Saturday Funnies

You can always rely on some things never changing, even during Thanksgiving.  From the gift that keeps on giving … more defenders of Confederate heritage complaining that people misunderstand slavery …

I perceive that almost all Black folk, now enjoying an artificial privileged status, only want to talk about the past if Whites come crawling on their hands and knees begging for forgiveness for the past “sins of slavery”. I WONT DO THAT!
Now, I could be wrong about my perception but I think not. I for one am quite willing to discuss the issue as I am convinced I probably know more about involuntary African servitude than most of them and they could learn from those of us who do. But I bet that they think, in their arrogance, that by virtue of their race alone they know more, therefore hold the high ground.

To which another poster replied:

… what past sins of slavery are you referring to? Slaves had free housing, free food, free clothing, free medical care, free child care, free old age care, and free job training. All they had to do in return was work 9 hours a day with Sundays off to attend church.

Yup, it’s all about heritage, not hate.  Of course, there may be a little fear there, too … for, as another poster notes elsewhere:

The Census Bureau has now fixed at 2041 the year when whites become a minority in a country where the Founding Fathers had restricted citizenship to “free white persons” of “good moral character.”

I guess some people are getting nervous.

108 thoughts on “Saturday Funnies

  1. Will Stoutamire November 26, 2011 / 1:36 pm

    Oh goodie. So they may not ‘hate’ “Black folk,” they just want them to understand how much ‘better’ life was when everything was provided for ‘free’ (except personal freedom) and whites were the unquestioned majority in power. May the true boogeyman raise his head…

    Interesting to see some of this discussion began beneath a painting of Confederate troops carrying the “heritage not hate” battle flag. Nope, its certainly never been associated with any white racial anxiety towards minorities!

  2. Lyle Smith November 26, 2011 / 6:29 pm

    Arguably, supporting tighter, more exclusive immigration policies benefits the employment and wages of working class blacks.

    So if these white people really “hate” black people, they probably should be more supportive of immigration. Are these white people supportive of immigration?

    • Roger E Watson November 27, 2011 / 5:47 am

      “Are these white people supportive of immigration?”

      Of course they are ! As long as they are white and probably not all of them !!

    • Connie Chastain November 28, 2011 / 11:20 pm

      So you see the immigration issue in terms of race — and you’re trying to attribute your peculiar view to others in order to mischaracterize and insult them? Please identify the white people who “hate” black people, and advise how you know this about them. And when you say immigration, are you speaking of the legal or illegal kind? Most people in this country support legal immigration, within the control of federal immigration law. Most people don’t support illegal immigration.

      • Lyle Smith November 29, 2011 / 9:52 am


        Are you responding to me or Mr. Watson?

        • Connie Chastain November 29, 2011 / 8:36 pm

          I’m responding to you. I think that’s fairly obvious by the content of my reply. Also, if I was responding to him, my post would be further indented under his post.

          • Lyle Smith November 30, 2011 / 9:09 am

            Well then you totally misread my little comment. It is actually a little bit of a defense of the men quoted at the facebook site by Professor Simpson. You know, the guys you’re also defending. You might want to reread the comment and put it in to context with the criticisms Professor Simpson has made, mainly that these guys “hate” blacks and that they’re nervous about whites being a minority in America because of immigration (legal or illegal).

            My little dig at the Professor’s post is that immigration (legal (think amnesty) or illegal… mostly illegal) immigration affects working class blacks. A larger supply of low skill labor lowers wages for low skill labor; so working class blacks competing with immigrants for jobs will likely have lower wages. Immigration can also cause unemployment for working class blacks if immigrants are willing to work for less. Business owners will often, if not always, hire the labor that will work at a lower wage over someone who wants to do the same work at a higher wage. That’s good business, because the business will have lower costs, and can earn a higher profit. The downside is there are some Americans out there not being hired because they’re competing against someone from another country who will do the same work for less. These problems are particularly damaging to the economic prospects of working class blacks because they often work the same jobs that immigrants are working.

            So in the grand debate over immigration, generally speaking, if you’re pro-immigration you’re arguably contributing to the economic struggles of the black working class and if you’re anti-immigration, you’re trying to help working class blacks out.


            That said, of course the issue of immigration is complicated and no doubt most people have complicated answers for it, i.e. not so generalized as absolutely pro-immigration or absolutely anti-immigration.

            Here’s a good article, with links to an academic study and statistics, about the affects illegal immigration has on the black working class.


          • Brooks D. Simpson November 30, 2011 / 12:56 pm

            Could you show me where I said these people hate blacks? I simply quoted them. You can conclude for yourself what their attitudes are.

          • Lyle Smith November 30, 2011 / 1:07 pm

            “Yup, it’s all about heritage, not hate.”

            I take that to mean you think they hate blacks. Shame on me if I’m misunderstanding you.

          • Brooks D. Simpson November 30, 2011 / 1:15 pm

            No, I don’t think it’s a hatred of blacks. But I do think it’s a hatred of things they don’t like … like Yankees. The bitterness expressed by posters in that group, and the rather wild assumptions they make about people with whom they disagree, suggests an untoward intensity of feeling that transcends rationality.

          • Lyle Smith November 30, 2011 / 7:14 pm

            “The bitterness expressed by posters in that group, and the rather wild assumptions they make about people with whom they disagree, suggests an untoward intensity of feeling that transcends rationality”.

            I think this is a fair assessment of some of the people who comment there.

            When I go and read through the group I probably don’t view the comments as harshly as you do. I see a lot of ignorance, but it varies from comment to comment. To me it’s mostly just a bunch of Lost Cause ballyhoo, occasionally mixed up with some modern political anxieties.

          • Khepera November 30, 2011 / 1:43 pm

            Of course not all Confederate heritage folks hate blacks. But quite a few of them do. Judging by other evidence I’ve seen in other places, I’d venture to guess that the person first quoted, above, has some major issues with African Americans. Perhaps hatred is too strong a word. Perhaps not. For my part, I err on the side of caution when encountering such types.

          • Lyle Smith November 30, 2011 / 7:33 pm

            I hear you.

          • Connie Chastain December 1, 2011 / 1:46 am

            Thank you for the clarification. Yes, I misunderstood your point. My apologies.

          • Lyle Smith December 1, 2011 / 10:18 pm

            No problem. My point was subtle and probably not well made.

  3. khepera420 November 26, 2011 / 7:41 pm

    The first individual that you quoted had the nerve to ask a poster (who accused the “heritage, not hate” crowd of speaking out of both sides of their mouths with thinly-veiled racist rhetoric), on Levin’s blog, when or where he had been seen being racist. The poster obliged, with examples, but this individual never responded. I sometimes wonder if these people even see their racism and, if so, how they excuse it. They obviously know it’s wrong, else they’d not take such offense at being called out. Are they just too damned cowardly to admit what they really are?

