Sunday, May 31, 2015


  This question has been pondered by historians for years. Personally I am not a Southern apologist or a Neo Confederate.. I have no romantic view of the old South and I like the new South better. I am a realist however. As far as racism and the plight of blacks in this country the North was no paradise. To paraphrase Malcolm X he once said that people should quit picking on the South. Once you cross the Canadian border you are in the South. He could say this with authority since he was born in East Lansing Michigan and had lived for most of his life in Boston and New York City. He only visited the South once and that was not long before his death. Malcolm experienced blatant racism for most of his life. Which made his mind a fertile ground for the radical views of the Black Muslim movement. Several members of his family, including his father, had been lynched in the North by the KKK. Before the Civil War the plight of free blacks in the North was in some ways worse than that of the slave. The slave was somewhat being provided for. They had food and shelter. Much of the seed money to start Northern industry had come from the sale of their own slaves. In the North free blacks were pretty much on their own in a society that did not want them. They scratched out a meager existence in low paying menial jobs if they could find a job at all. Some states like Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Iowa, and Oregon passed anti-immigration laws which prohibited free blacks from moving into their states. Other Northern states had bonding laws that did not outlaw black immigration but the cost of being bonded was prohibitive. We sometimes forget that all thirteen colonies were slave states from the beginning of our country. New Jersey was the last Northern state of the original thirteen to ban slavery in 1804. Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri would have slavery until it was abolished by the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865.

   Okay let us return to the question. What if the South had won the Civil War? From a military standpoint the South was greatly disadvantaged. The population of the North was twenty-two million people as opposed to the Souths nine million. Out of nine million only five million were white. The South was able to field an army that eventually numbered around one million. The North fielded an army of two million. The North of course was vastly more industrialized and it had many more miles of railroad track and stock. The South had pockets of industrialization. The Tredagar Iron Works in Richmond, which supplied a great deal of Southern armaments throughout the war. Nashville was producing weapons of war until it was captured early on. There were other pockets of industrialization like Selma Alabama and other such cities in the South.  Although we think of the South as being agricultural and the North as industrial before the war the North was even more agricultural than the South. The Souths agriculture was centered around cotton and tobacco. However the wealth tied up in slaves, property and cash crops was worth more than all Northern assets combined. In spite of disadvantages the South could have won the Civil War. I believe that all wars can be won if the right strategy is employed and the enemy accommodates you by employing the wrong strategy. Making mistakes is always helpful too. For example who would have believed that a ragged, undisciplined mob of patriots, led by George Washington, could defeat a country like England which possessed the strongest army, navy and economy in the world.

  Washington, after rough handling and near defeat by the British in New York, finally employed the right strategy, He realized that the American army would never be able to defeat the British army in a head to head fight. After New York his strategy was not to lose. He would never again allow his army to be trapped and diminished in battles of attrition. The goal was to engage the British but retreat to fight another day if the battle began to go badly for the Americans. This strategy was very difficult for Washington because he had a very aggressive nature and constantly wanted to attack the British. The British on the other hand had many opportunities to win but because of mistakes made by their commanders, and a flawed British strategy, Washington was able to hold on until he received French help and British war weariness after his victory at Yorktown. Another example would be our war in Vietnam. The North Vietnamese employed the right strategy and we had the wrong strategy. Never let anyone tell you that the war in Vietnam was not winnable for the Americans. We just didn't have the will to win it.

  The South was facing odds similar to the American colonists in 1775. The only difference was the South's enemy was on it's doorstep. Although the North faced a huge logistics problem in supplying it's armies in the South. In total the South was larger in area than western Europe. England had to supply it's armies from thousands of miles away across an ocean. 

1. The South might have won it's independence without firing a shot.

Just think of the dilemma that Lincoln would have faced if the South had refused to fire on Ft. Sumter. The South had much political clout and many friends in the North prior to the war. This was evident in the many compromises worked out before the war to alleviate sectional tensions over slavery. Many in the North adopted a policy of appeasement in order to keep the South from seceding. If the South had not fired on Sumter Lincoln would have faced the same dilemma that Roosevelt faced just before Pearl Harbor. Most Americans did not want war and Roosevelt even felt compelled to make a promise to the American people that he knew that he was bound to break eventually. He did this on many occasions in the presidential campaign of 1940. His most famous promise was given in Boston. "I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again: Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars." He knew however when he said this that Hitler had to be stopped but first he had to be reelected.

  Unfortunately there was much sympathy for Hitler in this country.Many people including the likes of Henry Ford, Charles Lindbergh, and Joseph Kennedy were admirers of Hitler. Some people like to think that Pearl Harbor gave Roosevelt the green light to declare war on Germany but it didn't. Roosevelt's dilemma was solved by Hitler himself when he made the mistake of declaring war on America four days after Pearl Harbor. Americans did not have a beef with Germany. It was Japan that they were furious with. By declaring war on us Hitler made one of his greatest blunders of the war. The South like Japan attacking Pearl Harbor, made it's greatest blunder by firing on Ft. Sumter. Firing on the flag had the same impact on the North that Pearl Harbor had on America in 1941. It united the north and diminished the number of people who sympathized with the South. Northern men flocked to the recruiting stations. If the South had somehow contained it's enthusiasm for war, which would have been very difficult politically, and not fired on Sumter, the ball would have been in Lincoln's court. Any military action on Lincoln's part would have made him look like the aggressor. Who knows, the South might have won it's independence without firing a shot.

2. The South could have won the war by winning a decisive victory on Northern soil in the Fall of 1862, This might have gained a military alliance with Britain or France.

  The South had a very narrow window of opportunity on this one. Many, if not most, historians, consider Gettysburg to be the turning point of the war. It was a turning point but not the turning point as far as gaining foreign recognition. The South lost that opportunity with the twin defeats of Lee at Antietam and Bragg's defeat in his Kentucky campaign during the Fall of 1862. At this time the aristocratic governments of both  Britain and France were pulling for the South because of English textile mills suffering from a cotton shortage. During the summer of 1862 Lincoln had decided to issue an Emancipation Proclamation. Secretary of State Seward suggested that Lincoln wait until the North could win a victory on the battlefield. If he issued the proclamation before a victory it would look like an act of desperation on the part of Lincoln. The North was at a low point during the Spring and Summer of 1862. They had suffered humiliating defeats during the Seven Days battles and at Second Bull Run. In the west they had been more successful but now in the Fall Bragg was threatening Louisville and Cincinnati. When Lee and Bragg were defeated Lincoln was able to issue his Emancipation Proclamation. This document was a brilliant move on the part of Lincoln. It did not grant freedom to slaves in those slave states still in the Union and in Tennessee. It would affect only those states still under the control of the Confederacy. The order would not alienate loyal slave owners by freeing their slaves.
Dead Rebels at the edge of Farmer Millers cornfield

Same angle as above picture when I was at Antietam in 2003 

  Secondly the Emancipation Proclamation effectively robbed the South of much of it's work force. As Union armies occupied more and more Southern territory slaves flocked to their protection. Slaves were being used to dig fortifications and earthworks by the South. They were also freeing up white farmers to fight in the Confederate Army. After the proclamation many of these slaves left the work force. This in turn increased the amount of desertion in the Confederate Army because men were concerned about the welfare of their families since there was no one to work their farms. The third consequence of the Emancipation Proclamation, and probably the most important, was that it expanded the scope of the war from not just a fight to preserve the Union but overnight it became a fight for human freedom. This consequence of the order virtually ended any thought of foreign intervention. Before the Proclamation the cotton shortage in English and French textile mills combined with sympathy among the European aristocracy for the Southern cause produced a push to intervene on the side of the South.The working classes of Europe, many who worked in English and french textile mills expressed their support for the Union cause which suppressed the aristocratic support for the South in the British and French governments. This is why the battle of Antietam and the Kentucky campaign taken together were so important. If Lee had won a decisive victory on Northern soil, coupled with a victory by Bragg's army in Kentucky a treaty of alliance with either Britain, France or both might have insured a Confederate victory in the Civil War. By the time of the battle of Gettysburg, even if the South had won a decisive victory there, the chances of European involvement were slim to none because of the Emancipation Proclamation. These three factors make the Emancipation Proclamation a stroke of genius on the part of Lincoln.

