Who Supports “Flagging” the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts?

Over the past several months a group of Confederate heritage advocates has been protesting the decision of the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts in Richmond to fly the Confederate Battle Flag and other Confederate flags at the site of a chapel located at an old soldiers home.  The protest has drawn some attention in the blogosphere, but not much, frankly; the visuals make for a good local news story, as we can see.

Not all the attention devoted to this protest has been negative or neutral.  The “flaggers,” as they style themselves (they are even festooned with ribbons celebrating their activities) have support … from the Southern Nationalist Network.  Yup, these folks. The ones who claim that southerners “are a people. Our ancestors came from Europe but we long ago ceased to be Europeans.”  In short, no blacks allowed.  Sound familiar?

It should.  These are folks who openly proclaim that …

Southern nationalists … want to conserve a specific people and culture…. We can point to a specific population that is easily defined in terms of ethnicity and culture and say that the betterment of this nation of people is what we support.

and …

We are nearly the only group left in society who still defend the classical and common sense notion that inequality and human differences are natural and positive and that society should embrace these differences in a tradition of ordered liberty rather than socially-manipulated equality.

The article includes a picture taken at a recent “flagging” featuring protest organizer and “super activist” Susan Frise Hathaway, who graciously consented to an interview with SNN.

Interesting that for all this talk about black Confederates supporting the CSA that these southern nationalists explicitly exclude African Americans from their definition of “southerner.”  Wonder what went wrong?

So at least now you know who supports the “flaggers” and that the head of the “flaggers” enjoys having their support.

131 thoughts on “Who Supports “Flagging” the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts?

  1. C.C. LESTERS December 29, 2011 / 7:37 am


    • Brooks D. Simpson December 29, 2011 / 9:34 am

      Well, then, certainly it would do no harm to share with them the agenda of some people who have expressed support for flagging. Why would you object?

  2. tlewis December 29, 2011 / 7:47 am

    Dude, Your lost in space man… Doesnt matter we will be out there every week and there isn’t anything you can do about it accept stew in your own ignorance.
    Enjoy! Onward we march!

    • Brooks D. Simpson December 29, 2011 / 9:37 am

      You’re free to protest all you want; it’s a right guaranteed by the Constitution. So what’s your point? I simply highlighted a supporter of the movement. There isn’t anything you can do about that, and clearly you don’t object to such support. So why not simply broadcast it as you protest?

  3. Fortpillow December 29, 2011 / 7:51 am

    Two sides fought for the soul of America in 1861. Two sides continue to fight for that same soul. English puritans settled the north and celts setted in the South. In modern context one group favors a strong central government and the other a limited central government. So the two sides will always disagree. Based on the content of this blog and the lead picture above it is obvious which side which side you are on.

    • Brooks D. Simpson December 29, 2011 / 9:44 am

      The Puritans came to New England because they opposed the actions of the monarchy (they were dissenters), while those who settled in Virginia were agents of the Crown. That fact alone upsets your understanding of American history. And when it came to the expansion and protection of slavery, guess who supported a strong and intrusive central government? Given that you like to go by the name of “Fortpillow,” we can guess which side you are on. After all, look at your comments in The Atlantic. Wonder whether the “flaggers” enjoy that sort of support as well.

      • Rob Baker December 29, 2011 / 10:33 am

        The Puritans came to New England because they opposed the actions of the monarchy (they were dissenters), while those who settled in Virginia were agents of the Crown. That fact alone upsets your understanding of American history.


        • Mike Lamb December 29, 2011 / 3:49 pm

          Yep, that’s the short of it..
          However those Pilgrims were actually in Holland when they made arrangements for the trip here. They weren’t personally granted anything from the King, but rather they were sponsored by English businessmen as a second colony. Looks like the English were actually hoping to find them a place so the others would leave Great Britain/England. Finding them such a place, out of England would DEFINITELY have pleased the Crown and made life more “bearable” in England for everyone else. They were real trouble-makers, those Puritans. Just ask the King and the people they tormented and killed and burned at the stake!

          • Brooks D. Simpson December 29, 2011 / 4:08 pm

            Indeed. I taught one spring at Leiden University … located in the same town of which you speak. Pilgrims were distinct from Puritans, however.

      • Mike Lamb December 29, 2011 / 11:03 am

        Mr. Simpson,
        You didn’t fully address the nature of the Puritans. You leave much out. Matter of fact, there is so much concerning them this thread couldn’t do the topic justice.

        But I will add this to counter your assertions concerning the puritans. In short they were a nasty bunch of self-righteous hoodlums which had started 2 wars in Great Britain/England and caused turmoil in Holland. (Remember Oliver Cromwell? A nice Puritan, no?)

        As for the Pilgrims/Puritans being agents of the Crown, I reference this cite:
        “The Pilgrims End Their Pilgrimage at Plymouth. Losing their identity as English, a group of Separatists in Holland came to America in search for religious freedom. The group settled outside the domain of the Virginia Company and, without legal permission, settled in Plymouth Bay in 1620.” ref. 12th edition of the A.P. U.S. History text, The American Pageant.

        While some issue can be made for the above, it can be understood that many other Puritan dissenters followed those Pilgrims. At this point it becomes a moot point to their previous past, and more important what their beliefs are and how they enacted those beliefs in this country.

        Here in this country the Puritans start off so nicely with their self-righteous “Salem Witch Trials” and the burning of suspected witches. And we have these same Puritans ready to declare war on the Swiss/Hollanders from the Massachusetts area. Of which the Puritans harassed them until they finally forced the Swiss/Hollanders out.

        Fortpillow is absolutely correct and you are wrong. But you are only wrong because you failed to address the whole situation. So, if need be, I can add much to the above….

        I make no special claims, including titles, although I could, nor do I recognize them.
        I’d rather debate and judge another, not by their titles, but by what lies within them.

        Michael-Deo Vindicabmur

        • Brooks D. Simpson December 29, 2011 / 4:11 pm

          Try not to confuse the Pilgrims and the Puritans, and please be more careful in distinguishing between the first generation of Puritans (under John Winthrop) and what happened several generations later. For someone who claims expertise in these matters, you should know better: besides, all that you say really doesn’t bear on the matter at hand.

          • Mike Lamb December 29, 2011 / 4:27 pm

            I reference:
            or Brownists English Dissenters.
            (I use wikipedia for the simplicity.)
            They are of the same general group, “Dissenters” and they shared basically the same theology. Nor does it change the fact the Crown was weary and tired of the trouble this whole group caused. What DOES matter is what happened after they arrived and settled in what was to become the US.

            The Southern culture is most definitely much different than the Northern culture. All one need do to prove this fact is look and read the “multitude” of quotes stated by Union Federalists, abolitionists, religious sects and people in the North in general. A good place to start is Lincoln, Grant, Sherman and Garfield. There was actual talk of completely wiping out and removing the entire Southern population. Sherman had no problems with killing any Southerner as he didn’t like them and thought them inferior. President Garfield wanted them removed and put on reservations and resettle the South with Northerners Immigrating to the South.

            How many quotes do wish me to cite? 10, 20, 50 or more?

            I’ll stand by all my posts… tyvm…

            Michael-Deo Vindicabamur

          • Mike Lamb December 29, 2011 / 5:36 pm

            I further reference and reinforce my assertions!
            I’ll stand my ground and even advance.
            Puritans =’s Pilgrims:

            Leader and governor of the original Pilgrims

            From the University of Virginia

            John Winthrop–another leader of the original Pilgrims.

            John Howland–ancestor of George Bush.

            And finally from the “Pilgrim Hall Museum”.

            Besides the above; All were Pilgrims–All were Listed as Puritans by religious ideology/practice..

            Michael-Deo Vindicabamur

          • Brooks D. Simpson December 29, 2011 / 5:56 pm

            You sure spent a lot of time trying to persuade yourself of what you already believe to be true. Unfortunately, that doesn’t make it so. In particular you don’t seem to have read the University of Virginia site, which says:

            “The most obvious difference between the Pilgrims and the Puritans is that the Puritans had no intention of breaking with the Anglican church.”

            Have you ever tried reading what you cite, especially when it contradicts what you claim? It might spare you some embarrassment.

            So you stood your ground; you advanced; and now you are repulsed, rather easily. It’s all your fault.

