A Heritage of Hate and Terrorism …

I have suggested that often Confederate heritage advocates reveal that they are inspired by honoring their own hatreds and not the service of the Confederate soldier … and that sometimes it seems that the real heritage of service they honor is that of the white supremacist terrorists of Reconstruction, especially when they rhapsodize about Nathan Bedford Forrest and Wade Hampton, two of Susan Frise Hathaway’s favorites (red dress Hathaway loves Hampton’s Red Shirts).

Even Connie Chastain admitted on Twitter recently that some of Confederate heritage is bigotry.

CC CSA heritage Twitter

When you say, “Not all of it is bigotry,” you’re admitting that some of it is … maybe even most of it. My thanks to Connie Chastain for that revealing admission.

And Connie Chastain is right. Look here for evidence from a picture snapped at the University of North Carolina, where recent protests and counterprotests continue about “Silent Sam,” a Confederate statue on campus:

Courtesy @Humane_Force on Twitter
Courtesy @Humane_Force on Twitter

Yup … a noose attached to a pole flying the Confederate Battle Flag. Or so it appears.

You can’t get much more direct than that.

Note: Other images of the protest don’t show the same flag … so this is destined to become a controversial image as people question its veracity.

50 thoughts on “A Heritage of Hate and Terrorism …

  1. OhioGuy October 26, 2015 / 11:20 am

    Speaking of Forrest, toward the end of his life he seemed to have repented from many of his earlier transgressions. In a speech in 1875 to an African American audience he reportedly said the following, which got him branded as a “traitor to his race” by several southern newspapers:

    “Ladies and Gentlemen I accept the flowers as a memento of reconciliation between the white and colored races of the southern states. I accept it more particularly as it comes from a colored lady, for if there is any one on God’s earth who loves the ladies I believe it is myself. ( Immense applause and laughter.) This day is a day that is proud to me, having occupied the position that I did for the past twelve years, and been misunderstood by your race. This is the first opportunity I have had during that time to say that I am your friend. I am here a representative of the southern people, one more slandered and maligned than any man in the nation.

    I will say to you and to the colored race that men who bore arms and followed the flag of the Confederacy are, with very few exceptions, your friends. I have an opportunity of saying what I have always felt – that I am your friend, for my interests are your interests, and your interests are my interests. We were born on the same soil, breathe the same air, and live in the same land. Why, then, can we not live as brothers? I will say that when the war broke out I felt it my duty to stand by my people. When the time came I did the best I could, and I don’t believe I flickered. I came here with the jeers of some white people, who think that I am doing wrong. I believe that I can exert some influence, and do much to assist the people in strengthening fraternal relations, and shall do all in my power to bring about peace. It has always been my motto to elevate every man — to depress none. (Applause.) I want to elevate you to take positions in law offices, in stores, on farms, and wherever you are capable of going.

    I have not said anything about politics today. I don’t propose to say anything about politics. You have a right to elect whom you please; vote for the man you think best, and I think, when that is done, that you and I are freemen. Do as you consider right and honest in electing men for office. I did not come here to make you a long speech, although invited to do so by you. I am not much of a speaker, and my business prevented me from preparing myself. I came to meet you as friends, and welcome you to the white people. I want you to come nearer to us. When I can serve you I will do so. We have but one flag, one country; let us stand together. We may differ in color, but not in sentiment. Use your best judgement in selecting men for office and vote as you think right.

    Many things have been said about me which are wrong, and which white and black persons here, who stood by me through the war, can contradict. I have been in the heat of battle when colored men, asked me to protect them. I have placed myself between them and the bullets of my men, and told them they should be kept unharmed. Go to work, be industrious, live honestly and act truly, and when you are oppressed I’ll come to your relief. I thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for this opportunity you have afforded me to be with you, and to assure you that I am with you in heart and in hand.” (Prolonged applause.):

    One theory, as I understand it, is that this speech was intended to put distance between himself and the KKK, which had become a much more violent organization than he had anticipated. I’m curious, Brooks, how academic historians view this speech. On the surface, at least, it appears to be a major turn in Forrest’s attitude toward African Americans. A related question is the degree of his culpability in the Ft. Pillow Massacre. I’ve read accounts that make the argument that without him the massacre would have been worse and other accounts that have him as the major instigator. I have no idea what his personal level of involvement was.

    • Brooks D. Simpson October 26, 2015 / 11:49 am

      This speech has been the subject of some discussion, with many people suggesting that the context in which it was given casts an interesting light not easily captured by modern eyes who want to rescue Forrest from a certain reputation.

