Monday, April 21, 2014

Questions sent to the Sons of Confederate Veterans

I sent the following email to Dr. Thomas Y. Hiter, head of the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) Vision 2016 effort and the SCV Chief of Heritage Defense.  I hope to hear from them soon.

Email follows:

Dear Dr. Hiter:

Since you have strongly suggested in your letter to me post marked March 25, 2014  that I ask the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) regarding questions I might have about the SCV, I am submitting these 15 questions to the SCV.  I look forward to a timely reply.

I had other questions, but I think these 15 questions are a good start.  Please note I am copying these to the SCV Chief of Heritage Defense with this email since perhaps it is his authority within the SCV to answer these questions.

Sincerely Yours,

Edward H. Sebesta


1.   The prefix “neo” means new in a case where something is a new version of something in the past. For example there is neo-Classical architecture, music, and art. Today a group of people who claim to have the “principles” and “ideals” of the Confederate soldier, which is part of The Charge to the SCV, are certainly not surviving Confederate soldiers, but are new holders of their beliefs. Wouldn’t neo-Confederate be a proper recognition that these are new Confederates?

Question: What is the SCV objection to the term “neo-Confederate”?

2.   The states which are considered as being former states of the Confederacy vary with different groups and individuals.

Question: Which states does the SCV consider former states of the Confederacy?

3.   The SCV has a program called Vision 2016. It is described in an article “Our Southern Vision,” by Thomas Y. Hiter, SCV Chief of Heritage Defense, in the Nov. /Dec. 2011 issue of the Confederate Veteran, official publication of the SCV, on pages 10-11. In reading the article it can be perceived that the SCV has a political agenda though it is partly stated in terms that the non-member might not understand.

Hiter reports that in February 2011 the General Executive Council adopted “The Vision” statement. This vision statement sets goals for the year 2016 reunion of the SCV of membership growth, and from the statement, “… and is widely seen by others as the pre-eminent authority on Southern heritage and American liberty.”  The reference to “American liberty” might be understood that they are going to have a historical interest in American concepts of liberty and the Constitution, however reading further it becomes apparent that there is a political component.

Hiter in bold face has a statement of belief of the SCV, “We believe in God, home, family, heritage, duty, liberty, freedom, self-determination, self-government, patriotism, truth and self-defense,” and further asserts that “most Southerners” believe this and that the actions of the SCV “can make a difference in achieving these things.”
It is subsequent to this statement that Hiter it becomes more apparent that it is a political agenda.

After the statement of belief Hiter writes, “In other words, we believe in our heritage. Now there are other facets of the SCV than Heritage Defense.” He then lists the usual “heritage” activities of the SCV and then states, “But all in all, over and above that, we stand ready to fight all over the battles which President Davis predicted we would fight when the Cause they fought for once again rears its head and calls for attention and eventual victory.”

To persons outside the neo-Confederate movement this reference to Confederate president Davis may be obscure. Davis asserted that the issues of the attempted secession were ideological and that the issues would arise again in the future. Davis said:

“The principle for which we contend is bound to reassert itself, though it may be at another time and in another form.”

This quote is commonly referred to by neo-Confederates as being from an 1871 address to the Mississippi state legislature. I haven’t found the historical reference for it. Hiter is explaining with this reference to Davis prediction that the SCV is preparing to get involved in “battles” over principles.

Hiter becomes even more clear that it is a political agenda in his statement about media awareness of the SCV.

Today they know us, but are a bit confused about who we are and what we want. Some confuse us with the Klan, or some other undesirable group. Others think we are reenactors or some other worthwhile but essentially benign, association.

We are neither. We are the descendants of the men who gained our freedom from English despotism and who fought a bloody four-year-long war against Yankee despotism for the same reason, and who have no intention now of surrendering to modern one-world-socialist despotism now!

Here Hiter declares that the SCV isn’t just an association unengaged in the political questions of the day, but instead they are going to be ready to fight future political battles.

More ominously Hiter refers to a yet potential armed conflict:

Now it is our turn to step into the breach and show the world the same God-given truths which motivated the patriots of 1776, motivated those of 1861, and that we stand today to advance the same cause they stood for then.

Happily, we are not called, yet, to arms in defense of our liberties or our lives.

In online presentations Hiter states that the goal of the SCV is to reclaim “American liberty,” which again implies a plan of action to achieve a goal.

Question: What is “American liberty” and what is the agenda of the SCV to “reclaim American liberty”?

4.   The SCV sells and endorses the movie “Birth of a Nation” which glorifies the Ku Klux Klan and has been selling it for sometime as a Confederate gift. In the Confederate Veteran the SCV has endorsed in a book review Michael Andrew Grissom’s book, “Southern By the Grace of God” which portrays the KKK as saviors of the South during reconstruction and recommends the books of Thomas Dixon. The SCV sells this book as a “Confederate” gift. The SCV sells this book online, in their catalog, and in the Confederate Veteran.

Question: If the SCV is against the KKK why does it sell pro-KKK material?

5.   The SCV sells and endorses a book “South Under Siege” by Frank Conner in which he argues that the 20th Century Civil Rights movement was a Jewish conspiracy to an attack the South.  Here are some quotes from the book:
From page 391:
Thereafter, the German Jews and Russian Jews cooperated to the extent necessary to direct the postwar Southern black-civil-rights movement in the U.S (as we shall note), and oversee the destruction of the traditional white Southerners as a people.
The American Jews seem to have reached a compromise position between the Reformed Jews’ desire to stay out of government and instead run the people who run the U.S. (and the world), so as to retain their moral superiority; and the Russian Jews’ desire to take over the government and run the U.S. (and the world) themselves.
From page 393:
Until after the turn of the 20th century, anthropologists had routinely recorded genetic as well as cultural differences between races and ethnic groups—that being the whole point of anthropology. The highlighted differences among races hand include those of intelligence. But as Kevin McDonald points out in The Culture of Critique, a German-Jewish-immigrant anthropologist named Frank Boas changed all that. At Columbia, Boas arbitrarily claimed that biological differences between the races were miniscule—that environment alone shaped the behavior of the different races and ethnic groups (a la Rousseau). A number of other Jewish anthropologists swiftly adopted the Boas’ position; and soon the Jews dominated the field of cultural anthropology. As MacDonald points out, by 1915 the Jews had gained control of the American Anthropological Association; and by 1926 they were chairing the anthropology departments at all of the major universities.