          • Mike Lamb December 29, 2011 / 6:28 pm

            The specific point was, Puritans are in fact Pilgrims.
            If you had read the entire articles I listed you would read how they “differentiated” the term Pilgrim, as they applied several distinct meanings to it. A traveler to a new land was one. However we were looking at the “specifics” of what religious faith were the Pilgrims. They were dissenters of the Anglican Church. Or read by link to Brownshirt Dissenters. You can label any subtitle to these people you so desire. You can omit and apply variables to either qualify or dis-qualify them from being Puritans all you want, but the fact remains, the Pilgrims were Puritans that came here and the manifest lists them as such. (All the writings that identifies the passengers. Try simply reading the history of each passenger.)The bottom line is they were Puritans that came to be called Pilgrims because of their travels. I still stand by my statements. And the links I posted bears this out when read, especially when accumulated.

            btw-What happened to the Crown’s orders for the Puritans “Pilgrimage” to the New World?

            Michael-Deo Vindicabamur

          • Brooks D. Simpson December 29, 2011 / 6:34 pm

            I’m sure you believe what you say, and no amount of evidence, even that which is provided by you, will change that fact.

          • Mike Lamb December 30, 2011 / 3:48 pm

            The cites, references and quotes speak for themselves…
            That’s why I posted them. If you have problems accepting that, then you need to take issue with the authors of the works and most likely the Pilgrim’s themselves. For some odd reason I don’t believe you would accept their answers, straight from their mouths…

            Michael-Deo Vindicabamur

        • Tony Gunter December 29, 2011 / 7:38 pm

          Has anyone else noticed that his signature line reads “For God We Are Punished.”

          • Mike Lamb December 29, 2011 / 9:11 pm

            Well, if that’s what you make of it.
            The question becomes; who is “we” referring too?
            But I digress, nobody really believes in God any more.
            That’s mere superstition… It’s like, man, it’s been so long ago….

            Michael-Deo Vindicabamur

      • Fortpillow December 29, 2011 / 3:58 pm

        You offer nothing to the conversation but a contemptuous viewpoint. This is typical and to be expected by the ranks of the abolitionist sentiment. Nice tie btw.

        • Brooks D. Simpson December 29, 2011 / 4:12 pm

          I guess you think that the abolition of slavery was a bad thing. Thanks for sharing that perspective.

          • Fortpillow December 29, 2011 / 6:27 pm

            There is a difference between abolitionist sentiment and abolition of slavery. Did you say you taught history? Or was it philosophy? I bet John Brown, Nat Turner and Gabriel Prosser are your heros.

  4. Mark Thomey December 29, 2011 / 8:53 am

    It is one thing to say that negros fought for the South (as some did), and that they have contributed to Southern culture (they have – the blues, food, etc.); however, that is not the same thing as saying that they are a foundational part of what the world widely recognises as Southern culture.

    Four hundred years of close proximity have produced some similarities and some shared customs and traditions, but despite that, as a friend of mine’s grandfather once noted, ‘Son, they just ain’t like us.’ One can not look at white Southern cutlure, then black ghetto/urban/rap culture, and say with a straight face that they have anything in common. The latter is what the negros of today present as ‘theirs’, and they revel in its being distinct from, and opposed to, white Southern culture. By contrast, though, I know rural black folks whose ways are certainly more like my own – but not completely like my own.

    It was not pagan, anamist Africans that crossed the Atlantic, settled a continent, and carved a civilisation out of the wilderness. It was not tribal Africans that established constitutional self-government. And it was not hunter-gatherer Africans who developed agriculture and industry as we know it today. It is arguable that without the influence of European colonisation, today’s subsahara Africans would still by-and-large be living like their stone age ancestors. And despite that, many still do.

    What is wrong with wanting to preserve that heritage? Absent all the yankee, do-gooder meddling and trouble-making, Southern whites and blacks would find amicable ways to coexist, and that white Southern cutlure which you seem to despise would help lift everyone to a much higher level than the current marxist steamroller that smashes all of us into the dirt. God save the South.

    • Brooks D. Simpson December 29, 2011 / 9:49 am

      For some reason you seem surprised (and upset) that I simply highlighted the views of a group that supports the “flaggers.” Why? And I think enslaved African Americans did a lot of the work in building the South (and the United States). You appear unaware of that fact. Without the labor of enslaved blacks, white southerners could not have achieved all you claim they achieved on their own. Do you deny that?

    • Barry Isenhour December 29, 2011 / 10:29 am

      @Mark, Amen Brother!

    • Mike Lamb December 29, 2011 / 6:11 pm

      Mark, they like to live and teach according to the lowest common denominator.
      Makes no difference if one is white or black or poki-dotted. They simply relate everything they believe and apply it to the lowest common denominator. That way they feel good by thinking everyone has been treated equally. In the process they have created an army that can’t think for themselves, but is very adept at repeating every slur and slight that they have been programmed to believe. That’s why when one of us speaks or writes, we get vilified by the multitudes with simplistic vulgar remarks and programmed “canned” responses. Plus their civility and behavior is so vulgar they are barbaric. They are refined or disciplined people! But the teaching of such doesn’t require good morals or character as it is a simple tenet of Marxism… btw-I’ve read the greatest majority of Karl Marx’s and Engels’s works, and that is volumes, about 35 volumes not counting his pamphlets/booklets.

      Michael-Deo Vindicabamur

      • Margaret Blough December 31, 2011 / 9:13 pm

        There is a great difference between reading and comprehension.

  5. Tony Gunter December 29, 2011 / 9:03 am

    Pretty dodgy representation of your group: one all-caps typist, one man who can’t spell, and a person hiding behind the moniker “Fortpillow.”

    Just for the record, this group does *not* represent the south. In reality, many of us southerners can breathe and type at the same time, and some of us even have indoor plumbing and horseless carriages.

    • Brooks D. Simpson December 29, 2011 / 10:42 am

      So I’m sure you’ll ensure that the woman in question understands the position of the SNN, which supports the flagging. And you should protest the SNN’s statement about what constitutes a southerner. After all, if you felt motivated enough to post here, you’ll post there, right?

      • Rob Baker December 29, 2011 / 10:49 am

        Doubtful, he doesn’t allow difference of opinion on that site.

        • WL Yancey December 29, 2011 / 4:15 pm

          Aren’t you one of the bots from the Kevin Levin echo chamber? Where is your buddy Scalawag in Texas?

          • Brooks D. Simpson December 30, 2011 / 7:28 pm

            “WL Yancey” has decried elsewhere “the folly that is free society!” We’d expect that from a supporter of slavery. He also complains about the “Black Undertow.”

            Of course, if it was not a free society Mr. Yancey might find himself on the wrong end of history … if that unfree society decided that he should not be free.

      • Barry Isenhour December 29, 2011 / 11:07 am

        @ Mr. Simpson, Castro Supports Mr. Obama, so what? I am a Flagger, and You are wrong about why we are Flagging. If SNN, or any other group supports us, so what? Stop this smearing, and come pick up a Confederate Flag & join us on the Blvd.

        • Brooks D. Simpson December 29, 2011 / 4:14 pm

          Since you say I’m wrong about why you are flagging, show me where I said why you were flagging and explain why that is wrong.

          I see you aren’t troubled by the support of the SNN. Does anything about that group trouble you?

  6. Kimberly Adkins December 29, 2011 / 10:47 am

    Dude, you are clueless. The chapel is a confederate historical landmark, designated as such by state and federal agencies and laws. The flag was on it, and rightly so, as a confederate landmark. The VMFA as caretaker, not owner, of the chapel had the flags removed for their own purposes and totally disregarded the laws as they relate to historical landmarks. The ONLY thing we, the flaggers have asked for is that the confederate flag be restored to a confederate landmark, and the state and federal laws regarding historic landmarks be upheld and followed. It seems to me that people like you and the VMFA think that it is ok to break laws and deface a historical landmark just as long as it is a confederate landmark, because I know you nor they would ever think it acceptable to break laws and deface any other historical landmarks.

    • Brooks D. Simpson December 29, 2011 / 4:18 pm

      First, I would think you would say Confederate, not confederate. The latter tends to dishonor Confederate heritage.

      Second, have I said anything about the motives of the flaggers? Show me where. Am I in error about the SNN’s support of the movement, or Ms. Hathaway’s interview with the SNN? Show me where. Have I said anything about the merits of the flagger movement? Show me where.

  7. Charles Persinger December 29, 2011 / 12:02 pm

    Seems there is an influx of irrational comments today by the heritage crowd.

    • Brooks D. Simpson December 29, 2011 / 4:19 pm

      They seem upset for some reason. However, they haven’t pointed out where my post was in error.

      • Dave Tatum January 1, 2012 / 7:04 am

        Definition of FESTOON
        1: a decorative chain or strip hanging between two points
        2: a carved, molded, or painted ornament representing a decorative chain

        Glad you like my Ribbons Bubba ! But they Ain’t Festoon’s!

