99 thoughts on “Real Southerners and Confederate Pride

  1. James F. Epperson May 7, 2015 / 11:01 am

    George Thomas, Grimes Davis, John Buford, and many others were “real Southerners,” and while I am sure they respected their Confederate adversaries, I doubt they “took pride in the Confederacy.”

    • Jimmy Dick May 7, 2015 / 12:05 pm

      What was there to take pride in about the Confederacy? Its stated purpose was to preserve the institution of slavery. It equated the Constitution to a document protecting slavery. The men who established the Confederacy said the stated purpose of the United States was to protect slavery and when the US seemed to be changing from that position they thought they no longer had to be part of a nation that would not protect slavery.

      That is what gets me about any pride in the Confederacy. To have pride in the Confederacy is to have pride for slavery and treason.

      • BorderRuffian May 8, 2015 / 10:52 am

        “What was there to take pride in about the Confederacy? Its stated purpose was to preserve the institution of slavery. It equated the Constitution to a document protecting slavery. The men who established the Confederacy said the stated purpose of the United States was to protect slavery and when the US seemed to be changing from that position they thought they no longer had to be part of a nation that would not protect slavery.”

        How would secession preserve and protect slavery?

        What were the slavery issues mentioned in the various declarations of causes?

        *Fugitive Slave Law
        How would secession return a runaway slave from New York or Pennsylvania or any other northern state?

        *Slave Insurrection
        How would secession prevent insurrection with a border of over 1000 miles between US and CS?

        *Access to Territories
        How would the act of secession gain new territory with the US controlling that territory?

        • Jimmy Dick May 8, 2015 / 12:12 pm

          How would slavery expand if the CSA did not try to steal land in the US territories? It was not going to go to Cuba or to Mexico.

          You did not seriously say “What were the slavery issues mentioned in the various declarations of causes?” except as a jest I hope.

          The funny thing would be that had Davis not attacked Ft. Sumter and started the war, any slaves escaping to the North would have been in an odd position. Would they have been considered free or runaway property and returned to their owners in the South? Subjective question of course, but consider that some officers did return runaways even to the Confederacy until other officers began to keep the slaves away from the slave owners.

        • Christopher Shelley May 8, 2015 / 5:39 pm

          How would secession preserve and protect slavery?

          Nobody said they were smart. The fact that Southern slave-owners ensured the destruction of their beloved institution by seceding is the most profound irony of the war.

          • Brooks D. Simpson May 8, 2015 / 5:58 pm

            Indeed, many opponents of secession in the South made exactly that argument.

        • SF Walker May 9, 2015 / 4:23 am

          To paraphrase Bruce Catton, probably the greatest miscalculations the Confederate leaders made were in believing that secession would protect slavery and that slavery could be defended by force of arms. The institution by this time was too fragile for that. Slavery, despite the Constitution, existed through the tolerance of people who didn’t like it, and the war eventually destroyed that tolerance.

      • Joshism May 9, 2015 / 2:17 pm

        “What was there to take pride in about the Confederacy?”

        Confederates fought and died for what they believed in. There is at least a little something commendable about those willing to kill and die for their beliefs, even when those beliefs may be rather misguided (Confederates) or outright evil (Nazis, ISIS).

  2. Erik May 7, 2015 / 11:09 am

    How about those that stuck it out down south, despite being Unionists, and were willing to endure the hostile environment because they so loved it? How can’t they be considered real southerners?

    • Brooks D. Simpson May 7, 2015 / 12:44 pm

      You need to raise that question with Connie Chastain, not me. I consider Andrew Johnson a real southerner, and he hated the Confederacy.

        • Brooks D. Simpson May 7, 2015 / 10:50 pm

          Unable to answer the question? Were southern unionists real southerners? Is that too difficult for you to understand?

          • Connie Chastain May 7, 2015 / 11:10 pm

            I’m no authority on it. Mr. Erik can believe whatever he wishes.

          • Brooks D. Simpson May 7, 2015 / 11:46 pm

            In short, you are unable to answer a simple question. Thanks for the admission.

            Note: Chastain claims that asking her a simple question, coupled with her refusal to answer it, constitutes yet another example of Simpson’s Slimy “Debate” Tactics. As she puts it:

            But unable to answer a simple question? (1) Not unable. Unwilling, as I don’t see the point, and there’s no significance to it, anyway. Does he think I’m the authority on that? What I say, goes? If I say Unionists who “stuck it out” in the South weren’t real Southerners, is E— going to agree? Is Simpson? Of course not. So what was the point in asking?

            BTW, there was no point #2.

            In short, she’s too skeered to answer, and she’s dishonest in explaining why. Not that her avid readers will care. 🙂

            You can’t hate someone like this. You may pity them, and you may choose to laugh at them. But hate? Nah.

  3. Mark May 7, 2015 / 11:14 am

    I think you can take pride in something even though you consider it a mistake. But it is a more complicated explanation than the one where you take pride in it and think “they were right” in the main, or at least that the other side was the root cause for the mistake.

    • Brooks D. Simpson May 7, 2015 / 12:43 pm

      Note that one can take pride in Confederate soldiers, which is not the same thing as taking pride in the Confederacy. The question focuses on the latter. It also asks whether such a sentiment is mandatory. The wording’s clear.