Question: Why is the SCV promoting anti-Semitic books?

6.   In the April 2008 issue of the Chaplain’s Corp Chronicles, a publication of the SCV’s Chaplain’s Corps, is a review praising “Antebellum Slavery: An Orthodox Christian View,” by a Council of Conservative Citizens leader Gary Roper, reviewed by Michael Andrew Grissom who praises the book. The view of the book is that the Bible justifies slavery. This book is sold by the SCV in the Confederate Veteran as a “Confederate” gift and in the SCV catalogs.

Since 2001 the SCV has also sold in the Confederate Veteran, as either “Southern Gifts” or “Confederate Gifts,” books which are defenses of antebellum slavery such as “Myths and Realities of Antebellum Slavery” by John C. Perry, “Myths of American Slavery” by Walter D. Kennedy as well as other defenses of slavery such as Albert T. Bledsoe’s “Liberty and Slavery.”

The SCV’s latest catalog, an insert in the Sept. /Oct. 2013 issue of the Confederate Veteran, as well as the “Confederate Gifts” bookstore section in the Sept./Oct. 2012 issue of the Confederate Veteran sold “Myths of American Slavery” by Walter D. Kennedy with his condemnation of the Southern Baptists for their apology over slavery and claims that abolitionists were anti-Christian.

Question: Does the SCV feel that the Bible defends antebellum slavery?

7.   Starting in the Vol. 1 2001 Confederate Veteran to the Sept./Oct. Confederate Veteran catalog insert, as either a “Classic Southern Reprint” or a “Confederate Gift,” the SCV has sold the book, “The Legal & Historical Status of the Dred Scott Decision,” by Elbert William R. Ewing which is a defense of the Supreme Court Dred Scott decision. One key part of the Dred Scott decision was that persons of African descent inherently weren’t citizens and had no rights.

Question: Does the SCV think the Dred Scott Decision was right or wrong?

8.   The Southern Mercury was published by the Foundation for Preserving American Culture, Inc. which is listed on its masthead that it is “An educational foundation of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc.” In the Vol. 4 No. 4, July/Aug. 2006 Southern Mercury is an article titled “The Tolerance Scam,” pages 8-9, 30-34, by Michael W. Masters, who has been involved with the Council of Conservative Citizens ( The editor for this issue is Frank B. Powell, III, who is also the editor of the Confederate Veteran.

The article isn’t so much about the Southern Poverty Law Center as an attack on the civil rights movement as a Marxist conspiracy, fear mongering about immigrants, and an attack on the very concept of anti-racism itself.

From Page 30

Using the wedge of anti-racism cultural Marxists orchestrated judicial and legislative changes over the course of decades ¾ e.g. Brown v. Board of Education in 1955, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Immigration Reform Act of 1965. … The cultural Marxists relentlessly hammered away at Western cultural norms using the sledge of anti-racism as a battering ram to bring down the walls of traditional Western culture.

Given the type of books that the SCV endorses and sells it appears that there is a public face and private face of the SCV regarding racism.

Question: Given the type of books the SCV endorses and given that the SCV’s educational publication instructs its readers that anti-racism is a tool to destroy Western civilization, can the SCV’s claims of being anti-racist be taken seriously”

9.   Along with the books mentioned in the prior questions the selection of books the SCV sells raises issues as to how the SCV selects the books it decides to sell. For example, on unpaginated page 35 in the Vol. 2 2002 Confederate Veteran Patrick J. Buchanan’s book “The Death of the West: How Dying Populations and Immigrant Invasions Imperil our Country and Civilization,” is offered as a “Classic Southern Reprint,” with the endorsement, “Bursting with facts, from which the reader can draw his own conclusions. Should be required reading for every American voter.” This book isn’t about the Confederacy and it doesn’t present itself as a southern issue, but it is offered as a “Classic Southern Reprint” with the SCV’s endorsement of the book.

Question: What is the decision making process in the SCV’s selection of books it offers for sale?

10.                In the Sept. /Oct. 2003, Vol. 1 No. 2, pages 10-14, Southern Mercury Frank Conner has an white supremacist article “Where We Stand Now: And How We Got Here.” In it, African Americans are asserted to have low IQs, a fact which has supposedly been covered up by a liberal conspiracy. In a section of his article titled, “Liberals Create a False Public Image of the Blacks,” Conner writes:

Previously, anthropologists had routinely recorded the notable differences in IQ among the races; but at Columbia, a liberal cultural anthropologist named Franz Boas now changed all of that. He decreed that there were no differences in IQ among the races, and the only biological differences between the blacks and white were of superficial nature. The liberals swiftly made it academically suicidal to challenge Boas’ flat assertion. Meanwhile, the liberals in the media heaped special praise upon black athletes, musicians, singers, and writers – and treated them as typical of the black race. The liberals were creating a false image of the blacks in America as a highly competent people who were being held back by the prejudiced white southerners.

The 1954 Supreme Court decision Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka is denounced by Conner as “patently-unconstitutional.” Conner also sees the landmark civil rights legislation the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 as “patently-unconstitutional”. Civil rights legislation is denounced by Conner as being part of a liberal conspiracy, which he calls “Reconstruction II.” He explains: “Black civil rights was simply the best moral weapon with which to destroy the white Southerners as a people – just as it had been in the 19th century.” The creation of Jim Crow is defended. Conner calling African Americans “a childlike people” and that “the white Southerners had disenfranchised and segregated the blacks, in perhaps the mildest reaction possible at that time to the black’s transgressions.”

Conner sees civil rights and efforts against racism as a means to destroy the South and America stating: 

Thus reinforced, Reconstruction II is steadily shredding the traditional white society – first in the South and then the rest of the nation. But the liberals are in a big hurry to replace Christianity with secular humanism and limited government with socialism.

This article was not an isolated example in the Southern Mercury. In another Southern Mercury article, Vol. 2 No. 1, pages 5-7, 32-33, “The Enemy’s Strategy,” the Frank Conner writes:

The liberals overran the South’s main defenses during the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s, and outthought and outfought and intimidated and demoralized the white Southerners so badly then that most of our people reacted by pretending that this war is not even happening.

Nor are such sentiments confined to just the Southern Mercury. In the March/April 2012 Confederate Veteran, in the cover article by Boyd Cathey, “The Land We Love: Southern Tradition and Our Future,” pages 16-23, 56-59, civil rights is held to be an attack on the South. Boyd states, “Southerners have understood perforce that the races must live and work side by side, and hopefully harmoniously, but that did not imply legal and social equality for all, either black or white.” 

