The Compleat Idiot: Connie Chastain

It’s been quite a day for Connie Chastain and her obsessive stalking of people she doesn’t like … a day with a double dose of buffoonery.

First, clearly she lacks a sensahuma as well as intelligence. How else could you explain this whiny retort to my post about The Onion:

Does Simpson really think parody (The Onion) is fraud?Really? The Onion is parody. It’s satire. It has always been parody/satire. Are there people who don’t know this? Probably. But you’d think a college professor would know better.

Amazing. Simply amazing. Clearly she’s not a careful reader … and she’s not very bright.

But we all knew that. Indeed, some readers were waiting for her to show that she was duped by attacking me. What a fool.

However, it did not take Chastain long to top that. Read what she posted after “monitoring” Kevin Levin’s blog:

CC Foot in Mouth

Let’s look a little more closely at Michael Aubrecht’s website (found by that self-appointed “monitor” doubtless doing “research”) :

We find that Michael’s written extensively on a number of subjects, including playing the drums and the early republic. Perhaps someone in Pensacola’s jealous of his productivity. But let’s look at what he’s written about the Civil War:

The Southern Cross: A Civil War DevotionalFilled with stories that are both educational and enlightening, The Southern Cross recognizes the five virtues of the 19th-century Christian soldier. These are: Courage, Duty, Faith, Honor and Mercy. Each of these positive character traits is illustrated by some of the most inspirational stories to come out of the War Between the States. Every devotion contains a relevant verse of Scripture, an associated quote and a short vignette on a related topic. There are forty of these uplifting devotions, ten encouraging essays, a special sermon that was presented to the soldiers in the field and a short biographical tribute to six of the South’s most pious commanders. A bonus study-guide will enable the user to read the Bible in one-year is also included.

Well, that’s a “heritage hater” for you.

Onward Christian Soldier: The Spiritual Journey Of Stonewall. As one reviewer on Amazon noted (Chastain’s big on Amazon reviews: her own sister reviews her books. Someone has to …): Michael Aubrecht’s Onward Christian Soldier: The Spiritual Journey of Stonewall, is an historical account of the military, personal, and spiritual life of General Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson. It is certainly enlightening to say the least, providing a seldom seen perspective on the great southern Civil War leader. Actually, Mr. Aubrecht’s writing technique and perspective are seldom seen in secular books on any historical figure and provides a delightful way to read and obtain such perspective on this much loved Confederate general.

Written in such a talented, smooth and articulate way, you could easily believe Albrecht’s General Jackson is the hero of a historical novel. Yet Onward Christian Soldier: The Spiritual Journey of Stonewall presents the facts of his life and Christian faith, but reported in such a manner as to not get in the way of an entertaining story. This is American history you will not have to struggle to read and understand. Mr. Aubrecht has an impressive writing talent and it shines through this highly polished book. If there is a downside to this book, it must be that it is a quick read and you come away wanting more.

Yup, that’s a hater of Confederate heritage.

Christian Cavalier: The Spiritual Legacy of J.E.B. Stuart:  “We must nerve our hearts for the trial, with a firm reliance in God. We must plant our feet firmly with a determination to die rather than submit.” James Ewell Brown Stuart. Best known for his contributions to Baseball-Almanac.com and the Pinstripe Press, author Michael Aubrecht has combined his love of Civil War history with that of faith-writing for an inspirational study of one of America’s greatest icons. Christian Cavalier is an intimate portrait of Confederate Cavalry General J.E.B. Stuart and a testament to his devout service to both God and country.

Somehow I don’t think Michael’s much of a hater at all. Seems he writes about Christianity and the Confederacy, things Connie Chastain pretends to know about.

Michaels’ also done a great deal of research on South Carolina’s Richard Kirkland, “The Angel of Marye’s Heights,” including a film on the subject. Listen to him speak about Kirkland:

Here’s a trailer for the movie:

You can read a talk he’s offered on Kirkland here.

I’ve never met Michael, which is too bad. I have chatted with him online, and I was really impressed with him. We both have a love of baseball and the New York Yankees, and we have friends in common. He’s also written about the Civil War in Spotsylvania County and the churches in Fredericksburg. I know from past experience that he pays tribute to the soldiers of the Confederacy, which is what sensible people associate with commemorating Confederate heritage. He holds the men who donned gray in high regard and with respect.

This is a “heritage hater”?

No. Michael thinks the Virginia Flaggers are silly. That’s not the same thing as hating Confederate heritage.

