You can now support the SLRC by donating through GoFundMe.
GREENVILLE (SC) - Save Southern Heritage, Inc is preparing a Confederate welcome for Nikki Haley and 12 GOP presidential hopefuls as they travel to Greenville, South Carolina for Heritage Action’s "Take Back America" Candidate Forum on Friday 18 SEP 2015 at the Bon Secours Wellness Convention Center. Flag waving Confederate heritage enthusiasts from across South Carolina and the South will rally on the North Side of North Church Street across from the GOP venue at the Convention Center from 1PM until the GOP candidate forum ends at about 10PM.
"Let our Confederate presence and the Confederate Battle flag set the tone for the rest of the 2016 South Carolina election cycle," said event organizer Kathleen Hines of Mayesville, SC." "Mrs Haley and the GOP betrayed the people of South Carolina, but fortunately the knife wound in our back was not mortal - we are springing back," Hines added.
"We plan to be there for Mrs Haley and other GOP pols (that voted to bring our flag down) as they canvass the state," said SCV Cdr in Chief emeritus Michael Givens. "When they speak - they will see our Confederate flags in the crowd," Givens stated.
SSH Spokesman P Charles Lunsford of Georgia and H. K. Edgerton, Black Confederate activist from North Carolina, will be present for the event. "Since Mrs. Haley tore down the flagpole at the Statehouse Confederate Memorial, when the flag is eventually returned it will need to go back on top of the Statehouse, " opined Lunsford. "Never should have come off the dome in the first place," said Edgerton!
The public is invited to show support for this event to send a strong message to those who reject our heritage and , while expecting our vote.
Save Southern Heritage, Inc, is a 501(c)(4) South Carolina Public Interest Corporation that seeks to protect, defend and expand the traditional culture, history & heritage of the South and America.
SLRC Board member, Loy Mauch, has written an excellent primer for students of the US Constitution - a must read for every SLRC supporter. A copy is available from the SLRC for $20.00 postage paid (in US). Please call us at 828-669-5189 to place an order or send a check to: SLRC, P.O.Box 1235, Black Mountain, NC 28711.
We are proud to reprint this excellent review of Loy Mauch's book, written by historian Dr. Boyd Cathey, which appeared in the current issue of the Confederate Veteran Magazine (May/June 2015).
David Loy Mauch. This Constitution Shall Be the Law of the Land. North Charleston, SC: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2014; paperback; 371 pp; notes; addenda; recommended reading; index.
REVIEW by Dr. Boyd D. Cathey
David Loy Mauch, the author of This Constitution Shall Be the Law of the Land, is an Arkansan, a former state legislator, a fellow of the Society of Independent Southern Historians, and an active member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans. More significantly, he is a facile writer and researcher who has produced a book that could well be a primer for those searching for that one accessible source on the real meaning of Constitutional liberties, states’ rights, and what the Founders actually intended, but also—at times, a searing indictment of those forces that continually have perverted the Founders’ Constitution and destroyed not only the prescribed rights of the States, but also the liberties of the citizens of the United States.
Author Mauch examines the history of the American “experiment” in constitutional government largely chronologically, beginning with the Constitution, itself. He assembles ample and overwhelming testimony that “the United States of America” was the creation of the free and separate states that had won their independence from Great Britain. The Constitution that the thirteen independent states eventually adopted delegated certain very specific and limited powers to a Federal government, reserving the vast majority of rights and self-government to the states. Both the 9th and 10th Amendments—part of the Bill of Rights—make this reservation of powers explicit. Indeed, Mauch cites extensive proof from The Federalist Papers and from James Madison to show the explicit intent of the Founders in this regard.
During the ratification period, even Federalists like Alexander Hamilton were loathe to claim what exponents of powerful managerial Federal government centralization assert today. And the bizarre theory that Abraham Lincoln put forward, that it was the central government that somehow actually preceded and created the states, doling out parsimoniously to them only the rights that it deemed acceptable, is so foreign to the thinking of the Founders that it beggars the imagination.
