Ballot Petition Aims to Protect Confederate Heritage

Adam Ganucheau, Clarion-Ledger, November 5, 2014

A Mississippi heritage group has launched a proposed ballot measure which would amend the state’s constitution to recognize Christianity as the official religion of the state and English as the official language of the state.

The 12-part measure would also establish “Confederate Heritage Month,” which would provide a curriculum base for school children to learn about “Mississippi’s Confederate history, heritage, achievements, and prominent people,” the initiative reads.

The initiative has been endorsed by former Miss America and Mississippian Susan Akin, Mississippi author Julie Hawkins and former state Rep. Mark DuVall, who tried and failed to pass legislation while he was in office in 2011 that would have allowed the restoration of Colonel Reb as Ole Miss’ mascot.


Additional proposed changes under the initiative include flying the Confederate battle flag on the grounds of the Mississippi state capitol, mandating that the Mississippi state flag pledge of allegiance be recited after the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance, and the mandatory broadcast of the song “Dixie” immediately following the playing of the “Star Spangled Banner” in public venues.

It also includes multiple provisions regarding the state’s universities. State universities Alcorn State University, Delta State University, Jackson State University, Mississippi University for Women and Mississippi Valley State University would not be permitted to merge or consolidate. If passed, the University of Mississippi’s on-field mascot would once again become “Colonel Reb” and the song “Dixie” would be played by the university. The initiative would also secure the existing mascots and traditions of Mississippi State University and University of Southern Mississippi.

For the initiative to make the 2016 ballot, 107,216 Mississippi residents have to sign the petition by October 2015. {snip}


Topics: ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • superlloyd

    Wow, The libtards will be apoplectic. There will be a hailstorm of MSM criticism but who cares about those liars and hypocrites. The South rises again. Full marks to the humans behind this.

    • Ambrose

      I’m not apoplectic in the least. History is a big place and I see nothing wrong with teaching our children about “Confederate Heritage.” Perhaps then we can all be more open-minded toward recognizing and celebrating the history and achievements of other races and cultures, I hope?

      • superlloyd

        Fat chance. The confederate heritage is the height of evil for the liberal.

        • Ike Eichenberg

          State’s rights, racism, telling the Feds to go Fed themselves…
          Yeah that’s the dog whistle for libtards.

      • Guest

    • Publius Pompilius Quietus

      Three cheers for the Confederacy!

  • Pathfinder75



    When it passes I’d move there, Made my day

    • none of your business

      But those states are full of blacks.

  • WNs need to be doing more of this sort of activism.

    The guys over at the Daily Stormer have launched two or three moves that they call Operation: [name], modeled after military operations, using their army of followers on that site to disrupt leftist politicians lives. Promoting Constitutional amendments is even better.

    Alabama, Georgia, etc., get on board. The train is leaving the station.

  • IstvanIN

    Sounds all good to me. The only problem I see is declaring Christianity the official religion. Wouldn’t the US Constitution forbid that?

    • Alexandra1973

      Not necessarily. It’s just that one “denomination” can’t be recognized over the rest. Our Constitution is based on what’s known as God’s natural law.

    • Anglokraut

      It’s probably a symbolic measure, like the Catalan independence vote.

    • Petronius

      The First Amendment to the Constitution provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Thus this Amendment has two joined parts, the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause.

      Turning first to the Establishment Clause, it must be remembered that at the time of the American Revolution most of the colonies had an established church. The establishment of a church means a preference given in law for a particular named religion and its affiliated churches. Thus in Virginia the Church of England was the established church. This meant that the church and its clergy were supported from public funds. In addition, membership in the church was usually a qualification for holding public office and for voting.

      In 1791, when the First Amendment was adopted, there were fourteen States and half of them had an established church. These seven States continued to have their establishment laws until 1833 — forty-two years later, when the religious establishments in these seven States had been repealed by acts of the State legislatures. Since 1833 there has been no establishment law anywhere in any State in the Union. However, this has been the result of the changing preferences and attitudes of the people and their elected representatives in the State legislatures, and not as a result of the First Amendment or its Establishment Clause.

