Saturday, March 28, 2015

Showin' Their Twoo Cuhwurs

UPDATE: A commenter named Leo at XRoads posts, "You are assuming these flagging groups want to be relevant. Judging from their tactics and history, I believe these flagging groups are more interested in getting in the faces of people who disagree with them or are offended by the Confederate battle flag than offering any positive solutions. They appear to have no interested (sic) in history or any form of compromise. They often site (sic) 'the right to offend' as justification for their actions even though doing so harms their cause in the end."

I think she means "cite" and I'm not sure how she defines "often" so I left a comment asking, but of course, Simpson has a long, long history of not posting comments from people he doesn't like. In any case, here's what I posted:

Hi, Leo. I have an observation and some questions. First, just because one perceives that one's face has been "gotten in to" doesn't mean the Flaggers are getting in one's face. That could just be he perception of someone who disagrees with what they're doing.
Positive solutions to what? Compromise what?

I'm not sure how you conceptualize "often" but could you provide some proof -- links, preferably -- of the Virginia Flaggers citing the right to offend? Not all Flagger groups are the same, and the focus on Mr. Simpson's blog is overwhelmingly the Virginia Flaggers, so that's who I'm asking about here, not other groups.

I try to keep up with them as much as I can, but since I'm so far away, and I my contact with them is via the Internet, it's possible that this has slipped past me. However, I've never seen them cite the right to offend, and I really wan to see at least one example of it. If they do it often, as you claim, it shouldn't be difficult to provide one example, or several.

I have seen heritage folks, including some Flaggers, say that being offended is not a right, and it is not justification for trying to silence others or mislabel and remove their beliefs and positions about their heritage. But that's not the same thing as claiming the right to offend.
Too bad Simpson won't post it. I would love to know what the commenter is talking about.

As for getting in the faces of people, the Virginia Flaggers have publicly made reference to Simpson and other hostile critics -- and often not by name -- perhaps dozen times in three years, while Simpson has posted
247 "flagger" (or "heritage") posts at Crossroads blog, virtually all of them unnecessary and untruthful attacks. Who is in whose face?

Leo, I can provide proof of what I just claimed about Simpson. Look at the left sidebar  <==== where the posts are identified. So please, identify just one example of what you're claiming.

End of Update~

I just LOVE watching the haters in floggerland show their true colors....

"Today the Virginia Flaggers will dedicate yet another flagpole bearing the Confederate navy jack, this time along I-81 near Lexington, Virginia. How many people really care? I know I don’t."    Brooks Simpson.        On the very day the flag went up.

He couldn't wait one day to express his, um, total indifference? (Smirk.)

Also note that this, the very post where he "doesn't care" about the VaFlaggers raising the flag is his 15th post of 2015 that is about the VaFlaggers (or Southern heritage) or makes reference to them.

And remember, eleven weeks ago he said he was only going to post about Southern heritage once a week ... meaning there should be eleven denigrating and hate-laced heritage posts, instead of the TWENTY there are.

Methinks Simpson is not telling the truth.
UPDATE: From XRoads:   
“He couldn’t wait one day to express his, um, total indifference?”

So says our favorite Confederate heritage fanatic. Actually, the post was composed before the event and appeared before the event. But please don’t let the truth get in the way of Confederate heritage’s “lust to denigrate.”
If it was composed before the event (which readers have no way of knowing), how does that answer my question? It means his claim of "not caring" is an even greater lie. The fact is, his blog post on the flag raising was expressed (by uploading to his blog) the day of the event, as I said. Unless Wordpress puts fraudulent dates on his posts? It says "March 28" and the day of the flag raising was March 28.

So, what I said was the truth. His eagerness in showcasing his obsession with the VaFlaggers belies his claim of "not caring."

And that he would "review" the flag raising event in Lexington before it even happened (according to him), mirrors his act of "reviewing" (with verbal violence) of one of my novels that I haven't even written yet. How's that for obsession? I have no doubt it would be up on Amazon, along his vicious, fraudulent reviews of my current books, if Amazon allowed reviews of as-yet unwritten books.

