Pickett’s Charge, which took place on the last day of the Battle of Gettysburg, is regarded by historians as the “high point of the Confederacy.” From this point on, the Confederacy was on the defensive until the inevitable collapse less than two years hence.


General Robert E. Lee was, as President Trump noted recently, a great and brilliant man and military tactician. Without his leadership and the fierce loyalty it inspired among his troops, it’s doubtful that what we call the CIvil War would’ve lasted for four years.

General Lee understood, unlike Southern politicians, that a war of attrition with the North could not be won. His objective in taking the Army of Northern Virginia in the summer of 1863 was to sway Northern opinion that the cost of subduing the Confederacy wasn’t too high and encourage both sides to seek a negotiated settlement.

It’s doubtful that many understood the significance of Gettysburg at the time. When he received word of the General Pickett’s defeat, Gen. Lee’s only comment was “too bad, too bad”, reflecting his keen awareness of what the defeat would inevitably mean for the South.

Americans are generally impatient with the lessons of history, but perhaps we should pay attention to the lessons of Gettysburg, as the upcoming election may be, for local Christians and conservatives, a second battle of Gettysburg. The battle over Propositions A, B, & C has assumed far more importance than the wording on the ballot would lead one to believe.

San Antonio’s “best and brightest” (just ask them, they’ll assure you it’s true) have recast these propositions as an affirmation of the hidden regime that stands behind City Hall and the Bexar County Commissioners Court. Defeating these propositions is their key to the tax and ratepayer pockets. Others have torn apart the tissue of lies that Mayor Nirenberg has deployed to defeat three common sense government reforms, but for these people the propositions themselves are irrelevant.

The wording of the Propositions is of little concern to the Mayor and his allies, and that’s why they’ve tried to make the election a referendum on Chris Steele, the one man and his firefighters who’ve dared to challenge an unaccountable bureaucracy. Defeating the propositions is their means of maintaining control.

Voters should take note that the “bipartisan” money behind the Vote No campaign is composed and funded almost entirely by those who depend on San Antonio government dollars, and that money comes from tax and ratepayers. Look at the two men most associated with the Vote No campaign.

Ask Gordon Hartman about the soccer fields we bought to make good on his bad investment. Ask Berto Guerra, ostensibly a public servant and head of the San Antonio Water System, about Vista Ridge and the costs that wasteful and unnecessary project will impose on our fellow citizens.


Ask yourselves why “Democrat” Christian Archer and “Republican” Kelton Morgan are allowed to spearhead the Vote No campaign without being repudiated by their respective parties. The first order of business at both party Executive Committees should be to declare those two men persona non grata and make clear to any future candidates that employ them, or their firms, face repudiation and active opposition from the grassroots.

Should the Vote No campaign of lies and distortions succeed, it may be impossible to free San Antonio from our current “bipartisan” Central American style of government that operates solely for benefit of the privileged elite and their sycophants. The San Antonio Establishment Will regard a Vote No victory as a green light to loot, pillage, and plunder the people of San Antonio.


Just like Robert E. Lee at Gettysburg, should we fail to Vote Yes, we may look back at November 6, 2018 as the day the cause of good government for San Antonio was lost.

James Lee Murphy, Esq.
Attorney at Law
(210) 859-2189 – mobile