    • Connie Chastain November 28, 2011 / 1:37 am

      khepera420, you’re welcome to read every word of my blog and try to find any racist rhetoric that originates with me. I think what a lot of people take offense to are unjust accusations of racism, but I suppose that never occurs to the accusers. Critics of heritage advocates constantly harp on race. The carping is ubiquitous, pervasive on blogs like this one, Andy’s, Kevin’s and Corey’s, and reflects the obsession with race and slavery held by the bloggers.

      Also, some things are called racism that are not. For example, some people label as racism the heritage community’s objection to the NAACP’s war on Confederate commemoration and artifacts. Criticism of the NAACP is not racism, particularly when you realize they have lots and lots of issues and you never hear a peep about ’em from the Southern heritage community.

      • Will Stoutamire November 28, 2011 / 9:51 am

        Ms. Chastain, perhaps critics would not “harp on race” if these “heritage advocates” did not feel the need, as they have for more than a century, to justify to themselves the enslavement of four million people so as to make their heritage more palatable. Calling something where, at its core, another individual owns your life and person, a “benevolent” institution, or like “a Union,” or discussing how “kind” it was that a slave might be “allowed” (do you not see the irony in this?) an occasional day off or a small plot for subsistence crops is simply disturbing (although my personal favorite is when you all apparently resurrected the old “God and the Bible permit slavery” argument). This is so disturbing that, if the comment thread Dr. Simpson linked to is any indication, some of your members are leaving over it – and kudos to them for voting with their feet, so to speak.

        But, you see, this is what can happen when heritage becomes ingrained as part of someone’s daily identity and the core of how they see themselves and act every day. It can become exclusionary of conflicting and controversial perspectives. You have to whitewash the past – and in the case of “Confederate heritage,” that means whitewashing many of the racial issues of the past. Thus: slavery was benevolent; it really wasn’t that important to Southern society as a whole; it had nothing to do with secession; the Confederate flag was never used as a widespread, mainstream symbol opposing integration; etc, etc. etc.

        And yes, we know, slavery was a 200+ year old institution in the states, many northern states once permitted it, and many northern businessmen made tons of money off of it. There’s a rich historical literature on all of this if you care to look. This isn’t a matter of saying the South was “worse” or, your favorite phrase, “evilizing Southerners.” But therein lies the difference: historians inquire into a fuller range of the past, while “heritage advocates” reflexively defended “their” part of it.

        • Brooks D. Simpson November 28, 2011 / 1:11 pm

          Well, as Ms. Chastain told a fellow poster, who admits that he “condones” slavery …

          “Mr. Belmonte, unfortunately today, Americans, particularly students, are taught in their institutes of learning (and by the popular culture), to see your slaveholding forebears as brutal, sadistic, devoid of humanity. “Slaveholder” is a classification that blots out everything else the individual might have been and nullifies any positive good he might have done.”

          In other words, look on the bright side.

          • Marc Ferguson November 30, 2011 / 11:59 am

            Why does the musical crucifixion scene at the end of Life of Brian pop into my head? “Always look on the bright side of life.”

          • Connie Chastain December 1, 2011 / 1:50 am

            Mr. Ferguson, somehow, my reply to Mr. Simpson about that comment didn’t make it through moderation, so I’ll try again. Not, “look on the bright side” but “look at the whole.”

          • Connie Chastain December 2, 2011 / 11:45 am

            Mr. Ferguson, I don’t want you to do anything. It’s immaterial to me. However, if you are so inclined, you can explain why I should accept the notion that the worst aspects of slavery were the whole of it; why I should NOT distinguish between being raped and not being raped; between being beaten and not being beaten. That sort of thing. There are people who focus so myopically on the horrific abuses, you’d think these were the sole motive for a slaveowner to hold slaves — that growing a crop and bringing it to market never even entered their minds.

            And, if you’re so inclined, I invite you to go over 180 Degrees True South with a fine-toothed comb and find where I have ever asked anyone to “consider the advantages to being enslaved, such as free health care, room and board…” (While you’re there, see if you can find where I have “admitted to stalking,” which the Professor has alleged at least twice, maybe three times.)

          • John Buchanan December 1, 2011 / 12:39 pm

            You beat me to it…my exact thought

        • Connie Chastain November 28, 2011 / 11:18 pm

          Mr. Stoutamire, perhaps heritage advocates would not feel the need to “justify slavery” (which is not what they’re doing, anyway) if critics did not constantly harp on race to justify the brutality, savagery and destruction the north/union/federal government rained down upon the South for four years of war, nor the economic enslavement and casually maintained poverty in which the South was kept for a century after the war.

          When critics totally define slavery as rape, whippings and breaking families apart, etc., in order to portray slaveholders as inhumanly brutal, why is it “disturbing” for someone to cite aspects that this definition ignores, in an effort to complete the whole picture? To define it as totally brutal and negative is as dishonest as defining it as totally benevolent. How is it irony to show how a slave might be allowed a plot to garden, but it is somehow the height of integrity and scholarship (not to mention compassion) to showcase ONLY rapes, beatings, etc — as if they were the whole of it? If those positive aspects described are true, how do they constitute a whitewash? Did the people who brought up these things claim they prove that there were no negative aspects to slavery?

          Regarding your claim that heritage folks see slavery as benevolent, not really important to Southern society as a whole, had nothing to do with secession, etc., you’re attempting to do what Brooks does — take the few who may believe that and attribute those beliefs to all. Anyone who reads the SHPG threads objectively, instead of “tiptoeing” through hunting “wacists” (Fudd-like, or Simpson-like) will see not only a variety of thoughts and beliefs about it, but sometimes mild contention to snarling disagreement.

          Yes, you know all that about slavery in the north, and the riches the north made from it even after they abolished it. You know it, but you don’t acknowledge it until/unless you are forced to, and even then it’s the kind of blase’ “Yes, we know…” pseudo-acknowledgement you just exhibited here. And Mr. Stoutamire — heritage advocates will gladly cease our defense of “our part” of the past — when the attacks against it cease.

          • Will Stoutamire November 29, 2011 / 11:53 am

            Ms. Chastain,

            I need only cite one example from above show how some individuals see no negative side to slavery: “… what past sins of slavery are you referring to? Slaves had free housing, free food, free clothing, free medical care, free child care, free old age care, and free job training. All they had to do in return was work 9 hours a day with Sundays off to attend church.” And then of course you have the example of Mr. Belemonte in the commentary below… Trying to make slavery sound like a worker’s utopia constitutes a whitewash and an attempt to defend and/or justify the institution.

