During the past week we saw some folks rush to embrace a fellow in Nevada who wanted to graze his cattle on someone else’s property without paying for it. Supposedly, he was a hero for standing up to the evil federal government.
That sounded all fine and good for those folks who like that sort of thing … that is, until the rancher in question began sharing his thoughts about blacks and slavery. Then the ranks of the cheerleaders thinned quickly. Those folks didn’t want to be associated with racism.
Not everyone responds to racism in the same way, however. Take this example from the president of the League of the South, Michael Hill, as featured on Andy Hall’s Dead Confederates blog:
Oh my.
You would think that high-minded advocates of Confederate heritage, people who argue that they aren’t racists, would drop Mr. Hill like a hot potato. So let’s see who he counts among his Facebook friends this morning:
Come on … no surprises there. Heimbach, Hall, and Hines are all like-minded fellows when it comes to race.
But wait … there’s more …
David Tatum! Tsk, tsk, David.
And just as amusing …
Why, Carl! Didn’t expect to see you here (sarcasm alert). After all, didn’t you just declare …
I guess Mr. Hill isn’t really the enemy, eh, Carl? Talk about being a Denier …
You can pretty much guess who comes next … the person who says she really doesn’t like the League of the South really likes Mr. Hill … twice, in fact …
And, back from the missing at the VMFA sidewalk, we find a familiar face in Mr. Hill’s friends list …
Right there, is also the head of the nation’s leading Confederate heritage group (no, not you, Susan) …
So y’all continue to stand by your man, folks. Just like you did with Matthew Heimbach.
UPDATE: Someone asked where Billy Bearden was. Right where you would expect him to be:
Note: Several commenters seem transfixed by the Bundy case. Reread what I said. I note no one has stood up and defended Mr. Hill and his friends, however. Let’s keep our eye on the ball.
Crossroads 
What’s interesting in this respect, is that Hill is fairly well known in this Heritage/Southern States’ Rights crowd, that people would seek him out to send that friend request. I’d be interested to know who he sought out, believing that they think like him.
The gangs all here!
Where’s Billy ? He’s one of those “White Devils” !! 😉 And what’s this about the “Southern nation…” ? I believe the last time the “White Devils” made an attempt at a southern nation, they lost. Hill and his pals are still losers and racists.
Didn’t these Confederate Romantics that approve of his racism support his political stance before they knew he harbored racist views? If so, perhaps we might might want to at least try to distinguish between racism and politics. Good thing racism didn’t prevent politicians from voting for the Civil Rights Act, and good thing their personal views didn’t delegitimize it, or maybe it does for Professor Simpson.
Stating the matter as “grazing cattle on someone else’s property without paying for it” is a caricature of the issues in play. If Professor Simpson can avoid committing three felonies a day (http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229) under the massive load of ambiguous and vague federal legal system as it has now evolved, it is only because he doesn’t produce or manage anything not abstract. But that doesn’t stop him from offering his opinion on this rancher’s case.
So Harry Reid, a lifetime government employee who has mysteriously become a multi-millionaire, has his longtime advisor Kornze (2003-2011) becomes head of the BLM after being nominated at 34 years old, and federal snipers set up on the Bundy ranch the same week the senate approves his confirmation. The BLM claims what Bundy is doing is “unfair to the thousands of other ranchers”. Yeah, that’s what it’s about.
If Bundy has broken laws why don’t they just arrest him? Oh that’s easy. Because they don’t want to make their case in court. And why would that be? Isn’t that the way it should be done? Apparently not for Professor Simpson. No surprise there, after all he wants to support a political view by pointing out the racism (which is deplorable anywhere and everywhere) of a single man. So he prefers an indirect approach too, rather than argue the merits or politics of the rancher’s case. It is fallacious reasoning any way you slice it.
Hmmm. Thanks for sharing whatever it is that you’ve shared. As no one was discussing the merits of Mr. Bundy’s case, and as you think law-breakers are admirable, that’s seems to be all one needs to say about your views. You can take any retort elsewhere.
Some law breakers are admirable. You know this and even Cliven Bundy knows this. Just look at what Mr. Bundy thinks of illegal Mexican immigrants:
“Now let me talk about the Spanish people. You know, I understand that they come over here against our Constitution and cross our borders. But they’re here and they’re people. I worked side-by-side with a lot of them. Don’t tell me they don’t work, and don’t tell me they don’t pay taxes. Don’t tell me they don’t have better family structures than most of us white people.