3. The South could have won the war by adopting Washington's strategy of fighting not to lose, combined with a bold strategy proposed by Stonewall Jackson.

This in my humble opinion was the South's best chance for victory. Many people called Ulysses S. Grant a butcher because of the massive casualties that his army took fighting against Lee during the Overland campaign of May and June 1864. However it was Lee who was the butcher. Lee was using a strategy called the offensive defensive. The following is historian James McPherson's definition of this strategy. “The Confederates eventually synthesized these various strands of strategic theory and political reality into what Davis called an “offensive-defensive” strategy. This consisted of defending the Confederate homeland by using interior lines of communication… to concentrate dispersed forces against an invading army and, if opportunity offered, to go over to the offensive, even to the extent of invading the North….it emerged from a series of major campaigns in the Virginia-Maryland and Tennessee-Kentucky theaters during 1862, and culminated at Gettysburg in 1863.” -James McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era, p. 338, Oxford University Press, NY, 1988. Lee like Washington was a very aggressive commander but Washington's strategy of fighting not to lose was more realistic than the offensive-defensive strategy. The South did not have the men and resources to employ this strategy. For example Lee had 37% casualties at Gettysburg and Bragg had 27% at Chickamauga. The South could not afford these casualty numbers. The term casualty includes killed, wounded, and missing. Missing could be anything from being captured to being blown apart by an artillery shell.

  As in the case of Washington and the Continental Army, as long as the Confederate Army existed, the Confederacy existed. Lee and other Confederate commanders also believed in the Napoleonic concept of the Decisive Battle. In other words if you could win one battle so lopsided or decisive in your favor, it would force an end to the war. This is why Lee raided the North in 1862 and in 1863. He felt that winning a decisive battle on Northern soil would draw foreign intervention to the side of the South or force the Union government to sue for peace terms. This is how wars were won in the past. The Civil War was the first modern war in which it would require wearing down your enemy by attrition and the economic devastation of the population, along with psychological warfare. Grant and Sherman realized this after Shiloh. This was such a vicious battle that they realized that the war would be a fight to the bitter end. No one battle would end it.
The Hornets Nest at Shiloh

  Nevertheless Jefferson Davis and his generals could have won an armistice. This was their best chance for victory. They could have achieved a military stalemate.that would have allowed the South to gain it's independence as a separate and sovereign nation. This could have been achieved by several changes in strategy that would have required strong political skill and leadership. In my opinion Davis was the wrong man for the job. First of all Davis tried to defend every square inch of the South. This included the South's east coast and gulf coast. The Eastern seaboard states between the Appalachians and the Atlantic. The entire middle South between the Appalachians and the Mississippi River, which was a vast area, and the trans Mississippi area which encompassed Louisiana, Arkansas and Texas. In addition the South in the Eastern theater wasted thousands of man hours of physical labor and thousands of lives defending the Confederate capital in Richmond at all costs. This is why there were more casualties in the Eastern theater than in the West because the Union and Confederate armies were fighting over a 100 mile area of northern Virginia between Washington D.C. and Richmond. Lincoln was trying to protect Washington just as hard as Davis was trying to protect Richmond. The armies were in closer proximity to each other in the east., Having  an aggressive commander such as Lee meant that they would frequently clash. The original capital of the Confederacy was Montgomery Alabama. After Virginia seceded, for political reasons, since Virginia was the most powerful and populous state in the South, the capital was moved to Richmond. This was a strategic mistake because Montgomery would have been easier to defend because of it's deep South location. Richmond was much more vulnerable to attack.

  In order to win Southern commanders should have engaged Union forces whenever possible however like Washington their strategic goal should have been not to lose. The South should have avoided battles of attrition. Also Davis should have been willing to give up territory whenever it served the long term goal of winning an armistice. For example the Capital of the thirteen colonies was in Philadelphia. In 1777 the British Army occupied Philadelphia after defeating Washington at the battle of Brandywine Creek. The Second Continental Congress simply packed up and moved to a different location while the British occupied the city and the government continued to function. During the War of 1812 the British occupied Washington D.C. and burned government buildings including the White House, yet our government survived. In the end the South's focus should have been on preserving the Confederate army from destruction. As long as the army existed the Confederacy existed. In addition the South should have employed guerrilla warfare on a large scale to further the frustration and war weariness of the North.

  Another strategy that Stonewall Jackson advocated, but was not allowed to carry out, was to take an army of about 40,000 men into the North. Jackson's men were called foot cavalry because of their rapid marching throughout the Shenandoah Valley during the Valley campaign of 1862. Jackson seemed to function better when he operated independently. He thoroughly confused three Union Armies who were trying to corner him in the Valley. Jackson wanted to take his foot cavalry into Northern territory as an independent army. This would be a psychological blow to Northern morale. He felt that he would be able to draw the Union armies, sent to destroy him, into battles of his own choosing. Jackson advocated defense in depth. He said that he had attacked positions that he couldn't take but he had never seen a position that he couldn't defend. Jackson was given his nickname of Stonewall at First Bull Run because of his stand on Henry House Hill and he held a strong position on the right at Fredricksburg. At Second Bull Run he had successfully defended against numerous attacks by John Popes army, giving Lee time to position a devastating flank attack that would ultimately win the battle. It was Jackson's bold strategy that enabled Lee to win his greatest victory at Chancellorsville while being outnumbered two to one. One could only imagine what would have happened if Jackson had been allowed to implement his plan.

  Even with the flawed strategy that was employed by the South Lincoln came very near to losing the election of 1864. The war after three years seemed to be in a stalemate. During May and June of 1864 Grants army suffered over 50,000 casualties and Sherman seemed to be nowhere near capturing Atlanta. Then Davis made the huge mistake of placing John Bell Hood in command of the Army of Tennessee. Hood proceeded to destroy his army in four ill-advised attacks designed to defeat Sherman and drive him away from Atlanta. Instead Hood was forced to concede defeat and he evacuated Atlanta in September two months before the presidential election in November. The Northern people were finally able to see light at the end of the tunnel. This swung the election to Lincoln. Former Union commander George B. McClellan was running for president on the Democratic Party platform that was seeking a negotiated settlement to end the war. If the Democratic Party had won the election there is a very good possibility that the South would have negotiated an armistice and gained their independence.
Sherman at Atlanta

I have listed several ways that the South could have won the Civil War. So what kind of country

would the South have evolved into. That is anybodies guess. There is no way that we can accurately predict since it didn't happen. Would the remaining Northern States become anywhere near the powerful nation that the United States became during the Twentieth Century? Probably not, but I believe that because of the industrial potential of the North it would still have been a world power to be reckoned with. On an economic level the South probably would have been isolated As an agricultural society propped up by slavery the South would have continued to be a society of primarily consumers while the North would have continued to be an industrial society of producers. The North was very dependent on Southern cotton before the war. Their textile mills operated on it. In the immediate years after the Civil War, because of built-up animosity the North might have bought East Indian and Egyptian cotton instead however. Europe had been doing this anyway since 1862. Before the war the vast majority of cotton sold on European markets from Britain to Russia was Southern cotton. Cotton was King. At the beginning of the war, before the Northern blockade took effect, the South decided to voluntarily embargo it's cotton in an attempt to compel Europe into intervening on the side of the Confederacy. This was called (Cotton Diplomacy). Soon British and French textile factory owners were begging their governments to intervene. However by 1862 Europe was using East Indian and Egyptian cotton out of necessity instead of Southern cotton. For this reason the embargo backfired on the South. 