        • Brooks D. Simpson January 1, 2012 / 10:03 am

          “Festoon” is a verb as well as a noun.

          Definition of FESTOON: transitive verb
          1: to hang or form festoons on
          2: to shape into festoons
          3: decorate, adorn; also : cover

          Examples of FESTOON

          We festooned the halls with leaves and white lights.
          The balcony is festooned in ivy.
          His office is festooned with newspaper clippings.

          This comes from the same source that you used (although you didn’t cite your source).

          Why did using the dictionary properly pose a problem for you? Did you shoot yourself in the foot with your little cannon? Guess so.

          And thus another member of the Southern Heritage Preservation Group does the group proud.

      • Dave Tatum January 1, 2012 / 7:07 am

        Definition of FESTOON
        1: a decorative chain or strip hanging between two points
        2: a carved, molded, or painted ornament representing a decorative chain

        Psssssst! I made the ribbons to thank the flaggers cause I could not be there!

        • Brooks D. Simpson January 1, 2012 / 9:59 am

          I think you overlooked that “festoon” is also a verb.

          Do you shoot yourself in the foot very often? Apparently so.

          • Dave Tatum January 1, 2012 / 11:20 am

            How can you decorate yourself with a verb?
            Oh and my little cannon will put a golf ball through a car !
            Oh and you did not site the same source!
            But ya got a nice hair cut !

          • Dave Tatum January 1, 2012 / 12:07 pm

            OOOOOPS, in the way you used festoon it is a verb, Yep I shot myself in the foot! But heck the guy who don’t make a mistake ain’t doin nothin! And it was just a flesh wound so I’m still standin !
            My Great Grand Father had need of medical treatment that the RE Lee camp offered. So I have an interest in the actions of the VMFA. Like I said I made the ribbons to thank the folks who stand in front and protest the VMFAs action.
            I build my cannons with care and have yet to shoot myself in the foot with one, but I have blown a few to bits! But them is the chances ya take !

          • Shao Ping January 1, 2012 / 1:13 pm

            It seems flesh wounds are the only sort of wounds that we can inflict.

  8. Denise Barber December 29, 2011 / 12:49 pm

    You are a genuine racist, Mr. Simpson. You are aghast at the idea that White Southerners have dared to presume that they are a Distinct People. Why? Would you be so horrified, and censorious at any OTHER ethny, defining their very Selves?

    And you are extremely arrogant in your supposition that the Black Flaggers – the “African Americans” (self definition)- DON’T already comprehend the group supporting the proud raising of the Confederate Flag. WOW!!!!! Them po’ ole Darkies need Wise Massa Simpson, to tells dem what’s dey need to know! Sho nuff! Massa Simpson is a good Massa, always lookin’ out fo’ his Darkies, ‘gainst dem Ebbil White Debbils!

    • Brooks D. Simpson December 29, 2011 / 4:26 pm

      I don’t think white southerners constitute an ethnic group. Moreover, many white southerners don’t celebrate Confederate heritage. Furthermore, as I define “southerner,” I include blacks as well as whites (and people of other heritages). Surely you are aware of the multiracial heritage of many southerners. So why would you want to exclude these people from a definition of “southerner”? Isn’t that a form of de facto verbal genocide?

      I simply asked if the African Americans who are part of the flagger movement know about the support shown that movement by the SNN and understand that the SNN says that by definition they are not southerners. Do you pretend to speak for them? Do you always mock black people? In your mind, is that a sign of the superiority of white southerners? After all, you pretend to know who the racists are.

    • Brooks D. Simpson December 29, 2011 / 6:11 pm

      Actually, no. And hits have been up. Best month ever … and that was before today. But it’s sure reassuring that you came commenting as expected … just like Pavlov’s dog.

      Does anyone read your blog? Or is it just like the readership for your books … largely non-existent?

      • Fortpillow December 29, 2011 / 6:38 pm

        Mr. Simpson….it is one thing to disagree with one another…….it is another to disparage another author in the manner you have chosen above. I see you are from Freeport, New York. Your position at Arizona State University is Professor of History, CSRD Associate Director. As a fellow teacher I can say that you have stepped in it here. I look forward to the reprimand you will surely be dealt upon notification of your behavior on this blog.

        • Brooks D. Simpson December 29, 2011 / 6:42 pm

          Have at it, “Fortpillow.” I’ll just show the folks at ASU what she’s said about ASU.

          I think you’re the one who just stepped in it.

          • Rob Baker December 29, 2011 / 7:39 pm

            It is scary as hell that fortpillow is a teacher.

          • Brooks D. Simpson December 30, 2011 / 9:10 am

            It would be interesting to see what those in the know in Dublin, Georgia think of his behavior at The Atlantic … as he’s the one who brought that idea up.

          • Fortpillow December 30, 2011 / 8:42 am

            I am sure that Ms. Langland, Mr. Marneffe and Mr. Crow have not previously been aware of your style of commenting on your blog. I wonder if your students get the same treatment. Two wrongs don’t make a right and for a professor to stoop to such a childlike statement speaks volumes.

          • Brooks D. Simpson December 30, 2011 / 8:56 am

            Mr. Hall, why are you afraid to post under your real name?

            It appears that you now concede that Ms. Chastain is in the wrong, and that’s a start. Since you disagree about her readership, please provide proof that she has a substantial audience that adores her work. She and I have already discussed her flagging sales figures. You seem to overlook that it was she who originally brought up the issue of audience.

            I’ll simply share your rants on other blogs and ask people to consider the source. When someone asks, “And how long has your seed been in this land?” and then proceeds to attack people based upon ancestry, I think everyone here will understand that bigotry is alive and well in you, which is why you don’t post under your name.

          • Fortpillow December 30, 2011 / 11:47 am

            Mr. Simpson…..I am glad you like my screen name. It does get attention doesn’t it!…..the president’s office gave me this reply….”ASU is a public institution that promotes the free exchange of ideas and opinions and it is not within the purview of the university to regulate the content of personal blogs.”…..looking forward to the Dean’s comment and the head of the history department.

          • Brooks D. Simpson December 30, 2011 / 12:25 pm

            Well, John C. Hall, Jr., as you say … “What I do in the public arena can reflect on the institution I teach at.” Such as yours.

            It might also be of interest to other people as well. I’m not sure people would want to employ as a CPA someone who questions people’s heritage. Wonder what they might say in Dublin, Georgia.

            What goes around comes around, my friend. And, as Ms. Chastain says, Google is our friend.

          • Fortpillow December 30, 2011 / 12:55 pm

            And now you know why Forrest is my hero….tactics my friend!…….unquestionably a ferocious and talented warrior. William Sherman called him “that Devil, Forrest” and “the most remarkable man our Civil War produced on either side.”

  9. PoP December 29, 2011 / 2:16 pm

    Pray tell, what constitutes a southerner to you?

    • Brooks D. Simpson December 29, 2011 / 4:32 pm

      Southerners include many people of diverse backgrounds who identify themselves as southerners. The South would not be “the South” without embracing that diversity. Having spent a decade living in the South, I can testify to its rich diversity.

      It appears that some people who found my post upsetting are those who have no problem excluding non-white people from their definition of “southerner.” Thus they must agree with Dr. Hill’s definition and its endorsement by the SNN. Why should they then be upset when all I do is to draw attention to that definition?

      Nor do the flaggers seem upset by that definition … at least those who have commented here, and pretend to speak for black flaggers. How many black flaggers are there? Do they know about the SNN’s endorsement, and what the SNN says about how it defines southerner? No one’s answered those questions.

      I never mentioned racism. That term was introduced by others. I wonder why.

  10. PoP Aaron December 29, 2011 / 4:52 pm

    The true bloods of the South are a distinct ethnic people, they are also Confederate American by birth. Dixie is a conquered nation, being conquered does not change the above truths!! They tried to destroy our Southern culture during the infamous reconstruction implemented by Congress, which imposed martial law in the Southern States, from 1866 to 1877… eleven years!!! We became U.S. citizens by force, not choice!

    They have chosen the Southern white as the focal scapegoat of our time. This in, politics, media, comics, literature, film and television; dealing with religion, race relations, work and lifestyle in defining Southern whites. The Southron which represents faith, country, pride of heritage, hard work, kinship loyalty, traditional values and way of life is being trampled on by “those people” that hate us so…With all this hate, why don’t they just let us go!!!

    America’s South is losing it’s regional distinctiveness by progress, the PC crowd and appeasement of minorities. Society is demoralizing the Southern people through typecasting as stupid, rednecks and hillbilly’s. Yet America is destroying a part of itself that should have been left alone, let go, explored and listened to. Because of the guilt and questioning which his/her existence creates in the world of the un-Godly, do-gooders and PCer’s. Many Southron feel inadequate and orphaned in their own land!!!

