The American Tall Tale

The American Tall Tale – A blog by my friend Mira Keeley

(See the original, and add Mira as a friend here: http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=17567500&blogId=505359331 )

As most stories begin, many years ago a child was born to a poor family. So poor were they that this child had to teach himself by candlelight. At a young age, he was moved and appalled at the sight of human affliction; so moved that he vowed it his life duty to free mankind from slavery. His campaign was now used to voice the wrongs of human oppression, and thus became a savior, even giving his life for their freedom. Such is the tale we know from history books of Abraham Lincoln.

Sadly, Mr. Lincoln falls so short of this Christ-like imagery. It is true he was born to poor parents, he was at one time young, and did die in what is now seen as a martyr’s death; but Mr. Lincoln would be turning in his grave if he knew he is now called the savior of African Americans.

The stark reality of Lincoln’s affection toward Blacks was this: do nothing to stop slavery and send the freed ones back to Africa, Central America, or Haiti, anywhere but in the United States. So popular was he tied to this concept that Senator Samuel Pomperoy suggested that they should call a colonization Lincoln wanted to set apart in Central America “Linconia.” Mr. Lincoln fully encompassed Henry Clay’s philosophy on the exportation of freed Blacks from the United States. One needs only to read Lincoln’s eulogy to Henry Clay to see where his heart truly lay.

Before Lincoln even made it to the political realm he did nothing to salvage the dignity of slaves. As a lawyer he participated in many trials, but only one had anything to do with slavery. In this trial, Mr. Lincoln supported and represented the slave owner, Robert Matson. In 1847, Robert Matson filed a suit against his former overseer, a freed black man named Anthony Bryant, for smuggling slaves from Mr. Matson’s property. In October of that year the state of Illinois found in favor of Mr. Bryant, thus emancipating Mr. Matson’s slaves.

Lincoln’s disregard for slaves went so far that he even supported the fugitive slave act of 1850. His own words in reference to this act were “when they [the slave owners] remind us of their constitutional rights [to own slaves],I acknowledge them, not grudgingly but fully and fairly; I would give them any legislation for the reclaiming of their fugitives.” (This is from Lincoln’s reply to Douglas).

It is truly amazing how America has swept under the carpet Lincoln’s Cooper Union speech, which was given Feb. 27, 1860. In it he advocated a peaceful deportation of blacks in order that “their places be… filled up by free white laborers.” He even urged his colleagues in the Illinois legislature to remove ALL free blacks from Illinois. In fact Illinois, as well as several other Northern states, amended their state constitution prohibiting the immigration of blacks within it’s state borders.

As I could keep dismantling the man that is nearly hailed as the American god, I reside on two more points, and very important ones at that.

History has crowned Mr. Lincoln as the Great Emancipator, the hero of African Americans, the savior of slaves. They neglect to answer some very vital questions that turn Mr. Lincoln’s limelight dark and foreboding. They breeze over the evidence that only America seemed to need a vast and bloody war over an issue that every other country (i.e. France, England, Spain, etc.) were able to resolve painlessly and, more importantly, bloodlessly. Do not mistake me, I am not saying the War Between the States was fought over slavery, it wasn’t as is evident in simple research. I am, however, pointing out a serious flaw in this American fairy tale. Was America so primitive in its political stance that it could not resolve an issue such as slavery in a more genteel and simple manor? Even the South was trying to eliminate slavery years before the War; they had written up a proposition that would have dissolved slavery within its borders in ten years and would have brought the Southern states up industrially to match the North. James Buchanan vetoed it.

The other faux pas looked over is the Emancipation Proclamation itself. Most of us have read the bulk of the proclamation, but very few have read the appendixes themselves. If we actually delve into the back part we would see that Lincoln cleverly, and very purposefully, eliminated slavery in a Country that wasn’t his own and then proceeded to keep slaves in his own territory. Every area possessed by Union forces or was under the Federal side of the War were exempt. This was to keep France and England from forming an alliance with the South, which was being seriously considered at that time. Therefore no one was freed and good ink and paper was wasted in that sense.

In closing, I will always say this of Mr. Lincoln; he was a very good lawyer.

Lincoln a Precursor to Hitler?