Cathey also believes that the “Southern republicanism is anti-egalitarian” and as a consequence everyone didn’t “have some unqualified right to participate in or rule over the commonwealth. Participation in government wasn’t based on the modern concept of ‘one man, one vote.’”

Cathey perceives the 1950s and 1960s civil rights movement as an attack on the South:

The decisions of the Supreme Court, the triumph of the civil rights movement which in some ways was a frontal attack on constitutional republicanism and the rights of property, and the triumph of political correctness and cultural Marxism, all signaled the beginning of a “Second War of Northern Aggression” aimed at totally reshaping and restructuring our culture and at rejecting the principles and beliefs our ancestors.

The SCV also sells and endorses books such as the “South Was Right!” by James Ronald Kennedy and Walter Donald Kennedy which denounce the Voting Rights Act.

Questions: What is the SCV position on the mid-20th century civil rights movement, court decisions, and laws? Is there any civil rights legislation of the 19th, 20th or 21st century of which the SCV approves?

11.                SCV chaplains in the SCV Chaplain Corps use the terms ‘sodomites’ and ‘sodomy’ when referring to and condemning gays.

H. Rondel Rumburg, past Chaplain-in-Chief of the SCV, in the March 2007 issue of the Chaplain’s Corps Chronicles of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, pages 4-8, condemns those who would support historical apologies by the State of Virginia for past wrongs stating that “these same people need to confess their own offenses to God and to the people they have mislead,” among the things Rumburg considers offenses, is that of being, “guilty of protecting sodomites, thus spreading AIDS.” In another article in Sept. 2009 issue of the Chaplain’s Corp Chronicles, unpaginated, pages 10-13, Rumburg laments that after the Civil War “Deconstructionists” worked to bring humanism to the South which he claims has had disastrous results, among other things such as “an enthroning of sodomy as a preferred lifestyle.”

Former Chaplain-in-Chief Alister C. Anderson gave the Invocation delivered at the Confederate Evangelistic Sesquicentennial Service on February 25, 2012 which was reprinted in the April 2012 issue of the Chaplain’s Corp Chronicles, pages 12-15. In it he enthusiastically praises “Southern ancestors” that they were “manly men who preached about ‘tough love’ and who would not condone the ministry and preaching of non-Biblical, cheesy, whinny, quiche-eating, effete, effeminate pastors who were afraid of their own shadow,” which presumably is a criticism of contemporary pastors. Further, Anderson worries, “O Lord Jesus Christ, could the radical, despotic, contempt for women, Jihadist Muslim critique of our supposedly Judeo-Christian civilization be true?,” and “O Lord, are we a narcissistic, selfish, self-centered, spectator-oriented, voyeuristic pornographic culture that is possessed with the desire for elicit [sic] sexual activity, fornication, and sodomy?”

In the Sept. /Oct. 2009 Confederate Veteran Chaplain-in-Chief Cecil A. Fayard, Jr., in the Chaplain’s Comments section, pages 12-13, 45, asserts that America is in trouble.  Fayard says that America has become immoral, "We have sown immorality," he writes and "We live in a very loose society, a wicked nation morally. All types of unspeakable and deplorable acts are being committed by deviant men and women." Fayard also states as a sign that America is in trouble is that “One school curriculum in America teaches acceptance of homosexuality in the first grade…”

Michael Masters in the previously mentioned Southern Mercury article, “Tolerance Scam” sees the campaign for Lesbian and gay rights as a Marxist conspiracy against society writing:

And just as the Bolsheviks inflamed the masses to violence against the Russian aristocracy, today’s cultural Marxists harness the massed numbers of a new proletariat – composed of people of color, feminists, homosexuals and other disaffected groups – to secure social acceptance and the numbers sufficient to convey political power.

In the Vol. 6 1999 Confederate Veteran, in the column, “Chaplain’s Comments,” pages 60-61, Chaplain-in-Chief Alister C. Anderson tells the SCV membership:

My brother compatriots. I ask you to remember that we are soldiers in the Army of God and are organized along the military lines of our ancestors. We are called to discipline ourselves so that we can train and teach our posterity about the true history and moral foundation of our ancestors’ lives. I ask you to remember that the spiritual discipline within our brotherhood is essential for the success of our missing and in a larger sense is crucial for the survival of our Republic in these dreadfully immoral times.

Question: Is the SCV opposed to legal protections against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, same-sex-marriage, the elimination of laws against same sex relations, or gay and Lesbian clergy?

  1. The Nov. /Dec. 2012 issue of Confederate Veteran cover article is, “Lincoln’s Band of Tyrants.” In this article President Lincoln’s preservation of the Union during the Civil War is held to have advanced a communist agenda against states’ rights. Lincoln’s preservation of the Union is supposed to parallel Adolph Hitler’s creation of the Third Reich. The essay concludes that, “Lincoln, Marx, Engels and Hitler are indeed a strange but deadly ‘Band of Brothers.’” Kennedy further asserts that the communist and Nazi dictators of the 20th century are held to be inspired and instructed by Lincoln.
In the March/April 2008 issue of Southern Mercury is an article by Alan Stang titled “Republican Party: Red from the Start,” in which the Republican Party is asserted have had Communist influence from the beginning. Stang discusses complaints made by supporters of Ron Paul that the Republican Party has lost its way and needs to return to its original principles. Stang rejects this arguing that the Republican Party did not “go wrong,” did not “go left,” and further stating:

It has been wrong from the beginning, from the day it was founded. From the beginning the Republican Party has worked without deviation for bigger, more imperial government, for higher taxes, for more wars, and for more totalitarianism. From the beginning, the Republican Party has been Red.