  4. Mike May 7, 2015 / 11:18 am

    Thousands of southern Unionists during the war didn’t support the Confederacy and most African American southerners likely didn’t willfully support the Confederate effort (not trying to reopen the Stauffer debate here). Isn’t the question implicitly defining southerner as white?

    • Brooks D. Simpson May 7, 2015 / 12:39 pm

      Anyone who has read this blog knows that I don’t restrict the definition of southerner by ethnicity or race. Anyone who has read this blog the past week knows that. As to what others read into that term, that’s their issue. It’s time for southerners to speak up unless they want the Virginia Flaggers and Connie Chastain to define who is and is not a southerner.

      • Mike May 7, 2015 / 1:33 pm

        Brooks, I meant to suggest that the question itself implies a white racial perspective to the average American, and likely most white southerners. I did a poor job of wording my response as I did not intend to suggest that you have that perspective, although I can easily see that it could be taken that way. I’ve met you several times and know your work, well. So, I in no way thought that you had that perspective. In fact, I immediately saw your intentions with the question, and hence my first sentence, but my attempt to get at the rub of your question did not succeed. I’m not a southerner, but I live in the South, so I don’t carry much weight with the flagger types.

        • Brooks D. Simpson May 7, 2015 / 3:17 pm

          It’s also an interesting question whether a white person can be a real southerner without embracing the Confederacy. I think the answer is obvious (yes), but others will offer a different response.

      • Connie Chastain May 7, 2015 / 10:38 pm

        “I think that anyone who fought for the Confederacy — red or yellow, black or white — whether as duly signed-up soldiers or not, should be honored and their service acknowledged. So they weren’t on some official muster roll and they weren’t handed a uniform and soldierly accouterments. So? What interests me is… did they pick up a gun and shoot at yankees? Then they need to be commemorated.” Connie Chastain, Backsass, June 8, 2011

        (I would add that I believe anybody who assisted with the Confederate war effort — slaves who foraged, dug trenches, took care of horses, mules, wagons, etc., women made bandages, nursed the sick and wounded, volunteered to write letters for injured soldiers, read to them — in short, anybody who helped in any way — should be acknowledged and commemorated. [5/8/15])

        More from Backsass:

        “First, of course, the questioner botches the term ‘Southerner.’ Let’s be honest: she means white Southerners of northwest European descent.” [Brooks Simpson]

        “Well, no… Southern blacks apparently enjoy living in the South, enjoy their Southern friends and neighbors, indeed love Southern food — much of it is even called “soul food” which is “a variety of cuisine popular in African-American culture,” per Wikipedia — love Southern music and entertainment, and are largely protestant Christians; and, in fact, black churches are important cultural centers for Southern blacks. Other groups down here apparently feel the same, so it is Simpson who is injecting his racial prejudices into the subject, not I. … But let’s be honest — when putting down Southerners and the South (for example, in threads following South-bashing articles in the media) white Southerners of northwest European descent are who the multiculturals are bashing. No cultural elitist is gonna bash a Southern black for loving barbecue.” Connie Chastain, Backsass, January 8, 2014


        Obviously, I do not restrict my concept of Southerner to white Southerners of northwest European descent. Why Simpson says I do is anybody’s guess….

        • Brooks D. Simpson May 7, 2015 / 10:48 pm

          Then you would have to admit that one can be a real southerner without worshipping at the altar of Confederate pride. That, in turn, would contradict your earlier claim on the matter. So make up your mind.

          • Connie Chastain May 7, 2015 / 11:38 pm

            What earlier claim are you referring to? And where? Not on Backsass. The term “real Southerner” does not appear there anywhere, back to the beginning of the blog, (at least, not written by me; perhaps by a commenter).

            The term “Confederate pride” does not appear there, either. (“Southern pride” does appear there in several posts.)

            I haven’t “admitted” that one CANNOT be a real southerner without worshipping at the alter of Confederate pride. I haven’t said anything like this.

            I did say that the civil war and the Confederacy are indelible factors in the history, the culture and very substance of the South, including Southern pride — but that doesn’t come close to what you’re claiming here.

            None of my recent comments on your blog includes the term “real Southerners” or “Confederate pride.” (“Real Southerners” appears 18 times, as of this writing, in this post and comment thead — but I haven’t written any of them.)

            So what earlier claim of mine are you referring to, and were can I find it? A link would be nice.

          • Brooks D. Simpson May 7, 2015 / 11:45 pm

            I won’t link to your blog. I have standards.

            But on May 4, 2015, you proclaimed: “Anybody who thinks the civil war and the Confederacy are not indelible factors in the history, the culture and very substance of the South — including Southern pride — is a compleat idiot.”

            Before that, you proclaimed: “A huge component of Southern pride is Confederate heritage.”

            You also declared: “The last thing leftists want to see is the reappearance and rise of Southern pride — of Southerners proudly honoring their Confederate ancestors and the legacy they left us.” Are we to believe that “Southerners proudly honoring their Confederate ancestors” is not taking pride in the Confederacy?

            In short, there you go again, claiming that you don’t mean what you say.

