Tuesday, October 21, 2014

Episcopalians not hosting the United Daughters of the Confederacy in Richmond, VA

It turns out that the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC) is having its memorial service at Monumental Church which is run by the Historic Richmond Foundation.


Evidently they found nothing wrong with enabling a neo-Confederate group.

It does show that the Episcopalians, though not responding to my letters, have decided not to host the UDC this year.

St. Paul's Episcopal Church had hosted the UDC six times since 2000 and every year the UDC had their convention in Richmond 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010, 2012.


So it is somewhat odd that they didn't host this year. I think my letter writing campaign has had an effect.

One scenario I had for the campaign was that the denominations wouldn't reject the Confederacy outright, and would avoid responding to me as much as possible, but instead quietly not accept reservations.

In Charleston, SC the denomination that hosted the SCV was a church with the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC).  There hasn't been a SBC church hosting the SCV since 1990, and only once for the UDC in 2001. I hadn't even written them thinking they wouldn't do it.

All four of the denominations I did right, including both factions of the Episcopalians, did not host the SCV.

What is interesting is that the neo-Confederates have been castigating the SBC for their apology over slavery since 1993. The SBC aided their own enemies.

So it seems that I will need to write other denominations even if they have only hosted once since 1990.

It maybe that with no public declaration from any denominations I will achieve my goal in terms of getting mainstream denominations not to host neo-Confederate groups.

Ebola Crisis winding down, Neo-Confederate hopes dashed

The Ebola crisis is winding down. Recently 43 people were taken off observation. These were the people who had initial contact with the Liberian patient Duncan.


The person on the Carnival cruise ship tested negative.


In my opinion it seems that Texas Presbyterian Hospital was incompetent despite all the "blah, blah, blah" that their corporate officials are now putting out. Hospitals across the country probably now know that sending a potential Ebola patient home isn't really an effective cost saving measure.

I am hoping the www.dallasobserver.com will do a story which will expose what really happened at Texas Presbyterian Hospital and show once again how the Dallas Morning News is complicit in not giving the full picture of what happened and is basically a shill for the establishment.

It seems that the CDC is probably going get straighten out. A lot of questions will be asked.

It really doesn't matter if we have advanced medical infrastructure and advanced medicine if we just stupidly bungle it up.

Likely the next visiting Ebola patient will be better handled.

However, it seems that Ebola will not be bringing down the United States of America as Gary North was obviously hoping in this www.lewrockwell.com blog posting:


One would be tempted so say that Ebola overthrew Gary North's sanity, but that would presuppose that he had any sanity.

Other neo-Confederates I think obviously had hopes that Ebola would somehow realize their political objectives.

Already the League of the South has moved on.

It is really obvious a lot of people were planning to exploit this health problem for their own benefit. Now that no apocalypse is likely to be forthcoming the articles of hysteria will prove embarrassing to their authors.

Thursday, October 09, 2014

"The sky is falling, the sky is falling." Neo-Confederates and Ebola

 Yesterday the website Lew Rockwell had this story.


There was a red headline in large capitol letters, "BREAKING NEWS."

With the text and link:
"2nd Person Rushed to Hospital With Ebola SymptomsHe was in contact with Liberian immigrant who has now died."
The article opens up with the statement:
"A second patient with Ebola symptoms walked into a Texas clinic today and told medics he had been in contact with first victim Thomas Duncan."
A link was provided with to a local CBS channel. 

However, if you read the CBS story and other news stories the patient hadn't ever been in contact with the Ebola patient Duncan. He had merely been in the late Duncan's apartment for 30 minutes.

His symptoms were feeling sore and "stomach issues."  He was tested for Ebola and the results have come back today. He tested negative. 

Also, for those who read the CBS article, they would have read that the chances that the sheriff had Ebola was very low. 

From the article:

"Monnig’s children told CBS 11’s Andrea Lucia that their dad woke up this morning feeling sore and a little nauseated. 
“We were told by federal officials, county officials that you would have to come in direct contact with Duncan or direct contact with bodily fluids, and he did not,” said Monnig’s son, Logan, about the possibility of his dad contracting Ebola. Logan said it’s a very scary time for his family, but they do not expect that his dad will test positive for the virus. 
Monning was not one of the 48 people being monitored by federal, state and local health officials because he never had direct contact with the patient. Monnig did enter the apartment where Duncan had stayed before being admitted to the hospital."
As it turned out the sheriff had something else.

However, I am sure that www.lewrockwell.com will find some other imaginary terror. 

Sunday, October 05, 2014

Neo-Confederates exploit ebola concerns Update. Update 2

In our globally interconnected world with its rapid transit it was likely that an ebola patient would sooner or later show up in the United States as with Thomas Eric Duncan who is currently getting better in a Dallas hospital. http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/04/health/ebola-us/

Update: New report is that Duncan is struggling for his life. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/06/us/ebola.html?_r=0

Update 2: Thomas Eric Duncan has died.

After some initial bungling, such as Texas Presbyterian Hospital sending Duncan home when he came in for treatment Duncan did receive treatment.  The City of Dallas having difficulties finding a crew to do clean up of vomit at the apartment complex has gotten a crew and they have cleaned up the mess. The state of Texas and the Federal government need to make sure their regulations regarding the transport of this waste are compatible. That is being worked out.

Thomas Eric Duncan got ebola when he forsook his own safety to rush a pregnant women to the hospital and then bring her back because the hospital was over flowing. The stories coming out of West Africa are heart breaking of people following their heart to take care of others and paying the ultimate price.

There are heroic stories of burial workers staying at their jobs even though they are forsaken by their own communities and have to sleep outside and often are paid late and have to run the risks. In the hospitals nurses have died while caring for others.

However, there are some who only see this as an opportunity to exploit for their own agenda. These are the neo-Confederates.

This League of the South blog posting decides that it is a big laugh and useful to advance their agenda on immigration.


Who could fear anything so colorful? 
"No matter what happens we must resist ebolaphobia. These viruses are simply coming here for a better life, to do jobs that American viruses refuse to do." - Southron, in response to this post.
www.lewrockwell.com is claiming to know something about medical matters are and is hyping up hysteria over ebola.





The credibility of www.lewrockwell.com can be evaluated by considering their other medical articles.




The Council of Conservative Citizens wants to exploit ebola also.




Hysteria and misinformation is always a real danger in a health crisis. The neo-Confederate actions fanning hysteria are not of help, but since they are largely without influence they are not able to do much damage.

In their actions these neo-Confederates hope to advance their agenda. One of the neo-Confederate hopes is that there will be a crisis which discredits the establishment and they will have an opportunity to get public support.

The neo-Confederate might not admit it, but I think they will feel let down when ebola doesn't turn out to be a pandemic in the United States.

For some useful information about preventing ebola you can go to this website of the Center for Disease Control.


Note the first item is wash your hands with soap and water. Which is the first line of defense against any pathogen. You should be doing this anyways.

I did have some concerns about the initial response. Primarily the bungling and delays, but I think that this first case has helped get the USA ready for ebola. Hospitals will probably be much less likely to send ebola patients home. Cities are probably making sure that they have hazardous waste crews ready to clean up after ebola and not have crews that refuse to show up. In general institutions are making sure they are prepared.

The public is more educated as to what precautions to take.

One benefit might be that affluent nations will realize that working on tropical diseases needs to be a higher priority and there needs to an effort to develop vaccines for these diseases. If all the hospital workers and other health workers in West Africa had been vaccinated last year it would have made a huge difference in stopping Ebola.