And so we have another example of Connie Chastain’s bitterness, ugliness, stupidity, vengefulness, and foolishness. Yup, that’s the person the Virginia Flaggers should rely upon to do their “heavy hitting” and to handle their blog … someone who attacks a man who emphasizes the honor and faith that motivated Confederates such as Stonewall Jackson, Jeb Stuart, and Richard Kirkland to act as they did.

Our Miss ConnieMaybe she’s jealous of a someone who’s a successful author in a number of fields … fields that are rather different. Yet who has written more about issues of concern to people who honor the service of Confederate soldiers? Not Connie Chastain. No, her primary contribution to what she thinks is Confederate heritage is a nasty little blog detailing her obsessions and her hatred for other people. It’s an exercise in denigration born of her frustration at her utter failure to offer anyone a reason to care about Confederate heritage.

And now you know why I think Confederate heritage apologists such as Connie Chastain are a joke. Restore the honor … reject and repudiate Connie Chastain.

55 thoughts on “The Compleat Idiot: Connie Chastain

  1. OhioGuy April 24, 2015 / 8:56 pm

    Good points, Brooks . . . except that blather about the Yankees. Go Cubs!🙂

  2. Al Mackey April 24, 2015 / 9:06 pm

    Poor Connie. As a John Wayne meme I have says, “Life is tough. It’s tougher when you’re stupid.” Life for Connie must really be tough.

    • Connie Chastain May 7, 2015 / 4:05 am

      My life’s not tough. I’m actually very fortunate and very thankful for it. I’m not stupid, either, but you are spiteful.

      • Al Mackey May 7, 2015 / 10:29 am

        Connie, Connie, Connie. Your complete fumble with respect to Michael Aubrecht argues against your claim. Self-awareness isn’t a bad thing, you know. You should try for it.

  3. Jimmy Dick April 24, 2015 / 9:09 pm

    The whole heritage movement is a joke. Four years of the CW sequi and they accomplished less than nothing. They have raised some flags to show they are ignorant. That’s it. They made themselves look like idiots every time they went out and stood around places with their flags. Meanwhile, historians educated millions of Americans about the Civil War. All the heritage folks did was whine to each other while accomplishing nothing.

    They’re nothing but a joke.

    • Connie Chastain May 7, 2015 / 4:08 am

      Educated millions? Ha. You mean indoctrinated, and probably a few thousand. The sesqui wasn’t a big hit, ya know?

      • Jimmy Dick May 26, 2015 / 1:58 pm

        According to NPS stats, it was a big hit. According to books sold on the war and money made by Hollywood, it was a big hit. It just wasn’t a big hit for the your lost cause crowd who made fools out of themselves by waving flags and lying about history.

        • Connie Chastain May 26, 2015 / 7:02 pm

          What NPS stats? Found where? Where are the books sold stats found? And the Hollywood money stats? Is there some reason you didn’t want to post links to these statistics?

          • Jimmy Dick May 26, 2015 / 9:27 pm

            http://www.virginiacivilwar.org/meetinginfo/annual_report/2012AnnualReport.pdf Looks like Virginia had good things to say. So did some other states. Do your own research and prove me wrong.

            https://pastexplore.wordpress.com/2014/04/28/analyzing-visitor-attendance-to-civil-war-sites-during-the-sesquicentennial/ Nick works for NPS. Looks like NPS is doing good.

            http://www.statista.com/statistics/190819/consumer-book-sales-revenue-forecast-for-the-us-market/
            Part of the decline reported in book sales is extremely misleading. Overall books are moving. The issue is e-books are rising in sales volume, but cost less so a loss in revenue is occurring. That correlates with a decrease in expenditures at the same time. The result is an erroneous belief in looking at a chart and seeing dollar signs without context.

            If memory serves me correctly didn’t Lincoln win an Academy Award? Why yes, it did. Best Actor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_%282012_film%29

            Let’s see, wasn’t there another film the following year that showed slavery was definitely not the benign fantasy the causers lie about? Oh yes, there was! 12 years a Slave. I’m pretty sure that won an Oscar. Let me check….Yes! Best Picture and Best Supporting Actress. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12_Years_a_Slave_%28film%29

            Wonder how history books did for awards? Did any win the Pulitzer Prize recently? Let’s look. Why yes, one did. I’m sure you read it. It was written by one of the best Civil War scholars, Eric Foner. The Fiery Trial of Abraham Lincoln. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fiery_Trial:_Abraham_Lincoln_and_American_Slavery

            Foner even had three free classes on the Civil War and Reconstruction over on EdX. I pointed them out multiple times. Free learning! Did you take the classes? I did. He got a standing ovation at the end of the third one from his students. Did you make an effort to actually learn something or did you just take the red pill of ignorance?