            No one said you used the term “real southerner” or “Confederate pride,” although it amuses me that perhaps now you want to disavow Confederate pride. But then you tell people they say things they’ve never said. We’ve already covered that when it comes to your raising the issue of fraud and Flagger finances. You now implicitly admit that you can’t disprove the charge. Fair enough.

            Also, it’s altar, not alter.

            But it is interesting that under pressure you are now willing to admit that one can be a southerner without having pride in the Confederacy. That’s progress. We’ll leave it at that. Hope you voted in the poll to express that opinion.

            Take care. You may now return to your blog.

          • Connie Chastain May 8, 2015 / 12:40 am

            Okay, I’ll explain it. Southern Pride is both regional and individual. “…history, the culture and very substance of the South…” suggests the pride of the region.“A huge component of Southern pride is Confederate heritage.” That’s regional and you see it in everything from historical markers to the return of Pensacola’s Five Flags to the Civic Center.

            You also noted my statement that, “The last thing leftists want to see is the reappearance and rise of Southern pride — of Southerners proudly honoring their Confederate ancestors and the legacy they left us.” And you asked, “Are we to believe that ‘Southerners proudly honoring their Confederate ancestors’ is not taking pride in the Confederacy?

            I specifically included “…of Southerners proudly honoring…” to show that this was about the Southern pride of individuals. And, yes, it is quite possible to be proud of Confederate ancestors without taking pride in the Confederacy. Some commenters on XRoads have acknowledged this. Sandi Saunders is one. Leo is another, and Mr. Clark B. Hall.

            Quote: “But it is interesting that under pressure you are now willing to admit that one can be a southerner without having pride in the Confederacy.” Pressure? There’s pressure somewhere? NOW willing to admit? I’ve never claimed otherwise.

            (And I didn’t raise the “issue of fraud and Flagger finances” — I refuted your implication of it. And I’m certain you won’t post my proof of it on the other thread).

          • Brooks D. Simpson May 8, 2015 / 11:14 am

            You’re wrong a lot, and you keep forgetting what you’ve said or claim that you don’t mean what you say. No wonder you don’t write for a living.

            But we appreciate the admission that one can be a southerner–a real southerner–while rejecting the Confederacy. That doesn’t mean not recognizing its importance in southern (and American) history; nor does it mean that in rejecting what the Confederacy was all about that one must forego recognizing and honoring one’s Confederate ancestors. That’s a different discussion question.

            Just make sure you remember what you’ve said here when you change your mind again.

    • Connie Chastain May 7, 2015 / 10:04 pm

      Mike, one of my gg grandfathers was a galvanized yankee. I am extremely proud of everything about him except his union army service, and his pride in it. It is said he wore his uniform to town on court days after the war, and he had his rank and unit put on his grave marker. (I’ve seen and photographed it: “A.J. H—, 1st Lieut. 12th Tenn Calvary” My father said he probably took the oath, etc., to keep from being starved, but that doesn’t explain his conduct after the war. When I was a teenager, I joked that he was a greater embarrassment to the family than the unwed mothers….

      • Bob Huddleston May 8, 2015 / 5:29 pm

        No, Connie, he was not a “galvanized Yankee.” The12th Tennessee Cavalry was a unit of the United States Army, composed of Tennesseans who remained loyal to the Constitution and fought to defeat the Rebels. And you are not glad that your relative fought for his country?

        • Brooks D. Simpson May 8, 2015 / 5:34 pm

          Connie hates it when we here reveal issues about her family’s past … including the news that we’re kin. You should treat her exchanges with me as part of a rowdy family reunion.

          Any thoughts as to whether there’s a real spelling error on the tombstone?

          • Bob Huddleston May 9, 2015 / 8:43 am

            I figured it was a typo. BTW, her ever-so-great did not have to take the Oath since he was not a rebel. Of course he was proud of his service and wore his uniform and had his grave marked as a Veteran — a United States Army Veteran.

            Roughly a quarter of the boys from Tennessee who served in the Civil War were in blue uniforms and there were large areas of the state where the CSA was not welcome.

  5. bob carey May 7, 2015 / 12:21 pm

    I concur and i would add Frederick Douglass.

  6. Rob Baker May 7, 2015 / 12:27 pm

    Should we pose the question, “What constitutes a Southerner?”

        • Brooks D. Simpson May 7, 2015 / 12:41 pm

          We can talk about what makes for a “real southerner” and who gets to define those terms another time. All I want to know is whether a real southerner must take pride in the Confederacy to be considered a real southerner.

          • Mike May 7, 2015 / 1:34 pm

            From my educated, northerner perspective, no.

  7. bob carey May 7, 2015 / 1:40 pm

    What About Lincoln? A southerner by birth. I doubt he was proud of the Confederacy, but the southern state of Kentucky took pride in him when they erected the monument at Gettysburg National. Although Kentucky did.nt join the Confederacy until after the war to Quote Mr. Gallagher

    • Joshism May 7, 2015 / 4:45 pm

      Given that Lincoln moved out of the South and never returned I would not consider him a “real Southerner”.

    • Christopher Shelley May 9, 2015 / 12:21 am

      Lincoln was a Union man, through and through. That was his whole point, wasn’t it?

