About the Public Memory of Reconstruction …

Flaggers Applaud the KKK

Ah, a Virginia Flaggers supporter celebrates the Reconstruction KKK as protecting “ALL decent citizens,” and they were loyal to the US Constitution.

Here’s one example:

Here’s another way to protect decent citizens, Klan style:

You always learn interesting things about historical memory when you read what is on the Virginia Flaggers’ Facebook page.

5 thoughts on “About the Public Memory of Reconstruction …

  1. Jimmy Dick June 2, 2015 / 8:38 pm

    It is the racism of the flaggers in full view. They probably don’t even understand it. It was what they were taught to believe in. Their version of Reconstruction is a major part of the lost cause. It will be a tough battle to replace the myths, but we can do it. Working together and using facts historians have managed to deliver a crippling blow to the causation theory behind the Civil War. Now it is time to take the next step.

    It is sort of like slaying a vampire. It takes a lot of work, but once you drag that screaming evil villain out into the daylight the sun finishes the job. In this case we have to expose the lies, show the facts, and let the people take it from there.

  2. taxsanity June 3, 2015 / 7:00 am

    Jimmy, Im not sure what you think historians have managed to deliver, about the causation of the Civil War. What historians are you talking about?

    Im still waiting.

    I read, and have for about ten years, Southern newspapers, Southern books, Southern speeches, Southern letters, for a hobb. Have since I wrote a screenplay about “Slave Dogs”.

    Im always stunned that “historians” do not even mention, much less emphathize and make clear, what Southern leaders boasted of then — and did. Boasting of spreading slavery by violence. Did you know the man who got Kansas Act passed, then rushed out to Kansas to use violence to spread slavery?

    Have you ever heard of him? I mean no disrespect, but to show how people do not know this. The man who got Kansas Act passed, or bragged he did anyway, was US Senator David Rice Atchison. Do you know he boasted of passing it? Yes, we give Douglas that “honor” but Atchison claimed it was he.

    Atchison also boasted of killing to spread slavery. He also was officially Jeff Davis “General of Law and Order”. He also worked with the behind the scene support of Stephen A Douglas, as Chariman of HOuse and Senate Committee on Kansas.

    It’s not a secret, not only did Atchison boast of it, and his newspaper boast of simliiar things, but his speech to his Texas is as important as Lincoln’s House Divided Speech. Have you even heard of that speech? If not, blame those “historians” you seem to claim supply this sunlight.

    Charles Sumner speech — the one he was beat almost to death for — was about David Rice Atchison and his men, their killing and tortures in Kansas. Did you know that? By name, Sumner exposed Atchison, who he knew well, they were both Senators together, back when all the senators could fit into my neighbor’s dining room. Sumner claimed Atchison was just the guy out in Kansas doing these acts – the real criminals were still in DC. By the way, he meant Jeff Davis and Stephen A Douglas.

    Did these “historians” that are shedding light, ever mention Jeff Davis explanation that the resistance to slavery into Kansas was the “intolerable grievance”?

    Did they spend any time – even one sentence in 150 years — exposing Davis remarkable claim that it was a cruelty to slaves to keep them from Kansas, because slaves had such affection for the master? Never mind that 90% of the white males in Kansas, when they finally got a chance to vote, voted against slavery.

    “Historian” McPherson just wrote a book about Jeff Davis. He did not seem to find room for one sentence about Davis role in Kansas killing sprees, paying Atchison, or his insistance that slaves are the most contented laborers on earth, with natural affection for their master.

    Not one word. Nor did he ever mention, that I know, Southern war ultimatums that appeared in Richmond papers — about “THE TRUE ISSUE” as the headline said, in May of 1861. The TRUE ISSUE was the spread of slavery into Kansas. The writer then proudly listed five ultimatums — the first two, about the spread of slavery into Kansas.

    By the way, no one was surprsed whatsoever, at this headline, explaining the TRUE ISSUE –because every person in the South and North, already knew full well that was the issue. The platform of the Democrats was exactly lthat — for the election — have these “historians” ever mentioned the war ultimatums?

    New York papers ran the war ultimatums — THE TRUE ISSUE — two days later. I found it in newspapers, why can’t “historians:” New York paper suggested Lincoln obey the ultimatums.