            There are some facts. Don’t even bother to post a reply unless you have facts. Your opinion means nothing.

          • BorderRuffian May 27, 2015 / 6:19 am

            NPS

            I checked a few sites. There could be exceptions but it doesn’t look like they did very well-

            Appomattox- Increase in visitors but nowhere near the record number set in 1990.

            Chickamauga & Chattanooga – No increase.

            Fort Sumter- Slight increase over previous years (2004-2010) but the record number was set in 2002.

            Gettysburg- Down 30%.

            https://irma.nps.gov/Stats/

          • Jimmy Dick May 27, 2015 / 12:52 pm

            Nick’s stats show them up. The interest is there. If you want you can go to the discussions on the subject over on Civil War Memory. It seems like the ones who are squealing the loudest about the Sesqui being a failure are the ones who don’t take the digital effect into account. http://cwmemory.com/2014/04/11/this-civil-war-buff-has-not-been-disappointed/

            I think Pat put it the best.

            “The American people don’t find it hard to “mention race, emancipation and slavery”, it is the Civil War Community Inc. that has trouble with that.

            The problem is that the Civil War Community Inc. is so dominated by old white heterosexual men that they don’t even recognize ways that ordinary 21st Century Americans come to terms with the Civil War Era. The fact that Doris K. Goodwin got so much flak for mentioning Gays at Gettysburg shows how out of touch Civil War Community Inc. (CWCI) is. The fact that people worried that her talk might “turn off” people who think slavery wasn’t so bad is yet another indicator of just how white and old CWCI really is.

            Maybe toy soldiers aren’t selling well, but 100,000 people visited my small Immigrants’ Civil War web offerings. I am guessing that millions have visited CW Memory, Crossroads, CW Trust, etc. Is that ever stacked up against the missing “Civil War Diner Placemats” of the Centennial?”

          • Connie Chastain May 27, 2015 / 2:39 pm

            And, BR, some of Mr. Dick’s links are to info from 2012 & 2013 — incomplete, since the Sesqui ran through 2015. So until the rest of the sesquicentennial years’ info is checked, we don’t know whether it will add to or take from what he’s put here. He certainly hasn’t proved it was a big hit…. I suspect Ohio State winning the national championship was a bigger hit…

          • Brooks D. Simpson May 27, 2015 / 10:18 pm

            Certainly some think Alabama losing it was an even bigger hit.

          • Jimmy Dick May 28, 2015 / 7:26 am

            Why don’t you just prove that it wasn’t a big hit? You like to run your mouth with your opinions, but lack the ability to sustain them. The only thing you are doing is repeating other opinions. Why do you think the Sesquicentennial wasn’t a big hit? Show us some facts to support your opinion.

            The sesqui was a big hit for many while others thought it was a failure. It has a lot to do with perspective as I’ve indicated. For many older Americans who had experienced the Centennial they may be using memory for comparison. Also, the centennial occurred during the Civil Rights movement which some think had an impact on the events.

            Interestingly, some today noted a trend in the sesqui. When the events were about confederate victories the heritage crowd was involved. When the events were about Union victories the heritage crowd was nowhere to be found.

            In addition, the interpretation has involved the role of slavery before and during the conflict. That was not the case with the centennial. As some have noted, some Americans seem to have a problem with that interpretation because it does not shed a positive light on the CSA.

            There is also a major problem in interpreting attention. Many of the people complaining are older and are omitting the role of the Internet in today’s historical events. They tend in physical terms. The interest in the CW is huge, but not so much with the younger crowd any more. They do not have the connection to the CW like previous generations. That has a lot to do with the passage of time and is entirely natural. Yet, attendance at the parks was up. The events drew big crowds. Ask Brooks. He was at a few speaking.

            So go ahead, Connie. Tell us why you think it was not a big hit.

