Historical FAQs

To us, the Confederate flag represents devotion, valor, and resistance to tyranny. It also embodies our heritage, which is rich in tradition, folklore, music, food, and all facets that make up our culture.

There are dozens of different “Confederate flags.” The most common, nicknamed the “Southern Cross,” is formally known as the Naval Jack or battle flag, it displays a red banner with a blue X in the center, adorned with 13 stars—representing the 13 Confederate states.

Although a variation of the original design was rejected by the Confederacy at the beginning of the war, the banner ended up being adopted within the Second National Flag in 1862. The designer William Porcher Miles, Chairman of the Standards Committee in Congress wrote in a letter to Samuel Barrett of Georgia, upon completion of the design in the summer of 1861,“The flag should be a token of humble acknowledgment of God and be a public testimony to the world that our trust is in the Lord our God.” Although historians still debate whether Miles explicitly intended Christian symbolism in his design, Southerners at the time perceived it that way. To them, the flag’s saltire evoked St. Andrew’s Cross—an ancient Christian emblem deeply tied to their identity.

Would you consider the American flag the symbol of the KKK? This is the main flag that they have historically used at their events, along with the Christian flag. Why are these not considered Klan flags?

Having been immersed in this history since childhood, I have yet to encounter anyone who belongs to such organizations. Such groups are, in truth, minuscule and marginalized—their presence negligible when weighed against the millions of Southerners who revere this history for entirely different reasons: to honor their ancestors, to affirm their Southern identity, and to uphold a spirit of principled independence against the sterile conformity of modern society. To us, no, the Confederate flag is not a “Klan” flag.

Our heritage is our history, the good and the bad. It’s comprised of our roots, our memory, and expression of our culture in all its aspects—cuisine, literature, art, folklore, politics, religion, etc. It is who we are. With respect for the war and its symbols, to us, it’s the memory of heroic resistance to tyranny. As all humans, we Southerners have a capacity for good and evil. It is our duty to stress the good. To say our heritage is hate is to say that there is nothing good about us at all. That itself is an expression of the most profound hatred and malice.

That may be the case, but we are not governed by the emotions of others, but by our conviction towards the truth. Being disparagingly labeled by our critics does not make their accusations true. In the spirit of genuine free thought, consider that maybe you’ve been lied to about our symbols, history, and culture.

Secession was precipitated by a variety of reasons. Slavery was an issue of the day and a dividing factor—but it was not the only Southern grievance—a grievance which is often misunderstood. Other issues such as opposition to protective tariffs, disregard of states towards federal law, and the advancement of northern sectional interests at the expense of the south, are mentioned within other secession documents (1).

Sectional problems and cultural divides began as far back as the very beginning of the Republic. Parts of New England threatened secession as early as 1803 (2). South Carolina spoke of secession in 1828 with the Tariff of Abominations. This increased duties on imported goods, which heavily impacted Southern states that relied on importing goods and exporting cotton. Southern states, particularly South Carolina, argued that the tariff favored Northern industries while unfairly burdening the South's economy, leading to calls for nullification and secession. At the time, President Jackson countered them by threatening invasion. In this instance, war was averted through compromise.

What occurred in 1861 was a culmination of years of grievance between both Northern and Southern states, that fundamentally being the role of government. Vice President Alexander Stephen’s summed up the core of the contest:

“The contest was between those who held it [government] to be strictly Federal in its character and those who maintained that it was thoroughly national. It was a strife between the principles of federation, on the one side, and centralism, or consolidation, on the other.” ~ Alexander Stephens (3)

Sources:

1. Rhett, Robert Barnwell. “An Address of the People of South Carolina.” In Journal of the Convention of the People of South Carolina, Held in 1860, 61, and 62, 467–76. Columbia: R. W. Gibbes, Printer to the Convention, 1862
2.  Gannon, Kevin M. “Escaping ‘Mr. Jefferson’s Plan of Destruction’: New England Federalists and the Idea of a Northern Confederacy, 1803–1804.” Journal of the Early Republic 21, no. 1 (2001): 1–22
3. Constitutional View of the War between the States vol. 1 (Philadelphia: National Publishing Co., 1868), 10.

We don’t think so. To honestly find out what any symbol means, you should ask a supporter/defender of that symbol. If you asked a Democrat what the Republican Party stands for, the answer you get might not be very honest. If you ask a Republican what the Republican Party stands for it might be more honest.

Slavery was a part of the conflict, but it was not the reason or objective for either side. The United States Congress made the following statement as to what the Union was fighting for:

"The war is waged by the Government of the United States, not in the spirit of conquest or subjugation, nor for the purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or institutions of the states, but to defend and protect the Union."(1)

Even by 1862, after the Emancipation Proclamation was released, thousands of Northern soldiers were outraged at the premise that they were fighting to end slavery. U.S. Maj. F.E. Pierce described his disdain, as did many at the time, saying: “I will not jeopardize my life or become and invalid. . . to restore 3,000,000 of brutes to freedom. . . Before the first of January I could meet a rebel and face him now I can’t. Formerly when a reb on picket or any other place asked me, ‘what are you fighting for?’ I could answer, proudly too, for the restoration of the Union—now when one asks me I hang my head or else answer, for the n_____.”(2)

Sources:

1. Crittenden Resolution passed almost unanimously by Congress July 25, 1861. 37^th Congress, Journal of the Senate (Wshington: US GPO, ), 91-92.
2. Maj. F.E. Pierce, 108 Reg’t N.Y.S. Vol, Dec. 17, 1862

Historic estimations cite about 6.8% of the white Southern population (excluding black slave owners) owned slaves(1), with the vast majority having no desire to participate in the institution. The average Confederate soldier fought because they were defending their homes from invasion. Renowned historian James McPherson, in For Cause and Comrades: Why Men Fought in the Civil War, draws upon 25,000 letters and 250 private diaries from both Union and Confederate soldiers, stating: “The overwhelming theme in Confederate soldiers’ letters and diaries was defense of home and family from an invading enemy.”(2)

Sources:

1. https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/decennial/1860/population/1860a-46.pdf
2. James M. McPherson, For Cause and Comrades: Why Men Fought in the Civil War (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), 91