    Lincoln could not — the war ultimatums were than Kansas accept slavery — they had just rejected slavery and become a free state. Lincoln was supposed to what? Send US troops to Kansas to force them to have slavery? Actually, Jeff Davis already tried that back when he was Secreatary of War, and it did not work, which is why he had to get David Rice Atchison to go there, and gladly do what US troops would not, kill and terrorize to spread slavery.

    When you tell me that historians have brought to light the causation of the Civil War, well Im still waiting for them to get it.

    Meanwhile, the best place to get information on what caused the Civil War, is to avoid “historians” altogether, and read Southern newspapers, Southern books, Southern war ultimatums, Southern Declarations of secession. And that speech to his Texas men, delivered by David Rice Atchison, boasting he was working for “the present administration” to bring the war to the center of the country, to spread slavery to the Pacific, is a nice place to start.

    • Jimmy Dick June 3, 2015 / 10:50 am

      I know who Atchison is. William Freehling covered him quite well in his book. Historians use the sources you mention in addition to others. You may not have read about Atchison in many books, but Atchison is just one man and he lost power when the Missouri legislature deadlocked over electing a senator in 1855. He served as a general of the Missouri State Guard, but resigned because he couldn’t get along with Sterling Price in 1862.

      I bring him up in my history classes, but once Atchison was out of the Senate in 1855 he really wasn’t as important as others at that time.

      • taxsanity June 3, 2015 / 9:24 pm

        Im a little confused…

        You TEACH history, and you claim Atchison was not really as important as others?

        Something about Sterling?

        Which Senator do you suppose Charles Sumner thought was important? His Crimes Against Kansas was about that guy you said was not important. David Rice Atchison.

        Yes, Atchison left the Senate — FOR KANSAS. Sumner indicated Atchison left in haste for Kansas. And there, Atchison started his reign of terror that led directly to Lecompton and the Civil War.

        Atchison got Jeff Davis hopes up — you should see the letter from Atchison to his boss, Jeff Davis.

        I never read Freehling, but if he failed to tell you that Atchison –with reason – boasted he got Kansas Act passed, and was the guy Atchison was naming as the guy killing and terrorizing in Kansas, after passing Kansas Act, you should ask for your money back, and an explaintion.

        How do you judge Freehling when you say he did “quite well” in covering Atchison? Maybe he did. But if he did, you musta missed those pages about Atchison killings and tortures in Kansas, after he got Kansas Act passed.

        Did Freehling have a sentence like this “David Rice Atchison worked with Stephen A Douglas in a ruse, called Kansas-Nebraska Act, later specifically mentioned by Lincoln as being the “first part of the machinery” to spread slavery, and spread it against states rights. Even though 90% of the white males in Kansas were against slavery, Atchison hired Missouri men, later Texas men, to kill and torture, and he bragged about killing to spread slavery into Kansas, and beyond. He bragged repeatedly, loudly and proudly, and his actions were backed up by the actions of his killers, which we now give the goofy name “Roughians”. Sumner was speaking about Atchison at length, for hours, in the speech he gave, where he was beaten almost to death”.

        If he had n o sentence like that, ask for an explanation.

        What did Freehling claim? If the extent of it was something about his inability to get along with a guy name Price, well Sumner would probably disagree. Lincoln too. Atchison, most of all. Atchison was quite proud of his job as General of Law and Order in Kansas. He also boasted of his connections with “the present administration”.

        Atchison and Douglas tag team approach to spreading slavery, but give that the Orwellian name popular sovereignty, is one of the all time swindles of US history. Lincoln, of course, was well aware what Douglas was up to, and outted him about the false use of the term popuular sovereighty, as did others. One of the advantages of reading Southern newspapers at the time as a hobby, and Kansas papers, I get to read things the South and men like Atchison boasted about, that seem remarkably absent from history books. I never heard anyone say Southern leaders issued war ultimatums about spread of slavery. I had to read Southern newspapers boasting of it, at the time.

        I never heard Atchison boasted of passing Kansas Act — had to read that in KS papers at the time.

        I never heard Charles Sumner was beaten almost to death in a speech he spoke for hours about David Rice Atchison and his Crimes against Kansas — I had to get that from the speech itself. Yes I knew he was beaten, but not that hour after hour he spoke in minute detail about Davis Rice Actison’s violence.

        Violence, by the way, which soon got drastically worse, as his Texas men showed up, and he bragged to them about being well paid to stick their knives in the black blood of those who dared to speak against salvery.