  8. Clark B. Hall May 7, 2015 / 1:45 pm

    This is a complicated question, and one that over the years has caused me no small amount of angst. My great-grandfathers on both sides fought honorably in a bad cause. Everybody with whom they fought–their mates–all died for nothing, but the Federals they killed perished for an extraordinarily noble cause. My blood survived, came home and led gentle, productive lives as Mississippi farmers.

    I served in Vietnam in a line combat unit and after about the first day there, I knew, profoundly, the war was absurd. But because I led good men, I kept my mouth shut, came home, and then formed an active Vietnam Veterans Against the War Chapter at my school–with the remote assistance of a fellow named John Kerry. And I would state at public protests against the war that every American who died in Vietnam died for nothing, and when I would offer this fact, I would often be shouted down! Fewer people today, however, argue with this disastrous reality.

    But were my great-grandfathers proud of the men with whom they served? No question. Were they proud of the Confederacy. I can’t ask them, but I suspect that like I did, they inexorably believed their cause was nothing in which to take pride. Nor was fighting in Vietnam a cause with which I look back on with any pride, whatsoever.

    But here is the rub .. There are no prouder former Marines that I know today than the survivors with whom I served. And count me high up in that number. Proud Marines, all..
    Bad wars. Good warriors.

    No, I’m not proud of the Confederacy. But I am proud of my great-grandfathers. And you might respond, accurately that they, after all, served in a cause which advanced the interests of slavery. But, that’s not why my ancestors chose to fight.. But once they were in, there they were.. And I did’t fight to keep commies off Laguna Beach. But I volunteered to fight, and there I was…

    It’s complicated..

    • Leo May 7, 2015 / 6:19 pm

      I agree with you 100%!

      I’m proud of my great-great-grandfather but I’m not proud of the Confederacy.

      By the way, thank you for your service.

  9. John Foskett May 7, 2015 / 2:40 pm

    i’ve never understood why one must ID with the CSA in order to be a “real southerner” – any more than one must ID with Cotton Mather/the Bay Colony the Witch Trials in order to be a “real New Englander” or with Huey Long in order to be a “real Louisianan”, etc., etc. It’s a fiction clung to by mindless imaginations. The Confederacy was a 4-year failure at rebellion which was cooked 150 years ago. The South of 2015 bears no resemblance of any kind to the South of 1860.

    • terry6400 May 7, 2015 / 9:10 pm

      “The South of 2015 bears no resemblance of any kind to the South of 1860” Neither does the north you idiot. How’s that Baltimore and Detroit working out for you? LOL.

      • Brooks D. Simpson May 7, 2015 / 10:03 pm

        Baltimore was considered a southern city in 1860.

        Given that, I’d hope that you would think twice before calling someone else an idiot.

        • Connie Chastain May 7, 2015 / 10:40 pm

          Why? You call people worse for simply having a different view of history than you do.

          • Brooks D. Simpson May 7, 2015 / 10:46 pm

            There you go again, presuming my motives. Why you need to do that is an interesting question. Perhaps you can answer it.

          • Connie Chastain May 7, 2015 / 10:59 pm

            I didn’t presume anything. It’s a logical conclusion based on your words and the context.

          • Brooks D. Simpson May 7, 2015 / 11:48 pm

            You will believe what you believe. Whether it’s the truth is another matter entirely. I’m just asking you to be consistent. You find that extremely difficult, especially when others hold you to the same standards you offer about others.

            Your desire to presume on my motives offers me equal right to treat you in the same way. So stop whining.

            I’ve enjoyed the exchange. Take care. You can continue your discussion on your own blog.

      • John Foskett May 8, 2015 / 8:42 am

        If you’re going to label other folks with the term “idiot”, evaluate your own response before you post something which turns the label into a boomerang.

  10. jclark82 May 7, 2015 / 3:24 pm

    Absolutely not, I’m a Kentuckian and some people consider my state in the south. I myself don’t consider myself Southern, I consider myself American.

    That said, my ancestry, along with the vast majority of this state cast its lot with the U.S. in that war. They certainly considered themselves southerners.

    The Confederacy and the south aren’t mutually exclusive. You can be one without being the other, see John Buford and John Pemberton.

    Jerry Sudduth Jr.

  11. Joshism May 7, 2015 / 5:03 pm

    I think it is a thorny question what constitutes a “real Southerner”. (Is it anything like a “true Scotsman”?)

    Can those of us who are not Southerners define the term on our own? I live in South Florida which is more Northern than Southern. I don’t consider myself a Southerner even though I have never lived north of West Virginia (in a town that had one of the earliest CSA monuments) and both sides of my family are all VA, WV, or KY residents going back to the 1700s.

    What I think of when I hear “real Southerner” is essentially a Southern stereotype: ancestors have always lived in the South since they came to America, country music, pickup trucks, patriotism, white, conservative Protest Christians, loyalty to kin/family, desire for the simple life.

    I suspect some people who consider themselves “real Southerners” would find fault with my idea of a “real Southerner” before the Rebel flag is even brought into the debate.