            You should note that I did not say slavery only resulted in beatings, rape, etc. Nor did I deny that slaves had food and housing (though I would contend that the individual I quoted might want to look up the definition of “free” if he thinks forced, unpaid labor and having your person legally owned by another is “free”). But, you wrote: “How is it irony to show how a slave might be allowed a plot to garden?” The key word here is allowed. Had the individual said slaves sometimes had small gardens (which some did, especially on larger plantations, often out of the ‘benevolence’ of wanting to lower food costs for the master and increase profit) I may not have felt compelled to call him out. But ever since humankind figured out how to stick a seed in the ground, they have had the basic right to do so – excepting oppressive situations like slavery. No human being should have to be “allowed” to grow a subsistence crop to feed themselves – that’s the irony: you’re framing as kindness the permission of something that humans have done, without permission, for thousands of years; something that the ancestors of slaves would have done freely, before whites of all nationalities got involved. And therein lies the rub: yes, not every slave was beaten, but every slave (100%) was an owned piece of legal property who needed someone else’s permission to do things a free human being would take as a given. Makes those “positive aspects,” like being allowed the basic human essentials of food and shelter, seem a little less “positive.”

            It takes little perusal of your group to see that statements about the Confederacy and Confederate symbols being inextricably linked to slavery are largely nonexistent and, if raised, quickly attacked. I’m not “tiptoeing” through selective quotes.

            As far as northern slavery goes, you may want to look outside of the South before you condemn its interpretation:

            Here, Brown University has interpreted its involvement in the slave trade through an excellent exhibition:

            Here, is yet another interpretation of the slave trade, this time in New Jersey:

            Or here, from the NPS, in Philadelphia:

            And I could go on and on, but that should be enough for starters. To say that we only discuss northern slavery when “forced to” is simply ignoring reality.

          • Connie Chastain November 29, 2011 / 8:47 pm

            Mr. Stoutamire, go on virtually any comment thread following a news story about the Confederate flag — say, SCV logos on license plates — and see if you can find, among the rabid Confederacy bashers, ANY who know about these resources. You move in the rarified air of academia. I move in the vastly larger sheep-pasture of the popular culture, where the sheep have been inculcated with a very incomplete and simplistic north/good, south/bad view, and they can only repeat what they’ve been told, but do so with blind conviction. Nevertheless, even in your world, how much discussion of northern slavery, and northern profit from Southern slavery, has occurred on, say, this blog? Or Kevin’s? Or Corey’s? Or Andy’s?

          • Will Stoutamire November 30, 2011 / 1:13 am

            Ms. Chastain, I actually am not trained to work in academia, but rather in the public at large. And yes, you are correct, many of these resources are relatively unknown in the general public, although the NPS site (being near Independence Hall) gets decent traffic and I believe the Brown exhibition did fairly well. Believe it or not, there are actually quite a number of sites in Providence today that interpret Rhode Island’s role in the slave trade – the key issue/problem (and perhaps the sticky point so far as this conversation goes) is one has to actually go to Rhode Island to see them. I’m not sure what can be done about that, from a public history perspective, aside from a better online presence, although I am personally interested to see if the new Smithsonian museum on African American history brings about a greater national conversation – they are certainly positioned to do so.

            As far as the simplistic North = good, South = bad view that some anonymous online commenters seem to hold, I would argue that this has as much to do with our national media’s current love affair with 30-second inflammatory soundbites as anything else. There is no room for the nuance that occurs in scholarly debates or in certain public exhibitions, but the media has the larger audience, by far. That said, having sat on committees discussing sesquicentennial planning more nationally, I can say that this dualism nearly always comes up as an issue of popular memory/perception that needs to be addressed moving forward. And there is a literature available for those who desire to learn, rather than feed the media frenzy. So the argument that historians don’t acknowledge the complexity of northern racial issues before, during, and after the Civil War is just simply not true.

          • Khepera November 30, 2011 / 9:45 am

            The North=good, South=bad dichotomy is, I believe, a smokescreen. I have never known any intelligent and intellectually honest person to make such a statement. It’s what Confederate apologists throw up to derail debate. Another commonly-used example of this sort is when they accuse a person has criticized the Confederacy of glorifying Lincoln or excusing the abuses of the Union, when no evidence of such glorification or excuse has even entered the conversation..

            I know that there are people who believe in such stark simplicities, but I have to say that when I encounter them, they’re invariably being uttered by these same apologists. Take a look at some of those groups. I’ve seen the U.S. flag called a “Yankee rag,” heard about Lincoln being “monster” and a “Marxist,” the north (even today) being an “evil empire” and lots of other histrionic silliness the likes of which I’ve never heard leveled at the Confederacy. (well, I admit that my private thought is that the Confederacy wanted to form an evil empire, but I’ve never said that in a discussion)

          • Will Stoutamire November 30, 2011 / 3:05 pm

            Oh, it most definitely isn’t something supported by people interested in honest intellectual debates. And it certainly is regularly used as a smokescreen by apologists, I couldn’t agree more. I believe what Ms. Chastain was referencing in this case are online message boards and news articles. There, in the commentary, you do often see an overly simplistic view of the issues – coming from a number of angles. Then again, that seems to be the culture of online arguing in general.

            As far as the other comments go, I guess we also have the extreme Confederate apologist perspective of the evil North and virtuous South. And it’s certainly safe to assume that those people have no interest in intellectual discussion either.

      • Khepera November 28, 2011 / 3:10 pm

        Ms. Chastain, I have never said that you engage in racist rhetoric. I said that the person quoted in the blog post, above, did and does. It’s almost a religion with him as well as a few others in the Confederate heritage community. And it IS sad to see that they’re never called out on this nonsense. Believe me, I am old enough and experienced enough to know racism when I see it, and hardly need to be schooled by the likes of the individual to whom those comments belong.

        It’s fashionable and “PC” among racist types to take offense at being called out on their racism, to deny their racism, to label such calling out as pc or liberal, and to accuse the accuser of racism. You are quite correct in saying that criticism of the NAACP is not necessarily racism. However, it IS racist to conflate the NAACP with all African-Americans. That’s something I have seen in your group time and again. Try this quote on for size: “. . .. I know what naacp stands for. And “those people” can KISS MY SOUTHERN ASS!. . .” That’s one of the more recent ones. The NAACP has, for some of you (despite the fact that the NAACP has white members and has even had white regional presidents), become a buzzword for black Americans in general and a smokescreen for generalized and racist rhetoric.

        When this type of rhetoric (and frankly I’ve seen worse on that page) is not repudiated the perception ends up being that proverbial birds of a feather flock together.