The South needed revenue to buy English and European arms. By the time the South realized it's mistake and began selling cotton the Northern blockade was beginning to be effective. The noose was growing ever tighter as the war progressed. Cotton was not getting out in great abundance. A lot would have depended on whether or not that the south could have negotiated trade treaties with the North and world markets after the war. A victorious South would compete for western territories in order to expand slavery. This was essentially what the war had been about in the first place.. The expansion of slavery The North for the most part, was okay with slavery. At least where it already existed. However it did not want slavery to advance into the territories. Free whites in the territories did not want to compete with slave labor Also the South would have tried to expand into central and South America. Southern filibusterers like Nashville native William Walker had attempted to take over Central American countries before the war. Walker became president of Nicaragua before he was eventually executed by a firing squad.

  I have believed for a long time now, aside from the diminished power of the country due to the loss of the South, that maybe blacks would have fared better with a Southern victory. On the surface that sounds strange but I think that a strong case can be made. A few years ago there was a seminar in Murfreesboro sponsored by Stones River National Park about life in Murfreesboro under Union occupation. There were several guests speakers who were authors and noted professors whose expertise was on the Civil War and Reconstruction. I forgot their names for the most part with the exception of Barbara Fields who was the black female professor, along with author Shelby Foote, who starred in the Ken Burns PBS documentary (The Civil War). After everyone spoke there was time for questions. I stated that I believed that slavery would have eventually died a natural death if there had been no Civil War. I asked professor Fields if she agreed with my assessment. She responded that there was no reason to believe that the South would ever have ended slavery. The others on the panel agreed with her. I disagree with her however. At the time of our Civil War only three countries had legal slavery. The United States, Cuba, and Brazil. In Cuba slavery was abolished in 1886 and Brazil in 1888. Brazil had more slaves than any other country. Four million slaves were shipped from Africa to Brazil over the years of the slave trade. By comparison only 600,000 were shipped to the United States. Forty percent of the total number of slaves transported to the America's went to Brazil. Slavery died a natural death in Cuba and Brazil without war. There is no reason to believe that the same thing wouldn't have happened in the United States had there been no Civil War.
Professor Fields on the PBS documentary (The Civil War)

Barbara Fields today

  What would have happened to slavery in the South if the Confederacy had won the war?  Before the war the South and the North interacted in several ways. Through trade, the military, and political interaction. The South had the most influence on a political level in both Congress and the presidency. There were powerful congressmen such as John C. Calhoun and Henry Clay. Seven presidents came from Virginia alone. Several were some of the most influential and powerful, like Washington, Jefferson, and Madison, Jacksonian Democracy gave the common man a greater role in society. Jackson and James K. Polk added more territory to the United States than any other presidents. Washington D.C. was considered a Southern city. West Point, although it was in New York, had more of a Southern atmosphere to it because the army was dominated by the Southern military culture. Our greatest generals before the Civil War were for the most part Southerners, George Washington, Andrew Jackson, Zachary Taylor, and Winfield Scott. However if the South had won the Civil War this interaction, at least for a while would have ended or fallen to a trickle. The South would have been isolated. At least until animosity from the war had a chance to subside. Because of slavery there is a good chance that the South would have been isolated from the world. This isolation could have ruined their economy along with putting pressure on the South to end slavery.

  Another dilemma that the South would have faced over time would have been a labor shortage. If the the South had won it's independence any slaves that managed to escape into the Northern States or into the Western territories would have been free. The North would have passed the 13th Amendment by then and there would have been no fugitive slave law. The South could do nothing legally to retrieve their escaped slaves. Sure, slave owners would have caught some of them but the Souths borders were too extensive to effectively guard. After World War II the Communists took control of East Germany and East Berlin. For a number of years Germans left East Germany in droves. Finally the Communists built a wall manned by soldiers in order to stop the flow of people trying to get out. East Germany was a drab and miserable society compared to the growing and vibrant West Germany. The South could be compared to East Germany and the North to West Germany. A wall and guards to keep blacks in the South would have been out of the question.  There was a great migration starting in the early twentieth century of blacks and whites to the North. Blacks left the South looking for more freedom and jobs. Whites left to escape the grinding poverty of the South and to look for higher paying jobs. Much has been said about the plight of slaves before the war and the Freedman's plight under the black codes and segregation. Not enough has been said however about the plight of poor whites in the South. Prior to the war only 7% of white people owned slaves and the vast majority of these owned five slaves or less. Ninety-three percent owned no slaves at all. Much of this remaining majority were impoverished and illiterate. The individual states were controlled by a handful of wealthy and powerful professional men such as lawyers, physicians, and businessmen. Then there was the wealthy large slave owners and land owners. The common man had little influence and power in antebellum society. They were exploited by the Bourbon class that governed them. Poor whites could not compete against slave labor. Most were subsistence farmers and jobs were scarce. Why would you pay a white man when a slave could do the same work for free. The ruling class constantly stirred the pot of bigotry and fear against the black man. After the Haiti slave revolt that lasted from 1791 until 1804 and a number of slave insurrections in the United States, the most famous being the bloody Nat Turner rebellion in 1831, there was much paranoia among white people. Many poor whites however were supportive of the institution of slavery. They aspired to be land owners and slave owners themselves one day. Much like many common people in modern times aspire to be business owners, capitalists and entrepreneurs. Ultimately the continued dwindling of the slave work force would be another pressure for the South to bring about social change and an end to slavery.

  If the South won the Civil War there would have been no Reconstruction. Without Reconstruction there would have been no Ku Klux Klan or other white supremacist terror groups. Much of the bad things happening to blacks after the civil War was the result of whites trying to preserve the old order and white supremacy. Reconstruction was an attempt by the North to weed out the old slave ruling class, who were predominately Democratic with the Republican Party. The Klan was the storm troopers of the Democratic Party that worked to scare the Freedman away from the polls. The Freedman would vote Republican because it was the party of Lincoln. After the Fifteenth Amendment was passed in 1870 blacks had the right to vote. For a while blacks had a measure of freedom. Some were elected to the Senate and Congress. After the election of Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876 and the subsequent Compromise of 1877 the old order regained power and was dominated by ex Confederates and the old slave power. The Bourbon class. By the late 1800's the Redneck and Overseer class gained control of state governments and this was when the harsh segregation laws were imposed on black people that lasted until the 1960's. If the South had won the war they would not have been so reactionary and there would have been no need for the KKK. The European governments had ended the slave trade and slavery in their own countries and I believe that they would have put pressure on the South economically and otherwise to end slavery. This is another way that the South would have been isolated. I believe that the chances were greater for blacks to achieve their freedom and full civil rights in a South that was victorious after the Civil War rather than a defeated South. In summary a victorious South might have maintained slavery at the most for another thirty to fifty years max. I see no reason why it would have lasted much longer than it did in Cuba and Brazil. These countries were pressured by both internal and external forces to the extent that in the 1880's they ended slavery on their own.

