Or, random findings on the War Between the States that I find interesting. If you don't care for such random things, don't bother reading this! :)

• The Army of Tennessee, at the Battle of Atlanta. Hardee had one Corp, comprised of four divisions. Of those, one was commanded by Major General William B. Bate. Bate's Division comprised three Brigades--one of those was the Florida Brigade under Brigadier General Jesse J. Finley. The Florida Brigade had the following regiments: 1st-3rd Florida Infantry (Captain Matthew Strain), 1st Florida Cavalry (dismounted) and 4th Florida Infantry (Lt. Col. Edward Badger), 6th Florida Infantry (Lt. Col. Daniel L. Kenan), and 7th Florida Infantry (Lt. Col. Robert Bullock). 
  
  For explanation of why that interested me, note first the 4th Fl. Inf. Co. K of the 4th Florida was originally (if I recall correctly) the 20th Florida Militia--which was the unit that my g-g-great grandfather was commissioned Lt. Col. of in 186--2, I believe it was.
  
  Secondly, take a look at that last one, the 7th Fl. Inf. I had three great-uncles (at least) in that regiment. Two were the sons of my g-g-great grandmother from her first marriage, before she married the Colonel (see previous paragraph). Both were killed in Kentucky, and I think, quite likely, without going back to check, dead by the time of the Battle of Atlanta. The third, might not have been there either due to being detailed to collect cattle. He was one the Colonel's sons.
  
  Here's the line-up for the Battle of Nashville, Dec. 10, 1864: http://www.civilwarhome.com/confederateornashville.html 
  
  
• Did you know that General Bernard Bee had a brother? I didn't...his name was Hamilton Prioleau Bee.

Ah...thank-you for putting up with me. :) I got all the way through the "B's" in Generals in Gray today. I'm actually not really researching the generals so much as their wives--for my next film project. There is no way, of course, that I could cover them all, but I've found a few interesting ladies with enough information (probably) to work with, so I'll just keep plowing through here and then decide which of the general's ladies will make the final cut....

You may get a similar post at some other date in the future, so hang in there! ;)

I have been rather neglecting my blog lately...for various reasons. I'm welcoming myself back with a post of potentially gargantuan proportions.

Some of you all may be some what surprised that I have yet to fling myself into the controversy surrounding the Confederate Battle Flag. I know that it's petered out to a great extent, but I have kept thinking on it on and off--as have many others by the various posts and comments I have seen on social media. And last evening, I watched a video (or half of one; I couldn't get through the second half) which set me off again.

The subject of the video: A black woman who proudly carries a Confederate Battle Flag. The commentary given after the interview with this lady was done by a black man who obviously disagrees with her. However, so you better understand, let me kind of give you a brief synopsis of what the lady said.

First off: she was originally from New York--Muslim it sounded like--and "people are so racist it's not even funny". She moved to Virginia and started thinking differently about white people when "people I had never seen before waved at me". I am going to assume, though she did not say so, that she started doing some research because she essentially said that she agrees with the Confederate position--and she did say she believes in very limited government. I suspect that she has Libertarian leanings from something else she said, but that doesn't matter here. But...what the talk host really took issue with was this: "I believe that slavery is a choice".

Whoa. I had never heard anybody say that before...and I had never considered it. But you know, I think that she is right to a degree. However, back to the very indignant black man. "Slavery is a choice". Well...I listened to him for a little bit until he started prating about how this woman could only say the things she did if she were "uneducated"...and then brought up the slave revolts (Nat Turner in particular) and runaways. 

For starters, if you just look at it like that, then his reasons really just gave her more credence. Now, I am unaware of how many slave revolts there actually were--other than Nat Turner's unsuccessful one. What really burned me though was his passing her off as 
"uneducated" simply because she disagreed with his point of view. He was angry, you could see that, even if he was keeping his voice nice and level.

Anyway, I wanted to talk...to get some of the stuff in my mind out...perhaps coherently, perhaps not. 

Then...I saw this this morning in another article that is connected to the murder of the valiant and unarmed service men at the Chattanooga recruiting station: “Don’t listen to the lies of the leaders of our country telling you that Islam is not evil and that it’s just another religion,” he said. “It’s not. Those same leaders who are trying to turn the North versus the South, and whites versus black, are dividing this country greater than we’ve ever seen. ”

The speaker nailed it on the head. I do believe that the government, by making a stink about the Confederate Battle Flag on a monument is doing exactly that. Trying to plunge us into another Civil War (bah!) Tell you what folks, we need to stand steady and not do anything foolish--but, at the same time, we can't just let our rights be torn down, spat upon, and destroyed. As my sister says, ever since Obama was elected the first time, it is as though the nation has just been waiting for the other shoe to drop. I believe the evil people in charge are trying to push us over the edge before they find themselves out of power--just as firmly as I believe that Obama's reelection was achieved only by fraud. 

However, to go back to the Flag...I initially got all fired up after reading Joel McDurmon's article (which I am not going to go take the time to dig up). If you read it, you may remember his three reasons by which he justified his call for South Carolinian to "Tear down that flag!" Slavery really was the primary one. He took the mainstream line on that one. It infuriated me. (Each of his three reasons, the first of which I'm having trouble recalling, could just as equally be applied to the US flag.) I stewed on it for days...I raved to available family members...I think I even cried a little bit in frustration. I was mad.

