Rev. Erudite Redneck, B.S., B.S., M.A., M.Div.

In any not-for-profit organization the money is where the power is. Control the money and you have the organization by the short hairs.

If that is not possible then remove the money from the control of the opposition. Form a new carfully crafted organzation and steal away the prime donors (there is always a core of donors) and sympathetic memberships.

There will always be complications especially when propety and/endowments etc. are in play.

But much of that can be siphoned off or given away before control is completely lost. For example any sub-group with its own board can withdraw and dis-enfranchise itself from the mother group. If enough of that happens, the the income flow or property rights dry up.

Hostile take overs of eleomoscynary instituitons are nothing new. Generally the take over is not well planned or orchestrated and can tharwted if not stopped.

Might want to work through the Colorado branch however, that will put your efforts where your bod will be.

Heck, incoporate and start your own thing.
 

And Oh yes, make sure your new organization contains both men and women. Women have more money and are better organizers. They will spend more time on doing what needs to be done than men will.

"The Descendents of the Confederacy" DOC for short.
 

First, drlobojo, their is an organization called "The Daughters of the Confederacy". It was so weak, it survived for many years on a government stipend at the behest of radically insane racist Sen. Jesse Helms. During the 1990's, however, in a fit of sanity and fiscal responsibility, Congress removed that particular line item. I do not know the current status of of DoC, but I do believe that this says much for your theory of the difference between male and female leadership of various organizations.

While I admire your reasons for joining, ER, and find them admirable, the history of the Confederacy and the South in general is so steeped in racial hatred (I lived there for five years and can tell you that all the jabbering about "the New South" is a load of ferret dung) that it does not surprise me at all that the "Lunatics" took over. The confederacy existed for one reason and one reason alone - to protect slavery as an institution. There is far too much emotional investment in The Lost Cause to simply say, "You know what, we're just gonna be a historical society and read essays over beer and chicken wings." Drlobojo is correct that money drives the agenda of any organization, and in this case, the money is in the hands of people with an agenda to go back to a time when the Confederacy was a dreamy, sleepy place with happy darkies singing while they picked the cotton, and beneficent masters might call one of the house-slaves "Uncle" or "Auntie" as a sign of his good-natured ability to get along with his slaves.

The revolt of people of conscience is a good thing, but do not think for one minute that tossing out one or two people will make a dime's worth of difference. I need not remind you that when the stakes are smaller, very often the politics is nastier, so in an organization such as this it seems that this is only the latest in what is most likely to be a very nasty, dragged out affair.
 

Say speaking of "Lost Causes" and organizations; are there any lurkers out there that know of any organizations in Minn. or Wisc. honoring our invasion of Russia in 1918?
 

Re, "The confederacy existed for one reason and one reason alone - to protect slavery as an institution."

If I believed that, I think I would be embarrassed that Great-Grandpa ER fit for 'em. That truly is an oversimplifcation of such great proportion it's staggering.

I'll "Grant" -- LOL, I am a riot, I am -- you this: Without slavery there almost assuredly would have been no Civil War. But that is not the same as saying the Confederacy existed solely to protect slavery.

And you have to "Lee" me this -- ha ha -- the Union did not go to war to free the slaves! It's a fact, Bubba. The Union went to war to preserve the Union.

Now, if the Union didn't go to war to free the slaves, and it most certainly did not, that kinda waters down that Yankeefied version of history that says the Rebs was all out to keep their darkies, and nothing else, now don't it?
 

While it is true the North did not go to war, initially, to free the slaves, the revisionist idea that "state's rights" were the sole reason for secession began within months of the end of the war. I do not have the links, but this issue was discussed several years ago in a series of articles in the Richmond Times-Dispatch, in which the words of various leaders of southern secessionist movements in the early days of secession were paired with their post-war comments. The most surprising thing - the outstanding reason presented for secession was the protection of slavery. After the war, the very people who made these statements denied the very idea that anyone had ever said any such thing, and The Lost Cause was a noble attempt to thwart the tyranny of an intrusive federal government.

When I have time, I shall hunt down the links and post the actual comments. For now, however, I stand by my original point. I understand the reluctance of many people to admit that the leaders of secession were doing so for the simple reason of economic opportunism combined with a vicious white supremacy, as the war was sold as a struggle against tyranny. Those soldiers who fought and died may or may not have been racist, or owned slaves. Soldiers do not start wars, and even more rarely do they fight them for the same reasons as those who lead them, so I am impugning the integrity of your ancestor (by the way, my great-grandfather fought on the opposite side; although "fought" might be a stretch, as he was part of a garrison force in what is now Northwest Washington, DC, and was then the village of Tenleytown; I used to drive by the site of his fort on a daily basis). I am just saying that we need to be clear eyed, even if what we see hurts.
 