          • Connie Chastain May 28, 2015 / 11:16 am

            Not sure its a big it when a perpetual winner doesn’t win (except for rival and the envious), just somewhat surprising, but it was a big hit when Ohio State did because of the Buckeye’s long, 12-year dry spell…

          • Al Mackey May 28, 2015 / 12:16 pm

            Anyone who saw the sea of people on the Gettysburg battlefield on July 1, 2, and 3, 2013 will know the Sesquicentennial was no failure there. I was there. The “Last March of the Iron Brigade” led by Scott Hartwig had well over a thousand people on the tour. The Lincoln Forum in Gettysburg and the Civil War Institute at Gettysburg College have been sold out for years now. It seems to me the attendance statistics at National Park Service sites are problematic. If one doesn’t buy a ticket to the film, cyclorama, and museum at Gettysburg, for example, one’s attendance at the park isn’t recorded. Visitors don’t purchase those tickets every time. So if you’re in Gettysburg for a week, you purchase your ticket one time to see the film and the cyclorama, then the rest of the time you don’t purchase a ticket. So you’re figured into the attendance figures as one person on one day, even though you were there for seven days. Then there are the local folks and repeat visitors who are on the battlefield regularly and don’t purchase tickets. I’m sure there are some estimates made to take this into account, but those estimates by their very nature are not going to be very accurate.

          • BorderRuffian May 29, 2015 / 7:35 am

            Jimmy Dick-
            “The problem is that the Civil War Community Inc. is so dominated by old white heterosexual men that they don’t even recognize ways that ordinary 21st Century Americans come to terms with the Civil War Era. The fact that Doris K. Goodwin got so much flak for mentioning Gays at Gettysburg shows how out of touch Civil War Community Inc. (CWCI) is.”

            Yeah, I bet it was only the “old white guys” that thought that was strange and out of place…

            JD-
            “Let’s see, wasn’t there another film the following year that showed slavery was definitely not the benign fantasy the causers lie about? Oh yes, there was! 12 years a Slave.”

            So you’re countering (supposed) lies with….
            …more lies?

          • Jimmy Dick May 29, 2015 / 2:22 pm

            BR, what lies? We keep coming back to your fiction versus facts. Looks like your definition of success is not everyone else’s version. I’m sure the causers are upset with the sesqui because it wasn’t the glorious fictional version they’ve been lying to everyone about for decades. They don’t like the part where slavery caused the war. They don’t like the part where their ancestors broke the laws of the United States of America. They don’t like the part where their ancestors fought to sustain slavery.

            Well, that’s just too bad. The facts are pretty clear. If you want to ignore them, that’s your problem.

  4. Rosemary April 25, 2015 / 4:22 am

    Personal war makes for a grumpy populace. What’s the end result?

    • Brooks D. Simpson April 25, 2015 / 10:35 am

      Chastain’s ranting demonstrates a lack of intelligence, character, and integrity. You tell me why a Confederate heritage group embraces her, and what that embrace tells you about them.

      • Rosemary April 25, 2015 / 12:56 pm

        cause they’re all angry and unsatisfied and have consistent bad luck? ….
        (sophomores no not and no not that they no not, so they say -speaking about me as I’m in over my head on this blog again)

      • Sandi Saunders April 26, 2015 / 10:34 am

        Precisely Professor Simpson! That anyone honors heritage only for Confederate Soldiers and ideology is bad enough, to wrap your revisionist heritage views in hate-filled people like Chastain is true sacrilege to heritage, not respectful heritage at all. Not on any level.

        • Brooks D. Simpson April 26, 2015 / 10:40 am

          Anyone who reads Connie’s blog understands that she isn’t about preserving or understanding Confederate heritage. She’s simply attacking people. This gives her great emotional satisfaction.

          Note that it’s always when she goes off like this that she makes an effort to distance herself from the very group she defends. They don’t distance themselves from her, however.

          • Rosemary April 27, 2015 / 12:50 pm

            So, she’s powerful?

            She doesn’t seem so … I see woman of certain age with walker who is not nice going on about something that wont happen. (well, never say never.. I was in news biz where crazy is the bread and butter.)

            I do not have an emotional interest in confederate heritage one way or the other -I care about the issue but my people were in the old country in 1865 with big problems of their own….

            maybe that is why I just see big dogs and this little dog.

            I have a big dog. We walk and it is those little dogs that come running to us, barking their fool heads off until they get a foot away while I’m pulling on the leash for little doggie’s safety. Little dog stops and stays and barks and barks.( All these little dogs are named Snipe, I am certain. )

            I am wanting to figure out why little dog’s bark even matters.