  We have always been taught that the South lost the war. But did they? I have heard it argued that by losing the South actually won. A strong argument can be made for this position. In a speech called the Cornerstone Speech Confederate Vice President, Alexander Stephens contrasted the major difference between the new Confederate constitution and the U.S. Constitution just weeks before the firing on Ft. Sumter. Stephens said the following: "Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition". If there is any doubt that the Civil War was about slavery, then these words should dispel those doubts. Yes, high tariffs and the perception of states rights were contributing factors but if there had been no slavery there would have been no war. If you still have doubts then look at a county by county breakdown of the vote for secession in each of the states. For example in Tennessee, which was the last Southern state to withdraw, those counties that had the fewest slaves voted to remain in the Union. The counties with large slave populations voted to secede. East Tennessee was mountainous with small farms and that region voted not to secede. Fifty percent of Rutherford county's population was slave along with fifty-one percent of Maury County. Davidson county was about thirty-five percent slave. Middle and West Tennessee voted for secession. The mountainous areas of northern Georgia and Alabama also voted against secession.

  As I have touched on already the North and South formed a coalition before the war. Slavery was a source of constant friction between North and South. Compromises were agreed to that insured the survival of our Republic from the very beginning. Since the Southern colonies had fewer whites than the Northern colonies the first compromise was that each slave would count as three-fifths of a person for the purposes of congressional representation. However the Missouri Compromise, in 1820, the Compromise of 1850, the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, the Dred Scott decision of 1857 and the proposal of a Thirteenth Amendment that would have guaranteed perpetual slavery in the South were attempts by this coalition to avoid the inevitable consequence of war. When these attempts at avoiding war finally failed the coalition between North and South would temporarily end with Civil War and Reconstruction. A period that lasted from 1865 until 1877. After 1877 the coalition was reestablished. Although slavery had been abolished by the 13th Amendment Black Codes were implemented and segregation by law. Segregation lasted until the 1964 Civil Rights Act. A brutal system called Convict Lease was established in the South during Reconstruction, which was akin to slavery. With slavery ended white farms and plantations needed laborers. Laws were passed to restrict the movement of blacks. They were arrested for minor offenses and refusing to work for their former owners and other white farmers. After arrest the state would contract them out for a fee to work on farms and private industries, private businesses and mines. The business owner was responsible for housing and feeding the prisoner. The system begin to unwind with the Coal Creek War in 1891. This was when white miners in East Tennessee, tired of competing with the cheap labor of the convict lease system, released these convict workers working in a nearby mine and ran them off. This action and the resulting public outcry on behalf of the white miners would not only end the system in Tennessee but bring down the governor. Over time the convict lease system would be replaced by the Chain Gang. Almost 100% of convict lease prisoners were black. Prisons were reserved for the vilest of white criminals such as murderers and rapists. The Chain Gang consisted of about 75% black and 25% white. The major difference between the Convict Lease system and the Chain Gang was that the convicts worked on state projects like building roads and other public projects. The private sector was not involved.  Segregation limited blacks to menial jobs such as housekeepers, nanny's, gardeners, and other low paying jobs. The South regained much of the political power that it had possessed before the war. Northern politicians and presidents were reluctant to do anything of a progressive nature in regard to race so as not to offend the South. There was always a consideration of uniting the Northern and Southern wings of the Democratic Party. As late as 1960 Kennedy would choose a Southerner, Lyndon Johnson, as a Vice Presidential candidate in order to balance the ticket. 

Since the 1964 and 65 Civil Rights Acts this Northern and Southern coalition has gradually died with the power of the black vote and changing racial attitudes. Since the South pretty much maintained a white power structure and oppressed it's black population until the mid 1960's one could argue that they won the Civil War. Military theorist Carl Von Clausewitz said "War is merely the continuation of politics by other means" If the South achieved it's political goal in spite of what happened on the battlefield does that mean that they actually won? It is a question worth pondering.
Carl Von Clausewitz







Wednesday, May 20, 2015


  It was August 1968, and a broiling hot day at Lackland AFB Texas. My training Flight was lying in the prone position waiting for the command to commence. firing from the range T.I. or Training Instructor. While milling around waiting for our turn to fire, our T.I. had asked all of us where we were from. I told him Tennessee and a kid next to me said North Carolina. He said "Well we got a couple of Alvin York's in our midst". I looked at the kid from North Carolina and he had the same scared look on his face that I am sure that I had. What the T.I. didn't know was that my experience with firearms were limited to firing my dads shotgun a couple of times and the one time that he let me fire a few shots with his 22 caliber pistol at a glass bottle perched on the bank of the Cumberland River near our house in West Nashville. I never hit the bottle.. Now, I was getting ready to fire an M-16 rifle capable of both semi-automatic and fully automatic fire. If there is such a thing as attention deficit disorder, which I no doubt have, and then you combine that with fear, it is a terrible thing to behold. The T.I. had gone to great lengths to explain to us how to fire the weapon on semi-automatic or automatic by properly using the selector switch. The first command was to load five rounds in our magazines for orientation.

  Then the command to fire these rounds semi-automatic. While everyone else flipped their switches to semi, well  you guessed it, I flipped mine to auto. Quicker than you can blink an eye I fired off five rounds at the command of commence firing. The T.I. screamed "You f_ _king dipshit" and I felt a hand grab my belt and physically remove me from the line. Spewing forth a stream of profanities that R. Lee Ermy would be proud of, he thoroughly embarrassed me right there in front of everybody. Then he told me to return to the line and I was even more nervous than before. However I never fired my weapon again in full auto unless commanded to do so. Needless to say I did not qualify that first time out. I didn't feel so bad when I saw the large group of Airmen that also didn't qualify. While everyone else marched back to the barracks another T.I. was placed in charge of us. There was no screaming this time or intimidation. He was even kindly and patient with us while calmly giving us tips on marksmanship. For example breath control and how to squeeze the trigger rather than jerking it. This time I qualified with flying colors.

  Since that day I have never failed to qualify whether it has been on a military or civilian firing range. I have always fired expert and.I took to shooting like a duck to water. One time I was even asked to join the base pistol team for competitive shooting. I am a pretty good shot with a rifle but I seem to be more accurate with a pistol. However. I own a few guns but I am not a gun nut. Many guys I know are experts on various types of firearms. My knowledge is pretty much limited to the weapons I used in the Air Force. The M-2 carbine, the M-16 rifle, the M-60 machine gun, a couple of types of grenade launchers, the .38 caliber pistol and the Beretta 9 millimeter. Beyond that I don't know a whole lot. I am not an expert but there are many things that I do know about the proper use of firearms and the rules of engagement. There is nobody that is more afraid of being shot than I am. So that is why I have the proper respect for them. I know how quickly you can screw up and shoot yourself or somebody else by accident.

