. Lincoln’s army was loaded with these European socialists.

Before continuing to throw stones at the Confederate soldier and the truly righteous cause for which he fought, it would be good to read some factual history from some real history books such as: The Real Lincoln, by Charles L.C. Minor; The South Was Right, by James Ronald Kennedy and Walter Donald Kennedy; Red Republicans and Lincoln’s Marxists, by Walter D. Kennedy and Al Benson, Jr.; The Un-Civil War,by Leonard M. Scruggs; Truths of History, by Mildred Lewis Rutherford (1920); Complicity, by Anne Farrow, Joel Lang, and Jenifer Frank; Facts and Falsehoods Concerning the War on the South 1861-1865, by George Edmunds; and The South Under Siege 1830 – 2000, by Frank Conner.

Attached is a paper which addresses some of the common myths we are taught. Most of us have been taught the same fabricated “history”. Many of us have researched into the facts and discovered the truth. Even in the Official Records: War of the Rebellion there is no mention of the war being about “freeing the slaves”. The South was not trying to “remove the flag” or “overthrow the government”. Why were the vast majority of the battles fought in the South? Because the South was invaded. It wanted only to be left alone. But Lincoln could not bear to lose all that money because the South was paying 85% of the federal revenues.

I believe we refer to that as “wealth redistribution”. The Scripture which tells us to “study to show thyself approved” is not only true for Scripture. It is good practice for other areas as well.

Unreconstructed,

Jeff Paulk

John W. “Jack” Hinson moved from North Carolina where he was born, to Tennessee with his family around 1830. Jack, and his wife Elizabeth, had a large 1,200 acre farm in the area known as “Between the Rivers”, as it was located between the Tennessee River and the Cumberland River. On his farm Jack raised tobacco, corn, watermelons, apples, and a small amount of cotton. He had a large number of slaves, and considered them as extended family. They were well treated and loyal to the Hinsons. Jack was opposed to secession, but took a neutral position in the war and had friends on both sides. He just wanted to be left alone, raising his family and working his farm.

As the Union Army invaded southern Kentucky and central Tennessee, guerrilla units from both sides became common, and both committed crimes upon civilians. Soldiers who had deserted, or who were just opportunists looking to take advantage of anyone, regardless of which side they were on, were the dregs of society and were almost as bad as the Yankee criminals who waged war on innocent civilians.

Two of Jack’s sons took up arms for the Confederacy. William was part of a unit in Virginia, and Robert rode with a band of raiders that became known as Hinson’s Command. He was said to have similar skills to Nathan Bedford Forrest. He seemed to be a natural at cavalry raids and tactics, but his targets were Yankee soldiers, not civilians.

Guerrilla attacks on Union soldiers had been taking place in the area. Anyone known to be related to any of the guerrillas was subject to severe punishment from the Union Army. This included having their homes burned, and being beat or hanged. It was automatically assumed that any relative was not only aware of who was committing the attacks, but was guilty of aiding the guerrillas, whether they had or not. The Union Army looked on any family of guerrillas as fair game.

On one autumn morning two of Jacks’ sons, George who was twenty-two, and John who was seventeen, left the house before daylight, just after having breakfast, to do some hunting in the nearby woods. They hoped to get some squirrels, a turkey, or maybe a deer. Just as the sun was rising, they could hear the sound of a Yankee patrol approaching on horseback. The patrols were a common thing and the young Hinsons did not like the idea of them continually intruding on their property. Several months earlier, the two Hinsons had been arrested under suspicion of being Confederate spies. They just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time as they were observing the Confederate surrender of Fort Donelson. They had been held for a month, then released when it was apparent that they were not guilty of the charges against them.

As the patrol neared, the lieutenant held up his hand and stopped. He made the assumption that the two Hinson youths were bushwhackers and had them disarmed. The boys protested, but did not struggle. They had been falsely accused before and believed that the soldiers would soon see they had made a mistake. Not only had the solders made a mistake, but they were about to make a much bigger one. Tied to a tree near Dover Road, less than a mile from their home, the lives of the two Hinson boys were ended as the Yankee soldiers aimed their carbines at them and fired numerous lead balls into their bodies.

