St. Paul’s Church: Another Challenge for the Virginia Flaggers?

St. Paul’s Church in Richmond is just a block away from the Virginia State Capitol. It is but a short distance from where Robert E. Lee returned to Richmond after Appomattox and from the Confederate White House, where Jefferson Davis and his family lived.

Students of the Civil War and Reconstruction will recall that the church was the site of two events in 1865 that have made it into the history books. It was while attending St. Paul’s that Davis received word from Lee of the need to evacuate Richmond and Petersburg. Later that year Lee attended services. So did an African American, and someone who claimed to be there reported what happened next:

C StPauls one

C Stpauls 3

In years to come this story would undergo a transformation, to the point that Lee was presented as a tolerant fellow who set an example for welcoming a new worshipper. As Andy Hall has reminded us, the original story was far different.

Now St. Paul’s is in the crosshairs of a new controversy about Confederate heritage.  As Kevin Levin has reported (here and here and here … with useful links to other discussions), the church’s vestry, after much discussion over several months, has decided to remove some of the Confederate iconography present in the church. The Richmond Times-Dispatch, which reported on these deliberations, has also endorsed the church’s decision.

Needless to say, this decision was greeted with controversy. Among those who protested were some familiar names.

In August, one notes among the commenters the following observation:

vf stpc 02

Now, in November, guess who appears again?

VF stpc 01

As Kevin notes, it remains to be seen whether the Virginia Flaggers will take their objections to the streets … and whether the always outspoken Susan Hathaway will be among them. There’s no evidence that the reasons that deter her from showing up once more at her old stomping groups by the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts are in play at St. Paul’s. And, as Kevin suggests, this is a heaven-sent opportunity to give the cause of Confederate heritage some much needed publicity.

But the recent track record of the Virginia Flaggers suggests that they are not so committed to their cause as they might once have been. The effort to protest the InLight display at the VMFA fell far short of previous efforts to draw attention to Confederate heritage, and of course Hathaway did not act on her own call to action. This time Hathaway has no excuses not to heed her own advice.

Or perhaps they’ll just put up another flag at Danville and declare victory. After all, Jefferson Davis abandoned Richmond for Danville as well.


49 thoughts on “St. Paul’s Church: Another Challenge for the Virginia Flaggers?

  1. Derek November 27, 2015 / 10:17 pm

    Susan is too busy worrying about anonymous me thinks.

  2. bob carey November 28, 2015 / 7:46 am

    The story of Lee’s communion is interesting to me because I think it demonstrates confusion among the “heritage” crowd. In the 1865 version he is portrayed as an unrepentant confederate of the “Lost Cause”, forty years later his portrayal is that of one who espouses reconciliation. Could this be an attempt to make Lee politically correct in the early 20th century?
    As far as St. Pauls’ is concerned I think the vestry makes very compelling arguments in support of the removal of Confederate icons. Their solution as to displaying these icons in a separate place should satisfy anyone who has an interest in viewing them. We must remember that St. Pauls is a house of worship first, and that this worship should not include the mortals who supported the Confederacy.

    • Andy Hall November 28, 2015 / 11:17 am

      In the 1865 version he is portrayed as an unrepentant confederate of the “Lost Cause”, forty years later his portrayal is that of one who espouses reconciliation. Could this be an attempt to make Lee politically correct in the early 20th century?

      A minor quibble, but the original account appeared in the Richmond Times-Dispatch in April 1905, almost exactly 40 years after the events described. So the original account itself dates from the early 20th century. The Times-Dispatch piece was reprinted that fall in the Confederate Veteran magazine, but as far as I know that is the only source for the event described. For that reason, I understand, many historians are doubtful that it ever happened. I’m agnostic on that point, myself. The fact that it took this incident, supposedly witnessed by several hundred people in the most prominent congregation in Richmond, took 40 years to be recorded by anyone, long after the principals were dead and gone, makes it highly suspect. On the other hand the source, T. L. Broun, did know Lee at least slightly and, I believe, was the man who sold him Traveler early in the war.