Simpson is obsessed with  the Confederate heritage community, but especially the VaFlaggers, to an unhealthy degree.
~End of Update~

Then you have comments that show the bigotry of a couple of heritage critics.

First we have Corey Meyer who says, "Today’s ceremony was a private event. I am guessing it was private so that they can use that excuse to push the notion that the small numbers in attendance was only because those were the invited folks."

Don't guess, Corey -- first, you show your hatred when you do, and second, you guess wrong. Interested in facts? Of course not, what a silly question. Nevertheless, here are some facts for you, chump.  No invitations could be reliably sent in time for crowds to attend because the setting of the pole had to be put off so many times because of the weather.  The flippin' pole wasn't set until Wednesday. (And temps were below freezing, and it was snowing when the ceremony began.)

Then you have Ohioboi who says, "Oh, I forgot, these guys and gals want to live in the Old South with slaves to do their bidding and be their underclass." Presumably, by "these guys and gals" he means the Virginia Flaggers. If his life depended on his proving this, he'd have to put in his order for his last meal, because the only "proof" comes from the statements of critics and haters -- statements like the one he just made. Try to find the Virginia Flaggers saying ANYTHING like what this lyin' scum just said.

I've never seen ANY evidence that the VaFlaggers, or the vast majority of Southern heritage folks, want to live in the Old South. The oft-stated (both publicly and privately) purpose of the Virginia Flaggers (and other heritage groups and individuals) is to honor Confederates for fighting to defend their states, communities, homes and families from a brutal military invasion.

I wonder if Ohioboi knows he's lying, or if he's delusional and actually believes the sewage he spouts....

Despite Simpson's obviously false claim to the contrary, he and his minions are vitally focused on the Virginia Flaggers and the big flags they're putting up around the state.  In a little over three years, this group has grown from one woman and her flag to the most powerful and influential Southern heritage organization in existence -- and the cause of a heritage tsunami that has energized other people from one end of the Confederacy to the other. 

This, btw, shows that Ohioboi is wrong about something else, too. Sez he, "The only thing these large flag poles with the CBF (or Navy Jack) accomplish is to reinforce the belief among cultural bigots in the North who happen to be traveling down the road and see the flag that most southerners are racial bigots..."

Ah, no, cutie pie. That is FAR from the only thing these highway memorial flags accomplish ... and, as you demonstrate, they aren't even necessary for northern cultural bigots such as yourself to reinforce your lyin' beliefs about the South.

This is truth the floggers hate, but then "...the truth has never distracted them from their beliefs..." (about Southern heritage and the VaFlaggers), to paraphrase Brooks Simpson.

Yes, I do love it when the floggers and floggerettes show their true colors...

Thursday, March 26, 2015

OhioGuy Confirms VaFlagger Claims

In a post at XRoads, OhioGuy tells about his tourist stop in the  Capital of the Confederacy. I was struck by some of what he said. I include them here, along with my comments -- some to him, some about his claims. Sez OhioGuy: 
 Well, ... just visited the Museum of the Confederacy ... It’s a very impressive museum, which is run by a very professional staff. What probably angers the flaggers more than anything is that they no longer present the Lost Cause mythology in their interpretation of either the causes of the war or the conduct of the war. 
What you mean is that it's no longer a museum of the Confederacy. It's a civil war museum, which is not the same thing.
They actually seemed to be trying very hard to present history with integrity and to be as accurate as possible.
I.e., they presented what YOU agree with -- and it's not the history of the Confederacy.
I noticed a few editorial comments that showed some bias, such as referring in one display to “Sherman’s infamous March to the Sea . . .” However, in total it was objective and well presented history.
Meaning, it agreed with your biases.
I had interesting discussions with both the senior curator and the director of public relations while there. I pointed out an error in a video segment on the Emancipation Proclamation. They seemed anxious to make the necessary correction. Being open to this kind of correction, to me, shows intellectual integrity. 
They're going to change their presentation on the say-so of one museum visitor whose credentials and qualifications they presumably do not know? Are they gonna change their presentation every time some visitor says he's found something wrong with it? No wonder some folks consider the museum unprofessional and biased.
 Something that I haven’t noticed in abundance among flaggers.
What is your experience with the VaFlaggers, except what you see limited by the Internet, or filtered through their critics and detractors? And do you consider that reliable?