        Kind of an important speech. Atchison boasting speech, came after Atchison had done enough crimes and violence to get Sumner to refer to him for hours, in his speech.

        As I read origional documents, Im always going WTF? Why didn’t anyone tell me this.

        Did Freehling mention it? If not, why not? What did Freehling say Atchison was doing in Kansas? It’s not a mystery — Charles Sumner was exceedingly clear what Atchison was doing. It’s impossible to miss what Atchison was doing, if you read Sumners speech.

        I never heard that the SCOTUS went on and on and on about how blacks are so inferior, they were not human beings, and ordered — ordered — that blacks be seen NOT as human beings, NOT as persons, but as property, and in the same sentence – has to be the most importan sentence in court history fo Civil War — ordere the federal government to protect slavery, even in areas that voted against slavery 90 and 95% and fought against slavery for years.

        Or are Southern newspapers wrong? Was Atchison warong when he was speaking to his Texas men? He told them they were killing to spread slavery. Was he having a bad day?

        Was Sumner wrong in his speech?

        Was LIncoln wrong in his letter to Speed?

        Were the Kansas newspapers wrong?

        Was LIncoln’s House Divided Speech wrong?

        Newspapers then made it clear, they knew Kansas Act was a ruse to open up slavery to the machinations of violent men of the South.

        Since Atchison bragged he got KS act passed, then went to KS to terrorize, kill, and called it war against the US, and brag he rode under a red flag in order to spread slavery, maybe thats important to know. That should be at the fron of any book about Civil War, because it was a speech by the man who got Kansas Act passed, making it very very clear what his goal was, and who he worked for — he worked for the entire South, and his goal was to kill enough and terrorize enough to spread slavery not just in the Territories, but all the way to the Pacific.

        If you think this “Sterling Price” is the take away about Atchison, Im not sure what to say, other than, in all Sumners speech about Atchison killings and tortures, he forgot to mention Price. In Lincoln’s House Divided speech, he forgot Price, but did mention Kansas Act and how that was the start of the machinations to spread slavery by any means. In Atchison’s own speech about killing to spread slavery, bragging he worked for Jefferson Davis, bragging he got Kansas Act passed, he too, forgot to mention Price.

        But if you say Atchson was not important, something is quite odd about your sources. There was no one that came close — Atchison got Douglas to fron the KS act, but he claimed he wrote it, and pushed it through. That ALONE is sufficient – but the fact he then went to Kansas, and started his killing sprees, Lecompton, the bogus legislatures, the laws against speech against slavery, the fact he worked for, and boasted he worked for, Jefferson Davis, that should matter.

        Maybe others were more central, I’d just like to know their names and what they did.

        • Jimmy Dick June 4, 2015 / 4:58 am

          Well, let’s see. You have your opinion and I have mine. James McPherson has his opinion too and he won a Pulitzer Prize for History with Battle Cry of Freedom where according to you he didn’t do things right.

          Atchison made a lot of claims. Making claims and backing them up are two different things. Atchison was really good at running his mouth, but when it came time to back things up, well, that’s another story. There is a reason why Stephen Douglas gets the credit for what he did and not Atchison. Did you ever stop to consider that?

          Also, Atchison’s library burnt down sometime after the war and all of his papers went up in smoke. So with no sources to back up Atchison’s claims, historians do not focus on him like they do the others. Again, Atchison was out of power after March of 1855. Stop and consider that. If he was so important and so powerful, why did the Missouri legislature deadlock on returning him to the Senate? The other man they were voting for was Thomas Hart Benton who they had failed to vote for a few years earlier because Benton was not solidly pro-slavery enough for them.

          When it comes to the MIssouri-Kansas violence, Atchison definitely played a role, but again, when you are writing history a lot of things come into play. He gets noted for his involvement in instigating the violence, but after that he really stops being a main player. The real truth about Atchison is on the grand stage of history at that time he was a minor figure.

          You said it yourself, he bragged. He made claims. He ran his mouth. When it came time for digging in to support what he said he backed, he quit and went to Texas. Other Missourians fought and died while he sat out of the line of fire. He did not get the Kansas-Nebraska Act passed. Stephen Douglas did. Atchison did not write the act. Douglas did. Atchison supported the act and encouraged Douglas to submit it, but he was not its architect.

          So basically, Atchison was not as important as others in the grand scope of history. That happens. If you like him, great. Just do not go around saying he did X when he did not.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s