The Faces of Confederate Soldiers

To round out Confederate History and Heritage Month, here are two videos by Robert Mestas of Defending the Heritage ... moving tributes that show us the faces of Confederate soldiers -- the men leftists and floggers love to cover with blanket evilization (for "fighting to keep an ENTIRE RACE in bondage!" -- which, of course, these soldiers were not doing).

These are our our cultural and sometimes actual ancestors. God bless them, God bless their memory. May we possess the courage to remember and honor them with intellectual honesty, free from fear of the overbearing scourge of our time, pernicious leftism and its hideous offspring, authoritarian political correctness -- the antithesis of liberty.



Thanks to Robert for permission to post the videos here.

Backsass to Tim Wise

(the "anti-racist" who reportedly lives in a lily white section of very black Memphis)

Tim's unwise comment here: http://oldgoldandblack.com/?p=31560&cpage=1#comment-72601

My reply (which they likely won't post):

I'm a "neo-Confederate," Mr. Wise, and I never say the war had nothing to do with slavery or racism. I do say most Confederates were fighting to save their families, homes, communities and territory from a barbaric invading army. 

Their willingness to carry out one of the responsibilities of manhood -- that of defender/ protector -- and their doing so despite horrific suffering, is primarily why I honor them

My position is that the north had no moral authority for invading the South, and I honor my Confederate ancestors for standing against the invasion. Don't think for a moment that just because some northern states abolished slavery (to diminish or eliminate their black populations) that they were not armpit-deep in slavery.

"Abolitionist" Julia Ward Howe wrote in "A Trip to Cuba" (Google it) a passage that could mirror Stephen's Cornerstone speech. (She also said aboes wanted to, and tried to, "blow up the union.") Northern maritime interests got rich shipping slave-grown cotton to Europe. Northern industrialists got rich processing slave-grown cotton in their textile mills, and making/selling finished goods from slave-grown cotton. Northern banks got rich lending money for plantations and slaves, and northern insurance companies got rich off premiums that insured slaves.

Lincoln's call for volunteer military oppressors to invade the South doesn't say a syllable about slavery. That didn't become a factor until well into the war.  For the north, the reason for brutalizing the South back into the "union" (i.e., no longer a volunary republic but a prison for states) was because they couldn't make it as a nation on on their own.  It only required nine states to create the union by ratifying the Constitution, and there were 22 states in the union after the South seceded  -- more than twice nine.  But even with that many states, they knew they didn't have what it took to be a successful nation without the South.

Mr. Wise, you have a leftist (socialist/collectivist) political agenda -- leftism is one of the most destructive philosophies in history.  Igor Shafarevich, a Soviet mathematician, wrote that socialism  has been obsessed with material equality, and with the eradication of individual and gender distinctions, and with the abolition of religion, throughout history (long before it was called socialism). It wars incessantly against the normal. Shafarevich concluded that a “striving for self-destruction,” for nothingness, for the “death of mankind,” was the true goal of socialism. Instinctively, without stating it or even seeing it as the conscious goal, the socialist phenomenon seeks the death of the human race. http://www.sobran.com/hive/hum.shtml

How does it feel to be working toward the death of the human race? And you get your jollies denigrating and lying about decent, ordinary, better-than-you Southerners, past and present, because some of them owned slaves 150+ years ago, and fought against a barbarous military invader?

You are a huge part of the problem bringing about the downfall of America, Mr. Wise. You don't constitute even a particle of the solution.

Not Thinkin' Things Through

Flogger comments on my novel, Sweet Southern Boys:

"I’m usually against things that have 'sweet' and 'boys' on them. It sounds
sort of creepy." ~Rob Baker

"Yeah, I know…writing about young
boys...sound funny to me."  ~Corey Meyer

Well, well, well....  Sometimes floggers, in their zeal to wield the put-down, don't think their comments though....

When Rob says "things" does he mean just novels? Or also movies, songs, poems, sports, articles, anything else...  Is he against --

Boys' Sweet Sixteen basketball tournament
Sweet Boys Diner in Bowie, Texas
Sweet Boys Cupcake Bakery
Sweet Boy of Mine (boy's clothing website)
Sweet Boy's Life, Kohitsuji Hokaku Keikaku (Japanese anime fan book)
Little Boy Sweet, June Pointer (song)
Sweet Little Jesus Boy,  Trisha Yearwood, Kenny Rogers, Andy Williams and others (song)
Sweet Little Baby Boy, James Brown (song)

And I wonder if Corey thinks these "writings" about boys sound "funny."

