Major General Nathanael Greene

Thanks to the gentleman who posted this video on Facebook.

Some of my Virginia forebears fought Cornwallis with Maj. Gen. Greene at Guilford Courthouse.


I have other Revolutionary ancestors, as well, of whom I'm very proud. One of them gave beef to the Continental Army. Another, Rev. John "Ten Shilling Bell" Chastain, is considered a colonial patriot by the DAR. Very proud, indeed.

Blooper of the Month

This month's blooper comes from a man who is a professor at a major state university and who is critical of Southern heritage enough to lie, harass, persecute and denigrate heritage folks, almost always over nothing -- such as an insignificant typo ... a typo that was clearly acknowledged by the one who made it.

Said blooper was made in the very post denigrating the typo and the one who made it. 

Screenshot of his blooper that appeared at his slimy flog:

With with?  

If you're going to denigrate somebody for a simple mistake -- the erroneous addition of one, o-n-e, (1),  alpha character -- you'd better make sure your denigration prose is error-free ... especially if you are professing to be a flippin' PROFESSOR.

IS THAT A SCREAM, OR WHAT? LOL!!! 

And can you say Karma? Kinda puts me in mind of of this...


Except it's not really redneck road rage. It's a Flogger foot-in-mouth show. LOL!!!  How do you spell comeuppance?  B-r-o-o-k-s   D.  S-i-m-p-s-o-n.

Saturday at the VMFA

Excited! Smallfoot in Beta Reads

Chris Dupree never believed in crypto-primates -- 

until they threatened the woman  he loved.

I'm excited! Beta readers have started reading  Love in Smallfoot Alley, a novella about a sweet Alabama girl, the misogynist who falls in love with her, a mysterious medical research facility under contract to the Pentagon, and strange creatures that roam the forests of west Alabama and endanger the heroine's life.

Front cover for print and ebook versions has been finalized. Still to do: the back-cover blurb, any minor edits and re-writes indicated by the beta readers, typesetting (print book) and formatting (ebook) and finalizing the video trailer.

After that -- on to Little Sister, Neo-Confederate, Catamount, Gone South and Flagger!

The War on Confederate Heritage

Yet another salvo in that war to erase Confederate heritage and evilize white Southerners who refuse to knuckle under to an arbitrary politically correct viewpoint. Video here:

TX school asks student to remove confederate shirt

Anybody who tries to tell you, "Oh, it's just the battle flag that's offensive, because it was tarnished by the KKK and racists during the civil rights era," is either lying or duped. The goal of the left is the total erasure of any and all Confederate artifacts from the Southern landscape, and all traces of the Confederacy from the American memory.

A Tiny Hit on the SPLC's Credibility

'Shocked' Anti-Defamation League slaps FBI 'diss on hate crimes

By Paul Bedard | MARCH 26, 2014 AT 5:39 PM

The Southern Poverty Law Center, which has labeled several Washington, D.C.-based family organizations as "hate groups" for favoring traditional marriage, has been dumped as a "resource" on the FBI's Hate Crime Web page, a significant rejection of the influential legal group. 

The Web page scrubbing, which also included eliminating the Anti-Defamation League, was not announced and came in the last month after 15 family groups pressed Attorney General Eric Holder and FBI Director James Comey to stop endorsing a group -- SPLC -- that inspired a recent case of domestic terrorism at the Family Research Council. 

More: Washington Examiner 

 Of course, just because there's no link on the FBI website, that doesn't mean the feds and the SPLC haters are not still in each other's back pockets... They still probably exchange info, but even this tiny hit on the SPLC's credibility is a step, albeit a tiny one, in the right direction.

He's Still Doing It

Simpson sez:

Connie whines in response that she’s been the victim of the same practice, and that I only quoted part of what she said.

He tried to make me look totally uninformed about the Emmett Till case, or unsympathetic toward the victim.

This is what she said at the time:

Emmett Till was not falsely accused. He came on to a white woman in pre-civil rights Mississippi, and the [sic] was brutally murdered for it.

 I said more than that, and he's still lying about it.