Thanks to my friend Daniel Ritchie over at Reformed Covenanter for bringing this video to my attention! (see his blog here:  http://reformedcovenanter.wordpress.com/)

I saw Newt Gingrich on the news yesterday giving a speech about how great the Republican party was, and he alluded to the founder of the party Mr. Abraham Lincoln himself.

It’s a shame that so many American Christians buy into these sorts of lies.   Abraham Lincoln had more in common with Hitler than anyone in the Confederacy ever would have had.

We should be proud of our Southern heritage and honor those of our ancestors who fell defending the cause of liberty!

The REAL Inauguration Celebration

(The following is from a Harper’s Weekly report about the Inauguration of President Jefferson Davis.)

On Page 157 (above image) we publish a picture of the Inauguration of President Davis, of the Southern Confederacy, at Montgomery, Alabama, on February 18, from a photograph obligingly placed at our disposal. We published part of the inaugural in our last number.  A lady who witnessed the scene thus writes to a friend in this city:

“The President is a pleasant-looking old gentleman, of about fifty years of age; he was escorted to the Capitol by the military, he being in an elegant carriage drawn by six white horses. After he took his seat on the platform in front of the Capitol, and a short prayer had been offered, he read a very neat little speech, not making many promises, but hoping, by God’s help, to be able to fulfill all expectations.  He took the oath amidst the deepest silence; and when he raised his hand and his eyes to heaven, and said, ‘So Help Me God!’ I think I never saw any scene so solemn and impressive.

 

He puts much in the mind of General Jackson in appearance and character, though he is much more of a gentleman in his manners than the old General ever wished to be.  He had a reception last night which I attended.  I walked about and exchanged greetings with my friends, but would not shake hands with the President, for I thought I would not be recognized today, and so would rather wait for a more private introduction.  The Vice-President is a constant visitor at the houses where I stay; he is very slight and delicate looking, has more the appearance of a dead man than a living one, until he begins to speak, when you forget entirely how ugly he is.”

 

 

(Here is a link to President Jefferon Davis’ Inauguration Speach:  http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/Davis_inauguration_Speech.htm )

Strife of Brothers

(At the American Vision Forums, a guy by the name of Nathan said some really insulting things about my Southern ForeFathers.  The discussion took place surrounding the book “War Crimes Against Southern Civilians” by Walter B. Cisco.   In the book, Mr. Cisco documents and highlights some of the most terrible atrocities carried out against Southdern civilians, often women and children.  It was in this context that the following discussion took place.  You can read it in context here:  http://www.americanvision.org/wvforum/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=241 )

Nathan Albright says:

Well, those Southerners (and though I have been raised in the South, I am a born Northerner and a definite partisan of the North) were rebels and traitors against a constitutionally elected government. They were treated far more gently than they deserved.

Shotgun replies:

It is duly noted that the slaughter and oppression of people is deemed just when said people are accused of violating the law-word of the messianic state.

With that in mind, Mr. Nathan, I feel I owe a duty to the memory of my kinsmen and would like to ask you to apologize, or either engage in a formal debate with me (in the debate section of this forum, or via email) so it can be demonstrated that…while our brave Southern nation may have been out resourced and militarily defeated, her ideals were and still are far superior.

I understand that you may not have realized the full effect of your words and in sober recollection may regret having expressed your passions in such an insulting way. Therefore, I hope you can see my response as an opportunity to correct an error.

To conclude, I think Joseph Derry’s “Strife of Brothers” has served to rescue in some small part the honor of our beloved Dixie, and as such, I think it would be beneficial to close out my post with a brief, but relevant passage:

The Southern States willed not this cruel war. Peace with their brethren they preferred by far. The government they never wished to harm, Or cause their sister States the least alarm; And seeking a new Union did no more Than did our fathers in the days of yore. They just as sadly severed once loved bond As did our sires, who with affection fond Had looked upon Old England’s meteor flag And in the fiercest battles did not lag Where that proud banner pointed them the way, Until that ever dark and mournful day, When their just rights were scornfully denied. Then England’s power they valiantly defied. Destroy the government? Such motive they To us have oft assigned since that sad day, When South and North contending stood apart In strife, the cause of grief to ev’ry heart.

Dixie In Our Hearts?