Tom Sawyer Huckleberry Finn Lord of the Flies David Copperfield Oliver Twist The Yearling The Jungle Book Old Yeller Peter Pan

Great Expectations The Outsiders To Kill a Mockingbird Where the Red Fern Grows The Back Stallion The Hardy Boys Harry Potter Friday Night Lights The Catcher in the Rye

For floggers, it's not about history -- it's about hostility, it's about the put-down, the insult, ridicule, mockery ...  And they pursue it so eagerly, they don't always think through the larger ramifications of what they say. Just like another critic of mine who wrote --

See, Connie’s in denial about some of those sweet southern boys and what they do when they walk along Bourbon Street and peek in the windows while collecting their beads.

Peeking in windows on Bourbon Street? Sounds like he knows this from ... experience, don't it?

Am I Right? Or Am I Right?

Brooks Simpson recently posted a rant against the Virginia Flaggers on his blog titled, "An Expression of Total Indifference." I left a simple comment in the form of a question: Why do you care about the Flaggers? Why even mention them on your blog?
 
Pissed him off.  REALLY pissed him off.  Here's his reply (and my response that, predictably, didn't get posted there):

Him: Why do you care? Why are you obsessed with me? And … who cares? Other than Matt Gallman, that is. :)

After all, why do you care what the people of Lexington want to do? Why do you care about what the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts does?

You can answer those questions on your blog devoted to me and to the other objects of your obsession. Or maybe it’s time to update your Facebook rants. It will be more of the same, I wager. Exactly how many people live rent-free in your head, anyway? 

I find the “Flaggers” reside at the crossroads of pathetic and unintentionally funny, in the structure reserved for the ludicrous shop, led by a person whose understanding of history is sadly lacking and whose embrace of heritage comes at the expense of truth.

Now start raising money for the Tripp Lewis Defense Fund. Maybe y’all can sell some sunglasses. Make sure to post video of the event.

Nice to see you’re still reading. Bye.

========

Me: I care about Lexington and Virginia and what's going on in many other places, because I care about Confederate heritage and I care when it's being lied about, trashed, attacked and suppressed.

Whatever gives you the idea that I'm obsessed with you -- I mean, besides you're own gargantuan ego? I monitor your blog for denigration of Confederates, Confederate heritage and people who honor it. When I find it, I often comment on it, as you well know from your frequent visits to my blog. I don't read your blog, I skim it, and when I don't find denigration of Confederate heritage and its advocates, I ignore you and your blog.

You didn't answer the question. Why do you care about the Flaggers? Why even mention them on your blog?

I also posted an update in Backsass here: http://mybacksass.blogspot.com/2013/03/its-not-history-its-anti-heritage.html

Didn't I tell ya? These flogger guys feed off each other's blogs -- NOT about history, but about attacking heritage. Today, Brooks D. Simpson has joined in the current round of bash-the-Flaggers.  With references to Kevin's and Corey's posts on the same subject, he's posted 370 words of claimed indifference about a subject about which he has shown almost morbid interest in the past -- just like the other floggers.

One thing these floggers have never done, however, is explain WHY they post about the Flaggers -- or any other heritage advocates and their activities. The flogger claim is that they're interested in HISTORY. The Virginia Flaggers are CONTEMPORARY. Heritage activities are CONTEMPORARY. Why are these guys so eaten up with obsession -- and animosity -- for the flaggers?

Judging by the tone of his post and comments, Simpson has been about to bust a gut to post a derogatory critique of the Flaggers throughout his recent series of long, boring posts about the future of civil war history, and his trip to Gettysburg. His animosity for Southern heritage and those who honor it is so great, is such an obsession, he can't keep it contained with pretended indifference, and it just has to burst forth onto his blog from time to time.

