Friday, September 7, 2012

Andy Hall throws another hissy fit ...

... because not everyone sees the "civil wowah era" (whatever that is -- presumably whatever he up and decides it is) the way he does. He's aimed his current hissy fit at Billy Bearden (again) for Billy's hissy fit over a Texas UDC chapter putting First National flags rather than battle flags on Confederate soldiers' graves.

All I know of this issue is what's on Andy's blog, so I can't vouch for the accuracy of the claims (about the Texas UDC chapter or Billy Bearden). However, I can make some comments about Andy's tirade.

Sez Andy:
"Billy Bearden, Flagger extraordinaire, continues his unhinged rant against the United Daughters of the Confederacy, when they don’t live up his own personal standard of butternut patriotism:

... the offense here is that a Dallas chapter of the UDC bought a bunch of “First National” flags to use on graves at a local cemetery, instead of the Confederate Battle Flag. Billy seems unaware that the First National has been the official flag of the UDC for more than a century, a part of its logo (right) in the same way that the CBF is part of the SCV emblem. Then again, the Flaggers’ allies at SHPG seem to believe that the UDC is a “support group to the SCV,” when in fact they are parallel organizations, with the UDC having been founded first, and thus is actually the senior of the two.

It’s amazing how little the Confederate Heritage™ folks seem to know about actual Confederate heritage."
Ah, excuse me? What is the significance of the First National being the official flag of the UDC and a part of its logo -- when the issue is decorating the graves of Confederate soldiers?

I seem to recall reading that it was Confederate veterans themselves who voted for the battle flag to be used to honor and commemorate them and their service and sacrifice, so it isn't so much Billy Bearden's personal standard of butternut patriotism at issue here. It's what Confederate soldiers wanted.

But, heck, what did they know, huh? And who cares what they wanted, huh? Andy points out the real issues that should decide what flag to use to honor them -- that the UDC is older than the SCV. Never mind that they weren't the ones who fought and bled and died from horrific wounds and disease during the war -- they're the "senior" organization, and that's what matters.

And, again, as Andy points out, the First National is the official flag of the UDC and appears in their logo. Everybody knows that the way to honor soldiers is with the flag of your organization, not the flag of their preference.

Andy seems to think that the Southern Heritage Preservation Group considers the UDC to be a support group for the SCV. (You just knew the SHPG would show up somewhere in Andy's tirade, diddin cha?) I followed the link to the SHPG embedded in Andy's blog post and found that opinion expressed by one -- one, that's o-n-e one (1) -- member of the group, appearing in one -- one, that's o-n-e one (1) -- post in one -- one, that's o-n-e one (1) -- thread.

One out of 1700+ members.

Andy, who presents himself as such a stickler for accuracy, truth, justice, apple pie and the American way, appears to be taking a page from serial liar and SHPG obsessive Brooks D. Simpson, when it comes to characterizing a whole group with the words or actions of a few -- or, in Andy's case, with the words of one -- one, that's o-n-e one (1).

To be on the safe side, when I visited the SHPG Facebook page, I did several keyword searches (search terms: support group, UDC support group, support, support group SCV and so forth) and according to Facebook's search results, the only place where the opinion appears that the UDC is a support group for the SCV is in the one thread already acknowledged.

Civil war "memory" and "era" and "other stuff" bloggers are all the time putting down the SHPG, the Flaggers and other heritage types for putting heritage above history, or for not knowing history.

The implication is that the memory/era/other stuff bloggers are motivated only by the pure and pristine pursuit of true and accurate history. But, as this post from Andy demonstrates, now and then another motive breaks the surface (or, in the case of Brooks D. Simpson, pretty much stays on the surface), encapsulated thusly:
How dare somebody disagree with my 21st Century progressive, politically correct denigration of the Confederacy! Buncha ignorant, scum-sucking racist hicks!
Well, Andy, in this case, if you want to convince people that ignoring what Confederate veterans wanted and going along with the act of putting the First National on their graves, you need a better authority than its being the official flag of the "senior" -- and, dare I say, 21st Century progressive, politically correct -- UDC. Your arguments are absolute pablum.