“Without Jesus Christ’s restitution payment to God for the sins of man, there could never have been rehabilitation cosmically, for even with it, the whole world came under a curse.  Society’s institutions of justice are supposed to reflect the judicial terms of this cosmic redemption.  When they do not, we can confidently expect God’s historical negative sanctions to reform the institutions (Deut. 28:15-68). – Gary North “Victim’s Rights” pg. 9

Is it true that Dixie exists only in our hearts?  Is there some objective entity that we can point to and call “Dixie” or is it rather the case that no such body exists?

Clyde N. Wilson discusses this very topic in his essay “The Mind of the Old South” (found in the book, “Defending Dixie”).   He says:

“The intellectual history of the South is yet to be written.  This assertion bootlegs two assumptions that do not go unchallenged.  The first is that there is someting called the South distinct enough to have a history.  There are those who, from a variety of standpoints, dispute this premise.  Some seem to feel that the South is evil and that therefore it is best treated as spurious and unreal, a kind of temporary aberration from the norm of a progressive democratic universe…The Second bootlegged premise is that this phenomenon of the South, if admitted to be real, had a life of the mind sufficient to justify an intellectual history.”

We can see the truth of Wilson’s statements regarding those who (for arbitrary reasons) declare the South as “evil” and thus not fitting to be realized in any objective way. 

Could this be?  Could it be true that all the “South” really consists of is a bunch of ignorant rednecks and hillbillies who managed to get themselves coordinated enough at one point in history to battle for their common political interests?  Is the South nothing more than a brief and tragic political movement that was put out before it had a chance to engulf the country in the flames of ignorance?

At work behind such nefarious and insulting insenuations are the doctrines of humanism, the necessary end of which is always autonomous sovereignty for the state.  Consequently, we can measure the encroaching humanistic worldview by how consistently it is played out in the political realm…as freedom fails, so humanism rises.

Exactly why humanism leads necessarily to statism is beyond the scope of this article to demonstrate.  Instead it is more important to focus on the fact that a humanistic worldview seeks to disenfranchise any culture that stands in its way.  This was specifically the case with the American South, and as Gary North points out in the opening quote, should our culture continue to be robbed, plundered, and brutalized, God’s negative sanctions will fall against the nation.

I have yet to study in depth the cultural demographics of the South, although I have purchased the book “Abilon’s Seed” which promises to fill in various gaps.  I highly recommend it to the arden’t Southerner who wishes to free himself from the bonds of statism foisted onto him by government school.

Assuming some level of cultural continuity among Southerners, the question naturally arises of the legitimacy of a humanistic government in the first place, or rather…do ideas make a nation, or does blood kinship?  See the blog on the blog “First Word” that discusses this topic:  http://firstword.us/2008/04/kelsos-gedankenexperiment-two-visions-of-the-conservative-foundation/

The humanist would have us believe that man created ideas will be (and are) the salvation of all mankind!  Consider Gary North’s statements:

Today, we have seen the rise of the messianic State, whose self-appointed task is to heal society through a program of salvation by legislation.  Humanism substitutes the concept of salvation by man’s law for salvation by God’s grace.  It also substitutes its own sanctions for the Bible’s sanctions.  It promises to redeem (rehabilitate) criminals, but then neglects to defend their victims.  – Victim’s Rights, page 9

Lest anyone think Gary North is ignorant of the schemes of the humanistic state, they need only read Huxly’s “Brave New World” Orwell’s “1984″ or read Freud’s views on government. 

Additionally, consider what Erik J. Wielenberg, author of “Value and Virtue in a Godless Universe” has to say about the desired goal of a humanistic society:

In a naturalistic universe, it makes sense to put science, particularly neuroscience, to work in the service of the ancient Platonic task of finding a reliable method of making people virtuous…the suggestion that we try to use science as a means to moral improvement is one that should be taken seriously.

It is clear then, that to the humanist a nation is necessarily bound up and held together by the brilliance of man…brilliance which can and is expected to transcend familial bonds and (as Gary North says) “atomize” individuals in society. 

Less and less are neighbors relied on and communities fostered.  The front porch is traded in for long drives to secluded beaches.  Family rooms are exchanged for individual TVs and personal entertainment devices.  The concept of community is systematically eradicated by the humanist system in favor of an atomized “community” with no passion for others (see “Brave New World.”)

In light of this horrible truth, it is imperritive for the Southern man to stand in support of his culture and declare with the strength that characterized his ancestors, “We will NOT go down quietly, and we DO EXIST!”