South Carolina buckled. I guess Savannah is right, it was the only thing they could do without starting another shooting war--which is probably why the media camped on it as they did. (If you have yet to grasp that the mainstream media is just a tool of the liberals [I don't care if either Democrat or Republican...or Libertarian...they all stink alike], it's about time to. Don't trust them--at all.)

Since it seems impossible to talk about the flag that so many godly men served and died under in defense of FREEDOM from governmental tyranny without bringing in the fact that some of the men who fought and died under that flag owned slaves; I want to address slavery as an institution. But real quick, just to put this into prospective, here are the numbers: of the white's in the antebellum South only 1% owned slaves. Amongst the freed blacks 10% owned slaves. Oh, and as someone mentioned someplace, not all slaves were black. Slaves in the South may have been primarily black, but it was not so much "ethnic" as perhaps we have been told--seriously...blacks sold blacks to whites (those slave ships never came into Southern ports by the way; the slave trade was carried out by Northern shipping companies). Whites bought them, tis true, but so did other blacks. 

(And no, I will not use the politically correct "African-American". I think it is insulting to a black person whose family has been here almost as long, if not as long, as my own blood line. If it's not, then I, a white woman, should be insulted because I'm not called a "Scots-Irish/English-American". Foolishness. They are just as much Americans as I, they just have a different pigment!)

Slavery then. As with anything and everything we should not try to justify it by circumstances et al. No, let's go to our Bibles. What does the Bible say about slavery? Does it ever condemn it as morally wrong? 

The first time I ever had that question scamper across my brain, I probably changed channels pretty quick. This is a subject that is vicious and vitriolic. "I won't think about that yet..."

Well, as I have become more and more confident in my Confederate-ness and more and more nailed to my gray heritage (to the extent that I barely ever introduce myself to anyone without pointing out the fact that I am a Southerner), I have naturally had to look at the subject. I have yet to sit down and do a comprehensive study on slavery, but I cannot say that I see, from Scripture, that slavery in and of itself is a moral wrong. I'm not trying to justify the fact that many of my Confederate heroes owned slaves--or even that my very own great-great-great grandfather owned eight. (Though, I confess, I have more moral issues with the fact that he fathered a child with one of them, Rachel Davis. However, even the outcome of that demonstrates that blacks and whites were "family" as H.K. Edgerton says--for, as far as we can determine, my great-great Uncle Lloyd was as much the son of John as his other, fully white, sons. I actually think Lloyd, being the youngest, was the one that took care of his aging father. That is speculation, but founded on actual reasons which I won't go into here.)

So, is slavery a moral wrong? I do not think so:

• God sets forth standard for slavery in the Law. Even what would be called "ethnic" slavery--those from other nations. A Hebrew had a seven year work cycle--after which they were either a) set at liberty or b) could become, of their own volition, permanent slaves. Slaves taken from other nations were permanent unless they a) were set free or b) bought their freedom. That part isn't mentioned in Scripture, but I imagine that it is a logical deduction.
• If slavery, as an institution, were morally wrong, God would have told us so. Take for instance: "Bondservants, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ; not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as bondservants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, with goodwill doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men, knowing that whatever good anyone does, he will receive the same from the Lord, whether he is a slave or free. And you, masters, do the same things to them, giving up threatening, knowing that your own Master also is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him." (Eph. 6:5-9) 
  Notice that Paul does not tell the masters to free their slaves. And don't tell me that "bondservants" doesn't mean "slaves"--this was the Roman world. 
• Nowhere, at least that I have seen, does God condemn slavery in and of itself as a moral wrong. 

Now, I do not think that slavery is normative, nor do I want to appear to be advocating a return to enslaving other men in our nation--not the way one initially thinks when they hear "slavery". I believe that many, many persons, both black and white (and a variety of other "races") are already slaves in this country. Slaves to Big Government.  I feel myself to be so to a degree as well. (Seriously. Inheritance Tax? Land Tax? Income Tax? Those are morally wrong! The State declaring that it owns you.) So with that being said, let us take a quick look at antebellum Southern slavery.

Was there abuse? Absolutely YES.

Are pictures like this one "doctored"?

No. I don't think so. There was cruelty. However, I seriously doubt that most masters would have treated their slaves in such a fashion. Evil men are evil and will commit evil acts regardless of whether they are slave owners or not. 

This photo also brings up a question I hadn't considered before, until listening to H.K. Edgerton speaking. What did this man do that warranted that?

Mr. Edgerton points out that "we are told about these [punishments], but we aren't told that that black man had just burned down a barn with ten other black men inside it!"  (I will post the video this came out of down at the end.) [Not that I am claiming that to  be the case with the man in the photograph...I know nothing about him or his situtation.]

In general, punishments were a little more harsh back in previous centuries anyway--no matter what your colour. Just thought I would tack that on for consideration. Public whipping wasn't unheard of for a white man either.

Did slaves have to work long, hard hours out of doors in the sun? Yes. But no more (and perhaps less) than poor white farmers who could neither afford to buy slaves (who were quite expensive) or maybe even hire temporary help. 

