Friday, September 13, 2013

The Texas Scalawag Speaketh

Andy Hall has weighed in on the Heimbach Maneuver at Crossroads. Basically, he has weighed in on ME, on what I've said -- or on what he imagines I've said, or on what he misconstrues I've said. Or whatever.

See, Andy won't deal with me directly. He has long since banned me from posting comments at his blog. He doesn't reply to me on my blog -- but he will reply to me, not by name, of course, but to things I've written ... in the comment sections of OTHER flogger flogs... Why?

Here's a little background. Way back in August 2011, I wrote a blog titled Academic leftism and the Civil War. You can read it here:

For some reason, that -- in combination with some stuff I put in comments at Dead Confederates, like those in this thread -- really pissed Andy off and he put his foot down and banned me from his blog. You can read the comment thread where he did that here:

And my recap of the whole thing, here:

I've never made a secret of the fact that I examine the motives, or agenda, or character of critics of Southerners, the South, and Southern heritage. What you have here is odious hypocrisy. Andy, and all the floggers, for that matter, don't like having their motives, or agenda, or character questioned, or even examined -- but they do love to do the same to those they deem historically inaccurate, ignorant, stupid, evil and Southern/white/racist.

So, Andy is skeered to tangle with me directly but I often say things he really, really wants to answer, so he answers me at Kindred Blood or Crossroads or CW Memory, maybe even in the comments of flogs I am unfamiliar with... 

Look at how he words his reply. "I seem to recall..." instead of "Chastain said..." But, enough quibbling. Let's get to his argument.

... I seem to recall the argument was that Matt Heimbach just happened to get his picture taken with the Flaggers at Richmond in 2012 — until he showed up on video, marching in the parade with them, front-and-center.

Same event, Andy. Sheesh.

I seem to recall the argument was that Matt Heimbach wasn’t a Flagger at all — until it turned out that the Flaggers sent out an announcement congratulating him as one of “our own Va. Flaggers,” along with Hathaway, Jennings and others, winning a national award from the SCV.

It was a mistake, probably made because he was one of the 500 who, according to a quote in the Times-Dispatch, attended events put on by the group.

I seem to recall the argument was that Matt Heimbach’s presence at that parade was probably a chance encounter at that one event — until it was acknowledged there were other flagging events he participated in, too.

Name them, Andy. Dates, places, events. Name them all. Unless we have the total picture, we can't draw conclusions. And since you know so much about it, name the flagging events he participated in, Andy. Name them all.

I seem to recall the argument was that Matt Heimbach’s involvement with the Flaggers was a long time ago — except that one of the more prominent and high-profile Virginia Flaggers goes on the record that Heimbach is “a good guy” whose “white pride” graffiti then and current Nazi fetish is, even now, an “other issue” that’s irrelevant to the Flaggers, because he embraces Confederate heritage.

Well, Andy, your two statements separated by "except" are neither mutually exclusive or mutually reinforcing. And Tripp's comment did not mention "white pride graffiti and current Nazi fetish," so basically you're lying. The "other issue" was probably considered irrelevant at the time of the Heritage Rally, and even later, likely because nobody knew Heimbach's beliefs about race, or didn't know him. Or both. Unlike floggers, who zero in on such matters looking for something to generate the warm fuzzies of moral superiority and righteous indignation in themselves, most normal people, including Flaggers and other Southern heritage folks, aren't zeroed in on wacist-witch hunts.

No single one of these drip-drip-drip revelations about Heimbach is especially significant by itself. Taken together, though, they reveal a loose but real and ongoing affiliation between Matt Heimbach and the Virginia Flaggers, that seems plenty substantive given his previous situation as a full-time student in another state.

The reality of the "affiliation" is gossamer, the bulk of it imaginary. As for ongoing -- events, dates, places, Andy....

It also shows that while they really dislike being associated with the guy who goes around in swastika t-shirts, they also can’t quite publicly come to terms with who he was in 2012 when they were publicly praising him, who he’s become since, even as a leading Virginia Flagger continues to publicly embrace him.

Nah, it's just not that important. Again, I doubt most of them have ever seen Heimbach in the flesh, or even in a picture, and likely never in a swastika T-shirt. Personally, as a supporter of Southern heritage in general, and the Virginia Flaggers in particular, it is of monumental indifference to me (1) who Heimbach is, (2) what he believes (3) his imaginary "affiliation" with the Flaggers. He hasn't influenced them in any way.

I understand Heimbach is (or certainly should be) an embarrassment to the Virginia Flaggers, but this could have been cauterized two weeks ago, when it was first widely known, with a little bit of candor and direct, unambiguous language on their part, acknowledging who Matt Heimbach is and what he believes.

No. That supposes there was an actual, substantive connection, not some phantom connection dreamed up by people who hate the Flaggers, have had it in for them since their beginning, and have lied about them over and over. Repeatedly over and over.