    There are those that preach we should practice tolerance. Well I think we have practiced too much tolerance for too long!!! We have been so tolerant we are losing our past and future! We have let our children become second class citizens in their schools. They have been forced to be ashamed of themselves and their heritage! ~ PoP Aaron

    • Mike Lamb December 30, 2011 / 3:57 pm

      Fascism and Marxism always needs scapegoats in order to keep the sheep together. They invent boogeymen from the Southerner, especially any who holds on to their past heritage, and they invent opposition from other nations, as is now the case in the Middle East. They need war, strife and social problems just to solidify their cause of uniting a country. For whose ultimate goals, I’ll let the reader decide.

      Michael-Deo Vindicabamur

      • Brooks D. Simpson December 30, 2011 / 5:09 pm

        Who in the Middle East is inventing opposition from other nations?

        I think it’s funny that a fellow named Lamb is talking about keeping the sheep together. You might want to rethink that.

        • Mike Lamb December 30, 2011 / 8:56 pm

          The US military is there; NO?
          Is there not talk of taking military action against Iran?
          Where else is the US in the Middle East?
          And what about Afghanistan? Is the US there?
          If so, why?–I thought the US was there to get Laden?
          What about the other countries besides the Middle East;
          Why are we in Europe? I thought the Cold War was over; NO?

          As for sheep, I am a sheep who thinks he is a lion!
          I noticed the shepherds that supposed to be guarding the flock had sided with the wolves! You figure the rest out, for I assure you the future is about to become much more interesting. I rethought my positions you state many years ago. You’re about 20 years behind me…

          You still need those scapegoats to keep the people, dumb and in the dark, ignorant.
          25 years ago this whole flagging thing would have been a non-issue, until orders came and it was “defined” that the Southerners needed more “reconstruction”. It was a perfect ploy to discredit loyal Southerners from their heritage while giving the mass and dumb public plenty of sound bytes, no history lessons needed, in how to attack and dishonor those who only wanted to remember their own as it already was.(Leaving well enough alone.) So yeah, the dumb and ignorant public is rallying around a non-issue, or what had been a non-issue for decades, just for the sake of believing they are bettering the country. But the question remains; Who really benefits from this?

          Michael-Deo Vindicabamur

          • Margaret Blough December 31, 2011 / 9:26 pm

            No one manufactured sound bytes. The images that undermined white supremacy in the 20th century South were produced by state and local government officials and private citizens acting with the knowledge that no action would be taken against them because those officials supported them. Those images were created by whites who set police dogs and fire hoses on children, beat people trying to exercise their constitutionally protected rights of peacable assembly and petitioning the government for the redress of grievances, bombing churches and killing young girls, bombing the house of a federal judge, rioting and imperiling federal marshals because a black veteran wanted to register at University of Mississippi, and assassinating people for registering blacks as voters.

  11. Denise Barber December 29, 2011 / 8:52 pm

    I am asserting that you are denying a distinct group of people – White Southerners – to define themselves AS a distinct group of people. If Black Southerners wish to define them SELVES as Black Southerners – I say “Have At it, and Godspeed!” I support genuine diversity. I am not obsessed with forcing conformity, nor my definitions, on others. As a free-born White woman, I demand and claim the God given right of free association. Why are so threatened by those that choose to define their own idenity? Hhhmmm,,,,something to do with personal irrelevancy, unmasked and naked…..perhaps…

    I’m not mocking Blacks. I’m mocking YOU. If Blacks choose to join a Confederate Flag group, and are welcomed, as apparently they are- then I would never ever, til Time’s End, ever ever ever have thought that the Black Flaggers did not understand the values of the group. I take, as a given, that the Black Flaggers have chosen free assocation, freely extended, and are enjoying the comradery and merriment of the Flaggers. You are exhibiting the patronizing attitude that them po’ darkies are too stupid and feckless to know that they are doing. Not me.

    • James F. Epperson December 29, 2011 / 9:20 pm

      Ms. Barber, how do you define “White Southerner”? Is it anyone of Caucasion racial heritage who self-identifies as being “from” the South? In that case, I count, but I doubt you would want me in your club. (And the same would apply for many others.) Is it anyone who has connections to the South who supports a certain view of history? That is not an ethnic group, it is a political group. Once you bring beliefs into the definition, you are no longer talking ethnicity. I’m “white” regardless of what I believe on any question. My friend Lindsey is “black,” regardless of any of his beliefs. My friend Bonnie is Korean, not because of how she thinks, but because of who her parents were.

      I strongly suspect your notion of “white Southerner” is more political than ethnic.

      • Denise Barber December 30, 2011 / 12:57 pm

        Epperson – you really aren’t capable of making the cognitive leap of comprehendomg that I do not define what a White Southerner, sans snarky, de-legitimizing quotation marks, is – but they THEY define who and what they are.

        I think you have mental issues, as well as hatred of Whites. Are you a Jew? You antipathy towards Whites and your cognitive issues would make your assertions explicable, if so.

        Your Rainbow Pal Lindsey is Black – if he has Negro DNA. You girl-pal Bonnie is an Asian, of her parents are Asian. Do you know anything about actual genetics? Race is real ,and it’s in the DNA. You don’t seem to have a problem with Blacks and Asians BEING Blacks and Asians – but your post indicates that do are attempting to deny the very existence of White people. Who are born and bred in Dixie.

        • Brooks D. Simpson December 30, 2011 / 5:07 pm

          Denise, your posts show us that there is no such thing as white superiority. Thank goodness most people concede that we all should be evaluated as individuals, lest someone think that all white people share your intellect or attitudes on race.

          But I bet you like mayonnaise.

          • Mike Lamb December 30, 2011 / 9:08 pm

            Then the question becomes; Who has the authority to label her as you did? Do you have the credentials and certifications to publicly judge and condemn another? One of my points being, it is the Marxists/relativists/revisionists that “assumes” the self-righteous positions of deciding and labeling who merits what. I’ve seen you attempt this several times here, but what is so amazing is your persistence in continually trying to do this. Which, if you ever get your label pinned by another acknowledging it in any way, then you have open room to push the attack in that direction, which then causes the rest of the topic to become a mute point, since you can claim victory by claiming you proven another person to be so and so….etc.. Sorry Mr. Simpson that is just another reason I cannot give recognition to man’s titles as he only uses it against his fellow man for others’ gains… Like I said I can’t judge you by title, but rather by what lies inside you…

            Michael-Deo Vindicabamur

          • Brooks D. Simpson December 30, 2011 / 9:24 pm

            Could you show me where I labelled Ms. Barber? I let her speak for herself. If you find her beliefs acceptable, say so.

            For someone who protests people passing judgment, you seem to do a lot of that yourself.

          • Denise Barber December 31, 2011 / 10:20 am

            Michael – thank you for defending me. You are a marvelous example of a true White man, a gentleman, and a genuine cavalier. Thank you, sir.

        • Shao Ping December 30, 2011 / 5:11 pm

          Unfortunately for you, most scientists believe that race is not real. It is generally considered to be a sociological construct. And the few supporters of human races I know of (like Neil Fisch) say nothing like what you are talking about.

    • Brooks D. Simpson December 29, 2011 / 9:21 pm

      Your problem is a simple one: not all white southerners are alike, and not all of them believe the same things. Shame on you for engaging in stereotypes or in imposing a unity where none exists … ironic given your claim that you don’t force conformity. If you weren’t forcing it, you wouldn’t say that all white southerners are alike … because they aren’t. You are trying to define people’s identity for them.

      Black southerners can choose to identify themselves as southerners … because they are just as southern as you. Your definition of southerner is race-conscious. Mine is not.

      I note you continue to mock black people. All I’ve asked is whether those African Americans who choose to join the Flaggers understand that the SNN and Dr. Hill say. Do you know? Do you speak for them? Do they (or you) also embrace what Hunter Wallace says? You remain silent.

      Try to read with more care next time. Try to see what I’ve actually said, not what you imagine. I haven’t said that blacks are feckless or stupid or that they don’t know what they are doing … those words came from you. I wonder why you would use those words.

      • Denise Barber December 30, 2011 / 1:31 pm

        I’m not a Southerner, I was born in yankee land, and reside in same, now. I AM an Anglo Celt. An AMERICAN Celt. I get along well with Dixie Celts – because we ARE Celts..

        I think ANY Black that joins a Confederate Flag group knows full well what they are participating in – and I think they are having a grand time, doing so. Why can’t you even IMAGINE this state of being, let alone comprehend this fact.