The originalist belief continued to underlie constitutional considerations during much of the Antebellum period. As Mauch illustrates, the U.S. Supreme Court, in an 8-1decision in the The Bank of Augusta vs. Earl decision (1839), clearly enunciated this accepted theory:
The States between each other are sovereign and independent. They are distinct separate sovereignties, except so far as they have parted with some of the attributes of sovereignty by the Constitution. They continue to be nations, with all their rights, and under all their national obligations, and with all the rights of nations in every particular; except in the surrender by each to the common purposes and objects of the Union, under the Constitution. The rights of the States, when not so yielded up, remain absolute. (p. xxi)
And such views of the powers and authority of the several states were not restricted to those states below the Mason-Dixon Line. Indeed, as Mauch details, at various times, including during the War of 1812 and the Mexican War, states in New England seriously considered seceding, leaving, the Federal Union. And most constitutional writers and authorities of the time agreed. Indeed, famed jurist William Rawle’s volume, A View of the Constitution of the United States (1825), states clearly: “The secession of a State from the Union depends of the will of the people of such State. The people alone as we have already seen, hold the power to alter their constitutions.” (p. 90) Rawle’s text was used as the official text on the Constitution and constitutional interpretation at West Point prior to the War Between the States.
In particular, Mauch offers a breath of fresh air and needed clarification in his discussion of the famous Dred Scott vs. Sanford decision by the Supreme Court (March 1857). In a lopsided 7-2 decision, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, delivered for the court a decision that just about everyone on the current political scene today condemns. Yet, as Mauch carefully documents, Taney’s decision was entirely consistent both with the Constitution and with congressional statutes. A slave escaping to a free state could not, then, assume the rights of a citizen and sue in court, for the Constitution had explicitly excluded such a possibility. Agree with the law or not, Taney stated, it was the law. The Constitution provided a process for change: passing a constitutional amendment.
Mauch’s discussion of interposition, nullification, secession, and the secession crisis offers a useful summary of arguments that will be familiar to many readers. Yet, it is valuable to have these points recapitulated concisely and persuasively. As he points out, interposition, nullification, and secession had been discussed widely prior to 1860; indeed, both Southern AND Northern States had implemented such actions. As late as the 1850s Wisconsin actually nullified the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 (p. 55).
President James Buchanan, in his last message to Congress and the nation before Lincoln’s assumption of the presidency in March 1861, made it explicitly clear that, as much as he regretted and disagreed with the secession of the Southern States, the Federal government had no power to coerce a state or force it to remain in the Union. Lincoln, of course, with his radical and revolutionary ideas of Federal supremacy would have nothing of that, and as historian William Marvel has pointed out (in his volume, Mr. Lincoln Goes to War), sabotaged and undercut every attempt at mediation and peaceful resolution prior to the outbreak of war.
Echoing writers such as Charles Adams (When in the Course of Human Events), Thomas Di Lorenzo (The Real Lincoln), and Greg Durand (America’s Caesar), Mauch methodically details the severe economic hardships placed on the South as a major reason for eventual secession of the lower South, and the flagrant violation of the Constitution when Lincoln called for troops as the major reason for the secession of the upper South (and, more, the opposition of a large percentage of citizens above the Mason-Dixon Line, as well). Interestingly, several states when they had joined the Union had included specific language declaring that they could withdraw from it if conditions dictated. And this is what individual Southern states did: they rescinded their acts of union.
Certainly, the issue of slavery was discussed at the time; but the major concerns expressed by most Southerners were: (1) slavery is a question for the respective States to decide; and (2) it is a question of property legitimately recognized by the constitutions of the States AND by the Federal Constitution. Any eventual manumission would have to recognize these facts. Interestingly, Lincoln understood fully well that freeing the slaves was not an issue to rally Northern support for a war, and his appeals, certainly up to the Gettysburg Address, were mostly pleas to “save the union.” His overriding concern was to defeat and control the South and empower the Federal government, whatever method was most useful. Recall his famous interview with Horace Greeley in late 1862 that if he were able to save the union and maintain slavery, he would:
“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union.”