Of the thirteen Southern states that officially seceded, only four explicitly mention the issue of slavery (1). Other issues such as opposition to protective tariffs, toleration or even sponsorship of antislavery violence by northerners both in and out of office, disregard of states towards federal law, and the advancement of northern sectional interests are also mentioned within some of these documents as well as other secession documents, like the one below:

“The one great evil, from which all other evils have flowed, is the overthrow of the Constitution of the United States. The Government of the United States is no longer the government of Confederated Republics but of a consolidated Democracy. It is no longer a free government, but a despotism… The Southern States now stand exactly in the same position toward the Northern States that the Colonies did towards Great Britain... They are in a minority in Congress. Their representation in Congress is useless to protect them against unjust taxation; and they are taxed by the people of the North for their benefit, exactly as the people of Great Britain… the taxes laid by the Congress of the United States, have been laid with a view of subserving the interests of the North… Taxed by duties on imports, not for revenue… but to promote, by prohibitions, Northern interests in the products of their mines and manufacturers.” (2).

Sources:

1. James M. McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era. (New York: Oxford University Press), 1988, 244–247
2. James M. Rhett, South Carolina Convention, In Journal of the Convention of the People of South Carolina. (Columbia: R. W. Gibbes, Printer to the Convention), 1862), 467–76

What is expressed within these four secession documents, specifically pertaining to the slavery question, are outraged reactions towards the radical abolitionist movement which sought to end slavery in the worst way imaginable: via race war and murder. One example are the terrorist acts of John Brown, in which six prominent northerners financed his attempt to spark a slave uprising (1). Another example (mentioned in the secession declarations of both Mississippi and Texas) was the fact that Republican governors in Iowa and Ohio used their offices to protect John Brown raiders from prosecution(2). Southerners saw the abolitionist end to slavery as more evil than the status quo of slavery, especially given the option of peaceful emancipation. Southerners were going to deal with the institution in their own way and within their own time, apart from violence.

Sources:

1. “The Secret Six.” Digital History. University of Houston. Accessed August 12, 2025. https://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/active_learning/explorations/brown/john_brown_secretsix.cfm
2. “Governor Letcher’s Message,” Staunton (Va.) Vindicator, February 17, 1860, p. 2, col. 1.

In 1856 at Pottawatomie, Kansas, John Brown and his followers hacked five men to death with cutlasses. Three years later at Harpers Ferry, Brown’s raid left six people dead—most of whom were not slaveholders. The first casualty was a free Black man. If we want to live in a society where we settle our difference with debate and reason, we have to condemn John Brown’s approach. If your comeback is that some institutions are so evil, they must be opposed regardless of the means used, then would you be okay with abortion opponents bombing abortion clinics? Abortion is worse than chattel slavery, but it is the law of the land. If a member of your family were killed as an innocent bystander in an abortion clinic bombing, would you say to yourself, “Well, she deserved that?” Even if you were opposed to abortion, you would not find the indiscriminate killing unjustified. In 1860, however, Republicans did find that acceptable and Republican governors used their office to protect John Brown’s men from prosecution in Virginia.

Hallam’s Constitutional History states: “The aggressor in a war is not the first to use force but the one who renders force necessary.”(1)

It was the North who were the aggressors.

When the Southern states held legal referendums to secede, they began receiving back their properties, many which were leased to the Federal government for the protection of those places. Fort Sumter was an exception, and although the federal government owned it, once South Carolina seceded, the federal government had no legitimate need for it. We know from cited statements that Lincoln refused to let go of this location for economic reasons(2). When South Carolina seceded, U.S. Major Anderson occupied Fort Moultrie, across the water from Fort Sumter. On the night of Christmas, Anderson spiked his guns and moved to the better defensive position of Fort Sumter. Later, tensions rose even further when Lincoln reinforced the Fort with The Star of the West, which was clearly seen by South Carolina as an act of aggression. William Seward, Lincoln’s Secretary of State, remarked: “The attempt to reinforce Sumter will provoke war. The very preparation of such an expedition will precipitate war. I would instruct Anderson to return from Sumter.”(3)

Sources:

1. Henry  Hallam. The Constitutional History of England from the Accession of Henry VII to the Death of George II. Vol. 2. (London: John Murray), 1827, 209
2. Testimonial of Delegate Col. John Baldwin of the Virginia secession convention, April 4, 1861, private interview with Lincoln. Sourced from: https://valley.lib.virginia.edu/VoS/personalpapers/documents/augusta/p3baldwininterview.html
3. Primary manuscript (archival), notes from Cabinet Meeting on Fort Sumter (Seward’s written opinion), March 29, 1861, in Abraham Lincoln Papers, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress. Also found in Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy under Lincoln and Johnson (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1911), vol. 1, entries around March 29–April 1, 1861 (discussing the cabinet’s divided views and Seward’s preference for evacuation).

This claim has become more common within the past couple of decades, stemming mostly from Elizabeth Pryor’s book Reading the Man: A Portrait of Robert E. Lee Through His Private Letters. The story centers on an alleged incident in which Robert E. Lee ordered or witnessed the whipping of Mary Norris, a slave on the Custis estate which he became the executor of. Pryor boldly claimed this as a fact, and ever since, universities and mainstream media outlets have parroted it as truth. The problem is, the reports come from several newspaper accounts and letters to the editor dating from 1859 and 1866, most of which are anonymous and based on hearsay. The stories conflict in detail and lack direct evidence. Lee himself denied the incident in an 1866 letter (Pryor leads readers to believe Lee never addressed the claim). Lee, of course asserted it never happened. Additionally, the story is complicated by the circumstances of Wesley Norris, Mary’s husband, whose departure from the estate was not by escape but through legal manumission (another historical blunder in Pryor’s narrative). Records also show that Lee treated black individuals with care, details which Pryor conveniently leaves out of her book, obviously because it further casts doubt on her narrative.

To read more about this, along with all the cited historical evidence, please read these two articles:

https://confederateshop.com/my-two-cents/the-lie-about-lee/

https://confederateshop.com/my-two-cents/the-lie-about-lee-part-ii/

Yes, there were “5 civilized tribes of the Confederacy,” Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek (Muscogee), Seminole. The most famous is Stand Watie’s North Carolina Cherokee’s.

