Huzza! Md. Mulls Changing ‘Offensive’ State Song

In an uber-liberal state like Maryland, it surprises me that they haven’t gotten rid of the song yet, or at least not before Virginia “retired” “Carry Me Back” several years ago.

If they say we have to get rid of the song and come up with something that represents “diversity,” then are the state’s scant few remaining Southern whites going to get a verse in the new song?

That’s still the state song? Really?? I’m stunned it has lasted this long. One has to admit, even as distgusting as the PC revisionism and such of our time is, a song like this is probably just a bit anachronistic. Perhaps “I’m a Good ‘Ol Rebel” can be substituted!!

Lincoln was not the tyrant people make him out to be. Sure, he may have made a few mistakes here and there.

Know what, though, he became a Christian in 1863, right after the Battle of Gettysburg.

He was all for shipping blacks back to Africa. He was against the 14th Amendment (which was never really ratified) and he was willing to go easy on the South and let them come back on equal footing.

Had Lincoln not been shot, the South wouldn’t have been pillaged. Just something for you Southerners to think about. I’m a lifelong Yankee, my mother is a member of Daughters of Union Vets, and I believe the South was more in the right…but Lincoln wasn’t a complete, total tyrant.

I believe Lincoln would be spinning in his grave if he knew who we have as president today.

Frankly, I’m surprised that the song has lasted this long, given the politically correct onslaught of the past several years. After all these years, I doubt that anyone owns the copyright on this song, and I’d be hoping against hope that if anyone did, they’d be of the will and fortitude to sue the socks off the people who attempted to change a comma in the song. Nothing hurts like the truth, and that’s exactly what this song has to say. This reminds me of the attempt by the PC nutcases years ago to change the words of very old hymns that didn’t suit them any longer. Again, I was hoping for severe legal action from the copyright holders.

“And they shall beat their ploughshares into swords and their pruning hooks into spears.”

Alexandra:

What you say about Lincoln is right. But when other people see the Lincoln that was a true blue proponent of racial equality, they’re right too. How can both sides be right?

Answer: Because neither side is right. Neither side is wrong either. Abraham Lincoln was a typical whore politician who would tell someone what they wanted to hear. Every word by the supremacist Lincoln can be matched with words from the egalitarian Lincoln.

I think he did have political instincts, from his being born a poor white mid-Southerner. They weren’t anti-South bigots, but they were against the slave system because the slave system precluded the development of a bourgeoise middle class. You were either born to the plantation or dirt poor if you were white in the antebellum South. No in between, because there was all this slave labor. Same situation with Hispanics today, cheap labor to make the ultra-rich richer and to crowd out the working middle class.

But I don’t judge the 16th President (or most other politicians) by his contradictory words, I judge him by his actions. Words are cheap, actions have consequences. And the actions of the 16th President was to translate the United States from a complex republic with divided power into an executive-judicial dictatorship for the sake of racial equality, as Lincoln wanted us to believe that racial equality was the raison d’etre of the United States of America (Gettysburg Address, November 1863.) The Gettysburg Address was not a declaration of individual liberty, but the liberty of the central government to reconstruct society for the sake of equality. In much the way that Greek tyrants chopped down the highest corn stalks as a metaphor for their decapitating the elites of their own city states to eliminate challenges to their own power.

If any good came from the enemy winning the War Between the States, it was to enshrine the protectionist trade system, and that combined with the eventual success of the labor union movement led to the most prosperous working middle class that the world will have ever known. Except that when the northeastern industrial elite had no more use for protectionism and wanted free trade to expand itself, it dumped protectionism. They only wanted protectionism in 1860 versus the free trade crash crop agrarian/slave South because they were the industrial newbies trying to compete against the more industrial British. They wanted to bash in the knees of slavery in the South because it was the cheap labor that allowed the plantation class to control American antebellum politics and keep tariffs low. Northern industrialists weren’t against slavery for humanitarian reasons, they did finance the “humanitarian” anti-slavery movements. But it was a front for their economic/class interests. But the disparate impact was that eventually, the average person could expect a very high standard of living thanks to protectionism and unions. Once the industrial establishment wanted to go “global,” they demanded and got the free trade that their progenitors railed against and feted a war to end.