Give her credit: she realized the murder was “an atrocity.” But, as her comment at the time suggests, she still doesn’t quite understand why.

My acknowledgement that the murder was an atrocity was what he originally left out of text he stole from Backsass and posted at his blog, in order to slander and lie about me. My comment at the time was, "Emmett Till was not falsely accused. He came on to a white woman in pre-civil rights Mississippi, and the was brutally murdered for it. The murder was an atrocity, but it has absolutely no connection whatever to the story in my novel."

That doesn't suggest I don't quite understand why. It suggests I understand exactly the kind of libel Simpson was attempting to perpetrate against me.

After all, as she said, “Notice, too, how he fraudulently labels the the Till case as an example of ‘false accusation’ …”; in short, she still believes Till was rightly accused. Guess those sweet southern boys were justified in what they did in the fantasy world of Connie Chastain. They simply should have gone about it a different way. 

That is simply another way of lying. His original lie said, "But I guess she trusts the accounts of the sweet southern boys who killed Till." 

As I also clearly stated in Jun 2013, "I trust the account of the murderers? No. And as I understand it, there were several conflicting accounts, and, also significantly, Simpson doesn't tell us which one(s) to believe."

I've never read anything about the case that said Till was accused -- i.e., charged -- at all. When I say Till was not falsely accused, I mean that I've found no written accounts about the case that indicated Carolyn Bryant went to the police and filed any charges against him. I've read that she did not even tell her husband about the incident, that he heard it from others. I have also read that there were conflicting accounts, and that what happened is still disputed today.

In any case, before it could be established whether one account was true, and which one, or whether any of them were, Till was murdered. That's what I meant by he was not falsely accused, I'm sure Simpson is smart enough, and  has a reasonable enough level of reading comprehension, to figure it out. 

But being reasonable and acknowledging reality is not where he's at, when it comes to moi. His objective is to lie -- to accuse me of approving of murder and creating fictional characters who parallel Till's murderers. (I would love to know that does for him, wouldn't you? Though it may be something normal, decent people can't understand or relate to).

Next, he sez, "Will Connie return to defending/excusing Billy Bearden for expressing the wish that someone gets raped?"

Ah, naw. I don't have to defend or excuse Billy because I'm convinced he didn't mean it. It was not a serious, credible wish. It was some over-the-top rhetoric posted in the heat of anger -- once. That's O-N-C-E. Posted ONCE. Contrast it with years-long, oft-repeated, ongoing hate-slime Simpson posts at his scum-flog, his lies and, yes, his informal false accusations, his willingness, eagerness -- even his attempts -- to cause trouble for people who have done nothing to him.

Billy's an angel, a saint, by comparison.

Once more, the proposed victim would be black. Once more, the person sharing a wish for violence (at least it’s not committing violent acts) is white. Maybe one reason some people are defined as belonging to protected classes is that they need to be protected from vile white supremacists.

No, that's not what they're "protected" for/from.

Misrepresenting What an Author Writes

Amazing. So, what we have here is someone deliberately misrepresenting what an author wrote in order to gain points from the usual suspects, including the always reliable Billy Bearden. You remember Billy, don’t you? Now watch other people defend or excuse that practice.     ~ Brooks Simpson 

Simpson is an expert at that. Here's an example of his deliberately misrepresenting what I wrote by omitting part of it, and taking it back to his blog to gain points from his floggerette peanut gallery. He did so to try to make me look uninformed about the Emmett Till case, or unsympathetic toward the victim.

He has misrepresented my novels in the same way, although the freely admits he hasn't read them.

Whatever he chooses to attempt to smear heritage folks with, you can pretty much bank on his being guilty of the same and usually much worse.

It Was Twenty Years Ago Today

I had a very enjoyable time yesterday at Joe Scarborough's 20-Year Reunion for his campaign volunteers. Although after the campaign, several of us maintained contact the years he was in Congress -- especially we who worked in his district office -- there were folks there I had not seen since his first campaign, when he was a 30-year-old unknown with no political experience taking on Earl Hutto, a 16-year incumbent.

