Mason-Dixon Guards Camp 2183

06/08/2026

Why do they hate Robert E Lee? The same reason they hate us. General Lee was a God-fearing Man.

2 Samuel 23:3 says: “He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God.”

General Lee feared God. He was a man of faith and prayer. One of his numerous General Orders he issued in 1862 read:“Habitually all duties except those of inspection will be suspended during Sunday, to afford the troops rest and to enable them to attend religious services.”

On one occasion when he issued one of these orders an Army chaplain wrote: “The work of grace among the troops widened and deepened and went gloriously on until there had beenthousands of professions of faith in Christ as a personal Saviour.”

John Cooke said: "He had lived, as he died, with this supreme trust in an overruling and merciful Providence; and this sentiment, pervading his whole being, was the origin of that august [majestic] calmness with which he greeted the most crushing disasters of his military career. His faith and humble trust sustained him after the war, when the woes of the South well nigh broke his great spirit; and he calmly expired, as a weary child falls, asleep, knowing that its father is near."

Lee had learned through personal hardship and tragedy to possess an unrelenting faith in the sovereign counsel of God, both in personal and national matters. Upon hearing of the death of his 23-year-old daughter, Annie, and unable to attend her funeral, he insisted that these words be carved on her tombstone: "Perfect and true are all His ways, Whom Heaven adores and earth obeys."

Like Job of old in the Bible, he trusted in God no matter the situation or heartache. He did not get angry with God, but entrusted his life and circumstances with God.

We would do well to follow his example.

06/02/2026

Over the past few months, this page has tackled numerous topics that leftist trolls often distort. Public education frequently promotes a one-sided “victor’s history,” producing graduates who repeat talking points without critical thinking. We’ve repeatedly clarified and debunked several key claims through historical context and primary sources. Here’s a few tidbits…

# # # Not about slavery:

The idea that the conflict was exclusively about slavery ignores the broader issues of states’ rights, tariffs, federal overreach, and cultural differences. Even Sherman explained, “slavery was a pretext, but NOT a cause of the war.”

# # # Declarations of Causes:

Only about one-third of the Confederate states (specifically four of the eleven (13 that tried to join the Confederacy): South Carolina, Mississippi, Georgia, and Texas) issued detailed “Declarations of Causes” for secession. These documents mention multiple grievances beyond slavery, including economic policies and violations of constitutional compact. Not all states produced such declarations—far fewer than half did—and many secession ordinances focused primarily on the right to self-government.

# # # The Confederate Constitution:

The Confederate Constitution closely mirrored the U.S. Constitution in structure and many provisions. Individual Confederate states retained the power to abolish or regulate slavery within their borders, just as U.S. states could before the war. Notably:

- It explicitly banned the international slave trade (importation of slaves from foreign countries outside the U.S.), going further in this regard than the original U.S. Constitution at the time of its adoption.
- It protected property rights in slaves but did not enshrine slavery as a permanent national institution in a way that prevented future change by states.

In some respects, it reflected a more restrictive stance on expanding the external slave trade compared to prior U.S. allowances.

# # # Losers

Confederate soldiers and veterans are often dismissed as “losers,” but narrow-minded view overlooks their extraordinary achievements. Fighting against overwhelming disadvantages in manpower, industry, and resources, they delivered spectacular victories and mounted a determined four-year defense of their homes. Their courage and resourcefulness earn lasting respect, much like the underdog heroic struggles of the Spartans at Thermopylae. Calling them losers says more about the troll than the men who answered the call.

# # # Black Confederates

Free blacks and people of color served willingly with Confederate forces, often as teamsters, cooks, scouts, laborers, or—in limited cases—as armed fighters. Many did so voluntarily or in support roles.

Accounts from the era indicate that Union forces (“Yankees”) could be harsher toward blacks in occupied areas than Southerners were in daily life. Some slaves experienced their worst hardships during Union advances. Post-war testimonies from former slaves and free blacks occasionally described Southern life with fondness, noting better treatment or higher standards of living in certain contexts compared to the North, along with appreciation for former masters and mistresses.