          • Brooks D. Simpson April 27, 2015 / 1:40 pm

            Powerful? No. She is an example of how the internet gives certain people a megaphone. But you would think that if the Virginia Flaggers were really interested in gaining legitimacy as a responsible group, they’d distance themselves from her wild rantings, instead of egging her on.

            Then again, they like white supremacists and southern nationalists, too, given the images we see. They don’t do a very good job of distancing themselves from such people. Then again, neither does the SCV.

            These groups have no one but themselves to blame when it comes to the negative impressions most people have of them.

          • Mousy Tongue May 6, 2015 / 8:47 pm

            She’d be more powerful if she ate an onion every time she refreshed this blog.

          • Connie Chastain May 6, 2015 / 9:52 pm

            I don’t see it as necessary to distance myself from people and groups I’m not close to. The similarities between most heritage groups/individuals, and white supes or whoever, are illusory and superficial, at most (both displaying the battle flag, for example, but for greatly different reasons). And the actual “links and ties” are made of sand ropes. For example, Matt Heimbach mistakenly assumed he might find “recruits” among the Virginia Flaggers, a relatively new group at the time; so he made a handful of very unsuccessful contacts with them. When he got no takers, he moved on.

            Brooks Simpson and other Virginia Flagger-haters blew up those 3 or 4 contacts all out of proportion to reality, to influence gullible people to think the Virginia Flaggers are white supes. Ditto Simpson’s false magnification of people like Shane Long snapping selfies with a Flagger (an activity that takes, what, ten seconds?) at a public event attended by many people, in order to put for the false idea that there is a connection there. Ditto the utter freaking out over Olaf Childress’s appropriation of articles by me and Susan Hathaway, without our knowledge or consent, for his tabloid.

            You can’t distance yourself from something you aren’t close to. You can’t disavow something you haven’t avowed.

            The real question is, why does Brooks Simpson, his followers and fellow bloggers, which to falsely portray the Virginia Flaggers? What have they EVER done to him?

          • Brooks D. Simpson May 6, 2015 / 11:46 pm

            As Tripp Lewis lauded Mr. Heimbach, it appears to me he was very successful in his efforts. Ms. Hathaway even called him a Flagger.

            You simply ignore evidence that does not fit with your preconceptions. Otherwise we’d conclude that you are lying again.

            The Flaggers are plenty close to these people. Their own photographs document it. Besides, as you say you don’t really know them all that well and you don’t speak for them, there is no reason for us to believe what you assert. The truth remains that the Flaggers themselves, especially Susan Hathaway, are too skeered to speak for themselves. They know they have a lot of explaining to do. You can’t do it for them.

            Meanwhile, I note that you have offered nothing about the Flaggers’ use of funds. As you were the one who brought up the issue of fraud, this silence is suggestive. I guess you really don’t know what you are talking about. You also failed to answer a series of direct questions. Guess you know that honest answers would hurt both the Virginia Flaggers and you. Finally, I note that you forgot to acknowledge that you overlooked reports provided by the Flaggers themselves that members of the organization violated their own “boycott” of Lexington business more than one, and that the violations went beyond a single hot dog experience. Guess you concede that point as well.

            But I give you points for finally leaving Corey’s posts up, instead of following your usual practice of deleting them, then replying to them.

          • Connie Chastain May 6, 2015 / 10:09 pm

            I don’t attack, Mr. Simpson. I defend or counterattack. Mr. Aubrecht lied about the Virginia Flaggers. To me, that is evidence of hatred (why ELSE would you lie about somebody?) The bitterness, ugliness, stupidity, vengefulness, and foolishness you think you see in my post are actually components in the cataracts over your own eyes — formed from the denigration, harassment, persecution and multitudinous lies you’ve directed at the Virginia Flaggers almost weekly, on average, for over three years.

            I also I’ve never made an effort to distance myself from the Virginia Flaggers. My description of my relationship with them has never change. I am an enthusiastic supporter and I voluntarily upload content they send me to their blog; because of that support and assistance, they have made me an honorary member, of which I’m very proud.

          • Brooks D. Simpson May 6, 2015 / 11:34 pm

            Just because someone doesn’t share your opinion doesn’t mean they are a liar. After all, you don’t know him: you just assign people motives because that’s your style. After all, you don’t really know … you just assume … and in so doing, we see that you project.

            This isn’t a very good defense of Confederate heritage, and it isn’t a promotion of it. It’s just another example of your ranting. You’re just a very angry, bitter person. People are torn between laughing at you and feeling sorry for you. But hate? No, that you projecting your own issues on others.

            Have a Dixie day.