Had to look at name tags to recognize a few people...heck, ain't none of  us getting any younger. Had some laughs. Chatted with Joe's mom, shared  memories of her husband, George, who passed away several years ago. There were others no longer with us that brought home the passage of time. 

I got a big hug, three pecks on the cheeks and some nice words of welcome and remembrance from the former member of Congress and talk-TV host. I gave him an autographed copy of Southern Man. Noted the slight graying  at Joe's temples. Very distinguished looking, though in many ways, he still looks so much like that thirty-year-old who was inspired -- goaded? -- to run for Congress by the election of Bill Clinton, and the leftward lurch of the country afterward.

I left the Congressional office in 1998; worked for Joe at The Florida Sun for a while after that, and helped prepare the Congressional office for the incoming member, Jeff Miller, after Joe resigned. But basically, my interest in national politics ended with the Clinton impeachment hearings. If memory serves, I didn't vote in any presidential elections after that, until my vote for Mitt Romney in 2012, which wasn't so much a vote for the Republican candidate as it was a vote against the Democrat incumbent. My main reason for voting for Romney was my belief that he would be immensely better for the economy than Barack Obama.

Me and Joe, Back in the Day

Joe reminisced about the accomplishments of the 104th Gingrich-led Republicans in DC, and how the GOP has changed since then, giving rise to the Tea Party. But he says the country is strong and it will survive eight years of Barack Obama. I'm not so sure.  It would be interesting to know  his perspective, and why he thinks that. From where I sit, the USA is not only weak and growing weaker all the time -- its culture, politics, religion and nearly every other aspect of its existence are practically unrecognizable.

Still, it was nice to see folks, and remember when we were younger, had boundless energy and  genuine hope for the country.

And  now, back to defending Dixie and writing books.

 UPDATE   UPDATE   UPDATE   UPDATE

For Brad Griffin:  Nanner nanner boo boo.

                                                                                                         Photo by C. Ward

Some Questions for Andy Hall

 Over at Kevin Levin's flog, following the post about the controversy at Beauvoir, Andy Hall makes one of his usual harangues against Southern heritage. I'll include it at the conclusion of this blog post.

Meanwhile, I have some questions for Andy about his comments. Of course, he won't answer. He has avoided me like the plague ever since I confirmed that my purpose is to question the motives, or agenda, or character of heritage bashers such as himself, Simpson, Levin, etc. (Read about that here: Pusillanimous Poltroons.) These folks love to question the motives, agenda, character, intelligence and knowledge of Southern heritage people -- and not just to question it, but to denigrate, scorn and ridicule. For all their protest that it's about history, not heritage with them, it really is more about hate than history.

 So anyway, some parts of his comment about Beauvoir got me curious, and I want to ask some questions. He's too cowardly to come here and answer, or anywhere else, probably, but I think anyone can see these are perfectly legit and pertinent questions, and his refusal to answer will be telling.

Andy sez: For a long time now, “Confederate heritage” has amounted to little more that the display of more and bigger battle flags. It really is that shallow.

 (1) Where did your information come from that this is what it amounts to? Is this not merely your opinion? And as such, what is it based on; your own personal observations? How do you know you're seeing the whole picture? Has it occurred to you that maybe it is your observation, or your prejudice, that really are that shallow?

Andy: My guess is that Bertram Hayes-Davis, who is undoubtedly committed to the legacy of his ancestor, but is also someone who came to Beauvoir from the corporate world, understands instinctively that you can carry the unreconstructed rebel shtick just so far before it becomes a liability in the effort to garner wider public support for an organization or business.

(2) [a] Your guess is that's what he understands? What is  your guess based on?  Please define "unreconstructed rebel shtick". Give an example of it. Substantiate that it is real and not a product of your imagination, or your prejudice and desire to denigrate. [b] How do you know his motives regarding the legacy of his ancestor? Is this simply a conclusion you've drawn from reading recent news stories?

Andy: We’ve seen it over and over again, from the Confederate Air Force to Maurice’s Piggy Pork (sic) Barbecue, where organizations recognize that loudly banging the Confederate heritage drum is tangential, or even detrimental, to the organization’s core purpose and the need to win as wide support as possible.