Please take the time to sign the petition for the Declaration of Southern Cultural Independence. 

http://www.petitiononline.com/cripps/petition.html

Liberty’s Lost Cause

I promised a friend of mine that I would read her essay and make some comments about it.  You can read her article here:  http://littlereb.wordpress.com/2008/08/30/libertys-lost-cause/

This was surprisingly less of a burden and more of a treat than I had expected! Ms. Liberty has written a paper called, “Liberty’s Lost Cause,” and in it, she highlights the tragedy of America’s “War Between the States” and discusses the topic of liberty in the context of the war. After getting to know Ms. Liberty perhaps I shouldn’t have been surprised at the ardent display of passion in this particular work, and my subsequent enjoyment of it.

 

Which of the bloodstained patriots would have thought that in the year 2008 the love of freedom would be systematically eradicated from the hearts of millions of emasculated Americans? Everyday on my walk to work I am struck by the terrible irony of our current dilemma.

 

After passing the old “Presbyterian Meeting House” once frequented on a regular basis by none other than George Washington himself; I saw a newspaper box with headlines declaring the most recent travesties of the U.S. congress.

A few blocks down, I usually stroll past Robert E. Lee’s boyhood home. Standing just a block down from the birthplace of such a striking defender of liberty was a woman carrying a sign promoting presidential candidate Barack Obama. She looked at me as I walked by and assured me that “change was on the way!.”

 

No doubt change IS on the way, and God speed its coming, if for no other reason than the people of Alexandria Virginia earnestly desire a good night’s sleep. (They’re being kept awake by the sound of all the dead patriots rolling over in their graves!)

 

I wish that the Alexandrian dog could read! Perhaps then he could be similarly inspired by Ms. Liberties essay and shed the horrible shade of tyranny that clouds his eyes. Yes; sadly, even the Alexandrian dog now feels the cruel rod of the state, and we self righteous Christians applaud! What little is left of my heart is tempted to melt when I lock eyes with the wretched beast, imprisoned behind the glass door by his cruel masters (who themselves are similarly locked behind a glass door constructed by a veneer of liberty.) God has blessed this poor animal with some far distant memory of being a wild thing; a memory that in practical application allows him to realize that he is indeed stuck behind a door. If only God would so bless his masters.

 

Perhaps the first sprinkling of this blessing is to come through the keystrokes of Ms. Liberty? Perhaps it will be possible to stir the cowed hearts of Americans towards passion again and provide them a glimpse however small, through this hazy glass door at an amazing sight; the Lost Cause of Liberty.

 

By way of critique I have very little to say.

 

Perhaps Ms. Liberty is a tad quote heavy, but when faced with such a wealth of great material her desire to include as much of it as possible is more than understandable. When debating about the ideas of our founding fathers it is an oft employed tactic to appeal to various quotes of the men in question in an attempt to establish their character. I wouldn’t condone such a method of argumentation, and thankfully Ms. Liberty does not take that route in her essay.

 

She DOES however effectively utilize certain quotes to show the origin of the lines of thought and philosophies which contributed to the particular understanding of liberty held by our founders.

 

Towards this end, I realize that she was limited in space and therefore would be hard pressed to encompass an entire view of history to bring the reader to the period under discussion. That said I would recommend that she take a step back and give an even greater overview of the time period. I’m specifically thinking of the historical context which gave birth to much of American thought that lead to the “revolution;” namely, the Renaissance and the Enlightenment.

 

It is a far too often used argument that our founders were not inspired by Biblical thought but rather were deists after the likes of French revolutionaries, and other enlightenment thinkers. Therefore, Ms. Liberty leaves herself vulnerable to these sorts of attacks by not sufficiently highlighting the development of “natural rights” doctrines throughout the Enlightenment.

 

This is a harsh criticism on my part though due to various concerns. Lack of space, (as I said above) and also the wealth of material to be poured through in presenting such a study would no doubt seem daunting.

 

It would be important to note however, that more firmly securing the foundation and growth of natural rights theory would benefit this paper enormously, since as Ms. Liberty points out, the War Between the States is so often mischaracterized as a “civil war.”

 

Likewise, the “revolutionary” war was not a revolution, but rather a legal judgment carried out by the colonists against an unjust tyrant. It was essentially the king that “revolted” against the people!