   First I want to talk about the 2nd Amendment. The greatest myth perpetuated by anti-gun politicians, and they do this on purpose, is to say something like we are not trying to take away your hunting rifles and shotguns. The Second Amendment was never about the right to hunt. It guarantees every law abiding American the right not only protect themselves and their families but the right to alter or abolish their government if it becomes tyrannical. John Locke said that you must have the means to protect yourself against the thief that enters your home. Once the thief ties you up he not only has the power to rob you of your liberty he can also rob you of your life. When government becomes the thief you must deal with it in the same manner that you deal with the thief who enters your home. We must always have the means to alter or abolish our government. Without the right to be armed there would be no United States of America today. The right to be armed also protects people from mass extermination. There would have been no Jewish holocaust or Armenian genocide if these people had been armed. The 2nd Amendment is an inalienable right that was given to man by God and it can only be legitimately removed by God. If anyone should be against guns it should be me for purely emotional reasons. My mother was killed by a gun. However I never once blamed the gun for her death. 

 As a Security Policeman, in the Air Force our use of force policy was pretty simple. Every base that I ever worked on, where there were priority resources restricted area signs were posted all along the perimeter fences which warned people that the use of deadly force was authorized. If a person was running or walking toward a resource I was authorized to shoot them if they didn't stop or turn around. Regardless if I could confirm that they had a weapon or not. We could not take that chance. However our goal was to stop them but if they were killed in the process that was just too bad. As a civilian I do not have that kind of power. Like a police officer I must be in fear of losing my life before I can use deadly force. Whoever I confront must have a weapon or I feel reasonably sure that the person has the capability of killing me or doing serious bodily harm to me. The difference between myself as a civilian and a police officer in Tennessee is that as a civilian I must retreat if possible. If the person turns and runs away or drops his weapon, he is no longer a threat and I no longer have the right to use deadly force. If he is stealing my car or some other property I do not have the right to use deadly force unless he does something that puts me in fear of losing my life. One of the things that many people do not seem to be able to grasp is that there is sometimes a justification for shooting an unarmed person. Like in the case of Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin. Both of these men created a situation in which the person being attacked felt like they were in danger of losing their life. In the case of George Zimmerman, Trayvon Martin was on top of him and pounding his head in to the ground. Michael Brown was charging officer Wilson after Brown had already tried to take away his weapon in the patrol car. Brown was strong as an ox and twice the size of Wilson.

  My training has taught me that a weapon is the safest when I am in possession of it. In the military I was taught to never separate myself from my weapon unless it was secure. For example my pistol was always in my holster and secured with a strap. My rifle was always in reach. If I was in a vehicle we usually had a weapons rack or it was next to my body. When we would eat in the chow hall the weapon was secured in a weapons rack next to our table. All other times it was on my shoulder or in my hands. As a civilian I have a carry permit. I hate our gun laws because they force me to violate my training. If a business or government facility is posted with a no weapons sign I am forced to leave my weapon in my car. As a veteran with twenty years of law enforcement, security, and weapons training my government trusted me to guard priority resources, presidents, V.I.P.'s and generals but as a civilian I can't carry a gun into a post office or a mall. If the gun is left in my car there is the possibility that I could forget it and a child could find it. Or a thief could break into my car and find the gun. In addition if I am confronted by a bad guy going to or from my car my family and I are vulnerable.

  I would like to live in a society where we have more guns, not less. Studies have shown that those states and cities where guns are mostly in the hands of law abiding citizens there is less violent crime. Those cities that have the strictest gun laws have the highest crime rates. That is because only the bad guys have guns. We should look at people like myself and others who have had firearms, security and law enforcement training as a national resource. Instead we force these people to go unarmed and when something violent happens such as a work place, or school shooting, they become victims like everyone else. As a national policy we should strive to eliminate gun free zones.  Criminals and active shooters are drawn to gun free zones like a moth to a flame. If something happens you are going to call 911 and guess what? They are going to send a person with a gun to your location. The only problem with this is that the bad guy is capable of a lot of mischief in those precious minutes it takes for help to arrive. By then you may need a coroner rather than a cop. I would like to see every veteran that can pass a background check and who was trained with weapons in the service to be issued a carry permit that would enable us to carry weapons legally virtually everywhere. The only exceptions being in courthouses where entry is strictly controlled and on airplanes. This permit could also include civilians with extensive firearms training and former police officers. This would place qualified people with a gun in places that an active shooter might target. Like schools, malls, movie theaters, office buildings, or anywhere that is posted as a gun free zone.

   A person that is properly trained with a weapon knows that you never point a weapon at anyone and  you never remove a pistol from it's holster unless you intend to use it. You never brandish a weapon  and you never fire a warning shot. I have legally carried a weapon since I was 18 and I have only been forced to fire my weapon one time and that was to scare off a pit bull. I guess you could call that a warning shot but I don't know if an animal counts. If I had that decision to make again I would have shot the dog because he was a danger to my grandchildren. I have read that most police officers have never had to fire their weapons in the line of duty. Many times when I stood guardmount in the Air Force we would hear about some idiot who shot himself or someone else. Or they put a hole in a gate shack somewhere because they were playing with a loaded weapon or practicing their quick draw. Many people tell me all the time that if they have to shoot someone they will just try to wound them in the arm or leg. All police officers, security officers and the military are trained to shoot at center mass. This is because in the stress of a shootout the chances of hitting a person in the leg or arm is slim to none. You are more likely to hit your target by shooting at center mass. 

  When I advocate that more people need to be armed many people will say something like "What if someone goes off their rocker and starts shooting people"? Of course I respond that if that happens then there will be more people around that are qualified to stop the guy that goes crazy. People who have little or no experience with guns freak out at the thought of more people being armed. When I carry a weapon I carry it concealed and not on my hip because I don't want to upset people and bring attention to myself. I also do not want to give up the element of surprise. The bad guy doesn't need to know that I have a weapon. Unfortunately there are people with gun permits that carry a gun on their hip in order to impress others or make a statement on how bad they are. I once threw a guy out of the mall who had a gun on his hip and a shirt that said (I Am A Bad Motherf_ _ker) At the time we did not have it posted that weapons were not allowed on mall property. However it was mall policy that guns were not allowed. The man refused to leave and I had to call the police. On top of all this he mocked me and cursed me. This man definitely did not need a gun permit. 

  I will hear people say if you kill someone in your yard or driveway make sure that you pull their body in to the house so it will appear to be justified. My philosophy is that I will use deadly force anywhere that it is justified. Whether it is in the middle of the street or in the middle of my house. I like the saying that I would rather be tried by twelve than carried by six. If someone breaks into my house in the middle of the night and I have a chance to get to my gun them or me will probably be dead. Anyone who breaks into your house knowing that someone is at home is the most dangerous type of burglar. They are there to kill or rape. In the state of Tennessee we have the Castle self defense doctrine. If someone breaks into your home you are justified in shooting them. 