One of the first ones to learn of the senseless murder was a local physician named Dr. J. W. Smith. Dr. Smith reached the Hinson farm and met with Jack and Elizabeth alone and told them of the brutal killing of their sons. It was expected that Jack would be arrested as soon as the soldiers arrived. They would ransack the house and take all the guns. Jack and Dr. Smith quickly hid all the guns out behind the house in a hollow silver-leaf maple tree. The soldiers soon arrived, carrying the heads of the two boys in burlap sacks. The soldiers placed the severed heads on the front gateposts leading to the house as the lieutenant pushed his way into the house and ordered it to be searched for guns. After trashing the house in their fruitless search for guns, the Yankees left. What had just taken place was not an uncommon occurrence.

Jack Hinson had tried to remain neutral in this war, but the Yankees had just made it impossible for him to do so. He had a plan, but had to continue going about his daily routine in a normal manner so as not to arouse suspicion. He contracted the making of a special rifle to use in his plan. The rifle was a .50 caliber with a 41 inch octagonal shaped barrel 1.5 inches in diameter. The stock was made of a solid piece of “tiger maple”. It was accurate at half a mile. Jack had conical shaped mini balls made for it, and the inside of the barrel was rifled to give the mini balls more distance and accuracy.

Jack went about his normal business in the months following the murder of his sons. He would go hunting, and built duck blinds in strategic locations. He knew the schedules of the patrols, when they left, and when they returned. They were creatures of habit and very predictable. One morning before daylight, Jack took his new rifle into the woods near the road where the patrol would be passing by. He waited patiently, while the birds starting making their morning sounds and the squirrels scurried about. Jack had the heavy rifle laying across a log and aimed in the direction the patrol would be appearing. Soon he heard the clanging of the swords of the riders and the snorting of the horses as the patrol approached. As they came into view, he could see the lieutenant who had ordered the killing of his sons, and the trashing of his home. Jack took in a deep breath, cocked the trigger, took careful aim, let out half his breath and squeezed the trigger. The bullet hit the lieutenant at the base of his throat, killing him instantly.

Jack made his way through the woods back to his farm and placed the rifle, powder, and ammunition in its usual hiding place in the barn. He entered the house and Sarah, the house servant, had his breakfast warm on the stove. He knew that he had to be careful not to bring trouble down on his family. He would certainly be a suspect in the killing of the lieutenant. Was that it, or would he kill again?

As the weeks passed Jack could not get the vision out of his mind of the Yankee soldier who seemed to take such pleasure in placing the heads of his two sons on the gateposts in front of the house. That soldier needed the same thing that the arrogant lieutenant had gotten, and early one morning as the patrol came down the road, that soldier had the misfortune of finding himself in the sights of Jack Hinson’s long Kentucky rifle. With one squeeze of the trigger, another Yankee was blown out of the saddle.

With the guerrilla attacks taking place in the area, Fort Donelson Commander, Colonel Smith, decided to take revenge on civilians in the area, especially Jack Hinson. He was to be arrested, brought to the fort, then executed. He had long been suspected of the deaths of the lieutenant and private, but there had been no proof. The Hinsons, as others in the area, were to be turned out of their home and see it burned to the ground. This news got to Jack Hinson the night before all of this was to take place. Hurriedly, Jack got his family together with what belongings they could carry on the big sleigh, and sent them with two trusted servants to relatives in another county. The sleigh would make it through the snow covered country where a wagon could not go, and could keep off the main roads. Jack gathered what he could, including his rifle, and headed southeast, away from where his wife and children were going. If he did happen to be captured, he wanted his family as far from him as possible.

Sarah, the trusted house servant, moved her family into the big house and prepared to take care of it until such time as the “white Hinsons” could return. The “black Hinsons” had been given their freedom papers months before, but chose to remain on the farm and continue the life they had always known. Early the next morning the Yankee patrol from Fort Donelson arrived. Upset with not finding Jack Hinson, the order was given to burn the house. The servants came out of their quarters, crying and praying over what was taking place. Next, the order was given to burn the barn. Sarah pleaded with the officer in charge and told him that the servants needed the barn. They all planned to remain on the farm and work it. It would be all they had to survive. She told him that they all had their freedom papers, but planned to work the farm and make crops as they had always done. Thinking on how the army was already burdened with former slaves to take care of, he decided to leave the barn standing if these servants planned to support themselves on this farm.

