So you want to know how to defend Confederate heritage? Well, apparently you start by using social media to denounce the people you deem to be its opponents.
Take South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley. Once she was celebrated for her defense of the Confederate flag. Confederate heritage advocates loved her. She was living proof that the South was not racist, and that it was a welcoming place. So said Confederate heritage advocates.
Then came the Charleston murders. The governor soon changed her mind about the Confederate flag. Let’s set aside discussions of her motivation for the moment, because, regardless of those motivations, she also faced consequences for taking the position she did.
Today the governor signed into law legislation that provides for the removal of the Confederate Battle Flag from the grounds of the South Carolina state house tomorrow. The flag will be placed in the Confederate Relic Room in the state house. The event was televised on CNN.
How did people react? Well, some folks weren’t too happy, given what they said on her Facebook page, according to this report. Nasty comments, claims she’s not a real southerner, implied threats (where have we seen this behavior before?) … not quite what we’d be led to expect from tales of genteel southerners born in the tradition of Robert E. Lee.
None of this behavior does any credit to Confederate heritage … although it unmasks the true nature of many of its defenders. I’m sure we’ll see this elsewhere … and soon.
Crossroads 
I guess we shouldn’t expect more from folks whose heritage is all hate.
Sadly that IS her heritage, but it has nothing to do with the South.
The new Miss Mississippi called our state flag a relic and social media went wild with hateful statements from the usual suspects. If fact, anyone who expresses a desire for a new flag is attacked by the heritage crowd. It’s like they don’t know how to have a civil discussion.
It’s kinda funny to me that a beauty queen is farther ahead of the curve on this than our governor. I’m sure Bryant is still in his bunker.
http://m.wapt.com/politics/miss-mississippi-speaks-out-on-state-flag-debate/34080194
“Nasty comments, claims she’s not a real southerner, implied threats (where have we seen this behavior before?) … not quite what we’d be led to expect from tales of genteel southerners born in the tradition of Robert E. Lee.”
I’d say these folks are more in the tradition of George Washington Gordon, Jubal Early and maybe even John Wilkes Booth. 😦 It would be nice if they were as smart as Nathan Bedford Forrest and had the same change of heart he had in his last days. Forrest is a good example of how people can change and learn from past mistakes and errors of judgement. I don’t think the leaders of the Confederate Heritage movement are capable of that. They seem in the main to be small-minded, mean-spirited people. That’s pitty because there is much to be proud of in southern history, if they’d only look in the right places.
these comments are okay, of course. not worth mentioning. only southern nastiness matters to you. http://therightscoop.com/ingrates-leftists-attack-nikki-haley-on-social-media-after-getting-what-they-want/
I’m surprised that you find these comments acceptable. I don’t.
Nice to see you’re still reading. So tell us, are there any meaningful differences between Dylann Roof, Michael Hill, and yourself when it comes to race? White supremacy? History?
Don’t be too skeered to answer.
You didn’t mention those comments, though, only Southern ones. It was a logical assumption that you had no problem with them, since you didn’t mention them.
I don’t know much about Roof’s views on race, white supremacy, history, just snippets in news reports. I didn’t read his “manifesto”. However, I believe murder is wrong, prohibited by Christian teaching, and incurs the gravest of consequences. Dr. Hill’s views have changed, and I’ve already stated what I think of those changes.
Nice try. You’re ducking again. Hill, Roof, and you agree on the basics when it comes to your “understanding” of history and race. You’re just too afraid to admit it and lose most of you handful of fiction readers.
I note Amazon’s striking out against relatives reviewing people’s work. Talk to your sister about that yet?
You asked, I answered. That’s not ducking. You just didn’t like the answer, so you’re changing the question, adding “understanding”. I can’t admit what ain’t true.
If Amazon wants to remove any of my reviews, that’s their prerogative.
Generally speaking, reviews of your work are written by other people, not by yourself. So calling them “my reviews” interests me … “reviews of my work” would have left no doubt … like the reviews offered by your own sister. Maybe you review her work as well. How cute.