Yep, OhioGuy has just confirmed what the VaFlaggers have been saying or hinting at for so long -- it's not the Museum of the Confederacy. It's the Museum of Dishonoring the Confederacy.

A Man of His Word...

On January 6th, Brooks Simpson posted at XRoads:
This Week in Confederate Heritage
This year I’m going to try something different when it comes to chatter about the antics of various Confederate heritage apologists advocates. As a rule, I’m going to confine my commentary to a weekly column for the normal run-of-the-mill items.
 That was eleven weeks ago -- meaning, there should be eleven "Confederate Heritage" posts subsequent to that date.

There are not. There are twenty. That's only two shy of TWICE eleven... The large numbers on the calendar above represent heritage posts.

He also said, "Of course, there will be exceptions to the rule, but only in cases I find particularly interesting."

I think it's pretty clear that he find so many cases "particularly interesting" because he is obsessed with Confederate heritage and its supporters, because they are grist for his denigration mill. You have only to look at the subjects of the 20 posts in eleven weeks to see that:
 1 -- 1/6/2015
This Week in Confederate Heritage
This year I’m going to try something different ...

2 -- 1/9, 2015   
Susan Hathaway and the Virginia Flaggers....

3 -- 1/15, 2015   
Proper Flag Etiquette

5 -- 1/16, 2015   
Civil War Arithmetic

6 -- 1/19, 2015   
Quote of the Week: January 11-17, 2015

7 -- 1/1, 2015The Past Two (Boring) Weeks in Confederate Heritage

8 --  2/9, 2015   
Attention John Stauffer and Jim Downs …

9  -- 2/25, 2015   
Remembering … and Misremembering … Reconstruction

10  --  2/28, 2015   
The Persistence of Myth in Confederate Heritage

11 --  3/6, 2015 The Last Five Weeks of Confederate Heritage

12 --  3/8, 2015 Call for help from author

13 --  3/15, 2015 What they don't teach you

14  --  3/16, 2015 Confederate Heritage Fantasy Fiction

15 --  3/17, 2015 Connie Chastain Outs Karen Cooper and Valerie Protopapas

16 --  3/19, 2015 “Restore the Honor!”

17 --  3/20, 2015 The Ignorance and Lies of H. K. Edgerton and Robert Mestas

18  --  3/22, 2015 This Week

19 --   3/24, 2015 Poll Questions: The VMFA, the SCV, and the War Memorial Chapel

20  --  3/25, 2015 Research Exercise: Where Are the Flags?
A man of his word, huh....

Wednesday, March 18, 2015

Another Lie from the Floggosphere

Challenges for My Readers

(1) Find on this blog or elsewhere any "blindingly racist statements" made by me about the Pakistani birthplace of Mayor Huja of Charlottesville, Va.

(2) Find on this blog or elsewhere any statements made by me that indicate my view of the Civil War is based more on “Gone with the Wind” than anything factual.

Put your findings in a comment following this post. Thanks!

Tuesday, March 17, 2015

How a Liar Lies, Part .... Geepers, I've Lost Count....

Cowanon sez, "Now, please do be specific when you make accusations of lying, smearing, and libel. We're waiting."

In my previous post, I said, "There are lots of ways to lie ... outright stating an untruth, but also implication, omission, pretended ingnorance, etc."

Here's how Cowanon does it:

This is known as the "links and ties" method of character assassination, perfected by the $PLC (Socialist Pecunious Lawyer Crowd), but in widespread use by other assorted leftists, including "anti-racists" and the civil war left. Person A and Person F may have little to nothing in common, but the links-and-ties chain that separates them is used to imply that they do.