Divisiveness requires two sides. If northern apologists would simply acknowledge the truth of today’s southern position (slavery was wrong, but how we got rid of it mattered; democracy/self-government is good, the Constitution limits federal powers and when the federal government rebels against those limits, it is correct to oppose it), then all the divisiveness would go away.

Nazi translates to “national socialism,” and in the twentieth century is synonymous with fascism, which is historically defined as an ultranationalist, authoritarian ideology that glorifies the state, demands mass mobilization under a single leader, embraces violence and militarism, and organizes society through corporatist control.

The sovereign states that formed the Confederacy united under a system of government far more limited than the centralized authority in Washington. Among the key differences between the Confederate Constitution and that of the United States were explicit protections of state sovereignty (limited government). Ironically, this very devotion to limited federal power became a weakness during the war, as the Confederate government often lacked the authority to fully marshal the resources of its member states.

By contrast, Abraham Lincoln’s regime more closely resembled the centralized authoritarian models later seen in twentieth-century Europe under national socialism and fascism. Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus, leading to the imprisonment of more than 38,000 Northern civilians—many guilty of nothing more than voicing opposition to his administration. Without congressional consent, he launched an invasion of sovereign states that he simultaneously claimed still belonged to his Union. His embrace of “hard war”—what some would rightly call total war—fell not only on Confederate soldiers but upon Southern civilians themselves.

Nor was Lincoln’s authoritarian reach confined to the South. In New York, following the draft riots of 1863, he undermined local democracy by stripping power from elected officials, including the mayor, and installing a government subservient to his will—a tactic later echoed during Reconstruction. Even to the end of his life, Lincoln openly entertained schemes for the colonization and removal of freed Black men and women from American soil. Furthermore, many of Lincoln’s own supporters were Marxists and German socialists, including members of groups like the Wide Awakes and the Forty-Eighters. Additionally, a significant portion of his party had financial stakes in manufacturing enterprises that depended on the protective tariffs his administration sought to maintain.

The Constitutional Republic which the Confederate founders envisioned was that of their ancestors, a free and limited government, directed by the will of the people.

From the Southern perspective, the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 was seen as a rightful return to the principles of self-government. Southerners believed that each new territory should have the freedom to decide for itself whether to allow slavery, without interference from Congress or Northern agitators. When pro-slavery settlers moved into Kansas, some of which were not even slave owners, they were met with fierce resistance from abolitionist settlers backed by Northern money and influence. This violent struggle, later called “Bleeding Kansas,” seemed to many in the South as proof that Northerners would never honor the compromises or allow Southern institutions to exist in peace.

The growing divide between North and South deepened as the North portrayed Southerners as aggressors while Southerners saw themselves as defending their constitutional rights and way of life. To the Southern mind, the hostility in Kansas and the refusal of the North to respect local choice demonstrated that the Union was becoming dominated by sectional interests bent on destroying them. These events convinced many Southerners that their safety, rights, and honor could not endure under a government increasingly controlled by abolitionist forces.

An example of this was John Brown’s terrorist acts where hacked five men to death (none of whom were slave owners) with cutlasses in Pottawatomie, Kansas in 1856. Brown was funded by six prominent Northerners (also known as the Secret Six) whose plan was to create a slave uprising.

Our opponents often use the phrase, “States’ Rights to do what?” as a quick way to suggest that the Confederacy fought solely to preserve slavery. To Southerners, however, the concept of States’ Rights encompassed a wide range of issues contested during the war: opposition to protective tariffs, the refusal of states to comply with federal overreach, and the advancement of Northern sectional interests at the expense of the South. States’ Rights lies at the heart of all these concerns.

While slavery is mentioned in a few of the secession documents, it is presented as an outraged reaction to the radical abolitionist movement—the same movement that produced the violent acts of John Brown. Ultimately, States’ Rights was about the ability of each state to govern itself, as explicitly outlined in the foundation of the Republic.

Many know that the newly formed Republican party consisted of the radical abolitionists, which sought to end slavery by race war and murder, but it also consisted of many Northern industrialists who were reliant upon the protective tariff which Lincoln promised to uphold and support(1). This protectionist tariff, the Morrill Tariff of 1861, raised taxes on imported goods to protect Northern industries by making foreign products more expensive. This encouraged the purchase of American-made goods, benefiting Northern manufacturers, while hurting Southerners (2).

The Southern states had declared duty-free transit for shipments passing through Confederate territory to the United States. This policy would have encouraged international cargo ships to enter at these “free ports,” avoiding Northern ports and their taxes, dealing a severe blow to Northern industrialists (3). Lincoln’s political backers could not allow this, which is why he could not simply let the South secede.

Sources:

1. Foner, Eric. The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2010
2. Irwin, Douglas A. Clashing over Commerce: A History of US Trade Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2017
3. McPherson, James M. Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988

There is no historical indication that the States within the Confederacy wished to indefinitely protect slavery or create a “slave empire,” as some allude to. Had there been, they would have certainly solidified this within their Constitution. In fact, they did the opposite within their laws—they banned the importation of slaves(1). President Jefferson Davis also believed that regardless of the outcome of the war, slavery would not survive(2). This is strange coming from the leader of a nation supposedly set on preserving the institution indefinitely.

We can also draw comparisons from the experiences of other slaveholding nations after 1865, such as Brazil and Cuba. The South, likewise, would have faced mounting international pressure—through anti-slavery treaties and naval blockades—to curtail or abolish the institution. (2).

Sources:

1. Constitution of the Confederate States of America, Article I, Section 9, Clause 1, 1861. Available at Avalon Project, Yale Law School, https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_csa.asp
2. Varina Davis, Jefferson Davis: Ex-President of the Confederate States of America, A Memoir by his Wife, Volume 2https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text.jsp?doc=Perseus:text:2001.05.0038
3. Robert William Fogel, and Stanley L. Engerman. Time on the Cross: The Economics of American Negro Slavery. (Boston: Little, Brown and Company), 1974.