Could slaves own anything of their own? Yes. In fact, I've seen where slaves had enough gold stored up to have purchased their freedom and THEY DID NOT. (So maybe that lady we started the post with has a valid point...)

Was their mutual respect between white and black? I believe, for the most part, there was. Take for instance, the following story which I read in JEB Stuart: The Last Cavalier (B. Davis): The Yankee's had come through and in their ransacking of a plantation, they stole the old house slave's gold watch. Well, some of Stuart's men came through and heard the story. They caught up with the thieves and apprehended them. Capt. Blackford (the man in charge) demanded the gold watch and returned it to it's rightful owner--a black man. A slave. 

Could a black man be educated? That one varied from state to state--and doubtless, some masters violated rules and taught their slaves to read and write and do arithmetic. One thing I do know is that a large portion of slave owners saw to the religious education of their slaves. Ever wondered why there are so many old black spirituals?

Was there justice for black men--free and slave? More or less. I confess I need to do a whole lot more study on this particular question, but I suspect that law and order applied to them in much the same way as it did to whites. (Going back to the video I mentioned at the beginning, one of the claims the host made was that the "police forces" were really more "slave control". I honestly doubt that. White people are just as prone to thieving and murdering and arson as persons of different colours.)

Was there discrimination? Yes. Of course. There was also discrimination against Indians, against white people of different nationalities...and it wasn't universal and it was as much in the North as it was in the South. Northern factory workers hated blacks because the blacks would work for less than the whites. There is STILL discrimination amongst whites against other whites and blacks against other groups of blacks and so forth. Discrimination is a sin problem, not a colour problem. 

So yes. There was slavery in the South. Slavery that probably, quite frequently, fell below the standards of biblical slavery. And no, I do not try to justify where it failed...but neither do I discredit the righteousness of the cause of liberty for which brave patriots--some of them black men who loved freedom from governmental tyranny and justice just as much as their white brothers-- fought and fell for beneath this flag.  

Give me my flag, Tyrants! (And that goes for you, you modern KKK scalawags who have used it for tyranny!!)

May God preserve the Memory of the Faithful Men who Fought for Liberty beneath the Cross of Saint Andrews--Black, White, and Indian. 

As promised, the inestimable H.K. Edgerton! I want to meet him...a lot.

Seeing the lateness of when we got home amongst other things, I opted not to attempt delving into the next section of Authentic Christianity today. Instead, I'd like to redirect you to an interesting little article by a friend of mine (and go ahead and read the rest of his blog too!)

It just so happens to be on one of my "pet" topics (which I admit, I am a wee rusty on since I 've done very little recently along these lines):
 https://thetruebadour.wordpress.com/2015/01/14/twenty-four-theses-on-jurisdiction-and-lawful-resistance/

Standfast!

So...I got to thinking again. Something about a two word phrase I thought up sparked another train of related thought.

You see, during Southern "Reconstruction" [I put it in quotations because it's a word the does not really fit], the defeated Southerner's had no real legal recourse against any Yankee (dare I say?) tyranny. Now that is not to justify any of the unlawful (using the word "lawful" in a biblical sense) things that the Southerner's may have done; I'm just pointing out that the South had no legal recourse, so it is quite natural that the "law" would end up being tyrannical (from both directions) and of the vigilante sort.

But to come back to the point at hand--because former Confederates were not, under Radical Republican "Reconstruction", citizens of the United States (we will not discuss the legality of secession here as that would bog us down), they had none of the rights granted citizens under the Constitution. On top of that, their states were under Marital Law which, as far as I can tell, seems to suspend (at least in this case) normal judicial activity. Taking all that into account, they could be pressed and squeezed and mistreated without being able to protect themselves through legal channels. (By the way, I'm not saying all the Yankee's were as hard-hearted and cruel as, say, Thaddeus Stevens...)

This was sure to pose a quandary to many a gallant soldier. What was he to do to protect (again) his home and family and way of life?

I am sure many wished heartily to take up arms yet again. Indeed, the beloved general of the South, Robert E. Lee himself remarked that if he had known what Reconstruction would be, he never would have surrendered--and you probably know that General Lee was one of the strongest advocates of living at and in peace with the northern portion of the country. But--that was not an option (here is that word again) legally (which is probably one of the reasons it didn't happen). 

Why?

Well, let's return back to our theology for the answer to that question. (I wish I had my notes from Calvin's Institutes handy! I will try to roughly exposit my remembrances of what he said.)

First--governments are granted their authority by God (one of three jurisdictions). Therefore, they are to be obeyed in as far as obedience does not mean disobedience to God. 

Second--because governments are ordained by God, a citizen's lone, arbitrary disregarding of them (could call this anarchy), is wrong.

Third--in the Republican form of government (based actually upon the Presbyterian governmental form [King George recognized this in the war of 1776]), there are differing levels of governmental authority, besides being the different branches (judicial, legislative, and executive). One governmental layer down holds (or can hold) the next one up accountable. (They should.) Therefore, legally, a lesser magistrate only can lead what would be called a 'rebellion' against the state. 