Your answer constitutes ducking. That’s why you liked it. For someone claiming that her cat did her in for the weekend, you sure spend a lot of time pawing your keyboard.
Since you haven’t posted my earlier reply (skeered?), I’m replying again.
I answered your very transparent, accusatory question. That you don’t like the answer doesn’t mean I’m ducking.
You claim to know what three people you don’t know agree on. I don’t think you do. You only know what you want to believe about them.
I can’t admit to something that’s not true. I don’t care what my readers think of my proConfederate views, or my defense of my heritage. If I cared, I wouldn’t put them all over my blog, Facebook and Twitter.
At the time my sister reviewed my books (and I reviewed hers) we saw no prohibitions by Amazon. If they have such prohibitions now, and they want to remove the reviews, that’s their prerogative. When are you going to remove your reviews of my books that you said you had not read?
No one’s skeered of you. Not even your cat. Some of us laugh at you, and your own cat goes after you.
Once more … detail the differences between what Dylann Roof, Michael Hill, and you believe about Confederate history, race, and southern separatism. Given how you can go on and on about so much when you claim someone’s lying, your silence here is telling.
You share your views with others because you don’t care what they think? Then you need never say another word about me, because you say that you don’t care what I think. So, should you continue to reply, you care … and you’ve lied. Up to you.
Why would I ever read your claptrap? The samples you post in a desperate effort to boost sales tell me all I need to know about the level of your talent. We’re just waiting for all those promised books for which you’ve made covers. What’s wrong? Cat got your hand?
And, of course, there’s the “you don’t post what I say” business. Sigh. You’re really needy, aren’t you?
Cat didn’t go after me. You just lie about anything. It’s just second nature with you, iddidnit?
I can’t detail beliefs held by anyone else (as you apparently believe you can) because I don’t know them. However, certain of my beliefs are already well documented on my blog and Facebook.
Lying twice in one comment, are ya? I’m obviously not afraid to discuss my views of history and race out of concern of losing readers, otherwise I wouldn’t do so. If someone knows of my views and chooses not to read my books because of them, that’s them and theirs.
I think most people understand that in that sentence, “my reviews” refers to reviews of my books. Your eagerness to spin would be sickening if it wasn’t so obvious and didn’t make you look so pathetic and mean-spirited. Most people understand “my” can have different meanings. Most of the authors in my groups (same use of “my”) refer to reviews of their books written by others as “my reviews” and nobody jumps them about it — but then, they don’t get the orgiastic pleasure of denigrating and gotcha-ing people that you seem to get from it.
So you post fraudulent Amazon reviews of books you haven’t read. Why are you awaiting more of my books? So you can not read them and write more fraudulent Amazon reviews?
Needy is seen in your obsessive demonization of the Virginia Flaggers — over three years of it now — with absolutely no crumb of evidence, for the goulish entertainment of your creepy followers. I admit to being curious about why you hate the VaFlaggers so when they haven’t done a thing to you. But then, maybe I don’t want to look that deeply into your psyche….
In short, you can’t distinguish between what Roof, Hill, and you believe. Thanks for the admission. You seem a little skeered to make the attempt. We understand why.
We note in your language your continuing obsession with sex and violence. As for the rest, it’s typical Chastain ranting, and reminds us why you struggle with plot development, preferring to stick to the same old tired story. As for “obsessive demonization,” I think your hate blog provides us with an excellent example of the practice.
You are a very unhappy, bitter woman … understandable given the events of the past week. But we see your injury to your hand isn’t all that serious, and never was.
No admission except in your fevered imagination — or your diabolical lie-impulse. I’m not interested in trying to convince a liar and hater like you of anything, that’s all. Language of sex and violence? You know about that — did it in your “review” of a book I haven’t even written yet. Your blog = hate and attack. My blog = defend and counterattack. I’m displeased with some things, true enough — but I don’t exhibit the visceral hate and anger you hammer constantly in your blog. As for my hand, of course it’s not serious, or I’d be in the hospital. It’s impaired, it’s being treated, and I’m working around it. Golly, you just gotta hate, don’tcha?