One wonders why he even pretends indifference. The other floggers, while often touting their interest in history, don't try to hide their compulsion to denigrate heritage folks, most especially the Flaggers.  Especially when his indifference is so poorly executed and displayed. (3/30/13)

Welllll, that just made him go ballistic, and he exhibited all the things I have described before about what REALLY interests floggers, which I noted in a comment to Corey Meyer and perhaps other floggers, some weeks ago -- 

With ...  floggers, it's not history, either -- it's a craving to insult and hurt people ... an unquenchable thirst to denigrate others ... an insatiable hunger for the put-down. It's about alleviating your doubts about your own questionable beliefs by lying about others. It's about inflating your own questionable and sagging moral authority by fabricating somebody "worse" than you are." (See Comment Bot Anger)

 and ....

....disparaging the intelligence of people they disagree with is a front-line attack of the flogger mentality....they throw around terms like "lunacy" and "clown" and "idiots" -- or, in the case of Eric Wittenberg and his sycophants, "galactically stupid" and "troglodytes" and "knuckle-draggers." And we can't forget Brooks D. Simpson and the Crossroads crew -- "rampant idiocy" and "ignorant morons" and "cretins" -- and that's just a tiny sample.... (See: Flogger Namecalling)

Now, see for yourself if my description is not right on the money.  This is his latest comment (as of this writing) in the "Indifference" comment thread:

Well, as I’ve argued before, Connie Chastain’s predictable and not very bright [disparging another's intelligence]. As expected, she ranted on her blog about this post, demonstrating in the process that her reading comprehension skills remain sadly lacking [more disparaging another person's intelligence] (which helps to explain why she’s had to resort to self-published e-books … no editor would waste time with her muddled prose) [self-aggrandizing ego pretending to know the minds of all book editors -- and untrue, to boot].  Apparently she can’t tell the difference [more disparaging another person's intelligence] between my indifference as to whether a Confederate flag is flown outside the chapel (I just don’t care) and the fact that I find the “Flaggers” amusing because of their antics (and that amusement is a sign that I’m not indifferent about them, although I confess they are rather easy targets). It’s a sign of the intellectual incoherence and incompetence  of the “Flaggers” [more disparaging another person's intelligence, this time the Flaggers'] that they embrace the befuddled [more disparaging another person's intelligence] Chastain as their most able defender [untrue statement].

First, I suggest that everyone visit Amazon, and see who the publisher is of my second novel, Storm Surge (it's not self-published, folks). Storm Surge at Amazon  You can also see my novel at the publisher's site here:  Storm Surge at Desert Breeze Publishing.

Now that that's out of the way, what I really want to call to people's attention is Simpson's overwhelming need to denigrate people's intelligence -- for no reason. Read the crap he wrote under the title "An Expression of Indifference." The post is not about flags at Pelham Chapel, or his indifference to them. It's a rant against the Flaggers. He can claim otherwise all he wants but there's nothing wrong with my reading comprehension. I can discern clearly what he wrote about.

He screwed up. Either he meant what he wrote, and was embarrassed at getting caught obsessing on the Flaggers and had to change his story after the fact ("It's about the chapel flags, not about the Flaggers!") or else he realized his rant is what's really incoherent, and if he truly meant to state his indifference to the flags, his obsession with the Flaggers got in the way, took over, and transformed his post.

What's wrong here is not me or the Flaggers -- it's Brooks Simpson's compulsion to demean the intelligence of people who he disagrees with or doesn't like, and his slavering lust to vilify those people themselves....

I have to wonder -- if he truly believes people whose intelligence he disparages are intellectually deficient, then it is truly a mystery why he post about them on his blog, particularly in such a derogatory manner.  What's next?  Rants against people with Down's Syndrome? Put downs of kids with autism?

Keep in mind that this person is a professor of history at a major state university. Breathtaking, isn't it? Would you want your kids in this man's classroom, being exposed to his questionable ethics and odious disparagement of others?

---

Note: I have taken on several author services jobs that will take me away from blogging for a short while. I may be able to make short comments here and elsewhere, and visit Facebook as I can, but I'll be spending most of my time at Word Slinger Boutique for a couple of weeks, maybe longer.

April is....