They could have drawn a bright, shining line between themselves and Heimbach, but haven’t.

No need. Nobody cares except people who hate the Flaggers anyway.

(The formal response from the Flaggers doesn’t mention Heimbach by name, and only indicates he’s been called a white supremacist, as if there’s really legitimate doubt on that point.)

No, it indicates they (1) they don't know the particulars of the charge and (2) have more important things to do than jump through flogger hoops for people who won't be satisfied with anything they say.

(Andy's mention of a "line" gives a glimpse into what he WISHES he had -- a brand new, bright, shining verbal whip to flog the Flaggers with -- I mean, only an idiot believes a critic and hater hundreds or thousands of miles away can diagnose child abuse from a few seconds of video, so that particular cat-o-nine-tails is getting very worn; the Rob Walker thing went away for everybody except Simpson when it was explained by Susan's statement. And the disturbing of imaginary Confederate graves never got off the ground ... so to speak. So if they couldn't inflate the Heimbach blow-up doll all out of proportion, far beyond truth and reality, their Hate-the-Flaggers Express would out of gas and sputter to an ignominious stop.)

Instead, they’ve spent the last two weeks denying and making arguments — several of which have been subsequently contradicted by the evidence — that Heimbach’s involvement with the Flaggers wasn’t what the Flaggers themselves actually claimed it was before, and the really horrible people in this business are the wicked, wicked bloggers who used the Flaggers’ own photographs, videos and blog posts to document it. The real bad guy is not the “white pride” activist the Flaggers claim as one of “our own,” but the bloggers who talk about it.

No, no, no, Andy, that opener is NOT correct. The Flaggers have issued ONE STATEMENT. You can read it HERE.

Most of the arguments made have come from ME, CONNIE CHASTAIN WARD, on Facebook and my blog, Backsass. I am not a Virginia Flagger, although I have achieved a sort of honorary Flagger status through my defense of them. Although I am in limited communication with some of the Flaggers, most of my arguments in their defense have been made from information I found researching online. The core group of Flaggers are busy folks, have jobs, families and other responsibilities; I'm reluctant to encroach on their time. I am retired and have a lot more time to spend in online research.

Moreover, my arguments and explanations blew away every one of the arguments in your comment BEFORE YOU MADE THEM. As I'm sure you know, considering how much you lurk at Backsass.

The long history of attacks on and lies about the Flaggers -- the animosity, the jealousy, the drumming up hatred for them by you floggers is INDEED WICKED. (I still can't get over the "child abuse" accusations, considering the silent acceptance of some of the long-term, regular peanut gallery floggerettes warmly welcomed at flog comment sections.)

But it won't stop the I-95 flag from going up, and it won't stop the flaggings of the VMFA.

Let me ax you a question, Andy Hall. What do you have to say about Brooks Simpson posting Susan's private sector job information in the midst of a blizzard of attack posts at Crossroads? I mean, besides, "That's awkward and look what Bobby Edwards said..."

I have said that the floggers are tying to take  "an incidental, gossamer 'connection' and morph it into the anchor chain of the Emma Maersk." Maritime-Andy will certainly understand that reference, but maybe I need to dumb it down a little for flogger readers. Pictures, maybe.

Yeah. Pictures.

What Andy is trying to do is take some ripples in a rain-puddle ....

and morph them into a tsunami about to swallow up Richmond...

or maybe just the Flaggers.

But only gullible leftists, anti-racists, and evilizers of Southern white people buy that. Everyone else knows a puddle when they see it.

P.S. LibertyLip has made a blog post about the I-95 flag showing the usual intellectual vacuity of ultra-leftists resulting from narrow obsessiveness... I left a comment. Likely it won't get through moderation, so here it is:
Very amateurish and unrefined, LibertyLip. You got a long way to go before your snark gets as snot-slick as Simpson's. But keep trying. And in the meantime, thank you for making yourself the poster-kid for lies and filth. I love to see lies and filth coming from your side. Shows your true ... colors... LOL!
What really gets me is how much he IGNORED me. I mean, in a rather schizoid approach, he mentioned me in an article that claims I'm not article-worthy (obviously in disagreement with Simpson), but he didn't use my name. Hmmm. Anyway, he said, "We could start pointing fingers and naming names of some of the more moronic individuals in the group, like some mentally unbalanced trash novelist out of Pensacola FL, but demented histrionics– however embarassingly funny– are not article worthy.

How come no coverage, if my "demented" histronics (note, dear readers, that I used "demented" in this ongoing blog fracas before this copy-cat did) are funny? Funny is always article-worthy. I suspect he doesn't know how to do genuine humor, just derision.

Anyhoo, if anybody can help me come up with methods for parlaying this non-mention into trashy novel sales, please leave a comment. Thanks!