If you see the images of the outbreak in Liberia you see the misery and horror. It isn't a matter for snarky jokes and exploitation.

Friday, September 19, 2014

Island of Great Britain will not have a boundary and will remain unbound

The island of Great Britain will not getting a boundary any time soon and will remain unbound. The world will avoid having an additional boundary.

The Scottish referendum for secession went down to defeat by about 55% to 45%, a substantial margin.

Those who love division and divisiveness, the neo-Confederates, were hoping to see Scottish secession succeed to give their own campaign for secession credibility.

The Scottish National Party (SNP) can't be considered entirely defeated. They are getting more devolved powers from the central government. Also, other regions of England have decided they would like some devolved powers also. However, this might strengthen the British union by providing some local flexibility allowing the ending of discontents.

It will be interesting to see what the impact on Scottish politics is. The "No" voters now see themselves as a majority and probably are a little tired of the whole Scottish independence movement. Alex Salmond said this in response to the results: 
Earlier, Scotland's first minister, Alex Salmond, struck a defiant note at a downbeat Scottish National party rally in Edinburgh, saying he accepted Scotland had not "at this stage" decided to vote for independence.
The "No" voters might not want to deal with any more "stages." They might want to have a majority in the Scottish parliament and push the SNP aside. People probably will realize that if you play with matches you might start a fire.

The neo-Confederates will have to go back to hoping for some catastrophe to discredit modern society and provide the disorder where they would hope to get power.

Prior blog on this:


Saturday, September 13, 2014

Scottish Secession Update1: Update 2: Secession vote lost.

Update 2: Scottish secession lost in the polls. 55.3% No (Against) to 44.7% Yes (For). Wasn't close.


The neo-Confederates are deriving great hopes out of the increasing chances that Scotland will vote for secession in the Thursday Sept. 18, 2014 referendum that is coming up.

Also, I am getting a great many questions about it. Do I think Scotland will vote for secession, should Scotland secede, what will be the impact on the neo-Confederate movement?

I am not closely watching the Scottish secession campaign and the arguments. However, I have the following thoughts.

1. Will Scotland vote for secession?

I don't know. The polls show that the support for secession has been steadily increasing to the point it is now called a statistical tie between the pro- and anti-secession forces and there is some thought that this represents a continuing trend to a more pro-secession sentiment.

However, it isn't known if some people might say one thing to a pollster and vote differently in the voting booth.

The reporting that I have read says that the issues discussed have been around the economics of secession. These issues are important, but I think in the end you have a national identify beyond these issues. People die for their country and volunteer for military services for something more than economics or a discount at the mall.

The possibility has been steadily increasing. I don't think we will know until Sept. 18th.

2. Should Scotland secede?

I am surprised that the referendum is a simple majority. I would think that you wouldn't want to secede because at a specific time passions were running high over some issue and secession passed based on 50.0001%.  The American Constitution is amended by 2/3'rd vote of each congressional house and 3/4th ratification of the states.

However, it is their business how they do it.

Also, it is their business whether they want to do it or not.

Personally, I wouldn't want to be a citizen of a small country. I like taking road trips and driving thousands of miles and know that I will not be faced with any boundaries. I like a large job market and a vast nation with vast opportunities. But that is just me. I suppose those in the Vatican love the small size of their country.

3. What would Scottish Independence be?

However, it needs to be considered that Scottish independence is not going to be entirely independent. They are planning to join the European Union and then instead of being part of a government in London they will be part of an administration in Brussels.

The reason all these independence movements are thriving in Europe is that with the European Union (EU) you really don't need to be a part of larger European state. A EU citizen from Spain can easily get a job in Germany or move to England. You are part of a large continental economic system. You don't have to worry about being trapped in some small national economy.

In other ways the world's economy has become transnational. With the World Trade Organization and other economic groups regulations are defined by transnational bodies more and more and not by the specific state some region might find itself in.

In such a Europe and such a world the nation state becomes less relevant. If you want a free Ruritania I suppose you can.

The surge of secession sentiment in Europe is driven by transnational institutions as much as any local feeling. If you have a transnational defense force and a transnational state like the European Union the need for the current national government isn't that great if at all needed.

Of course as a small nation you don't have much of a prospect if you decide you want to leave a transnational state since you are no longer part of a state with a sufficient size to be independent of the transnational state.

4. Will Scottish secession lead to violence?

With independence people have to make a decision whether they are British citizens or Scottish citizens. With no national boundary existing in living memory there are probably a lot of people living in Scotland who will choose being British rather than Scottish.

I suppose that it will occur to someone to require Scottish citizenship for a lot of Scottish government jobs leading to people losing their jobs. Maybe there will be other discriminatory legislation.

What will be the condition of people living there who chose to remain British and can't vote and are suddenly foreigners?

How will the 45% that voted against secession feel suddenly being forced out of a nation they wanted to remain in?

How magnanimous will be the victors in a pro-secessionist vote?

What happens if the negotiations over the breakup are rancorous?

Given the nature of humanity to do the wrong thing and be obnoxious we can't dismiss the prospect that there will be some violence.

There might not be violence, but British residents might find a discriminatory atmosphere such as their children being taunted at school. There might be an large exodus from Scotland.

5. How will Scotland treat secession in Scotland?

When the issue of Quebec secession came up some Native Canadian groups said unequivocally that they weren't going to be a part of Quebec and would stay with Canada.

Some parts of Scotland might vote against secession, would they have to go along? Especially sections on the border with England would they have to go along with secession?

My feeling is that the leaders of Scottish independence aren't going to tolerate secession from Scotland.

6. Impact of Scottish secession in the United States of America:

A successful Scottish campaign will be a tremendous moral boost to the neo-Confederate movement, a radicalizing influence, and will greatly aid the neo-Confederate movement.

If someone had proposed that Scotland would be an independent nation in the 60s, 70s, 80s, it would have seemed laughable. The previous implausibility of Scottish secession will be a great encouragement for American secessionists to continue trying. The Scottish Nationalist Party got single digits in the polls when they started. Now it is a real possibility.

So the poor current prospects of any secessionist movement will suddenly be much much less of a discouragement. It might be that support is just a single digit, but so was the SNP's when it started. You just need to keep pushing and not give up.

It will be much easier to imagine being successful with the example of a successful independence movement whose initial prospects seemed ludicrously improbable.

The Union of Scotland and England happened 307 years ago. It predates the American republic. Just because a nation has existed for a long time will no longer mean it necessarily will persist in the future. What might have seemed eternal might prove to be transitory.  The American Civil War is about 150 years ago.

Czechoslovakia was independent nation between World War I and II and now is two nations. We don't think of Czechoslovakia much and Eastern Europe always seems to be being shuffled into new states with new boundaries. Scotland occupies a large place in the American imagination. It is an English speaking nation with a large number of descendants in the United States. It is not some distant third world nation. It occupies a large presence in English language literature. We imagine them as being similar to us. The American public will think about what happened in Scotland.

Samuel Francis, a strong supporter of honoring the Confederacy had a position that secession was "infantile" because he thought it was improbable. There are neo-Confederates like him who though they would have liked to see an independent Confederacy, thought it was romantic sentiment unrestrained by common sense. Now with Scottish secession I think neo-Confederates who thought secession as being a sentiment unrestrained by reason will re-think their position.