      • OhioGuy October 26, 2015 / 12:38 pm

        Well, the southern eyes at the time seemed very unsettled by this speech. One Confederate veterans organization reportedly condemned him for putting the two races on an equal footing. He was also castigated in the some southern newspapers for placing black women on the same social level as white women. So, it appears that it did take some guts for Forrest to make this talk and say the things he did. I have no dog in the fight of resurrecting NBF’s reputation. If, however, he did make a turnaround in the last few years of his life, I think that’s also worth noting. Further, if he did have this change of heart, it doesn’t necessarily say anything about the degree that his reputation was well earned for his previous attitudes and actions. I suspect that he was a pretty nasty person in many respects at the time of the late Rebellion.

    • Bob Nelson October 26, 2015 / 12:44 pm

      “I have placed myself between them and the bullets of my men, and told them they should be kept unharmed.” That is really laughable. One Internet site refers to him as “Memphis’ First White Civil Rights Advocate.” That’s even more laughable. BTW, several Confederate veterans’ organizations and newspapers lambasted him for the speech in which he said he was not politicking. He was only about 55 when he made the speech and he sure sounds like a politician to me. I have read a couple of books on Forrest neither of which say much about the Memphis speech or Forrest’s interest in politics. Anybody? As for the KKK, Forrest issued his order to disband in 1869 and by 1875, most of the Southern states had been redeemed and although there were still pockets of marauders doing bad things, the First Era Klan was largely a thing of the past.

      • OhioGuy October 26, 2015 / 2:26 pm

        The First Era KKK was ended primarily by the actions of President Grant, not NBF. From what I can tell his disband directive was largely ignored, at least until Grant turned up the heat.

        • Bob Nelson October 27, 2015 / 9:55 am

          Yes, it was Grant and Congress that turned up the heat on the KKK with the Anti-Klu-Klux Bill of 1871. Those found to be members could be imprisoned and have their homes and property confiscated. More sober-minded men who had served in leadership roles in the late 1860s and early 70s decided that the risks were simply too great and many state level officers including John Gordon, George Gordon and Albert Pike quit. At the local level, former judges, lawyers and Confederate officers also quit, which left a real leadership vacuum and the violence actually increased after Forrest’s disbandment order. Truth be told, it was actually Rutherford B. Hayes that finally put an end to the Klan when he removed all Federal troops from the South following the disputed election of 1876. With the army gone, state governments again controlled by the Democrats and the former slaves controlled by Jim Crow laws, the Klan was unnecessary although a large number of hooligans continued their night rides for a few more years.

          • OhioGuy October 27, 2015 / 10:40 am

            Allen Trelease, in his book White Terror: The Ku Klux Klan Conspiracy and Southern Reconstruction tells a different story. He basically gives Grant the major credit for “breaking the back of the KKK” with his leadership, his congressional initiatives, his use of the US Army to put down racial violence, and his creative use of the Federal grand jury system. Trelease says Hayes allowed Redeemer governments to take the place of the KKK and that their violence then “assumed other forms, almost as lethal, probably more effective, and certainly more lasting than the Ku Klux Klan.” (pp. 383-418)

          • OhioGuy October 27, 2015 / 12:41 pm

            Bob, upon re-reading your last post, I think my reply was more complimentary to the information you supplied rather than contradictory. I apologize for what was a slightly too confrontational of tone. The bottom line is that Grant was the leader in putting down the First Era KKK. This is information that only recently has begun to be properly reported in general histories of Reconstruction. In prior years it was the Lost Cause take on Reconstruction that was commonly taught to high school and college students. The contributions of Grant, Albion TourgΓ©e and many other northerners were largely overlooked as Reconstruction was painted as a complete failure both in concept and in execution, when in actuality there were many successes and noble efforts to bring about racial equality in that period. IMHO, the major problem with Reconstruction is that it ended too early when Rutherford B. Hayes sold his sole to the secessionist devil in order to become president. The country would be much better off, I think, if Tilden had been allowed to assume the presidency, as the GOP Congress would never have allowed him to “get away with” compromises and concessions that Hayes was party too.

          • OhioGuy October 27, 2015 / 12:44 pm

            While he might have sold his sole in bad times, what I meant obviously was the he sold his “soul to the secessionist devil.” πŸ˜‰

          • Bob Nelson October 28, 2015 / 8:12 am

            I’ll have to put Trelease’s book on my wish list for Christmas. “So many books, so little time.” Stanley Horn’s “Invisible Empire” (1939) is very good as is “Ku Klux Klan” (1884 reprinted in 1905) by J.C. Lester (one of the original six) and D.L. Wilson. It’s available on Google Books for free. I didn’t find your message confrontational at all.