According to his own words, both in private correspondence and in his inaugural address, his intentions regarding slavery are clear:

Abraham Lincoln’s correspondence with Horace Greely, editor of the New York Tribune: “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that.”(1)

Lincoln’s first inaugural address: “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”

Sources:

1. Abraham Lincoln to Horace Greeley, Friday, August 22, 1862 (Clipping from Aug. 23, 1862 Daily National Intelligencer, Washington, D.C.)
2. First Inaugural Address of Abraham Lincoln, Monday, March 4, 1861.

Had Abraham Lincoln truly cared about freeing the slaves, he would have condemned the Corwin Amendment at the onset of the war or issued some kind of Emancipation measure prior to 1862.

The Emancipation Proclamation did not apply to slaves within the Northern states—like that of Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri, Delaware or any Northern occupied Southern territory, with Lincoln stating: “…which excepted parts are for the present left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.” Lincoln’s proclamation freed no one and had no constitutional power to do so, which is why it ended December 6, 1865, by the federal ratification of the 13^th Amendment, after his death. His Proclamation was simply a political war measure to ensure the European powers did not aid the South(1). Southern leaders also speculated that Lincoln sought to incite a slave uprising in the South to further weaken the Confederacy(2)—a goal that never materialized.

1. George C. Herring, From Colony to Superpower: U.S. Foreign Relations Since 1776 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 226–227
2. Burrus M. Carnahan, “The Proclamation as a Weapon of War,” in Act of Justice: Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation and the Law of War, (University Press of Kentucky), 2007. P. 127

The Corwin Amendment states: No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.

This Northern proposed Amendment would have permanently protected slavery within the U.S. Constitution. It was proposed by the 36^th Congress (1) supported by two Northern states and passed by 2/3^rds of the Senate (2). Letters from Lincoln to seceded state governors confirm Lincoln supported this measure (3), with Lincoln himself stating in his inaugural address “I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable”(4).

Sources:

1. Passed by Congress on March 2, 1861, during the 36th Congress
2. Hannah Christiensen, "The Corwin Amendment: The Last Last-Minute Attempt to Save the Union". The Gettysburg Compiler. Gettysburg, Pennsylvania: Civil War Institute, Gettysburg College.
3. Lupton, John A., Abraham Lincoln and the Corwin Amendment, https://www.lib.niu.edu/2006/ih060934.html
4. Lincoln, Abraham. First Inaugural Address. March 4, 1861. Accessed September 4, 2025. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/lincoln1.asp

Maybe they did. Regardless, his racial views remained the same up until the end of the war, as he wished to send the freed blacks to Africa (1). Like most men of his day, Lincoln did adhere to the contemporary views of equality and thought the black man to be inferior.

Sources:

1. Benjamin F. Butler, Autobiography and Personal Reminiscences of Major-General Benjamin F. Butler: Butler's Book. (Boston: A.M. Thayer & Co.), 1892,

Here are his own words, spoken in September of 1858:

“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races—that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”(1)

Again, we can only speculate his views did not change—since he advocated for the freed slaves removal up until the end of the war (2).

Sources:

1. Abraham Lincoln, The Lincoln-Douglas Debates: The First Complete, Unexpurgated Text, ed. Paul M. Angle (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1958), 145–146.
2. Butler, Benjamin F. Autobiography and Personal Reminiscences of Major-General Benjamin F. Butler: Butler's Book. Boston: A.M. Thayer & Co., 1892

Saved the Union from what or whom? The voluntary union was formed by the sovereign states, which at the very beginning of the agreement were asserted within many ratification documents upon endorsing the Constitution. The North would have still existed had the South left. The Confederacy sought to govern itself in accordance with the principles set forth by their forefathers—the values outlined within the Declaration of Independence.

After the Union’s victory, it was no longer a body of sovereign states, but a consolidated republic of conquered, coerced states. In saving the Union Lincoln destroyed the original Republic.

Regardless of the political debates over slavery, tariffs, and secession, the true cause of war was Lincoln’s decision to invade the South. The Northern Union and Southern Confederacy would have existed separately, in peace, if it weren’t for invasion. Furthermore, it was the President’s actions which pushed more states into the Confederacy, like that of Virginia, North Carolina, and Arkansas. Virginia held multiple votes on secession, initially choosing to remain in the Union (1). It was only after Lincoln called on the Commonwealth to provide troops for his invasion that Virginia ultimately joined its fellow Southern states.

Sources:

1. Library of Virginia, Union or Secession: Virginians Decide, Library of Virginia Newsletter, June 2010 issue (Richmond: Library of Virginia), stating that Virginia first voted 88 to 45 against secession on April 4, 1861, and then 88 to 55 in favor of submitting secession to a referendum after Lincoln’s call for troops, Then, in a referendum on May 23, 1861, voted 125,950 to 20,373 in favor of leaving the Union.

The best answer to this claim comes from Defend Dixie by John Vinson: “Much of this claim derives from the use of the flag by the infamous Ku Klux Klan and other minuscule and marginalized organizations. Their numbers pale in comparison with the millions of Southerners who revere it for positive reasons: to honor their ancestors, celebrate their Southern identity, and to express healthy rebellion against sterile modern conformity. . . In one sense, at least, this question could be true. The flag was the banner of men who passionately hated tyranny because they loved liberty.”

It is neither condemned nor outright condoned within the United States Constitution, prior to 1869. The 10^th Amendment states: “Any powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited to the states, are reserved to the states or the people.” The right of a people to determine their form of government is the bedrock upon which our Constitutional Republic was founded. The Declaration of Independence states: “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.”

With this in mind, consider that Virginia, upon ratifying the U.S. Constitution asserted the following: “…the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States, may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression; and that every power not granted thereby remains with them, and at their will…”(1) New York and Rhode Island made similar statements (2)(3)

Not only this, but secession was threatened by our Northern brethren on multiple occasions, and not once was the right denied them. (4)

Here's a question for you: When the federal government violates the Constitution and acts in an antidemocratic manner, what should citizens do?