# # # Fort Sumter:

Lincoln knew the south wouldn’t allow a Federal fort to remain in their own main port. He knew resupplying the Fort was an act of war. Lincoln’s decision to resupply the fort—against earlier assurances and amid refused negotiations—was viewed by many, including some in his own circle, as a deliberate provocation that made war inevitable.

# # # “The Civil War” name

The term “Civil War” is a Northern framing. “Civil War” is defined as fighting for control of the government which the south never attempted. The South never sought to conquer Washington or overthrow the U.S. government—it simply wanted to be left alone. More accurate names include the War Between the States, the War of Northern Aggression, or Lincoln’s War on Americans.

# # # Connections to America’s Founding:

Many descendants and relatives of Founding Fathers like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, George Mason, and Francis Scott Key supported the Confederacy. They saw it as a continuation of the American Revolution’s principles: resistance to federal overreach, taxation without fair representation, local self-government, and defense of liberties.

In many ways, the Confederacy represented “American Revolution Part Two”—emphasizing states’ rights and limited central authority against a growing federal power.

# # # “Get Over It” Enduring Relevance:

The underlying issues—federal overreach versus states’ rights, limited government, and individual liberties—remain relevant today. Dismissing these topics with “get over it” ignores that the same foundational tensions persist in modern debates over power, freedom, and governance.

# # # The Confederate Flag

The Confederate flag is fundamentally American. Designed by multi-generational Americans for Americans fighting to defend their homes on American soil within the Confederate States of America. It symbolizes resistance to tyranny and centralized oppression. Beyond the U.S., it has been adopted worldwide as an emblem of fighting powerful governments and defending liberty.

These clarifications highlight the importance of examining primary sources and diverse perspectives rather than accepting simplified narratives. -RJ

05/30/2026

05/29/2026

Click the title above to read the article at our blog.

05/29/2026

On May 27, 1862, Maryland's Talbot County courthouse was surrounded by Union troops to support federal Provost Marshals in the arrest of Judge Richard Bennett Carmichael. Four Provost Marshals barged into the Judge’s courtroom and bloodily bludgeoned him with the butt of a pistol in front of his jury and civilian spectators. Prosecuting attorney J.C.W. Powell rushed to the judge’s aid and the crier of the court ran to the window to call for the Sherriff, but both were physically subdued. All three were sent to Fort McHenry for imprisonment.

The next day the federal War Department issued a press release stating that the Judge had been imprisoned for treason. The press release was published in every major Northern newspaper and in Europe as soon as the news crossed the Atlantic. Judge Carmichael and attorney Powell were imprisoned for over 9 months under the harshest conditions without trial or charges ever placed against them.

These men were imprisoned and denied their basic constitutional rights to have legal counsel challenge the validity of their imprisonment, to be presented with charges, to have the government’s charges reviewed by a civilian court, to confront their accusers or to provide a defense in a civilian court of law. All these constitutional rights were denied because the President had suspended the sacred right of habeas corpus, an act that the Constitution had granted solely to Congress and not the Executive.

The Judge’s imprisonment for treason, as professed by the federal government, became established history for over 160 years touted by follow-on historians who simply relied upon the statements issued by the government. This was indicative of how history recorded the imprisonment of so many other Maryland political leaders, newspaper editors and other citizens imprisoned under the suspension of habeas which denied their right to present a defense or to even publicly proclaim their side of the story. The free press was grossly impacted by the suspension of habeas with numerous newspapers who presented dissenting views shut down or had their editors imprisoned and where the threat of such retaliation caused many others to remain compliant and not question the Executive.

With today’s technology to digitally search thousands of official records along with historical newspapers across the globe, the actual history of Judge Carmichael’s arrest can now be told - and it had nothing to do with secession or traitorous activity.

Judge Carmichael got the attention of Secretary William Seward in June of 1861 by sending a petition along with 48 others, to the Maryland Legislature detailing how Union soldiers had entered Queene Anne’s County and had placed themselves as a military police superior to civilian authority and were conducting unlawful searches, arrests and imprisonments and had unilaterally suspended habeas corpus to those they detained. This document recorded in the Maryland Archives is hugely important in understanding President Lincoln’s early suspension of habeas enacted just weeks prior. The President’s first suspension was touted as a military necessity to protect a narrow supply corridor between Philadelphia and Washington. With Carmichael’s communication to the Legislature, we find it was also suspended in places in Maryland far removed from this supply route and for totally different reasons as well.

Secretary Seward in learning of the Judge’s communication, issued a directive to General John Adams Dix to have the Judge imprisoned in Fort Lafayette for “treason” and to have the arrest conducted in the Judge’s courtroom to maximize the public impact. General Dix however did not act upon this directive at this time but continued to monitor the Judge. As a circuit court Judge, Carmichael was also a Judge in Queen Anne’s County and shortly before the state elections in November 1861 the clerk of Queen Anne’s Court, Madison Brown, was arrested and temporarily imprisoned by Union troops. Brown was running on the “Peace Party” ticket as a candidate for the Maryland Appellate Court during the upcoming state election and was just one of many Maryland political candidates that had been harassed and even imprisoned by the occupying Union troops prior to the election. Judge Carmichael had the offending military officers charged by the grand jury for the unlawful imprisonment of Brown and others, but the Union military simply relocated the charged officers outside of the Judge’s jurisdiction to prevent their trial.

Similar incidents also happened in Talbot County where dissenters were imprisoned by the occupying military command. In Talbot County however, something very different occurred. Prosecuting attorney J.C.W. Powell learned that a Maryland politician, State Senator Henry Holiday Goldsborough, had embroiled himself in directing the Union troops on the arrest of Talbot civilians.

Goldsborough was the leader of the Maryland Senate and a strong Lincoln ally. Attorney Powell was successful in having Talbot’s Grand Jury issue indictments against Goldsborough along with the associated Union officers responsible for the arrests.

The military officers were removed from Talbot’s legal jurisdiction, but Senator Goldsborough lived in Talbot County and could not avoid prosecution. Shortly before Goldsborough’s trial General Dix issued a written communication to him stating that he was sending the military officers subpoenaed for his trial but was also sending four Provost Marshals “well armed.” In this communication Gen. Dix left it to Goldsborough to authorize the Provost Marshals to arrest Judge Carmichael. In Dix’s after-action report to Secretary Seward, he noted that the Judge had been arrested in his courtroom for the maximum public impact per the stated desire of Seward. The imprisonment of Judge Carmichael and prosecuting attorney Powell had nothing to do with treason but was simply to protect a political ally of the President and to display the power of the federal government. The false report of “treason” was simply cover to make such a drastic measure publicly acceptable.

Some of those who read this will attempt to immediately defend President Lincoln’s actions. Human nature has not changed in 163 years and there are many who will blindly trust and defend their chosen political leader regardless of evidence. These events are our history which cannot be changed but which provide us with important insights and lessons that we should apply to the issues of our day.

For more on this important history to include the uncovering of the details regarding the imprisonment of the Maryland Legislature and other important Maryland leaders, please refer to my book “When Democracy Fell, The Subjugation of Maryland During the U.S. Civil War,” available on Amazon.

05/28/2026

🚨BREAKING🚨 Trump Reposts Praise of Confederate General as Model for American Youth

The Truth Social post described Robert E. Lee as “one of the supremely gifted men produced by our Nation”

☕️ ☕️ ☕️

05/23/2026

Trolls endlessly parrot the same debunked lines: “The Confederate Constitution enshrined slavery forever” and “It made slavery permanent and impossible to abolish.” These claims collapse under even casual examination.

The Confederate Constitution of 1861 was, in almost every substantive respect, a faithful copy of the United States Constitution that the Southern states had helped write and ratify seventy years earlier.

Like its federal predecessor, it left the question of slavery entirely to the individual states. Many northern states had already abolished the institution under the U.S. Constitution; Southern states could have done exactly the same thing under the Confederate charter had any of them chosen to do so.

Nothing in the document “enshrined slavery forever” or compelled a single state to maintain it against the will of its people.

The Confederate framers simply refused to pretend, as the Philadelphia Convention had done, that the existing labor system of the South did not exist. They named it plainly while preserving the same sovereign right of each state to alter or abolish it that the U.S. Constitution had always recognized.

In one important respect the Confederate Constitution was actually more restrictive toward slavery and anti-slavery than the U.S. Constitution. Article I, Section 9 of the Confederate Constitution expressly and permanently forbade the importation of slaves from any foreign country, closing the African slave trade forever with no twenty-year grace period like the one the U.S. Constitution had allowed until 1808.

The Confederacy never contemplated reopening the transatlantic traffic, never commissioned a single new slave ship, and stood firmly behind the ban the United States had enacted decades earlier.

Far from being an aggressive “pro-slavery” blueprint bent on eternal expansion, the Southern charter reflected a conservative desire to protect the domestic institutions the South had inherited while drawing a clear line against any further international commerce in slaves.

The document’s framers were defending their homes and their constitutional inheritance, not plotting some perpetual slave empire.

To verify the claims about state authority and the international slave trade ban, I recommend reading the full text of both constitutions side by side. The similarities are striking, and the differences highlight Southern restraint rather than radicalism. -RJ

[photo] Salute! Spotsylvania Courthouse Confederate Cemetery Memorial Service! -RJ

05/21/2026

BREAKING NEWS! The Confederate memorials removed from Baltimore almost ten years ago and recently displayed in Los Angeles in a state of derision are returning to Baltimore soon.

As the city wonders what to do with them, here’s my clear recommendation: PUT THEM BACK! See below for my other recommendation.

These dignified bronze tributes—honoring Southern soldiers, sailors, women, Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, and Chief Justice Roger Taney—were ripped down under cover of darkness in August 2017 and treated like criminals. Warehoused, then shipped west to be mocked in an LA exhibit, they now deserve to return to their original pedestals.

They are exquisite works of public art, erected by a more honorable generation who honored the valor and constitutional convictions of men who fought for Southern independence and the Founding Fathers’ principles of limited government and states’ rights.

Their removal was pure cultural vandalism—Taliban-style destruction wrapped in modern cancel culture and Mao-Marxism.

Cities that tore down such memorials, like Baltimore, have only grown more chaotic and worse.

If officials lack the courage to reinstall them where they belong, transfer them to Confederate Memorial Park beside Point Lookout Confederate Cemetery in St. Mary’s County, Maryland. There, they can stand in proper honor among the Southern dead.

No more storage sheds or traveling insults. These monuments deserve public respect. The South remembers. It’s time Baltimore does too. -RJ

05/19/2026

The Reconciliation Monument: Woke Vandalism Will be Reversed at Arlington

Near the rear of Arlington National Cemetery on land once owned by Robert E. Lee stood one of America’s most beautiful memorials: the Reconciliation Monument, sculpted by Moses Jacob Ezekiel, a Confederate veteran.

Part of the relief captures a wife tenderly hugging her husband in a heartbreaking goodbye as he heads to war to defend his family, children, parents, community, and state.

Nearly 500 Confederate soldiers lie buried on all sides of this war memorials.

Dedicated in 1914 with support from presidents and Union veterans, the monument symbolized reconciliation, unity, fraternity, respect, and honor, featuring a figure of the South offering a laurel wreath of peace and calls to beat swords into plowshares.

For over a century it stood quietly. Then the Biden-era Naming Commission, led in part by the infamous “Taliban” Ty Seidule, ordered its removal in December 2023 despite strong public opposition.

This Taliban-style vandalism on sacred ground sent a venomous message: reconciliation is over, unity is finished, and there will be no more respect or honor for southern Americans veterans who answered the call in the Confederacy.

Seidule and his woke zealots inflicted real damage on military morale and national cohesion.

Thankfully, under President Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, the monument returns in 2027 after restoration. Polished and more beautiful than ever, it will reaffirm shared sacrifice and healing.

Those who attacked it, especially the Maoist fanatics led by Ty Seidule, will be remembered for hatred, petty intolerance and destructive zeal. True honor outlasts their tantrums.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ -RJ

See closeups of the monument here in this video I captured shortly before its removal… -RJ

https://youtu.be/9YJY16luRJ4?si=mMsQFy0Wg6BZxmJU