This is the method used in the attempted smear of the Virginia Flaggers with Matt Heimbach. He attended some events they attended and he shows up in a couple of photos/videos with them. The implication by the smear-meisters is that they have the same beliefs he does. They don't always come right out and say that -- perhaps they don't wish to be challenged to prove what they cannot prove... So they make certain implications and hope the reader will do the rest. Which their readers are usually eager to do.

Couple of other interesting things to note about Cowanon... S/he says:

But Fair Use is not for smearing, lying about, falsely accusing and mendaciously implying associations that don't exist.

Cowanon's visceral hatred of those he falsely implies are racist, using the false associations/links-and-ties method of mendacity, is reflected in his visceral obsession with them. To have such a need, and to indulge it, is truly pathetic and Cowanon seriously needs to get a life....

    UPDATE         UPDATE         UPDATE         UPDATE    

A well known Southern heritage advocate illustrates the links-and-ties smear method this way: "My hairdresser's first cousin's ex wife's insurance agent's mother once dated a guy whose second cousin's ex husband was in the klan. That makes me a racist." LOL!!

And speaking of the various methods of lying (outright stating an untruth, but also implication, omission, pretended ignorance, etc.) Simpson has just posted a blog entry that employs several of these methods. He's been particularly poisonous recently, after being silent for several days. I think he's pissed that I exposed his mean-spiritedness, as revealed in his false reviews of my books. I'm not sure why he would be angry about that ... I mean, he loves being mean and mendacious, so what's the problem?

Cowardly Anonymous Flogger Also a Liar

There are lots of ways to lie ... outright stating an untruth, but also implication, omission, pretended ingnorance, etc.

Over in the Quickies widget, I said, "The Fair Use doctrine does not mean images or written passages used without permission were donated, so 'Courtesy of' is a lie."

Cowardly flogger dishonestly truncates that to this:

 "The Fair Use doctrine does not mean images or written passages used without permission." Connie Chastain"

She doesn't end with ellipses to indicate there was more. She attributes it to me exactly as she misportrayed it, with a period after "permission". This, of course, totally changes the meaning of the sentence I wrote. My point was that Fair Use doesn't give the passages used the status of DONATION.

Cowardly Anonymous Flogger -- Cowanon for short --sez the entire point of the Fair Use Doctrine is that images or passages are used without permission and are donated.  Not true. Fair use allows images and passages to be reprinted without permission under certain conditions, for certain reasons, and with certain restrictions -- but it doesn't give the images and passages the status of donations or courtesies.

From Merriam Webster:
 courtesy of

If you say that something has been provided through the courtesy of or (by) courtesy of a person, organization, business, etc., you are politely saying that they paid for it, gave it, or let it be used.
~The flowers were provided through the courtesy of a local florist.
~This program is brought to you courtesy of our sponsors. [=it has been paid for by our sponsors]
I have given no text or images to Cowanon. I have not donated them to her. I am not allowing them to be used. She has stolen them and the Fair Use doctrine simply protects her from the consequences of theft and copyright infringment. So her use of "Courtesy of" is a blatant and very characteristic lie.

This kind of moral bankruptcy is rampant in the ranks of heritage critics.  I hope to show more of this kind of disgusting lack of integrity from other critics as time permits. But, I have an author services job to finish, and several more possibly coming in soon. It'll have to wait for a while.

Monday, March 16, 2015

Working Covers and Inspiration Images...

for my historical novel and sequel....
The protagonist of After the Stars Fell (tentatively named Morgan Walraven) was born in the "big house" of his father's modest plantation, Valhalla, on November 13, 1833, the night of a spectacular Leonid meteor storm (  Born in Valhalla's slave quarters on the same night, and almost at the same moment, was a male slave (tentatively named Dorsey) who would eventually be given to young Morgan as a companion and playmate.