Sources:

1. Ratification of the Constitution by the State of Virginia; June 26, 1788, in The Avalon Project: Documents in Law, History, and Diplomacy, Yale Law School, accessed August 14, 2025, https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/ratva.asp
2. Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New York; July 26, 1788, in The Avalon Project: Documents in Law, History, and Diplomacy, Yale Law School, accessed August 14, 2025, https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/ratny.asp.
3. Ratification of the Constitution by the State of Rhode Island; May 29, 1790, in The Avalon Project: Documents in Law, History, and Diplomacy, Yale Law School, accessed August 14, 2025, https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/ratri.asp
4. The Hartford Convention (1814–1815) - Hickey, Donald R. New England’s Defense Problem and the Genesis of the Hartford Convention. The New England Quarterly 50, no. 4 (December 1977): 549–576; The Embargo Act of 1807 - Labaree, Benjamin W. Patriots and Partisans: The Merchants of Newburyport, 1764–1815. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1962.; The Nullification Crisis (1832–1833) - Ericson, David F. "The Nullification Crisis, American Republicanism, and the Force Bill Debate." The Journal of Southern History 61, no. 4 (November 1995): 673–710.

Answer added by Jon White, PhD.

The people of the states delegated powers to the federal government. Everything not delegated was reserved. The states, on the other hand, can do anything not prohibited (Art. I, Section 9 of the Constitution). If the Constitution is silent on a federal power in question, it is denied by the federal government. If the Constitution is silent on a state power, it is permitted. Secession is not mentioned in the Constitution; therefore it is a state right. Opposing secession is also not mentioned in the Constitution, therefore it is denied by federal government. The federal government fighting states over secession is unconstitutional. (and that is why Virginia seceded).

James Madison, an advocate of ratification of the Constitution in the Virginia Convention said on June 24th 1788, “the powers granted by the proposed Constitution are the gift of the people, and may be resumed by them when perverted to their oppression, and every power not granted thereby remains with the people, and at their will. … Everything not granted is reserved. … The delegation alone warrants the exercise of any power.” (1)

On June 21st, Edmund Randolph declared the “the principles on which Virginia adopted” the Constitution: “all authority not given is retained by the people, and may be resumed when perverted to their oppression; and that no right can be cancelled, abridged, or restrained, by the Congress, or any officer of the United States." Not only do the peoples of the states retain all power not given up, federal officers (including federal judges) are forbidden to decide the matter. It is simply not a matter for federal officials to decide. .”(2)

Edmund Pendleton, said on June 5th 1788, “We, the people, possessing all power, form a government, such as we think will secure happiness: and suppose, in adopting this plan, we should be mistaken in the end; where is the cause of alarm on that quarter? … we will assemble in Convention; wholly recall our delegated powers, or reform them so as to prevent such abuse; and punish those servants who have perverted powers, designed for our happiness, to their own emolument.” (3)

It was not Virginia alone which viewed the Constitution this way. In Pennsylvania, James Wilson, who had been a delegate in the Philadelphia Convention that drafted the Constitution and was a delegate to the state convention that was about to pass judgment on the Constitution, said this: “the congressional power is to be collected, not from tacit implication, but from the positive grant expressed in the instrument … everything which is not given is reserved.” (4)

In North Carolina, James Iredell said, “The powers of the government are particularly enumerated and defined: they can claim no others but such as are so enumerated.” (5)

Sources:

1. Jonathan Elliot, ed., The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, vol. 3 (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott & Co., 1836)
2. John Randolph, "Speech on the Missouri Question," in The Works of John Randolph of Roanoke, ed. A. C. Gordon, vol. 2 (New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1853)
3. Edmund Pendleton, in The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, ed. Jonathan Elliot, vol. 3 (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott & Co., 1836)
4. Bernard Bailyn (ed.), The Debate on the Constitution vol. 1 (New York: Literary Classics of America, 1993), 64.
5. James Iredell, "North Carolina Ratifying Convention," in The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, ed. Jonathan Elliot, vol. 4 (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott & Co., 1836), 135–136

Robert E. Lee, like most Southerners of his era, placed his highest loyalty in his state—the Commonwealth of Virginia. He swore allegiance to the Constitution and its principles, not to governments and leaders. Once delegates of the people of Virginia decided to disassociate from that said Union—Lee resigned his commission with the United States Army, and was duty-bound to defend and protect his State.

All the cited information found within our answers would be considered “Lost Cause Propoganda” by today’s academics. Nothing could be farther from the truth. There was no grand plot amongst post-war Confederate veterans or civilians to lie about their views or experiences. And to do so on such a grand scale is a bit conspiratorial. They themselves give us their answers in source documents, diary entries, period articles, and speeches. "Lost Cause propaganda" is a phrase often used by critics of Confederate history to dismiss or avoid engaging with certain historical truths.

We do not believe using this single reference is fair to judgement of an entire nation. Although there were no written copies of the speech, just journalist reports, Vice-President Stephen’s did claim that he was both misquoted and misrepresented—suggesting it had a strong revisionist reinterpretation(1). Regardless, Stephen’s did hold unfavorable racial views, as did most—both North and South, in those days. In fact, this sort of racial rhetoric known as Polygenism, originated in the North (2), and were held by many Northerners, including Abraham Lincoln himself (3).

We do have other leaders’ remarks on the “Cornerstone” of the Confederacy:

The cornerstone of the Confederacy according to President Jefferson Davis: “The principle of State sovereignty and independence … was regarded by the fathers of the Union as the cornerstone of the structure.”(4) 

“The principle of the sovereignty of the people [was] the cornerstone of all our institutions.” “the Confederate States … drew their swords for the sovereignty of the people, and they fought for the maintenance of their State governments in all their reserved rights and powers.” (5)

The cornerstone of the Confederacy according to Secretary of State, Robert Toombs: “The cornerstone of this Government was the perfect equality of the free, sovereign, and independent States which made it.” (6)

Sources:

1. Stephens, Alexander H. A Constitutional View of the Late War Between the States. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co., 1868
2. Robert A. Smith, “Types of Mankind: Polygenism and Scientific Racism in the Nineteenth Century United States Scientific Community.” Master’s thesis, Pittsburg State University, 2012. https://digitalcommons.pittstate.edu/etd/105/
3. Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas. “The Fourth Joint Debate Between Lincoln and Douglas.” Teaching American History. Accessed August 17, 2025. https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/the-lincoln-douglas-debates-4th-debate-part-i/
4. Jefferson Davis, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government. Vol. 1. New York: D. Appleton & Company, 1881, 718.
5. Jefferson Davis, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government. Vol. 2. New York: D. Appleton & Company, 1881, 762.
6. William W. Freehling and Craig Simpson, eds. Secession Debated. (New York: Oxford University Press) 1992, 33.