  12. eshonk May 7, 2015 / 6:00 pm

    The Confederate States of America was established by Southerners who chose to exercise their God-given right to self-determination i.e. “consent of the governed,” by seceding from the malfunctioning Union. Their Revolutionary ancestors fought for this right to self-govern, and this belief in self-government is the founding principle of the United States and the Confederate States. Yes, slavery was sanctioned and protected by both countries’ constitutions, with the Confederate Constitution actually spelling-out this fact, when the U.S. Constitution refers to slavery in more ‘guarded’ terms. But the meaning is the same…slavery was acceptable in both the North and the South. The morality of slavery was still being determined in the 1860’s, and many Americans in the North and in the South didn’t object to slavery. Those who claim that the North went to war with the South over slavery don’t know their history…the issue of slavery was not the cause of the war, and was not the reason A.Lincoln chose war over peace. When A. Lincoln chose war, he was for all intents and purposes destroying the original ‘union by choice,’ and putting an end to the glorious experiment in self-government via choice, that the Revolutionary Generation had established with great sacrifice. With the failure of the Confederacy to win its independence from the United States, and the forcing of the Southern States back into the Union, the United States joined all former and contemporary ’empires’ by being another ’empire’ established by force…instead of by choice. Thus, Southerners who honor their Confederate Heritage are doing so out of a dedication and respect to the founding principle of both the United States and the Confederate States…”consent of the governed.” There’s nothing shameful in that…in fact all Americans should honor and respect our founding principle.

    • bob carey May 8, 2015 / 5:24 am

      The union did not malfunction, Lincoln was elected under a system set up in the constitution by the founding fathers. The war was started by the slave holding aristocracy of the deep south, many of whom wanted to extend their “empire” south into Mexico and Latin America. Lincoln was elected on a platform which was opposed to extending slavery into the territories. He did not have the power to interfere with slavery where it existed and he stated this. Therefore the North responded to the firing on Sumner in order to preserve the Union, not to abolish slavery. The Confederacy . by firing on Sumner, gave the president powers he would not have had in peacetime , therefore hastening their own demise and the demise of slavery. When you use the term “consent of the governed” are the slaves included in the governed and did they give their consent to be slaves. Finally if slavery was not the cause of the war what was?

      • Joshism May 8, 2015 / 7:07 pm

        “When you use the term ‘consent of the governed’ are the slaves included in the governed and did they give their consent to be slaves.”

        Since the slaves were not legally people then their consent is irrelevant, at least legally speaking (obviously morally is another issue).

    • Jimmy Dick May 8, 2015 / 7:45 am

      When did Lincoln choose war? I seem to be missing that part of the history. Can you provide me with the facts of that?

      While we are at it, how was the United States malfunctioning? Be specific. Cite sources. Show me.

    • Joshism May 8, 2015 / 7:11 pm

      “Those who claim that the North went to war with the South over slavery don’t know their history”

      That statement is correct. The South SECEDED because they felt their precious system of slavery was threatened. The North WENT TO WAR with the South because the South fired on a Federal fort, thereby committing an act of armed aggression against the United States government and military. Furthermore, the South committed said act in an effort to unilaterally leave the United States because they disagreed with the outcome of a fairly conducted President election.

      • Jimmy Dick May 8, 2015 / 8:54 pm

        With the said election dealing with the issue of slavery. Since the outcome was not favorable to the slave holders, they chose to force the issue of secession in order to construct a new national government in a nation built on a foundation of slavery.

  13. terry6400 May 7, 2015 / 8:58 pm

    Can you be a real southerner without taking pride in the Confederacy? This is a hilarious question coming from the likes of Simpson. You don’t want to know anything from real southerners. This is a closed moderated board. You only post from rabid Yankees who hate the South. I doubt you even post this comment. One sided boards offer NOTHING of substance. You don’t even understand the concept of freedom of speech, which closed boards deny ad nauseam.

    What you fishing for Simple-ton? Are you that bored? Your depravations and desire to destroy Confederate history may be working you out of a way to comment on the War for Southern Independence. Keep this in mind idiot, when ALL Confederate history has been erased from the planet you won’t have anything to write about. You will be OUT of a job. HA. HA. This is my opinion. This message will self destruct in five minutes.

    • Brooks D. Simpson May 7, 2015 / 10:24 pm

      Well, “Terry,” you were wrong. But then you seem rather confused. Let’s help you out.

      First, this is a blog, not a board. Like Ms. Chastain’s blog, it is moderated, and the charges you raise can be raised against Ms. Chastain’s blog, the blogs of various Confederate heritage groups, and so on. As you show no displeasure with that fact, we must conclude that you are a hypocrite.

      We must also conclude that you lack a basic comprehension of the US Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights. It appears you have not even read that document. Perhaps you would not understand it in any case. Moderated blogs do not compromise your freedom of speech. For example, you can start your own blog. Good luck with that.

      If “one-sided boards offer nothing of substance,” then you are agreeing that Ms. Chastain’s blog offers nothing of substance. Many other people will agree with you. Don’t let that go to your head.

      I would ask you how I am destroying Confederate history (whatever that is) all by myself on this closed one-sided board you claim I operate, but I know it would be a waste of time to engage someone of your intellect. However, we must admit that if I can destroy Confederate history all by myself, it must not be very resilient in the first place. Otherwise, I would have to possess superpowers that would be the envy of other bloggers. Should your prediction of the destruction of Confederate history be realized, I suspect that I’ll have other things to write about, because I do write about other things (and do other things). The real question is … what will happen to you? And why should we care?