        • Connie Chastain November 28, 2011 / 11:31 pm

          You referred to a poster on Levin’s blog who ” accused the ‘heritage, not hate’ crowd of speaking out of both sides of their mouths with thinly-veiled racist rhetoric.” That is what I was referring to.

          As for conflating the NAACP with all African-Americans, that is far more likely to be done by critics of Southern heritage than by its proponents, simply because said critics are far more likely to be group-thinkers, despite the token head-nod to “diversity.”

          As for the quote from SHPG poster who claimed to know what the NAACP stands for — you can tell from the context he’s talking about their declared war on Confederate commemoration and artifacts. I can’t guarantee it, but I seriously doubt that person has any idea of — or interest in — other issues the NAACP takes on.

          And you are exactly wrong about the NAACP becoming a generalized buzzword for black Americans among Southern heritage advocates. They are singled out because of their declared and organized crusade for the removal of Confederate symbols, icons and monuments beginning in 2000 (actually before that, but becoming highly visible to the public in 2000)..

          Ever since the NAACP declared the South Carolina boycott that year, flag flaps and attacks on Confederate artifacts and commemoration have been headed up by local and regional NAACP officers from one end of Dixie to the other — almost never black people in general. Over and over, when these officials spoke to the press about their crusade against Confederate flag, they said, “It’s offensive to African-Americans.” Well, black journalists, academics and activists may be offended (or feign offendedness) but I never believed many blacks in general were thus offended, and polls by reputable polling organizations (not local TV or internet polls) backed up my opinion.

          I have never believed, as so many opponents of Confederate heritage seem to believe, that black skin is thin skin.

          Since 2000 or so, thanks to the concerted and organized crusade against the flag, its favorable ratings have fallen with both blacks and whites — but the drop is an artifact, deliberately created and I do not respect it any more than I respect the crusade that created it.

          What you see from Southern heritage advocates and activists today is a response to that crusade. But the response is by no means directed only toward blacks.

          I think maybe you’re picking and choosing (like Brooks does) what you will see of Southern heritage folks so you can see only what you define as racism.

          As for certain rhetoric not being repudiated — we’re not the thought police. Thought policing and censorship is the propensity of the left, and you don’t find many leftists in Southern heritage. Some, but not many. The group’s founder, Gary Adams, is a leftist, but he manages to resist thought policing and I have made my disapproval of censorship (deleting threads, etc) known to the officers more than once.

          The perception of birds of a feather flocking together is an function of the perceiver. People have a responsibility to not substitute their perceptions for other people’s intentions.

          • Khepera November 29, 2011 / 9:23 am

            I’m not going to bother addressing the same old excuses and apologetics. I will address this though: “As for the quote from SHPG poster who claimed to know what the NAACP stands for — you can tell from the context he’s talking about their declared war on Confederate commemoration and artifacts.” Hogwash. I can tell EXACTLY what context he’s speaking from. He said, “I know what naacp stands for,” not “I know what *the* NAACP stands for.” There is a world of difference between those two statements, and anyone who is competent with English usage knows that. Coupled with his cute little “those people,” in quotes, he left no question as to his meaning.

            And your defense and/or denial of such nastiness is exactly what I referred to earlier. As for perception being a function of the perceiver, I perceive that there is no point in attempting to have any further discussion. If I can’t trust you to be intellectually honest about the simplest of things, like that quote, I definitely have no interest in discussing more complex issues.

            And as for your assessment that “I think maybe you’re picking and choosing (like Brooks does) what you will see of Southern heritage folks so you can see only what you define as racism.” Bless your heart. I’m not talking about “Southern heritage folks,” among whom I count ancestors, friends and family. I am talking about the racist attitudes, and defense of racist attitudes, of many CONFEDERATE heritage folks. And, madam, what I define as racism is a definition well-honed by having lived with it for almost 60 years.

          • Connie Chastain November 29, 2011 / 11:07 pm

            Are you familiar with Psycho-Cybernetics, written by Maxwell Maltz in 1960? One of the principles of psycho-cybernetics is that you attune yourself to become aware of what you think about excessively. Thus, if you’re working toward the goal of buying a red sports car, and you think about red sports cars a lot, you’re going to start seeing them everywhere you go — on every street, road, highway, parking lot… Doesn’t mean there’s suddenly more of them. It just means you’ve attuned your subconscious mind to direct your conscious attention to them.

            So it is with racism. The “Klan with the Tan” was coined by Dr. Walter Williams as a moniker for the NAACP. You may think it’s a “feature” of the SHPG but that’s because you’re looking for it. Basically, you’ve found one guy who has used the term repeatedly in reference to the NAACP — *only* in connection with their declared war on Confederate artifacts. I think it’s unnecessary for him to use that phrase, and his argument against the NAACP’s crusade could be made without it. However, it’s hardly evidence of hatred of black folks, which is what racism actually is — and it is certainly not evidence that said hatred permeates the entire community.

            Incidently, the quote doesn’t end with “almost all Black folk…” but is further quantified. BTW, do you agree or disagree with him that just *being* black gives one knowledge of slavery without study?

            I think that the obsession with seeing racism in Southern heritage is found mostly in people seeking someone they can project their own secret vices onto, and thus feel better about themselves. That sort of unspoken, self-congratulatory “Whew! Thank goodness! That was close!” very faintly but consistenly pervades the posts and comment threads on blogs like this one.

          • Connie Chastain November 29, 2011 / 10:32 pm

            Facebook is full of misspellings, typographical errors, grammatical errors, as is the Internet as a whole… Today, not everyone took three years of typing starting in the 9th grade — and if you happen to be texting from a miniature keyboard…. In any case, to say words or phrases have some unspoken meaning if they appear in a Southern heritage group indicates an unfamiliarity with the folklore of the heritage community.

            In that post, the use of “those people” is a metaphor that identifies the the NAACP as an enemy making war — in this case, on Confederate heritage and artifacts — because it implies comparison with the union army and the federal government, which originally made war on the Confederacy itself. How? Specifically, it is a reference to an unsubstantiated quote attributed to General Robert E. Lee, that is well circulated in the Southern heritage community, that goes something like, “If I had foreseen the use *those people* designed to make of their victory, there would have been no surrender at Appomattox Courthouse; no sir, not by me…” Those people = yankees = enemies.

            It’s possible there are people in the Southern heritage community who understand or use “those people” as a term for African Americans, but the only times I’ve ever encountered the claim that it *must* be a racist reference, it was an adamant assumption made by a self-styled anti-racist who never heard of the Robert E. Lee quote.

            By my experience, the definition of racism is so fluid and elastic, it can be stretched to cover whatever belief, attitude, speech or behavior the accuser wishes. Thus, criticism (of the NAACP, for example) is racism. Disapproval of is racism. Disagreement with is racism. Personal preference for is racism. And on and on….