By “Red,” Stang means communist. Stang thinks that if Robert E. Lee and Thomas (Stonewall) Jackson had been better informed about the issues of the Civil War he would have “hanged our first Communist President [i.e. Abraham Lincoln]”. Stang explains:

Lee and Jackson did not fully comprehend what they were fighting. Had this really been a “Civil” War, rather than a secession, they would and could easily have seized Washington after Manassas and hanged our first Communist President and the other war criminals.
Question: Aren’t these articles comparing Lincoln to Hitler and calling him a communist as well as alleging that the Republican Party has been part of a communist conspiracy from the beginning, and asserting that Robert E. Lee and Thomas Jackson would have hanged Lincoln if they were better informed fairly extremist beliefs?
  1. Why is the SCV restricted to persons descended from Confederates? If a person has a positive view of the Confederacy why not have them be members instead of auxiliary members? What is the necessity of being a descendant? Is the SCV setting themselves up, intentionally or unintentionally, as a hereditary cast of Southerners who are more southern than others?
  2. Why only male members? This is the 21st century and not the early 20th century. True the name is Sons of Confederate Veterans, but names can be changed. The SCV has changed its name before. The SCV allows a person to join with proof being a descendant and paying dues. The UDC has more restrictive policies in which you have to be asked in or have a sponsor. The UDC isn't an alternative, but even if they were, why not open up to women instead of confining them to an auxiliary group The Order of the Confederate Rose?
  3. The original name of the SCV was the United Sons of Confederate Veterans (USCV) similar to the names United Daughters of the Confederacy and United Confederate Veterans. In the book “Ghosts of the Confederacy,” LSU Press, Gaines M. Foster states that the name of the USCV was changed because its members were horrified that the initials were the same as for the United States Colored Volunteers.
Question: Why did the USCV drop "United" from their name?

Sunday, April 20, 2014

Will have questions for Thomas Y. Hiter about the SCV

Dr. Hiter is head of the 2016 Vision program at the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) which is defining what the SCV is. In his letter to me has the following sentences:
"We are more than willing to enter into a dialog with you or anybody else at any time concerning the Confederate solider; that is our charge."
"If you have questions concerning our stand on race, history, or the Confederate soldier, why not ask us?"
"We will answer anybody's questions; we will enter into public debate."
Hiter also criticizes me conducting my letter campaign "instead" of asking questions of the SCV.

So I do have some questions regarding the SCV and I do plan on utilizing this opportunity to learn about the SCV.

I did some brainstorming this morning and came up with 91 questions or topics on which to ask questions. With this unique opportunity I wanted to think about some questions regarding the SCV regarding its identity, history, and how they conceive of historical memory. There are some particular questions about race and racism, but there are broader questions. Let me list here three of them that people might not think to ask.

1. Why is the SCV restricted to persons descended from Confederates? If a person has a positive view of the Confederacy why not have them be members instead of auxiliary members? What is the necessity of being a descendant? Is the SCV setting themselves up, intentionally or unintentionally, as a hereditary cast of Southerners who are more southern than others?

2. Why only male members? This is the 21st century and not the early 20th century. True the name is Sons of Confederate Veterans, but names can be changed. The SCV has changed its name before. The SCV allows a person to join with proof being a descendant and paying dues. The UDC has more restrictive policies in which you have to be asked in or have a sponsor. The UDC isn't an alternative, but even if they were, why not open up to women instead of confining them to an auxiliary group The Order of the Confederate Rose?

3. The original name of the SCV was the United Sons of Confederate Veterans similar to the names United Daughters of the Confederacy and United Confederate Veterans. Why did the USCV drop "United" from their name?

I have other questions. Sometimes people just assume they know the answer. In other cases no one thinks to ask a question about something, how ever things are now, the person takes them as a given. I think I will have a core set of ten questions, but it might be more.

I have not as of the time of this posting heard back from Dr. Hiter.


My questions which I sent to Dr. Hiter by email are in this blog posting.

Thursday, April 17, 2014

Dr. Thomas Y. Hiter, former head of the Sons of Confederate Veterans Heritage Defense writes me a letter.

I received a letter today, 4/17/14, from Dr. Thomas Y. Hiter, former head of the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) Heritage Defense. I am reading it this coming weekend April 19, 20, 2014.

I have emailed him today acknowledging the receipt of the letter and asking to be able to publish his letter along with my response. I don't want to Mr. Hiter to the claim that I have quoted him out of context or quoted too much of his letter.

I will be publishing online a response to his letter regardless.

Wednesday, April 16, 2014

Neo-Confederate married religious leader Doug Phillips sued for sexually abusing another woman.

The Vision Forum of Doug Phillips is shut down. The website  has the message, "Thank You for 15 Years" and notifying that they are shutting down. You can download the catalog covers of their catalogs of the 15 years. I have many of their catalogs. They are really something to read. Knowing now of this scandal retrospectively the sections on "Beautiful Girlhood" strike me as creepy.

Why might The Vision Forum be shutting down? This story from the Christian Post explains what is happening with Doug Phillips.

The Vision Forum ministry has this message on its closure:

This is a link to an article explaining Doug Phillips' Confederate interests.

Doug Phillips is a leader in what the members of the movement call the "Quiverfull" movement. "Quiverfull" movement members reject contraception and try to have as many children as possible. I think the reader can figure out what the "quiver" is and of what it is full.

Monday, April 14, 2014

"the Confederacy's central aim: to preserve (as Barr puts it) 'the right to own, exploit, and rape African Americans and their descendants forever.'"

Michael Burlingame wrote a very good dust jacket paragraph for "Loathing Lincoln" by John Barr.

“Paradoxically, America’s most revered president has also been its most reviled. As John McKee Barr shows in this meticulous, comprehensive survey of the anti-Lincoln tradition, detractors of the Rail-splitter have been a variegated crowd of strange bedfellows: white supremacists, Black Panthers, libertarians, neo-Confederates, agrarian romantics, Southern chauvinists, states’ rights advocates, and anti-imperialists, among others. Barr describes and analyzes their arguments, demonstrating that many of Lincoln’s critics have overlooked (or denied) the Confederacy’s central aim: to preserve (as Barr puts it) ‘the right to own, exploit, and rape African Americans and their descendants—forever.’”—Michael Burlingame, Chancellor Naomi B. Lynn Distinguished Chair in Lincoln Studies, University of Illinois–Springfield - See more at:

Sunday, April 06, 2014

John Barr speaking engagement about book "Loathing Lincoln" at Lonestar College

At Lonestar-Kingwood a book signing will be held on campus on Tuesday, April 22, at 12:30 p.m. at the CLA Building Room 114.

The details of the speaking engagement are at this link:

Other Barr speaking engagements can be found with the tag John Barr and at these blog postings.

This is the posting about his New York City speaking engagement.

This is the posting about the Houston speaking engagement and the Chicago speaking engagement.

Friday, April 04, 2014

John Barr speaks on Lincoln haters in New York City/ Author gives me a dedicated copy.