Jack Hinson made camp high on a bluff overlooking the Tennessee River. His cave provided perfect protection from the elements and could not be seen from the river. It was an excellent location to pick off Yankee officers as the gunboats made their way through the channel against the current, and he did just that. The bluff was virtually inaccessible due to its steep grades, and soon there would be copperheads and rattlesnakes to greet any would-be assailants.

Jack was a wanted man with a price on his head, so he had to be extremely careful not to endanger his friends or family. Through a friend he learned about the burning of his home. Then, after six days at his hideout, he chanced a trip by night to Sulfur Wells where his family had fled the night they left Bubbling Springs. Upon arriving at his relative’s home, he learned of another tragedy. His two little girls, who had been sick with the measles on the night his loyal servants had driven them to safety in the big sleigh, had died of their illness. In a matter of months, Jack and Elizabeth had lost three sons, with the deaths of George, John, and Robert, and two daughters. The next night Jack made his way to the pile of ashes that used to be his home. The servants were glad to see him and mourned over the news of the two little girls. He restocked his supplies, got some sleep, then headed out before daylight for his hideout on the bluff.

One the way, he had the opportunity to take out two more soldiers. He hid their bodies in the brush, collected their weapons, and turned their horses loose. He hadn’t wanted this war, but it was brought to him, and his family had paid dearly. He arrived safely back to his hideout, carefully avoiding the roads and farms along the way.

Jack continued his routine of attacking Union supply and gunboats on the river. He even had one to raise the white flag (actually, a table cloth) in surrender. He holds the distinction of being the only one in history to have a naval vessel surrender to a single individual. Of course he had no way of dealing with the surrendered vessel and crew, so after a long wait, the boat went along its way without further attacks from Jack. Jack scouted for General Nathan Bedford Forrest and aided him in driving enemy forces out of the area. Forrest and his men destroyed the Union supplies and boats at Johnsonville that were to go to Union General Sherman. Jack also took out many scavengers who were preying on rural civilians.

When the war ended, Jack moved his family to Magnolia on White Oak Creek where he bought 294 acres and operated a mill and ran a general store. Jack and Elizabeth’s son, Joseph, brought the news of the death of their son, William, who had been wounded and lost a leg. Joseph seems to have died due to the stresses of the war and left no heirs. The war had cost Jack and Elizabeth five sons and two daughters.

Even during Reconstruction, Jack kept a low profile as he was still a wanted man. Jack deeded the property at Bubbling Springs to his son Albert (“Ab”) and provided for his former slaves.

Jack had stamped 36 circles into the barrel of his rifle, marking his kills of Union officers and soldiers, but his actual kills seem to have been well over 100. He did not keep record of the rogue scoundrels he killed in defense of innocent civilians.

In 1873 it was planned to try, convict, and execute Jack for his activities during the war. Evidently the influence of his many friends kept him from being executed by the Reconstruction scoundrels. Jack died peacefully at home in 1874. The war, which had cost him so much, was finally over.

(Referenced from Jack Hinson’s One Man War, by Tom C. McKenny)

“I have reviewed in these pages several books that address the War Between the States—its onset, and its aftermath—and Jeff Paulk’s new book may be the most impressive of these. Mr. Paulk is Oklahoma Division Commander of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, and his book consists of no less than 387 letters, written over the course of 17 years, along with 7 essays. It is Paulk’s unflagging persistence that makes his book so impressive. He is a fighter for truth and justice who never gives up, no matter how unfavorable the chances of success seem to be.” - The Mises Institute’s David Gordon on Defending Southern Heritage

Dear Editor, (Union Springs Herald, Union Springs, AL) 5/18/2015

Mr. Penn’s statement of division existing in the community due to the Confederate flags being legally displayed on Confederate graves is spouted out of total and complete ignorance of our history. If Mr. Penn, and anyone else who has a problem with the Confederate flag, would simply do the research, he would see that the flag not only does NOT represent the enslavement of anyone, it does not represent anyone fighting to protect and promote slavery. He is a victim of our rewritten history, as are millions of others. What Mr. Penn did was illegal and constitutes desecration of graves. Charges should be filed against him and he should be ordered to replace every flag that he removed.