      The idea that Lee’s actions were made in the spirit of Christian fellowship and brotherhood with the Freedman is much more recent, generally within the 20 years, and coincides with the heritage crowd’s effort to re-cast the Confederacy and its leaders as tolerant and progressive on matters of race. Modern versions recount the same physical actions of the men, but completely ignore Broun’s purported eyewitness account of the context and the way Lee’s action was perceived by the congregation at St. Paul’s.

      • bob carey November 28, 2015 / 4:49 pm

        Thanks Andy,
        As you figured out I was under the impression that the story was first reported in 1865 and evolved into the 1905 version. My mistake.

  3. Sandi Saunders November 28, 2015 / 9:24 am

    Sure, take to the streets because that has really worked so well for you wherever it is tried. When will the clueless flaggers realize THEY are the CBF’s worst enemy, even more than the KKK because at least with the latter they are not hiding their bigotry and white supremacy. People are not going to accept or support what you are selling outside of those white supremacy right wing nutter circles.

  4. Betty Giragosian November 28, 2015 / 5:49 pm

    This is a bit off the subject, but several years ago, the SCV was meeting in Richmond…not a convention, but I believe there was a parade on Monument Avenue. The Sons had been promised the use of the sanctuary of St. Paul’s to hold a memorial service. When they arrived, the doors were locked and the church was in darkness. This is well known, and was first reported in a letter to the editor of the editorial page of the the local rag.. The writer of the letter was a well known Richmonder of good character. How sad that St. Paul’s has become so judgemental.
    As for the story about Lee and the gentleman of colour, that is how I always heard the story…as it appeared in the clipping. I have never heard another version.

    As for the local paper approving the action taken by those souls at St. Paul’s……so whatever? Who cares?

    • Brooks D. Simpson November 28, 2015 / 11:19 pm

      My guess is many readers of the paper care, one way or another.

      • Betty Giragosian November 29, 2015 / 12:06 pm

        I am a reader. If it were not for my husband, I would drop it. He still wants a daily read. I do not care what the editorial page thinks. It is a rag. No competition, but thanks to the internet, there are other sources. I do like the page of obituaries.

        I realize that I digress. One of the editorial writers thinks the Jefferson Davis Monument should be removed. The names do not accompany the editorials.

    • Betty Giragosian December 4, 2015 / 12:32 pm

      Correcting my stat e ment: When the Sons of Confederate Veterans were locked out of St. Paul’s with no notice, it all was due to a lack of communication between both parties. I will not go into details, but there was no intention to hurt or insult the Sons. I feel that since I told part of the story, I must make this correction. I have talked with someone I admire and respect who knows the whole story..

  5. Rosieo November 29, 2015 / 6:20 am

    Raised Catholic in Ohio, I find it hard to understand why a church, even one in the Old South, would have images and symbols honoring not only a debunked and unChristian ideology but also men (no women, I gather) who are not saints.
    For me, I would not worship at a church decorated with symbols of an ideology I reject.
    Branches being part of the vine and all, St. Paul’s mystifies me about the entirety of the Episcopal religion. Symbols are powerful statements. Existence of confederate symbols proclaim congregants at this parish to be people with hearts and souls firmly entrenched in honoring the Confederacy.
    St. Paul’s should decide if it is a church or a confederate museum.
    (Nonmembers really have no say in church symbols — even if the building is historic.)

    • Andy Hall November 29, 2015 / 11:29 am

      Raised Catholic in Ohio, I find it hard to understand why a church, even one in the Old South, would have images and symbols honoring not only a debunked and unChristian ideology but also men (no women, I gather) who are not saints.


      It’s very common in Protestant churches of that era to have windows and other features dedicated to specific individuals (“In Memory of,” etc.) The decision whether to place them — as with the decision to remove them, in 2015 — resides with the local congregation and church administration. And it’s fair to say that, in the church where Lee and Davis worshiped in Richmond, the Confederacy was not considered a “debunked and unChristian ideology” a hundred-plus years ago when these thing were put in place.

