Old Virginia Blog

Boxer Gets Put In Her Place

2009-07-16T17:15:00.001-04:00

Finally, someone with the guts to challenge one of these elitist members of the American Politburo. Harry Alford takes Senator Boxer to school. And, no it's not "friendly" Senator, you are an arrogant, know-nothing, power-hungry, politician and you make me sick. Harry Alford for President!

Homeschooling Follow Up

2009-07-16T07:00:00.001-04:00

For more evidence of homeschooling's growing popularity and acceptance, I offer the following:

"The State Council of Higher Education for Virginia (SCHEV) passed new scholarship eligibility guidelines on July 14, 2009. Homeschooled applicants for the Virginia Guaranteed Assistance Program may now submit SAT scores of 900 and above and ACT scores of 19 and above as an alternative to a homeschool GPA."

After years of being unjustly discriminated against, homeschoolers now share the same access to these funds as do other school children in Virginia. Does this mean the state is guilty of encouraging child abuse?

;o)

Story here.

Thought For The Day

2009-07-14T07:00:00.000-04:00

“Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don’t mean to do harm – but the harm does not interest them. Or they do not see it, or they justify it because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves.” ~ T.S. Eliot

Is Homeschooling Child Abuse?

2009-07-12T17:15:00.004-04:00

It is according to some comments posted at Kevin Levin's Civil War Memory blog, to wit:

"The real tragedy is to see the children who are the product of homeschooling. Yes, there is evidence to suggest that *some homeschooled kids out perform their public school peers, but I’ve taught a number of these kids over the past eight years and it isn’t pretty. Most of the kids I’ve taught with this background find it very difficult to adjust to a school community. Many haven’t spent enough time learning how to interact with their peers, but the biggest disappointment is to watch them in the classroom. The kids I’ve taught are very obedient and well-behaved, but try to get them to question what they read or what the teacher says and you will end up pulling your hair out. They were never taught to formulate their own ideas or to see school as an opportunity to develop their own views about things. It’s very sad. I’ve seen up close what happens to kids who are taught to see US History as “God’s plan”. In a previous comment someone said that it reminds them of child abuse and I couldn’t agree more." ~ Kevin Levin (Emphasis mine). *Try most. See graph below: How Do Homeschool Students Score?

And this baseless comment from a reader . . .

"If you think about it, Kevin, what you saw in these kids is inevitable. Many parents who insist on home-schooling their kids have a set of beliefs which they don’t *want* their kids to question or dispute, and that is what they see school as being for: The simple transmission of information. So the kids get a double-whammy: Not only are they taught ridiculous junk, but they are taught that none of it should be questioned."

And more misinformation:

"The problem is compounded for kids who are homeschooled early on and than [sic] have to adjust to a classroom like mine. Much of what I do is organized around discussion and debate. I want my students to question one another and me as part of a process that will lead them to their own conclusions about what they read. But look at this from the perspective of a homeschooled child. They’ve little exposure to debate and/or the questioning of authority figures. So, they come to my class not having questioned their parents and are not inclined to challenge me and they are surrounded by students who take such a stance for granted even if not all of them exercise it." ~ KL (Emphasis mine).

And more misleading comments from another reader . . .

"I can’t tell which of my students now were homeschooled (though I sometimes have my suspicions) but a few years ago I worked in a museum and we had students on tours from public schools, private schools, and homeschooled. One of our docents described the homeschooled kids as “little robots.” The public school kids were the least well behaved but they tended to ask the best questions. An unscientific survey certainly, but I much preferred the more rambunctious public school kids." (Emphasis mine).

"Little robots", huh? How nice. Well-behaved children are "little robots" while those misbehaving are simply "rambunctious." Uh-huh. Certainly no bias against homeschoolers here.

And yet another reader used the term "religious and regional numbnuts in Dixieland" to characterize certain religious Southerners. Isn't that nice? Nothing like open-mindedness and the embracing of diversity from academia. You'll notice that no one objected to that bigoted characterization. Of course, South-bashing and Christian-bashing is just a figment of our imagination.

I must say that many of the comments in this post contain some of the most non-thinking, cliched, scripted, ill-informed, prejudiced, intolerant, narrow-minded, and intellectually dishonest (Did I miss anything?) ideas and thoughts I've ever seen expressed in regard to homeschooling. What began ostensibly as a critique of John Dwyer's book, The War Between the States: America's Uncivil War, descended quickly into a rather dark homeschooling/Christian parent-bashing free for all. The comments noted above went way beyond any reference to Dwyer's book and it is those comments that are the subject of this post. The broad and baseless generalizations expressed in the comments, and the shallow thought process that went into them, betray a number of things about those who wrote them: fear of what they do not understand, as well as a resistance to embrace positive change in educational trends--specifically homeschooling.