Now, going back to our original topic--any armed resistance on the part of the defeated South against the Yankee tyrant would have been unbiblical in the sense that there was no legal, lesser magistrate to lead it. Beside, to be entirely pragmatic...I doubt it would have done much good because the manpower of the South was drastically reduced, they had no money, or means of arming, equipping, and supporting men on the field. But that is not the point, the point is, being without legal recourse, because they had been stripped (I would argue, unconstitutionally) of their citizenship they had no lesser magistrates (and to begin with, the ones they did have were simply Radical stooges) and therefore, no representation. (And I think I sorta did one of those logical jump thingys that I cannot remember the name of right there.)

And those are my 'putting-clean-sheets-on-the-bed' rambles (expanded). Forgive me if there are gaps in the thought process...or something. The subject is huge and expansive and I myself have barely scratched the surface of it. But...my mind does go down these channels and I have to write them down to solidify them in an at lease semi-articulate fashion.

INDEPENDENCE DAY

I must say reading the Declaration turns my mind towards modern day tyranny and usurpation; but I do not wish to dwell on that today. 

Enjoy this day and remember our rich and glorious Christian heritage! 

Lemme tell you...any time you have huge, giant, ugly blisters on the pads of your thumbs, your days are going to slightly odd. I feel a lot like I have band-aids on each of my thumbs. It's really weird...

Anyway, skipping Monday (which was the day I blistered my thumbs by using my new favorite tool glove-less), this week thus far as been unusual. Yesterday morning I went for my blood draw. It could have been much more unpleasant that it was--but no one told me that I should have really been drinking water between the time I got up and the time I left home! Since I had had very little to drink all morning, my blood was a little thicker than maybe it should have been so it took longer for the lady to get the 12 vials. She ended up having to use both my arms. I am kind of green now in the left arm where my elbow bends. 

When we got home, Mama told me not to do anything much for the rest of the day (not that I could have been of much help out of doors anyway with these vile, self-imposed bumps on my thumbs anyway!), so I sat and watched an 1950's film of Lorna Doone (the book is better--they cut the detail out of the movie and changed some of the major parts) with Richard Greene. I rather like him. :) And I also watched The North Star, a 1943 (I think) movie set in Ukraine when the Nazi's invaded. It was very good and I think I shall have to do a review over on Reformed Reviews. While watching these movies, I sat and put together eight of my cockade hair bows.

I don't suppose that sound like a lot, but it takes time to make them.

Today, I had one of my "I feel like writing and I have a new idea for a story" moments. Believe it or not, I started and finished the whole story today. With a title like Leviathan, it may not come as a surprise that my reading of Job 41 this morning prompted the inner workings of my brain to crank this out.

The nice thing about it is that I knew pretty much where I wanted to end it--which, as I think I have bewailed before--is a deadly pitfall in my writing. I have an idea and do not fully form the where of the ending before I plow into it, just to slam against a brick wall. I changed a few details of the plot while writing it, but overall, I think that improved it. 

I will try to get it up on Stories by Racheal soon (starting this evening). I think I shall put it up in parts even though it is a 'short' story (if you think roughly 17 pages is a short story.) *addendum: it looks like I will not be able to start putting it up tonight because my laptop does not have Word on it and Notepad will not open a .wps file. It looks as though I may have to type it over from my big computer (which I wrote it on because it does have Word on it). Shoot....

Anyway, I spent all day on it, but that was really alright because it rained on and off all day...

In summary: WHAT A FANTASTIC EVENT!!!!

Ahem, now that that is out of the way, I can get down to the nitty-gritty of it all. I am sure I will forget some things, but I'll try to give you a good picture of what it was like. Also, we didn't get as many pictures as I thought we might, so please excuse any apparent gaps. :)

This story starts last Sunday when the four ladies of our household piled into the red car and pointed our faces toward St. Charles, Missouri. We had an uneventful, roughly six hour drive.

I decided not to use any of the pictures of Savannah because Katherine took them all in the side mirror and they didn't come out very well.

We arrived at this huge hotel/conference center (Embassy Suites) someplace around 6:30 or thereabouts, got checked in, and immediately went out to supper. I got soo sick...I wasn't nauseous, but I was buzzy, the inside of my mouth felt swollen, and my legs were shaking so bad I wondered if I was going to fall down. I have had food reactions before, but never anything like that!

I was supposed to meet up with my friend Andrew H. to discuss a certain film project that evening, but after a few minutes, Mama told me to forget about it, call Andrew back and cancel, and then me go to bed. Well, I felt totally unable to call, so I had Savannah do it for me. Andrew was very gracious (as usual) about the whole situation.

The next morning, I felt fine and was impatient to start the day. Before I go any further, let me remark at what a blessing it was to have the hotel connected to the conference center. When I got hungry, or just needed a minute, I could just disappear to our room for a few minutes and then return to participation in the conference. It was great. :) The one thing I did not like was the elevators...

On the first day, I wore my sailor suit (and my hat, of course). Savannah wore a black and white dress and Katherine a purple plaid skirt and pink blouse.

Monday morning, and multiple times throughout the afternoon, Chief Justice Roy Moore spoke. I attended all his lectures since I do have an interest in the history our government's founding and law. All his sessions were good, the second to last one being the least interesting. His presentation of that particular lecture wasn't the best either...I think partly because he was tired and partly because he kind of switched up what he was doing on the fly.