      That said, I am a little surprised at how much there actually was at St. Paul’s. Including an adaptation of the Confederate Battle Flag in the church’s formal arms? I can’t imagine Lee himself would have approved of that.

      • Rosieo December 2, 2015 / 4:38 am

        Thanks for this response.
        I guess they combined their religious traditions with how very much they hated losing.

        • Andy Hall December 2, 2015 / 10:07 am

          The Lost Cause wraps itself heavily in Christian righteousness, and presents specific individuals (e.g., Davis) as sort of secular martyrs. It has a great deal in common with religious belief, including a conviction that a Resurrection of sorts — deo vindice, “God will vindicate us,” — is coming someday.

          • Jimmy Dick December 2, 2015 / 6:37 pm

            God already vindicated the United States in the victory over the rebels. I don’t think he would have done so if the cause of the Confederacy had been righteous.

        • Betty Giragosian December 2, 2015 / 10:14 am

          I think the memorials were put in place by families that were heartbroken over the loss of sons, fathers, brothers. To honour Lee and Davis was to also honour the men who never came back.
          Losing the War bad nothing to do with it.

    • Betty Giragosian December 2, 2015 / 10:21 am

      Tread carefully n denigrating St. Paul’s of the past. Many religions/congregations have much to answer for. St Paul’s does not…..for its past.

  6. Sherree November 29, 2015 / 2:30 pm

    “That said, I am a little surprised at how much there actually was at St. Paul’s. Including an adaptation of the Confederate Battle Flag in the church’s formal arms? I can’t imagine Lee himself would have approved of that. ”

    Excellent point, Andy. I can’t imagine that Lee himself would have approved of people running around the country and putting up Confederate flags all over the place, either, since apparently Lee said at one point after the Civil War was over, that the Confederate flag should be put away.

    I guess Lee just wasn’t a real Southerner.

    The congregation at St Paul’s is most likely going through some serious soul searching. It would be interesting to know the back story of the congregation’s relationship to the Confederate symbols in its sanctuary through time. I don’t see how there was no controversy surrounding those symbols during the struggle for civil rights. Richmond was in the thick of it all, with Governor Linwood Holton even stepping up to the plate, so to speak, when the bussing crisis hit. When Holton escorted his daughter to a school that was being integrated, that was an inspiration to the rest of us in the state who had some pretty steep uphill battles to fight. Just wondering where St Paul’s stood on all of this, as it would seem to have a bearing on why the symbols are still there. On the other hand, perhaps the congregation saw the windows and plaques as representing history that was not connected to the present, which we all know now, is far from the truth.

  7. Rosieo December 2, 2015 / 4:46 am

    St. Paul’s website shows it clearly to be a progressive parish. Maybe work on confederate symbols is a “process” … with change coming in stages??? maybe eventually they will have something like a fund drive for new windows…. etc…. Just speculation.

    • Betty Giragosian December 2, 2015 / 10:04 am

      The memorial windows at St. Paul’s were gifts. I do not think they will be removed. The beauty of the memorials throughout the South should not be destroyed. There is a wave of fanaticism to
      In wipe out history, something akin to what the Taliban nd ISIS are doing. I do not compare these misguided zealots to either of those groups, just saying ….their goals bear bitter fruit.
      I have said so often, one has to be one of us to understand..

      Study your history. Read all the causes of the War Between the States. That is what we call it down here.

      The pendulum swings both ways. I feel a change is coming. Folks are fed up.with this subterranean culture that has emerged, judgemental, destructive, divisive and poorly informed.

      • Sherree December 3, 2015 / 4:27 am

        “I have said so often, one has to be one of us to understand.”


        Could you please explain that statement? By “one of us”, I assume that you mean white Southerner.