        Silent on Hunter? Oh – you don’t know me at all! Hunter Wallace – he’s wonderful.I think is a brilliant young historian, and archivist, As well as one of THE BEST political analysts going. I agree with most of what he believes – but not everything.

        I do not agree with the White Supremacist modality. I am a Segregationist. My Race is literally disappearing from existence. I want Whites to have complete seperation – in order to repopulate. That’s what I want. Alpha and Omega. I am vociferously opposed to slavery (and if you really want to be a Do Gooder – get thee hence to Africa, and try to get Africans to stop enslving and brutalizing each other. Slavery has existed all over the Dark Continent for centuries, and is thriving and expanding now. They’ve never had an Abolition movement. Perhaps, in your Massa Simpson Splendor, you can convince them to promote Abolition.). I believe slavery degrades and corrupts both slaves, and masters, and that doing one’s own work ennobles, as well as teaches life-long, practical skills Excellent farmers, and plumbers are infinitely more important to life, health, and happiness, than seething Marxist faux academics are.

        Spend time on Hunter’s blog, and learn REAL things. Go to Paul Kersey’s blog, “Stuff Black People Don’t Like”, as well. Paul’s a sweetie – and he used to be a “liberal”. Finally – visit “World Start Hip Hop” once in awhile. See Blacks as they see THEMSELVES. As they ARE – not as you fantasize them to be.

        I’ll try again – I am not mocking Blacks – I am mocking YOU, and your mentility. Do you know who and what you ARE? I think you have no real identity. I don’t think you know you are alive, You come across as a dictatorial, resentful, academic autocrat, whose arrogance is born of a lack of real experience, and fear. I pray, in the spirit of the Christ, that you experience one day of real self-knowledge, before your finish your life’s path.

        • Brooks D. Simpson December 30, 2011 / 5:03 pm

          Denise, judging from your comments on Occidental Dissent, I think we can arrive at a rather detailed assessment of your attitudes on race and on Africans/African Americans. Those interested can research the matter further.

          So it’s understandable that you would be upset with me.

        • Margaret Blough December 31, 2011 / 9:35 pm

          Where do you GET this pan-Celt nonsense? It’s not something any genuine Celt who cares about reason and historical accuracy should believe. Celts are notorious for intergroup feuding and, historically, it was a toss–up whether or not they hated each other more than they hated the English. I am far more of a Celt than you are likely to be. I still have second cousins in Scotland and my mother is the only member of her father’s family born in the US instead of Scotland.

      • Mike Lamb December 30, 2011 / 9:19 pm

        It’s what people have in common, whether it be in groups, regions, areas, or just a couple of people that makes people alike. And it is the acknowledgement of those commonalities that makes people unite in their goals and quests… The South is used as a common focal point for the issues surrounding the things that Ethnic Southerners place and hold value in. This does NOT mean all of the group has to be from the South, but rather the South is acknowledged as being the place of its’ birth/formation/creation and cradle of its’ being… And that is WHY so many people are opposed to our way of life and thinking today. It simply does not fit the Marxist philosophy of globalism…. It is the last major obstacle to globalism the world. Although I am sure some will claim some Muslims also…

        Michael-Deo Vindicabamur

  12. Mike Lamb December 29, 2011 / 9:33 pm

    Just an observation:
    It appears Mr. Simpson associates a Southerner merely by location, thus he can include anyone from that location. And I see some Flaggers trying to claim that one has to be born in the South be a Southerner and also have the cultural traits that defines one as being from Southern Culture. Sorry I have to disagree with both sides here….

    Being a Southerner is simply a state of mind that has developed because of living, social and religious conditions. That does not mean one cannot be from New York or Michigan and hold these ideals and principles. The list is too long to go into here at the moment, but if need be I could cover it.

    In short, being a Southerner is simply a state of mind AND heart. One need not be born here to hold such, but it helps. Being born and raised in the South only benefits one as being a Southerner according to how he associates it. He could just as easily hold NO Southern values, yet be from the South. This not a state of mind or heart that determines Southern culture or heritage. It is for the principles for which you stand that makes you what you, where ever you reside. I was born Southern, raised Southern, I hold the values, morals and heritage of my people and I try and follow those tenets as closely as I can. If one is from Pennsylvania and holds these same things according to the Southern traditions, then he is just as much Southern as anyone, except he was born elsewhere. You could call him an adopted Southerner. I see such people every day… Yankees call them or similar people copperheads, or it closely fits such people.

    Michael-Deo Vindicabamur

    • Brooks D. Simpson December 29, 2011 / 9:39 pm

      My only problem with your definition is … who gets to define what’s southern? Who gets to define southern values? In any case, your definition concedes that you don’t believe that “southern” is an ethnic or racial group, but a set of values that anyone can adopt.

      The very fact that different groups of southerners offer different definitions of “southerner” and “southern identity” should give one pause.

      • Mike Lamb December 30, 2011 / 12:40 pm

        Mr. Simpson,
        Why should anyone have the authority to define a whole culture, group, person or by their location? I fail to see any conclusive way for this to be determined by any person, or few people or group. I do see such as a way to centralize and dilute the full meaning and terminology as it would apply to everyone, and in various ways.

        One cannot put a simple “catch all” label on a group of people or anyone and expect it to be 100% accurate. In short this becomes only another way of labeling others, and then potentially castigating them . What means something to me may not mean something to the next person, and the same applies for groups of people and even regions.

        This whole concept can be applied to the flagging issue, in that people and groups sees it differently. The problems arise when people are attacked for believing something different, regardless to the merits of their thoughts, morals, values, culture….etc.. This only shows a lack of respect, and ignorance from whomever is attacking others.

        My family has a “very” long ancestry in this country, with some of them holding positions you instantly could identify with. Yet with all their understandings, culture and heritage that I have tried to embrace, I find these same values today means NOTHING among society, but only those few people who cherishes the same values as I. What’s worse is those values are actually belittled by most people. It is “so bad” today, people does not know what the word “Patriot” really stands for, its’ original meaning and how it was applied to everyone before Lincoln’s War. Today’s meaning has been determined and set by just a few people who determines how everyone is to relate and associate everything, all in a common sound byte. Yet here you are trying to do the same thing by asserting you or someone needs to define what Southern means. Given time, the term would sort itself out as does practically all problems… Sadly some of my own people are inadvertently doing the same thing, but for different reasons.

        I used to listen to my grandma talk about things, the past, how things were, how things change and so forth. One of the things she said was, there are all kinds of people, be leery of strangers. She particularly meant this in reference to Yankees, although to her NOT all Northerners were Yankees. Or another way to put it was, you have people like you and you have people that will take advantage of you, know who your own people are. As early as the mid 80’s my aunts were saying they did not recognize the land/community/country they grew up in, all because of the great migration here with people bringing strange and mostly unwanted values, morals and culture to the area. I see this happening to the point that a whole way of life among a certain group of people has been practically destroyed. It wouldn’t be near so bad if the newly transplanted people would just follow one ole saying, “When in Rome do as the Romans do.”

        The concepts I state is nothing I came up with on my own, but rather how I associated what I was taught and raised during my early years. And I have many dozens of stories I could tell that I still remember, which influenced my thinking and understanding unto today.

        If you remember my first post to you, I stated I will not judge you by your education and titles but by what lies inside you. That statement comes from my upbringing/raising in how to really accept people. It makes no difference where you are from, but what you really believe. The titles are only a tool in making it easier to influence others.. You would be surprised at the professors I have actually drove to “cussing” fits when I was in college. What was sweeter, what the thanks and admiration I got from my many fellow students that was afraid to say anything near as brazen… I think this says volumes about the standards of education today…

        Michael-Deo Vindicabamur

        • Brooks D. Simpson December 30, 2011 / 5:01 pm

          Thanks for sharing. We learn more about what you believe with every comment you make.

          • Mike Lamb December 30, 2011 / 9:22 pm

            I’ll take that as point to my credit, since you couldn’t or didn’t actually refute anything I wrote… It’s a little early to be giving up points to me….

            Besides, I already know you. You read in textbook fashion…. Don’t need Google either, and haven’t looked…

            Michael-Deo Vindicabamur

          • Brooks D. Simpson December 30, 2011 / 9:40 pm

            Thanks for your contributions,Mr. Lamb. We’ve enjoyed your insight and the fact that you declare that you agree 100% with Ms. Barber’s racial views. Have a good holiday.

