Connie Chastain Explains Who Started the Civil War


Sorry, no. The South didn’t start the war.

You’re sitting in your house watching TV and somebody breaks in, starts stealing your stuff and threatens your daughter. You shoot him. What started it? Your shooting or his breaking in and threats to your daughter?

Comments? Observations?

22 thoughts on “Connie Chastain Explains Who Started the Civil War

  1. Al Mackey August 23, 2013 / 6:29 am

    It’s part of the Cult of Southern Victimhood.

  2. Bert August 23, 2013 / 6:37 am

    Her scenario is right, just completely backwards. I’m sitting in my house and somebody breaks in. He declares it to be his house, starts stealing my stuff, and threatens my son. I say my son and I are not leaving and he shoots at us. We leave. The police come to arrest him and he screams that I started it by not leaving. All his friends claim police brutality and unlawful invasion when he’s finally captured.

    Who’s the crazy who started it?

    • Mark August 23, 2013 / 8:19 am

      True dat

  3. Rob Baker August 23, 2013 / 7:11 am

    Misleading. To put this in her “historical terms.”

    Sorry, yes. The South did start the war.

    You’re sitting at home, that you’ve been told to watch for a friend. A robber tries to break in. You’ve heard about others in your same situation all across the subdivision, who have suffered break-ins and were kicked out while the robber took command of the house. You decide to hold up, and not give in. The robber eventually gets frustrated because he knows the government is coming with supplies to allow you to stay there longer (though you don’t know that). The robber starts shooting at the side of your house. This eventually forces you to leave, or else you’ll lose your life.

    Does anyone else think it’s incredible dense to claim “invasion” when said government moves to take back their land, and quarrel the “robbers,” which includes an attack on other homes (states) that moved to defend the robber’s actions.

    • SF Walker August 23, 2013 / 7:46 am

      It certainly is dense. These people usually behave as if Fort Sumter never happened–when they do mention it, they add the incredible statement “all property within a seceding state becomes the property of that state,” as if there’s a law or a precedent that establishes this. Neo-rebs also bring up the Southern demand that Sumter be evacuated, in the apparent belief that Army officers are authorized to take orders from men other than their superiors or the President and the War Department.

      • Andy Hall August 23, 2013 / 9:30 am

        No, they’ve just torqued events around to an interpretation that the South was “forced” to fire on Fort Sumter, as if Wigfall, Pickens, Davis and the rest lacked both free will and the ability to comprehend Lincoln’s Machiavellian puppetry. It’s actually rather insulting to what were the South’s most experienced political and military figures, this depiction of them as a bunch of oblivious Forrest Gumps, swept along in a tide of dramatic events they neither understood not controlled.The fire-eaters in Charleston ended up trapped by their own rhetoric, caught between a Federal government that could continue to hold Sumter indefinitely, so long as it could be resupplied by sea, and the expectations they themselves had raised among the population, raised to a fever pitch. If anything “forced” the Confederates to fire on Sumter, it was an untenable and unstable situation of their own making.

        • SF Walker August 23, 2013 / 12:54 pm

          Great stuff, Andy. I don’t think I’ve ever seen such a well-worded and accurate description of the heart of the Fort Sumter crisis in such a short paragraph. Whatever one’s perspective is on this, I think it must be admitted that Lincoln’s policy on Fort Sumter was correct, Machiavellian though it was. It distinctly put the ball in the South’s court, though I don’t believe the end result (war) was what Lincoln had hoped for. But it did at least succeed in cementing the Northern public’s perception of the Confederates as the aggressors.