 

______________
Images by C. Ward, Library of Congress and the Public Domain

It's Not History -- It's Anti-Heritage

 UPDATE ~ UPDATE ~ UPDATE 

Didn't I tell ya? These flogger guys feed off each other's blogs -- NOT about history, but about attacking heritage. Today, Brooks D. Simpson has joined in the current round of bash-the-Flaggers.  With references to Kevin's and Corey's posts on the same subject, he's posted 370 words of claimed indifference about a subject about which he has shown almost morbid interest in the past -- just like the other floggers.

One thing these floggers have never done, however, is explain WHY they post about the Flaggers -- or any other heritage advocates and their activities. The flogger claim is that they're interested in HISTORY. The Virginia Flaggers are CONTEMPORARY. Heritage activities are CONTEMPORARY. Why are these guys so eaten up with obsession -- and animosity -- for the flaggers?

Judging by the tone of his post and comments, Simpson has been about to bust a gut to post a derogatory critique of the Flaggers throughout his recent series of long, boring posts about the future of civil war history, and his trip to Gettysburg. His animosity for Southern heritage and those who honor it is so great, is such an obsession, he can't keep it contained with pretended indifference, and it just has to burst forth onto his blog from time to time.

One wonders why he even pretends indifference. The other floggers, while often touting their interest in history, don't try to hide their compulsion to denigrate heritage folks, most especially the Flaggers.  Especially when his indifference is so poorly executed and displayed. (3/30/13)

~END OF  UPDATE ~ 

Now Andy's trying his hand at psychoanalyzing, presumably without a license. He's posted a comment at Corey's blog about a post Corey made referencing Kevin's blog (what WOULD these floggers do without each other's blogs to inspire their own blog posts?) about -- you guessed it ... The Virginia Flaggers.

The floggers still haven't given a reasonable explanation (or any explanation at all, that I've found) why "history folks" who openly scorn "heritage folks" for putting heritage above history (so they say) turn right around and abandon history in order to attack heritage.

If anybody sees any history in this post or Andy's response,  please, do paste it in a comment here at Backsass. 

Andy's current effort at Corey's blog is to claim Virginia Flaggers are just into it for attention.  "I’ve never seen the Flaggers do anything that they don’t make, first and foremost, about them," he says.  (Emphasis Andy's.)

I'd be curious as to what Andy has seen the Flaggers do... and whether it was in person, or whether he "saw" it on the Internet. And, if he's getting his "views" from the Internet, who put them there? Someone hostile to the flaggers, or friendly to them, or neutral?

Even if Andy's source is neutral, he clearly is not. Anyone who writes crap like this is conspicuously displaying his hostility: "Even when they participate in larger functions, like the Decoration Day event in Fredericksburg or the memorial service at Sharpsburg, they go out of their way to make sure everybody knows that da Flaggers are in da house! (They call this establishing a 'Confederate presence.')" (Emphasis Andy's.)

Sounds to me like what they're doing IS establishing a Confederate presence. Of course, Andy is against a "Confederate presence" exactly as he is against Da Flaggers so naturally it's gonna leave a bad taste in his mouth, that he then spews it out in comments like this one (and numerous others at  his own blog).

Here's where he gets positively Freudian... "They’re very much like PETA — anything valid they have to say is quickly eclipsed by their shameless self-promotion and quest for public attention. It ultimately undermines their supposed goals of engaging the broader public, but I’m not sure they really care about that as much as the adulation of their small fan base, whose resentments demand more-or-less constant fluffing."

Let's deconstruct this.

"Anything valid they have to say..."  Why even bring this up?  Andy doesn't think ANYthing they say or do is valid.

"...eclipsed by shameless self-promotion and quest for public attention." I haven't noticed  either one from the Flaggers. I think these are phony labels Andy is putting on (1) the promotion of flagging, to inspire similar activity in other states and (2) showing the public the difference between people who honor their heritage and those who misuse it.

Of course Andy doesn't want the public to know about that. (Yes, folks, I can do remote psychoanalyzing, too.) He wants everyone to hate Confederate heritage, and to see anyone who honors it as inbred scum-sucking racist morons.

"It ultimately undermines their supposed goals of engaging the broader public..." he says, without a particle of substantiation, except his own bitter/sour disapproval. And why even mention this, as if he cares whether their goals are undermined, which he clearly does not.

"...but I’m not sure they really care about that as much as the adulation of their small fan base..."  So Andy views the support of the Flaggers by the heritage community as "adulation" by "fans"...  I wonder if that's anything like the "adulation" of "fans" showing up at his book signings, or the awed comments of blog visitors about his ship renderings...