    • Denise Barber December 30, 2011 / 1:04 pm

      Mike – Simpson is not nealry as smart as he thinks he is. I think he’s pathetic. he doesn’t understand ANYTHING, excepting the woeful and tragic, Civilization-obliterating “Cultural Marxist” mind rot his head is stuffed with. He doesn’t even know what a real life, and community, is.

      Sad. He’ll be hoisted on his own petard, soon enough, and he won’t ever understand that “his” active, and suicidal “beliefs” will be the cause of his Fate.

      And Simpson – this is NO threat from me, in ANY way shape or form. I suggest you study the fate of Do Gooder Whites, in Haiti, South Africa, and Rhodesia. The USA is rapidly turnig into South Africa. Behold your future.

        • Mike Lamb December 30, 2011 / 9:31 pm

          Please Mr Simpson,
          Please refute Ms. Barber with your knowledge and understanding, your mental capacities and your reasoning. To simply place ad hominem attacks against one does NOT damage the assertions they make. While I do 100% agree with what she states, I find your statements much more disagreeable. It is your responsibility to prove her wrong in what she thinks and her reasoning behind it. NOT by simply posting a post stating her name, a post you disagree with. You’re not doing so well as the battle drags on….

          Michael–Deo Vindicabamur

          • Brooks D. Simpson December 30, 2011 / 9:38 pm

            I guess you agree with Ms. Barber. I don’t know why you were afraid to admit it. You agree 100% with her, as you say here.

            Odd that you say that merely pointing to what she posts is an attack on her. Those are her words. I detest white supremacist twaddle … and you don’t, so we’ll leave it at that.

  13. Mike Lamb December 29, 2011 / 9:35 pm

    Excuse me for not proofing the post.. I was too fast…

  14. Valerie Protopapas December 30, 2011 / 7:30 am

    Actually, not everything is about blacks despite what politically correct ideologues and “black activists” like A. G. Holder want people to believe. Those of us who champion the cause of the South champion the concept of limited government deriving its power from the consent of the governed. And if there is anything that should be obvious these days of a federal government completely out of control is that that concept lost to the centralizing, socialist statism of Lincoln and the radical Republicans.

    The issue of slavery is nothing more than a straw man set up to deflect people’s attention and prevent them from understanding that the War of Secession (it wasn’t a “civil war”) was fought to preserve at least some vestige of the original Founding Principles. Because it was lost, we were (and are) left with the burgeoning American Empire which appears to be coming to an end as we tax and spend our way to impotence. But keep up the nonsense about “racism” (a term coined by Trotsky) and you should be able to keep the less informed from ever looking further than the latest warning about the rising of the Klan – again.

    • Brooks D. Simpson December 30, 2011 / 8:43 am

      I believe John Singleton Mosby became a Republican after the war and admitted that the conflict was all about defending slavery. I’m surprised to see you attack Mosby. Why do you find him to be so stupid and/or cowardly?

      • Mike Lamb December 30, 2011 / 3:37 pm

        Come now Mr Simpson,
        Is that the whole story?
        Is that one letter from Mosby the standard from which the war is to be judged?
        As I continue to say, such examples is only revisionist history. Accordingly everything is relative to one central source, on codified sound byte geared towards the lowest common denominator. Sadly it equates to poor teaching and “dumb” ignorant students who “thinks” they have learned something.
        So Mr Simpson, let’s hear the rest of the story. Let’s hear what ALL has to say. What did Lincoln say? Grant? Sherman? Jefferson Davis; What did he have to say about it? And not only what did these men and others have to say about slavery; What was their rationality behind saying what they did?(Their meaning and context.)
        You cannot “cherry pick” one person and make your case around them and then revise history by that one case example. That would be nothing more than a form of deceit…. btw–Don’t just cherry pick the letters and articles that agrees with your views, study them ALL! I’ve only been doing for the past 40 some years… You can too! IT’s never too late to start.

        Michael-Deo Vindicabamur

        • Brooks D. Simpson December 30, 2011 / 4:54 pm

          Are you calling John Singleton Mosby a liar?

          Oh, and Ulysses S. Grant said that the ultimate cause of the war was slavery. We’ve discussed this before … read his memoirs. Same with Lincoln … see his Second Inaugural Address.

          Try as you might to whitewash slavery from the equation, it remains.

          • Valerie Protopapas December 30, 2011 / 6:32 pm

            I am saying that Mosby, a Henry Clay Whig and therefore a Republican in his politics, had more in common with Lincoln than with Davis. His father brought a Massachusetts abolitionist woman to tutor his daughters, so Mosby’s viewpoint was bound to be Unionist as it was. He voted for the Unionist Democrat rather than the secessionist, but when Virginia went out, so did he. I also realize that Mosby believed that slavery was the cause of the war which is easy enough to believe given the rhetoric of the day. But Mosby was hardly privy to all that we now know about the various machinations and schemes among the Northern industrialists, the radical abolitionists and radical Republicans. Neither was he very well schooled in the hatred that many in the North had for the South. Though I do acknowledge his honesty, I cannot claim that he was as knowledgeable about all that went on and perhaps after the war, in his desire to consign all past differences to oblivion, he did not bother to learn very much about what had gone on before. Furthermore, Mosby had a personal hatred for slavery and a great deal of his feelings about the institution was translated into his opinions regarding secession – something with which he strongly disagreed.

            On the other hand, I also believe from my studies of Mosby that he became extremely disenchanted with the American government and its politicians both Democrats and Republicans as well as the American Empire. He called for the emancipation of the Filipinos and said that our military efforts to subdue them had nothing whatsoever to do with keeping order, but had everything to do with our economic interests in the region. For this honest evaluation, he was excoriated in the newspapers. Mosby also declared late in his life that his use of patronage, even for other people and as an attempt to show that the United States government could be a friend to the South was wrong. Patronage was corrupting and corrupt. And after being cheated by the very government he served so well for so long by Republicans and Democrats, and eventually discarded because he refused a $50,000 bribe to look the other way while the Indians were being cheated, the last sentence in John Mosby’s memoirs was an assertion that if he could have saved the Confederacy, he would have done so. I take that to mean that in the end he might have realized that the country he THOUGHT he served didn’t exist and probably hadn’t existed from the 1830s.

            No, Mosby was no liar, but I disagree strongly with his contention that it was “all about slavery.” If that indeed had been the case, then the original 13th Amendment – the Corwin Amendment – would have nipped secession in the bud. Indeed, I am far more in agreement with a current Civil War historian, Professor Jay Hoar (from Maine, not Mississippi), who has stated that the worst fears of the boys in gray have come to pass – a federal government completely out of control.

            Finally, the fact is, it really doesn’t matter WHY the Southern states seceded. They had a constitutional right to do so whereas the federal government and those states that joined with that entity in waging war on those states were committing treason according to Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution. One may not agree with WHY the South wanted to leave, but they had the right to do so and the treason charge that is so widely bandied about applies not to the CSA but the USA.

          • Brooks D. Simpson December 30, 2011 / 6:41 pm

            Well, that’s an interesting perspective. Especially the part about the federal government committing treason against itself.

          • Valerie Protopapas December 31, 2011 / 12:44 pm

            Ah, you exhibit the Yankee understanding of the United States BEING the federal government instead of the correct understanding of the sovereign states BEING the United States and the federal government being a construct of the Constitution put in place to handle inter and intra-state functions like foreign affairs and commerce across state lines. This is how Lincoln thought. He believed in (and eventually achieved) a situation in which the States would have no more power within the United States than counties have within their respective States. That’s why you have a federal government that can pass on “unfunded mandates” to States and tell the individual American how much water he can have in his toilet and what kind of light bulbs he can use. Now, you may find that fine and dandy, but even you cannot pretend that such was the intention of the Founders.

          • Brooks D. Simpson December 31, 2011 / 12:53 pm

            Well, you’re right about the light bulbs, as the light bulb had not been invented at the time of the Founding. As for the rest, thanks for sharing your opinion.

          • Valerie Protopapas December 31, 2011 / 1:20 pm

            Sadly, sir, you have shown what and who you are. You choose to make light of what is the crux of this whole argument – your view of what constitutes this nation – and respond with a silly comment about light bulbs. Why not flush toilets? I’m sure that the Founding Fathers had no flush toilets either?

            This sort of contempt for those with whom you disagree is why one cannot have a reasoned debate with people like you. When called to answer a real question, to address a point of fact, to engage in intellectual discourse, you do not! Why? BECAUSE YOU CANNOT! You believe that the federal government IS the United States just as did Lincoln. You see the States as nothing more than artificial geographic boundaries within a nation GOVERNED by the “national” (no longer federal) government. You see Americans not as citizens but subjects of that government and you will do whatever is necessary – as Lincoln did – to continue that existing situation despite the fact that even the most blind among us cannot fail to notice that the American Empire is coming apart. It will probably end with a whimper rather than a bang, but believe me, the destruction of the “American experiment” began 150 years ago under Abraham Lincoln, a man whom Karl Marx believed to be just what the doctor ordered with regard to statism (read Marx’s book on Lincoln – you can get it on Amazon.com).