      The Framers drafted the Establishment Clause to give it two aspects: first, it prohibits Congress from establishing a Federal or national church, and second, it prohibits Congress from disturbing the establishment laws then existing in the States and from interfering with the right of the States to make future religious establishment laws. It prohibits the establishment of a national religion, while leaving the States free to make their own decisions. This dual limit on the powers of the Federal government was deemed necessary to obtain ratification of the Bill of Rights by the States, half of which then had religious establishments.

      Turning to the second part of the First Amendment (the Free Exercise Clause), we see that it prohibits Congress from interfering with the individual rights to the free exercise of religion.

      Thus the provision, taken as a whole, prohibits Congress from interfering with religion, by protecting both State rights and individual rights from any interference by the Federal government.

      Now fast forward to 1947. Justice Hugo Black, writing for a 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court, gave the First Amendment a completely new twist in Everson v. Board of Education. Black wrote that there was a wall of separation between church and State. The Constitution, of course, provides nothing of the sort. There is no “wall.” But Black insisted that there was a wall (and even if there wasn’t, there should be), and so Black continued:

      “The ‘establishment of religion’ clause in the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.”

      Here the Court was only half correct — the First Amendment does indeed operate to prevent Congress from establishing a national church. However, there was no such prohibition against the States. In fact, the Establishment Clause was designed to prevent the Federal government from interfering in the rights of the States to make establishment laws.

      In 1962, the Supreme Court built on Black’s wall-of-separation nonsense in Engel v. Vitale. The Court (Justice Black writing for the majority) outlawed voluntary prayer in the public schools of the States. There the Supremes gave the Establishment Clause an entirely novel meaning, a meaning exactly the opposite of its historical meaning and in direct violation of the intention of the Framers by interfering in the rights of the States respecting religion. Furthermore, the Court’s new definition interfered with the right of individuals to the free exercise of religion. Thus the Court improperly used the Establishment Clause to cancel the Free Exercise Clause. The end result of Engel stands the First Amendment on its head by giving the Federal government the right to regulate religious practices in the States and by individuals.

      Engel certainly represents one of the most outrageous examples of Liberal judicial activism in American legal history. The Court used a mistaken interpretation of one clause essentially to abolish the religious guarantees of the Bill of Rights.

    • WR_the_realist

      We don’t need to mandate Christianity as the official religion. We do need to forbid Diversity as the official religion.

      • none of your business

        There are about 40,000 varieties of Christianity. Some of the southerners would ban the biggest Christian religion, the one that has about a billion followers and has a 100 acre fortress containing the history of Western European civilization. I’m sure Bill Moore knows what I mean.

    • Randall Ward

      No, the USG constitution does not forbid it, but the liberals in the USG will go crazy.

  • William

    These measures will be passed and then the State of Mississippi will be challenged in Federal Court. I don’t believe a state can mandate that a song or a pledge of allegiance be sung or recited. These measures will be declared unconstitutional. All of them. In response, the State of Mississippi should refuse to acknowledge the ruling and continue to mandate the reciting Pledge of Allegiance and the playing of Dixie.

    The only way to defeat those who wish to destroy our culture is through acts of non-violent civil disobedience, such as what I advocated in the first paragraph.

    Liberals should keep in mind that this gradual destruction of our culture will not only harm whites, but any member of a minority group that subscribes to our cultural values, as well. Not that they care, but I thought I should say it anyway.

  • dd121

    Even if it passes in Mississippi, it will automatically be kicked back by the supreme court for making a state religion. Hope the rest of it sticks.

    • Publius Pompilius Quietus

      State governments are not limited by the US Constitution, but by their state constitution, so the 1st amendment’s restriction does not make illegitimate any state establishment of religion. Likewise, I see nothing in the Mississippi State Constitution that restricts them from creating an establishment of religion. Indeed, they have every right to do so.

      • William

        You make a great argument, but I doubt that the Supreme Court will see it that way. Mississippi should ignore any ruling they make. States, communities, and individuals should start resisting this government.

        • Petronius

          Pompilius is absolutely correct in his analysis.

          Liberals have always claimed that the US Constitution is a “living Constitution.” Justice Breyer and others have used this “It’s-a-living-document” claim repeatedly to transfer rights, wealth, property, and powers from individuals, local communities, and the States into the hands of central planners in the Federal government in Washington DC.

          But why can’t this “living Constitution” work both ways? It seems only fair and reasonable that a “living Constitution” could, if it wants to, transfer power back to the States and the people.