So says the Confederate heritage hypocrite and hate blogger. You don’t care what I say, which is why you comment all the time and devote a hate blog towards me. I’m your favorite obsession. You would be lost without me. 🙂
Back to the heritage ward, Ward.
I hate racism as well and if a substantial sector of the population thinks the Confederate Flag is a symbol for hatred, then I would say take it down as well. Of course, it is the voters in South Carolina that should make that choice, not me. That is why I am voting for Bobby Jindal for President in 2016, he seems to have a great mind about history, and does not see any issue with the Confederate Flag. Personally, I love President Obama, and I hope when he leaves office we elect an even greater President like Bobby Jindal.
Mississippi State University issued another statement calling for a new state flag yesterday. As you can imagine, the attacks on social media were instant and profane. Most of the pro-flaggers reacting on social media against the statement have nothing to do with the university from what I can tell, but that does not stop them from calling for the president of the university to be removed or accusing the University of “pandering to liberals”. One poster actually said the university doesn’t have any business or right to inject itself in the issue. There are the usual comments and posts about “heritage” and “the war wasn’t about slavery” nonsense. This stuff is really quite tiresome, and I am personally embarrassed our governor is allowing this festering wound to become gangrene. Alabama’s governor showed great foresight by removing the flags there before things got bad, and I applaud Nikki Haley for allowing the South Carolina legislature to convene. I honestly don’t know what governor Bryant is doing other than to hide behind a non-binding resolution that is 14 years old. He honestly reminds me of the old segregationist politician stereotype.
I couldn’t help but notice those in the pro-flag group consistently attack and malign anyone who dare express a view counter to theirs. It’s as if the pro-flag bunch is incapable of a constructive dialogue based on the merits of the issue. They operate on pure, blind, emotion. I can appreciate the passion of both sides, but some of these people are just ridiculous.
Anyway, things are getting bad here in Mississippi. There is a strong group calling for change here including all eight universities, every major newspaper in the state, the Mississippi business community via the Mississippi Development Authority, several churches and religious organizations – including the super conservative American Family Association, the newly crowned Miss Mississippi, notable Mississippi celebrities like Morgan Freeman, and various other groups around the state. Some cities in the state have even taken it upon themselves to remove the state flag from city property.
Thing are bad and it is only going to get worse.
Leo: If the people of Mississippi believe the flag should stay then leave it alone. Do you believe in Democracy? You act like you want a riot simply because of a flag?
The politicians in Mississippi are hiding behind a non-binding resolution that is 14-years old. No laws were passed regarding our flag in 2001. This issue needs to be addressed by the legislature and needs the official stamp of state government on it one-way or the other. Another state referendum is the coward’s way out and will not solve this issue as evidenced by the current situation in the state. Our elected leaders need to man up and go on record.
If we could all get it in our heads that “Southern” and “Heritage” do not belong solely to white people, we could have some useful discussions.
So it was with Washington & Lee — I’m not aware of any of the prominent Flaggers leading that protest that had any connection to the university at all. The carped a lot about “The Committee,” but at least those students are actually part of the W&L community.
There’s a reason the Virginia Flaggers’ catch phrase is, “are you mad enough yet?”
The contentious and sometimes nasty discussions playing out right now are necessary and healthful, even if unpleasant in the short term.
“The contentious and sometimes nasty discussions playing out right now are necessary and healthful, even if unpleasant in the short term.”
This is an excellent point, Andy. It’s a national catharsis. It should have happened in 1866, but better late than never.
“… I like it — distinctively Mississippian — but there’s also a sweet irony in that it was the official state flag only between 1861 and 1865. ”
That’s the beauty of it for me. The Magnolia Flag has the history the “pro-flag” side says they want without the connection to hate groups the “new flag” side wants. It’s the middle path, but I do not know if our elected officials are smart enough to see the way out.