When you see those Mexican families, they’re together. They picnic together. They’re spending their time together. And I’ll tell you, in my way of thinking, they’re awful nice people. We need to have those people join us and be with us.”
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/04/24/cliven_bundy_now_let_me_talk_about_the_spanish_people.html
Some people admire folks like Harriet Tubman and John Brown too.
I’m also not sure lots of people supporting Bundy think the Federal government is “evil”. Some do. Some articulate it that way, but I think many just think the Federal government has too much authority and misuses its authority. Our government isn’t perfect and it has done wrong before. The way I see it, it’s capable of doing good and bad.
It’s fine if a nameless commenter wants to admire law-breakers. He should have the courage to say so. I just don’t want that same person attacking others then for breaking the law, especially when each response more and more becomes just another rant demonstrating that the commenter believes that not to share his politics is a sign of moral depravity and intellectual dishonesty.
The commenter’s record’s pretty clear on this point. Let’s stop inventing reasonable arguments in a misguided attempt to defend certain people. That might work for a skilled defense lawyer, but after a while it gets a little boring here.
My attempts are not misguided Professor Simpson. I believe in being charitable to all people. Connie Chastain and Cliven Bundy are, after all, just human beings like you and me.
I don’t even think Cliven Bundy is racist. One statement or act alone does not make a man a racist. The life story of U.S. Grant is a testament to this truth.
I applaud the motive behind the attempt, but I don’t always find it persuasive. As for whether one is a racist, I think most see certain statements from certain folks as insensitive, ignorant, and yes, racist. You cite Grant. Whether Grant was an antiSemite can be open to debate, but did he say antiSemitic things in 1862? Yes.
Do you give Michael Hill’s statement the same benefit of the doubt? John Hall? Pat Hines? After all, they are just human beings like you and me. I xan think of some more notorious folks who were also, after all, just human beings, too, but I have never seen that explanation absolve them of certain characterizations of their bigoted beliefs.
You’re right and make a good point that I don’t defend the likes of Michael Hill, John Hall, or Pat Hines. They’re hard, if not impossible, to defend. If they were to have a change of heart though, I would embrace them with open arms. People can and do change.
And you’re right that there have been notorious folks who were also just human beings, and that that fact doesn’t absolve them of certain characterizations or bigoted beliefs. I just think Connie Chastain and for sure Cliven Bundy don’t arise to such notoriousness.
And it can be debated that Grant was an antiSemite, but it’s also true that Lincoln didn’t give up on him.
Mainly, I’m just terribly disappointed in our ability to see people for who they actually are. People are complex and it’s way too easy to point fingers and label people as just one thing. I want America to be the best place we can be and we can’t even talk about race or culture or whatever really in a fair and truthful way today. Pointing fingers and calling people names isn’t a blunt discussion. We can and must do better.
Oh, and maybe think of me as the good cop to your bad cop when it comes to the heritage folks.
“People are complex and it’s way too easy to point fingers and label people as just one thing.”
Connie Chastain is more than just a racist, but part of who she is … well, you know where I’m going. I don’t think one goes to Backsass! to talk about race or culture or whatever really in a fair and truthful way, or you would. Instead, you say what you have to say here, and that suggests that, whatever your reservations or misgivings, you still say what you have to say here.
Hence her defense of Bundy based on one-half of what he said – that the “welfare state” is a factor in the current state of urban African American family structure and related problems – and then playing a disingenuous (“rhetorical question”) word game to get out from under the other half of what he plainly and unmistakably said about “the negro” regarding the better circumstances of slavery. At least the pols and Hannity had the brains to recognize the entirety of Bundy’s ignorant, racist ramblings and to back away as if he were a vial of anthrax. It’s the same problem which came up in her defense of Hines’ anti-semitic statement. At some point we have to recognize that a person who always, without fail and every time, “explains” statements which on their face leave no room or need for “explanation” actually identifies with those statements.