          • William

            I don’t think that those who hold power will allow that to happen, though. They depend on transferring rights, wealth, etc. so they can stay in power. Perhaps if the Republicans win in 2016 they can get Conservative judges on the Supreme Court and start transferring these rights back to the States and the people, but I don’t believe that will happen. The Republicans seem more interested in sharing power with the Democrats than fighting them. Perhaps I am wrong, but that is how it seems to me.

            Pertonius and Pompilius, what are your opinions of using civil disobedience as a means of fighting back against the Left?

          • Publius Pompilius Quietus

            That depends. I wouldn’t support any form of violence, but refusing to conform to the rules that they give us might show others the true nature of the tyranny that we live under–e.g., continuing to honor the Confederacy in the South, even if the government prohibits it. An additional form of civil disobedience would be shunning the sources that the powers that give us. That is, stop waych TV and forming our own news sites, opinion journals, et cetera, which the internet allows us to do. Of course, I support that.

          • William

            I do not support any form of violence, either. If White Nationalists resorted to terrorism and torturing people it would only legitimize violence against us in turn. Besides, I do not condone terrorism anyway.

            What I am talking about is engaging in non-violent resistance against this government by using sit-ins, boycotts, etc. If the police or vigilantes began attacking and arresting us, so much the better. Get the footage of non-violent protesters being arrested and beat up and upload it on YouTube for all to see. It would only generate sympathy for our cause.

            This worked in India during the inter-war years and afterward, why can’t it work for us? They had the Indian National Congress, why can’t we have a Caucasian National Congress? It would be an uphill battle, but anything worth fighting for is worth the blood and sweat.

            Movements like this don’t work in places like Nazi Germany or Stalin’s Soviet Union, but they can definitely work in places like the United States.

          • Publius Pompilius Quietus

            The Indian Nation Congress, however, built on the xenohilia and natural altruism that white people seem to have but not for their own people alas. I do think that protests could work, though, if only to tell other white people that there is a counter-revolution to the leftist establishment.

          • Petronius

            Under Nerobama’s regime, I’m afraid any protest would meet with the Waco or Ruby Ridge treatment, and perhaps give him grounds for martial law.

            Therefore, the timing of the protest, the reasons for the protest, the particular cause, the circumstances and conditions for the protest, and the identity and conduct of the protesters are all very important.

            Our particular cause would have to be manifestly just, and easily understood, so that even the dimmest member of the American idiocracy can recognize its merit, always bearing in mind that we will be ridiculed by the media and that the full force of government will be arrayed against us (militarized police, FBI, leftist goons, agent provocateurs, spies and informants, IRS, etc.).

            Otherwise, if the protest fails, we only show our weakness, and so things may then become worse for our race — and yes, it’s always possible things could become worse.

          • none of your business

            By living constitution they mean judicial supremacy.

      • dd121

        Hope you’re right but liberals don’t seem to be constrained by what’s constitutional.

        • Petronius

          The basis of Liberal ideology is the utopian belief that everything about the world is soft, malleable, impermanent, and unfixed, and that anything we want, desire, and wish for is attainable and can be delivered by Big Government. And that it can be attained by government without regard to the Constitution and laws, indeed without regard to the laws of economics, science, nature, and God.

          Thus the Leftist motto: NO LIMITS!

          The conservative, on the other hand, recognizes that there is a structure to reality independent of one’s own wishes and desires, that whole swathes and large chunks of the world (including human biology and human nature, race realism, etc.) are governed by certain fixed laws and principles which cannot be changed radically and arbitrarily.

          The conservative motto: REALITY EXISTS!

    • NoMosqueHere

      One benefit of voting repub is you probably won’t get a Sotovoto on the Sup Ct.

      • dd121

        Unfortunately, that’s about it. They’re just not quite as bad as the other guys.

  • Katherine McChesney

    “Dixie” is a beautiful song.

    • Petronius

      The Confederate soldier was motivated by love of home, kin, and country. The Yankees, on the other hand, were fighting for an ideological abstraction — “the Union” — and, on a deeper, almost subconscious level, for “manifest destiny,” a kind of 19th century regional imperialism.