Those making these comments are obviously unaware of recent studies, statistics, the astounding successes, and trends involving homeschooling. All of these ill-informed mischaracterizations were disproven years ago and are outdated. The only thing these comments prove is that those who wrote them are clueless about homeschooling and its broad acceptance and continued explosive growth in the United States. The comments quoted also reveal an underlying current of rigid, elitist thinking regarding the teaching of children i.e. - "Leave it to us experts." The ignorance expressed in the comments about one of the most successful educational options in modern America is jaw-dropping astonishing; even more so when you consider many of these comments came from those who are educators and members of academia.

Before I respond to the comments, allow me to give you a little background about my family and our own experience with homeschooling. Most who read this blog with any regularity know that my wife and I homeschooled 4 of our 6 children and that I am an enthusiastic proponent of homeschooling. Our two oldest children's education was comprised of a combination of some public, but primarily private school with our son finishing his last two years of high school at a military school. So, in addition to homeschooling, we've had plenty of experience with the diverse options for education available to most Americans. I know more than a little about that which I'll be commenting. Moreover, my wife would concur that homeschooling our 4 youngest children was one of the most rewarding experiences we've had in our 50+ years. We would most assuredly do it all over again - only we would have started sooner.

Three of our four youngest children were educated through a combination of a private Christian school and homeschooling, with our youngest child being educated solely through homeschooling. One of these 4 children is now a lead teacher at a private Christian school in our area and our youngest child was accepted into Patrick Henry College, a very selective and highly respected school which caters to homeschoolers. She decided not to attend PHC and now, in addition to being a wife, mother, and helping my wife in her business, is pursuing her degree part time. She's written columns for our local paper and elsewhere as well. We began homeschooling our youngest son when he was 12 and he had originally planned on attending Virginia Military Institute. He changed his mind when VMI was forced to go co-ed. He started his own business when he was 17 and today is a very successful farrier, husband, and father of two. Our other daughter whom we homeschooled is a mother of two and married to a pastor who serves a church in Canada. I consider our efforts in teaching our children a success and we are grateful to God for His blessings on our family.

Now, let me address some of the comments noted above. Levin writes that most of the homeschool children he's encountered "find it very difficult to adjust to a school community" as if that's the purpose of their life up to that point - to prepare them to adjust to his classroom or to a "school community". Rather presumptuous, wouldn't you say? Why would one assume everyone is going to accept the premise that herding 20-30 into an institutional classroom setting where a stranger presides over their education is something worth adjusting to? Why would one assume that there is only one definition of "school community?" We could turn it around and say that children coming out of a public school would have difficulty adjusting to a "homeschool setting." What's the point? His comment is a rather weak straw man to shoot down, but let's acknowledge that many children often have trouble adjusting to new settings when changing school environments, moving, etc. So what? The comment proves absolutely nothing and is meaningless. Besides, I could cite numerous cases where homeschooled children who moved to a private or public school were well-advanced of their peers and who had no trouble adjusting, except they felt somewhat stifled by the rigidity of a traditional classroom setting - not always the best atmosphere for learning. So let's move on to the next straw man.

Then Levin trots out the old worn-out concern over "socialization" - "Many haven’t spent enough time learning how to interact with their peers, but the biggest disappointment is to watch them in the classroom." That baseless charge has been disproven so many times that you rarely even see it brought up any more. Recent research totally refutes that old phony concern. Only those who are uninformed about the subject, or pushing an agenda, would still attempt to present it as a concern. The comment conjures up images of poor, lifeless children locked in a spartan basement by cruel parents who forbid their children to interact with anyone other than their parents or siblings, and who never venture outside their "agrarian farmstead." It is utterly ridiculous and baseless. The positive comments we most often received about our homeschooled children were in regards to their level of maturity and behavior. If they had any trouble "interacting with their peers" it was because they sometimes thought the silly, immature conduct of some of them was not something with which they wished to interact. In other words, many other children their age were behind in their emotional and social development due to the fact they spent so much of their time "with their peers" and emulated immature, youthful behavior. I find rejecting silly behavior to be a positive, not a negative. The point of education, in our view, is to prepare young people to serve God, their fellow man, and become productive members of society and not so that they can "interact with their peers" - that's nothing but distracting psycho-babble. All of my children had lots of friends their age while growing up, got along just fine with them, and still do.