Clear-eyed, yes. Economic survival is not the same as economic opportunism. White supremacy may or may not have driven any given slaveholder. Ask the Cherokees, Chickasaws, Choctaws, Creeks what drove them to keep slaves. There were many reasons that rational, and Christian, people had for being so opposed to the election of Lincoln to secede. Feel free to send me any links you like, Buddy.
 

I'm not sure how to do the whole "link" thingy in comments, but here goes:

1)The declaration of secession by South Carolina, where the only "right" the "state" was defending was "property" in the form of slaves -
www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/secession_causes.htm

2) A review of Apostles of Disunion: Southern Secession Commissioners and the Causes of the Civil War; I shall pull just a bit from the review: "Why would Southerner's have cared about whether or not the Federal Government had the authority to abolish slavery if slavery was not immensely important? The answer, of course, is that they would not have. Dew examines the speeches of Deep Southerners sent to Western and Border states to convince their legislative bodies secede to show exactly why slavery was such an emotional issue for Deep Southerners. The answer is racism; and more specifically, fear of emancipation under any terms. The three common points made in the speeches of all fifty-two secessionist commissioners were: white supremacy (and the fear of being made equal); a race war in the South; and the genetic (and, obviously, sexual) mingling of the two races.

An interesting point that Dew makes in his introduction and his conclusion is that many of the major powers of the CSA retracted their racist statements immediately after the war. It was them -- Davis, Stephens, and many of the secessionist commissioners -- that began to perpetuate the myth of "states' rights." It is as if they realized that there only escape from shame was to become martyrs for an honorable cause -- and that slavery was not it."
http://www.amazon.com/review/product/081392104X/ref=cm_cr_pr_link_1/102-2735232-3432909

This latter is, I believe, what I originally encountered some years ago. It may not even have been in Virginia, although memory serves it may have been.

If I may reiterate - I do not believe that the common Confederate Soldier fought for slavery. I do not for a moment believe Robert E. Lee did, as his only stated reason was a misplaced patriotism that put his loyalty to Virginia ahead of his oath to uphold the Constitution and physical integrity of the United States. I also do not believe that this was the only reason for the Civil War. There were many reasons - economic, cultural, social, class - but the issue of slavery, while not sufficient, was necessary.
 

ER said:"...the Union did not go to war to free the slaves! It's a fact, Bubba. The Union went to war to preserve the Union."
That's right. why?
Because the South was breaking up the Union in order to preserve their slavery. What do you need, you know that. Yes, you do.

Even Thomas Jefferson knew that slavery would eventual split the nation.It was the underlying theme in the westward expansion of States, The war in Kansas, the immigration into Texas, the War with Mexico, and so much more. Yes, slavery was an economic issue. Economics based on the suffering of human beings. We still got a bunch of that even today, which you yourself will rant about.
Damn that cotton gin for making cotton profitable.
As for your grandpa X, well he wasn't the only one of us who has fought, and killed for the wrong thing. Duty is duty.
The history of all of it must be preserved, North and South and that is reason enough to have organization to do so.
 

I also do not cast aspersions upon the Sons of Confederate Veterans. As long as it is not hijacked by "Lunatics" with a racist agenda, I see nothing wrong with an organization dedicated to preserving the memory of the most horrid five years in American history, and all the lessons entailed therein.
 

For what it's worth, I could also jine up with the Sons of Union Veterans because of service by Great-Great Grandpa on Daddy ER's side. He served from Indiana.

AND, I could jine up with the Descendants of Mexican War Veterans, all 400 of them, mostly academics, because the Union g-g-ER fit for the United States in that war -- which is equally as questionable as a war of conquest as the Civil War quickly turned out to be - seccecion being, in fact, an open question under the Constitution right up until Appomattax. And Doaksville, Indian Territory, about two months later.

Which all reiterates the point that these organizations, in 2007, are supposed to be about remembering personal honor, not the politics of the wars of the day.

Which is why nobody who really thinks should have anything bad to say about the soldiers, marines, airmen, etc. who are doing their duty today -- except for those who choose to enter the political arena about it.

I am positive that my Rebel ancestor against the invasion of sovereign Arkansas by the Union. He was po' white Ozark as far as I can tell; no slave owner.
 

I just love it so when you go Confederate on us !