          • Andy Hall August 23, 2013 / 3:10 pm

            I should have said “(allegedly) Machiavellian”, because I don’t see Lincoln as some evil mastermind playing eleven-dimensional chess, where he had everything plotted out five moves ahead. I do believe that he was determined to be cautious and avoid direct provocation, and let things play out and respond as necessary, a determined that if there was to be a shooting war, that the Confederates would be the ones to shoot first. That seems completely rational and reasonable to me. The effort to resupply Fort Sumter in April 1861, if successful, would have extended the Sumter standoff, that had already gone on for more than three months, indefinitely, which was something the fire-eaters could not abide. Lincoln did do a good job of letting the secessionists put themselves into an untenable position.As he said in the Second Inaugural address, “Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish.” It was the secessionists’ choice to make war.

          • SF Walker August 23, 2013 / 9:16 pm

            I completely agree. Lincoln’s policy on Fort Sumter showed that he was perceptive and cool-headed–and he had to draw the line somewhere. Of course Buchanan, in a rare display of backbone, made the decision to hold the fort before Lincoln took office. It would have been interesting had the efforts to resupply and hold Sumter been successful. The Confederates could have been faced with another Fort Pickens at the doorstep of one of their most important and symbolic cities.

  4. Corey Meyer August 23, 2013 / 7:12 am

    I like the comment were she claims the south could not have been fighting over slavery because the North was not fighting to destroy slavery.

    Both comment show very little grasp of the history.

    • Joshism August 26, 2013 / 6:18 pm

      While Connie seems to fail to grasp that two sides of a war can be fighting for different reasons, I don’t think that failure is limited to her or even to neo-Confederates.

  5. Bob Huddleston August 23, 2013 / 7:30 am

    There were some Rebels who disagreed with her”

    “The firing on that fort will inaugurate a civil war greater than any the world yet seen and I do not feel competent to advise you. Mr. President, at this time it is suicide, murder, and will lose us every friend at the North. You will wantonly strike a hornet’s nest which extends from mountain to ocean, and legions now quiet will swarm out and sting us to death. It is unnecessary; it puts us in the wrong; it is fatal.”
    Robert Toombs, April 11, 1861

  6. Talmadge Walker August 23, 2013 / 7:38 am

    If only Henry Louis Gates had known about this. Not that there’s a double standard or anything.

  7. John Foskett August 23, 2013 / 8:04 am

    Her attempt at an analogy is a testament to the sorry state of education in this country.

  8. Rob in CT August 23, 2013 / 10:51 am

    Hilarious, given the siezure of federal installations by the Confederates, followed by firing on Ft. Sumter.

    • Buck Buchanan August 23, 2013 / 12:12 pm

      Exactly, tens of millions of dollars of Federal property had been siezed weeks and months prior to the firing on Sumter and Lincoln’s call for the militias.

  9. kennethuil August 23, 2013 / 12:01 pm

    You lease a house. Your landlord sends someone over to check on the property. You go up to the property manager and say, “I’m declaring independence from the landlord. This house is my property now. So is that car in my driveway. Get out of the car now!

  10. E.A. Mayer August 23, 2013 / 2:12 pm

    I’ve seen the exact same sort of analogies made. It’s a play on the old; “but the South just wanted to be left alone” line. I usually respond something like this:
    So a criminal threat made by the South which is then called by the North. The South then acts on its criminal threat. Does that than make the victim of that threat and crime the aggressor? That’s like saying the bank teller who hits the alarm after being handed a robbery note is the aggressor for calling the cops on the crime, and not the robber who otherwise would have committed his crime ‘peaceably’.

  11. Bob Huddleston August 23, 2013 / 5:05 pm

    A Lincoln had used similar language:

    Under all these circumstances, do you really feel yourselves justified to break up this Government, unless such a court decision as yours is, shall be at once submitted to as a conclusive and final rule of political action? But you will not abide the election of a Republican President! In that supposed event, you say, you will destroy the Union; and then, you say, the great crime of having destroyed it will be upon us! That is cool. A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, “Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer!”

  12. Michael Confoy August 23, 2013 / 5:58 pm

    Modern medicine can help people with these kind of delusions.

  13. TF Smith August 25, 2013 / 9:51 am

    She’s in Florida, right? Surprised she isn’t ranting about flouridated water…

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