John Barr will be speaking in New York City July 9, 2014, 7:00 pm, at Bryant Park,

The schedule for the park is online here:

I have blogged on his other speaking events.

John's website is at:

It has been just started and parts are still under construction.

John Barr was so kind as to send me a copy of his book with a dedication written into it and with a kind note thanking me for my help, as well as a very kind acknowledgement.

For 20 years I have been compiling a record of the anti-Lincoln hysteria of the neo-Confederates, and I really am grateful that John Barr came along and was able to put the material to good use in his book. I owe him my thanks and have expressed my thanks to him.

Saturday, March 29, 2014

Churches of the Confederacy web pages are updated

I have updated all the web pages that go with

Roman Catholic Diocese of Richmond Bishop's letter about neo-Confederates

I got a short letter from Most Rev. Francis X. DiLorenzo of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Richmond in Virginia.

I had written him about the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) and the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC). He writes that he knows of no such groups meeting at the Roman Catholic churches. Which is correct, I don't know of any either. The letter was passed to a staff member.

What is important is that know the Diocese of Richmond does know about the issue. They don't currently host any neo-Confederate groups, but being informed about the issue, I think they will make sure they don't host any in the future in order to avoid controversy. The letter also shows that they take the issue seriously enough to write me.

When the Episcopal church in the Richmond area give up the Confederacy the Roman Catholic church won't be an alternative.

I think that as more and more churches receive letters the word is going to get around about this issue. Church leaders can easily see that this is a mess that is much easier to avoid than getting yourself out of it.

I haven't heard back from the bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Dallas or the Diocese of Charleston. I am giving matters a couple months before the write Pope Francis.

I am still writing a lot of churches. Once I am done I will be writing social justice groups in the various denominations involved.

Friday, March 28, 2014

Public Broadcasting System is showing a series titled "The Abolitionists"

The Public Broadcasting System (PBS) is showing a series titled "The Abolitionists." The following link is to a web page about the series.

They have video clips at the web page and a wealth of information.

I think this is wonderful. They were courageous individuals who changed our nation and set it on the path of abolishing slavery.

Segments of the series are online at You Tube.

I think that there is a cultural turning away from the "Gone With the Wind" mentality.

The abolitionists portrayed are, in order of appearance, Angelina Grimke', Frederick Douglass, William Lloyd Garrison, Harriet Beecher Stowe, and John Brown.

It will be interesting to see how the public judges churches that enable neo-Confederate groups, in contrasting their lack of courage and concern with the heroic abolitionists.

Thursday, March 27, 2014

John Barr will be speaking about his book, "Loathing Lincoln," at the Abraham Lincoln Book Store in Chicago, Brazos Bookstore in Houston

On April 14, 2014 John Barr will be speaking at the Brazos Book Store in Houston, Texas starting at 7pm.

The link to the event is

The book store is at 2421 Bissonnet St., Houston, Texas 77005-1451. The following is a link to a Google maps of the book store's location.,-95.4163249,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x8640c0f5677a6a2d:0x4419dc4720f65159

John Barr will be speaking about his book, "Loathing Lincoln," at the Abraham Lincoln book store in Chicago, Illinois on May 24, 2014 at Noon.

The link for the events at the Abraham Lincoln book store is at:

The address is 357 West Chicago Avenue - Chicago, IL 60654. Below is a google maps link for the location.,-87.637954,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x880fd34ab0023cad:0x240ce9cd7dc78a53

John Barr is currently getting his blogs, Facebook page, website started and I will be blogging on them as soon as he gets them going.

More speaking engagements are planned and as soon as I know of them I will be blogging about them.

The situation is developing and Barr's book is getting strong interest.

Sunday, March 23, 2014

Breaking News: Neo-Confederate tries to win Anne Arundel County Democratic Party Committee seat. UPDATE:

I just was informed about this web page

If you go down the page you find out that Pastor David Whitney of the neo-Confederate Institute on the Constitution (IOTC) is running against her.

The IOTC web is

The web address is somewhat laughable since it really is the Confederate View.

Pastor Whitney is running for a Democratic Central Committee seat. The reason why this is a matter of concern is that people are generally fairly unaware of this office, the turn out can be very low, and it would be possible for a small group to win if the public was not alerted to the problem.

This article in the American Review of American Studies at the Univ. of Toronto gives a good idea of the religious beliefs of the neo-Confederate movement.

Worked today and got back and started to look into this further.

Pastor David Whitney doesn't like the Harlem Shake in an article where some Christian leaders express opposition to Christian students doing the Harlem Shake.

With that in mind I offer these videos of students at Christian institutions doing the Harlem Shake. Horrors! Some of these Christian students seem to be having fun! Oh the ungodliness of it all. ;-).

Saturday, March 22, 2014

The use of the term "flag flap" as revealing of the attitudes of the user

One of the frequently used phrases in reporting the news on the controversies regarding the use of the Confederate flag in public life is to use the phrase, "flag flap." This needs to be recognized as the editorial comment it is. The use of the phrase is a comment that the topic of controversy is trivial.

This dismissive tone is never taken in reporting holocaust deniers. You won't see an article titled or using the belittling phrases, "holocaust hassle," "history hiccup," "history hissyfit," or "holocaust flap."

Debates over American flag burning aren't dismissed as "Flag Flaps" either, but are reported as a serious issue.

Confederate identified governments and a Confederate identified landscape is a real issue. When a government body decides to use a Confederate flag or a place decides to use a Confederate flag they are defining who they are, their identity, and they are racializing the landscape. Attempting to achieve a Confederate identity or give a location a Confederate identity is a serious issue.

The trivializing language used for reporting Confederate flag controversies as opposed to controversies on the holocaust of the Jews is because, rightly so, we see Jewish people as being part of "us," and for many reporters, "African Americans" are still seen as "them." The use of the term "Flag flap" is revealing of the journalists' or writers most interior attitudes on race.

Also, I feel the constant use of the term "Flag Flap" is a means of defending the Confederate flag and symbols, by denigrating the opposition to them as being wrongly pre-occupied with triviality. The use of the term "flag flap" is a subtle defense of the status quo, thus a defense of the Confederate flag.

Wonders never cease, "Washington Post" Op-Ed argues that Democrats in the South should take a public stand against the Confederate flag

I was just astounded that the Washington Post ran this Op-Ed by Drew Westen at Emory University in Georgia arguing that the Democrats should take a public stand against the Confederate flag. Mudcat Sanders must be having a fit.