Go git 'em, Billy Bearden!


  1. Well done and said Connie, as always!

    For the record, the real issue here was that a Chapter had been using battle flags for cemetery decoration for 7 years, and decided to switch to the First Nationals, so they offered the Battle Flags up for sale. The SCV Camp that bought the flags broke the news.

    Flaggers do not question anyone's right to fly whatever Confederate flag they desire (duh!), but what we do find offensive is a heritage organization that wants to deny the Battle Flag ANY place in its ceremonies, memorials, and public display.

    Despite what Andy and others want to make folks believe, Billy's post was not an attack on the UDC's right to use the 1st National as their "official" flag. It was an attempt to publicize things like this which may seem trivial on its own, but when added to the numerous similar and worse stories that are finding their way to the surface, shows a pattern within the UDC that needs to be corrected ASAP.

    Thanks for all that you do, Connie! You give voice to exactly what is in my heart and in a way I could never do. God bless you!

  2. Thank you, Virginia Flagger. Thanks for the additional info. I knew there would be additional info... ha!

    Andy is following up David Tatum's comment by noting that David's ancestor, J.C. Tatum, seemed to have no problem with the First National. Well, gah-ha-holly, neither do I! I like the First National.

    But that's not the issue. Regardless of how hard Andy is trying to make it the issue -- to divert attention from the real issue, which, for me, is the PC suppression of the battle flag that sometimes overly influences those who should know better and fight against it.

  3. Andy comments on his blog: "My point remains — to suggest that putting (any) Confederate national flag on a Confederate veteran’s grave is somehow inappropriate or offensive, is just ridiculous, and flies in the face of common sense and reason."

    His point remains?????? He didn't MAKE that point in the original blog post. Did. Not. Mention. That. At. All.

    And I would suggest that it isn't the flag chosen, but the reason for choosing it, that's offensive or not.

    If the First National is chosen over the battle flag, which is the flag Confederate veterans themselves preferred, out of some misguided sense of political correctness, of nail-biting worry over what someone will think if the battle flag is used -- or fear of being thought of as "racist" -- then that reason/motive is politically correct and offensive, and an insult to the Confederate dead -- even though whatever flag used is itself not offensive.

  4. Andy tells David Tatum: "What I object to is the notion that, by using the First National to decorate Confederate veterans’ graces (sic), the Dallas UDC is somehow being disrespectful to those men or their memory, especially when the First National has been that organization’s emblem for over a century."

    What makes it a concern is that they have not been u ing the First National to decorate graves for over a century. They've used the battle flag -- but now, all of a sudden, the battle flags are unwelcome. What makes it a concern, Andy, is WHY this change all of a sudden. No, the First National is not disrespectful, but the UDC's reason for switching to it for grave decoration certainly may be disrespectful to them. And judging by Billy Bearden's information, it is motivated by fear of political correctness -- NOT because it's been in their logo for so long.

    Andy continues, "This is a cooked-up, self-serving and wholly unnecessary 'controversy' intended to stir the pot, and to keep the Flaggers and their supporters in a continual state of apoplectic rage against anyone and everyone who’s not out marching with them on the sidewalk."

    What utter tripe, Andy. Total baloney. Hooey. Shuck. You cannot possibly be unaware of the ongoing grinding away at Confederate heritage and memory -- heck, you're eager to take your turn at the crank of the grinding wheel at every opportunity. That's what your "era" blog is a (not very effective) cover for... Don't think for a minute we don't see through you...

  5. Andy, come stand with me on the sidewalk !

    Or better yet time to "READ" the letters I'm posting at my blog. Then maybe you will see where I'm coming from.
    PFFFFFT, on the history books !

    Read the letters, they will give you a first hand account, no historians or teachers giving you their opinion of who, what, when, where,or why. Fresh news right off the front lines.
    It don't get more real than that !


Comments are welcome, but monitored.