  2. Bob Nelson October 26, 2015 / 11:32 am

    Somebody should learn how to use photo shop.

    • Brooks D. Simpson October 26, 2015 / 11:47 am

      I’d like to see a more complete picture, because my initial response was the same as yours … but we’ll see. Connie’s good at Photoshop.

      • Bob Nelson October 26, 2015 / 12:14 pm

        Well if she is, she should have edited the noose out.

      • Andy Hall October 26, 2015 / 12:20 pm

        Here’s a clearer picture of Do-Rag Confederate, his bastardized North Carolina state flag, and his, um, addition to the pole. It looks to be a belt or leather strap, rather than rope, but if it’s supposed to be something other than a noose, I’m not sure what that would be.


        You can see it at center right in this image, as well:


        Edgerton was there for that rally, as well; maybe he has an explanation.

          • OhioGuy October 26, 2015 / 2:23 pm

            Disgusting! Must be a LOS groupie. Those guys and gals don’t hide their racism.

          • Andy Hall October 27, 2015 / 1:21 pm

            You can give Do-Rag Confederate this much: he’s very open about his love for Confederate symbols and his disdain for MLK and the Civil Rights Movement going together. Imagine that.

  3. Talmadge Walker October 26, 2015 / 4:39 pm

    According to a friend of mine, he did tell some woman recording the event that yes, it was supposed to represent a noose. Haven’t seen the video myself though.

    • Brooks D. Simpson October 26, 2015 / 5:34 pm

      Interesting. Because Connie Chastain, who didn’t talk to the person, claims differently:

      Hissyfit time at XRoads….
      … over photos from the Silent Sam demonstrations in North Carolina. Some guy in a Confederate do-rag ran a belt through the grommet of his Confederate flag to attach it to his PVC pipe flagpole, and the buckle end was in a loop, and they’re saying it’s a … wait for it … A NOOSE.

      Now you can believe the person himself, or you can believe Connie Chastain, Confederate heritage apologist.

      Not a hard choice, especially given Chastain’s adverse reaction to the truth.

      • Andy Hall October 26, 2015 / 7:39 pm

        Or you could look at the actual photographs taken at Ole Miss and Hillsborough. The pole is a PVC pipe, drilled through and fitted with eyebolts. A metal clip is run through the eyebolts, and then through the grommet on the flag. The belt, or whatever it is (rifle sling?), is affixed to the pole above the lower eyebolt and not only doesn’t run through the grommet, but doesn’t actually touch the flag at all.

  4. rcocean October 26, 2015 / 7:20 pm

    Neo-Confederate terrorists – what will they do next? Display a noose? Attack NYC? Fly a confederate Flag? I’m scared. Is the SPLC well protected against night riders?

    • Brooks D. Simpson October 26, 2015 / 7:42 pm

      I didn’t call them neo-Confederate terrorists. You did. Inside information?

      • OhioGuy October 26, 2015 / 7:56 pm

        I like your debating style, Brooks! πŸ˜‰

  5. Brooks D. Simpson October 27, 2015 / 12:30 pm

    I enjoy watching Connie Chastain display her intelligence on her blog:

    Besides, none of this changes the fact that apparently nobody else at the event had a “representation of a noose” on their flags, but Simpson’s post nevertheless implies everyone at the event — and all heritage advocates — are haters and terrorists because of this one guy…

    Of course, the post says nothing of the kind, but that’s Chastain’s problem.

    Are all Confederate heritage advocates haters? No. Are a good number of them haters? Sure, including Chastain herself. Moreover, honoring terrorists (as Susan Hathaway does) is not the same thing as being a terrorist. Honoring lynch law is not the same as lynching people.

    … and honoring Confederate soldiers is not the same thing as being a Confederate, all the fantasies of Connie Chastain and company to the contrary notwithstanding.

    Only Rcocean has claimed that these people are neo-Confederate terrorists. Want to know more about what that commenter thinks? Go here: http://rcocean.blogspot.com/.

    Of course, Chastain does all she can to help this guy try to wriggle out of his self-designed noose, but she’s defended bigots and haters and antisemites and so on before, looking to excuse them whenever possible. She stains the entire Confederate heritage movement with her hatred.

    Connie Chastain’s a hater and a bigot. She serves as webmaster for a group she deems to be the nation’s leading Confederate heritage group, the Virginia Flaggers, who clearly don’t mind working with a hater and a bigot. Why should they, when their most visible spokesperson embraces white supremacist terrorist icons? Why should they, given the people with whom they associate … we’ve already been over how the Virginia Flaggers associate with white supremacists. Check the blog for more than ample evidence.