        Do you realize that many contributors to CW blogs are white Southerners? That the host of this blog is married to a white Southerner? That many, if not most, white Southerners do not refer to the Civil War as the “War Between the States”? That many white Southerners do not understand the appearance of Confederate iconography in a house of worship? That many white Southerners applaud St. Paul’s for addressing this issue?

        Who belongs to this group that you describe as “one of us”, and what are their beliefs? Perhaps you were not referring to white Southerners in general. I will certainly give you the benefit of the doubt. But if you are referring to white Southerners as a monolithic group with a set of beliefs similar to your own, please do not, since you are incorrect, and I, a white Southerner with as many Confederate ancestors as several contributors to this blog, and the history of my own family in Virginia that reaches back to 1739 and further, will not, either. Then neither of us will misrepresent our region–a region that includes an extraordinarily rich history that belongs to no one group of people, and certainly not to a subset of a group.

        Your observation that Civil War era families honored their slain fathers, brothers, and sons when they honored Lee or Davis, is very accurate, I think. But Lost Cause iconography comes much later and has a very different meaning: its overt racism cannot be denied. Especially not in light of the civil rights movement.

        The pastor of my family’s church–a man who went to seminary with Reverend Pinckney–stood before the literally weeping congregation, whom the massacre at AME Emmanuel hit particularly hard both because of the massacre’s brutality and because Roof was a Lutheran, and said in unequivocal terms that the Confederate flag is a racist symbol. Now, he had said this before, but now he was heard. This ground has been covered again and again and again. Do we really need to cover it again? Apparently so.

        You cannot separate Confederate iconography from the past that it represents. And, even further, you cannot separate Confederate iconography from its own past–the history of the history.

        Who are we honoring? What are we honoring? Which past are we choosing to honor? Is it even the past? Would Lee have seen himself as Moses–gazed up into the windows of St. Paul’s into his own reflection, as one commenter on another blog so astutely put it?

        In the end, it is up to the congregation, and the members of the congregation have apparently spoken. They are to be commended, in my opinion.

        • Betty Giragosian December 3, 2015 / 8:32 am

          Well, now, let me see…so many things to ponder. First, my lineage goes back to Jamestowne, 1630. I, too, grieved and was sickened by the massacre in Charleston. I give full credit to
          the American African community in Charleston for preventing the riots that have occurred in other cities. My first cousin and her husband live in Charleston, and witnessed the healing of many wounds. We were glad that the CBF was removed from state property.

          Since you are a Southerner, you surely must know that many of us still love our history, warts and all, whether you do or not…obviously you don’t. So,you are not one of us, and that is the best example I can give you. Feelings such as yours are not limited to folks from Ohio.

          Our love does not make us racists. I hesitate to add the platitude, ‘Many of my friends are black’…but I do have black friends that I love…and I am loved in return.

          You did not need to tell me you are a white woman who lives in the South. I could tell. I have known for some time that Brooks is married to a descendant of Confederate soldier(s). I know that theirs is a happy marriage, based on mutual respect. Brooks has been asked to
          speak before the Tennesee Division of the United Daughters of the Confederacy. He has done so, and was very well received.

          Lastly, you do not surprise me by saying that you have family members who comment on this blog. I do not read many Blogs…Brooks and Kevin are .those that I do read. Your comments blend in very well with those of your family members. Never have I read such despicable comments filled with venom. I know what to expect, but read them anyway.

          St Paul’s can do ,what it wants., I am sure the worshippers are very proud and happy with their decision, made publicly..not like locking their church doors to a group that had been promised the use of their sanctuary, for a memorial service but left in total darkness.

          What contempt that church showed! How judgemental.

          As for the educator of Washington College gazing at Moses…he might have smiled….no, that most modest of men would not have desired to be so portrayed that way.
          Apparently you cannot grasp what presenting that window meant to the congregation of that day

          I told you…you are not one of us I am sure your missive must have cost you hours to write.
          What a waste of your time. Cheer up…your kin will rise to your defense

          • Sherree December 3, 2015 / 11:07 am


            We are talking past each other, so let’s just stop.