No. And you will be hard pressed to find any modern-day Southerner who would attempt to justify slavery from either a secular or theological standpoint.

Robert E. Lee summed it up well in his 1854 correspondence: "In this enlightened age, there are few, I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country.” (1)

Sources:

1. Robert E. Lee, Letter to Mary Anna Randolph Custis Lee, December 27, 1856. In Recollections and Letters of General Robert E. Lee, edited by Robert E. Lee Jr., 83–84. New York: Doubleday, Page & Co., 1904

There are various reasons why we think Confederate soldiers should be honored, the first being the sacrifice that they made for the cause they believed in.

Francis Scott Key, the author of America’s national anthem, had a grandson named Francis Key Howard. Howard was just one of thousands who were imprisoned during the War for Southern Independence for speaking out against the Lincoln administration. Ironically, he was confined at Fort McHenry, the very same place where his grandfather wrote the National anthem—The Star Spangled Banner. Our history is not as black and white as some make it seem. The Southern soldier, whose forefathers helped established the republic, believed in the defense of his home and that of self-determined government. We honor their inherently American struggle.

Soon after the war, veterans organizations both North and South hosted reunions with one another. Animosity gave way to mutual understanding, a sentiment shared by civilians and politicians—including many former Union soldiers.

President William McKinley, a Major in the U.S. Army during the Civil war, gave a speech at the State Capitol of Atlanta Georgia in 1898, stating:

When those graves were made, we differed widely about the future of this government, those differences were long ago settled by the arbitrament of arms; and the time has now come, in the evolution of sentiment and feeling under the providence of God, when in the spirit of fraternity we should share with you in the care of the graves of the Confederate soldiers.”(1)

Sources:

1. William McKinley, Speeches and Addresses of William McKinley (New York: Doubleday & McClure Co., 1900), 159. Speech originally delivered December 14, 1898.
2. United States. Public Law 85-425: An Act to Increase the Monthly Rates of Compensation for Disability or Death Due to Service in the Armed Forces, and for Other Purposes. 85th Cong., 2d sess. (May 23, 1958)

Answer added by Jon White, PhD.

A century ago, there existed an unspoken consensus—a kind of “gentlemen’s agreement.” Southerners would concede that preserving a united nation was ultimately for the good, while others would acknowledge that southern soldiers had fought with courage and honor for what they believed was right. In this tacit understanding, southerners downplayed slavery, and northerners refrained from pointing out the antidemocratic and unconstitutional implications of waging war to overthrow elected state governments and compel a people to remain in the Union against their will.

Because this decision was made by all American’s post-war. The Congress of the United States on May 23, 1958, conferred the same status as United States Veterans upon Confederate Veterans in Public Law 85-425. Thus, when local governments, parade organizers, cemetery officials, corporate businesses, or distraught citizens seek to forbid honoring the Confederate dead, they disrespect the Congress, Public Law 85-425, Article 1 of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution. 

No, these memorials were not purposefully raised, across multiple states, amongst thousands of different individuals for the specific purpose to disparage the black population. Around the turn of the century, the South had somewhat financially recovered, and many of the surviving Confederate veterans were dying. Southerners sought to honor their loved ones by memorializing them in their localities, which is why there are over 700 Confederate monuments and memorials throughout America today.  

For further research, which will validate our claim, you may read many of these statue dedication speeches. We have yet to find one which cites white supremacy as a reason for their creation. Northern communities also dedicated monuments to their Civil War dead around the same time and for the same reasons. In fact, around the same time, Frenchmen and Germans dedicated monuments to their fallen from the Franco-Prussian War (1870-71) on the battlefields near Metz.

Modern scholars might suggest that some of the individuals in this photo below were coerced into attending the dedication of the Robert E. Lee monument in Richmond, Virginia. What do you think?

1. Coercion in 1861. Article IV., Sec. IV. (there is no power delegated to the federal government to coerce a state to remain in the Union against the will of the people of that state.)
2. Laws of Neutrality-Trent Affair. Article VI., Clause 2--Violation of International Law.
3. Writ of Habeas Corpus suspended by the President. Article I., Sec. IX., Clause 2.
4. War Was Declared Without the Consent of Congress, 1861, Article I., Section VIII., Clauses 11, 12.
5. Emancipation Proclamation. Article IV., Section III., Clause 2.
6. West Virginia Made a State. Article IV., Section III., Clause 1.
7. Maryland legislators were arrested before they could vote on a state convention. (Official Record V: 193.)
8. The Hanging of Mrs. Surratt. Amendments—Article V.
9. The Execution of Henry Wirz. Amendments—Article VI.
10. The XIV. and XV. Amendments. Article V.
11. The seizure without compensation of Property after surrender. - Amendments-Articles IV. and VI.
12. The Liberty of the press taken away. Amendments—Article I.
13. The Freedom of Speech denied. Vallandigham imprisoned in Ohio. Amendments—Article I.
14. Blockading ports of States that were held by the Federal Government to be still in the Union.

Losing a conflict does not preclude one from remembering who they are or where they came from. The Africans who were conquered by other tribes and sold to New England slave shipmen, lost. The American Indians, Spartans at Thermopylæ, Hebrews at Masada, Texans at the Alamo, all lost. Do these groups still proudly represent their past?

About 25% of the Southern male population never returned home after the War(1)—with many returning to their homes destroyed. From 1865 to 1877, the South was occupied by military force(2), its people were forced to survive in a broken economy which was ravished by carpetbaggers. Southerners have a right to remember their struggle, along with the heroic, brave, and selfless deeds of countless men who were simply doing their duty.