The Confederate Battle Flag bears the Cross of St. Andrew, the chief patron saint of Scotland. No slave ship ever flew the Confederate flag, but many flew Old Glory, the Stars and Stripes. I’ll wager that Mr. Penn has never heard of the Corwin Amendment, written by Congressman Thomas Corwin of Ohio, passed by Congress 2 March, 1861, and endorsed by President Abraham Lincoln. That amendment read:

“No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor (slavery) or service by the laws of said State.”

If the seceded States had wished to perpetuate slavery, they had only to rejoin the Union and ratify that amendment. They refused because they seceded to escape and overweening, all-intrusive, big centralized government, the same reason that thirteen States seceded from Britain in 1776, Mexico from Spain in 1818, and Texas from Mexico in 1836.

The War of Northern Aggression had nothing to do with slavery, and the North was definitely NOT fighting to end slavery, but to continue the collection of excessive revenues from the South. There are numerous quotes by Lincoln, which space does not permit to put here, but if you will look at the 4th Lincoln-Douglas debate, September 18th, 1858, in the Collected Works, Vol. 3, pages 145-146, you will see what a racist Lincoln was.

It is indeed a sad thing to see Southerners, black and white, so ignorant of their own history as to participate in the cultural genocide of their own ancestors. Many brave black Confederates fought for the same reasons as their white Confederate brethren; to defend their homeland from an illegal invasion, an invasion which resulted in the murder, rape, burning, and looting of a civilian population, black and white. The victors write the history, so they will make the history as they see fit. Almost everything you were taught about the “Civil War” is false, when it comes to the reasons that it was fought. Do your own research and learn the truth. And put the flags back, Mr. Penn.

Jeff Paulk

Tulsa, OK

If you know anything about Ernest T. Bass, he was notorious for throwing rocks through storefront windows, and even the courthouse was not off limits to his “rock chunking”. When he was in town no window was safe. His antics were usually done because he was upset over something and that was his way of expressing himself. Of course, we would not expect a grown, educated, person today to behave in such an unruly manner. It not only is socially unacceptable, but illegal as well.

What has any of this to do with what I usually write about? Glad you asked. If you know anything at all about me and what I write about, you know how I detest the Yankee lies and myths that have been, and continue to be, regurgitated over, and over, and over again. As stated many times before, we have the truth on our side. Solid, verifiable, able-to-be-referenced truth. The truth can stand upon its own merits. Lies, no matter how crafty, cannot stand the test of time. They, like glass, are brittle and will eventually break. The truth, on the other hand, is rock solid and will withstand impacts with the fragile lie.

So, we might think of the storefront windows in Mayberry as the brittle Yankee Myths, and the rocks hurled by Ernest T. Bass as “truth”. I have never once seen a rock or brick broken by a brittle pane of glass, but a number of windows have been broken by rocks. This may not be the best analogy due to Ernest T’s illegal actions, but I think you get my meaning. Truth will eventually win out. Many who used to believe the Yankee Myth have had enough truth presented to them that they now understand that what they were taught in the government indoctrination centers (public schools) was not quite true, and much of it entirely false.

For years I have been “chunking rocks” at the myths and false statements by writing letters and emails to politicians, journalists, teachers, and principals and presenting them with truth. It has been a lonely battle, and from the literally hundreds of letters written and sent, less than 1% have ever been responded to. But the writing has never stopped. It will never stop until the Good Lord is ready for it to stop. This is my mission, to defend Southern heritage and the honor of our Confederate dead. When I read an article by a so-called “journalist” that is slandering my heritage, I pick up my sack of rocks and go to chunking. When an ignorant politician besmirches my Southern heritage or ancestors, I reach down into my rock sack and smack him, or her, with the hard, solid truth.