        • Connie Chastain May 6, 2015 / 9:57 pm

          I don’t hate anybody, Sandi Saunders. Not you. Not even Simpson. In my religious belief, hatred of another human being is charged with very serious — i.e., etermal — negative consequence. But note, it isn’t hate to disagree with, or disapprove of.

          And I don’t agree that my heritage views are revisionist.

          • Brooks D. Simpson May 6, 2015 / 11:37 pm

            Sorry … you do hate people. A lot of people. After all, if you say you know why people say and do what they say and do, then so can we.

            You claim to know what motivates your critics. By the same token, they can say they know what motivates you. I don’t particularly care about your motivation: that in itself does not explain your foolishness.

  5. Eric A. Jacobson April 25, 2015 / 8:09 am

    She really is quite obtuse. I’ve had my share of exchanges with her that show an inability to grasp any sort of humor or whit. She is also as nasty and spiteful as about anyone I’ve ever encountered. Her salvo against Michael shows that she really is…well….an idiot.

    • Connie Chastain May 6, 2015 / 10:12 pm

      He shouldn’t have lied about the VaFlaggers, Mr. Jacobson. And I’m obtuse? I’m not the one who tried to equate the Rebel army’s days-long foray into Pennsylvania to the four, flippin’ years the yankee army was in the South killing Southerners. YOU attempted that bit of obtuseness…..

  6. C. Meyer April 25, 2015 / 8:15 am

    Michael outclasses Connie with just his drumming let alone his historical knowledge.

    • Connie Chastain May 6, 2015 / 10:25 pm

      Corey, his historical knowledge wasn’t the point. His lying about the VaFlaggers (or, to give him the benefit of the doubt, his mistakenly spouting off about them without bothering to find out about them) is the point.

      • C. Meyer May 7, 2015 / 7:17 am

        I’ll take Michael at his word…Isn’t it funny that those with the most historical knowledge of the war seem to always come to a similar view of the flaggers?

  7. Pat Young April 25, 2015 / 9:28 am

    As she is want to do, Ms. Chastain attacked a person without any research beyond following a link, denouncing him for what? Not abiding fools?

    A reading of her blog’s archive, something I would advise against doing, leads to the conclusion that those she terms Heritage Haters actually hate all “Southerners.” By “Southerner” she means someone who is white who can trace a genetic line back to the Covil War or some other distant point.

    Non-white people whose ancestors hail from, let’s say Pakistan, can never be Southerners, even if elected mayor of a Southern city. Similarly, white people born on islands off the coasts of New Jersey or Connecticut can never be Southerners no matter how long they live in, let’s say, Virginia.

    Apparently, Ms. Chastain also believes that people who write about Stonewall Jackson’s Christianity are either not Southerners, even though light complexioned, or are Scallawags like the Notorious Andy Hall.

    In any event, the Heritage Hater is also the Southerner Hater, in her book, guilty of an irredimable prejudice.

    • Jimmy Dick April 25, 2015 / 12:12 pm

      For her it is about a particular mindset. Actually, that is what all of the heritage types share, a particular mindset. It involves a victim mentality, an us against the world mindset, and a complete willingness to ignore reality.

      Look at one of her posts where she whined about a perceived Christian bias in America. This is really about how some people view their version of Christianity. When others reject it, here comes the victimization attitude. The idea that this group might be wrong does not occur to them. Their view has to be the “true” view and only the true view.

      You know, if they studied history like the claim to do they could see how this has existed over and over again where one group forces their views on others. It is so ironic to see this group whine and cry over their perceived victimization while at the same time talking about an American history that supposedly embraced religious tolerance. Somehow their version of the First Amendment does not mean freedom of religion. It means that others must conform to this group’s religious beliefs at the expense of the other group’s.

      Basically the heritage crew is all about beliefs and not facts. They cannot accept that their beliefs amount to discrimination against others, only that they’re being discriminated against when they don’t get their way. They cry about the “activist” courts, yet run to the courts for protection whenever their heritage is allegedly threatened. Even better, few of them have any higher education which is probably the most revealing part of the whole thing. When confronted with the historical analytical process they fail in learning it because it yields results they disagree with. That’s like knowing 2 + 2 = 4, but rejecting it because it doesn’t give the result you want to belief in.