 

Once this concept has been clearly laid out, then the particular matters of succession, states rights, and due process, find their natural place in the argument. To merely present these doctrines in a pragmatic appeal is to deny “natural law” and instead appeal to the moral right of a majority.

 

Democracy is often (and humorously) characterized as two wolves and lamb voting on what to have for dinner. Tyranny by tyrant or tyranny by a majority is tyranny in either case.

 

This I feel is the one weakness in an otherwise excellent paper.

 

I suggest a deeper look at the necessity and progression of “natural law” theory by adding a few more quotes from John Locke in proper context as well as looking through the first few chapters of William Blackstone’s “Commentaries on the Laws of England” volume one. (Blackstone is published online, and I’m sure you could find some of Locke’s works as well, in addition to what you’ve already written concerning him.) Contrast these views with that of Thomas Hobbes and Sigmund Freud (A Renaissance man and Enlightenment man respectively) who both believed in a totalitarian type “Leviathan” to coerce individual men into a pattern desirable by the intellectuals. Through contrasting them, the real difference between the founders and Enlightenment thought will manifest itself.

 

Additionally, I love your list of 15 infractions of our current state. These sorts of travesties cannot ever be listed enough.

 

I am very encouraged by the winds of freedom that blow from the pages of this essay!

 

Now, if we could just learn to speak “dog” perhaps we’d have a real change in the near future!

Another Southern Mockery

This is so hilarious, I just had to share it with you guys!

“Ohhh what a litter of pickaninnies she has!!”

What is so great about this “mockumentary” is that, while they intend to be very slanderous and disrespectful to the South, they end up making some knee slappingly hilarious commercials.

COMCAST cable offered this IFC film “On Demand” and a buddy and I watched it.  We couldn’t stop laughing!

While the makers of this film are completely ignorant of the issues involved in the war, the documentary is worth watching, just to laugh at the commercials they put in there.

Recovering Southern History

A while back, I did a movie review of Denzel Washington’s “The Great Debaters.”

In my review, I discussed how terribly this movie portrayed Southerners, and Southern culture. In fact, I was outraged, (although I knew going into the theater that the movie would upset me.)

See my review here:

http://shotgunwildatheart.wordpress.com/2008/06/23/movie-review-the-great-debators/

A Christian friend of mine was visibly upset when she replied to my review.

She wondered how I could be so ignorant and bigoted.

There was a scene in the movie, when two white hog farmers, forced Forrest Whittaker to pay for a hog that he accidentally ran over with his car. Whittaker had to swallow his pride, and humble himself before these two men (in front of his wife and son.)

I claimed that such a scene was highly unbelievable and misrepresented Southern folk, and Southern culture. (Indeed the movie was one big piece of anti-Southern propaganda.)

My friend claimed, “something like that probably DID happen in the South…“

The problem with my Christian friend, (and with many other Southerners out there today) is that they are completely ignorant of their own heritage and culture.

In this day n’ age of Google, Yahoo, and Dogpile, people are more “knowledgeable” of the facts than ever. The problem is, they are more ignorant of how to string these facts together, or form one big coherent picture than at any other time in America’s history!

When I said above that many Southerners today are ignorant of their heritage and culture; I mean simply that they have accepted an entirely different outlook on the facts of history than that of their Southern ancestors. A different philosophy of history; a different worldview.

This paradigm shift has been purposefully carried out on all levels; from Satan, to Lincoln, down to the common American who chooses to watch TV instead of read books.

Professor Clyde Wilson, in his book “Defending Dixie: Essays in Southern History and Culture” hits the nail on the head in the first essay of the book, “American Historians and Their History.”

I highly recommend buying this book, and keeping it next to your Bible on the ol’ nightstand.

http://www.amazon.com/Defending-Dixie-Southern-History-Culture/dp/0962384224/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1216594893&sr=8-1

Wilson highlights the more abstract aspects of history, showing how the historian’s job as a “myth-maker” has become increasingly important in this new era of American intellectualism.

In other words, he’s simply saying: All historians have to approach the facts from SOME sort of view. However, after the “Civil War” historiographical objectivity has become less and less accepted in favor of historians who literally already have a view of the past (I.E. a “myth”) and attempt to make the facts support their myth. (1.)