Anyway, his first session was a short history who he was, where he came from, and, of course, the famous battle of the "right" to display the Ten Commandments. Here is one interesting quote I managed to capture from that session:

The point being, the sovereignty of God was never in question for the Founders and when Jefferson made that oh-so-famous remark about "separation of church and state" he was referring to the separation of the two institutions, not the separation of God and state. In other words, the First Amendment is simply a prohibition of any particular denomination being set above any others--a separation of institutional jurisdiction.

Judge Moore's second lecture was entitled: Jurisdictional Aspects of God's Sovereignty. In other words, God rules through different jurisdictions, each one having their own sphere of authority--family, church, and state.

As I mentioned earlier, his third session was not as billed and wasn't overly memorable...however, as I glance over my notes here, this quote sticks out to me:

It appears I must have neglected to take notes during his final session, The United States Constitution and God's Law...if I recall correctly, it was in the same vein as the rest of his lectures, pointing to the fact that yes, indeed, America was founded as a Christian nation and only Christianity produces freedom and it is only through a Christian worldview that our Constitution can be rightly understood and followed.

The only other speaker I listened to that day (Monday) was Bill Potter. His topic was, Was WWII a Just War?: Franklin Roosevelt, Imperial Japan and Pearl Harbor. He opened up a whole new world of conspiracy theorists for me when he remarked that some people think that FDR provoked, planned, and conspired for Japan to attack us so we would enter the war. (Thankfully, and to my great relief, Mr. Potter believes that's a bunch of baloney as much as I do.) The long and the short of the story, without getting into all the most fascinating and terrible details of the attack on Pearl, December 7th, 1941, WWII was a just war because it was a defensive war (on both fronts). We declared war on Japan in defense of our soil and we engaged the Germans in warfare because they declared war on  us!

Monday closed with the "Officer's Ball"...and no, it wasn't swing dancing, but rather English Country Dancing (ECD). Some of the young men/boys came in uniform, though really not too many of them. My above mentioned friend Andrew came in an actual WWII uniform (very neat). In fact, I did my best to track down extra information on Cpl. McPherson...

Anyway, Andrew's elder brother came in uniform (didn't catch his rank) and his younger brother as a Navy captain. I will admit that the number of officers of rather high rank made this enlisted man's daughter smirk a little...most of those guys, if officers, would have held the rank of 1st or 2nd Lieutenant in real life. But what ho! If I were a lad, I would have gone as a Master Sergeant (in honor of my father) and at my age, I probably wouldn't have held much over the lowest sergeant rank in the book...so I guess there isn't that much difference. :D

I regret to inform you that there are no pictures of the ball...but regardless, we all had a wonderful time (even though there were only seven dances). Katherine and I sat out the first one, but joined in as a "couple" on the second one (I love the Spanish Waltz!) and thereafter didn't have to rely on each other as dance partners. I only got to dance with two uniforms...but oh well. I had a delightful time dancing with a charming little man by the name of James, and then twice with a little girl named Elizabeth. Kids like me for some reason. :D

When the ball was over, we all fell into bed and went to sleep (at least I did).

Tuesday morning, a couple of friends and I missed the first session because we were sitting around a table in the breakfast room talking filmmaking.

We all headed into the conference center (as far as I am aware) for the next series of sessions. I don't know where everyone else went, but Katherine and I headed for Dr. Morecraft's Natural Law and Biblical Law. That lecture helped to clear up a few fuzzy notions I hadn't completely sorted out when I first studied the topic in high school. It also rather explained why Puritan New England ended up Unitarian and the like so quickly (in the scope of things). My rough summation of what Dr. Morecraft said runs something like this: the 17th and 18th century American Puritan's weakness was that their confidence in God's word was equal to their confidence in logic and reason...or in other words, Thomism crowded out their Augustinianism. For some of you, that may make even more sense to you than it does to me.

After the session, Katherine and I caught up with a friend who we haven't seen for several years...the main topic of discussion was Lyme disease, of all things.

All of us went to Bill Potter's next session...after all, we are a household of Winston Churchill fans. :D

I find Mr. Potter extremely hard to take notes from--he is a fabulous story teller, but that doesn't mean that notes are easy. In essence, he told his audience the story of Winston Churchill, and left us with three lesson we can learn from the man's life. 1) Always aim high. 2) There is no substitution for hard work. 3) Never allow mistakes/problems to hinder you.

I next headed (by the way, I'm skipping vendor/snack/lunch/dinner breaks here...I'll talk more about that portion separately) to a session on bee-keeping the natural way. I do have an interest in keeping bees, but I need to do some research on how much effect GMO's have on bees and/or the make up of the honey.

In any case, it was an informative session and I scrawled two pages of notes and came away with a little better idea of what I might be getting myself into if I actually do decide to do bees.