      • Connie Chastain May 6, 2015 / 10:39 pm

        Mr. Dick, it is not a “victim mentality” to acknowledge the war on Confederate heritage that has been taking place since the middle or latter part of the 20th century. It’s not an “us against the world” mindset — only us against those warring against our heritage. We don’t ignore reality. I’d say that you ignore huge chunks of reality that lie outside your all-slavery, only-slavery mindset.

        My beliefs do not amount to discrimination against anybody. You need to see it that way because you’ve guzzled the leftist kool-aid which is the true instigator of the us vs. them viewpoint; but your vision is hallucinatory.

        Also, “running to the courts” is proper when the issue is a legitimate one for the court to hear and handle. However, an activist judiciary violates the Constitution.

        • Jimmy Dick May 7, 2015 / 7:31 am

          Connie, yes, it is a victim mentality. The Civil War was caused by men who turned against their country for their own personal interests and political power in order to protect their system of slavery. The heritage of the south is that of slavery put into place by a white supremacist social system. It was put in place in the north as well, but the north was moving away from the system while the elites in the south refused to let happen.

          When you celebrate southern heritage you celebrate slavery. The two go hand in hand. By failing to acknowledge this you just lie about the past and cherry pick the parts you want to believe in. The history of the south is one of racism just as it is in the north. You choose to ignore that as well.

          You like a history that is literally a whitewash of the past. You want a feel good history that bleeps out the parts that don’t fit in with your belief system. Basically, you want to lie to people. I refuse to do that. I refuse to let you keep lying to people and I will point out your lies and those of the heritage types.

          I point out to my students that they can choose to be problem solvers or problem creators. I educate people to be problem solvers. You lie to them and are nothing but a problem creator.

          As for the Constitution, you might want to actually study its history. The Constitution does not say anything about an activist judiciary. Interestingly, some of the most conservative justices on the SCOTUS were racists who blocked acts of Congress in order to maintain a segregated nation. I’d say they were activists in maintaining their white supremacist beliefs.

    • Connie Chastain May 6, 2015 / 10:31 pm

      Mr. Young, that is precisely what Mr. Aubrecht did with the VaFlaggers, claiming they spent all their time and money raising big flags by the interstate, and none on actual historical preservation (of flags) If he had bothered to read their blog, he would see they have done both. Raising the interstate flags and participating in or funding historic flag preservation are not mutually exclusive.

      My concept of him as a heritage hater is based on his apparent belief that only his view of heritage preservation is genuine, and the contempt (close to hatred, if not the actual thing) he showed toward the views others hold of honoring and preserving heritage.

  8. fundrums April 27, 2015 / 5:23 am

    Thank you all for your positive comments and validation. I guess you can’t call someone out for wasting their money and attention when are so many positive ways they could be preserving the history of their ancestors. It’s all about priorities and theirs is messed up. Connie just doesn’t get it. We don’t hate their heritage we just want to see it given the proper respect in the proper manner that it deserves.

    – Michael Aubrecht

    • Connie Chastain April 27, 2015 / 11:36 pm

      We who? Who wants to see heritage given the proper respect in the proper manner that it deserves?

      • Brooks D. Simpson April 30, 2015 / 1:05 pm

        I believe Michael would say that the antics of people such as the Virginia Flaggers and yourself show neither proper respect for the service of Confederate soldiers nor do so in a proper manner.

        • Connie Chastain May 6, 2015 / 10:21 pm

          Well, he’s certainly entitled to his opinion. But I would just note that putting up big flags and helping to preserve historic ones are not mutually exclusive; and the VaFlaggers have done both. Heck, they even financed the cleaning/repair/preservation of a flippin’ US flag and donated it to the Virginia War Memorial http://vaflaggers.blogspot.com/2014/12/va-flaggers-va-war-memorial.html

          They’ve also cleared historic cemeteries and gravesites and participated in other historic preservation efforts.

          The notion that they’ve spent ALL their time, effort and funding putting up interstate flags is either a mistake or a lie. Since critics of the VaFlaggers lie more than they are mistaken, I assumed he lied.

          I don’t know where Mr. Aubrecht got his info (or his attitude) about the VaFlaggers, but it wasn’t from them or their activities.

    • Rob Baker April 29, 2015 / 6:19 am

      I think you highlighted the issue. The VA Flaggers and Connie care more about the politics of the day more than they do the remembrance. That’s why they spend more money putting up nylon flags along side of interstates. It’s about the ranting and raving, not the history. If they wanted to “honor” their ancestors, we’d see more pictures and videos of them cleaning cemeteries, fundraising for restoration projects, etc. Instead you primarily see them waving flags. I can’t wait to see what their antics will be if SCOTUS rules in favor of gay marriage this year.