@Question Diversity

Are you referring to the “all men created equal” part?

I would say yes, God created all men. But we all know that no two people are alike, much less two races.

All I can say is, don’t consider what you’re taught in school to be the “gospel truth,” so to speak. Research, research, research! I say, question everything you’re taught.

Alexandra:

Believe me, my opinions about Mr. Lincoln that I stated above were not learned in public school. It seems that your contention about individual differences and racial differences were jettisoned as a result of the actions of the 16th President.

I’m a Maryland resident. Maryland is a communist state. Most of its citizens only care what government can give them. They are utterly ignorant of the state’s history, the nation’s history or of the principles of the founding fathers. This state named its major airport two years ago after Thurgood Marshall, one of the dumbest lawyers ever to be named to the US Supreme court by Politician and vote counter extrodinaire, Lyndon Baines Johnson.
The current governor, O’Malley, is a socialist and an official who can’t give convicted criminals, most of whom are black in Maryland, a quick exit from death row or the jail block so they can murder and rape again and again.

The state would be in a utter collapse except for its proximity to Washington. Thus billions of military, NASA and health research funds flow into a state that is adamantly anti-business, proaffirmative action, and utterly incompetent in running local govt efficiently. It’s education system sucks, though national ratings run by education Marxist professors proclaim Maryland’s schools are #1. Yeah, if you want to educate kids in Hell.

Alexandra,

I wouldn’t be surprised if our radical leftist Maryland legislature changes the state song (our state has been on a downhill slide for at least the last forty years.) So you think Lincoln was not a tyrant? What do you call his imprisoning Maryland’s legislature without trial? How about his shutting down Northern newspapers that openly disagreed with his policies? How about his suspension of habeus corpus? What do you call his war of aggression against the people of the South who were exercising their Constitutional right to secede from the so called Union? He initiated a war that cost the lives of some 600,000 American citizens (give or take). Sociopathic officers under Lincoln’s command (e.g. Phillip Sheridan, William T. Sherman) carried out war crimes including the burning of Atlanta, destruction of Columbia, the starvation seige of Vicksburg, the burning and looting of the Shenandoah Valley, widespread rape, murder and gratuituous destruction of property. Please, rid your mind of the Lincoln cult propaganda and read Thomas J. DiLorenzo’s books “The Real Lincoln” and “Lincoln Unmasked” to see what his true goals were and what a tyrant he really was. Also read Walter Brian Cisco’s “War Crimes Against Southern Civilians” and David Aiken’s “A City Laid Waste: The Capture, Sack and Destruction of the City of Columbia” to get an idea of the senseless destruction and brutality visited upon the people of the South, whether or not they were slaveholders.

I would add to Tim’s excellent reading list above LINCOLN: THE MAN, by Edgar L. Masters. Put aside the school book fantasies about the “great emancipator” Lincoln and the almost saint-like stature given to him by the commie creators of historical fiction and by his temple in Washington. He was a typical politician as stated above, chameleon-like and a dangerous and fickle tyrant. Eliminate from your minds the idea that he would have been easy on the South because of words like “…with malice toward none, with charity for all…” Who did he think he was fooling? These words are representative of his devious nature, and he would have subjected the South to the same misery and humiliation as it actually did suffer under Johnson and Grant. What used to really sicken me was the enthusiasm with which I’ve seen Southerners in schools and even in churches sing the “Battle Hymn of the Republic” as if they had no inkling of history nor of what the song really has to say. These words are an abomination to any true Southern descendant of those who wore the Grey. They insult an entire region of the country, just as the “fourth verse” of “God Save the King (Queen)” insulted the Scots after the 1745 Rising of the Highlanders. Remember, Southerners, that in the War Between the States we killed more of them than they did of us.

The posting of HH above hits the nail right on the head with the suggested replacement for Maryland’s state song. “Three hundred thousand Yankees lie stiff in Southern dust”…..”I wish it were three million instead of what we got.”

Deo Vindice.

Tim:

May I suggest reading “Fifty Years in the ‘Church’ of Rome” by Charles Chiniquy. It’ll give you yet another view of Lincoln.