The next session was a general session and my first listening to Dr. Paul Jehle speak. Regardless of topic (which was very interesting indeed), I came away with a huge appreciation for Dr. Jehle's presentation style...he is really quite engaging and grabs your attention firmly with both hands, so to speak. The lecture was on Bonhoeffer, but covered more than that. His headings were (my rephrasing for speedy notation): "Nazism and the Church", "Nazism and Economics", "Nazism and Religious Liberty", "Nazism and Propaganda", "Nazism and Education", "Training Heroes or Robots?" It was after this set-up that he really began to speak about Bonhoeffer himself. I like Bonhoeffer's description of Hitler:

I won't go any deeper than that because I took almost three pages of notes on that particular speech and it was all very interesting.

The event of the evening was a talk by the Duggar's and a musical presentation by some of their 19 children. The music was scheduled for after the talk, but got flipped around. I may be scorned for this, but really found the Duggar's talk rather boring. Not to mention that I disagreed with some of their theology, but overall, I easily could have skipped that session and never regretted it.

After it was over, tired as I was, I decided to do a little socializing that evening and basically drug Katherine with me. :D That's not exactly true, because she and a friend were quite happily engaged in conversation, photography, and hair styling while I attempted to play Dutch Blitz with some Dutch Blitz whizzes. (Fast games when your eyes are having trouble focusing aren't exactly recommended.)

After a while, I "folded" because I couldn't see straight enough any more.

Then...someone, I forget who, suggested going down into the lower lobby and dancing for a while. Needless to say, I ignored the fact that I really needed to go to bed and headed downstairs with some of the others to dance for a little while. (It appears there are no pictures of that either...at least that I borrowed off Kt's camera.)

That was blast! Even when I was confused, couldn't keep up, or out of breath. I'm afraid I don't turn under with the left hand very well. I get confused and forget to let the gent get me moving. My apologies to the young gentlemen who had to put up with that foolishness on my part. (I am still used to dancing the gent's part!)

When Katherine and I finally did go upstairs (all the way to the eighth floor) and to bed, it was 1:30 our time, though only 12:30 locally in Missouri. I guess I dropped off pretty fast.

Wednesday morning, I woke up with a start as Mama's cellphone (acting in the capacity of alarm clock) went off full blast about two feet from my left ear. I was awake...no doubt about that! Even had I been interested in drifting back off to sleep, I couldn't have done it I was so thoroughly awake.

We all headed down for the first session of the day, Dr. Morecraft's sermon on the Solas of the Reformation. As with anything Dr. Morecraft does, it was good. :) For some of us, it was recap (though not boring!), but I'm sure some folks were hearing it for the first time.

It would not surprise me if the majority of families with children of marriageable age headed into Dr. Paul Jehle's next most informative (and amusing at times) session: Courtship, World War II and the Dating Game. Granted, my notes weren't very good, but I highly enjoyed this session and did come away with some new items of knowledge tucked up under my hair. I continue to laugh each time I remember Dr. Jehle (you would have had to seen his expression to really understand why this is so amusing) remarking about the young people "scouring the halls" and parents thinking that three days is a long event and the young people are like: "Only three days???" I guess it was so funny, because it a way, it is really very true. There isn't a young woman (or man) I know that isn't interested in getting married at some point. And yes, we're looking around because it's natural. Still, it does help when you consider that yes, God has ordained whatsoever comes to pass...and that nice young man or young lady is a brother or sister in Christ.

I next betook myself (all alone) to Bill Potter's lecture on two historical characters from WWII. Jacob DeShazer and Fushida (the top Japanese pilot who led the attack on Pearl Harbor). It was a highly interesting talk about these two men who's paths eventually providentially crossed. It would go beyond the scope of this blog post to tell their story however...

The final two sessions/tribute had me in tears. Dr. Jehle spoke of Iwo Jima and drew life lessons for the Christian from the struggle...his headers being Cause, Character, and Courage.

The Patriotic Tribute that followed Bill Potter and Dr. Jehle doing a joint talk, was really pretty good. The Sentimental Journey dance band was outstanding and I wished they could have played more/had more air time. Dr. Jehle gave a first person impression of Francis S. Key that was quite engaging.

But...before that, there was this:

The patriotic music made me cry, for sure, nothing new there...but what really made me want to just break down and sob uncontrollably (which I managed not to do!) was when the two WWII vets in the audience were honored. One was seated right behind us, in his old uniform (Tech Sgt.)...I got to both hold his hand and hug the dear, dear elderly gentleman. He was trying not to cry and I was trying not to cry and I cannot tell you the deep honor it is to have one of these grandfather's standing there, holding your hand and telling you that he went to fight so his sisters...and girls like my sisters and I, would not have to undergo what the girls in Europe did. He also told me I was beautiful...but he, with his wrinkles and cane is far more beautiful to my eyes than all the lovely girls in the room put together. For he stands for something that is passing, something that I wish I could hang on to. The WWII generation is dying out and it is such an honor and privilege to meet the remaining veterans. And now I'm getting all teary eyed again...

All in all, it was a grand event...and I would very, very much like to attend next year, for the topic is that of the SOUTH. As you here all probably know that I'm a southron born and breed, I doubt that comes as a surprise to any of you. :) Besides that, the fellowship was very great.

Which leads me to tell a few stories that took place in the vendor hall...