        • Connie Chastain November 30, 2011 / 2:35 am

          Mr. Stoutamire, in my adult life, I’ve had occasion several times to relocate to different places and in every case, I had to get the permission of the landlord if I wanted to plant a garden. Ever lived in a neighborhood with a boatload of home owner association regulations? Life is full of restrictions.

          Again, the perception that one or a few are answerable for what someone else (especially an entire group) believes or says, is Orwellian and the antithesis of the American concept of personal liberty. In order to believe that mentally cloned birds are flocking together at the SHPG, you have to ignore everything else that gets posted over there.

      • Margaret Blough November 29, 2011 / 9:32 pm

        The Confederate heritage defenders would have better spent their energy contesting the appropriation of these symbols by white supremacists during the campaign of massive resistance to federal civil rights laws, especially in the 1950s and 1960s. Only the UDC made any effort at the time to protest this. If critics harp on race, then look at the history of the use of these symbols.

  4. Roger E Watson November 27, 2011 / 5:49 am

    “involuntary African servitude ”

    Could that possibly be what others refer to as SLAVERY ?

  5. Mark Pethke November 27, 2011 / 8:39 am

    The antebellum South was a benevolent private enterprise welfare state. Who knew?

  6. TF Smith November 27, 2011 / 10:09 am

    Any of them willing surrender their personal liberty in return for their supposed “free housing, free food, free clothing, free medical care, free child care, free old age care, and free job training” and work 9 hours a day – and allow their “employers” to sexually and physically abuse them upon whim…

    • Mark Pethke November 27, 2011 / 2:48 pm

      No workers’ paradise is perfect.

    • Connie Chastain November 27, 2011 / 3:01 pm

      Mr. Smith, a good reason for taking what Mr. Simpson cherry-picks to bring over here with a grain of salt is the fact that he doesn’t give you the whole picture. He is attempting to smear an entire group of over 1200 people with one or two posts now and then from one or two people, virtually always taken out of context, and/or embellished with his negative “interpretations.”. On that same thread another poster wrote:: “The response would be that not being able to determine one’s own destiny would outweigh all those positive aspects.” See? You all are getting yourselves in a tither over an incomplete picture deliberately created by Mr. Simpson to push your holier-than-thou buttons….

      • Brooks D. Simpson November 27, 2011 / 7:54 pm

        What nonsense.

        I link to the entire discussion. I don’t say that the comments are representative of the whole group (I know Connie prefers fiction, but falsehood needs to be called out). It’s just another bizarre false accusation. Nor does Ms. Chastain, who comments on the group of which she is an officer, object to such comments. Given that she voices her objections here, it’s a fair assumption that if she objected to things said on the SHPG, she’d say so there. So draw your own conclusions about her attitudes about slavery and race.

        • Connie Chastain November 28, 2011 / 1:20 am

          You may link to the entire discussion but you single out certain parts of it to repost here. Why is the link by itself not sufficient? Well, your readers may or may not follow the link, but they will read what you bring over here. Thus, you are reposting *part* of what’s written for a purpose that is not served by posting a link, i.e., you are singling out here a small portion of what gets posted over there in an attempt to smear the entire group.

          You assume I don’t object to things said on the SHPG simply because you can’t see them. If Simpson can’t see it, it doesn’t exist, LOL. That’s how little kids think.

          What’s easily concludable about my views on race and slavery is that I’m not obsessed with them to the exclusion or subordination of all else.

          • Brooks D. Simpson November 28, 2011 / 8:27 am

            More nonsense … especially as you excerpt blog entries for your own purposes on your blog. Thus you indict your own blogging practices as unfair and biased, unless you are unwilling to hold yourself to the same standards you have for others. That would make you a hypocrite. Take your choice.

            People will draw their own conclusions about your views on race and bigotry from your toleration of certain views on the SHPG. Other people, like Mike Phipps, express their disagreement in decided terms, but you do not. Why you remain silent there while you continue to whine here is best left for you to address and others to assess.

          • Marc Ferguson November 29, 2011 / 11:36 am

            It’s apparent that Brooks singles out a particular part of a post from your site to be as clear as possible about his point, to NOT be misunderstood, if people feel they are being quoted or represented unfairly, the can easily say precisely what they mean, think, or believe, there or here, that should clear things up.

          • Marc Ferguson November 30, 2011 / 11:26 am

            I will defer to your expertise in the area of baloney

  7. Lee belmonte November 28, 2011 / 6:59 am

    If you can’t do your share in the fields for 9 hours, then you may have received lashes. In the north, if you broke the rules, they put you in a rat infested prison, with shitty food.

    • Brooks D. Simpson November 28, 2011 / 8:31 am

      Generally speaking, people who break the law, are arrested, and convicted often go to prison. That would be true regardless of where the crime was committed.

  8. lee belmonte November 28, 2011 / 9:04 am

    My point being Brooks, no matter where you lived and you broke the rules, there were consequences, not just Horace Greeleys cartoons of the whipping post in the South…..

    • Brooks D. Simpson November 28, 2011 / 9:33 am

      The rules on a plantation were determined by the slaveholder. The laws were framed by political institutions. Punishment on a plantation included the breaking up of families by sale or the sale of offenders. I don’t see those as legal punishments in free society. Nor do I see sexual exploitation of enslaved people in slavery as among the actions condoned by law in free society. If you are going to make the case that there’s no difference between rules and laws and no difference between slave and free labor, however, you’re free to make that argument … so, if there is no difference, why fight to preserve slavery?

      • Tony Gunter November 29, 2011 / 2:56 am

        I think that’s probably the question that slavers were asking themselves in 1872. 😀 Like … “WTF WERE WE THINKING?????”

  9. lee belmonte November 28, 2011 / 11:36 am

    You are missing the point again Brooks, I was comparing the discipline actions by both free and non free institutions of the times then. Now you go off on rape and family breakups by slave holders……..again to compare your new comments. There was rape and family breakups in the free regions as well. The very successful slave holders, knew better than anyone, how important moral was and they did a very fine job to take care of them. Of course you had a few bad apples on both sides, free and not free…………for the record, I condone slavery then and now.

    • Brooks D. Simpson November 28, 2011 / 11:56 am

      I don’t think I’m missing the point at all. As you say, you “condone” slavery. I welcome the admission and accept your statement for the record. Please detail how northern workers were raped and their families were separated by institutions.