And finally, "...whose resentments demand more-or-less constant fluffing."  Well, golly.  If the "resentment" of the Southern heritage community is so weak and/or artificial that it has to be "fluffed" why on earth is it such a visceral problem for the floggers?

No. Like all the floggers, Andy hates the heritage that we respect and honor. He will paint that heritage -- and our respect and honor -- in the worst possible light. Part of the reason why the Flaggers must do what they do for our heritage, is because people who hate it, like Andy, have for so long had the upper hand in public discourse and used it to influence the public to adopt the same hatred of Confederate heritage that they hold.

And now that Heritage folks are fighting back (and doing so with dignity and determination -- and fun!) it is really, really sticking in flogger craw. I mean, look at his risible PETA analogy. There is absolutely no comparison between PETA whack jobs and their insane demonstrations, and the Virginia Flaggers.  For Andy to make such a comparison, he either has to be knowingly lying, or so infuriated he can't tell fact from fantasy.

If history truly was what these floggers are interested in, they'd blog about history, and neither heritage nor anti-heritage would enter into it for them -- I doubt they'd even notice it. But history is not what they're interested in. It is a convenient excuse, a plausible cover, for indulging in their hatred of the Confederacy, its people, its memory, and the honor it receives from supporters and defenders today. And when someone challenges their hatred, it'll make your head spin how fast they abandon history to take up the tools of heritage-hatred -- the mocking, the ridicule, the lying...

Andy's At It Again ...

... doing two of the things he does best -- being a hypocrite and wielding his two-fisted double standard like a Highland claymore. Problem is, it rarely makes contact, let alone draw blood.

His current effort is to chronicle Flagger "failures" to get Mimi Elrod voted out of office, or to pressure Lexington businesses economically to support ending the city ordinance that bans flags (except official state and local flags) from flagstaffs attached to city-owned light poles.  I left a comment on his blog, but of course, he won't post it.  He's very thin-skinned that way...

My comment:

Andy, you're mighty eager to pronounce flagger efforts as failures because they don't accomplish within months what will likely require years; and because they don't accomplish within years what may take decades.

Do you know how long it took flag attackers in South Carolina to get the flag off the dome? How many years they introduced legislation to remove it that produced no result, session after legislation session? Did you counsel them to give up because they didn't get the flag removed the first time they tried?  Did you tsk-tsk the NAACP for hurting South Carolina's economy with their boycott. and post charts on line about it?

You seem disappointed that the flaggers and other heritage defenders are not short sighted and are in it for the long haul -- but mostly because they don't pay any attention to your periodic, very transparent -- but ultimately irrelevant -- carping meant to discourage them.

Hope you get some kind of enjoyment calling city officials in a state you don't live in and posting your little charts here because, as material meant to discourage flaggers, your efforts are a total bust (though it might get you some atta-boys and cyber slaps on the back from your fellow floggers).

BTW, if the flaggers -- many of whom are citizens of Virginia --  have no business being concerned with Lexington, how is it that you do? 

Wouldn't you love to hear Andy's answer to that last question?  We may as well forget about it, though. Hell will freeze over before Andy explains his penchant for engaging in what he berates others for.

Flogger "Scholarship"? (Smirk)

Flogger Al Mackey has recently featured two posts on his blog accusing the Georgia SCV of lying in videos, the first about the Corwin Amendment, the second about John Brown.

In the second, Mackey writes:

The video claimed that the first person killed was a free black man who tried to stop them.  Shepherd Hayward didn’t try to stop anyone. He worked as a baggage handler for the railroad  He was walking on the trestle, looking for the night watchman, when  he encountered Oliver Brown and Stewart Taylor.  They pointed rifles at him and told him to stop, but instead he turned around and was walking away from them, heading back to the office when they shot him.  [Source: David S. Reynolds, John Brown, Abolitionist:  The Man Who Killed Slavery, Sparked the Civil War, and Seeded Civil Rights, p. 316]

Here is a screenshot of Mackey's source:

I was intrigued by the description of Hayward as bewildered. How'd Reynolds know that? Did Hayward say something to that effect before he died? And if he did, how do we know it wasn't delirium from blood loss? Or some other reason. In the End Notes, I found this reference:

Ah, a quote from Mr. Hayward. If a person were given an order, and didn't know what a word in the order meant, that could result in bewilderment, no doubt. The quote was apparently recorded in another book about John Brown. So I looked that one up and found this:

Note this in the above excerpt:

The command to halt probably meant as little to Hayward as it had to Higgins.