Rock chunking is like anything else; the more you do it, the better you get at it. It is Biblically wrong to lie about someone or slander them. There is no gray area. It’s wrong. So, how many “rock chunkers” do we have out there? Don’t let the historically ignorant and indoctrinated get away with slandering your ancestors. Chunk some rocks at them. Rocks of truth. Many great books are available that tell us the truth. They arm us with the “rocks” we need to shatter the brittle lies. We need more “rock chunkers” in the sense of replying to those who are ignorant and need to learn the truth. Arm yourself with “rocks of truth”, then when you read or hear a false statement, you can reach into your “bag of rocks” and start to chunking. Are you a “rock chunker”?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/confederate-flag-display-at-great-american-state-fair-ignites-firestorm/ar-AA26EBLx?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=6a3f5c9d81924d5fa2e19755ab5f0ab0&ei=20

It seems that there was an event in Washington DC called ‘The Great American State Fair’ held on 25 June, 2026. At this fair there was an “interactive exhibit” for North Carolina which displayed Confederate flags on television screens. My word! How dare they! Someone was actually proud of their heritage and had the gall to put on public display the images of a flag that represents the very same principles as the Betsy Ross flag? A symbol of defiance to tyranny, the right to self-determination and independence? A flag under which many whites, blacks, Indians, Mexicans, and others died in defense of their homes and families from the illegal invasion of Lincoln’s murderers, looters, arsonists and rapists? Didn’t they know that Southerners are the ONLY class of people in this country who are NOT allowed to celebrate their heritage and symbols, and the virtuous actions of their dead Christian ancestors? Why, people might get offended. Well, as my late friend Charlie Wilson used to say, “Nobody has the right to not be offended”.

I am offended. Offended at the actions and statements of the Mt. Olive Pickle Company of North Carolina. As much as I love their products (the ones without the yellow dye) and have a jar currently residing on the top shelf of my refrigerator, I have informed them that until they reverse their statement made at the fair, I will no longer be a customer of theirs. The company shared this statement:

“Mt. Olive Pickle Company was invited to participate in the North Carolina exhibit for the Great American State Fair in Washington, D.C., as part of America’s 250th celebration,” the statement said. “We are proud of our North Carolina roots, and we agreed to be a part of an exhibit, as presented to us, that would represent the best of our great state. We were unaware that an image of the Confederate flag was included in a video as part of this exhibit, and we have withdrawn our participation. Our company stands on values of human dignity, opportunity, and freedom.”

A Southern company in a Southern state is evidently run by people who are so ignorant of their history that the very sight of a symbol under which their ancestors, or at least the ancestors of many of their customers, fought and died actually offends them. Well, I’M offended that THEY are offended. I hope many of you out there will write them as well and voice your displeasure at their disrespect of our heritage. There is power in numbers.

Not to be outdone, the Honorable Josh Stein, governor of the great state of North Carolina, chimed in with his vast knowledge of our history and had this to say:

“This flag does not represent the North Carolina that we love. America 250 is about unity and bringing our nation together. We are pleased the flag that did the opposite has now been taken down. Here in Raleigh, North Carolina, we are hosting a July 4th A250 celebration that will honor the spirit of equality and freedom in the Declaration of Independence. Everyone is welcome.”

Did you get that? “This flag does not represent the North Carolina that we love.” So, that can only mean that you loathe the segment of the state’s population that honors that flag. And how hypocritical of him to say that this is a “celebration that will honor the spirit of equality and freedom in the Declaration of Independence. Everyone is welcome”. Well, ALMOST everyone. Unless you happen to be a CSA-American whose Confederate ancestors fought to preserve the very Christian principles upon which this country was founded.

Then you don’t count. Your heritage is meaningless and distasteful. Southern Americans are the ONLY class of people who can be slandered, denigrated, looked down upon, and ridiculed. That includes their history and symbols as well. If ANY other group of people in this country were to be treated as Southerners are, the media would be squalling like a mashed cat. But, hey, it’s ALWAYS open season on us, our heritage, and our symbols. Well, no more.

There is an organization, to which I am proud to belong, called the Southern Independence Association. Their mission is to get legislation passed to not only protect our monuments from removal, but our people from discrimination. It is way past time that this happen. As I have said for years, education, or the lack thereof, is the very reason we have had our monuments and symbols removed. The truth is not taught, and the institutions of academia, the media, Hollywood, and politicians continue the 160 year old Yankee Myth and push the rewritten version of history down our throats. Too many people, it would seem, do not have a gag reflex. Mine has been functioning quite well for a long time and I cannot swallow the blatant lies and mythology of the Yankee Empire. The narrative has to change, as I printed in a previous article. There is no excuse for people to be this ignorant in 2026. Push back against the false narrative. Let YOUR voice be heard. YOU are the voice of your dead ancestors. Do not allow the slander against them to go unanswered!