      And, of course, you failed to answer the question.

      Unfortunately, I don’t reward intellectual incoherence on this blog by continuing to share it. That would be cruel. However, you may find a welcome home on Ms. Chastain’s blog, where you will fit right in with her other commenters. Enjoy!

      • Connie Chastain May 7, 2015 / 10:56 pm

        My “board” blog isn’t one-sided. It’s not my fault most opponents are too skeered to visit Backsass. Al Mackey and Pat Young have had rather lengthy visits (and were treated civilly), but they are rare exceptions.

        • Brooks D. Simpson May 7, 2015 / 11:50 pm

          Whatever you say. You can take this up with “Terry.” Some of us don’t want to waste the time posting on your blog, and you’re kind enough to come over here and suggest why that is. I observe that it is because of the way you struggle to argue here that it’s a waste of time to come to your blog to argue with you. Why give you that attention or satisfaction? You just want the hits. Should you feel the need to object to anything I say, you’re free to submit a comment here.

          Given your failure to answer several direct questions, it’s time to let you return to your own blog, where you can rant to your heart’s content. Take care.

          • Connie Chastain May 8, 2015 / 12:20 am

            As soon as you prove to me that the answers are any of your business, maybe I’ll take a shot at it.

            I guess the sting of truth in my comments is getting too uncomfortable, huh….

          • Brooks D. Simpson May 8, 2015 / 7:44 am

            You may guess all you want. Others will see you as too skeered to respond. Given that, continuing these discussions is a waste of my time.

            Take care. You can make your case on your own blog to your own supporters.

            (Trust me, folks, she will.)

        • jclark82 May 8, 2015 / 3:40 am


          I would be considered an opponent of your perception of history and I do not visit your blog. Not because I’m “skeered” but because I don’t want to waste my time, it’s far too valuable for what you’re trying to peddle.

          If I want to waste my time I’ll watch my beloved Reds or my even more loved IndyCar Series. There’s actual substance in those activities.

          -From a proud descendent of Kentucky Unionists.

          • Jimmy Dick May 8, 2015 / 7:42 am

            The concept of history is not on her blog, just the mythology of a fictional south.

    • Leo May 8, 2015 / 9:34 am

      Who is a Real Southerner?

      I’m a native Mississippian and am a direct descendant of a Confederate soldier who fought in the American Civil War, so I’m sure that is worth a few points by your narrow metric. However, I am not Confederate nor do I support the cause of the Confederacy (disunion/slavery). Am I disqualified now?

      Since I consider myself an American citizen and salute the Stars & Stripes (the one with 50 stars and 13 stripes), I can only guess I am no longer a true Southerner in your world, but that’s just fine with me.

      Have a nice day and God Bless America!

      • Brooks D. Simpson May 8, 2015 / 10:48 am

        See, I’d say you are a “real southerner.” That does not preclude you from being a real American. But others may disagree with one or both of those statements.

        • Leo May 8, 2015 / 12:25 pm

          I suppose I should mention my comment was in response to Terry. It seems it went in the wrong place. In any event, I concur with your assessment.

          God bless America anyway!

          • Brooks D. Simpson May 8, 2015 / 5:35 pm

            Ah, the perils of comment threading. 🙂 I keep fooling with the ideal balance of form and readability.

    • msb May 11, 2015 / 12:18 am

      “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.”

  14. Charles Persinger May 8, 2015 / 10:32 am

    I wish Connie and Terry would spend as much time actually studying the Confederacy and the American Civil War as they do complaining about being victims of some so called war on “Southerners” and “Confederate history.”

    • SF Walker May 9, 2015 / 4:51 am

      I agree. The thing is, the Confederate heritage crowd is largely responsible for any negative attention Confederate history does get, because their tactic is to take their flawed, one-sided version of events and stick it in everyone’s faces. The Georgia SCV’s videos intended for the History Channel are one example of this. How can these people expect to be taken seriously when they claim that Southerners were true Christians and Northerners weren’t?

  15. Bob Huddleston May 9, 2015 / 11:04 am

    Robert Smalls was a Real Southerner. We know what he thought of the Confederacy.

  16. chancery May 9, 2015 / 6:17 pm

    “Ah, the perils of comment threading. 🙂 I keep fooling with the ideal balance of form and readability.”

    Whatever might have happened to form, the readability of this long thread has been excellent, even on an iPhone.

    As someone who has complained to you about unreadably narrow threads, I thank you. I’m sure that it’s more work than we realize.

  17. Charles Persinger May 20, 2015 / 6:39 am

    I recently read an article in the NY Times Disunion Blog by DON DOYLE, “How the Civil War Changed the World.” It was about how Monarchs, Aristocrats, and Authoritarians were cheering on the disunion of the republic and also how the survival of the union spread republican style governments across the globe. I’m just wondering if these neo-confederate types understand that a southern confederacy would have set back freedom for years, not only in the U.S. but throughout the world……

    • Connie Chastain May 21, 2015 / 7:31 am

      Why? Was the north so puny without the South that it couldn’t have had that global influence all by itself?