Also, for those who haven't considered the neo-Confederate movement  but identify with the Confederacy or are Lost Cause enthusiasts but reject secession as a widely improbable prospect, Scottish independence will result in them giving it some consideration for the same reasons it will encourage the people who currently are neo-Confederate secessionists.

Persons commenting on Scottish secession have noted that Scottish secession has gained support as a means to a political end, a liberal Scotland wishing to separate from a more conservative Britain. If you can't win the election, define a district where you can win the elections.

A lot of people living in the former Confederate states formerly without much interest in the Confederacy might get interested because of their discontent with national policies.

The example that this might happen is already shown by rural counties in Colorado and California who are advocating secession because they can't get their way. Their secession demand is based on no more than the idea that they don't like not getting their way and that somehow their votes ought to count more than the votes of others.

As I said before the secession movements in Scotland and Quebec started out in single digits. In the 1990s John Shelton Reed's opinion polls showed 15% support in the former Confederate states for secession, though it has to be remembered that he was one of the founders of the neo-Confederate movements so the poll is somewhat suspect to me.

However, recent polls have found surprisingly high identifications with the Confederacy. A recent Public Policy Poll survey found that 29% of Mississippians would back the Confederacy in another Civil War and 21% weren't sure. Those poll results are way better than the initial poll results of most independent movements.

With Scottish independence it can easily be imagined that what might have been merely wistful thinking will become a serious contemplation of possibility.

Also, with a referendum in Scotland on independence being held, the whole idea of having a referendum on secession will not be such a fringe idea. A state, possibly Mississippi could have a referendum on secession. They might not be able to implement the results if the vote is for secession passes, but that isn't so important. Once a secession referendum passes, the national government would lose legitimacy and that would start a series of causes and effects leading on to conflict.

As for the ability of our military and police to stop secessionists the recent events at the Clive Bundy ranch show how the government might not act against clearly illegal acts by secessionists. Clive Bunday was renting land and just decided it was his on the basis of some specious reasoning and decided not to pay his rent and got away having an armed insurrection against the authorities. The insurrectionists even set up road blocks on public roads resulting in complaints by people living in the area.

Follow up blog on this:



Was interviewed for this article on Scottish secession.


Tuesday, September 09, 2014

"The Economist" says that the author of the pro-slavery review wasn't Alan Farmer. UPDATE:

The Economist contacted me and said Alan Farmer wasn't the author of the review.

I replied to the email asking them to tell me who the author was. If they wouldn't tell me I asked them  to forward a message from me asking the author to publicly admit to the review. We will see.

I also informed them about the neo-Confederate movement and their pro-slavery viewpoint.

I also mentioned three other possible authors.

UPDATE: I am still trying to identify the author. I would be interested in any suggestions. 

Sunday, September 07, 2014

Possible clue to who "The Economist" review was. UPDATE: "The Economist" says it isn't Alan Farmer.

UPDATE: The Economist contacted me and said Alan Farmer wasn't the author of the review.

If you go to this website you will find the following PDF.

Floggings were rare, if only because slave owners had a vested interest in
the care and maintenance of their property. Just as most Rolls-Royce
owners today take good care of their cars, so slave owners looked after
their ‘property’. (A prime field hand was worth much the same as a
modern-day top-of-the-range car.)
The author of this chapter argues that the experience of slavery varied a lot and is in keeping with the reviewers opinion.

This "sample chapter" is from a history series they publish titled "
That is the link on the following pages.


The author seems to be Alan Farmer according to this link.


He quotes Fogel and Engerman as if they were competent historians. 

I don't know if it is Alan Farmer who wrote The Economist review but they seem to have the same views on slavery.. He could just be another slavery apologist. Perhaps the educational and historical establishment in Britain is full of them.

I was able to identify Farmer with key phrases from The Economist review using Google.

Farmer is retired and so I am trying to locate a contact email.

Update: Have copy of review. "The Economist" pulls pro-slavery review of book, trying to track down copy of review and track down who wrote review.

UPDATE: I have figured out that the link has the full review and it isn't just an excerpt.



The Economist pulled the review before I could get a copy. However, if I had copy of the review I could do some forensic analysis of the text and see who might have written it.

Yes, I know that The Economist reviews have no byline. Let's move past that. It doesn't mean that with the text I can't identify who wrote it or find out by other means.

Also, does anyone know through other means who might have written it? 

I have emailed Dr. Baptist to see if he has a copy. At least one other writer for The Economist has been named as a possible author. 

Could someone at The Economist tell me by email? 

From what is available online I can start doing some investigation now. However, the full text would really be useful. 

Sunday, August 31, 2014

Asked Tim Donnelly to disavow his support for the Confederate flag.

I have finished with some other research business and I am starting to follow up with contacting people in California. I would like to see State Senator Stephen Knight be not re-elected if he doesn't disavow his vote for the Confederate flag. I am letting various people in California know about the neo-Confederate movement.

Tim Donnelly is a member of the California State Assembly. He was the lone vote in defense of the Confederate flag in a recent vote in the California State Assembly.


He came in third in the recent Republican primary for governor.

I have asked Mr. Donnelly to reconsider his vote for the Confederate flag. I sent him the following email to his campaign website:

Dear Mr. Donnelly:

I learn with regret that you were the lone vote for the Confederate flag in the California Assembly. When I was young the Republican Party was the party of Abraham Lincoln and not Jefferson Davis.

I am an investigative academic researcher into the neo-Confederate movement. I am published by peer reviewed academic journals and university presses. My resume is online at www.templeofdemocracy.com/resume.htm.

People coming up with rationalizations for neo-Confederacy enable that movement.  At my online resume I think you will find material which will show why the neo-Confederate movement should not be enabled. Additionally there are free guest links to the my articles  and essays and reports at “Black Commentator” which I think you will find informative.

I ask you to disavow your vote in the Assembly regarding the ban on the Confederate flag.

A person who enables the neo-Confederate movement should not hold any office of public trust.

I hope that you will consider this.


Edward H. Sebesta

Co-editor of “Neo-Confederacy: A Critical Introduction,” Univ. of Texas Press, 2008 (http://www.utexas.edu/utpress/excerpts/exhagneo.html), and “The Confederate and Neo-Confederate Reader: The ‘Great Truth’ About the ‘Lost Cause’” Univ. Press of Mississippi 2010. (http://www.upress.state.ms.us/books/1338).  Author of chapter about the Civil War and Reconstruction in the notorious Texas teaching standards in Politics and the History Curriculum: The Struggle over Standards in Texas and the Nation, published by Palgrave Macmillan.  http://www.keitherekson.com/books/politics-and-the-history-curriculum/

John McKee Barr starts tearing apart Abbeville Institute Donald W. Livingston's "Confederate Emancipation" essay in the "Confederate Veterans"

John McKee Barr is reading and reviewing Donald W. Livingston's essay "Confederate Emancipation" which was published in the July/August 2014 Confederate Veteran.


Barr seeks not just to refute the historical argument but show the tactics of neo-Confederate argumentation. How they have serious errors in logical thinking, obscure the historical record, and are self-deluding.

The reader of John McKee Barr's series will not just learn that Livingston's essay misrepresents history, the reader will learn that Livingston's ideology prevents him from doing historical scholarship.

Saturday, August 30, 2014

No posting on the Ice Bucket challenge with the Confederate flag and the head on fire.

Yes, I saw the ice bucket challenge that was done with a Confederate flag and in which the hair was set on fire. It was all over the internet. I saw it once, I don't want to see it again. I am not going to include a link to it. I am not going to have it on this blog.