Writing about the Republican campaign strategy in the Georgia gubernatorial race:
This year, the strategy has taken the form of a debate about custom license plates — in particular, a Georgia license plate sporting a broad, bold display of the Confederate battle flag. Democrats have traditionally struggled to counter such race-baiting. And Republicans are wasting no time in running Southern pride and prejudice up the flagpole against the two most promising Democrats to run for statewide office in Georgia in a decade: Jason Carter, grandson of President Jimmy Carter and a candidate for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination; and Michelle Nunn, daughter of the popular Democratic senator Sam Nunn and a candidate for the U.S. Senate.
Westen argues to oppose this strategy the Democrats should:
Too often, Democrats have dealt with racial issues by avoiding them. Research shows that’s the wrong strategy, particularly in the South. Speaking directly about race allows our conscious values — which tend to be intolerant of racial intolerance, even in the heart of Dixie — to override our unconscious prejudices, which control our behavior when we’re not looking, or when other people aren’t, as in the voting booth. The best way to handle this kind of dog-whistle politics is to expose it for what it is.
Westen is right, the strategy of the Democrats had been to avoid the Confederate flag issue as much as possible in the hope of shaking loose a few extra white votes. Mudcat Sanders was a political consultant who argued for this position. In one article I read that his bed had a Confederate battle flag bed spread which is a sort of obvious and idiotic way of making a statement. (If some political operatives use dog whistles then Sanders was using a fog horn.) The Washington Post as a consequence of this policy and as a consequence of being the house publication of the Democratic party has avoided really critically examining the Lost Cause or arguing against the Lost Cause. I suppose also the Graham family that had owned the paper didn't want relatives or people at the club or acquaintances with Confederate ancestors and Lost Cause attitudes complaining either.

So I am so amazed to see this article. On the other hand I think that this change in attitude is confined to the Confederate battle flag and isn't intended to challenge the Lost Cause generally, but still it is a major shift for the Democrats in the South. Also, once you decide the Confederate flag isn't really desirable you are forced to engage the Lost Cause. The Democrats will be slow learners but I think they will learn.

For the Washington Post it certainly is a surprise. This is the third major article in the Post indicating a shift regarding the Lost Cause.

Not too long ago there was this Washington Post blog asking why Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson are in the Washington National Cathedral. This was known by a lot of people previously, but it wasn't commented on.I refer to the Post blog in this posting.

Then there is this Washington Post column by Colbert King likening the Republicans to the Confederacy.I refer to it at this posting.

I think some Democrats have figured out that there really isn't a reason to vote for them unless they represent a choice for the voters.

Former president Jimmy Carter is somewhat fond of the Confederacy and so it would be interesting to what extent Jason Carter will give up the Lost Cause or how he will frame the argument against the Confederate battle flag.

"Gawker" has article on League of the South

Gawker, an online news source, had an article on the League of the South. It is online here:

A reporter for Gawker went to a League of the South protest against immigration and Republican Florida U.S. Senator Marcio Rubio for his policies regarding immigration. The League of the South billboard with the word "SECEDE" has attracted local attention which is what billboards are designed to do, but in this case there is extra attention since you don't often see a billboard urging secession.

Link to League of the South web page on demonstration.  Link to Facebook page on demonstration.

Link to League of the South web page about the billboard.

What is of notice regarding the billboard is that the League of the South has the money to pay for it. Billboards cost a lot of money. I thought the League of the South was just a remnant of former self and would be just fading away over time. They have a physical headquarters also.  So they seem to be persisting, perhaps growing..

They also seem to have become activist group rather than a perpetual study committee.

Adam Weinstein also notes how the League of the South manages the media.
The way I met Hill was this: I started talking to Snuffy Smith with the Liberian flag, and three minutes later, Hill came urgently striding over like a recess teacher on the playground. "Media?" he asked. "Talk to me. Talk to me."
Michael Hill actually denied being neo-Confederate to the reporter. Which shows that neo-Confederates will say anything if it is expedient. Weinstein reports:

As suspect as that talk may sound, Hill insists his group is not neo-Confederate: "We're not so blind as to think that we can turn back the clock and have things the way that it was 100, 150 years ago, and we don't want to do that. We're men and women who live in the age that we've been placed, and we're not romantic dreamers of some idyllic past or something like that." 
Hill's Facebook page suggests otherwise. In late January, for example, he posted a note celebrating the birthdays of Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson. "[L]et us emulate them and continue the honorable cause that motivated these two noble Southern men—the survival, well being, and independence of the Southern people," he wrote.

The following day was MLK Day, so Hill added another thought. "Note: If you wish to honor Martin Luther King, Jr. please go elsewhere. He is not one of us," he wrote of the Atlanta-born Southern preacher.
The read learns that the neo-Confederate movement can be less than candid.

Weinstein reports Hill Facebook posting the next day where Hill makes his views clear: 
On this day when the racial propagandizing of America reaches it[s] ugly zenith, I offer a simple photo graph of Johannesburg, South Africa, in 1952 and ask you to contrast it with the same city today. Or with Detroit, Memphis, Birmingham, etc, etc. When will we stop believing lies and turn this situation around for the very preservation of our civilization?
Weinstein is perceptive enough to see how neo-Confederacy could have popular appeal and that people should not just laugh them off:
Perhaps this scene reinforces the League's reputation as a comical fringe element, a gaggle of old racist Lost Cause types who dream of the Confederate battle flag again gracing their statehouses, who lament the Union's retardation of their familial livelihoods. And their manhoods. "There were more men in America in 1776 than there are today," Hill recently wrote on Facebook. "[I]t can be changed, you know. Just 'man up,' as they say!"

But intellectual elites and newsmen caricature this movement at their own peril. One of the most famous Southern revivalists of the last century wrote a conservative manifesto titled "Ideas Have Consequences," and in America, in 2014, the League of the South's ideas are not without consequence.

Beyond its race-tinged Dixie jingoism, much of the League's public rhetoric is in line with a wider American attitude. It emphasizes truly small government—the dictatorship of the individual, the republic of the family, the overthrow of the cultural and bureaucratic forces that the League believes threaten our insular networks and affinity groups.