      • lee belmonte November 28, 2011 / 12:27 pm

        Thanks Brooks, no admission whatsoever on my part, one is due from your end though. You recall the term, slave labor on children and women? There were isolated incidentces of rape and abuse by employers in Northern cities. The difference was, they received unfair and low wages while living in unhealthy conditions with the rats and sewers. Now regarding, the Slavee and servant help, they, in many ways were treated with much better living and working conditions……one of the draw backs, they could never leave the plantation……

        • Brooks D. Simpson November 28, 2011 / 12:37 pm

          You said: “for the record, I condone slavery then and now.” I understand that you see slave labor as more humane than free labor, and slaveholders as more humane than employers in the North. I’ve asked for specific examples to support your claims, and you’ve offered none. Nor have you retracted your comment, so you’re standing by it.

          How else do you “condone” slavery? Why do you find it superior to free labor? Have you ever tried it yourself?

          • lee belmonte November 28, 2011 / 1:09 pm

            Lol,,,,,my quotes, I stand by and am proud of the way my families treated their people…..You have proved nothing other than to prove I am something, I am not. Where did I say I favored slavery?? You on the other hand are making claims with no sources, so hurry, copy and past or link it, wont prove nothing. Everyone knows rapists dwelled everywhere with plenty of greed, however, you have me beat, the North had more, because it was more populated…………rivit…

          • Brooks D. Simpson November 28, 2011 / 1:21 pm

            “Where did I say I favored slavery??”

            Right here, Mr. Belmonte …

            As you said: “for the record, I condone slavery then and now.”

          • Bob Huddleston November 30, 2011 / 10:56 am

            You wrote: “I stand by and am proud of the way my families treated their people.,,” How do you know that? have you letters they wrote, talking about “their people” (BTW, a nice choice of words — why didn’t you say “their slaves”?) Have you letters written by their Former People after emancipation, complimenting Master on his treatment of them? Have you searched the local newspapers to see if they placed ads when Their People were ungrateful enough to run away? And do those ads provide physical descriptions of Their People, using such common terms as whipping scars on the People’s backs?

            I am curious and would like to know what information you have on your antebellum families. What were their names and residences? I would be glad to help you look up their history. Thanks in advance for your information!

          • Marc Ferguson November 30, 2011 / 11:47 am

            How your family treated “their people”?

            I would suggest you invest in a good dictionary and start by looking up the word “condone.”

        • Brooks D. Simpson November 28, 2011 / 12:58 pm

          Well, let’s see why else Mr. Belmonte “condones” slavery …

          “Most of the large owners did very well for their over all living conditions……he just did not include, the great country fresh food as well…..”

          “I beleive he was mentioning the benefits that many slaves had in those times as slaves…….if not, thats all I`m saying and proud of that truth. The Northern papers of the time obviously portrayed nothin but the whippin post.”

          And why might he have such a favorable view of slavery?

          “Would you all quit talkin bout my kin folk that owned 117 plantations in 1860. At Steven, soo true. My ancestors taught the servants the gospel which freed them from the voodoo and Black magic witch doctors. Free medical, free housing, free food and clothing, free tobacco. All they had to do was farm the fields and behave. Many of the family plantations were in Va, NC, Ms. Many plantation records were donated to the Library in Chapel Hill.”

          • lee belmonte November 28, 2011 / 1:48 pm

            Lol,…….I have a sense of humor, while showing some truthful facts……Your actually making a fool of yourself and cannot fathom there were some positiveness considering the unwarranted slavery institution..I never again said I approved of slavery and still dont……….Did I not mention the great campfires of laughter and singing at night?

          • Brooks D. Simpson November 28, 2011 / 2:22 pm

            I’ve already quoted you “condoning” slavery. Are you saying that you don’t mean what you say? Or that you don’t understand what you say?

            Now, as to who is making a fool out of whom, I’ll leave that to my readers.

          • lee belmonte November 28, 2011 / 3:14 pm

            And your readers are awaiting my answer. Along with, you avoiding and attacking me about the mistaken english words while Im in my car…….Typical, you loose and comeback with a sidewinder of spin…….you can just say. oops. Your boring me Simpson. I will not give you anymore material for free from my treasure chest……..

          • Brooks D. Simpson November 28, 2011 / 3:28 pm

            It’s not smart to text while you are driving. And you could not be replying unless you were also reading the blog while you were driving. That’s dangerous. Please don’t place the lives of others at risk while you display your illiteracy. Thank you.

          • Khepera November 28, 2011 / 3:17 pm

            Mr. Belmonte perhaps is unaware of the common, English meaning of the word “condone.”

          • Brooks D. Simpson November 28, 2011 / 3:25 pm

            Perhaps. Then again, it’s hard to tell, because he has such nice things to say about slavery.

          • lee belmonte November 28, 2011 / 4:53 pm

            I used it properly, what the hell are you talking about, disguise and spin Khepera, you must be a real card or Simpsons troll twin…….

          • Brooks D. Simpson November 28, 2011 / 5:46 pm

            If you used “condoned” properly, then you admit that you think slavery’s okay. So thanks for telling us that you meant what you said.

          • Khepera November 29, 2011 / 7:36 am

            Mr. Belmont, I am actually cringing with embarrassment for you at the moment. You’re not only being ignorant, you’re being willfully ignorant. Come to think of it, that goes with the territory for apologists, doesn’t it? Use a dictionary, man.

            Your descent into ad hominem jabs tells me that you actually know you’re wrong though.

          • Corey Meyer November 28, 2011 / 6:51 pm

            According to Facebook Mr. Belmonte is from Tulsa, OK.

        • Corey Meyer November 28, 2011 / 6:47 pm


          You do understand that despite to poor working conditions and pay, workers in the North were able to decided not to work or go somewhere else to find work. Slaves on the other hand did not have that option. I hope you do see the simple difference.

          • Margaret Blough November 29, 2011 / 9:20 pm

            Corey-Excellent points. The most ill-treated northern factory worker did not have to worry that his wife and/or children would be sold to another factory owner so far away that he would never see them again. The best-treated slave had no hope that, if he worked hard, that his children might have a better future than he and had no legal say over their future at all. Splitting of families in slavery wasn’t just a weapon of intimidation, it was a routine aspect of the institution. If an owner got into debt or died, his assets could be sold or otherwise distributed to satisfy his creditors and/or heirs

          • Bob Huddleston November 29, 2011 / 10:17 pm

            Let alone the right to marry and raise their children without fear of their being forcibly sold South.

  10. lee belmonte November 28, 2011 / 1:55 pm

    I met against slavery then and now………..

    • Brooks D. Simpson November 28, 2011 / 2:23 pm

      And when have you “met” slavery?

      I assume you know what “condone” means. Or are you fond of using words you don’t understand?

      • Shao Ping November 29, 2011 / 9:06 am

        Maybe he meant “condemn”? Given the numerous errors in all of his replies (e.g. “very successful slaver owners knew, more than anyone, how important moral was”, is that “morality” or “morale”? silly in either case of course) it is difficult to understand what he means. Not sure why one would want to though.