I am not saying Lincoln was perfect. He did things he shouldn’t have done, granted. But don’t you think he might have regretted them? As I pointed out he became a Christian in 1863.

A lot of those newspapers were actually slandering him. I don’t think slander is protected by the First Amendment.

Alexandra:

When exactly in 1863, according to this book, did Adolph Lenin supposedly become a Christian?

If it was before July, then that means that he waged the Union effort of the WBTS and all its atrocities starting from Gettysburg onward. Even if it was late in 1863, that meant that he was a supposed Christian for all of 1864 (stealing the Presidential election that year), and until April 1865.

Don’t forget, the Union never had anything close to a brilliant military strategist. The South had Forrest and Stonewall Jackson, and even Robert E. Lee wasn’t too shabby. But an advantage for the enemy forces starting in 1864 was an almost never ending stream of Irish immigrants, who were promised land for their service in the Union Army. However, being as there was an almost unlimited supply of Irish (potato famine aftermath), their “service” meant being used in a meat grinder where Grant would just push and push and push against the South simply using the force of constantly replenishable numbers, until the South ran out of men, even as the North lost as many, but like I said, thanks to deceitful promises, that meat grinder was a urinating match that the North would eventually win, only a matter of time. To call that a great military strategy is like saying that Bill Gates has to pinch pennies in his personal financial life.

Lincoln had to have known about it. You’re telling me that those are the acts of a Christian?

Alexandra,

You wrote: “A lot of those newspapers were actually slandering him. I don’t think slander is protected by the First Amendment.”

Since when does slander warrant the shutting down of a newspaper by government? Politicians in the 19th century were slandered all the time. There’s nothing in the first amendment that mandates or allows ANY government to shut down a newspaper. The Constitution is not to be suspended even in times of war - at least that was the Founding Fathers’ intent. It is during war that governments make larger and larger grabs for power, ostensibly in the name of security but actually at the detriment of liberty.

Lincoln would not be able to fill the shoes of the Founders as he was only interested in consolidating power into a central government (i.e. Washington, DC). H.L. Mencken wrote that though Lincoln’s words at Gettyburg were inspiring, the Union soldiers who died there didn’t die for any “freedom”. In actuality it was the Confederate soldiers who were fighting and dying for their freedom (from Federal government control).

If Lincoln became a Christian in 1863, it was probably as a matter of political expediency. Why did he wait until 1863? Did he have a guilty conscience for causing all the destruction of lives and property of his fellow Americans?

Supposedly, Robert E. Lee commented after the war that had he known the South would be treated by the Union as it was under Reconstruction, he would have fought until his last breath.

Dear readers (like Alexandra) please educate yourself with the historical facts. Investigate and dig them out in search of truth. Don’t just accept the myths that our education, political and media elite are pushing on us.

There have been bad political leaders from the beginning. From what I have read of Hamilton, he really wanted to set up a system of priviledge as they had in England. I suspect that his real gripe with England was that he was not born to the aristocracy. Hamilton started the country off on the wrong track. He was diametrically opposed to Jefferson. Jefferson was the real American. Hamilton was the type of person that infests our politics today. There are weasels in every generation. Men like Jefferson and Madison knew this and did everything they could to keep the wrong type of people from taking over. But unfortunately, the weasels won out. By Lincoln’s time, American politics was already greatly corrupted. Of course all of the weasels back then quoted the founding fathers and the Bible as the weasels in this generation still do. There are the people of principle and then there are the weasels who have to impersonate the men of principle in order to get elected.
————————————————————————————————By the way, someone mentioned the plans to send the black population to Africa, why didn’t they think of giving them the southern half of Florida? As I understand it Florida had a very small population at that time. If the black population had been given the opportunity to move to Florida with free land many of them would have taken advantage of it. They could have been given national sovereignty after a period under US control. While under US control, they would have had time to develop schools, self-government and their own economy. After about fifty years, the US could have pulled out gradually and given them their own country. I think it would have worked out well for both peoples.

Since when does slander warrant the shutting down of a newspaper by government?

This would depend entirely on who was slandered, some people have clout! some do not. Choose whom to slander at your own peril.