As for "socialization," most homeschooling families, including ours and that of my oldest daughter, get as much or more interaction with other children as does any other child in America. While our children were being homeschooled, they were very involved in numerous church activities, ministered to shut-ins at nursing homes, lobbied legislators, attended church camps, participated in 4H clubs and competitions, took music lessons and competed against other children, attended music camps, competed in spelling bees, went with other homeschooling families on joint field trips, etc, etc, etc. The socialization homeschooled kids receive, in most cases, is far more diverse and educational than what many children receive in the rigid, bureaucratic "box" mentality of government schools; or many private schools for that matter.

The church our oldest daughter (who holds a bachelor's degree in education and is state certified to teach) attends sponsors a homeschool "co-op" where families meet every Friday for joint activities and field trips. Scores of children show up, along with their parents, every week. Just more "religious and regional numbnuts in Dixieland" I suppose.

Levin continued with "try to get them to question what they read or what the teacher says and you will end up pulling your hair out. They were never taught to formulate their own ideas or to see school as an opportunity to develop their own views about things. It’s very sad."

Actually, what's sad is that someone would actually try to make their case with such a baseless accusation. Maybe it's the teacher who can't relate with students from a different background than what he or she is accustomed to. Why should anyone assume the children are the ones with the problem? It's certainly true that homeschooled children are often more courteous and respectful of authority than many of their peers and might be hesitant to challenge a teacher. That is not necessarily a bad thing - to a point. But I've found quite the opposite to be true regarding questioning ideas and authority among homeschooled children. None of my children are afraid to question authority - respectfully - when warranted. Lord knows they've questioned mine more times than I'd like to remember.

Case in point. A couple of years ago, my youngest son and his wife took their first daughter to their pediatrician. My son was in his early twenties. His daughter was experiencing some digestive problems and the Doc, after a very brief examination, prescribed a strong anti-acid medication. My son objected and started asking the Dr. about side affects, how often did he prescribe this drug to infants, why so quick to prescribe medicine without first considering a change in diet, he wanted another opinion, etc. My son told me the Dr. very intently stared at him for a moment and then asked, "You were homeschooled, weren't you?" My son, a little shocked replied, "Well, yes I was, but why do you ask?" The Dr. answered, "Because 99% of young parents I talk with NEVER question my opinions or treatments. Every time someone your age does, I discover they've been homeschooled." Turns out my son was right, by the way. They altered my grandaughter's diet somewhat and that resolved the problem. I could give other similar incidents regarding my other children but, suffice it to say, the notion homeschooled children are "little robots" or were never taught to think for themselves and challenge authority is nothing less than cliched, ill-informed nonsense. It is an offensive, demeaning, and agenda-driven insult.

"Develop their own views?" Is anyone really naive enough to think that education takes place in a vacuum? The views of the teacher and educational philosophy is always part of the environment - to one degree or another. Certainly no one would be silly enough to suggest that whoever is doing the teaching is not "steering" their pupil in a certain direction. Yes, we want children to think for themselves and form their own opinions, but every teacher influences their pupil in one direction or another, whether you wish to admit it or not.

"I’ve seen up close what happens to kids who are taught to see US History as “God’s plan”. Mr. Levin calls teaching this view of history "child abuse." Child abuse! Wow. I'll tell you what I've seen. I've seen many of these kids (including my own) who are taught a Christian worldview of history grow up to be productive members of society who are active in their church and who give back to their communities. I've also seen that many of these kids are much less gullible to leftist propaganda and lying politicians who wish to limit and take away their freedom (which is one of the main reasons educational bureaucrats don't like homeschooling).

Whether elitists want to accept it or not, there are millions of Christians in the United States who believe that God's providence directs history and that all nations are a part of His plan. Being intolerant of those views is nothing new, but such beliefs are certainly common among Christians and not outside the mainstream. To suggest that teaching that all of history, including US history, is part of "God's plan" is a form of child abuse is an extreme, radical position to stake out. That position truly is outside the mainstream.

And if you think its only Christians who believe that public schools are involved in propagandazing children, think again. The following comment comes from the Atheist Homeschool Blog:

"I didn’t like the way the kids were taught to be followers instead of leaders. [Uh, does she mean "robots?"] I didn’t like how they downplayed the importance of families. I didn’t like how filled all the curriculum was with governmental propaganda and the social agendas being pushed upon the children."

Homeschooling is the most positive, cutting edge revolution taking place in education. It has grown from what was once considered a "fringe movement" to being very mainstream, acceptable, and practiced across diverse political and socioeconomic backgrounds. It is, in the truest sense, a "people's movement" - taking place from the bottom up and, quite literally, has turned the failed traditions of conformity in government and private education on their collective heads. To be so ignorant of a stunningly successful educational movement involving hundreds of thousands of Americans, especially when that information is so readily available, reveals a willful blindness to the truth or an overt attempt to suppress it.