      • Jimmy Dick May 21, 2015 / 9:48 am

        The northern states didn’t need the southern ones for their economic capabilities. By itself the northern states had a greater economy because it industrialized and was beginning to make inroads in the global world. Without the southern states the impact would have been reduced, but not that much. The southern states would have found themselves economically crippled as their entire economy was based on agricultural products. A bad harvest, low market prices, or a constriction to their credit would have devastated their weak economical system.

        As a result, had the confederacy survived it would have found itself a weak nation with little impact on the global economy. It would have been dependent on other nations who bought its crops, one of which would have been the US. It would not have been able to expand except through war and that would have been a huge mistake. It couldn’t sustain a war of survival let alone a war of conquest.

        • BorderRuffian May 22, 2015 / 5:43 am

          “The northern states didn’t need the southern ones for their economic capabilities. By itself the northern states had a greater economy because it industrialized and was beginning to make inroads in the global world.”

          How many business failures did the North experience during 1861?

          • Jimmy Dick May 22, 2015 / 7:24 am

            I have no idea. How many new businesses arose in 1861? Look at the industrial boom the CW produced in the northern states. That was industrial output not based upon agricultural products. Also, note that during the conflict the northern states did not need the southern state’s raw materials. Yet during that same conflict the southern states could not meet their needs and had to seek finished goods from overseas.

            The northern states had the greater economy in terms of capacity, output, and diversity. The southern states did not. The really only product the southern states had in terms of international export was cotton. They would have remained dependent on that export’s market price fluctuation. Any drop would have devastated their economy. They needed a bigger labor source to build an industrial base and that was not going to happen because they made it so that foreign labor would not have ever become citizens of the CSA.

            Sorry, BR, but the southern states screwed themselves in many ways.

          • Al Mackey May 22, 2015 / 5:03 pm

            The ones with employees in the army?

        • Connie Chastain May 22, 2015 / 9:14 am

          Well, I wasn’t addressing economic capabilities because Mr. Persinger didn’t. His comment was about spreading republican style government and freedom across the globe. He implies that the north as a nation on its own, without the South, wouldn’t have been able to do that. He implied that an independent South would have reduced freedom on a global scale. (This image of the South as a powerhouse of influence over governments — especially those of monarchs, aristocrats, and authoritarians — on a global scale is not one I’ve encountered before). Or maybe I should say he implies that Mr. Doyle claims that. Perhaps I should read Mr. Doyle’s piece, since Mr. Persinger’s comment is encapsulating that article.

          • Jimmy Dick May 23, 2015 / 6:42 am

            The constitution of the CSA restricted the concepts of liberty and freedom. It institutionalized slavery and enshrined it as a major part of the CSA’s identity. The concept of republicanism was rejected by the CSA because that involves representation. If people cannot participate in the democratic process can they be represented? That was the fundamental question of the American Revolution.

            The very basic concept at the heart of the American Revolution was about representation. Without representation, people are unequal. The people of the Revolution recognized that because they were not represented in Parliament, they were unequal to the British. They set about making changes in government and the Constitution was born of that concept.

            Thus, when we see the elites in the CSA saying they were continuing the Revolution, we look to the issues of representation and equality. Those concepts were not present in the CSA’s statements. In fact, the CSA went to lengths to reject equality and we are only speaking about white males here. What the CSA was doing was rejecting the Revolution and its principles in favor of elite rule over the people. It rejected republicanism and democracy.

            The American Civil War had a lot of things going on. One was a war over the principals of the American Revolution. The earlier posts that claim the CSA would not spread republicanism across the globe are correct. Of course, it was not going to spread anything across the globe in the first place, but had it succeeded in gaining its independence, it would have been a blow to republicanism and democracy on a global scale.

            Lincoln had it right in some of his speeches. He and others saw this struggle in far greater terms than most people did. It was indeed a struggle over the principles of the Revolution. Thank God the Union prevailed because in doing so it allowed those principles to continue to grow.

      • Joshism May 21, 2015 / 8:25 pm

        The North and South are stronger and have more global reach as a single country than they would have as separate countries.

        Furthermore, a successful Southern secession might have been followed by a Western secession which further weakened the country via subdivision. Even if this wasn’t the case, the South would have set an important precedent: if your state/region doesn’t like the outcome of a fairly and legally conducted presidential election then secession is a justified result. No Union is perpetual. Subsequent elections, both North/USA and South/CSA, could trigger further secessions. Republican-style government is shown to be a farce to be dissolved when no longer convenient. How is the USA to export an ideal that miserable failed them within a century of being implemented? Especially after it had turned into a bloody farce even faster in France.

        • Connie Chastain May 22, 2015 / 9:50 am

          Well, the founders understood this country and its government were an experiment — a rather fragile one, perhaps (“A republic, if you can keep it”). What you describe would be one way of showing it to be a flawed experiment, prone to failure. That didn’t happen, but the founders’ experiment has certainly failed in other ways. Today, it is not what they intended and established. Not even close.

          • Jimmy Dick May 23, 2015 / 6:47 am

            That would be in your opinion. How has it failed? I hear the whine, but not the details. Please explain how equality does not exist in the US. Please explain how individual freedom takes precedence over the general welfare of the people as defined by the people themselves. Please explain how the right of every citizen of the US to vote when they are over the age of 18 is a threat to democracy.