I have some problems with it.

1. It sounds like the person who was doing the challenge was seriously hurt. I don't find that funny or entertaining.

2. I question whether this video was what it seemed. If it was a sincere ice bucket attempt, why would you put it on the internet when it was clearly a failure?  Why would you go to the effort to upload it?

I suspect, but I can't prove it, that perhaps the video was a staged to make fun of a stereotype.

It seems that the public has a certain stereotype of those who are supportive of the Confederacy and the Confederate flag that they are rural persons of low intelligence and lacking education and not able to pronounce many words.

The neo-Confederate movement is composed of educated people who are intelligent. These stereotypes of who supports the Confederate flag helps neo-Confederates by allowing them to represent themselves as not being racist.

Friday, August 29, 2014

Liberty University: American or Confederate?

The 12th Annual Scholars Conference is at Liberty University.


One year the history department at Liberty University put Abraham Lincoln on trial and found him guilty.

Wednesday, August 27, 2014

"Daily Caller" opinion editor J. Arthur Bloom justifies foul mouth.

Earlier this year I had a post about the comments of Jordan Arthur Bloom regarding myself.

Bloom's comments:  http://mitrailleuse.net/2014/06/22/secession-lagniappe-7/

Bloom's comment was in response to my campaign to ask churches no to host neo-Confederate groups. This campaign is documented online at www.templeofdemocracy.com/churchesoftheconfederacy.htm. In particular asking the Episcopalian church not to host neo-Confederate groups.

I did a blog on his comments on July 24, 2014 and the following is the link to the blog posting.


Yesterday, August 27, 2014 I got this response from him.


J. Arthur Bloom is actually an Opinion Editor for the Daily Caller. It is a website that seems to specialize in hysteria.

What I pointed out in my original blog posting about Bloom's comments about myself is that Jordan Arthur Bloom couldn't resort to any argument but resorted to scatological name calling.

I said in the post:
What is interesting is that despite all the pretensions of intellect, being Opinion Editor, obscure blog name, etc., the person is just a foul mouth character that has no argument to be put forth and thus resorts to name calling. 
Always swearing, cursing, profanity, obscenity, etc. is a failure of intellect, the failure to express your objection in real terms and it is just ranting. Also, it is ineffective in stinging anyone. It is just noise that people tune out. It really shows the mental incapacity of Bloom.
The title of the post was:
"Daily Caller" Jordan Bloom Opinion Editor's scatological and negative opinion of my Churches of the Confederacy campaign.
In Bloom's response he states:
... and the pearl-clutching, schoolmarmish title of this blog post suggests to me that in your heart you know your actions -- asking denominations to intervene in congregational decisions about what groups have the right to meet on church property -- are wrong.
I am not sure how the title of my blog posting is "pearl-clutching, schoolmarmish" or proves that I think that I am wrong, whether in my kidneys, heart or lungs.  Perhaps Bloom likes to assert that his opponent's opinions are like those of women. My posting simply is a blog posting pointing out that the Daily Caller employs a foul mouthed person as their opinion editor, an editor who uses foul language instead of a reasoned argument. However, if you read the Daily Caller, he probably is a perfect fit for an editorial position with them.

The conclusion of Bloom's essay is that since he really doesn't like my plan to get denominations to not host neo-Confederate groups it justifies him being foul mouthed in his writings.

Bloom denies that there is a neo-Confederate movement and makes other assertions about neo-Confederate groups.

Bloom's primary assertion is that it is "bullying" if I write denominational leaders a letter to consider that their denomination should not be hosting neo-Confederate groups because I don't think it is a good thing to do.

Denominational leaders are tasked with leading. They lead. So asking them to lead on an issue for their denomination by what authority or means granted to them by their denomination seems reasonable. None of my letters ask that thugs be employed. In situations like this you find that a writer has adopted a term with an elastic definition that encompasses the world so what ever you might do or say falls under the term.

Also, if you publicly complained about a denomination's practices without having written the leadership of a denomination about your complaint, people would think you were an idiot and rightly so.

Bloom's response is just over heated rhetoric using phrases like "pearl-clutching, schoolmarmish," and just labeling something he doesn't like with loaded terminology.

Also, Bloom is avoiding the issue in my campaign to get churches to stop hosting neo-Confederates by making up a distraction about "bullying."  This distraction is used by him to avoid discussion of the issues I raise and on which there is no comment forthcoming by Bloom.

Bloom real complaint with my efforts writing the Episcopalians is revealed in the following section of his response.
Your letter comes on the heels of a largely successful campaign on behalf of the bishop, costing tens of millions of dollars, aimed at confiscating the property of congregations that have opted to leave the Episcopal Church rather than obey its slate of progressive priorities.
I don't think I am responsible for the quarreling in the Episcopal church or how they are dividing up the property.

It would be interesting to get Bloom's thoughts on the Confederacy but I doubt that will happen since I think the primary purpose of this claim of "bullying" is to avoid the issues.

Monday, August 25, 2014

California and the Jefferson Davis Highway

Recently the California legislature has made it very clear that they don't care for the Confederate flag.


I wonder if the California legislature knows that the California state government is allowing the United Daughters of the Confederacy to claim a stretch of highway as the Jefferson Davis Highway even though the California legislature was against it when they attempted to get an official designation.

I think that asking the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC) to move their monuments off state property is a logical thing to ask for next.  The UDC had their Jefferson Davis highway monuments given back to them in the State of Washington, California would be next. That would get a trend going and the highway could be rolled back to Texas. Jefferson Davis was very explicit and negative in his opinions about Latin Americans.

I will likely write the whole legislature after the Confederate flag banning bill is signed by the governor.

Saturday, August 23, 2014

Valdosta State University Professor Suffers Retaliation


A Valdosta State University Professor who had opposed all state Confederate monuments has suffered retaliation by the university and. His email account was shut down.

I recently tried emailing Mark Patrick George who I had emailed before and the email bounced. I didn't know what had happened until I found these news stories.


And this article


In the articles you can see the role of the Sons of Confederate Veterans in this.

Saturday, August 16, 2014

Judge James F. Lockemy gives presentation on the Confederacy to United Daughters of the Confederacy chapter Ann Fulmore Harilee Chapter 1740 in Dillon, SC

It seems that Dillon, South Carolina has a Confederate judge.

The program was given by Honorable James E. Lockemy of Dillon, who presented an excellent PowerPoint presentation of Confederate art and poetry, adding interesting facts and stories of Lee and Jackson. [page 34, June/July 2014 United Daughters of the Confederacy Magazine.]
It seems to me that Lockemy should recuse himself from all cases before his court where any party is a minority member.

Neo-Confederates should be neither judge or jurors as explained in this paper at Black Commentator.


Wednesday, August 13, 2014

Neo-Confederate movement becoming more known by the general public

There are more stories where people are realizing that the "Heritage not hate" slogan really isn't true and that the neo-Confederate movement really is extremist.


For those following the neo-Confederate movement the neo-Confederate rantings about Lincoln are no surprise, but to groups that track right wing extremism this is new.

Additionally there is this article about a divorced woman who went into hiding with her child.


Again, the neo-Confederate movement is something new to them.

Tuesday, August 05, 2014

Sons of Confederate Veteran Georgia Division Commander Ray McBerry scandal

These are quotes from the Atlantic Journal Constitution.