  The issue of our 2nd Amendment rights is perpetually in the news and combined with the false issue of police brutality that is constantly in the news I wanted to try to help clarify these issues and put in my two cents worth. I will end this with what I think is a funny story. About twenty years ago my wife Debbie, my daughters Misty and Melanie, and my only two grandchildren at the time, were in Rossville Georgia. My ex son-in-law and myself were a few miles down the road touring the Chickamauga battlefield. To kill time while we were at the battlefield the girls wanted to check out a shop in Rossville. They parked, got out of the car, and were walking down the sidewalk toward the shop. Debbie was in the car with my grandchildren when she noticed a man that had been sitting on a curb get up and follow my daughters. He kept looking back as if he were checking to see if the coast was clear. About the third time that he looked back he saw Debbie sprawled over the hood of our car aiming my pistol straight at him. I don't think Debbie has ever even fired a gun and I don't know if she could have done anything more than put a good scare into him but her action had the desired effect. The man did a 180 degree turn and resumed his seat on the curb..     



Thursday, May 14, 2015


 I will never forget the day in the Spring of 1971, while stationed at Erhac Turkey, We had just returned from the firing range and were cleaning our weapons. There was a group of us, both black and white Security Policemen, gathered in a trailer and talking about our favorite singers as we worked. One of our group was a white guy that we nicknamed "Pilgrim" because he was from Massachusetts. Someone said that their favorite singer was James Brown. Incredibly Pilgrim blurted out. ""I don't like James Brown. He's a nigger". Suddenly all of the air was sucked out of the room for a moment. All of us, black and white, turned and looked at him in a state of shock. Pilgrim continued cleaning his rifle as if he was unaware of what he had just said. Then he suddenly looked up with an aw shit look on his face as the realization of where he was at and what he had said hit home . Just then all hell broke loose as some of the blacks closest to Pilgrim tried to take a swing at him while others were trying to break up the fight.  Racial conflict was always just a wrong comment or gesture away from erupting into an argument or fight back then. We were three years removed from the assassination of Martin Luther King. Non-violence was out and black power was in. Black Airmen would greet each other with the clenched fist black power salute. I always felt like I was walking on egg shells when interacting with many black Airmen. Even the most innocuous words could be misconstrued. For example, being raised in the South it was common for me to refer to someone my age or younger, regardless of race, as boy. I was taught to respect my elders so I would never call an older black man a boy. Not until later did I realize that boy was a term of derision in the South because white people would refer to black men as boy regardless of their age. Personally I cannot ever recall  hearing anyone do that except in the movies. When I would use the word boy in a sentence many black guys, especially those from up north, would look at me and say "Did you say Lee Roy? I ain't no boy".
Four of my buddies in Turkey, Carter from Texas, 2nd guy I can't remember, Mike Cannon from California, and Rogers from Memphis

  Although I know that racism is still around America has made tremendous strides toward racial harmony since those days. Racism seems to be generational. The most racist people during my lifetime have been the World War II generation of white people but they are quickly dying out. This doesn't mean all of them were racist but many were. My generation, the {baby boomers}have had their problems with race but we were for the most part a little more liberal than the older generation. Our children and grandchildren have been even more open-minded than my generation. For example when I was of dating age I never saw an interracial couple. The first time I ever saw one was at Incirlik A.F.B. Turkey in 1970. I didn't  know it at the time but the Supreme Court had only struck down state miscegenation laws as unconstitutional three years before in the 1967 case of Loving vs. the state of Virginia. Even though I never had a problem with interracial dating and marriage the sight of seeing a black Airman with his white wife at Incirlik took a little getting used to. Now, you see interracial couples everywhere. White men and women with biracial children and white grandparents with biracial grandchildren. This to me more than anything is solid evidence of how much progress we have made. 

  Miscegenation has been such a sensitive subject in the past. I can recall talking to certain white people about the subject of race and of course I was always very willing to speak my mind. The subject of interracial dating would invariably come up and when I said that I had no problem with it the whole demeanor of the person would change. They would say something like " You mean you would let your daughter date a damn nigger". Although I have always been against bussing for practical reasons and not racist reasons I believe that many racist whites were against bussing because they were fearful that integration would lead to interracial dating. That has been the case but to me that is not a bad thing. However bussing has destroyed the neighborhood schools by encouraging white flight and increasing costs for the taxpayer in extra fuel, bus maintenance, and extra busses.

  Bigotry goes both ways. For the last five years I have worked mall security. This job has been an education for me. I would guess that I have been called a racist at least thirty times, if not more in the five years I have worked mall security. I have always prided myself as being open minded on the subject of race. Bridging the racial gap has been a personal mission for me. At least in the way that I interact with people of color. However this job has really tested me because I have been the one prejudged by so many blacks. When many black people see a white man in uniform, they automatically assume that my actions are motivated by racism. The mall has certain rules of behavior. Some of them are vague. For example one rule is that we are to maintain a family atmosphere at the mall. This rule gives us wide discretion. As mall security you have to be smart in picking your battles.

  If a woman comes in showing too much cleavage or is wearing her dress a little too short I am reluctant to open that can of worms by saying anything about her appearance. One day I noticed a girl of about fourteen or fifteen wearing short shorts and I could easily see her butt cheeks. I ignored her because if I had said anything I could have been accused of being a dirty old man for even saying anything. Nobody is more willing to take a stand than I am, especially when I am right, but in this case I just didn't want to go there. Unless they have totally crossed the line I usually won't do anything. A customer complaint makes my job easier however. Then I have a stronger case for acting. For example we once had a mall walker that was an older woman and she was very proud of her rather large breasts. She always wore a low cut blouse and it did not appear that she was ever wearing a bra. Little was left to the imagination. For a long time I never said anything but a male walker came to me one day complaining that she exposed too much and he resented it. This forced my hand and as tactfully as I could I let her know that others were complaining. She left the mall and I haven't seen her in a long while.

 One of the most common problems that we deal with is with people sagging. That is wearing your pants too low and exposing your underwear or athletic shorts. It is fair to say that most saggers are black but I see many whites that sag and some women of both races. Mall management in the past has expected us to ask the person to pull their pants up. If they are wearing athletic shorts underneath they have the option of pulling their pants up or going into the restroom to remove their pants and wearing their athletic shorts only. In a discreet way I will call them off to the side so as not to embarrass them in front of their friends. Then in a low voice I will say sir or ma'am our mall has a policy that prohibits wearing your pants that low, will you please pull them up for me. Most of the time they will cooperate but far too many times they say something smart, ignore me, or make a half hearted attempt at pulling them up. Then I am forced to threaten them with removal if they don't comply. If I get to the point of having to dial up the police then they will have to leave. They get no more chances after that. Many times if the person is black they tell me I am only making them comply because of their race.

  Another problem we have is with shirts or hats that have profanity or obscene words and pictures on them. The ratio of black to white in regards to this problem is about fifty-fifty. One problem that we have is that many of the people buying offensive clothes buy them in a particular store in the mall. They want to know why they can't wear this clothing on mall property when they bought it at the mall. I try to explain to them that there are many things that they can buy in the mall that they can't use or wear. For example you can buy panties and a bra in the mall but you can't walk through the mall in just panties and a bra. You can also buy chain saws but you get the point. This is a fight that the customer can't win. The mall is private property and private property rights will trump freedom of expression every time. The greatest power that I possess as a security officer is the power to protect mall property. If I tell someone to leave and they refuse, they are guilty of criminal trespass from that moment on and they can be arrested. I can ask a person to leave for even minor reasons. Never do I ask anyone to leave unless I feel that I am justified. If I see someone wearing offensive clothing like a shirt I approach them and tell them that they have several options. They can turn the shirt inside out. Cover it with a jacket or another shirt. Or they can leave the mall. We prefer that they stay and shop and most will cooperate. If they agree to turn it inside out or cover it I have to make sure they comply. If they tell me they are leaving the premises then I trust them to leave unless they are mouthy about it.  Then I personally escort them out.