This dovetails not simply with neo-Confederacy and conservatism but with a broader, bipartisan disillusionment with government and mass media—the contemporary ethos that elevates selves and loved ones above the din of 308 million meatsticks screaming, stamping, belching, reaching nothing but the most tenuous consensus on anything enduring. Get government out of the way. Abolish artificial ties with strangers. Focus on the immediate, the personal, the deeply felt—"faith, family, and folk," as the League puts it.
In the recent decade we have seen neo-Confederate ideas slip into the mainstream such as nullification. Weinstein realizes that the neo-Confederate movement has a potential to be a serious problem. 

Richard Weaver who wrote "Ideas Have Consequences" also wrote a key founding book of the neo-Confederate movement, "The Southern Tradition at Bay," edited by M.E. Bradford and George Core. Core and Bradford explained in the book that Richard Weaver's conservative ideas were neo-Confederate ideas reformulated to appeal to broader audiences.

The article has, if I understand the indicators by it, 29,000+ readers and has been shared. So it does help people become aware of the neo-Confederate movement and be warned. However, it also helps the League of the South get new members.  However, I think that this article is overall good in that it is an accurate portrayal of the League of the South revealing that they have a racist agenda and also importantly that they try to not represent it to the media. Importantly, Weinstein sees that the neo-Confederate movement could have a broader appeal and is a potential menace. 

Tuesday, March 18, 2014

Letter from the Archdiocese of San Antonio

I got a letter from the Archbishop of San Antonio. The letter opens with the following opening paragraph which was a quote as follows:
"Every type of discrimination, whether social or cultural, whether based on sex race, color, social condition, language or religion, is to be overcome and eradicated as contrary to God's intent." -- Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World (Guadium et Spes), 29." 
The Archbishop thanks me for the information that I have send and informs me that they will "do our best to never let our sanctuaries be co-opted by any message that stands against the truth of the Gospel of Christ." Doesn't exactly say that they won't let the Sons of Confederate Veterans meet at their churches.

However, as for the Dallas Diocese the Archbishop informs me that he doesn't have "pastorship of those parishes there." The Archdiocese of San Antonio includes Dallas so I don't understand how he doesn't have influence there as to policy. I will have to do a follow up letter.

I do appreciate knowing about "Gaudium et Spes," and will follow up with research concerning it. However a resolution or policy only is of real substance if it is implemented.

I have some more letters to write to Roman Catholic leaders in the United States then if not satisfactory I will be writing Pope Francis. I haven't heard back from the Diocese of Charleston and it has been some time, but I still need to wait for the replies from the Archdiocese of Baltimore and the Diocese of Richmond.

Sunday, March 16, 2014

United Daughters of the Confederacy realizes that they are an embarrassment to the churches

The United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC) has realized that they are an embarrassment to the churches. They are going into stealth mode.

If you view this web page today (3/16/2014) about the North Carolina Division of the UDC you will notice that they are planning on having a church service for their 2015 reunion at a church in downtown Raleigh, NC.

However, if you go to the Internet archive and view their web page as it was on Jan. 1, 2014:

You would see that they are planning to have their memorial service at Edenton Street United Methodist Church.

I have a printed out Google Cache page showing that as late as Jan. 22, 2014 the web page mentioned Edenton Street United Methodist Church.

Edenton Street United Methodist Church also runs The Gathering which is at this link. They are current with the trends, they are multiracial, and it might be that they are sharing space occasionally with the UDC.

The Edenton Street United Methodist Church has a concert for Black History Month: and they were listed as the church for the North Carolina Division UDC.

There is no reason that the UDC would hide the fact that they are meeting at the Edenton Street United Methodist Church unless they realized their accommodation by the Edenton Street United Methodist Church would be an embarrassment to the Edenton Street United Methodist Church.

It might be argued that the church name was dropped from the North Carolina UDC web page for the 2015 reunion so Ed Sebesta wouldn't know about it. Certainly that is one reason. But if the UDC's presence at the Edenton Street United Methodist Church wasn't embarrassing my writing to the church would have no effect and my being aware of this reunion at Edenton Street United Methodist Church would have no effect. If the Edenton Street United Methodist Church thought hosting the UDC was a good thing they would put it on their website.

There are two important things in this recent development.

1. The UDC has realized it is an embarrassment to churches. They are starting to pull the names of the churches from their schedules to spare the church embarrassment. The UDC is acknowledging that they are an embarrassment through their actions and demonstrating through their actions that they realize that a large fraction of the public has a negative perception of them and that their public association with a church would undermine the church's reputation. Also by keeping the name hidden of the church they plan on meeting at they communicate to the membership that they are undesirables.

2. The UDC has listed what churches they will be meeting at as one of the positive features of their conventions. If they stop listing the church they give up a selling point of the convention.

3. As they cover up their involvements with churches they start writing themselves out of the historical record.

At some point the UDC will be pulling the name of the churches from their published schedules for the upcoming conventions and won't be mentioning the churches in their reports for the convention.

Additionally once they start sneaking about to have their memorial services at a church they then make the church a collaborator. It can't be imagined that the church leadership would be unaware that the memorial service is being conducted in such a way to avoid pubic scrutiny as the church leadership observes that their church name is not listed on the UDC schedule and as the topic of churches' hosting neo-Confederate groups becomes more and more a matter for discussion among the public. The church leadership thus transitions from being an witting passive host to being an active supporter of the UDC.

Also, if something is being done covertly, secretly, isn't it a mystery, a subject of interest? Isn't their a potential of an expose'? Doesn't it become a dirty secret?

Also, if the UDC knows that there is a developing controversy over this matter, but they conceal it from the church they plan to meet at, how will the church feel when they find out that they were kept uninformed?

Has the Edenton United Methodist Church cancelled the North Carolina UDC memorial service at their church? I don't know. I got an unsolicited email from someone claiming to be a member of the church. Later he said that the church had cancelled, but the person wasn't using one of the church's email addresses. When I asked that there be confirmation by the church I didn't hear back. I emailed the same person at his official Edenton United Methodist Church email and I didn't hear back. So I sent a certified letter asking him to confirm the emails sent. So far haven't heard back but it is too soon to say whether I am going to hear back or not.

However, the North Carolina UDC convention website does mention that it is going to be  local church. If the UDC was actually rejected I think that neo-Confederate would be complaining all over the Internet.

If I don't hear back I am writing the staff of the church by certified mail. I will also be giving reasons why they shouldn't host the UDC.