I was inspired to give Morgan this date of birth by a passage from the Foreward of Carl Carmer's book, Stars Fell on Alabama: "M
any an Alabamian to this day reckons dates from 'the year the stars fell' -- though he and his neighbor frequently disagree as to what year of our Lord may be so designated. All are sure, however, that once upon a time stars fell on Alabama, changing the land's destiny. What had been written in eternal symbols was thus erased -- and the region has existed ever since, unreal and fated, bound by a horoscope such as controls no other country." (Emphasis mine.)

Morgan and Dorsey are 28 when they go off to war to fight the yankees. Morgan leaves behind a young wife and baby. It will be in interesting to see how the fall of the stars on their birth night influences their lives -- whether they're charmed or cursed.

Valhalla is located on a fictional river in Baldwin, Monroe or Clarke county, probably Baldwin. The house was inspired by Crumptonia near Orrville, Alabama. It has a front porch covered with a triangular pediment roof supported by four square columns with very plain capitals. However, Crumptonia is a bit too grand for Valhalla's big house -- it served as the inspiration, not the pattern. Valhalla is smaller and much more modest.

Crumptonia restored:

These are more what Valhalla would look like:

The Dellet House, Claiborne, Alabama

Black Thistle Plantation, the Underwood Home, Pleasant Hill, Alabama

Glencairn Plantation, Greensboro, Alabama (Don't know if it's been restored.)

Dry Fork Plantation, Coy, Alabama

Although the plantation house and outbuildings will look like those in more inland areas, Valhalla's land and vegetation was inspired by those that surround Kingsley Plantation in Jacksonville, Florida. But the house won't look like this one....


The plantation will border on a fictional river, a tributary of the Alabama or Tensaw. It will also border on, and in some areas encompass, wetlands thick with saltmarsh cordgrass.

In antebellum times and in the 21st century, the house is visible from the main road, but one must travel a short distance through coastal woodlands like those below to reach it.

Valhalla is still owned by the descendants of the Walravens who built it. The current owner (in the sequel) is Julian Walraven.  By the time of the sequel, in the 21st century, the plantation has transitioned to a dairy farm.  Julian, in his late 20s, and he and his father run the farm.

(Note: Some of these images found on the net are for illustration purposes only.

Sunday, March 15, 2015

Addressing the Escambia County Commissioners

Background: In December 2014, it was reported in the Pensacola media that the Escambia County Board of Commissioners would vote on the five flags display at the Pensacola Bay Center. Everyone, including the late Earl Bowden of the Pensacola News Journal (PNJ), assumed the vote would be to replace the Confederate battle flag with the First National flag of the Confederacy, known as the Stars and Bars. This would make the county display the same as the city of Pensacola's five flags displays. I didn't attend that meeting because this change seemed a foregone conclusion.

In a move few if any foresaw, the commission voted 4 to 1 to remove all the five flags except the US flag, and to add the Florida flag to the display.

The community was stunned. I believed from the moment I heard about the vote that it was a mistake and would eventually be corrected. When Bowden editorialized that the flags should be returned to the display, with the First National instead of the battle flag, I was even more convinced. The PNJ editorial by Commissioner Grover Robinson cinched it for me. It was just a matter of time before the decision would be reversed.

January's and February's commission meetings passed with no discussion on the matter, but it was on the agenda for the March meeting. Although I knew I would have zero influence on the matter, I decided to attend the meeting.


The March meeting of the Escambia County Board of Commissioners began at 5:30 p.m. the 5th. I would not be able to get there until 6:30 or later. I assumed that would be too late to request to speak to the board, so I had no plans to do so. That being the case, I didn't take time to put on make-up or put up my hair, and delay my arrival for the meeting even more.

After dealing with various items county business, the commission brought up the subject of the Pensacola Bay Center five flags display. A number of citizens spoke to the board, and several extolled the U.S. flag as a lofty contrast to the Confederate flag with its symbolism of racism and slavery.

These comments echoed others made recently in letters to the PNJ and on social media: The only flag we should display and be proud of is the American (sic) flag.