(3) Since the Confederate Air Force (now the Commemorative Air Force) is not and never was a Confederate heritage organization, can you please advice when and how they banged the Confederate heritage drum?

Maurice Bessinger was the target of a concerted campaign of media smears and financial ruin by Columbia's The State newspaper, the NAACP and their individual followers and other who bullied grocery retailers into removing Bessinger's product from their shelves. In at least one instance, people entered a supermarket and threw bottles of Bessinger's sauce on the floor, breaking them and creating a mess --  a "lesson" that surely was not lost on other supermarkets. Punishment for such vandalism wasn't reported anywhere that I could find.

(4) As in Bessinger's case, how is becoming the purposeful target of financial ruin by NON-Confederate heritage organizations and individuals a recognition that "banging the Confederate heritage drum is tangential, or even detrimental, to the organization’s core purpose"?

(5) Will you be man enough to admit that you have mischaracterized these two cases in order to mischaracterized heritage, and make an invalid point?

Andy: Beauvoir's "...future as a viable museum and research institution is certainly threatened if visitors to Biloxi expect they’re going to get a haranguing about states’ rights and black Confederates and other heritage talking points."

(6) Why would visitors expect that?

(7) Have you ever visited Beauvoir?

(8) If you have, did you get a haranguing about states’ rights and black Confederates and other heritage talking points?

I contacted somebody I know who visited Beauvoir before Katrina and I asked her about her visit, and whether there was haranguing about states’ rights and black Confederates and other heritage talking points. Her reply:

There wasn’t any haranguing about anything. We pretty much wandered around and looked at things. A woman accompanied us into the house and told us about this object and that object, like, that some of the upholstered furniture had been stuffed with Spanish moss, and the process they’d gone through to prepare the moss for such usage (and I doubt that any of those pieces of furniture still exist, although it’s possible, I suppose). I’m trying to remember, but I think the kinds of things she said weren’t Confederate or anti-Confederate, just telling us about how the family would have lived in the house. There wasn’t any “guide” or anything when we went through the museum building. There were plaques that explained what the display items were, so there wasn’t a need for a guide. And when we walked the grounds and visited the graveyard, we were unaccompanied.

(9) Why should I believe that your descriptions and characterizations of the "heritage crowd" are objective and accurate rather than deep mischaracterizations that flow from your hatred of Confederate heritage and your desire to denigrate?

______________________

Andy's entire comment at Levin's flog:

For a long time now, “Confederate heritage” has amounted to little more that the display of more and bigger battle flags. It really is that shallow.

Jefferson Davis is best known as president of the Confederacy, of course, but there’s a whole lot more to his life and public career than the four years between 1861 and 1865. It’s not really surprising that the SCV would try to make Beauvoir a top-to-bottom Confederate shrine, but that misses a lot of the potential there.

My guess is that Bertram Hayes-Davis, who is undoubtedly committed to the legacy of his ancestor, but is also someone who came to Beauvoir from the corporate world, understands instinctively that you can carry the unreconstructed rebel shtick just so far before it becomes a liability in the effort to garner wider public support for an organization or business. We’ve seen it over and over again, from the Confederate Air Force to Maurice’s Piggy Pork Barbecue, where organizations recognize that loudly banging the Confederate heritage drum is tangential, or even detrimental, to the organization’s core purpose and the need to win as wide support as possible.

Beauvoir can’t be disengaged from the Confederacy in the same way, of course, but its future as a viable museum and research institution is certainly threatened if visitors to Biloxi expect they’re going to get a haranguing about states’ rights and black Confederates and other heritage talking points. I really do believe that at some subconscious level, the heritage crowd would rather see institutions like Beauvoir and the Museum of the Confederacy implode, rather than adapt to the changing reality of the United States (and the South) in the early 21st century. They would gladly sacrifice those institutions and their collections for the sake of being able to commiserate about “cultural genocide” on Facebook. A continually-and mutually-reinforced sense of resentful victimhood has been both their defining purpose and long-term goal for a long time now.