  11. Neil Hamilton November 28, 2011 / 9:42 pm

    “Whenever I hear any one arguing for slavery I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.”

    • Connie Chastain November 28, 2011 / 11:47 pm

      Mr. Hamilton, “arguing for slavery” is a very rare occurrence and Lincoln was a hypocrite. An incomplete and unrealistically negative picture of slavery is pervasive in the culture of this country; it is deliberately perpetrated in order to create the perception of slaveowners as inhuman and total evil — and, by association, the entire Confederacy, thus making the South “deserving” of the destruction by the righteous army of the north. To point out that this picture is agenda driven and incomplete, and thus not true, is not “arguing for slavery.”

      • Roger E Watson November 29, 2011 / 12:59 pm

        Actually, the negative picture of slavery is probably not negative enough ! A person that owns another person and has 100% total control over their existence or non-existence IS inhuman and totally evil. The entire Confederacy but not the South was very deserving of the complete destruction by the the Union Army.

        • Lyle Smith November 29, 2011 / 3:37 pm

          George Washington and Thomas Jefferson… totally evil!

        • Connie Chastain November 29, 2011 / 10:20 pm

          Mr. Watson, your perceptions about it are yours to indulge in. However, my perception is that the north could have easily ended slavery without violence by (1) refusing to buy slave-grown cotton and (2) refusing to ship it. Given that they did not do that, one has to conclude that they deliberately chose the path that would drive the South away — and what happened then was that the union just went crazy. They were so furious that one section would have the audacity to want to *leave* them, they went rabidly homicidal on a society-wide scale, went on a frenzy of killing and destruction which the South did not deserve;. Neither secession nor ending slavery were good enough reasons for the barbarous invasion, the apocalyptic destruction and the bloodlust killing rained down upon the South — particularly when slavery could have ended without violence.

          • Lyle Smith December 1, 2011 / 8:52 am

            It wasn’t much of an attempt though was it? How could it be since virtually all the cotton was grown in the South, and silk, not being native to North America, was probably cheaper to import than to export? Silk was a very bad idea on the part of those people. It’s why they failed.

            However, this is probably a feather in the cap of the Republican led United States… they went after Southern secessionists regardless of Yankee pecuniary interests.

          • Shao Ping November 30, 2011 / 1:22 pm

            I’m really not sure how to express how much this comment amuses me. Thanks?

          • Marc Ferguson November 30, 2011 / 2:22 pm

            Give it a try. What about it do you find amusing?

          • Shao Ping November 30, 2011 / 9:49 pm

            First off, to avoid confusion it was Connie Chastain’s comment that amused me, not yours (which I agree with). And what I found amusing was the frantic rhetoric (e.g. “the apocalyptic destruction and bloodlust killing rained down upon the South”), the facile political analysis about how the North could have peaceably ended slavery, the bizarre psychology (“rabidly homicidal on a society-wide scale”), and the complete disconnect from anything that actually happened. Though I suppose she believes what she wrote, it strikes me as so incredible that I have to laugh.

          • Connie Chastain December 1, 2011 / 2:24 am

            Are you aware of the Union army’s shelling of Southern towns where civilians were present? Oh, wait, never mind, that didn’t happen, it’s a disconnect from reality.

            Well, are you aware of the women of Roswell Mills, Georgia, taken captive and sent north by Sherman? Oh, wait, never mind, that didn’t happen, it’s a disconnect from reality.

            How about Sherman’s orders to burn the homes of civilians, and use wagonloads of civilians as mine detectors in Georgia? Oh, wait, never mind, that didn’t happen, it’s a disconnect from reality — how these nonexistent-figment orders of his that he never wrote got into the OR is anybody’s guess

            Well, have you read summaries of the economic destruction alone tallied after the war? Oh, wait, never mind, that didn’t happen, it’s a disconnect from reality.

            Well, how about the loss of life, military and civilian, Oh, wait, never mind, that didn’t happen, it’s a disconnect from reality.

            Have you gone through the OR compiling a list of Southern towns and villages burned by the army? Oh, wait, never mind, that didn’t happen, it’s a disconnect from reality.

            Turchin’s sack and destruction of Athens — never happened. Sheridan’s denuding of the Shenandoah — never happened. Sherman’s March to the Sea, his burning of Columbia, South Carolina. Never happened.

            Medicine withheld from Southern civilians by the blockade? Never happened.

            Yeah, I understand your desire to laugh, not because these (and more, and worse) things didn’t happen, but perhaps because they did?

          • Shao Ping December 1, 2011 / 4:17 pm

            Jumping Jehosapht! I never realized bad, unpleasant things happened during the Civil War, and all due to those uncouth Yankee barbarians. So unlike any other war ever fought.

            But seriously, none of that supports your bizarre claims, which I doubt even help one understand the Nanjing Massacre or similar atrocities.

          • Connie Chastain December 2, 2011 / 12:04 pm

            Lapsing into flippancy to avoid acknowledging the truth of it? That’s a backhanded acknowledgement that my descriptions do support my claim. And these “unpleasant things that happened during the Civil War” are of major interest to me. Your reaction, along with that of most critics, betrays a unwillingness to give even a cursory glance to the horrors perpetrated against the South — presumably because one would have to remove one’s hypnotic gaze from the horrors of slavery to which it is fastened…or maybe it would generate unwanted feelings of sympathy for a people who are generally portrayed in our culture as not deserving of sympathy….

          • Roger E Watson November 30, 2011 / 1:45 pm

            Your hyperbole aside, it is interesting that you can capitalize South and Confederacy but north and union remain lower case. We must get whatever small satisfactions where we can, I guess. When anyone refers to the war of Northern aggression my reply has been, oh, you must mean the confederate war to preserve slavery.

          • Khepera November 30, 2011 / 1:56 pm

            But y’all always say that the war wasn’t about slavery. And it wasn’t, on the part of the Union in any case. It was on the part of the Confederacy though. And not because they feared that slavery would be abolished, but because they knew they were not going to be allowed to expand it to wherever they wanted.

            Even though the initial aggression of the Union was not originally about slavery, I disagree with your assessment that it wasn’t a good enough reason for invasion. Of course, I’m one of those folks who think that John Brown, Gabriel Prosser, Denmark Vesey , Nat Turner and the like are heroes. And when were talking “barbarous,” let’s not forget the barbarity of chattel slavery and the “apocalyptic destruction” rained down on generations of African slaves, their cultures and their families.

          • HankC November 30, 2011 / 3:01 pm

            ‘bloodlust killing rained down upon the South’ ?

            it may pay to remember that the north lost more men than the south and that 2/3 of deaths were from disease.