The more I heard this sentiment at the meeting, the more I squirmed in my seat at the back of the chamber. Finally, I went to the woman who took requests from attendees to speak to the commissioners, and asked if it was too late to sign up. No, it wasn't. She gave me a slip of paper with a few blanks to fill in, and I did so.

My hastily scribbled notes
Back at my seat, I rummaged through my purse, looking for paper to jot some notes on.  I had just cleaned out my purse earlier in the day, and the only paper I could find was a couple of convenience store receipts. I scribbled notes as the subjects I wanted to call attention to came to mind; I was still writing when my name was called.

Here's what I told the commissioners:
What's worse? A country created on the principle that all men are created equal and allows slavery for eighty-nine years, or a country founded on the principle of slavery that's ready to give it up in four. Jefferson Davis sent Duncan Kenner to Europe at the end of the war-- close to the end of the war -- to offer to free the slaves in exchange for recognition from Britain and France. That's not taught in our schools. It took the Confederacy four years. It took the United States eighty-nine.

And there are other things that that flag stands for, like the genocide of the Plains Indians by the Grant Administration. It was U.S. policy to kill off the buffalo and starve the Plains Indians and take their lands for white settlers. It was under that flag that native Americans were imprisoned on reservations in conditions worse than plantation slavery. Under that flag MK Ultra experiments on unknowing-- CIA experiments on unknowing subjects, Abu Ghraib, torture in Central America approved of and perhaps achieved with help from the CIA. So that flag is not stain-free.

And the claim that it offends African Americans. Pew Research poll showed that -- recently 48 percent of African Americans are indifferent to the Confederate flag, only 41 percent disapprove.
The crux of my brief remarks was that the US flag, which some people had extolled as if it symbolized unsullied righteousness and represented impeccable loftiness, was not stain free. My point was to remind people that, when it came to negatives, the two countries represented by those two flags shared more similarities than differences.

I was the last speaker, and the board carried on their discussion afterward. Although Commissioners May and Underhill weren't prepared to change their votes, I was not at all surprised that the other three did indeed vote to return the five flags, with the First National, to the bay center. I don't believe for a moment that my comments had any bearing whatever on that decision. But I hoped I had given people something to think about.

Commissioner Underhill was not pleased with my remarks, and said, "And to that last speaker who spoke and talked about all the sins committed under this flag, this is the flag of sinners. This is the flag of a bunch of people who got together and said we can do it better and we have made some mistakes but to sit there and articulate all the things that have been done wrong under this flag, I'm really sorry that your experience brings you to focus on all of those things when we should in fact be focusing on all the things about this flag that bring us together."

It would probably be pointless to try to explain it to him, but very little about the US flag brings us together, and it grows less powerful to do that every day. In fact, it has become increasingly targeted for removal in various places and by various groups and individuals around the country. Confederate heritage folks know what that feels like first hand, and we've warned people for years that the US flag was next.

Although I don't really think Commissioner Underhill is interested, my experience that caused me to focus on those negative things is the experience of having my Southern and Confederate heritage and culture continuously attacked and dishonored. I believe the north/union had no moral authority for coming South to kill Southerners 150 years ago, just as those targeting Confederate heritage for removal today have no moral authority for doing so.

In any case, I have to wonder how many disappointed, appalled, even angry constituents the commissioners heard from during the period from December to March... In January, WEAR-TV reported, "Commissioner Grover Robinson says as soon as the county made that decision, he started getting a lot of complaints." It quoted Robinson as saying, "(They said,) ‘you took down Spanish, the British, you took down the French, why did you that?’” Robinson said.  “It’s part of our history, it’s our culture and there’s a strong desire to identify with our culture.”

Indeed, there is. Those people who complained to the county commissioners are the reason the flags went back up. Kevin Levin's calling it a victory that "rings hollow" is simply his attempt to save face because it runs counter to his long-standing prediction that Confederate heritage is disappearing from the earth.  This was a victory not only for Confederate heritage but for the people of west Florida who have strong desire to identify with our history and culture.