I am noticing the original Mississippi Magnolia Flag popping up around the state and especially around town. I do believe it is fast becoming the new banner for change and progress in the state. There are a lot of houses and business flying it in town and I have yet to see the current state flag flying from a private home or business in town. The only state flags I see are at state buildings and one outside city hall. I would post photos here if I knew how.
I like it — distinctively Mississippian — but there’s also a sweet irony in that it was the official state flag only between 1861 and 1865.
Is that the Bonnie Blue Flag in the canton? As I’ve said many times that’s a good symbol for the Confedeate Era that evokes more history than hate on both sides of Mason-Dixon Line.
Not bad. Though, I think that the present Mississippi state flag, with 13 stars in a circle rather than the cross would be a good choice. It harkens back to both the Betsy Ross flag and the first C.S. flag, that way, it would placate both neo-Confederates and everybody else. I hope.
very good Laqueesha, you are considerate.
The Confederate Flag is not about hate
Except when used as a symbol of hate. The rest of the time it is a symbol of treason.
Guess it depends on your definition of hate. To me slavery and later kKK usage is evidence of hate for your fellow human beings.
what about the Bonnie Blue Flag? It would be the best flag right?
Yes, IMHO.
Just about anything would be an improvement over our current situation.
The BBF ain’t perfect, but better than the one in use now.
The Confederate Flag is perfect, it epitomizes state rights perfectly.
If the Confederate Flag is removed then it will be replaced with another flag is all. Whites have been trying to incorporate blacks into real Southern history for a while now by showing that blacks actually fought for the Confederacy and that Northern whites, including Lincoln himself, were racist.
Ultimately, what is going to happen is that the South is going to become an even more Conservative voting block once the Confederate Flag is removed.
Think about it, once another flag is introduced in the South, like the Bonnie Blue, more and more blacks will simply join up with whites in how they vote. Most blacks are really conservative by nature, in terms of their Christian beliefs.
Martin Luther King was a great Republican, and I am thinking that blacks are going to come back to the Republican Party where they belong.
More funny jokes. I love the one about blacks fighting for the Confederacy. That didn’t happen so that’s pretty funny.
I think you are going to be very disappointed in the future. The majority of South Carolinians wanted the flag to be removed. I seriously doubt if the heritage folks will be able to influence the vote in South Carolina because they have failed consistently to do that in most places.
As for your belief in what black Americans are going to do, I think the stuff you smoked is legal in Colorado and Oregon. Your grasp on modern reality is about as good as your grasp on history. So far you’ve demonstrated your historical knowledge to be an abject failure.
Jimmy, it did happen, and you know it.
Also, it would be silly for any state to break away from America. How could a state that broke away actually defend itself from another nation? The Civil War was a mistake that never should have happened.
I am not a lawyer, but here is something i have heard said many times:
“Waging war “against them (the States)” is an act of treason, and as per the Constitution, a State can only be “protected” by the central government on the application of the legislature or the executive in the case of invasion. Lincoln violated both constitutional safeguards against coercion by the central government in 1861, of course only if the states remained in the Union, as he insisted they did. If not, war required a declaration from Congress, something Lincoln did not have, and by declaring war, Congress would have recognized the Confederate States as a legitimate government. Either way, Lincoln violated the Constitution, thus rendering the “bloody nose” argument against secession void.”
The source is below:
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/is-secession-legal/
This is not correct. There was no declaration of war because this was an insurrection. The official name of the war says it all: “The War of the Rebellion.” Southerners used to like the term “rebel,” which was accurate. They were rebelling against the legally constituted authority of the United States government. They knew that and felt they could win their freedom by the bullet. You can look all you want but there is no provision of the U.S. Constitution that provides an “opt out” clause. There are provisions for dividing states (as happened in the case of West Virginia, and was proposed in the 1960s for the State of Superior, which never happened), but there is no provision for leaving the Union. Are you saying that if the government of Vermont declared they were leaving the union today and bringing back the short-lived Republic of Vermont that Obama couldn’t send Federal troops to put down this rebellion? He is duty bound as was Lincoln to maintain the integrity of the nation. Read Eric Foner’s “Fiery Trial,” to see just how much of a strict-constructionist Lincoln was. He was very concerned about following letter and intent of the Constitution. The web site you link to is full of half-truths and nonsensical stuff. That site is not conservative in the classical sense, it’s reactionary.