At this time I can't say whether the North Carolina UDC convention will be happening at the Edenton Street United Methodist Church in 2015 or not, but I have I have a long time between now 2015 to find out.

So far I am not hearing much back from the churches except when they want to tell me they aren't involved, or won't be involved. Except in one case, I am not getting anyone defending the practice of hosting neo-Confederate groups. If the churches thought it was a good thing they would be defending it. They know it is a dirty secret also. (I will be blogging about the church leader who defended the practice.)

I will be blogging on the Edenton United Methodist Church matter as things develop.

I am already winning in this campaign. The campaign is documented at

Churches which host Children of the Confederacy national convention services added to Churches of the Confederacy web page

I have a table of churches which have hosted the Children of the Confederacy (CofC) which is an organization of the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC).

It has been added to the main page tracking the campaign regarding churches enabling neo-Confederate groups.

The reporting on the national conventions of the Children of the Confederacy is a little uneven and so for some years it isn't known whether they had a church service and if so where.

The three denominations stand out: Episcopal Church, Presbyterian USA, and the United Methodist Church.

This upcoming year the Children of the Confederacy will be using the First Presbyterian Church of Texarkana, Texas.

Table of churches hosting neo-Confederate events update with more United Daughters of the Confederacy hostings

At I added in several churches which are active in hosting United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC) meetings.

With web pages being modified or pulled off line I don't know if in the future if I will be able to track what is happening. On the other hand if the neo-Confederates do go into some stealth mode it is just something they are doing, but if a church works with them to cover up that a neo-Confederate group is meeting at their church it is collusion.

Saturday, March 15, 2014

If you know of any churches hosting a neo-Confederate group contact me with documentation

If you know of any church that is hosting a neo-Confederate group please contact me by email.

I won't list them as having hosted a neo-Confederate group until I can confirm it with some type of documentation. It might be an announcement on a neo-Confederate web page or news article in the local paper or some other source of information that can corroborate that a neo-Confederate group is being hosted by a local church.

If you have such documentation please provide in your email the links to the page. I don't want to open any attachments. However, even if you don't have documentation contact me anyways. I have ways of searching the Internet and Internet archives to track down things.

I am interested in any type of hosting by the church. It can be a memorial service for a United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC) or Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) convention, it might be a workshop or business meeting, or local monthly chapter or camp meetings, or some other even such as a Confederate Memorial Day service. In case of doubt send me an email and I can decide.

I am writing each church to double check whether they are actually hosting a neo-Confederate group.

The churches which I have already documented as hosting neo-Confederate groups are in an online table at:

Sunday, March 09, 2014

Writing and researching. Children of the Confederacy

Spent much of the day finding out which churches hosting the Children of the Confederacy. Entered into EXCEL. Have some more work to do before it goes online. However, again the Episcopalians come out as a leading hosting denomination of neo-Confederates.

Wrote four more religious leaders, two in Dallas and two in Richmond. There are still some churches to write. By the end of March though I should be done writing churches. I am going to switch to writing religious social justice organizations, religious publications, civil rights groups, newspapers, etc.

I am not finding any churches or religious groups that want to defend the Confederacy or their association with neo-Confederate groups. It seems their strategy is to avoid discussing the matter and hope that it doesn't come before the public.

By end of next week I plan on having updated with the new letters and information.

Wednesday, March 05, 2014

Planning Christmas Day picket in Dallas of neo-Confederate hosting denomination

I will be planning on a Christmas Day picket in Dallas, TX of a denomination which continues to enable neo-Confederacy.

In addition starting this Summer I will want to have pickets of churches enabling neo-Confederates in NYC, DC, and Richmond. See the following Facebook page.

Dr. Hayes-Bautista Op-Ed about Cinco de Mayo's American origins as an anti-Confederate holiday in the "Los Angeles Times."

Dr. Hayes-Bautista has an Op-Ed about Cinco de Mayo's American origins as an anti-Confederate holiday in the March 4, 2014 Los Angeles Times. The Link is:,0,4208043.story#axzz2v8VSmr5z

The great thing about this is that it will inform a great many people that Cinco de Mayo is a patriotic American holiday and an anti-Confederate holiday. The popularity of Cinco de Mayo will work to increase the unpopularity of the Confederacy.

I was in Los Angeles for an exhibition on Cinco de Mayo. The following is my blog on the visit with pictures.

Additionally there is a lecture by Dr. Hayes-Bautista on video in the blog posting. I have other blog postings on Cinco de Mayo, use "cinco" and search my blog.

I am hoping that as Cinco de Mayo becomes popularly known as an anti-Confederate holiday, the Roman Catholic churches will be less likely to host neo-Confederate groups.

Monday, March 03, 2014

"12 Years a Slave" movie wins "Best Picture" Oscar. UPDATED: Additional material has been added.

From the Los Angeles Times, "12 Years a Slave" movie wins "Best Picture" Oscar.,0,6353563.story#axzz2utpQbMQk

The Gone With The Wind view of slavery seems to be gone with the wind. All the years of the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC) trying to portray slavery as somehow justifiable is undone.

Further the movie "12 Years a Slave" is going to be used in classrooms to teach students about slavery.

The following is a trailer for the movie.

Double click to get full view.

You can get a PDF of the original book here.

This is a "New York Times" article about the book from 161 years ago.

A good article worth reading about kidnapping of free African Americans in Antebellum New York City to be sold into slavery.

The response of the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) will likely to be either to wail and moan that it is an attack on the South, or shift through the movie and find some minor or minute technical error to make the claim that the whole movie is is historically inaccurate, or to make up some historical claim which they will represent as a historical error to claim that the whole movie is historically inaccurate.

Primarily though they will bring up a lot of historical claims which don't really relate to the movie but will serve as a distraction and misdirection away from the substance of the movie, but which they will claim some how discredits the movie.

A particular way they will attack the film without discussing the contents will be to focus on attacking Hollywood and the film as a product of Hollywood.

H.K. Edgerton will be showcased with the idea, that if any black person rejects the movie than the it is okay for the SCV members to reject it also for whatever reasons that might motivate them.

Of course there could be just a lot of ranting and raving too.

Maybe St. Paul's Episcopal Church in Richmond should get a copy and review it.

Perhaps I will suggest that the leadership of the United Methodist Church (UMC) consider viewing it before they continue to host the UDC and SCV. Maybe the UMC will give up the Confederacy.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Popular Posts Last 30 days

Popular Posts All Time