  In December 2012, right after the Sandy Hook school shooting a man was wearing a shirt that read (Did Your Gun Kill a Kindergartner today?) Even though I found this shirt to be despicable and provocative I would never ask someone to leave for expressing an opinion, no matter what I thought of it. However if your shirt is causing a disturbance then that is a horse of a different color. I saw two women in a violent argument near the Food Court and a customer told me that the man's shirt was the source of the problem. When I confronted him he refused to comply by turning it inside out or covering it and he refused to leave mall property. I had no choice but to call the police. This man wasn't very bright because he had a criminal record and brought undue attention to himself. The incident was reported on the local television news reports and newspapers for days. He was charged with criminal trespass, lying to a police officer, and driving on a suspended license. He tried to beat it in court which was not successful and I was called to give statements to the D.A. on several occasions.  On top of that he represented himself in court reinforcing the concept that he who represents himself has a fool for a client. By the way this man was white.

  A few years ago while I was on mobile patrol I saw a black man and a woman who appeared to be Hispanic about to enter the Food Court. The man had a tee shirt on that read something like (I Hate F_ _ king Everybody). I drove up and said sir, I am sorry but I can't let you go in the mall with that shirt on. His girlfriend walked in the mall but he turned to me and asked me why. I said that obscene words on clothing was against mall policy. He said "That is f_ _king racist. This incident occurred in February or March  of 2012. Since that time if someone begins using profanity I immediately end the conversation and tell them to leave mall property but I was a little more lenient back then. Just then his girlfriend came back outside and asked him what was going on. He told her that I wouldn't let him wear the tee shirt. She looked at me and said "Your a motherf_ _king racist. This is just like Trayvon Martin. The Martin killing was much in the news. The couple turned around and stormed off to their car and left. I am still trying to figure out how I was racist trying to enforce mall rules. Of course I am not only racist according to some I am an old fogey who is prejudiced against young people because of their appearance. I once stopped a teenage white girl with an offensive shirt and she told her father over the phone that I was picking on her because of her Goth appearance.

  Another common problem that we have to deal with is shoplifting. If a person is truly racist it is because of intellectual laziness. I could easily acquiesce to believing racial and ethnic stereotypes while doing this job but I force myself to properly analyze the situation. Ninety-five percent of the time that I am called to a particular store for a walk through it is to deter a black person from either stealing. Or if they have have stolen something before I arrived, to keep them from stealing even more. Usually they will stop stealing or they will leave the store. Although I cannot do anything such as search bags or confront them my uniform is usually a deterrent. If I actually see them stealing and I know the value is over five hundred dollars, making it a felony, I can make a citizens arrest. Being unarmed I am reluctant to do that. If the manager or employee of the store thinks the customer has stolen something I give them the option of confronting the shoplifter while I stand by if needed to protect them. After a certain time of day, we have police officers available which makes our job much easier. They have arresting powers that we don't have. When I say that ninety-five percent of shoplifters are black, that depends on the type of stores they are. Certain stores have more white shoplifters. Anchor stores such as Sears, J.C.Penny's or Dillard's seem to have more of a racial cross section of shoplifters than other stores. This is what I mean by intellectual laziness. If I wanted to I could easily assume that most blacks are thieves but when I force myself to look at the broad picture I get a clearer picture and realize that no race has a monopoly on the problem.

  Black shoplifters call me racist more than anyone. Ninety-nine percent of the time a store will call security to watch people they suspect of shoplifting. The remaining one percent of the time we might notice someone acting suspicious as we are doing our rounds. Tenants will either recognize them as previous shoplifters or they consider them suspicious because they are carrying empty bags, large empty purses, and backpacks. Or they are doing things to distract store employees while their buddies steal, just to name a few things that they do to bring attention to themselves. If I think they are really shoplifters or a high potential of it after they leave a store I will usually try to follow at a safe distance. If they walk into a store I will call the manager or somehow let someone know. Shoplifters take their anger out on me or other officers because they can't steal when we are watching them. Invariably they will confront us many times and ask why we are watching them. Most of the time I tell them that as a security officer I am free to walk anywhere that I want to on mall property. One time a group of black women told me that I was only following them because they were black. In a moment of frustration and lack of professionalism on my part because I was so tired of being called a racist, I said "Yeah, your right, I am a racist". They looked stunned, as if they didn't know what to say. They just turned around and walked away.

  Another time, my supervisor and I, who happened to be black, were watching a group of black shoplifters that were well known to our tenants in the mall.There was one effeminate man and several women.  They had already hit several stores and when they walked into a particular store I went in ahead of them and cautioned the black store manager that she might want to watch the group extra close. Incredibly she told the shoplifters what I had said and advised them that they should sue me. The group then walked out of the store and confronted my boss and I as to why we were following them.  They charged me with being a racist and my boss was called a sellout and an Uncle Tom. Of course this naturally made him furious. Unbelievably they called the police on us for following them. While we were all waiting for the police to arrive one of the women collected all the bags of stolen goods and took them to a secure site while the police were there. When the police arrived of course they got a good laugh out of it and left. These thieves were so brazen that after the cops left they stole from several more stores in the mall.

  Last but not least another problem that we face are the hordes of kids that invade the mall on Friday and Saturday night. Especially on Saturday night. I have seen parents drop off kids as young as nine or ten expecting a twelve or thirteen year old to watch them. Most of the kids range in age from about thirteen to seventeen. I sometimes feel like a babysitter. Parents drop them off early and pick them up late. Most of the kids are not bad but we have caught kids with drugs on them and selling drugs. They shoplift and I personally have caught boys and girls having sex in a photo booth and a couple of times in cars in the parking lot. Usually the most common thing that we catch them doing is being disruptive and loitering. They are too noisy, or trashing the Food Court. I usually wont say anything to them about loitering as long as they sit at a table and quietly talk to their friends. If they are running around, blocking aisles, running in and out of stores, or standing in groups around mall entrances for long periods of time then we have a problem. I will generally send several home during the course of a night for repeated offenses. Over the years I have probably had more trouble with white kids than black but in recent months it seems like the kids in the mall giving the most problem have been predominately black. I don't work many Saturdays any more but occasionally when I did some older black adults seemed to resent it when I reprimanded  the black kids, as if I were only doing it because of their race.  On one particularly chaotic Saturday night I decided to clear out the Food Court and make some of these kids go home. A middle age black man and his wife were sitting over in a corner near a group of these teens that I was getting ready to throw out of the mall. In an irritated voice he told me that they were with him. I am pretty sure that he didn't know these kids from Adam. I told him that if they are with you, keep them with you. I am just a mall cop and I can only imagine what cops have to endure in this country.     