This one’s easy and it’s not about the government “doing good or bad”. Bundy doesn’t “own” the land. Somebody else does. and the owner is charging well below market value in exchange for Bundy’s livestock being able to chow down on the forage, incidentally rendering the owner’s land less productive down the road. Bundy just wants something for free. The rest of the arguments about “the abuses of big government”, etc. are the equivalent of what Bundy’s ruminants leave on the owner’s land after the owner’s grass works its way through their multi-chambered stomachs.
What’s easy? I don’t disagree with you. The law is not in Bundy’s favor. I was just commenting on the idea that people think of the federal government as “evil”.
Are you saying that no one holds that attitude? Google Bundy federal government evil. Happy reading.
I wrote above that some people in fact do think that way or articulate as much. Please reread what I wrote. ;
In my very first statement, not the brief response to John.
You can understand why I did a double-take.
Let’s speculate here, since you seem to be an authority on the law. What’s Bundy’s legal defense to not paying the $1.35 per AU fee? Sounds like there’s an awful lot of really dumb ranchers out there (some of whom I know and who would be appalled by Bundy’s evaluation of the “negro” and “slavery”) paying these fees when they don’t have to.
Recall that this is the same commenter who ranted in multiple posts that I had directed him to a post on Kevin Levin’s blog, then blamed me because he was confused about the author of the piece. It makes him feel good.
It’s a challenge to accurately assess the facts in a given situation when your starting point is always colored by a political slant. Quite a few totalitarian regimes – “left wing”, “right wing”, you name it – have disseminated the “news” that way. Mistakes can be, and usually are, made.
“If Bundy has broken laws why don’t they just arrest him? Oh that’s easy.”
Yes, it is easy. Cliven Bundy’s illegality is matter of civil law, not criminal. Do you not understand the difference?
“Because they don’t want to make their case in court.”
They already have. Bundy fought this out in the courts, and he lost. Game over.
Mark just comes here to rant about all those leftists on blogs. It makes him feel good.
Of course. the comment by Bundy should have come as a surprise. Put aside the fact that whatever his beef about the BLM and federal ownership of the land, it was never “his” land. Put aside the fact that this isn’t about “big government encroachment” but, instead, about somebody who’s too cheap to pay the well-below-market $1.35 per AU fee so that his cattle can eat grass which he doesn’t own. Here’s another “race” problem – if he objects to federal ownership and given that it’s never been “his” land, how about paying the fee to the folks who “owned” it long before his family ever set foot in what today is Nevada? I’m wondering how he;d like it if those folks brought their ponies over to chomp for free in his front yard.
Mr. Rodent has claimed, “My own views on Southern Nationalism and my lack of patience with it are well documented.” [http://studycivilwar.wordpress.com/2014/04/18/the-shpg-strikes-again/comment-page-1/#comment-5728]
Apparently, Mr. Rodent thinks he can talk the talk, but he certainly doesn’t walk the walk. As I responded to him, “we are known by those with whom we choose to associate. There’s an old saying, “Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas.” Talk is cheap … . Actions speak louder than words.”
A lot of people gonna be vigorously scratching this weekend …
Reblogged this on The Liberty Lamp and commented:
We haven’t really talked about this nutjob scam-artist rancher who came out as sleazy racist, because, well, everyone is talking about him. But, here is an interesting look at the crazy who are attracted to his crazy…
By the way, in the “reading for comprehension” department, our favorite “Southern Romance” writer apparently has difficulty with actually opening a book and learning that the reference to “murder” in the title is not a libelous assault on Confederate soldiers but instead refers to an assessment of futile attacks ordered by a Yankee general. Again, Captain Miller said it best in SPR – “That’s disconcerting”.
Here’s Connie’s declaration:
Confederate Murderers — the new flogger evilization meme. Very useful for drumming up hatred for Confederates and those who honor them today….
The comment “It was not war; it was murder” was made, in fact, by Confederate general Evander Law in writing about the assaults two decades later. So what Connie Chastain believes is that a Confederate general was dead set on evilizing Confederate soldiers.
In truth Law was criticizing the futility of the Union assaults of June 3, 1864.
That’s heritage, not history … but it’s really an expression of sheer ignorance fueled by mindless anger.
The same thing goes for “Austin”–Connie’s sock puppet buddy–who declared:
As far as the whole “war as murder” theme goes, it amounts to no more than annoying, childish, and unimaginative whining. It is tired , and it has been played out. Boo-flippin-hoo.