Not surprisingly, those who wish to impugn, demean, suppress, and downplay the success of homeschooling are usually those who have a vested interest in doing so - protecting their turf. Teachers and administrators in traditional educational settings are no doubt feeling a little threatened by the competition - with good reason.

Homeschoolers have the means to provide a quality - and often superior - education for their children at a fraction of the cost without exposing their children to drugs, violence, political correctness, and wasted time that is so often the case in both public and private school settings.

The other overriding concern of many statists in big-education is the fact homeschooling prevents "the machine" from indoctrinating the minds of children with liberal and progressive philosophies, leftist ideologies, moral relativism, Darwinism, and other things to which many parents would object. As already noted, it is an elitist mindset that is anti-freedom and anti-liberty. And, according to all the studies, does not include the best interest of the child as its motivation. For every child who is homeschooled, that translates into less money going to the public school locality which means less money for salaries, bigger facilities, sports programs, etc., etc. This has been pointed out over and over and I've had public school teachers and administrators admit this to me - on the condition of anonymity, of course. It's all about money and control.

Below, I've included some information which was in an article written by Dr. Brian D. Ray. It has some excellent information and statistics about homeschooling-- all verifiable. I've also included some links for those who are interested in finding out more about homeschooling.

*******************************************************************

Homeschooling – that is, parent-led home-based education – is an age-old traditional educational practice that a decade ago appeared to be cutting-edge and “alternative” but is now bordering on “mainstream” in the United States. It may be the fastest-growing form of education in the United States. Home-based education has also growing around the world in many other nations (e.g., Australia, Canada, Hungary, Japan, Kenya, and the United Kingdom).

There are about 2 million home-educated students in the United States. There were an estimated 1.8 to 2.5 million children (in grades K to 12) home educated during 2007-2008 in the United States. It appears the homeschool population is continuing to grow (at an estimated 5% to 12% per annum over the past few years).

Families engaged in home-based education are not dependent on public, tax-funded resources for their children’s education. The finances associated with their homeschooling likely represent over $16 billion that American taxpayers do not have to spend since these children are not in public schools

Homeschooling is quickly growing in popularity among minorities. About 15% of homeschool families are non-white/nonHispanic (i.e., not white/Anglo).

A demographically wide variety of people homeschool – these are atheists, Christians, and Mormons; conservatives, libertarians, and liberals; low-, middle-, and high-income families; black, Hispanic, and white; parents with Ph.D.s, GEDs, and no high-school diplomas.

Reasons for Home Educating

Most parents and youth decide to homeschool for more than one reason.

The most common reasons given for homeschooling are the following:

· customize or individualize the curriculum and learning environment for each child,

· accomplish more academically than in schools,

· use pedagogical approaches other than those typical in institutional schools,

· enhance family relationships between children and parents and among siblings,

· provide guided and reasoned social interactions with youthful peers and adults,

· provide a safer environment for children and youth, because of physical violence, drugs and alcohol, psychological abuse, and improper and unhealthy sexuality associated with institutional schools, and

· teach and impart a particular set of values, beliefs, and worldview to children and youth.

Academic Performance

* The home-educated typically score 15 to 30 percentile points above public-school students on standardized academic achievement tests. (Percentiles range from 1 to 99 on these tests.)

* Homeschool students score above average on achievement tests regardless of their parents’ level of formal education or their family’s household income.

* Whether homeschool parents were ever certified teachers is not related to their children’s academic achievement.

* Degree of state control and regulation of homeschooling is not related to academic achievement.

* Home-educated students typically score above average on the SAT and ACT tests that colleges consider for admissions.

* Homeschool students are increasingly being actively recruited by colleges. [I found this to be the case with all of my homeschooled children.]

Social, Emotional, and Psychological Development

* The home-educated are doing well, typically above average, on measures of social, emotional, and psychological development. Research measures include peer interaction, self-concept, leadership skills, family cohesion, participation in community service, and self-esteem. (Emphasis mine.)

* Homeschool students are regularly engaged in social and educational activities outside their homes and with people other than their nuclear-family members. They are commonly involved in activities such as field trips, scouting, 4-H, political drives, church ministry, sports teams, and community volunteer work.

Gender Differences in Children and Youth Respected?

* One researcher finds that homeschooling gives young people an unusual chance to ask questions such as, “Who am I?” and “What do I really want?,” and through the process of such asking and gradually answering the questions home-educated girls develop the strengths and the resistance abilities that give them an unusually strong sense of self.