   During the racial turmoil of the 1960's I don't recall seeing many black mayors, police chiefs or presidents having press conferences or fielding questions from a bevy of reporters. During the recent Baltimore riot everyone that spoke to the press that I could tell was black. In a picture that I found I counted maybe one white person in Mayor Stephanie-Rawlings Blakes entourage at her press conference. Fifty percent of the Baltimore police department is white, Forty seven percent is black. Two percent is Hispanic and the remaining one percent is a combination of other races. Sixty-seven percent of Baltimore's population is black. Three of the six police officers that were involved in the arrest of Freddie Gray were black. For years Baltimore has been ruled by Democrats. Someone please explain to me how the killing of Freddie Gray was racial. I cannot see a racial component in any of the recent deaths of black men from Trayvon Martin to Freddie Gray. This includes the white cop in South Carolina who unlawfully shot down the man in the back who was running away. 
News conference of Baltimore Mayor Stephanie-Rawlins Blake

Baltimore Riots

  I do not believe that systemic racism is still that big of a problem in America as it was in the 1960's. Ninety percent of black men are killed by other black men. White cops killing black men is a drop in the bucket. The real problems are being ignored. Primarily black on black crime and the destruction of the black family. Democrats are always talking about the war against women, the war against the poor, and the war against blacks. These wars only exist in the fantasy world of Democrats. The real war being waged against the police of this country is to eventually accomplish one thing and one thing only. A national police force. They are working on this as we speak. The Federal government has been guilty of extortion for years. They tell the states that we will give you money for highways, schools and other state projects if you accept our guidelines. If you refuse you won't receive the money. This is what they are starting to do with local police forces. You must implement our guidelines and training in order to receive Federal money. At some point local police forces will lose the ability to control crime and the Federal government will have a reason to nationalize law enforcement. If this happens God help us.

Thursday, May 7, 2015

Tibor Rubin

  Tibor Rubin was a Hungerian Jew born on June 18, 1929. At the age of 13 the Nazi's sent him and his family to Mauthausen concentration camp in Austria. The SS guards told him and the other Jews that nobody would leave alive. He was liberated by American troops two years later. His parents and two sisters would die in the holocaust. Rubin was so touched by the kindness of the American soldiers that he wanted to be, in his words, a "G.I. Joe". He came to the United States in 1948 and settled in New York. In 1949 he tried to achieve his dream of becoming a soldier and gaining American citizenship by enlisting. Rubin couldn't speak English and failed the language test. In February 1950 he tried again and with the help of two test takers was able to pass. After entering the army he was stationed in Okinawa. On June 25, 1950 the North Koreans invaded South Korea and because Rubin was a Hungarian national he was given the option of remaining in Okinawa but he refused. So he was assigned to combat in Korea's Pusan perimeter. His first sergeant Artice Watson hated Jews, blacks and hispanics. Watson continually sent Rubin out on dangerous missions in the hope that he would be killed. Rubin would return each time unhurt after successfully accomplishing his mission. Whenever Watson needed a volunteer he would ask; "Where is that son of bitch Hungarian Jew"? His prejudice was known by all. 

  On one incredible mission Rubin was left behind on a hill by himself to protect the withdrawal of his unit. Sergeant Watson told him that he would come back for him later. Rubin filled each empty foxhole with grenades and rifles. He wanted the North Koreans to believe that there were more than one man defending the hill so he ran from hole to hole lobbing grenades and shooting the rifles.. For 24 hours he singlehandedly held off the North Koreans, killing many of them until his unit had safely retreated.Rubin waited several days for Watson to come for him but he never did. He eventually made his way back to his unit. For his bravery he was recommended for the Medal of Honor four times and also for the Silver Star. Sergeant Watson was ordered several times to submit the paperwork but the officers who recommended the Medal of Honor were both killed. Watson never submitted the paperwork. On October 30, 1950 the Communist Chinese invaded Korea. Rubin was wounded after fighting the Chinese hand to hand and was captured. Most of the soldiers in his unit were killed or captured. Rubin and the survivors suffered through a "death march" to a Chinese prison camp. He saved men on the march by encouraging them and treating their wounds. Rubin saved one mans infected arm, and his life, by placing maggots in the wound, which prevented gangrene. The Chinese turned the Americans over to a North Korean prison camp. Besides spending two years in a Nazi concentration camp he would spend three years in a North Korean prisoner of war camp. 

  For nearly a year and a half Rubin would sneak out of the camp almost every night where he found food and supplies in nearby villages and would reenter the camp before the guards missed him. If he had been caught he would have been shot on the spot or tortured. When the Communists found out that he was a Hungarian national they offered to release him and allow him to return to Hungary but he refused to go. As incredible as his bravery was he didn't receive his Medal of Honor until fifty-five years after the end of the war. President George W. Bush presented it to him on September 23, 2005. Tibor Rubin could be the poster child of immigration. Here is a man that wanted to be an American citizen. As far as possible he has assimilated into the American culture and has a deep and abiding love for this country. The following is in Tibor Rubin's own words. “I always wanted to become a citizen of the United States and when I became a citizen it was one of the happiest days in my life. I think about the United States and I am a lucky person to live here. When I came to America, it was the first time I was free. It was one of the reasons I joined the U.S. Army because I wanted to show my appreciation.”


Tuesday, May 5, 2015



  I could respect the opinions of the political left, the Democratic Party, and the Democratic media, if they would just be consistent but it ain't gonna happen. The hate group, the Southern Poverty Law Center. See we can name call as good as they can, and other leftists consider the actions of Pamela Geller, who sponsored a cartoon competition in Garland Texas, to be racist and provocative. She has also been described as an incendiary. Yet they celebrate the right of people to burn the American flag or walk and dance on it. Not considering my feelings as a patriotic American and a veteran or those veterans who have fought and bled for that flag. They honor the freedom of expression of the so-called artists who paint pictures of a crucifix submerged in urine and the desecration of other Christian symbols but not caring about the feelings of Christians. On top of that we are forced to pay for this garbage with our tax money. I am not aware of a Jihad movement in Christianity to avenge Jesus.The worst example I can come up with is the Westboro Baptists and to my knowledge they haven't killed anyone yet. They are just a small bunch of absolute idiots. However the left tries to protect radical Islam, the most provocative and incendiary group in the world. They are the biggest bullies around but for some reason the anti-bullying party, the Democrats, always stands up for the bullies. Primarily because they are bullies themselves. They bully the rest of us into silence by calling us racist and provocative for standing up for free speech. Or bigots, homophobes, sexists, nativists, and any other name they can think of. This strategy is successful because far too many average Americans and Conservatives back down to these bullies. Radical Islamists are the true sexists, homophobes, and religious bigots that we are accused of being. The left supports the true bigotry of Islam because they hate the political right and Christianity worse than they hate radical Islam. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

  Radical Islam is at war with us and some of us are not afraid to name the enemy. These people are killing Christians and Jews everywhere. Primarily Christians right at the moment in every horrible way imaginable The world stands by and does nothing. There are many good Islamic people and anybody with a brain knows that. In the words of Brigitte Gabriel however good Muslims are as irrelevant as good Germans were in the Third Reich. They could not stop the actions of Hitler and the Nazi's. Too few Muslims are speaking out against the radicals in their midst. The French weekly Charlie Hebdo described itself as secular and atheist. It mocked all religions, including Islam, and right wing political parties. However the world, with the exception of the Obama administration displayed it's support of Charlie Hebdo and freedom of speech after Islamic terrorists attacked it's headquarters. If Charlie Hebdo was an extreme right wing Christian publication would European leaders have been so quick to rally around them? I rather doubt it. There is nothing different about what happened in Garland Texas and France except for the fact that the good guys did not die. Just two dirt bag terrorists. Who were sent to their just reward by one very brave police officer.
Marines on Iwo Jima

Piss Christ

French rally supporting Charlie Hebdo
Pam Geller