    One thing is for sure: Connie Chastain is exhibit number one on why the notion of white supremacy is bogus. She’s white, and she isn’t superior to anyone … and she’s inferior to a great many people.

    • OhioGuy October 27, 2015 / 1:07 pm

      I think I’ve just found the perfect candidate for Connie to support in the 2016 elections: http://tinyurl.com/nn9xxnr. He’s a self-proclaimed “Civil War expert.” I think she might like many of his positions on the issues. However, do you think she could look beyond the uniform and see the man underneath? πŸ˜‰

      • Jimmy Dick October 27, 2015 / 3:03 pm

        I love his definition of Totalitarian Democracy. Apparently you can vote, but it doesn’t count. Apparently he thinks voting is not an exercise of people power since he isn’t winning the election.

        • Bob Nelson October 28, 2015 / 8:07 am

          As Paul Lynde from the old “Hollywood Squares” show would have put it: “Eeeeeeeeeuuuuuuuuuw. That uniform is just hideous.”

      • C. Meyer October 28, 2015 / 10:27 am

        Can we introduce this guy to General Goodson?

  6. Eric A. Jacobson October 29, 2015 / 5:57 am

    Well now you’ve done it….

    Chastain has presented in detail the definition of the word “noose” on her little page, and used Wikipedia for the endeavor. She really is quite a treat to follow, and she really likes Wikipedia and dictionary.com.

    So congrats. Perhaps she will go back to her post about houseboats or something about else.

    • Brooks D. Simpson October 29, 2015 / 8:07 am

      She’ll decide to overlook her posts on her dream sailboats and tell us that houseboats aren’t sailboats, and isn’t that typical of the lying left liberal?


      Talk about jumping through hoops …

    • Eric A. Jacobson October 29, 2015 / 6:45 pm

      My gosh, by looking at my post it would seem I can’t put together sentences, or had too much coffee this morning. My apologies for the poor wording Yikes. :/

        • Eric A. Jacobson October 29, 2015 / 7:32 pm

          Ha!!! It was bad. At least I’ll admit when I’ve made an error, unlike someone from down Florida way…. πŸ™‚

  7. OhioGuy October 29, 2015 / 11:06 am

    Connie posted this on her blog recently: “And a little anti-Southern hate from a different website’s discussion of the tune: ‘Who would want to listen to a song [Moonlight Feels Right] with frequent mentions of the American South? Southerners have ugly accents and are usually fat, lazy alcoholics with nicotine addictions. Plus, this song is terrible.’ (Floggers say this kind of hatred of Southerners doesn’t exist.)” . . .Hmm, has anyone on here said that this kind of bigotry doesn’t exist? I know that I haven’t. In fact, I recall a post I made on some blog (I think here) awhile back talking about the insensitive things some folks in my part of Ohio say about West Virginians. Yes, prejudice against those with different accents and cultural customs does exist. It’s really no better than racial prejudice. The only problem is that Connie’s ramblings feed those anti-southern prejudices rather than help dissipate them.

    • Brooks D. Simpson October 29, 2015 / 12:24 pm

      I recall the song (the group’s only big hit). Didn’t bother me. But then I was in Charlottesville. πŸ™‚

      There’s bigotry everywhere. You just have to go to Connie Chastain’s blog to find it … it’s like one-stop shopping.

        • OhioGuy October 29, 2015 / 8:27 pm

          For the record, I kind of like that song. All those southern references didn’t bother me at all. Hell, some of my best friends are southerners! πŸ˜‰

  8. Phil R November 2, 2015 / 1:54 pm

    In related news, guess who popped up on the second round of Anonymous’ outing of KKK affiliates today? Pretty much the whole cast: http://pastebin.com/JTNB6J53

    • OhioGuy November 2, 2015 / 5:53 pm

      This strikes me as reverse McCarthyism. If you look closely at this list it mingles known KKK members with folks who may just know or have talked with a KKK member or two. Guilt by association is not part of the American tradition. As anyone who has followed this blog knows I’m no apologist for Connie, and I think the Confederate heritage movement is very flawed and is based on Lost Cause mythology. The war was started because the South was afraid that the election of Lincoln would lead to the eventual end of their peculiar institution. They are in complete denial of this inconvertible fact. Let’s challenge them on the facts not by cheap smears that would make Joe McCarthy proud.

  9. Danny Clark November 3, 2015 / 8:46 am

    The war is over. We are at peace and have been at peace for many years. Leave it alone. Let it go. Stop creating trouble. Keep pushing this issue and there will be trouble. I believe that is your goal you bunch of self righteous hypocrites.

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 )

Connecting to %s