As Mauch shows, the Lincolnian “revolution”—through the defeat of the South—removed the counterbalance to the growth in Federal and national managerial power. The 14thAmendment, passed illegally without the requisite number of states approving it, opened the door in the 20th century to the wide-open doctrine of “incorporation,” that is, applying all types of radical and unthinkable (to the Founders) legislation to the States, when even the drafters of that amendment did not foresee such a process. One such result, clearly NOT foreseen, is the present state of affairs that permits an illegal immigrant, non-citizen female to simply cross the Rio Grande River and have a child on thisside of the border and, there you have it, a new “American citizen.” The 14th Amendment was directed to former slaves, and in no way to illegal immigrants. Clarification of this process is just one major item that needs to be addressed both by Congress and the Courts.
Mauch’s final chapters treat a number of the consequences of the Lincolnian revolution and the virtual abolition of the Founders’ Constitution. The Founders had written: “The Constitution shall be…the supreme Law of Land.” As he pleads with his readers, it is long past time for a counter-revolution and the recovery of what has been lost. Such will not be easy, certainly, but for the sake of our children and grandchildren it must be attempted.
Only the Tip of The Iceberg
As everyone probably knows, the issue of whether or not to change the name of the NFL team The Washington Redskins has been up in the air for a while now. There's a lot of support on both sides of the argument. For instance one man that is in favor of keeping the name was quoted as saying, “The Redskins' nickname, neither in intent, nor use was the name ever meant to denigrate Native Americans, or offend any group. For the teams' millions of fans and customers, who represent one of America's most ethnically and geographically diverse fan basis, the name is a unifying force that stands for strength, courage, pride and respect.” In reply to this statement of support this quote came from an opposing individual, “The name Redskins is a racial slur, and for anyone to embrace the twisted logic that Redskin actually stands for strength, courage, pride and respect is a statement of absurdity.”
How did we get to a place where a simple name is causing so much conflict? All we hear about these days is how we need to embrace diversity, accept everyone. After all we are all different colors on the same rainbow, etc. The government is slowly but surely putting the false idea into American's heads that we are all being equal and accepting by encouraging and involving ourselves in gay and lesbian relationships, because love is love and because it's the new fad. Also by becoming so touchy and easily offended and sensitive that others recognize color, and nationality to the ridiculous extreme that even calling yourself white or black or any other color has become a racial slur. I believe this is being done to instill a false sense of equality so that American's will believe that they are moving towards creating a Utopian Society, when in fact what is happening is that we are being lulled into a certain state of numbness. Because rather than accepting and acknowledging that we all are in fact different, our differences are supposed to be something ignored and not seen. There is nothing to distinguish us if we refuse to see color, nationality, religion, etc. This type of behavior is in reality turning us all into brainwashed robots. How long before it's frowned upon to have different names? What will make us any different from a bunch of numbered machines?
This is what government is really aiming for. Rather than creating a Utopic, perfect society, we are going to wake up and find ourselves instead in the middle of a dystopic society. There is good news though! We don't have to let this happen! Stop being afraid to make people mad. So what if you lose a few friends? Recognize diversity for what it really is, defend and protect your heritage and stand up for what makes you different. Truly embrace diversity, see difference and be different!
Very proud to announce that our long time friend and colleague, atty Fred D. Taylor is representing several Danville citizens against the Danville City Council. (An article concerning this can be read HERE.) Remembering the 1994 City council resolution, Taylor has fired a shot across the city council's bow to prevent removal of the 3rd National Confederate flag from in front of the city-owned "Last Capitol of the Confederacy."
Taylor provided material research, briefing, and drafting work in our long running Hardwick Case while he was in law school, and argued our case in a stellar performance at our second round at the Fourth Circuit in Richmond.
Dear Mr. King,
Please be advised that I represent a number of individual citizens of Danville who share an interest in the above-referenced matter.