Sources:

1. Jeffrey Rogers Hummel, “A War Lost and Found,” The American Interest, September 1, 2011, https://www.the-american-interest.com/2011/09/01/a-war-lost-and-found/
2. Benedict, Michael L. 1980. “Southern Democrats in the Crisis of 1876–1877: A Reconsideration of Reunion and Reaction.” Journal of Southern History 46 (November): 489–524

Many evangelical and Protestant Christians assert that Abraham Lincoln was a Christian. In truth, his personal faith remains uncertain, but we can discern his character by the fruit of his actions. Lincoln was never a member of a church (1). Lincoln never made a profession of faith in Jesus Christ (2). His personal friend, Ward H. Lamon, had quite a lot to say on the subject.

Lamon accompanied Mr. Lincoln to Washington and was personally selected to accompany him in his midnight passage through Baltimore to his first inauguration. He was made United States Marshall of the District of Columbia so that he might always be at hand. In 1872, Mr. Lamon published a book titled, Life of Lincoln. William Henry Herndon, Lincoln’s law partner, is referenced quite a bit in Lamon’s book.

Page 404: In a letter of Herndon’s concerning a contest for congress in 1848 between Mr. Lincoln and Reverend Peter Cartwright. “In that contest he was accused of being an infidel, if not an atheist; he never denied the charge; would not; ‘would die first,’ because he knew it could be and would be proved.”

Page 487: “When he went to church, he went to mock and came away to mimic.”

Page 495: In a letter from Herndon he copies: “When Mr. Lincoln left this city (Springfield, Ill.) for Washington, I know that he had undergone no change in his religious opinions or views.”

Page 501: “He never told anyone that he accepted Jesus as the Christ, or performed one of the acts which necessarily followed upon such a conviction.”

Page 502: “He indulged freely in indefinite expressions about ‘Divine Providence,’ ‘the justice of God,’ the ‘favor of the Most High,’ in his published documents, but he nowhere ever professed the slightest faith in Jesus as the Son of God and the Savior of Men.”

Page 503: “If he did not believe in it, the masses of the plain people did, and no one was ever more anxious to do what was of good report among men.”

Upon further research, the testimonies from William H. Herndon (law partner), David Davis (personal friend), John T. Stuart (mentor), and John G. Nicolay (private secretary) further solidify the premise that he was not the man of God which we’ve been led to believe.

Sources:

1. Carwardine, Richard. Lincoln: A Life of Purpose and Power. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2003
2. Miller, William Lee. Lincoln’s Virtues: An Ethical Biography. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2002, 27–28, 32

Yes. Recently uncovered historical records reveal that Lincoln, acting as executor of his father-in-law’s estate, came into possession of enslaved people from the Todd family. Contrary to earlier claims that they had been freed in 1848, new evidence indicates they were instead resold, with Lincoln personally profiting from the transaction. Here is that document:

For further research, please consult the book The Lincolns in the White House: Slanders, Scandals, and Lincoln's Slave Trading Revealed by Kevin Orlin Johnson, Ph.D.

We care about the battles, individuals, and stories because truth and history matter. I have often reminded our critics that in many ways, we all lost that war. What was lost was the original Constitutional Republic of limited government, the very vision our founders fought to secure in 1776. In its place, we now find ourselves under a consolidated government of coerced states, transformed into an ever-expanding empire.

And to those who accuse us of caring too much about this subject—one must ask, why do they care so much themselves? Their very actions—tearing down, distorting, and defaming our history in real time—prove that they too recognize its importance, although we consider for misled reasons.

We believe in the ideals of democracy and the Constitution of the United States. Confederate soldiers fought for self-government. They fought for limitations the Constitution places on federal powers and the rights of the states to govern themselves as the people desired.

Political parties evolve over time—often much faster than the cultures they represent. For generations, the Southern United States was known as the “Solid South,” a region firmly loyal to the Democratic Party. This allegiance stemmed from opposition to the Republican Party of Abraham Lincoln, which Southerners associated with carpetbaggers, scalawags, and the harsh policies of Reconstruction—the very forces that, in their view, subjugated them and bound them to a Union at the point of a bayonet.

At that time, the Republican Party was not the conservative institution it is today. It was the party of radical abolitionists, Unitarians, Transcendentalists, Marxist socialists, and Northern industrialists whose highest priority was power and profit. In many respects, Republicans were the progressives of their age.

Today, one cannot help but notice the South’s sea of red on modern electoral maps. This realignment was no accident. The South has long been a stronghold of conservative values, and when the Democratic Party began to abandon those principles, Southerners, in great numbers, shifted their loyalty.

Although Lincoln was surrounded by Marxists and promoted them, we believe Lincoln was more of a pragmatist than a literal Marxist. Either way, it’s why many modern-day Marxists admire Lincoln:

*Photo of the Communist Party Convention, Chicago, Illinois, 1930. Notice how the image of Lincoln is flanked by that of Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin, two of the “big three” communist revolutionaries in Russia, the only member lacking representation here is Leon Trotsky.

What better group to enforce control over the “rebel” states than newly arrived Europeans. Many of these individuals had neither familiarity with nor ancestral ties to a limited constitutional government. They came from powerful regimes where the state exercised extensive authority over its people—exactly the sort of authority Lincoln was asserting. Many had fled to the United States after participating in failed socialist revolutions in Europe. A few well-known European socialists in high command include Schurz, Schenck, Blenker, Sigel, Osterhaus, Weydemeyer, and Charles A. Dana. In Lincoln’s own words, Dana was “the eyes of the administration.”

Karl Marx, Lincoln’s wartime pen pal and admirer, stated: “Lincoln is the singled-minded son of the working class, who has led his country to the matchless struggle for the rescue of the communist revolution and the reconstruction of the social orders.” (1)

Ironically, American conservatives idolize Lincoln and have no clue his deep ties to the Marxist ideologues who were close to his administration.