My direct two ancestors alive at that time did not fight in the Civil War. Although they lived in Abingdon Virgina, they were 40 and blind and 8 years old at the wars start. But uncles, cousins, etc. built wagons and gun carriages and fought for both sides as well. As I've said before, I've family in graves on the Union side at Gettysburg and on the Rebellion side in Atlanta. Hell at Gettysburg both sides wasted an uncle's farm and killed and burned everything there.

Still I have a great deal of difficulty even begininning to to justify any of the South's actions as public policy or as individuals. Robert E. Lee was the greatest of American traitors. If he didn't believe in the Constitution he should not have taken the oath to protect and defend it. Great men can do very stupid things, and they should be held accountable for it. Years ago I stood in his bedroom in the Custis mansion and looked out across the river towards the Capitol and wondered what he was thinking. His wife was the grand-daughter of George Washinton and his father-in-law was Washington's adopted son. Yet he was willing to destroy what Washinton help make. His reasoning that Virgina was his country was bullshit. It was too easy, and too mythilogical.
 

No way. Now, it's been mythologized. Then, it was the truth.

Lee's first loyalty was to his state. STATES formed the Union, not people. STATES. That's why they were called the united states. It's only after the war that "it" became the United States.

Lee was a traitor to the Union? Maybe. But his other choice was to be a traitor to his state. He was honorable in his decision, and was gracious in his defeat.
 

I once voiced the opinion that Lee, Davis, the members of the Confederate Congress, and any of the other leaders of the Confederacy, civilian and military, should have been summarily executed. Moreso than the failed attempts at Reconstruction (an experiment in social engineering that was both noble and doomed from the outset) it would have been the final of Sherman's lessons on what the "hell" that is war is really about.

I was attacked by pretty much every member of my family. I stand by my original sentiment because, as I said, while Lee's actions may have been noble, as an officer in the United States Army, he swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, not the territorial integrity and economic interests of the slave-holding class of his native state. His betrayal of trust, in a misguided misplacement of loyalties is not an issue of honor. One is not honorable in betrayal.

I have an uncle who rails about Grant's profligate expenditures of blood in his battles in Tennessee. Yet there were few generals who expended blood the way Lee did, especially during the siege of Petersburg, which Lee himself admitted was a mistake (I lived 35 miles away and visited the grounds of National Park there, including the notorious Crater, one of the bigger Union debacles). Grant did what he did to win victories. Had there been a way to avoid casualties, he would have done so (MacArthur was abstemious with lives in his island-hopping from Australia to the Philippines). Yet, refusing to engage in battle cost McLellan his commission (I do not think it cowardice; I think he was attempting to expend as little treasure as possible; as that was impossible, he ended up looking cowardly).

Having said all the things I have said - I agree that it was after Appomatox that the idea of United became an equal partner in the United States. I also agree that secession was a an unclear issue prior to the Civil War (and clearing it up by force of arms does nothing to deal with the thorny legal and Constitutional issues).

Also, it was a long time ago, everyone involved is quite dead, and it is hardly something to get all het up about, n'est pas?
 

An amusing family anecdote about my great-grandfather, Landis Safford, the GAR veteran. In 1901 he moved his family from Meshoppen, PA to the mountains of North Carolina to work as a foreman for a lumber company. His workers were always near to revolt because he wore his GAR ribbon everyday. He ended the grumbling one day by cleaning, loading, cocking, and firing his rifle (he bought his repeater from the Army before he mustered out), emptying the magazine in a circle barely an inch across in a tree from many yards away (my dad says my grandfather, who was there that day, claimed it was a hundred yards; it was probably more like twenty-fie, but still a pretty amazing feat). Most of the 'jacks under him has breach-loaders, or single-shot shotguns. He made his point, and while they grumbled, they didn't give him much trouble after that.
 

If I remember correctly General Pickett didn't think too much of Lee's honor after Gettysburg.
Lee saw himself as a Tidewater Cavalier. Not a pretty picture actually.
 

That was a horrible moment that, surprise surprise, came very close to being a surprise. While the scything of Pickett's ranks was horrific (standing both on the rise overlooking the charge, which was actually more a walk, and also walking out of the woods to that rise, one wonders how anyone made it within fifty yards of the Union lines), they actually took a couple artillery positions and managed to turn some pieces on the Union lines until they were beaten back.

I think we've beat up on poor Robert E. enough.

I like Arlington House.
 

Gah! The last word in that one sentence shouldn't be "surprise", but "victory". Type in haste, give errata in leisure.