Katherine and I were wandering around (I believe it was Monday) and as we peered at a particular table, the young man behind the table addressed me rather as if he knew who I were. That was rather, well, odd at first, but it soon became apparent that Mama and Savannah had already visited this table and told him about me (the majority of the books were about the WBtS) and my documentary. :D (And they apparently told him what I was wearing...and I was the only girl there in a sailor suit, so I guess it wasn't too hard.) We talked for a little bit and I ended up purchasing Robert L. Dabney's In Defense of Virginia and the South. I would return the next day and buy a couple more books from Sprinkle Publications...

The first thing that happened when Savannah and I walked into the vendor hall for the first time on Monday was a pleasant accosting by Mr. Raymond of the Chalcedon Foundation...he handed us both a book bag (Mama and Katherine would also each get one eventually). They contained free books, pamphlets, and copies of Faith for all of Life. I almost immediately forked over the dough for the latest "Bell Mountain" book...it was half price, to boot! :)

I was going to get three more books from the vendor hall, but I only ended up getting two. Douglas Bond's The Thunder was gone by the time I got back to that particular table Tuesday afternoon...but I did get these two!

The last day, I decided to do something I had considered since I first saw a particular young man in the Chalcedon Presbyterian Church booth and put two and two together as to his identity...I had been party to a conversation on Google plus in which both he and I were engaged sometime in the past year. Seeing that he wasn't covered up by perspective book buyers and was leaned back a little in his chair with a steel-string Yamaha guitar on his lap, I poked my chin out, walked over and demanded (pleasantly, I hope), "Are you Evan N.?" He looked up at me with a curious expression on his face and assured me he was. By now, I was feeling slightly silly, but couldn't back out now, so I introduced myself and reminded him of that ridiculous post of our mutual friend's.

And he laughed.

He did remember...and I think he was slightly surprised (or something) that a particular joking phrase had continued to be used fairly regularly amongst a certain number of us. (Evan apparently doesn't waste as much time on G+ as some of us do! :P) Anyway, to continue conversation, I made one of those rather inane comments: "I see you play the guitar..." I made it not so "duh, obviously!" by tacking on, "So do I..."

From there we talked about guitars and music a bit and when I said I played classical, he asked me if I would play him something as he likes classical (and wants to learn himself)...so I gladly sat down (guitar players are like that you know...it is rather a social instrument.. :D) and picked out a few things out of my embarrassingly small repertoire of memorized pieces.

My sisters came over and we had a pleasant four way conversation (along with his adorable little nephew) for a few minutes before it was necessary for Evan to get back to the work he was there to do--selling Dr. Morecraft's books. :)

It is always nice to meet other reformed young folks...and I thoroughly enjoyed doing so this past week...but now, I really am in need of sleep (again). I will have to tell you what Katherine and I did this afternoon in a post tomorrow. So, until then, farewell!

It seems my posting has kind of slacked off lately...maybe because of routine. Nothing overly exciting or out of the way has been happening. I've been managing some of the cooking (I even made enough lunch yesterday!), so my Latin has been being cut from the morning schedule. I guess I've been getting going too late or something because I got it fit in this morning and it's just about time for lunch prep to start.

I went to town with Mama yesterday. We just went grocery shopping, but it was nice to get out of the house.

I wrote the above before lunch...it's now getting much, much closer to supper time than it is lunch time, but I'll just pick off where I dropped the ball.

I fixed lunch today--it was a special lunch (after all, it is Valentine's Day). Scallops and fresh salmon (baked in the oven). The scallops were served over sauted onions and Chinese cabbage. We also had broccoli and califlower which I managed to stick slightly. Oh yes, and peas. I didn't quite get those as done as I could have (done, but not really done); but that was because as soon as they boiled, I took them off the burner because I needed it. As far as I could tell, everybody thought it was good.

Upon thinking further on the opening words of this post, I think that some of my lack of posting comes from the fact that the reading I am doing sends my brain down all sorts of very interesting rabbit trails. I would post about them, but the trails never seem to be clear enough to articulate.
 
I find that my theological and historical reading are in a way parallelling each other. The theological reading is also political theory (God and Government by Gary DeMar still--I'm in the second book) and then I'm also studying the War Between the States...the parallel between the foundation of our country on biblical principles and the reasoning behind the Confederacy's secession is quite fascinating and the one reading compliments the other. In other words, my brain is tied into all kinds of neat knots and I at time feels overwhelmed at the scope of it all. Ever since I first studied of our founding documents/political thought/practical outworking in high school it has been one of the areas I can say that I really enjoy. (For all that, modern politics leave me in befuddled knots.)

So, to see the similarity between the thoughts behind the first and second wars of Independence is quite fascinating. Add on top of that a love of military history and weaponry and you have one absorbed kid--that is, so long as she is not hungry.

I found the following quote by Stonewall to be both encouraging and a challenge that our people need to hear.

Of course, one must come to this with a realization that God is Sovereign. Like today, in my God and Government reading on "Sovereignty and Dominion"--Christians have to believe and act as though all things are under God's sovereign command (which they are) and therefore obey Him to the utmost of our beings.