* Some think that boys’ energetic natures and tendency to physical expression can more easily be accommodated in home-based education. Many are concerned that a highly disproportionate number of public school special-education students are boys and that boys are 2.5 times as likely as girls in public schools to be diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

Success in the “Real World” of Adulthood

The research based on adults who were home educated is growing; thus far it indicates that they:

* participate in local community service more frequently than does the general population,

* vote and attend public meetings more frequently than the general population, and

* go to and succeed at college at an equal or higher rate than the general population.

* internalize the values and beliefs of their parents at a very high rate.

Sources:

The above findings are extensively documented in one or more of the following sources, all (except one) of which are available from www.nheri.org:

· A Homeschool Research Story, Brian. D. Ray, 2005, in Homeschooling in Full View: A Reader.

· A Sense of Self: Listening to Homeschooled Adolescent Girls. Susannah Sheffer, 1995.

· Home Educated and Now Adults: Their Community and Civic Involvement, Views About Homeschooling, and Other Traits, Brian D. Ray, 2004.

· Home schooling: The Ameliorator of Negative Influences on Learning, Brian D. Ray, Peabody Journal of Education, 2000, v. 75 no. 1 & 2, pp. 71-106.

· Homeschoolers on to College: What Research Shows Us, by Brian D. Ray, Journal of College Admission, 2004, No. 185, 5-11.

· National Education Association. (2005). Rankings and estimates: A Report of School Statistics Update. Retrieved 7/10/06 online http://www.nea.org/edstats/images/05rankings-update.pdf.

· The Truth About Boys and Girls. Sara Mead, 2006.

· Worldwide Guide to Homeschooling, Brian D. Ray, 2005.

Brian D. Ray, Ph.D. is an internationally known researcher, educator, speaker, and expert witness, and serves as president of the nonprofit National Home Education Research Institute. He has taught as a certified teacher in public and private schools and served as a professor in the fields of science, research methods, and education at the graduate and undergraduate levels. His Ph.D. is in science education from Oregon State University and his M.S. is in zoology from Ohio University. Dr. Ray has been studying the homeschool movement for about 24 years.
***********************************************************************

Recommended Links:

State regulation of homeschooling doesn't help test scores
Home School Legal Defense
National Black Home Educators
Jewish Home Educators Network
American Homeschooling Association
Homeschool.com
Homeschool World
Secular Homeschooling
Virginia Homeschool Groups - (Over 150 of them)

Even elitists will have trouble with the overwhelming tsunami of research and evidence that proves homeschooling is working extremely well for thousands of Christian and non-Christian families and, in many ways, producing superior results for the children involved. Not exactly what I'd call child abuse.
************************************************************************
Note: Anyone wanting to comment on this particular post must stay on topic. I won't post any comments, pro or con, that I deem intended to distract, obfuscate, or stray from the topic; including any comments, pro or con, about Dwyer's book. This post is not about Dwyer's book, it is specifically about the negative comments regarding homeschooling. If you wish to comment about Dwyer's book, do so on Kevin's blog. Other than that, I'll take all comers. Come prepared.

I understand that there are many good, dedicated teachers and administrators working in the government school systems. I know several of them personally. My comments are not meant to be a criticism of their work or their efforts. They work hard, love their jobs, sacrifice for their students and are doing the very best they can in a system that is, in many instances, working against them. I hope they make a positive difference and pray God's very best for them.

Should She Be Impeached?

2009-07-08T22:45:00.003-04:00

"Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of." (Emphasis mine) ~ Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Elitist snob. Exactly which populations does Ms. Ginsburg not "want to have too many of?" Doesn't anyone find that comment shocking? Notice that the NYT reporter didn't bother to follow up. How in the world did that comment get by the reporter and through the editing process? Am I missing something here?

I wonder if we'll hear an outcry from the left and calls for her resignation - nah. Its ok to suggest this kind of thing if you happen to be an elitist and a leftist. The indignation of the left is always selective which is why they have no credibility.

Yeah, What About Arlington?

2009-07-06T18:00:00.001-04:00

We could always drape a cloth over the crosses and sandblast all the Scripture verses.

Independence Day Follow Up

2009-07-06T07:00:00.001-04:00

1960's radicals. The same types who now control Congress and the state-run media. What do you think about that baseball play Michael? ;o)

Happy Independence Day

2009-07-04T06:00:00.002-04:00

The Wisdom (sometimes) Of Garrison Keillor

2009-07-02T18:00:00.000-04:00

"We see the world clearly when we are children and we spend the rest of our lives trying to remember what it was we saw." ~ Garrison Keillor

"Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." - The words of Christ, Matthew 18:3

Is A College Degree Worthless?