            I shall unsubscribe to this blog because it is obvious that it is a waste of my time. Ignorance can be cured. Self delusion is another matter.

          • Andy Hall December 31, 2011 / 2:03 pm

            Next thing you know, the government will be telling us what side of the road to drive on, and that people can’t practice medicine without some sort of license.


          • Al Mackey January 1, 2012 / 7:51 am

            Quite obviously these SNN maroons have been doing brain surgery on themselves without a license. 🙂

          • Valerie Protopapas December 31, 2011 / 1:08 pm

            No one is trying to whitewash slavery – except folks like yourself. For you only want ONE aspect of slavery presented – that is, the involvement of the South. You totally ignore the fact that blacks were sold BY THEIR OWN KIND to white slavers and that those slavers were from New England. You also ignore the fact that there were white and Indian slaves in the colonies. Indeed, England preferred white slaves because she didn’t have to purchase them; she merely had to arrest and transport the Irish, Scottish, Welsh, Protestants etc. who came under the King’s ire. You also fail to point out that Britain ended the slave trade not for moral reasons but to deal a death blow to the New World colonies of France and Spain! So even then, emancipation was an economic matter just as slavery was.

            As for the Yankee: he had no problem with slavery because it was profitable. It is rightly said that the Yankee was a greedy, self righteous busybody filled with malice against everyone and everything he considered “not Yankee.” His religious facade was just that – a mask to cover up greed and egotism. The North HATED the black man. The term “free” as in “free soil” and “free territories” is more accurately translated to “white.” Black codes in the North prevented blacks from entering – much less settling – in those states. Ever hear of the office of Negro Whipper in Massachusetts? However, even the sort of slavery that existed in the South continued to exist in the North. Lincoln opined that slavery in New Jersey would probably end around 1914! Remember, New Jersey’s slaves had been “emancipated” and then declared unpaid apprentices for life. Hmmmmm… sounds like slavery to me!

            Furthermore, if you look back to the beginning of the nation you will see that New England despised everybody who wasn’t a Yankee but especially the people of the South and this was long before slavery became an issue per se. Indeed, newspapers in the North reported with the election of Jefferson that there was now a “Negro President” and that there were “Negro representatives in Congress;” that is, those who were elected from the Southern states! So it would seem that all of the animosity against blacks came not from below the Mason-Dixon line, but from the good worthy and noble souls from New England!

            Yes, by all means let us discuss slavery in ALL its aspects – including the fact that it still exists in Africa today – but don’t declare that what is being presented today as “history” is anything but Marxist revisionist nonsense intended to further the ongoing cultural genocide of the South. There is just too much evidence to the contrary if people care to learn the facts.

          • Brooks D. Simpson December 31, 2011 / 4:35 pm

            Interesting that you continue to tell me what I know and believe. You don’t show a sign of reading what I’ve written or what I’ve said, and you don’t even pause to ask.

            Does constructing strawmen satisfy some deep emotional need in you? It serves no intellectual end.

    • Shao Ping December 30, 2011 / 10:57 am

      Ignoring the fact that the South was late to the ideas of limited government (e.g. Fugitive Slave Laws) and the consent of the governed (e.g. Black Codes and Jim Crow laws), and many (most?) Southern intellectuals rejected the original Founding Principles (e.g. Alexander Stephens’ Cornerstone Speech and George Fitzhugh’s attacks on the Declaration of Independence in Sociology of the South), the OED suggests the term “racism” comes from the French “racisme” (originated around 1902), which is supported by the 1926 quote from The Guardian “The press of the Left is extremely mild. The [French publication] ‘Quotidien’ remarks neutrally that the two Nationalisms are in conflict, and that ‘if German racism is a danger to the world Fascism is another.’” Trotsky’s book from which the term is allegedly derived was published in 1930 and translated into English in 1932. And, of course, even if he had coined the word, so what?

    • Al Mackey December 30, 2011 / 12:25 pm

      There’s that Mosby guy setting up straw men again.

      “The South had always been solid for slavery and when the quarrel about it resulted in a conflict of arms, those who had approved the policy of disunion took the pro-slavery side. It was perfectly logical to fight for slavery, if it was right to own slaves.” [John S. Mosby, Mosby’s Memoirs, p. 20]

      And more of that lack of dictionaries for people who don’t know what a civil war is.

  15. Mike Lamb December 30, 2011 / 3:41 pm

    Shao Ping,
    “Late for the ideas of limited….”

    How much earlier can you go than Patrick Henry and the “Anti-Federalist Papers”?
    While you’re at it study which states said it was mandatory to add the Amendments to the US Constitution before they would join.

    While you’re at it, study the word/term, “racialism”.
    In depth…

    Michael-Deo Vindicabamur

    • Brooks D. Simpson December 30, 2011 / 4:51 pm

      Goof try, but while state ratifying conventions urged (and Madison promised) amendments, there were no conditional ratifications. I suggest you do a little studying yourself.

      • Margaret Blough December 31, 2011 / 8:43 pm

        In fact, as Madison wrote to Hamilton, during the bitterly contested New York ratification process,

        >>To Alexander Hamilton

        [July 20, 1788]

        N. York Sunday Evening

        Yours of yesterday is this instant come to hand & I have but a few minutes to answer it. I am sorry that your situation obliges you to listen to propositions of the nature you describe. My opinion is that a reservation of a right to withdraw if amendments be not decided on under the form of the Constitution within a certain time, is a conditional ratification, that it does not make N. York a member of the New Union, and consequently that she could not be received on that plan. Compacts must be reciprocal, this principle would not in such a case be preserved. The Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever. It has been so adopted by the other States. An adoption for a limited time would be as defective as an adoption of some of the articles only. In short any condition whatever must viciate the ratification. What the New Congress by virtue of the power to admit new States, may be able & disposed to do in such case, I do not enquire as I suppose that is not the material point at present. I have not a moment to add more than my fervent wishes for your success & happiness.

        This idea of reserving right to withdraw was started at Richmd. & considered as a conditional ratification which was itself considered as worse than a rejection.


    • Shao Ping December 30, 2011 / 5:23 pm

      Obviously Prof. Simpson gave a better response than I could, but I just wanted to be sure that the Anti-Federalist papers you are referring to are the same ones whose primary authors are George Clinton (a New Yorker), Robert Yates (another New Yorker), and Samuel Bryan (a Pennsylvanian).

      And I know the word “racialism”. How it relates to Trotsky’s supposed invention of the word “racism” I know not, especially considering the OED traces it back to a Texas newspaper (Galveston Daily News) in 1902.

  16. Valerie Protopapas December 30, 2011 / 6:35 pm

    Regarding my earlier post, that is Article III, not Article II of the Constitution. Missed a keystroke.

  17. marcferguson December 31, 2011 / 1:55 pm

    Mike, what is it you want us to understand about the term “racialism?” Also, my understanding is that ratification of the constitution had to be unconditional, or as Madison put it “in toto” and “forever.”
    My reading of the ratification documents is that there were no conditions attached to any of the ratifications, that the Bill of Rights were negotiated with those who felt there weren’t enough protections for the states built in, but they were in no way a requirement, and failure to pass them did no provide an out, as some have claimed from the requirements imposed by the constitution, nor were there options to for any of the states to remove themselves from the constitution, “in toto,” and “forever.”

    • Margaret Blough December 31, 2011 / 9:07 pm

      Marc, You’re right. The calls for amendments were in the nature of recommendations, not conditions. If one looks at the various recommendations, it’s clear that the Bill of Rights did not come down from Mt. Sinai on 2 stone tablets. The process worked as it was supposed to work. Amendment no longer required unanimous consent to be binding on all states. The ratification process made it clear that there was a very strong popular, political consensus that the protection of individual rights didn’t go without saying; it needed to be explicit. Amendments were drafted and most were ratified (there was one (on Congressional compensation) that was approved & sent to the states for ratification with Amendments I-X . It floated around and did not get ratified, as the XXVIII Amendment, until 1992 (6 states approved it shortly after it was sent out & Ohio ratified it in 1873. In 1978, states began approving it again and, in 1992, it was ratified. The modern practice is to set a deadline by which, if the proposed amendment has not achieved ratification, it is dead.)