Ohioguy, read what you wrote again. I posted it in brackets:
[This is not correct. There was no declaration of war because this was an insurrection.]
[The official name of the war says it all: “The War of the Rebellion.” ]
Now my turn: Not only was it a war it was a bloody war that lasted years and killed hundreds of thousands.
Like I said earlier, I hate the fact there was a Civil War, but the South probably could justify forming a Confederacy back then. Think about it this way, the smartest people and most American people lived in the South back then, for sure they would understand their Constitutional Rights better than you do today.
Most American people lived in the South in 1860? You learn something new every day.
Mr. Simpson:
Nope,by far, the biggest population was in the North, not the South.
Thanks for correcting yourself.
There really should never be a reason for the states to break away from the Union, because states have rights, it is called the 10th Amendment. The problem, is the central government does not like the 10th Amendment.
let me amend what i said about the central government: the problem is some people in the central government want more power and want the states to have less. Not all people on the federal level are like this.
The Tenth Amendment does not necessarily mean what some people think it means. The Supreme Court has rarely applied this amendment. What the Tenth Amendment people keep saying does not fit into the general interpretation of it. That is what the problem is. It goes back to the old state’s rights argument which of course is only the argument advanced by the party not in control of the federal government.
Jimmy,
You are wrong on this, just read the Constitution. it is so simple.
Billy,
I have read the Constitution and studied it in detail. What you state is rejected by constitutional scholars and the Supreme Court. The tenth amendment is about federalism. However, in no way does it take the place of the Supremacy Clause and that is extremely clear. If you wish to argue this point, then I suggest you do that with Richard Beeman, Akhil Reed Amar, Linda Monk, and the folks at the National Constitutional Center.
You might wish to realize that the tenth amendment deals with powers of the states, not rights of the states. That is a major difference. Not one word in that amendment deals with rights.
That might be the funniest thing I’ve ever read on here, Billy. Heritage enthusiasts constitute so little of what southern history and identity is about, that in reality it’s blacks who have been trying to incorporate whites into real southern history–kicking and screaming, but they’re finally coming along. This past week could hardly prove this point better. The Republican Party just got done completely selling out their entire Southern Strategy constituency. Give them credit for (finally) recognizing a lost cause. Since your vote is assured, they can seek out new constituencies without worrying about offending you.
Phil,
Most blacks in the South now are Christian, when they lived in Africa hundreds of years ago they were mostly Muslim or pagan. Obviously, blacks have changed a lot to be more like other Christians in the South.
I would say you don’t know your history. Like I said earlier, my goal is to help you and others ascend to a higher level and learn more about history.
Though I don’t agree with the general thrust of Billy’s remarks, I will agree to some extent to two points:
1. I think you will see a slow drift of African Americans back to the GOP. It may take several decades, but the I do think it’s gone to happen. This is for many reasons, including social conservatism (e.g., a very high percentage of blacks are against same-sex marriage), the increasing number of blacks running for office as Republicans (e.g., right there in S.C. we’ve got Senator Tim Scott), and a growing number of black entrepreneurs who see GOP tax policies as more favorable to small business. These are not the only reasons, but they are important ones.
2. The strong Christian beliefs of the families of the victims of the Charleston Massacre have produced a seed-change in the opposite direction of that intended by the racist murderer.
Ohioguy, I kinda agree with you as well. Blacks are becoming more educated, and most of my black friends are sick of Democrats. When you think about it, what does Hillary have to offer? she basically keeps saying she wants to be the first woman President, and that being a woman is tough. Nobody really cares anymore.