Rachel Gandee was a band nerd in high school.
She didn’t drink. She didn’t smoke. Her grades were solid. The 16-year-old had just finished 10th grade and was, by her mother’s judgment, a good girl.
Then she fell in with Ray McBerry, a married history teacher and member of her small storefront church in McDonough. When their relationship began, McBerry was still four years away from his first Republican run for governor in 2006. He’s trying again this year.
Last month, the Georgia Professional Standards Commission released a summary of its investigation into McBerry, who resigned his position at Patrick Henry High School in Stockbridge in January 2003, shortly after Rachel’s mother filed a complaint. 
Eventually, in 2004, the GPSC would suspend his teaching certificate for five days for abuse of a student, lying to administrators and violation of the commission’s standard of conduct for teachers. 
The only person identified in that state report was McBerry. The identities of Rachel Gandee — her married name — and her parents were protected. 
But at some point, anonymity becomes a form of paralysis. The facts belong to those willing to discuss them in the open. 
Over the past few weeks, Rachel Gandee has eased herself onto the public stage, starting with a detailed account of her relationship with McBerry on SWGAPolitics.com, a southwest Georgia political blog run by Jeff Sexton. “The truth getting told,” she wrote, “might help me get over all this.”
There is a lot more in the story and the above is just a small part.


The above article is about his suing people for libel.

Sunday, July 20, 2014

Poll: 29 percent of Mississippians would back a new Confederacy. Regarding the poll results and Jury duty.

The Sun Herald had an article about a recent poll taken of attitudes towards secession.


The question pollsters question was:
"If there were another Civil War today, would you side with the Confederate States of America or the United States of America?"
It was run by Public Policy Polling (PPP). It was asked of 691 Mississippians.

Of all Mississippians polled, 29% would back the Confederate States of America (CSA).

The article states that only 2% of African Americans would support the CSA. One can only imagine how the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) would be interested in locating these African Americans to parade them around with a Confederate flag.

The article doesn't tell the statistics regarding white people in the U.S.A.

The article does break it down by party affiliation though.

Democrats: 82% for the USA and 9% for the CSA.
Republicans: 41% for the USA and 37% for the CSA.

What is astounding is that less than half the Republicans in Mississippi would support the USA.

Perhaps the whole point of this poll was to show that Republicans aren't that patriotic. As I have stated in earlier blog postings one of the Republicans regular political activities was to assert that the Democrats were somehow unpatriotic and the Republicans were more patriotic. When you have less than half of your supporters choose the USA your assertion of being more patriotic becomes absurd.

The results were further broken down by who people supported in the Republican primary.

For Thad Cochran supporters 61% chose the USA which I think is very low, but not surprising for a candidate that interviewed in Southern Partisan, 22% chose the CSA.

For Tea Party challenger McDaniels, 38% chose the USA and 37% chose the CSA. What is rather amazing is that 62% would choose the CSA or aren't sure that they would chose the USA.

I was not able to find a link to the poll results at the PPP website.

I think that in Mississippi screening out pro-CSA supporters from jury pools is a very reasonable activity. People who would choose the CSA should not be be jurors.

The poll adds additional justification to my article on jury duty published in the Black Commentator. The following is the free guest link.


Sunday, July 13, 2014

Article on Neo-Confederate who won a Republican party primary in Maryland and neo-Confederate attempts to get involved with mainstream politics.

This article was published in the Huffington Post recently.


It turns out that Michael Peroutka, a theocrat and former League of the South board member, was able to win the Republican party primary for an Anne Arundel County Council race in Maryland. and won a seat on the Republican Party Central Committee there. He runs an organization called Institute on the Constitution which is fairly openly neo-Confederate in its views.

What I found somewhat ominous is that Joseph Delimater III, who is closely tied to Peroutka, ran unopposed in the Republican primary for sheriff and could be elected in the general election.

The article is worth reading. It shows that neo-Confederates are not confined to some remote rural area or a particular region of the nation, or marginal.

Thursday, July 10, 2014

Professor at Valdosta University in Georgia says that the State of Georgia should drop all Confederate commemorations

The article is online here:


From Confederate Memorial Day to streets named for Ku Klux Klan founders, the state of Georgia should pull the plug on its official support of Confederacy celebrations, say two Valdosta activists in a recent open letter to Gov. Nathan Deal and the entire General Assembly. 
Such "Southern heritage" memorials are simply taxpayer-funded pseudo-history that celebrates white supremacy, they say. And state leaders so far aren't biting.
The letter is the brainchild of Mark Patrick George, a Valdosta State University sociologist who runs a project studying a local lynching spree of the early 1900s, and the Rev. Floyd Rose of the Lowndes/Valdosta chapter of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.
"We contact you today to respectfully call for an end to the state of Georgia's endorsement, promotion and support of all Confederate holidays, events, and its management of historic sites and monuments related to the Confederacy. We also call for an immediate change to all state roads and highways currently named for Confederate leaders," says the letter, sent on June 23. 
George says they are acting on their own, though they have started reaching out to civil rights groups. They want to spark discussion of racial issues and raise awareness that the "heritage, not hate" mythos is factually wrong. The idea came from a documentary film that George, who grew up in South Georgia, is making about Civil War re-enactors, many of whom, he says, falsely believe the Confederacy was not primarily motivated by slavery and racism. 
"What exactly are we celebrating?" George asks. The ultimate answer, he says, is leaders and soldiers "who said God declared white people should be in charge of black people ... Where are the thoughts and feelings of African-Americans who are citizens of this state? Black people are paying for, in many ways, their own degradation."
The whole Lost Cause nonsense needs to go into the garbage can. More people are seeing this.

Tuesday, July 08, 2014

Washington and Lee decide to pull Confederate Battle flag. Excuses and rationalizations don't seem to work anymore.

It appears that Washington & Lee University has decided to pull Confederate Battle flags out of the Lee Chapel. Evidently excuses and rationalizations weren't accepted by minority students in The Committee who were fighting Washington and Lee University's long standing plan to be a Confederate shrine. The story is here:


I don't know if Washington & Lee University tried the rationalization that since African Americans spoke at the Lee Chapel the Battle flags were okay. Perhaps if Kevin Levin had talked to The Committee the flags would still be up, I doubt it though.

This is a significant breakthrough. As each university gives up pandering to the Lost Cause, other universities that continue to pander to the Lost Cause will find their pandering increasingly obvious and unacceptable to the public.

As one institution, place or group gives up the Lost Cause the remaining groups and institutions that still pander to it will increasingly seem unacceptable.

Though this doesn't seem to be a great victory. Mostly the university is shuffling things around.

Thursday, July 03, 2014

Starting to speak before the public about the neo-Confederate movement

In mid-August I will be speaking to the public about the neo-Confederate movement. I have been working on a Powerpoint presentation. Now I am working on what type of portable technology I want to use to do presentations with small groups.

With the time for the presentation I don't have time to cover all the various animosities that neo-Confederates have to one minority or another, so I am just treating on the topic of civil rights. The primary focus is going to be the neo-Confederates movement's hostility towards egalitarianism from their promotion of pro-slavery theology to their opposition to civil rights legislation to their hostility to democracy itself and the critical supports for a democracy such as public education.

The Southern Partisan hasn't been published for some time, so I am focusing more on the contemporary neo-Confederate movement. Some of the items from the Confederate Veteran, Southern Mercury, and other publications should get a lot of interest.

I believe that an informed public is a public which will critically examine what the neo-Confederates.