  18. Bobby Edwards January 3, 2012 / 5:25 am

    Most of these comments as to why Confederate Flags should fly on the “R. E. Lee Camp Confederate Memorial Park” or why others are hell bent on the prevention of a Confederate flag flying on the Commonwealth of Virginia State Park – Designated Specifically for the Memory of the Confederate Soldier. This was done in the 1934 Virginia Legislation that created the VMFA and the “R. E. Lee Camp Confederate Memorial Park” out of the same legislative bill. At the time of that legislative bill, in front of the Soldiers’ Home hospital, the Confederate Veterans flew the Battle Flag on a Daily Basis, and most laws take into account the custom and habit of what is happening at the time of passage, to protect the heritage of the law implemented. So, by custom and by law – this designated Commonwealth of Virginia “Confederate War Memorial” has all the rights to fly that flag, which flew – when the legislation was passed. Also, in the early 1990’s, the Commonwealth of Virginia created a “Virginia Historical Marking” for the Confederate Memorial Chapel, and by law the condition at the time of designation (what was in place) should be honored and respected as part of that designation process. So, both the “R. E. Lee Camp Confederate Memorial Park” and the Confederate War Memorial Chapel are “Protected” historical sites, which have been tampered with by the VMFA.

    Precedence of the National Park Service in Richmond flying the collection of Confederate National Flags on their headquarters flag poles is part of that tradition indicating that if the proper interpretative efforts of a war are to be included, and if accuracy in historiography is to be considered, then the Confederate Flags have to be part of the intrepretation. More importantly, the Commonwealth of Virginia in their “On to Richmond” web site “Masthead” had featured the Battle Flags of the Confederate War Memorial Chapel. This was a wise choice and very appropriate, simply because the Commonwealth of Virginia has designated that Chapel and the Confederate Memorial Park as a State Park – “To feature Confederate memory projects, displays, artifacts, and memory issues.” On the Statue of Virginia, these lands are officialy designated – “Confederate”.

    Why would the VMFA complain of the Confederate Flags on the Chapel? In 1933 Governor Pollard tried to take the Soldiers’ Home land to build an Art Museum for the purpose of housing the newly donated “Barton Payne Art Collection”. He seized the land, but his Attorney General informed the Governor that the leaders of the R. E. Lee Camp No. 1 Confederate Veterans, must be a party and participate in the “Grant Deed” to the Commonwealth of Virginia. The 1892 Law passed, when after seven years of running the Soldiers’ Home, the Lee Camp ran out of funds, and although other States were taking care of their veterans of war – Virginia had failed to do so, and offered a trade or a deal for the valued property in exchange for health care for the Veterans in need. The Lee Camp members were to have “Control” of the land, while they lived.

    Governor Pollard went to the Lee Camp members on bended knee, begging for a Grant to build the Art Museum for the Virginia Arts Association. The Lee Camp agreed, but with Conditions: The land would be made forever and in perpetutity a “Confederate Memorial Park” to honor the efforts of Lee Camp to establish the Battle Abbey [Confederate Memorial Institute] on the Soldiers Home grounds. The Confederate Home for Women was also presented a Grant Deed in the 1930’s., and the Monuments on Monument Ave guided and directed in their construction by the key members of the R. E. Lee Camp. But, what to do with the Barton Payne Art Collection, as the Donor required Display, before the Art Museum could be built. George L. Christian, of the Lee Camp arranged their R. E. Lee Camp No. 1 C.V. “Gallery” in the Battle Abbey to be used for the display of the Barton Payne Collection, so from 1934 until 1936 while the new VMFA built their new museum – the Barton Payne Collection was exhibited in the Lee Camp Gallery at Battle Abbey [now the Virginia Historical Society].

    The 1934 Legislation Creating the VMFA also Created the R. E. Lee Camp Confederate Memorial Park. It is the Commonwealth of Virginia, who has allowed the VMFA to encroach on the designated State Park to build modern art, when the Law of the Commonwealth designated another purpose. If the State of Virginia Law demands Confederate History, and if the National Park Service flies the Confederate Flags, and if the Virginia Sesqucentennial “On to Richmond Web Site” uses the Chapel Confederate Flags on their Masthead – Surely it is Legally and Morally Proper to Allow those Flags to Fly on the Designated Confederate Memorial Grounds.

    • Brooks D. Simpson January 3, 2012 / 12:03 pm

      Interesting. However, my post had nothing to do with the case of either the flaggers or the VMFA, but on some of the organizations that support the flaggers.

  19. Bobby Edwards January 3, 2012 / 12:54 pm

    Mr. Simpson, you have no data on organizations that support the flagging effort, or the cause for which they were flagging. You sir, only have your opinion. Citizens of the South are tired of broken promises of Government, and they are tired of their heritage and genealogy quests to be challenged by condenscentious moralists trying to lump Southerner’s in a group in a broad brush, as you have done without any data. As I mentioned the National Park Service, flew the Confederate Flags at Chimborazo Hospital grounds in Richmond, and the Commonwealth of Virginia displayed the Chapels Confederate Flags on their Sesquicentennial on to Richmond Web site. Sir, the VMFA and their efforts in the past few decades borders on simple encroachment and disregard of a Contract entered many years ago. In 1958 the VMFA went to legislative assembly to have the Chapel torn down, however when dozens of ladies from the UDC showed up at the Legislative Assembly, their efforts were thwarted. In several expansions, the VMFA has taken grounds of the R. E. Lee Camp Confederate Memorial Park, without “Legal” Authority. In the early 1990’s in cleaning out the Old Soldiers’ Home Headquarters [Robinson House] the VMFA threw away in the dumpster valued artifacts of the Lee Camp that should be in a Museum. Fortunately, an SCV member who saw the material at the Junk Yard called, and part of the junked items were rescued.

    The Flagging that has been going on is supported by all citizens who want right to prevail over Government Might. The Commonwealth of Virginia Confederate State Park, is the place to Fly that Flag, and the Descendant Camp of the R. E. Lee Camp No. 1 has a “Right” to Fly that flag at a “Confederate War Memorial” – built by the Veterans of that War, and Dedicated to all of the 260,000 Confederate Dead. We are absolutely Tired of those Individuals who Stand Squarely in our Way, and Tell us that We Do Not have a Right to Fly that Flag. Perhaps, the Commonwealth’s moral and legal Responsibility was to take Care of those Hospitalized Veterans, instead of taking their Valued Property in Exchange. Perhaps the States Grab of That Property, after they Promised the Veterans and Included the Terms in a Contract of Confederate Remembrance in Perpetuity – that the Commonwealth of Virginia Would have Some Backbone, Measured by a Good Dose of Honor to Go along with It.

    Mr. Simpson, I am afraid that you are Simply Confused as to who is Supporting this Flagging. And, you have no idea as to how deep and intense the level of support.

    • Brooks D. Simpson January 3, 2012 / 1:20 pm

      I’m sure you believe what you say. However, you continue to fail to wrestle with the Southern Nationalist Network’s support of flagging the VMFA. Why is that?

      Apparently you have a problem with the Virginia state government. Take your case to that entity.

  20. Bobby Edwards January 3, 2012 / 9:06 pm

    Mr. Simpson, when something is factual, belief is a given. At issue here is the claim of yours, and I resent the “Snarky” Southern Nationalist – We are descendants of Confederate Soldiers, and are better described as Citizens of the South. The purpose of that Flagging is to take the case to the Government, but to demonstrate the determination of Citizens to address: Political Corectness, and the Pride of Citizens who Love that Image. Sir, just because you have a theory, it does not become fact, and I would ask you to wrestle with your own inadequate presentation. It’s not working, perhaps only in your mind.

    • Brooks D. Simpson January 3, 2012 / 10:17 pm

      Bobby, maybe you need to set the reset button, because it’s clear you can’t follow what’s going on. Don’t bother coming back to post until you do.

  21. farrell January 5, 2012 / 5:08 am

    what a crock . i’ll fly my flag . all ya’ll can do is cry racist . i prefer
    my culture to anyother . go on cry racist , it’ll make you feel better .
    gone on insult . a pathic little worm like you , will never the southerner.

      • Jeffry Burden January 8, 2012 / 4:41 pm

        Brooks, what we have here is an example of multicultural Southern Nationalism, since English is obviously a second language for Mr. Farrell.

  22. Frank Watson January 13, 2012 / 2:02 pm

    Imagine you are a tourist visiting Richmond’s Boulevard area on a bright, sunny Saturday afternoon.

    As you stroll with your family along the sidewalk in front of the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts you are confronted with a ragtag knot of white people waving Confederate battle flags.

    And you… and your family… are black.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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