What One Confederate Heritage Defender Thinks

… and I use “thinks” loosely.

Jim Crow actuality produced MUCH good for all of society. It was the right thing to do. However what was bad concerning it was where *some* used violence in order to force their views onto others on and individual basis, like personally attacking others.

Originally Jim Crow Laws started as a way to limit voters, similar to a poll tax. Then it was expanded. When it was expanded to force individuals and or businesses to cater to a specific way of dealing with the public, it became wrong and caused a lot of problems, some of which we see the effects of today, and in reverse. It was NEVER the intent of US Constitutional Law to force people to accept social laws which FORCED people to treat people equally or in any specific way, and this includes business. (When EQUALITY is referred in/under the US Constitution, it is meant to refer to all people being EQUAL before the government and its’ established law.)

I mean Jim Crow laws were good from the fact that it limited unqualified and non-vested people from voting. People who has no education, no property, and nothing of worth will be voting to gain anything that profits them. We see the affects of this as all these government welfare programs today. Of course it was those who didn’t have that voted those politicians in that gave it to them. This disregards the morality or the commonsense of laws. This is what turns a Republic into a Democracy, which is nothing more than 2 foxes and a chicken voting on what’s for dinner. 

Such limited voting and using Jim Crow laws correctly doesn’t affect just one group of people either, it would affect anyone regardless of color equally. But of course Jim Crow laws were ignored when the voter would vote the right way. 

All I’m saying is Jim Crow laws are a good thing in helping determine which people are best qualified to vote. And to be honest, I personally think some people are too rich to vote or even take part in politics. (Good quote from Aristotle on this.)

“Being educated and propertied is no guarantee somebody will vote the right way,…”

No it is no guarantee, BUT accordingly, if education doesn’t matter; why not let 15 year olds vote? Or children? Or babies? Or illegal immigrants (New York city now is considering a bill to let non-us citizens vote.) Why not let the dead vote as they are anyways in the moral-less North? 

The answer is simple. If a person has a certain level of education, they can read and understand politics and what it entails. Can any of the others do that above? 

Of course some 15 year *may* qualify, but there is more to consider than education alone. Commonsense, wisdom, morality and living life itself is a moral teacher, and hardly any, if any 15 years has this ability, much less the other groups I listed. Even 25 year olds has a hard time associating and equating those aspects of life when voting. Being *allowed* the privilege to vote is in NO way a Right! You have to earn the privilege to vote, and along with other qualifications makes you a *vested* citizen in the country, meaning you have earned the privilege to have a say in how the country is run. 

“…and pretty much everyone votes in their own interest….”

Of course that’s true. That’s Law of Nature and it had been considered in detail when forming the US Constitution. So I ask; what is in your best interest concerning politics? What is in my best interests? And this would actually include the majority of the people. Does anyone have any general idea? 

First we must establish what would be the majority of the people. First we would have two extreme sides of society; one being the chronically poor and destitute, the other being the overly rich. Both these sides are so extreme their self-interests would oppose that of the middle. 

The poor are poor for many reasons; They may be lazy, they don’t care, they would rather have *fun* while not interested in anything that doesn’t benefit them. Meaning they are also self-centered. OTOH there are some people, though very few that really can’t make it because of health, or mental health. Yet these people are just as self-serving in their interests to a point. Many of which understands that they do not wish to live off others.

And then we have the super rich. They are extremely self-centered, and to the point they wish to rule and control others for their benefit. And they have the money and power to make much of this a reality. As another extreme these people are extremely intelligent and can be very thrifty. Yet it is all in their self-centered attitude and love of money that they would destroy the goose that lays the golden eggs in order to get that last egg! These people are vile and corrupt they never need to be related to anything concerning the voting process. It should be illegal for these people to even associate with any politician! 

Second we would have to assign the 3 sides a % of society they would compose. I’ve see various stats and all differ slightly. But from a general and average standpoint we’ll assign the poor as to representing app. ~20% of the population. The super rich would be app. ~4-5% of the population. This leaves about 75% making up the middle class or the average American society. 

These people as a whole from a sociological standpoint wishes to live their lives pretty much as you, I and the rest of us Confederates here sees life. Mainly keep the government out of our business and life as much as possible. Yet we are not getting this from government. But we are getting many average Americans voting for government control over our lives; Why? Which is another topic of discussion.

“..Also, politicians give tons and tons of corporate welfare money to companies and whole industries. Poor folks don’t have K Street Lobbyists…” 

The above quote actually is in relation to my last question and statement above. It’ll take another topic of discussion to explain but the reasons can be shown as self-evident.

“..Jim Crow laws were aimed specifically at blacks….”

I knew this one was coming! I was laying in ambush for it! Who fits the criteria of the poor extreme above? In reality most blacks do not care about proper government, except what they can get for free. Their voting patterns consistently support this. 

It is also true that most blacks does not have enuff education to qualify to vote in maintaining proper government. This is extremely true when one understands that the black society has an average IQ of about 75-80, which is borderline mentally incompetent. (I’d bet you the farm that Obammie’s IQ doesn’t exceed 100. The average IQ for the white population is 100 which is also the standard for the test. The test comes from the WHO and is conducted all over the world.

I am all for letting blacks or anyone in society vote, IF they show they have enuff intelligence and sense to vote. OTOH I can’t help it if one group shows to be less capable than others, which would mean certain laws, IE Jim Crow laws would more adversely affect them. The POINT is in keeping competent controlling the country. 

Aristotle himself said that the best government comes form the middle class. 

Enuff, already.

Is H. K. Edgerton Stepping Down?