Wednesday, July 02, 2014

Hillary Clinton and the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC)

Bill Clinton sent three letters of congratulations to the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC), the first of them in slightly less than a year after Carol Moseley-Braun's victory over the UDC in the U.S. Senate. The link to the story is online.


Bill Clinton never retracted his letters or apologized for them. The question comes up whether Hillary Clinton would ever send a letter of congratulations to a neo-Confederate group or would send a wreath to the Confederate Monument in the Arlington Cemetery.

I will have to write both of them.

Wednesday, June 25, 2014

U.S. Senator Thad Cochran interviewed in the "Southern Partisan" how he was against the Voting Rights Act, but in recent primary has career saved by Democratic and African American voters

U.S. Senator Thad Cochran interviewed in the Southern Partisan, Vol. 15 3rd Qtr., starting on page 32.
Cochran in the interview is against the Voting Rights Act.  I don't think it is a great thing that Cochran won. He is the last congressional Republican who interviewed in Southern Partisan who is still in office. If the tea party guy had won, there was a good chance that he would have lost the general election.  Then there would have been two Republicans who have had dealings with the neo-Confederates.

Some highlights from the interview are:

Page 34  

Southern Partisan: Well, the South continues to be singled out in respect to Federal Civil Rights legislation, for example; do you think this is still justified?

Cochran: No, I think that it is regrettable, and it ought to discontinued. When we last had the Voting Rights act before the Senate, I offered an amendment to apply the law to all states not just to those of the old Confederacy. ...

Page 34-35

Southern Partisan: You mentioned of course, that a lot of changes have taken place in the South, still some things remain; the Confederate Battle Flag for example; that is part of the state flag in Mississippi, are you comfortable with it?

Cochran: I don't think Congress ought to decide. I think it is strictly up to the state legislature of Mississippi, and if I were a member of the legislature I would vote to keep the flag as it is.

Southern Partisan: You don't see a problem with separating heritage or ---
Cochran: I think it is unfortunate that some have used it in a way that it raised questions about their views. but our state, I think, has demonstrated by our actions that it is not a racist state. We have full rights and participation in all the political processes. It's a decision the Mississippi state legislature has made, and I respect their decision.

Page 35

Southern Partisan: Do you favor stronger roles in state government?

Cochran: I think states have been mistreated in the extent that the federal government has usurped the responsibilities that many of us think are the rights of the states or are more properly vested in state government. We are seeing a transition back to, I think, some of those notions of states' rights and the Tenth Amendment, which protects the privacy of states by preventing usurpation by the federal government. 

Tuesday, June 24, 2014

"Daily Caller" Jordan Bloom Opinion Editor's scatological and negative opinion of my Churches of the Confederacy campaign.

This is the blog posting by Jordan Bloom at the blog


He is not very happy with my campaign against churches hosting neo-Confederate groups.

He is evidently the Opinion Editor at Daily Caller (www.dailycaller.com) which as far as I can tell is a competitor with WorldNetDaily.com for the right wing hysterical fringe market. Well maybe not exactly the same degree of hysteria as World Net Daily.



What is interesting is that despite all the pretensions of intellect, being Opinion Editor, obscure blog name, etc., the person is just a foul mouth character that has no argument to be put forth and thus resorts to name calling.

Always swearing, cursing, profanity, obscenity, etc. is a failure of intellect, the failure to express your objection in real terms and it is just ranting. Also, it is ineffective in stinging anyone. It is just noise that people tune out. It really shows the mental incapacity of Bloom.

Wednesday, June 18, 2014

Kevin LevIn, Washington & Lee University, White Paternalism and Black Confederates

A group of minority students at Washington & Lee have asked the university to stop glorifying Robert E. Lee, ban neo-Confederate groups from campus, and generally stop being a shrine to the Confederacy.

An article on their efforts can be read at this link:

Kevin Levin has a blog posting at this link. It really is incredible to read this exposition of white paternalism. 

Kevin Levin opposes the student's efforts to remove Confederate flags and have the university stop functioning as a shrine to the Confederacy. 
"Instead of calling for the removal of objects from the chapel and barring certain groups from using it, these students ought to take the high road and add to the meaning and legacy of this site. Organize events for the chapel that address issues that are deemed to be important. Leave your own mark that students who follow can build on in a constructive way."
Exactly why being accommodating to neo-Confederates and a Confederate shrine is the "high road" and why minority students should contribute to the meaning and legacy of a Confederate shrine and that should be considered "constructive" escapes me. What Levin is trying to do is stigmatize the student's effort as being the low road and as destructive.  Levin doesn't debate the issues that the student raise, he just stigmatizes the student and denigrates their goals.

What is interesting is that Levin's blog posting starts with pointing out that African American's have spoken at the Lee Chapel so that somehow the chapel is okay. He has links to YouTube videos of African Americans speaking in the Lee Chapel. This is the same strategy of the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) in parading around H.K. Edgerton to justify their agenda. It is the strategy of the neo-Confederate movement with their inventions of Confederate soldiers of African ancestry to legitimize the Confederacy.

Levin's book on Black Confederates is likely to be narrowly focused on the historical record and technical details on whether Black Confederate soldiers existed. He is unlikely to have a theoretical analysis in which the promotion of the idea that Black Confederate soldiers is put in a larger historical context of using token African Americans to justify discriminatory white racial attitudes, policies, and institutions. How can he when he engages in these same tactics himself?

On a side note one of the more amusing things is that he has a video of African American Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas speaking at the Lee Chapel. It doesn't occur to Levin that Thomas is just the type of African American that people would expect to speak at a Confederate shrine. There is this link to an article, "Clarence Thomas is the Last Confederate." http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/justice-clarence-thomas-050714.  Or there is this article: http://www.nytimes.com/1991/07/19/us/about-that-flag-on-the-judge-s-desk.html.

Another thing is that Levin posts a YouTube video of Gary Gallagher speaking at the Lee Chapel where the speaker introducing him makes it clear that the Lee Chapel is about revering Lee and the chapel is a shrine to Robert E. Lee.


African Americans who speak at the Lee Chapel or hold events there are enabling the Lost Cause interpretation of history by proving a cover for this shrine.

What is happening is that America is moving into the future where more and more white paternalism won't have a place and won't be credible and where there is an oncoming generation of African Americans who won't be deferential to white paternalists.

I think we can expect that as the Lost Cause, neo-Confederacy, and white racialized landscapes are opposed we will see more of Kevin Levin rationalizing the Lost Cause, neo-Confederates and banal white nationalistic agendas. I think we will find him more and more upset also, such as shown in his response to the head of the Virginia NAACP's comments about the Museum of the Confederacy.


Levin is upset because King Salim Khalfani doesn't care for the Museum of the Confederacy and Levin is going to put that upstart in his place with his blog posting. (My expose of the Museum of the Confederate is a four part series at Black Commentator. You can find the free guest links at www.templeofdemocracy.com/resume.htm.)

Sunday, June 15, 2014

Wrote President of the United Methodist Church about hosting neo-Confederate groups.

I wrote Rev. Rosemarie Wenner, President of the United Methodist Church (UMC) about their hosting neo-Confederates.

The letter is online at www.templeofdemocracy.com/UnitedMethodistChurch.htm

I copied the other members of the Executive Committee.

I did include some bar graphs of UDC hosting and SCV hosting by Methodist denominations. There is only one bar on the graph since it seems that the other Methodist denominations: African Methodist Episcopal Church, and African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church, and the Christian Methodist Church have no record of hosting neo-Confederate groups. Perhaps there is some obscure doctrinal difference that I don't understand between these Methodist denominations and the United Methodist Church. 