            The killing was rained down on the country fairly evenly – north and south, east and west…

          • Connie Chastain December 2, 2011 / 11:59 am

            Per Frank E. Vandiver, over 10,000 fights occurred during the war, from “pitched battles to engagements to skirmishes to heavy combat ‘affairs’.”

            Virtually all of them on Southern soil.

            An estimated 50,000 of the dead (from disease, shellings, etc.) were civilians. The rest of the country suffered nothing comparable to that.

          • HankC December 3, 2011 / 11:16 am

            from where is the 50,000 extimate derived? a number of towns were shelled during sieges and battles (Atlanta, Vicksburg, Fredericksburg and Petersburg come to mind) but they had ample opportunity to be vacated…

  12. Neil Hamilton November 29, 2011 / 6:43 pm

    Miss Chastain,

    Arguing even once “for slavery” is once too many. And, as the SHPG has shown by the quotes of a few of its members, it taints all who do not ascribe to the few who argue “for” it, but either give it backhanded support or remain silent on the subject.


    • Connie Chastain November 30, 2011 / 2:09 am

      Depends on how you define “for slavery.” I haven’t seen anyone argue “for” it by my perception of that therm. Some have put an impossibly positive spin on it, maybe, just as an impossibly negative spin as been put on it elsewhere. (As I recall, nNobody attempted to correct Kevin Levin when he described it as “rape, torture and separating families” or some such, and made no attempt to clarify that these were only *part* of it — the *abuses* of it…. Well, nobody but me). Some (including myself) have argued that it wasn’t as bad as some critics portray it. I think a lot of these posts that appear to defend slavery are actually attempts to defend ancestors or slaveowners against charges that slaveowning rendered them inhumanly diabolical, and their possessing and demonstrating any goodness and decency was impossible.

      You can’t even have a discussion about what constituted slavery, what the experience was for slaves and others (particularly if it has even a modicum of positiveness to it) without somebody an saying indignantly, “But the idea than anybody could OWN another person…..?

      No, those few quotes do not taint others. That is exactly the sort of mentality I protest often here — the attempt to smear the whole group with the comments of a very few. Assigning groupthink to others, not recognizing individuality, is a fruit of political correctness. A person’s words taint nobody but them. Are there any members of groups you belong to, on or offline, whose beliefs or statements you do not agree with? Are you tainted by them? Have you told them that your thoughts on the subject are the right ones, and they need to come around to your way of thinking? Or do you still cling to that old, outdated American idea, “I may not agree with what you say, but I defend your right to say it”?

      • Shao Ping November 30, 2011 / 1:39 pm

        I’ll confess to not understanding how “rape, torture and separating families” is an abuse of slavery. It certainly was common enough. Is this like how if you are to murder someone, you should murder them gently?

        As for the taint, of course the behavior and thoughts of others in your group taint you. You have chosen to associate with them. This is especially true when those behaviors and thoughts relate to the purpose of the group. I may defend their right to say what they want, but I am not going to hang out with them.

        • Connie Chastain December 2, 2011 / 12:06 pm

          Since you seem determined to deliberately misunderstand, let me try rewording. Rape, torture and separating families were abuses that occurred in slavery.

          They were common enough? How common? I see this claim made a lot — I don’t think I’ve ever seen the ones claiming it offering documentation to back it up. And your analogy of slavery to murder is ludicrous.

          No, the thoughts expressed by someone in an internet group do not taint the entire group, particularly in view of the anonymous nature of the Internet. Associate with them? It’s a freakin’ Facebook group. But even in terrestrial reality, the thoughts and behavior of people an individual associates with do not taint that individual. That person’s own thoughts and behavior taint him, or not. The refusal to acknowledge individual responsibility, and to mentally clone-ize everyone in a group, is an unfortunate product of political correctness and, ironically, “diversity.” (PC diversity is a characteristic of groups, not individuals.)

  13. Neil Hamilton November 30, 2011 / 5:47 pm


    That you “haven’t seen” anyone argue for slavery is a bit perplexing to me. You mean to say that such comments that slaves had free health care, old age care, housing, etc., do not imply an argument for slavery, that it was “not that bad” imply nothing of the sort to you? Your perception will not lead you to such?

    And the idea that such comments, by way of explanation, are an attempt to defend ancestors and slaveholders “against charges that slaveowning rendered them inhumanly diabolical” gets some sort of comfort and excuse for the institution itself?

    I am reminded of another quote that I like so much. “Loyalty to our ancestors does not mean loyalty to their mistakes.” In my own view, Miss Chastain, slavery, no matter how lightly applied, no matter how gentle the touch, is diabolical. And I have four slaveowning ancestors of my own who fought for the Confederacy. While I admire their individual courage, their loyalty to their comardes and their devotion to their fellow soldiers, I in no way think them gentle, kind, nor diabolical, just flat-out wrong in their actions in defending the institution. Wrong is wrong, and if there was ever anything wrong in this world, it is slavery and a society who seeks to justify it and continue it, in the face of a world that was getting rid of the institution.

    I’m of the opinion that such comments, when not met with a firm rebuttal, DO taint a group who silently condone such views or show support for it through their own comments.
    You have stated your opinion. I have stated mine.

    I guess we both have chosen what we can live with and still sleep at night.


    • Connie Chastain December 2, 2011 / 12:01 pm

      Mr. Hamilton, my perception does not lead me to think that comments about free health care, old age care, etc., are an argument “for slavery” in the sense that they’re an argument that slavery *should* have existed. I don’t know the motive of all people who make such claims, but it appears to me to be a reaction to the-worst-was-the-whole viewpoint — an attempt to point out things that people who hold that viewpoint apparently wish to ignore.

      No, I reject the notion that defending ancestors from the-worst-was-the-whole type arguments is to get some sort of comfort and excuse for the institution itself. To me, it’s bizarre, and I’m truly mystified at the convoluted thinking one must do to come up with such an idea.

      I think it is quite possible to see the institution of slavery as reprehensible and still oppose the attempts to portray the worst elements as the whole of it — and particularly to oppose magnifying that distorted view as justification for what was done to the South in the war and afterward.

      That is where most heritage advocates are, I believe,

      Just one quick question; does any other issue keep you awake at night — for example, the in-womb slaughter of millions of preborn children in this country since 1973, which continues to this very moment?

  14. Lyle Smith December 1, 2011 / 8:32 am

    It wasn’t much of an attempt though was it? How could it be since virtually all the cotton was grown in the South, and silk, not being native to North America, was probably cheaper to import than to export? Silk was a very bad idea on the part of those people. It’s why they failed.

    However, this is probably a feather in the cap of the Republican led United States… they went after Southern secessionists regardless of Yankee pecuniary interests.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s