      The difference between the South’s simple blood-and-soil patriotism and the North’s ideological or Holy War is illustrated by the music of the opposing armies. Southern soldiers’ songs could be sung with a twinkle in the eye, songs like “Dixie” (There’s buckwheat cakes and Injun batter) or “Goober Peas” (Wearing out your grinders, eatin’ goober peas). Or they were homesick and lovesick songs of slushy sentimentality, such as the great Southern favorite “Lorena” (The sun’s low down the sky, Lorena, the frost gleams where the flowers have been) or the haunting Appalachian folk song “The Rebel Soldier” (O Polly, O Polly, it’s for your sake alone). Southern songs were thoroughly rooted in home and love of land: “My Old Kentucky Home,” “Shenandoah,” Home Sweet Home,” and “Carry Me Back to Old Virginny.”

      Whereas the North had strident, ideological music — war songs full of harsh uncompromising righteousness, like “The Battle Cry of Freedom” (Down with the traitor, up with the star!), and songs that sounded like hymns, such as “Marching Along” (For God and for country we are marching along … The Lord is our strength and the Union’s our song) and “Battle Hymn of the Republic” (He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored … I have read a fiery gospel writ in burnished rows of steel … Let the Hero, born of woman, crush the serpent with His heel). There is little here of rootedness in home, family, or farm; there is no yearning for one’s beloved home and kin, no soldierly sense of sadness at leaving one’s own land and family.

      This difference between patriotic wars and ideological wars is important, because ideological wars — such as Mr Lincoln’s War — are total wars that become wars of annihilation fought without mercy. Such an ideological war, by painting the enemy as evil, tend to draw terrible evil after it.

  • Speedy Steve

    Teach Confederate and Jim Crow history in the schools. And toss in some of the Thomas Dixon Trilogy for literature requirements and see how many savages will home school their progeny.

  • NoMosqueHere

    Glory, Glory Hallelujah!

  • Earl P. Holt III

    The only downside for Ole Miss may be a greater difficulty recruiting running backs and wide receivers…

  • Earl P. Holt III

    Where can one contribute to this worthy cause…?

  • Whitesneedtobebrave

    Better if they make a bill expelling all Negroes and non whites out of the state.

  • Maybe we could all move there instead of the Pacific Northwest?

    • none of your business

      Send them to Seattle, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Portland, Minneapolis and the wealthy suburbs of NYC. Why not save the environment of those wealthy suburbs by simply confiscating existing housing instead of insulting Mother Earth the Goddess Gaei by building projects?

  • MartelsGhost

    In other news the POtuS recently signed another executive dictatorial order condemning the teaching of any and all world history before 1947. Siting as his main reason for acting that it would be culturally insensitive to remind the world how much History had happened that had nothing to do with them…………………………

    The next “Civil” War will be fought in every State and every city. It will be neighbor vs. neighbor. It will begin a Glorious Age of Truth and all the world will benefit.

  • EpiphanyStrachan

    The magnolia state heritage campaign website is magnoliaheritage dot com
    Reaching the ballot is very possible. Beating the tribal/SPLC attack ads is a different story. The measure will immediately be vilified as racist. Nothing stirs the black vote like hate- I witnessed this first hand at the republican senate primary which elected thad cochran. Even though I don’t agree with everything on the petition I see it as step for state rights and a seed for a possible white homeland (another option to the northwest). I feel a white homeland is the only chance of survival our children have. An initiative like this would draw other whites to MS (as mentioned in these posts). The accumulation of like- minded whites would lead to other petitions with less resistance and so on. One problem: a lot of white people don’t vote…their laziness, apathy and indifference infuriates me. Their reasons for not voting range from not wanting jury duty to “my vote doesn’t matter”. I will do my part to get signatures for this petition. I have also printed my county’s voter registration forms for my peers to complete which I will mail. You would be amazed at how many conservative whites don’t vote!

  • Randall Ward

    Read the book; “The Real Lincoln” by Thomas J. Dilorenzo. Especially, Southerners, read this book to understand why we should be very proud of our Southern heritage.

  • none of your business

    History and Smithsonian channels have shown a lot of Kennedy assassination documentaries lately. Maybe they wanted to rally the seniors who remember Kennedy for the election. But I noticed that both Dallas and Fort Worth airports had confederate battle flags flying along with the stars and stripes.
    I love the confederate battle flag. Long may it wave. During most of the civil war a hotel owner in Alexandria VA had someone make an enormous confederate battle flag and flew it from the roof of his hotel the tallest building in town.