Sources:

1. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm#b

On three separate occasions, that we historically know of, Lincoln was confronted by advisors who recommended he evacuate Fort Sumter. On all three occasions Lincoln himself cited financial reasons:

On April 4th, Virginia Unionist John B. Baldwin visits Lincoln. Baldwin suggests Lincoln order the withdrawal of troops from Ft. Sumter and Ft. Pickens, Lincoln responds that “his friends would not be pleased with such a step.” Then, the President added, “Well, what about the revenue? What would I do about the collection of duties?” (1)

On April 12th, Virginia Unionist Alexander Hugh Holmes Stuart visits Lincoln. Stuart suggests Lincoln “order the evacuation of the forts.” President Lincoln’s responded, “If I do that, what will become of my revenue? I might as well shut up housekeeping at once!” (2)

On April 22nd, Baltimore YMCA delegation visits Lincoln. Fuller suggests recognize the independence of the Southern States.” Lincoln’s responded, “what is to become of the revenue? I shall have no Government—no resources?” (3)

Sources:

1. Testimonial of Delegate Col. John Baldwin of the Virginia secession convention, April 4, 1861, private interview with Lincoln. Sourced from: https://valley.newamericanhistory.org/aftermath/letters-and-diaries/augusta/interview-lincoln-baldwin#colbaldwin
2. Robert Louis Dabney, Discussions (Secular), vol. 4, pg. 97
3. Baltimore Sun, 23 April 1861, pg. 2, col. 1

Total war is a type of warfare in which a nation uses all of its resources—military, economic, industrial, and civilian—to achieve complete victory, and where the distinction between soldiers and civilians becomes blurred. A clear example of this is U.S. General William Tecumseh Sherman deliberately targeting Southern cities that lacked both military forces and essential war supplies(1).

Since the American "Civil War," totalitarian regimes have long since admired Lincoln’s total war against the South.

For those interested in exploring these events in greater depth, several works provide detailed accounts. War Crimes Against Southern Civilians by Walter Brian Cisco examines specific offenses committed during the war. Paul Graham’s When the Yankees Come presents a collection of firsthand testimonies, including those from formerly enslaved people, describing Sherman’s March to the Sea. Charles Jennings’s Cultures in Conflict highlights the destruction and abuses directed against religious institutions such as churches, seminaries, and parsonages.

We know that Abraham Lincoln frequented the war office(2). We also know that he promoted men after they committed war crimes. There is no better example of this than that of United States General John Turchin and his heinous acts towards the people of Athens, Alabama. Turchin was born Ivan Turchaninov, a veteran of the Hungarian revolution, and commander of the Nineteenth Illinois Infantry Regiment during the American Civil War. Upon the Nineteenth’s occupation of Athens on May 2, 1862, Turchin ordered his men to stack arms in the middle of town and stated, “I shut my eyes for two hours…I see nothing.” (3) His troops proceeded to ransack the town. The business district was hit first—soldiers taking off with prized civilian possessions and store goods, harassing civilians, vandalizing, and pillaging. One account tells of R.C. David’s store where the Yankees “destroyed a stock of books, among which was a lot of fine Bibles and Testaments, which were torn, defaced, and kicked about the floor and trampled underfoot.” (4) Residential areas were not spared. The home of Milly Ann Clayton was vandalized and pillaged—the troops “looking for weapons” threatening Miss Clayton after she told them she had none. They called her “a God damned liar” and “bitch,” then attempted to rape her servant girl. The Hollingsworth residence was hit—Mrs. Hollingsworth who was pregnant, suffered a barrage of profane threats to burn down her home, the poor woman was so terrified that she lost her child soon after, and then died herself. Among the plantations that the troops hit was John Malones plantation, where a gang of federals occupied the slave quarters and raped a slave girl. The assaults, rapes, and pillaging lasted for days. (5) Fortunately, there were a few men of virtue in the Union army and Turchin was court martialed, but the story doesn’t end there. Upon Turchins testimony he defended his actions by saying, “the more lenient we are…the bolder they [Southerners] become…Until the rebels are made to feel that rebellion is a crime with the government will punish…there’s no hope of destroying [the South].” Thereafter, Lincoln, along with the Republican Senate, reinstated and promoted Turchin.

Sources:

1. William Tecumseh Sherman, Letter to the Mayor and City Council of Atlanta, September 12, 1864, in The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, Series I, Vol. 38, Part 5 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1894), 796–800.
2. Bates, David Homer. Lincoln in the Telegraph Office: Recollections of the United States Military Telegraph Corps during the Civil War. Edited by David Homer Bates. New York: Century Co., 1907
3. The Sack of Athens, Roy Morris, Jr., Civil War Times Illustrated 24, no. 10 (February 1986) pp
4. Official Records (O.R.), ser. 1, vol. 16, pt. 2, 274-75
5. Official Records (O.R.), ser. 1, vol. 16. 2, 273-75; Chicoine, Turchin, 91-92, 99-100

There are many reasons why we promote Confederate history, like many other Americans we have familial ties to this conflict. We also take a particular interest in the political issues that were contended with, which changed our Nation from a federal government of enumerated powers into a consolidated republic with a federal government that defines its own powers, something Jefferson said, “stops nothing short of despotism” (1). We have come to believe that much of what is taught about this conflict is a lie, and we cannot sit idly by while much of our history and heritage are being destroyed.

Modern America has grown increasingly dysfunctional, losing moral direction and the human ties that once sustained society, resulting in spiritual sickness, broken families, gender confusion, substance abuse, and a vulgar mass culture obsessed with income and “success.” Many Southerners are swept up in this decline, yet Southern heritage offers a path of escape grounded in faith, family, community, duty, and rootedness in our ancestors and homeland. At the heart of that identity is our Confederate history—a story of resistance, courage, and perseverance—embodied by figures like Robert E. Lee, whose devotion to duty and honor remains exemplary. Embracing this heritage affirms our humanity against an inhumane global order and expresses an ongoing commitment to securing a meaningful Southern future.

That’s why the following Q & A section has been created—to give anyone the answers and citations to the most pressing questions about the War for Southern Independence, all from the Southern perspective.

Sources:

1. Thomas Jefferson, “The Kentucky Resolution,” 1798. See Jonathan Elliot (ed.) Journal and Debates of the Federal Convention, vol. IV, (Washington: Jonathan Elliot, 1830), 383.