2009-07-02T07:00:00.000-04:00

"I'm not arguing against higher learning but for it -- and against the degree system that stands in its way." ~ From SmartMoney

See full article here.

More Celebrating John Brown

2009-07-01T07:00:00.001-04:00

We so often hear criticism today about "celebratory history" - especially if those celebrations involve Confederate war heroes. However, the silence regarding the "celebration" of John Brown is deafening. See my previous post regarding this here.

Now, read this story about the recent unveiling of a plaque about John Brown.

I think the plaque in this story is certainly appropriate and is done very well. Ironically, the print story refers to John Brown being "celebrated" while Tim Riford (the man unveiling the plaque) refers to the marines who "saved the day" [at Harper's Ferry]. Hmmm . . . the United States Marines, led by Colonel Robert E. Lee, "saved the day" against someone who is being "celebrated?" I'm confused.

Well-known Harper's Ferry park historian, Dennis Frye, was at this "celebration" about John Brown while another park historian, Gerry Gaumer, recently referred to Brown as a terrorist and compared his actions to those of the Taliban.

Perhaps they're just offering something for everyone? Could we be seeing a new tone of reconciliation?

Murdered For A Frying Pan

2009-06-30T18:52:00.007-04:00

The following account is found in the excellent book The Spirit Divided - Memoirs of Civil War Chaplains - The Union, compiled and edited by Benedict R. Maryniak and John Wesley Brinsfield, Jr. The account is taken from the privately published memoirs of Union Chaplain Milton L. Haney. Haney (shown here) was one of only four chaplains to receive the Medal of Honor from service in the WBTS. Haney relates a story about a Union soldier shooting a female slave "like a beast" and how the woman found final comfort in Christ:
**************************************************************
The Siege of Vicksburg

Coming into Vicksburg from Black River brought great consternation to the natives, and there was a rush for the hills of the Yazoo. The slaveholders forced their slaves to go with them, though many, when they got into the hills, stole away and ran for protection to the Union Army. There were clusters of slave cabins, and as they returned, bringing what little they could, they entered these cabins. The soldiers all expected a siege, and there was a scrambling for cooking utensils for camp. A black man was carrying a frying pan and a mounted soldier ordered him to give it to him. The slave answered: "Lord Massa, I borrowed it, and promised to take it back, sir." He cursed him, but the man ran with the pan and threw it into the door of the cabin where it belonged. The soldier followed quickly and ordered the woman to give it up. She pleaded it was all she had and she could not spare it and closed the door. He deliberately got off his horse, put his musket through a crack in the cabin and fired at her. She fell like a beef and he walked in and got the frying pan and went away! Her left limb was broken above the knee, and the musket being so close the bone was badly shattered. Dr. Roller amputated the limb and cared for her till he was overtaxed with the sick and wounded and begged me to take charge of her. I brought soup and other nourishment and dressed her wound for thirty days. During that time I made use of every means I thought of to inspire courage and bring cheer to her soul, but in no case could I produce a smile. Her heart had died! She was a slave from infancy, had a child when fifteen years old, and her life had been a horror to her. When we came she, with all other slaves, recognized us as her city of refuge and at the risk of her life ran into our arms for safety, to be shot down like a beast!

One morning I went in and saw there was gangrene in her wound, and promptly told her she must die. Her face lighted up as I told her, for the first time in thirty days she smiled! It comforts me now to remember the care I took of that desolate soul. O, what wailing there will be at the judgment seat of Christ!
************************************************************************************

Minnesota's Newest Senator

2009-06-30T18:30:00.003-04:00

Here's one of Al Franken's brilliant, "inclusive and diversity minded" quips: “Why don’t we focus on what Afghan women can do? They can cook, bear children and pray. As I recall, that was fine for our grandmothers.”

Actually, Mr. Toilet Brain, that is what my wife has done. It's also fine for her and she's proud of it - and so am I. She's also run a business, fed the poor, taken in the homeless, nursed sick animals (both wild and domestic) back to health, led a 4H youth group, tutored disadvantaged children, taught Sunday school, and borne six children - four of whom she homeschooled and all who've become productive, God-fearing members of society. She's also the grandmother of 13. All her children and grandchildren love her dearly. Most Americans would agree that being a mother is the most important role a woman could play. (Your idiotic, mean-spirited comment says much more about you than anything and proves you - and your ilk - are out of touch with the majority of Americans.)