So Mr. Nameless says that a Confederate general is “annoying, unimaginative, and whining.” That seems to describe Mr. Nameless to a T. Talk about being tired and played out.
And there’s Carl Roden’s commenting a blogger on calling out hypocrites … just like I called out Carl on his hypocrisy right in this very post! Thanks, Carl. 🙂 Now don’t go being a Denier. 🙂
Not to mention that anybody who looks at the title, sees the subtitle reference to “Cold Harbor”, and has even basic ACW knowledge would be aware of the origins and meaning of the phrase. Looks like our author swung and missed three times. So much for “Confederate Heritage” = “rudimentary working ACW knowledge”.
Just shows how ignorant Connie and the moron troll really are about actual history.
One of the flaws of Gary Adams’ non-confrontational, vague, mistakes-were-made follow-up is that people who didn’t see the original post have no idea who said what, exactly, and those who did can pretend they don’t know. It effectively neuters the original offense, and leaves people to argue back-and-forth in a completely abstract environment, when they should be having a serious conversation about what Hill and the LotS stand for, and where (or if) that has any place in Confederate Heritage™. Nothing is going to actually change, because neither Gary nor anyone else over there actually want to confront the problem honestly.
“Nothing is going to actually change, because neither Gary nor anyone else over there actually want to confront the problem honestly.” — Andy Hall
Andy, I believe that’s the crux of the problem. I think every neo-Confederate that I’ve ever talked with has a TAD (Truth Denial System) built into his or her brain. Reminds me of Noam Chomsky’ Language Acquisition Device), except the TAD seems to be activated in childhood but continues for a lifetime, whereas the LAD ceases to function much past age six or so. But, I digress! My point is that to these folks facts, data, contemporaneous writing (unless it adheres to Lost Cause mythology), historical analysis, etc. don’t mean much. Their understanding of history is a carefully built rationalization of all things Confederate that’s rooted in folklore that for years passed as scholarship, and was taught nationwide at the high school level way back when I was a kid growing up in Ohio. They see their grip on the nation is fast falling away as schools both North and South begin to examine the facts and start teaching such heretical things as:
–Slavery as the cause of the war;
–Robert E. Lee wasn’t “Christ Like” and James Longstreet wasn’t “Judas.”
–USCT regiments (totally ignored in my Yankee childhood) played an important role;
–Some carpetbaggers were actually good folks (Ohio’s Albion Tourgée, being a good example);
–Sherman’s men while they ravaged South Carolina were very disciplined in Georgia;
–The significance of the Fort Pillow massacre;
–Some Union generals were actually abolitionists — O.O. Howard, Benjamin Butler (epiphany after New Market Heights), and even U. S. Grant (slow evolution during the war, culminating in his years as president when he championed a number of civil rights initiatives).
–The letters and diaries of the common solider, both South and North, that show history from the ground up, literally and figuratively both; and
Etc.
These are but a few examples of the kinds of history that are blowing the Lost Cause out of the water. They are holding on to a sinking ship.
A good term for it is “vigorous ignorance.” It’s not passive; one has to work at it, intentionally avoiding information or ideas that might interfere with a chosen ideology. Over at SHPG they actually warn their members not to visit “anti-Confederate” blogs and websites.
It sounds similar to what goes on in Pyongyang, actually. That’s how the Dear Leader ends up shooting a 58 on the nearest PGA championship course.
Dear Leader comes by his golf skill naturally. His father shot eleven holes-in-one the first time he ever picked up a club. You’re just jealous.
For myself, I have no great aspirations to the game; the windmill hole is a double-bogey for me every time.
If I’m jealous, it’s because I’m not married to a porn star like he is. 🙂
Oh my. The Confederate Carnival is a comic strip that just keeps on giving. I’ve never seen such a circus of characters go at it. It’s a mass pileup of hysteria – someone’s white hood flew out of their backpack and they’re scurrying like roaches.
Not this defense of her’s again, from Backsass:
“I, of course, don’t attempt to answer for anyone but myself…”
Why does she talk on two sides out of her mouth, minimizing the Facebook friendings and presents as an unoffical spokesman for the Flaggers?
Because she’s Connie Chastain.