This blog has received reports that renowned Confederate heritage activist H. K. Edgerton will be stepping down as president of “Southern Heritage 411” as of April 6, 2014.

No word as to whether this reported decision has anything to do with various inquiries about the supposed non-profit status of the organization in question.

This report comes less than a month after Edgerton called attention to himself in protesting the actions of  a Florida school board that decided to change the name of a high school once named for Confederate general and Klansman Nathan Bedford Forrest. Some people questioned Edgerton’s mental health in the aftermath of that affair.

It’s Nice to be Appreciated

I want to thank Sean Munger for his kind words about this blog.

Most Fun-But-Controversial Blog: Crossroads

Crossroads is a history blog that focuses mostly on the 19th century and particularly the Civil War (and its long aftermath). Run by ASU history professor Brooks D. Simpson, I confess that I’ve gotten the most enjoyment out of Crossroads by reading its frequent corrections, call-outs and exposures of the appallingly bad behavior of neo-Confederate apologists in the South. You know, those people who think slavery wasn’t so bad and who write bad novels about heroic defenders of “Confederate heritage” against all those liberal Yankee haters. Dr. Simpson gives historical distortionists what-for in a highly entertaining and informative way. Easily the most addictive series on this blog is the lengthy saga of the “Virginia flaggers,” a bumbling group of Keystone Kops-like neo-Confederates who made a big fuss about putting up a Confederate flag on a Virginia highway whilst attempting (badly) to conceal that their group was rife with Neo-Nazis, race-baiters and white supremacists. Crossroads naturally attracts a lot of static in the comments, but it’s a fun blog to read, and it’s great to see a real historian setting the record straight on those who would twist historical truth to suit their own ends.

Fun but controversial … that’s me. 🙂

Is This Confederate Heritage?

A poster who used to frequent the comments section of this blog has taken his campaign on behalf of the South elsewhere. He proudly asserts:

If the South concedes to allowing the North to take the moral high ground built on the false premise that slavery is a sin, then the South is lost: no other arguments matter. 

But if the South asserts itself and from the scriptures puts to silence this Northern pseudo religion that has led to the freeing of slaves which in the Bible is not supported (God never told King David to free all the slaves), “freeing” homosexuals so they can come out of the closet and proclaim their perversiona to the whole world and all the other rotten consequences that results in man being cut from God, then the South if they hold to the Bible’s view on slavery will win the battle for the moral high ground. 

This is an encouragement for all in the South to go to the Bible for their strength in this cold war since the ACW/WBTS. 

May God Save the South 

There are a few things to note about this pronouncement.

The first is that it makes no claim about the abstract virtues of secession. That’s irrelevant, according to the poster: “no other arguments matter” if slavery’s a sin.

The second is the frequent linkage of opposition to slavery or to criticism of the celebration of certain forms of Confederate heritage to the matter of sexual preference. Usually we see this in the form of claims that critics of certain Confederate heritage groups must be gay, which in the eyes of the person making the charge must be a bad thing (apparently the reasoning is that “our critics are bad people, and that’s enough for us to argue that their criticism of us is bad … and allows us not to deal with the criticism”). I have no idea why someone thinks this is a persuasive argument: however, it does suggest the hatred and homophobia that runs throughout several strains of Confederate heritage.

The third is that such claims are not countered by advocates of Confederate heritage who embrace the “honor our ancestors/heritage not hate” themes. Given how freely these people criticize other folks, and given that the claim they are all about honor and respect, one would think they would be at pains to distance themselves from such rhetoric. But they don’t. Indeed, in some cases they embrace purveyors of intolerance.

This suggests the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of some strains of Confederate heritage commemoration. You would think that other Confederate heritage groups would rush to distance themselves from such claptrap. Rather, the result is much like the claim that Confederate heritage groups seek to rescue the Confederate battle flag from being used by groups that spew racial intolerance … when have you seen those groups “flag” the KKK? You don’t.

As to why that is … well, that’s for you to decide. All I know is that I see enough intolerance from certain advocates of Confederate heritage to suggest that perhaps it’s not that unwelcome after all.

Attention Tripp Lewis …

Thank you for attempting to get a third mention in the 2013 Confederate Heritage Follies, but the competition is closed.

Nice shades.

Better luck next year … after the SCV kicks you out.

(hey … at least Tripp’s on the front lines … as opposed to Susan Hathaway)

(h/t Kevin Levin)

UPDATE: John C. Hall Jr., the pride of Dublin, Georgia, tries to improve his position on the countdown by displaying the sort of bigotry that’s just fine with some folks over at Backwards. Don’t expect BR/B or dear Ms. Connie to show any disgust (credit to Michael Lucas for doing so).

(h/t Corey Meyer).

So I could have had thirteen after all … 🙂

Is the Civil War Really Over?

Poster Jefferson Moon would like to have more discussion about the American Civil War. Fair enough … but I’d say that heritage debates, even if one sees them as a rearguard action, are one (just one, and not a big one) of the reasons to ask whether the American Civil War is in truth over. After all, it was Reconstruction, not simply Appomattox, that defined much of what the war achieved and did not achieve. That process defined the price of reunion as the sacrifice of meaningful equality for many African Americans and  left emancipation an unfinished revolution.

In light of today’s political debates, one can ask what the war really settled. Yes, it stopped a move for southern independence, and it did destroy slavery, neither of which is to be minimized. But what else did it settle and what else did it achieve? It might well have set the United States firmly on the road to industrial development, although economic historians disagree about that; the absence of southerners from Congress certainly facilitated the process of establishing the nation-state’s support for that evolution. But issues of federal power, federalism, and justice for all Americans remain high on today’s political agenda as sources of debate.

What say you?