Wilson provides enough examples to make a pragmatic case on this point, (although he doesn’t get into a strict philosophical defense of this.) (2) One of the more interesting examples he gives, is of the way George Washington is portrayed in many of todays history text books, as well as the way this understanding prevails in the minds of many Americans. To quote Wilson:

Take a tour through Mount Vernon or Monticello and listen to the questions and comments of the typically garrulous visitors. You will see how disingenuously the subject of slavery is skirted around. In the Americans’ minds, Mount Vernon is not an eighteenth-century plantation, it is a mid-west farm that happens to be situated in Virginia. Or get down your child’s encyclopedia, turn to the table of Presidents, and look under “Occupation.” George Washington is a “surveyor,” Thomas Jefferson is a “lawyer,” Andrew Jackson is a “soldier.”

The American consciousness is unable to admit to itself that eight of our first twelve Presidents were Southern plantation owners, not only as their chief occupation but in their primary social identity. (3)

So you see, Wilson realizes that the conflict between North and South, was a conflict arising from two different “views” of American history; a history that is today unbelievable to many and causes inconsistencies in their history. The South was highly suspicious of centralized government, believing man was essentially depraved (evil) and in need of many proper checks and balances to stave off tyranny. The South believed that this was what America was founded on.

The North however, didn’t share the Souths view of history.

Wilson observes:

The very point of the “Civil War” was to decide between two alternative ways of understanding the meaning of America. Otherwise, there would have been no point to the war. But the nature of the war as a contest of alternative social symbolizations (myths) meant that history would have to be orchestrated to support the winning side. The losers must not only be conquered on the field of battle and disenfranchised in the body politic, but they must be discredited. The competitive legitimacy of their alternative view must be suppressed. (4)

So, how do Southerners, (and ultimately Americans) regain our history? How do we resurrect our “myth” of history?

Wilson suggests that a new “myth” of history is currently being constructed over and against the one foisted on America during the Reconstruction period. This new myth surrounds the “diversity” of Americas ethnic past. The onslaught of this new paradigm, is causing many historians to go back to the books so to speak.

If the South is to “rise again” it will happen in the history classes…or perhaps in some form of massive home school movement?

God speed my reconciliation with this legendary friend; a friend I’ve only become aquainted with through nostalgic stories from my grandfather. A friend I was assured is all but dead. A friend who’s decomposing corpse is put on display by Hollywood for all to see. A friend that is spit on by the modern farce of “Southern Culture” (Larry the Cable guy, and CMT, etc.)

Maybe…just maybe, she’s still out there; hiding in the remote recesses of some deep southern town, waiting to carry me away into the wild embrace of freedom.

(1). Every particular instant of past time (history) becomes jumbled into one big mass of memories or circumstances. We couldn’t ever record or recount every single thing! The night I had my first kiss, the crickets were chirping, and the night sky was brilliant! I don’t remember the specific crickets though, nor the moon, nor much of anything for that matter. But you see, my “bias” in this situation causes me to record the kiss over and above the crickets. A guy that studies crickets for a living may have recounted the crickets instead of the boy and girl kissing over in his neighbors yard. So, you see the use of the term “myth” here simply means the historians reconstruction of the events from a particular point of view. It doesn’t mean a “myth” as in Aesops fables or anything.

(2.) See R.J. Rushdoony’s book “The Philosophy of History” for a great introduction to this concept. Also, read Van Til’s book, “Defense of the Faith” to see how we can only draw conclusions about all the particular things that we experience if we start by presupposing the Christian God. I also link to some great articles on this subject in my movie review of the “Great Debaters” (linked to above.)

(3.) Clyde Wilson “Defending Dixie” chapter 1, page 9.

(4.) IBID page 6.

H K Edgerton is my New Hero!

A BLACK MAN PROUDLY FLYING THE CONFEDERATE FLAG!!!!

NEED I SAY MORE?

Listen to what the man is saying!  He’s totally got it!

I love how he points out the fact that the relationship between blacks and whites in the South, was very good, and how black folks under the Confederate flag had a position of honor.

May this clip totally infuriate and disgust the politically correct readers of my blog.

Shermans March Through NC

Since I’m from North Carolina, I was particularly interested in Sherman’s villainy there.

If you can stand the computerized narrator, this clip is very informative, including a live re-enactment as a climax: