Sons of Confederate Veterans split over leadership

[unionblue]

Friends,

Found another site with news on the ongoing SCV crisis.

http://www.southernevents.org/Main.htm

What makes this site interesting is that it lists and provides documents of the court and minutes of the meeting that led to the court actions alongs with sound files of actual phone conversations.

Unionblue

[thea_447]

The actual phone conversations were at that site that I told you was going to broadcast last week. I wonder if this is going to take on the aspects of a giant scheme. Will we have to call it SCV-gate?

[larry_cockerham]

Local scuttlebutt seems to believe there will be a constitution convention called perhaps prior or at the time of the originally scheduled convention early this summer. Petitions requesting the convention are pouring into national headquarters. Perhaps democracy is alive. You might be able to see sparks in the nightime sky at that time.

[WarEagleRebel]

I have the two fighting factions website that I will post here, if I may.
Just an FYI to the two factions within the SCV. They are both frequently updated. The so called "radical's" website is www.savethescv.com and the so called "grannies'" website is www.savethescv.org
When you visit these you can see that they each have very different directions for the SCV. I don't see the two ever getting along but who knows?

[johan_steele]

THanks for the links... helps to understand both positions a bit better.

[larry_cockerham]

I've read the numerous posts and still don't completely comprehend the problem. There seem to be similar protests coming from both sides and I suspect a bit of ego thrown in the middle of the mix. This organization, much like the GAR and later SUV, was founded to preserve the memory of some gallant men and women and an important and difficult time in our nation's history. We should all remember and honor those of our ancestors who deserve it. There's nothing wrong with a bit of bias concerning the South versus whatever y'all call your place. (hopefully still the United States) Southern folks get excited when they get boisterous and folks get nervous looking at a flag that means many things to many people. What I see when I view the union jack is perhaps not what my neighbor down the street may perceive. I try to keep that in mind and act with a bit of respect to the rights of all. The difference of command opinions in the SUV is something that a good constitutional convention should be able to work out and move on to a unified goal, be it completely politically correct or not. Some will be happy, some will not, either way. This discussion board is what America should be about, maybe not all looking out at the same wave but certainly in the same boat with respect offered to all.

[thea_447]

The plot thickens! This just in:

Subject: [scvaladiv] Special Convention Unconstitutional?


Gentlemen of the Alabama Division,

I post the following for your consideration and for general discussion.
Much was said about the legal stunt the Hodges faction pulled being
unconstitutional. I heard many complaints about the unconstitutional acts
of the coup planners. What they did was indeed dishonorable and
unconstitutional because they attempted to go outside the SCV Constitution
in an effort to gain control of the organization. In other words, I agree
absolutely with the complaints leveled against the Hodges faction. What
they did was wrong and it has proven to be extremely detrimental to the
organization and the cause it serves.

I submit to you that this so called "special convention" is also
unconstitutional. Just as the actions of the Hodges faction were
politically motivated, so is this special convention politically motivated.
You might ask, why is the special convention unconstitutional? It is unconstitutional because the Sweeney faction is invoking Mississippi corporate law to justify their actions. This is the same thing the Hodges faction did! What they are doing is outside the confines of the SCV Constitution and therefore is unconstitutional. Nowhere in the SCV Constitution does it say you may abandon the document when convenient to
do so.

Special meetings, such as the one being called, are addressed in the SCV
Constitution. Since that is the case, it is this provision of the SCV
Constitution that should be used to call a special meeting and not
Mississippi Corporate law.

Article 5, section 2 of the SCV constitution states, "The Commander in Chief or, in his absence, death or resignation, the Lieutenant Commander in Chief, at the request of a majority of Camps, or the General Executive Council, shall convene the Confederation in special meeting, if he deems the emergency sufficient. Special meetings of a
Division shall likewise be called by the Division Commander at the request
of a majority of the Camps of his Division or in any emergency he may deem
sufficient.

Clearly, Article 5, section 2 of the SCV Constitution is exactly what the
Sweeney faction should be using to justify the calling of this "special
convention". If there was no provision for calling a special meeting in
the SCV Constitution, then the Sweeney faction would be justified in invoking
Mississippi corporate law. The argument could be made that not only is
what they are doing unconstitutional, it might also be illegal. I don't know
about it being illegal but it is clearly unconstitutional.

Why is there not an outcry against what is clearly an unconstitutional
action? Are we going to continue to invoke corporate law and throw the
constitution out the door when it is convenient to do so? Surely I am not
the only one bothered by this?

Think about it before you make plans to spend your money on a road trip to
NC.

(This was signed by a member of the Fighting Joe Wheeler 1372; I see no reason to list his name here. --Thea)

[larry_cockerham]

Apparently there is a legal connection of this constituiton to Mississippi law as the constitution or by-laws are currently written. In order for the convention to be called, a quorum must be reached from votes of the attending camps. It won't necessarily happen (this amendment has already been defeated three time or so prior to this). I strongly believe it is time for it to happen and I applaud the effort, though I won't hold my breath in the meantime.

[john smith]

Sir,

Could you tell me if Nathan Bedford Forrest II (the General's Grandson) was one of the original founders of the second era Ku Klux Klan? I found some info on the web, but nothing really solid. It seems that Forrest was using his position with the SCV to spread the influance of the KKK throughout the southwest during World War one. In fact, not only is Mr. Forrest associated with the so-called Second era Ku Klux Klan, but also a KKK-like paramilitary death squad known as the Knights of Liberty, which terrorized labor leaders, African-Americans, draft resisters, and adulterers with almost Biblical punishment. After years of research, I have found that the Knights of Liberty (at least here in Tulsa) had been composed of various members of the United Sons of Confederate Veterans, the Tulsa Chamber of Commerce (i.e. wartime oil companies), the Tulsa County Council of National Defense, the Tulsa Police Department, the Tulsa Army National Guard, the Tulsa World, and the American Protective League, as well as various elected officials, such as judges and City Attorneys.

The core leadership of the Knights of Liberty would later fuse into the Ku Klux Klan. Moreover, former leaders of this group also played an active role in the 1921 Greenwood Massacre, which allegedly killed 300 African-American men, women and children.


sadly, evedence seems to suggest that the "Knights of Liberty" had been supported by the United States government in order to protect the Oklahoma oil belt, which fueled the U.S. led war against Germany. Some might find this a little hard to swallow, but who do you think orginally supported Osama Bin Ladan or those drug dealing Columbian Death Squads? Uncle Scam!

[larry_cockerham]

I believe Nat II was grand wizard or some such in the state of Georgia. As for his role in founding, I don't really know. I do have some notes on the Forrest family and will see what I can find on Nat II.