      “Outrage, tyrannical federal government, our ancestors fought against this type of oppression, nullify the law, secede!”….sigh.

      • Connie Chastain May 7, 2015 / 4:16 am

        Baker, there is a war on heritage. It’s primary target is the flag right now, but it’s all in the crosshairs. Pushback involves displaying the flag, in honor of our Confederate ancestors.

        • Rob Baker May 7, 2015 / 9:17 am

          What you perceive as heritage is a heritage based on lies. They do not hold up to scrutiny. This “attack,” as you call it, is nothing more than truth; or at the very least an attempt at truth. Unfortunately for those who choose to perpetuate the lie, the public is slowly but surely rejecting that heritage in favor of actual history. If you continue to believe in the lie, then that is your burden.

    • Connie Chastain May 6, 2015 / 11:07 pm

      With all due respect, Mr. Aubrecht, you aren’t the universal authority for deciding what is “proper respect” and the “proper manner,” and if you don’t mind my asking, who gave you the authority to call out ANYbody for how they spend THEIR money? Do you imagine that writing civil war books gives you that kind of authority?

      If you don’t want your money going for big flags by the highway, fine. I’m pretty certain nobody in the VaFlaggers organization will call you out for how you spend, or don’t spend, your money.

      One other thing. I will remind you of what you said: “The heritage groups that insisted on spending their time and money on erecting inflammatory facsimiles of flags instead of preserving the actual flags of their ancestors.”

      “Inflammatory” is your subjective opinion. And historic flag preservation is not the only way to honor ancestors.

      • Jimmy Dick May 7, 2015 / 7:38 am

        Translation: ancestors means traitors who stabbed their country in the back in order to protect their right to own human beings. Ancestors means people who wore white sheets and shot unarmed men and women and children in a reign of terror in order to maintain white supremacy. Ancestors means those who thought preventing black men and women from voting was Constitutional.

        • OhioGuy May 27, 2015 / 9:25 pm

          Could not agree more, Jimmy, with your characterization of what heritage seems to mean to some of these folks (not all, but the most vocal ones) — traitors and white terrorists in sheets. Real southerners have move beyond this and take a warts and all view of history. Many are still proud of their individual ancestors and can separate that from the cause for which they fought. In this regard, they might like to look at this article from the now defunct North and South Magazine that is on my website, with permission of the publication: http://78ohio.org/fellow-southerners/

          However, Mr. Dick, please don’t denigrate all “old white heterosexual men.” Some of us are downright nice chaps!😉

          • Jimmy Dick May 28, 2015 / 7:41 am

            I can’t denigrate all of them. I’m falling into that category according to some people’s perceptions. Something I tell my students right off the bat: We are not responsible for the actions of our ancestors. All of us have had some really good ancestors and some really bad ones. That’s just the way it goes. I am far more interested in learning why they did what they did than in judging them.

            The people of the past lived in their time. They did things according to their wants, their desires, their interests, their beliefs. They were not us. They often did not know about other things that we do through hindsight. The heritage crew fails to understand that concept. For them, it is about presenting ancestors in the best possible light. In order to do that they have to distort history. I strenuously object to that.

            History must be presented as it was, not as we want it to be. If we do not teach history in a truthful manner, then why teach it at all? I refuse to teach a lie. I have no issue with people acknowledging the bravery of the confederate soldiers. It is pretty clear that men on both sides were brave. However, they have to acknowledge what caused the conflict, its role during the conflict, and how that would shape the events that followed the conflict.

            I am looking forward to seeing how people react to the 150th anniversary of Reconstruction events. I have a feeling this may be a bigger deal than the CW was because it involves rejecting the Dunning interpretation.

        • BorderRuffian May 29, 2015 / 5:49 am

          Ancestors means those who defended their homeland against an invading army- an army that burned towns and cities. An army that would destroy what it didn’t steal.

          • Jimmy Dick May 29, 2015 / 2:27 pm

            Oh you mean when the Union defeated the Confederate invasion of Maryland in 1862. Or do you mean the Confederate invasion of Maryland and Pennsylvania in 1863? You know, when the Confederates forced free men and women into slavery.

            I’m sure you don’t mean when the Union army went into seceding states and defeated traitors who were committing treason against the lawful government of the United States. A Union army acting in accordance with the Constitution of the United States of America which the traitors were violating.

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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s