As you are likely aware, the placement of the Confederate monument and flag memorial in 1994 was for the purpose of promoting the history of Danville and perpetually "recognizing the Sutherlin Mansion's historical status as the 'Last Capitol of the Confederacy."'
In reaching the agreement for the placement of the memorial with the Heritage Preservation Association, the City of Danville specifically adopted with Resolution 94-9.1(2) that:
Neither the City, its successors in interest, nor any tenant of the property shall alter the design, location or inscription of the monument, nor shall the City, its successors in interest, or any tenant of the property remove or alter the flag flying from the monument.
My clients and I are firmly of the belief that any removal or alteration of the Confederate memorial and the flag would in fact be a violation of the City's agreement with the Heritage Preservation Association and the 1994 Resolution by the City.
Additionally, any removal or alteration of the memorial would also violate Virginia law. Code of Virginia § 15.2- 1812 provides in pertinent part that:
A locality may, within the geographical limits of the locality, authorize and permit the erection of monuments or memorials for any war or conflict... if such are erected, it shall be unlawful for the authorities of the locality, or any other person or persons, to disturb or interfere with any monuments or memorials so erected, or to prevent its citizens from taking proper measures and exercising proper means for the protection, preservation and care of same. For purposes this section, "disturb or interfere with" includes removal of, damaging or defacing monuments or memorials. (Emphasis Added)
At this time, we understand that the request by the Board of Directors of the Danville Museum of Fine Arts and History has not been acted upon the Danville City Council, but may be under consideration as early as Thursday, October 9,2014. With this in mind, my clients hope that the City Council will be ever mindful and cautious of the legal ramifications, as herein detailed, regarding any removal or alteration of this historic monument and memorial.
Thank-you for your consideration, and should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
Fred D. Taylor
This letter can be viewed as a PDF document HERE.
Peter's famous line from the 1895 novel on the persecution of early Christians is equally cogent today. Political correctness is almost the state religion, the rule of law means nothing to most of our judiciary (as the Confederate community well knows) and many of our fellow citizens have now internalized that our sacred banner is somehow "wrong," "racist" and "offensive" per se.
What is a Confederate Patriot to do?
First thing is not to give up. As long as "they" are not shooting us down in the streets, there is still plenty we can do. One thing we need to stop doing is handing off case after case to lawyers and expect them to win on their own with little or no input or work from the Confederate community. We have said for years that ALL Confederate cases are "political." That means the system has a vested interest in the outcome. In political cases the standard rules change to make sure the outcome is system friendly. Courts assume there is no down side to ruling against us and plenty of downside to ruling for us. That thinking can only change when the Confederate community gets more involved in Confederate cases. That means our people need to pack the court room at every hearing, that we are outside the court house protesting, that committees of correspondence are keeping up a withering fire of letters to the editor, guest editorials, press releases and letters to politicians, school board members and the media. We need to actively recruit allies (other heritage organizations) and fellow citizens to assist. Lastly a PAC or politically oriented heritage group needs to start work in the local community to remove the politicos that caused the problem in the first place.
The Texas SCV License plate case may go to the Supreme Court of the US. We need to recruit 5-6 other organizations to draft & file friend of the court briefs (Amicus Curiae) to make sure the Court & the State of Texas understand that this is far more than an SCV issue. And AG Greg Abbott needs to be feeling the ire of the Confederate Community and its allies as he runs for governor.
It is getting worse. Now Washington & Lee is spitting on the memory of Robert E. Lee, with the connivance of Lee's lickspittle and worthless Great grandson, by removing sacred Confederate flags from the Lee Chapel. It’s a private university - the First amendment does not apply. The law so far does not provide a visible remedy. So what do we do - walk away? Of course not. We must put our collective heads together and come up with a strategy! If two wealthy alumni told W&L that the money pipe stops because of their insult to Lee - the flags would probably already be back in Lee Chapel. No alumni has come forward - these are the degraded times we live in. What is needed is bold eye-catching action. Maybe it’s time for some non-violent civil disobedience. Maybe it’s time for someone to go to jail for Bobby Lee.