Update Update Update

So, what do y'all think? Should I change the name of this post to The Texas Scalawag Squeaketh?

Images: Malene Thyssen, and unknown photographer, via Wikimedia Commons, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license; and the Public Domain.


  1. Hall is a curious case, as he is not only despicable, but also genuinely amusing. That he takes such an intensely perverse pleasure in denigrating his people, ancestry, and heritage, is, of course hateful, even more so because he does it so pusillanimously and dishonestly. Nevertheless, there is a comic and buffoonish quality to his blog. If you take a visit to his blog (as almost no one ever does), you are likely to see a photo of a 150 year old Tonka toy, or some photo of a muddy marsh that was once a small pond, and his three readers will gush effusively over what a wonderful piece of research it is. Almost all his threads are meaningless and frivilous. That, and does he really think the title of "Dead Confederates" is so flippin clever? I mean, does he really not think that it is just as possible to say " Dead Unionists" ?

  2. The Floggers are so dishonest. I hate lies AND insincerity. This Hembeich 'issue' is all about intimidating the landowner who allowed the Flaggers to use the land for the I-95 flag. And worse, even with this intimidation, the Floggers still don't care about Blacks. It's all an academic issue to them. No? Look where the Floggers live, as far away from a Black neighborhood as possible.

  3. The Floggers are so dishonest. I hate lies AND insincerity. This Hembeich 'issue' is all about intimidating the landowner who allowed the Flaggers to use the land for the I-95 flag. And worse, even with this intimidation, the Floggers still don't care about Blacks. It's all an academic issue to them. No? Look where the Floggers live, as far away from a Black neighborhood as possible.

  4. Johnny, Heimbach has proved to be a remarkably ineffective weapon against the Flaggers. Just like all the ones before it.

  5. Hall advises the world wide web that his profession is in Maritime Archeology. Interesting profession, no doubt. So go ahead and enter "Maritime Archeology" into the Google search engine, click "Images", then scroll through the myriad of photographs and count the number of African-American faces. The profession is overwhelmingly, overwhelmingly, white.

    Below, and chosen quite at random, is a sample:

    Yeah, go ahead and count the number of African-American faces. Matthew Heimbach would love to have such company. He would love it.

    These phony limousine-liberals and their do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do blowhard posturing is nauseating. Nauseating.

  6. Andy's stretching it farther than the tether can hold on Southern slaveowner population statistics, returning in a suspciously 33% figure. It was done after the media leaked Paula Deen's slaveowning ancestor where in turn Andy complimented it with specious claims in digging up older documents that this ancestor wasn't a benevolent master. This claim could be correct or not but is a red herring in the statistical analysis. The most commonly accepted figure is 6% of the total 11 Confederate states. The liberals did some leagues wide stretching by then counting overseers, tutors, and even children as "owner". It's like saying the employees own all the corporations in America, and so if Nike shoes has 1000 employees, then we have to count 1000 Nike corporations. Not putting into considerationg that while the average family had 6+ children, the usual mortality rate was half or more before the age of inheritance, age 21.

    I'd like to know what this blog owner thinks of this desperate mathematical debauchery to pass it as genuine fact.

  7. flame.thrower, I don't have a quibble with the 13% - 14% figure based on the 1860 census. Of course, this counts all slave owners in the *USA*, including those in border states that did not later secede; but the number of slaves, plantations and owners in those states were small.

    The slave owners in the 1860s were identified by name on the census, so even if they were children of slave owners, or tutors or whatever, if they owned a slave, or slaves, the are so identified by name on the census rolls.

    What I have a problem with is counting "slave-owning families," which is where the 33% figure comes from. It is a fundamentally dishonest way of counting.

    James Epperson explained it to me thusly -- the reason for counting "slave owning families" (which actually means families that have a slave owner among their members) is to "... discern how many people were affected by or benefitting (sic) from or exposed to slavery. It would be more than the individuals who legally owned the slaves---it would include their wives and children. I am not the originator of this, it is the standard metric used by historians."

    You can see my post about it here ...

    ... wherein I noted,"If the point of the exercise is to discern how many people benefited from slavery..." then "slave holders" would include "...nearly everyone in the New England maritime industry, whose ships carried cargoes, and whose crews were paid to carry cargoes, of slave-grown cotton to markets in Europe. It would include New England's textile mill owners and workers who milled Southern, slave-grown cotton It would include northern bankers and their employees, which financed the purchase of slaves and plantations. It would include northern insurance companies that made profits insuring slaves...." and "... why is the benefit to these northerners ignored? ... Because acknowledging it would be of absolutely no use in demonizing white Southerners."

    Demonizing white Southerners seems to be one of the greatest joys Andy Hall experiences...


Comments are welcome, but monitored.