            The truth is your twisted version of the past has been rejected and you just don’t like it. Don’t bother to whine unless you can provide details and facts. Just stick to your whiny blog and complain.

          • Joshism May 23, 2015 / 9:40 am

            “That didn’t happen, but the founders’ experiment has certainly failed in other ways. Today, it is not what they intended and established. Not even close.”

            “Our Founding Fathers intended…” is a false argument in almost every way you can complete the sentence. About the best you can say is they all came to eventually want a nation independent from Britain.

            How do you define our Founding Fathers? Those that signed the Declaration of Independence? Those that signed the Articles of Confederation? Those that signed the Constitution? What about people like Patrick Henry who signed none of those?

            How about the fact that the Articles were replaced by the Constitution in less than a decade, or that some Founding Fathers voted against the Constitution or refused to sign it? What about the Founding Fathers’ disagreement over whether a Bill of Rights was even necessary? Or their split into Federalist and Anti-Federalist/Republican parties while most of the Founding Fathers were still alive? I think everyone would agree Thomas Jefferson and John Adams were Founding Fathers, but they disagreed on a great many major political issues of their day.

            Not to mention their human inability to forsee the future, from machine guns to socialism to the internet to vaccines.

          • Connie Chastain May 31, 2015 / 10:19 pm

            Mr Dick, the country has failed in so many ways I can’t list them all, but let’s start with the 18 trillion dollar national debt. http://www.usdebtclock.org/ That by itself is something the country can’t survive … but there is so much else wrong…for example, the gargantuan federal bureaucracy (if anything would cause the Founders heart attacks, it’s this) — it’s the antithesis of a government answerable to the people. (Google “Ocie Mills” and see what unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats did to him and his son.)

            As for the vote, yes, everyone over 18 can vote, but elections are going-through-the-motions make-believe and play-acting, at least, at the federal level, since the the two parties are different only in rhetoric (little changes regardless of which one has power). The left’s Gramscian march through the institutions has turned the USA into a puppet of leftist Democrat puppetmasters. Republicans bleat opposition, but they DO very little opposition.

            The U.S. is an empire, with military personnel in almost 150 countries around the world (per the DoD via CNN). It is a bully nation, swaggering around the world trying to force “democracy” on countries that may or may not want it, and may or may not be able to make it work. Case in point: remember the photos of the Iraqi women with the inked fingers, showing they voted? Well, just look at Iraq’s “democracy” today….

            BTW, Mr. Dick, what you say about the civil war, Confederates, heritage, etc., is your opinion, and that’s all.

          • Jimmy Dick June 2, 2015 / 8:15 am

            More of your opinion.
            As for the Confederate stuff, I use facts. You reject them. Your problem. I made sure to point out your ignorance to my class yesterday when I mentioned people who reject what the people of 1860/61 wrote down about why they chose secession.
            “Reality is not their strong suit.”
            The class had a nice laugh and we went on with learning history while leaving you in the dustbin.

          • BorderRuffian June 3, 2015 / 5:31 am

            Jimmy Dick-
            “The class had a nice laugh…”

            They better…

          • Jimmy Dick June 3, 2015 / 10:52 am

            They usually do when I discuss the idiocy of confederate heritage.

          • Connie Chastain June 3, 2015 / 7:49 pm

            “I made sure to point out your ignorance to my class yesterday when I mentioned people who reject what the people of 1860/61 wrote down about why they chose secession.”

            Mr. Dick, since this is written in reply to my comment,were do you imagine I have “rejected what the people of 1860/61 wrote down about why they chose secession”?

          • Jimmy Dick June 4, 2015 / 10:25 am

            Sorry Connie, I am not going to play your little game. You do this every time. If you want to say that slavery was the cause of the Civil War which it was, then say it. Don’t do the little dance you always do.

            Slavery was the cause of the secession that led to the Civil War. It is a simple statement. Do you agree with that statement or not?

          • Brooks D. Simpson June 4, 2015 / 1:20 pm

            Connie prefers to misrepresent the positions of others rather than to stake out her own positions. What little history she has offered is simply stripped from the Lost Cause playbook. That’s why she won’t engage in a straightforward discussion … it doesn’t fit her script.

  18. Andy Hall May 21, 2015 / 6:00 am

    I’m just wondering if these neo-confederate types understand that a southern confederacy would have set back freedom for years, not only in the U.S. but throughout the world……

    The groups that are publicly agitating for secession today, like the League of the South and the recently-defunct Southern Nationalist Network, hold ideas like universal adult citizen suffrage, personal freedom, and equal rights in contempt. They view “freedom,” as you and I might see it, as exactly the problem they think needs to be corrected and reversed.

    • Connie Chastain May 21, 2015 / 7:28 am

      I think that’s your perception of their ideas… or, perhaps more accurately, your interpretation of it.

  19. charlie May 21, 2015 / 10:06 am

    The point I was trying to make Connie is that in 1848; there were these republican revolutions against monarchies in France, Germany, Italy, and the Austrian Empire. They all failed! So people all over the world were looking at the U.S. because democracy was on the wane and monarchy and aristocracy were on the rise. So if the Union would have dissolved, it would be dismissed as an unstable and democracy around the globe would be set back for years. And of course, the 13, 14, and 15 amendments.

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 )

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s