Huh? Probably? Well, did it or didn't it? Saying something "probably" happened is one way a writer can get across a point he wants to make without providing substantiation.

(And don't you just love that passive voice?  "...a bullet passed through his body..."  Perhaps it was just hanging in the air, waiting for a body to come by that it could "pass" itself "through."  Nothing about it being fired from a gun though we can assume it was fired by Brown or Taylor, despite this author's seeming reluctance to point a finger at them even in so obvious a situation.)

The reference to Higgins was accompanied by an asterisk, so I checked the bottom of the page and found this:

Well, well, well, well, welllllll.... So Reynolds' reference to the quote "proving" Hayward's "bewilderment" wasn't spoken by Hayward at all, though anyone reading the page note would assume so. It was spoken by a different person altogether. Villard assures us that the command to halt probably meant as little to Hayward as it meant to the man quoted, Patrick Higgins, though there is nothing in these passages to substantiate Hayward's "bewilderment" or the claim that the command "probably" meant little to him. So we really don't know that, do we?

So from Villard we have a quote from a different person used to suggest that Hayward didn't understand the command to halt; and based on that, Reynolds states, with no reservation or qualification (not even a "probably"), that Hayward was "bewildered."

Is that how flogger "scholarship" works? A quote by one person is used to suggest the mental state of an entirely different person, though there's nothing referenced to substantiate the connection?  It was just "probably" that way?

And speaking of lying, let's go back to Mackey's first reference -- the paragraph by David S. Reynolds, which ends with this whopper:

"A black man was the first casualty of the war for black liberation."

War for black liberation?  There was no "war for black liberation." The so-called civil war was for the purpose of violently bullying the seceded states back into the union. "Freeing slaves" was tacked on well into the war to give the north's "cause" (greed) the illusion of moral superiority.

I ask again, is that how flogger scholarship works? Cite a source and imply that is supports your contention but don't bother to substantiate it? Just expect your readers to accept your "take" on it?

Ah, no. I already suspect that their true motives include demonizing white Southerners, past and future and that will have a direct influence on their writings.

Al Mackey's beliefs (expressed to me in a discussion group I'm no longer a member of) about Julia Ward Howe's declaration that abolitionists wanted to "blow up" the union, further illustrate the flogger-style faith in unsubstantiated (i.e., made up, fabricated) "history." I've already referenced that HERE

What a bunch of hypocrites.

We Are All Just Prisoners Here

Corey sez, "As for taking the money for Ft. Sumter...your (sic) kidding me right... give in to secessionists?"

Why not?  There's nothing wrong with secession.

Corey's concept of "union" is "a prison for states." A sort of political Hotel California where "you can check out any time you like but you can never leave."

The colonial patriots did not fight a war for independence from the crown just to incarcerate themselves and their posterity in a prison for states for all time.

It's Corey's Turn to Lie

Flogger Corey Meyer has big, fat lyin' headline at his blog which reads, "Susan Hathaway Despises USCT History." As "proof" he posts a screenshot of a Facebook post where Susan informs members that the taxpayer supported Virginia Sesquicentennial Commission is promoting a book about USCT Troops from Virginia.

I know Corey has been paying attention, so he can't use ignorance as an excuse; but the primary complaint about the commission is that it has from the beginning insulted Confederates who fought for Virginia by ignoring their service and sacrifice, and promoting everything else under the sun, including those who warred on and subjugated Virginia and her people.

If the Sesquicentennial Commission had not chosen to spit on Virginia's Confederate defenders and their history and heritage, it likely wouldn't be such a big deal that Virginians who traitorously supported the Union be recognized.  But that is not the case. 

Corey knows this.  He chooses to lie about it. Par for the course for floggers ... much of what they write about Southern Heritage advocates and activists is lies.  But just how superior is moral superiority based on fraud and falsehood (and just how moral)?