That last is so much easier said than done. A little trial comes and we want to roll over and "let it pass". However, rolling over and playing dead is the exact opposite thing that we should do. We must stand fast, hold fast, and actively be obedient--no matter how much is looks/feels/smells like the "world in going to hell in a handbasket". Whether this means standing with the praise of God on our lips (or at least in our heart) facing a firing squad, or working in whatever way we are called to promote godliness in our civil government, or just doing the mundane chores of everyday life.

Ahem, well...to get off my "philisophical soapbox" (Who? Racheal on a soapbox?? Really???), I decided to make a surprise chocolate cake for my family (and me! I might as well be honest about it!) Unfortunately, for my delightful scheming, the entire family was aware of it before it was done (most of them before it was even in the pan), so so much for the element of surprise. :D Anyway, hopefully it is good and not too sweet and sweet enough (if that makes sense). We all love our chocolate and we like it dark. It doesn't have to be real sweet. Dark chocolate and a cup of black coffee--mmm, mmm...

But I digress. Once I took it out of the oven, I kind of 'hid' it on the counter farthest away from Granddaddy. I don't want him getting into it before it's time--for two reasons, I know the way he handles the breads--just tears a chunk out; and secondly, the man doesn't wash his hands and could care less about it. Now, I'm no germ freak (never have been, probably never will be) but I do know what those hands have on them and I don't want that on my bread/cake/food.

However, to leave you with something much more amusing:

Oh, yes, and I also found the time today to switch out the kitty litter in the cat-box! I don't like that pellet stuff I've been using (it looks like sweet feed). I much prefer the other kind (which for the life of me, I cannot remember the name of at the moment!)

Oh well...I think we're having soup for supper, so not many dishes to do afterwards! ;)

As any cursory student of War Between the States could tell you, the North, or shall we say the Union, was against the secession of the South. I hereby propose, in as few words as possible to roughly explain why the Union's anti-secession argument were self-defeating.

To begin with, let us look at something that the man who is so often held in such high esteem by modern Americans, Abraham Lincoln, said in his inaugural speech. (Quotation pulled from Shelby Foote's The Civil War: A Narrative. I trust he faithfully recounted the words of the men he wrote about.)

"It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination...No state upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union."

Interesting and perhaps convincing, isn't it? But before we laud his seemingly patriotic and logical idea, let us take a quick, expository glance through history, as well as the implications of what Mr. Lincoln said March 4, 1861.

First, note this phrase "a provision in its organic law for its own termination". What is meant by this?

To my prehaps unskilled mind, this means that no government can of it's own volition end itself. I find that particular notion slightly confusing, but not so much as to completely befuddle me. I don't think this takes into account the complete corruption which will totally destory things from the inside out, but more the idea that a government cannot just end itself with no warning or creation of a provisional government to take its place.

According to Mr. Lincoln's meaning here, he was accusing the South of terminating its government. This is simply not true. The 11 States of the Confederacy did not terminate the government that they had previously been under--instead they removed themselves from under it (which is a completely different thing from destorying it).

"When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another..."

These words from the American Declaration of Independence, signed July the 4th, 1776, state the exact same sentiment that the Southern states declared in their secession from the union. Neither nation destroyed (i.e. terminated) the government they had been under up until that point--they simply removed themselves according to these words: "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government..."

Therefore, Lincon's charge of governmental termination is both invalid and self-defeating--for in denouncing the South, he denounced his own forefathers and the country he himself was being sworn into as the 16th president.

Furthermore, his statement of: "No state upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union" denies the basis of what was so founational to the very beginnings of the United States--the sovereignty of the individual state. The individual state was it's own sovereign entity that was voluntarily bound together with the other states under the Constitution of the United States (which is why many referred to the nation, not as "the United States", but "these United States").

Going back once again to the foundational notions of civil government, there is no legitimate means by which the Federal government could hold a dissatisfied state in the Union. Therefore, the anti-secessionist argument is self-defeating for in decrying the South's legitmate self-removal from the Union, it also denies the legitimacy of the original thirteen colonies self-removal from the bonds of British tryanny.

One of the reason we read books is to discover things we had never noticed before--even if we have seen it multiple times. With that being said, I have read the Consitution of the United States several times and I never noticed what Mr. Morris (quoted by Mr. DaMar) points out in the following passage. Since I never particularly noticed it, I of course did not grasp the significance of it either.

Therefore, without further ado...quoting from God and Government, Vol. 1 by Gary DeMar:
   
 ' "The Constitution itself affirms its Christian character and purpose. The seventh article declares it to be framed and adopted 'by the unanimous consent of the States, the seventeenth day of September in the year of our LORD 1787, and of the Independence of the United States of America the twelfth.' The date of the Constitution is twofold: first it is dated from the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ, and then from the birth of our independence. Any argument which might be supposed to prove that the authority of Christianity is not recognized by the people of the United States, in the first mode, would equally prove that the independence of the United States is not recognized by them in the second mode. The fact is, that the advent of Christ and the independence of the country are the two events in which, of all others, we are most interested,--the former in common with all mankind, the latter as the birth of our nation. This two-fold mode, therefore, of dating so solemn an instrument was singularly appropriate and becoming" (p. 262).' (129-130)

I don't know about you, but I find that down-right interesting and encouraging. Our Constitution still declares us to be a nation under God. (Not that any amount of denial can change the solid truth that all men and nations are under God.)