Monday, June 09, 2014

Wrote to Most Rev. Schori Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church and Pope Francis about their churches hosting neo-Confederate groups.

I have been updating the Churches of the Confederacy web pages which you can access at www.templeofdemocracy.com/churchesoftheconfederacy.htm.

I added two pages.

www.templeofdemocracy.com/Episcopalian.htm where I have the letter to Most Rev. Schori Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church in America. I copied this letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury and the General Executive Council of the Episcopal Church which has something over 40 members and a couple other executive officers.

www.templeofdemocracy.com/RomanCatholic.htm where I have the letter to Pope Francis.

Other pages were updated.

I just sent them out in the last couple weeks so it is too early to expect to hear back.

It turns out that the Episcopal Church has had this big project about learning about its past involvement with slavery in the United States and a great many groups dealing with the issue of the historical past, race, and the Episcopal Church. Many statements about race are made. Yet despite all that the Episcopal Church is the leading church hosting neo-Confederate national convention services.

I don't think the general membership or most Episcopalians involved with the issues of racism in the Episcopal church are aware that their denomination is the leading denomination hosting neo-Confederate events.

I am going to write the United Methodist Church next.

Afterwards I am going to be writing all the religious groups that profess to be concerned about the issue of race in the three denominations.

Tuesday, May 20, 2014

League of the South Billboard in Alabama taken down resulting in national publicity.

The League of the South (LS) put up a bill board in Alabama like their billboard in Florida.

This is a link about the Florida billboard at the LS website.  http://dixienet.org/rights/2014/secede_billboard_in_florida.php

This is a link about the Montgomery, Alabama billboard at the Southern Nationalist Network website.


The LS would have gotten some publicity with the billboard  It is a billboard after all and it has a message that you don't see everyday. However, after being up for a while, and some local commentary, it would have disappeared from public awareness.

However, the billboard advertising firm, Lamar Advertising, gave into pressure from its other advertisers and pulled the LS billboard last weekend. I am guessing, but I suppose the local chamber of commerce saw the billboard and imagined that it was bad for business. I don't think it is the type of thing you want a visitor from a company that might locate an operation in your city to see.

Censorship is always a topic of interest to the public and the AP distributed a story on the billboard being taken down. So the removal of the billboard has been in the media all over the nation. The LS is publicized not in ads which people often ignore, but in news stories.

Both the Washington Post and the Washington Times had coverage of the billboard being taken down.



The removal made the Miami Herald's "Weird News" section.


Being in the "Weird News" section is actually a fairly good thing. People like to read those sections.

As the old saying goes, "You can't buy publicity like that."

Also, it is of interest that local business interests saw the billboard as a threat when most people would find it an amusing thing from a fringe movement. I thought it was interesting that in Florida a billboard actually went up in response to the LS bill board.

The suppression of the billboard in Montgomery was a stupid strategy. People don't like censorship. People generally feel that they can judge ideas on their own. This act of the Lamar Advertising generated national publicity for the LS and negative publicity for itself as a censor. It is surprising that Lamar Advertising didn't learn from the Florida LS billboard that their clients are probably not happy seeing secede billboards. The chamber of commerce in Florida did a counter billboard with the word "Succeed," which gave the LS more publicity.

The Lamar Advertising agency from here on probably won't be allowing a LS billboard anywhere in the future. The League can probably find some other means to get themselves before the public.

The billboard campaign I think is doing more than publicizing the LS and drawing to them potential members. It is making the public aware that there is a neo-Confederate movement. One thing about the billboards is that a person realizes that the LS has significant money to spend. It costs a lot of money to rent a billboard and it costs money to put it up. That a secessionist group has money like this to spend means it is to some extent a significant movement. The image of the South is being changed to that of a region where there is a contemporary secessionist movement.

I think now more people will look at the entire Lost Cause phenomenon such as Confederate Memorial days, Confederate monuments, ceremonies by groups like the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) and the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC) differently. If a person praises the Confederacy it isn't an unreasonable assumption that that person might to seek to emulate the Confederacy, that is support secession. Possibly reporters will ask the SCV and the UDC what they think about neo-Confederate secessionists. This could have all sorts of ramifications.

This shows that the LS is understanding how to be a viable movement. Instead of endless study events they are becoming active and getting in the news. The study events are not a mistake. A movement needs to define itself and have a world view and create its own core of individuals with that world view, but at some point it is time to get on to the next stage. The LS with the billboard being pulled down will certainly learn, if they haven't learned already, that getting your opposition to react foolishly is the most effective strategy.

So I think that we will see a continually more activist LS. They recently have had protests against gay marriage that has gotten themselves in the news. The LS likely has adopted provocation as its agenda.

Another development is that the Civil War and southern studies are likely in the future to be more and more considered in a context where there is a current secessionist movement and a realization who in these academic fields act as enablers whether these enablers are aware of it or not, such as Kevin Levin. Also, actions by elected officials will be evaluated in context of an ongoing secession movement like sending a presidential wreath to the Arlington Confederate Monument.

Sunday, May 18, 2014

Kevin Levin, Sons of Confederate Veterans and Beauvoir

Developments concerning Beauvoir in Mississippi where Jefferson Davis, president of the Confederacy spent his last days, still a racist and pro-slavery, are very gratifying. It is also an opportunity to view and understand the true nature of Kevin Levine.

What happened at Beauvoir is that the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) who own it decided that they wanted to fly the Confederate battle flag over it. No one should be surprised by this. It has been documented that the SCV is run by neo-Confederates with a neo-Confederate agenda. This is an article in Black Commentator about them. The Southern Poverty Law Center has also reported on them.

In the conflict at Beauvoir between the staff, some directors and the SCV there were three resignations and two dismissals.  The Sun Herald had an article on it, 3/15/14, but I see that they pulled the article. I was able to find this article.  http://legalpronews.findlaw.com/article/9b3c51fec1f4f228fcd1784896a3060c#.U3kEj_ldWSo

The website for the Beauvoir property is online at http://www.beauvoir.org/. It is being redesigned and announces that it is under "Un-reconstruction." I can only imagine what it will be like when the SCV is done changing it.

The program for Beauvoir had been this subtle banal white nationalism of making Beauvoir a shrine to Davis and Varina Davis his wife, avoiding the issues of slavery and the Civil War and instead obsessing over things like Varina Davis plan for Beauvoir's garden.

Bertram Hayes-Davis, a direct descendant of Davis, and his wife Carol came down from Dallas to work at Beauvoir. This is good in itself because the fewer of these type of people in Dallas the better. (Sorry Biloxi better there than here.) I am sure Hayes-Davis was looking forward to living out his ancestral fantasies of being a descendant of Davis at Beauvoir.   The Sun Herald article reports:
He oversaw the opening of the library and the completion of Varina's Garden, which recreates the garden of Davis' wife, and with his resemblance to his grandfather and extensive knowledge of the family history, became the spokesman for Beauvoir. 
It is revealing of his attitudes towards race that he would want to be in Beauvoir rather than trying to move on from Jefferson Davis a pro-slavery advocate and white supremacist, though his attitudes do fit right in with that of the old guard of Dallas.

The SCV didn't want to go along with the usual so-called "professional" historical interpretation and not surprisingly wanted to use it to advance their agenda. This conflict has resulted in the resignations of three board members including Bertram Hayes-Davis and dismissal of two staff members.