Of course, being a productive member of society is no doubt foreign to you since your resume consists of being a failed, not-so-funny comedian and a failed, not-so-interesting talk-show host. You tried to be funny and weren't, you talked a lot and nobody listened - come to think of it, the U.S. Senate is the perfect career move for you!

We're all looking forward to your words of wisdom from the Senate floor. You'll be with like-minded folks, that's for sure. By the way, is the stuffed bear one of the "votes" you came up with to steal the election in Minnesota?

One suggestion - put the Luvs diaper over your mouth to catch the filth that will no doubt be spewing out of it.

End of rant - regular programming from the self-confessed ignorant will continue soon. Personally, I prefer self-confessed ignorance over the unaware variety. ;o)

Or, as Amos Bronson Alcott once said, “To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady of the ignorant.”

So Which Is It? (Part 3)

2009-06-29T20:59:00.003-04:00

"Grant, entrusted with our greatest army, is a jackass in the original package. He is a poor drunken imbecile. He is a poor stick sober, and he is most of the time more than half drunk, and much of the time idiotically drunk." ~ Murat Halstead in a letter to Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase, 12 March 1863

Just another anecdotal accusation, I suppose. Perhaps Mr. Malstead exaggerated. Perhaps not. But dismissing repeated, persistent charges regarding Grant's drinking problem and whether or not he was just an occasional stumbling drunk, or a wake up in his own vomit drunk, tells us much more about the historian than it does anything else.

We do know this. Grant and Lee both held each other in high esteem after the WBTS. Lee (while President of Washington College), addressing a disrespectful comment about Grant replied:

"Sir, if you ever again presume to speak disrespectfully of General Grant in my presence, either you or I will sever his connection with this university."

And Grant said this of Lee:

“My own feelings, which had been quite jubilant on receipt of Lee’s letter, were sad and depressed. I felt like anything rather than rejoicing at the downfall of a foe who had fought so long and so valiantly and had suffered so much for a cause.”

“All the people except a few political leaders in the South will accept whatever he does as right and will be guided to a great extent by his example.”

So Which Is It? (Part 2)

2009-06-29T13:31:00.005-04:00

Kevin Levin recently took one of my comments regarding Ulysses S. Grant out of context. I thought it appropriate to respond here, rather than KL's blog - for a number of reasons.

Here's my comment which Kevin writes about:

“If Grant had a drinking problem, the answer to your question could be that he was willing to sacrifice thousands of more men due to the fact his judgment was impaired by alcohol.”

As I further clarified (and which Kevin left out):

My comment was a rhetorical response to James's rhetorical question:

"What does it say about Confederate military prowess that they were beaten by a drunk?"

I think there are many who would label someone who drinks themselves unconscious a drunkard.

Again, as I said in my original post, perhaps one prefers degrees of the label.

However, Kevin did get one thing right:

As the argument goes Lee fought a traditional war of virtuous generals and civilized tactics while Grant and Sherman ushered in a new era of warfare that anticipated the blood baths of the twentieith century.

So Which Is It?

2009-06-27T12:13:00.005-04:00

CW blogger, Kevin Levin, recently posted some comments suggesting that Ulysses S. Grant has unfairly and inaccurately been labeled a "drunk." Many of us who study the WBTS have read the same narratives and accounts of Grant's lack of sobriety and fondness of liquor.

Kevin bases his opinion (at least in part) on a new book by Joan Waugh. KL writes: "Anyone familiar with recent Grant studies already knows that the evidence against Grant is weak or inconclusive. According to Waugh and others, Grant drank occasionally, but not 'when it counted' and rarely in excess." [Emphasis mine].

As a former indulger of strong drink myself, I'm not sure what Kevin means by "when it counted." In my former heathen life (over 30 years ago), "when it counted" to me meant whenever I was conscious. But I digress.

Not all historians would agree with Levin - no surprise there. Interestingly enough, Kevin's post title has been used before by historian Edward Longacre. In his article on HNN on 9/10/07, titled: Was Grant A Drunk? - Longacre writes that he believes Grant was a "binge drinker."

Longacre further notes:

"Grant’s drinking habits should be recognized and examined, not ignored or downplayed as they have been by overzealous defenders of his good name during his lifetime and ever since. That Grant drank occasionally while on duty is a matter of record, as is the fact that on more than a few occasions he drank until intoxicated, stuporous, and violently ill." [Emphasis mine]

And . . .

"Grant did not fit the stereotype of the falling-down drunk. He drank at irregular intervals, in varying quantities, and with differing results. At times he imbibed moderately, with little or no noticeable effect, and he was capable of refusing a drink, explaining that alcohol brought him nothing but trouble. Even so, he was, in the clinical sense of the term, an alcoholic. On more than a few occasions he drank long and hard, unable to stop short of unconsciousness or some form of intervention . . . "

Uh, forgive me for being picky, but "unable to stop short of unconsciousness" would fit my definition of "a drunk." But maybe that's just me. I suppose we will have to clarify our definitions of "drunk" in degrees: "falling down drunk" to "puking, unconscious drunk." (I would tend to think that the latter is actually worse than the former. Personally, I would prefer being intoxicated with a stumble here and there to waking up in my own vomit. But, again, that's just me.)

I've never studied Grant to any degree, so I don't consider myself an expert on his drinking habits but, assuming Longacre's description is accurate, his opinion would differ with that of Levin's and, according to KL, that of Waugh's "and others."

For those who are a bit cynical and suspicisous when it comes to "recent" historiography, one might detect a trend. Some of the recent biographies and studies of Lee have suggested he was much less the gentleman than many think. Other historians have recently suggested that murderer John Brown's life should be "celebrated" and that he was "an immensely principled activist, a revolutionary whose dedication—whose sacrifice of his life—to the cause of freeing America’s slaves has much to teach a morally relativistic, ethically relaxed age."

As part of this apparent trend and attempt to "equalize" various historical figures, are we now seeing an effort to sober General Grant? So what do you think? Has Grant been mischaracterized or was he truly a drunk?

Its enough to drive a man to drinkin'.

Gangsta Government

2009-06-27T07:00:00.000-04:00

Boycott GM. Boycott Chrysler.

What I'm Reading

2009-06-26T20:00:00.003-04:00

"Beyond its mythology in the American imagination, Appalachia has long been a vanguard region in the United States-—a cradle of U.S. freedom and independence, and a hot bed for literature and music. Some of the most quintessential and daring American innovations, rebellions, and social movements have emerged from an area often stereotyped as a quaint backwater. In the process, immigrants from the Appalachian diaspora have become some of our nation's most famous leaders."

I just received this book today and am looking forward to begin reading it this weekend. Several months ago, I began writing a lengthy post about the dominance of Southern culture in America. I hope to post that soon.

Interview With Jim Lighthizer

2009-06-26T19:00:00.000-04:00

Fellow WBTS blogger, Michael Noirot recently interviewed Civil War Preservation Trust President, Jim Lighthizer. Michael asked if I would post a link to that interview here on my blog. Of course, I was happy to oblige.

You can listen to the full 50-minute informative interview by clicking here. As I've done before, I would enourage all my readers to support the great work being done by the Civil War Preservation Trust.

Shameful

2009-06-26T17:44:00.003-04:00

If you believe that the current Democratically controlled Congress is anything other than an extreme leftist, partisan body comprised of the very worst of American politicians, then read this.

For You Silly Folks

2009-06-26T06:00:00.002-04:00

Here's a good read for some of our Northern friends and academics who seem to have lost touch with reality. Yes, I know its hard to believe, but many Southern women really did sew, knit, and support their husbands - and the war effort - during the War Between the States.

From the book . . .

"And then there were the notebook's other contents, the lists — of General Lee's godchildren, of groceries bought and wagonloads of food received, of hundreds of socks and gloves knitted from bales of cotton and pounds of wool, the myriad household uses for common ingredients like salt and ammonia. As I puzzled over the brittle pages, the shabby little notebook grew in fascination. Might it, if understood, illuminate the intimate domestic life of the people in those dim portraits, at least in part? " (Emphasis mine)

This book is written by Anne Carter Zimmer. She is the great-granddaughter of Mary and Robert E. Lee.

States Rights Discussion

2009-06-25T18:00:00.001-04:00

For an interesting discussion on states rights and the WBTS, click here. The 8 minute clip is from the Jefferson Davis ~ An American President documentary and includes commentary from several noted academics.

The clip on the documentary site is also worth watching.

WBTS Author Kent Masterson Brown Speaks Out

2009-06-24T18:00:00.003-04:00

This is part 1. You can watch part 2 here & part 3 here. Brown's website is here.

Standing Against Leviathan

2009-06-23T07:00:00.001-04:00

Human progress is furthered, not by conformity, but by aberration. ~ H.L. Mencken

Heart Of A Southern Girl

2009-06-22T06:00:00.001-04:00

This print, by Henry Kidd, adorns my parlor. My wife and 4 daughters - all Southern ladies - love it.

They believe it catches much of the essence of the idyllic 19th century Southern lady who was loyal to the Confederacy: patriotic, a keeper at home, and dedicated to the cause for which her sons, husband, and father fought.