I don't have any sympathy for any of them. They refused to acknowledge that the SCV wasn't really the sentimental "heritage" organization that it represented itself to be, refused to recognize the SCV for what it was and then were surprised that the SCV turned out to be what it obviously was. The agenda of the resigned and dismissed is actually worse than the SCV agenda. Instead of engaging the issues of Jefferson Davis and his pro-slavery views and actions and his white supremacy, they avoided these issues and instead pursued an agenda of avoiding these issues in the interpretation thus making a Confederate shrine which the public often uncritically accepts. Some call this a professional interpretation.

The article does point out that in Varina's will the Mississippi Sons of Confederate Veterans have the house unless they can't maintain it, then it goes to the state of Mississippi. If the state of Mississippi gets the house I am sure will promptly adopt the typical Confederate shrine interpretation and obsess over "Varina's garden" and avoid many issues about Davis, race, the Civil War, and slavery.

The SCV better keep Beauvoir in tip-top condition, because I am sure there will be people running to the state of Mississippi if they see as much as single paint flake or rusty nail or a leaf not raked up.

Kevin Levin wasn't happy over this turn of events.


Levin's comment about this change is:
Apparently, management is consulting with the Virginia Flaggers on how to respectfully and tastefully display the Confederate flag. I visited Beauvoir once years ago. It is a beautiful site and one that deserves to be preserved and professionally interpreted. It looks like the Mississippi SCV is capable of doing neither.
Levin believes himself to be a member of the elite interpreters of the Civil War and is upset that Beauvoir isn't going to be interpreted by people like him. Note his terms "professionally interpreted" and "respectfully and tastefully." He would be quite happy with Beauvoir continuing to be used as a Confederate shrine by "professional" interpreters as he is with the Museum of the Confederacy being a Confederate shrine.

Levin is also upset with manifestations of the neo-Confederate agenda. He puts neo-Confederate in quotes in his blog posts, as if it is a questionable term. With the SCV agenda at Beauvoir, it becomes harder to ignore the reality of the neo-Confederate movement when it is highly visible. The SCV agenda for Beauvoir will discredit the Confederacy whereas the "professional" interpretation would work to increase identification with the Confederacy.

This increased visibility is good since it will alert the public. It will also serve to discredit the Civil War enthusiasts who want the Civil War to be anything and everything but the issues of race and slavery and would like to enthuse over Varina's garden and count buttons on uniforms. These Civil War enthusiasts will also be seen as enablers as since they surely should have been aware of the neo-Confederate movement and did nothing.

Kevin Levin is representative of a certain faction of Civil War enthusiasts which would like to avoid a lot of the issues about the historical memory of the Civil War. So it is instructive to observe him. As the the issues of historical memory regarding the Civil War move into a future and away from representations that might have been acceptable in the past he is reacting to it and his blog postings are very revealing. I next hope to blog on his coverage of the opposition to neo-Confederacy at Washington and Lee University by African American students.  It is both hilarious and revealing.

The old regime is passing away.

Saturday, May 17, 2014

Sons of Confederate Veterans and their hate group policy

The Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) like to say that they are against hate groups in particular towards the KKK. This is supposedly proves that they aren't racist.

The White Citizens' Councils of the 1950s were against the KKK also, and the White Citizen's Councils were hysterically racist. This website has the White Citizens' Council newspaper online. http://www.citizenscouncils.com/

The SCV doesn't however have problems with people who are members of the Council of Conservative Citizens (CofCC) (www.cofcc.org).  The SCV had CofCC members write articles for its now defunct publication Southern Mercury and I keep coming across CofCC members involved with the SCV.

If the SCV "no tolerance policy towards hate groups" meant anything, the SCV would not allow CofCC members to have any influence or role in the SCV and would seek to have them banned from membership.

There is no indication that this will happen.

Friday, May 02, 2014

Council of Conservative Citizens reporting on race: An Example

The Council of Conservative Citizens has a hysterical article at their website here:


The head line reads, "Nova Scotia bar owners convicted of racism for calling police on unruly black patron." The article tells the reader, "Dino Gilpin, a black immigrant, was asked to leave a Halifax bar because he did not have a valid picture ID. When he refused to leave and made a scene, the bar called police," and "So, in Canada, it is now literally illegal for a business to call the police on a black customer who is causing trouble and refusing to leave." in bold print.

So is that the case? This is the Canadian coverage of the story.


From the news story:
"Dino Gilpin — who is black and originally from Sierra Leone — went to the commission after he was refused service at the Halifax Alehouse on Feb. 20, 2010, when they wouldn't accept his Canadian citizenship card as a valid form of photo identification."
Further from the news story:

In a decision dated June 13, the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission ruled the decision to refuse to serve Gilpin was based on the bar's rigid ID policy, rather than his race.
But the commission also said the Halifax Alehouse broke the Human Rights Act when staff called the police, ruling that only racial discrimination could explain that action when Gilpin was simply drinking a glass of water.
"I find that the worst that can be said of Mr. Gilpin is that he overstayed, lingering over his water. I find that he was calm and behaved appropriately throughout," wrote J. Walter Thompson, the chair of the Board of Inquiry.
"I find that he did not become loud, rant and rave or cause a huge commotion. I find he showed no signs of intoxication and was not in fact intoxicated."
Thompson went on to say Gilpin was "publicly humiliated."

 An African immigrant stood up for his rights. Good for him.

This should tell the reader how much credibility to accord a Council of Conservative Citizens story.

Wisconsin GOP set to vote on secession resolution, Wisconsin Republicans embarrassed. Update:

At the Daily Beast there is the following article about the upcoming Wisconsin GOP statewide convention in which they are going to vote on a resolution which says that a state has a right to secede.


Since the Sixth Congressional Republican Party voted on a resolution saying a state has a right to secede it is coming up for a state wide vote much to the embarrassment of the Wisconsin party and the national republican party. The Republican Party embarrassment is what the article is about.

In earlier blogs I have stated that this secession nonsense would be an embarrassment for the Republican Party. It is going to be difficult for the Republican Party to manage since the Republican Party activists seem to be in a competition with each other to adopt a more ultra position on being hostile to modernity and government.

When a political party passes a resolution like this they can't then go and say they are the patriotic party. If you are patriotic to a nation you don't discuss destroying it.

The patriotism of those who advance these secession resolutions can be questioned as well as media outlets which enable secession activity.


Further evidence of the embarrassment of Wisconsin Republican elected officials that have to run for re-election and don't want to be the candidates of the crazy party.


Monday, April 21, 2014

Questions sent to the Sons of Confederate Veterans UPDATE: 27 Days no answer.

BACKGROUND: Dr. Thomas Y. Hiter, head of the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) sent me a letter criticizing that I was writing churches asking them not to host the SCV meetings and convention services. Hiter said that if I had questions I should ask the SCV "instead." So I have sent him questions. The UPDATE section tracks whether Hiter or the SCV has responded.

UPDATE: So far as the morning of 5/18/2014 I have not heard back from Hiter or the SCV regarding these questions. Hiter's letter strongly urged me to ask questions and so I have. Perhaps I will hear back. I will be updating the date in the UPDATE until I hear back. I may not be updating it as frequently since they haven't emailed me back even as to whether they received my questions.

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.

Email of 4/21/2014 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 (www.cofc.org). 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?

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Popular Posts Last 30 days

Popular Posts All Time