            One correction. I am the only person in my family who comments on CW blogs. Your comment concerning the comments of others is, therefore, an insult to other readers. You may want to address those readers directly so that they may respond.

            There is nothing further to say. I have made my point. And you have made yours. The only thing that we have in common is that we both come from the South.

          • Betty Giragosian December 3, 2015 / 9:33 pm

            Suits me, . I was sure that you if I knew that some of your kin were commenters on this blog. I have already addressed some of that group directly numerous times. Doesn’t’ change any minds, but some things I just cannot let slide.,

      • Jimmy Dick December 4, 2015 / 9:06 am

        Betty, you have brought this subject up before about you have to be from the South or “one of us” to understand. I know multiple people have also brought it up in one form or another. I disagree completely with you. I feel that the whole idea is a cop out. Mainly because as soon as someone says that, someone else from the very same groups as the person who said the line disagrees with them on the original matter.

        The concept is part of the Us vs. Them theme. People can understand others if they put their minds to it. We live in an age of tremendous communication where people are constantly projecting their thoughts, words, ideas, and speech into the open. The idea that you have to be born and bred in a spot to understand something is incorrect. It is nothing more than a defense mechanism used to deny what others perceive about you or something.

        • Rosieo December 4, 2015 / 12:05 pm

          I dont know if people from the same family, the same city, the same neighborhood, even the same lineage can completely understand each other. If there is respect, then that has to be enough. The alternative is projection of one’s own imagination on other people’s actions and that brings trouble.
          Pope John Paul II said each person is “a unique, unrepeatable gift of God.”
          Maybe it is uniqueness that makes some of us lonely. Maybe the urge to be understood is greater than the ability to summon up patience required to understand others.
          I am not writing this in response to any one person’s comments here but in response to reading everybody’s words. And I am heavily influenced by this week’s sad news events.
          I wish it all was easier.

          • Jimmy Dick December 9, 2015 / 8:27 am

            I think that is because you choose not to understand what I said.

  8. Rosieo December 2, 2015 / 3:54 pm

    I am persuaded by historians who say memorials should be kept in place as part of history… no one is blowing them up, at any rate, which is the case re ISIS and Taliban….
    I find discussion of St. Paul’s interesting due to the combination of church/state under one roof.
    Diversity does make the world go ’round.

  9. Sherree December 4, 2015 / 9:28 am


    None of my relatives comment on Civil War blogs. I really don’t know where you got that idea. It is certainly not from me. Therefore, you are referring to other readers. Maybe the best way to approach that is to address those readers.

    You have your point of view and I have mine. Let’s respect that. We are both Southerners, and we differ. That was essentially my point: there is no one point of view that represents the South–not even the white South.

    Have a good day. If you are a member of the UDC, maybe you could encourage them to get on board on some of these issues. Perhaps you already have. In that case, good for you! That is the best way to honor our ancestors–to not repeat their mistakes.

  10. Betty Giragosian December 4, 2015 / 2:40 pm

    SHEREE, I think we have covered it all. My post was a direct reply to questions that you asked As for the plaques at St Paul’s being racist in reference t to the Civil Rights movement, no plaques have been placed in St. Paul’s since 1940. The memorial Windows were installed way before then.. The memorials were placed to honour those who served in the Confederacy. It baffles me for anyone to imply that they are racially motivated.
    The United Daughters of the Confederacy is mainly active in patriotic activities and scholarships for lineal descendants of.Confederate soldiers. Our President General’s project for her first year in office has been to purchase one of those vehicles..cannot think of the name, for today’s veterans who have lost multiple limbs. Each costs $15,000.00. We have contributed $60,000.00, so we can purchase four going on five.We present Military Service Awards to veterans who are lineal descendants of Confederate soldiers or sailors and have seen actively engaged in battle.. Ours is the only organization designated by the Department of Defense to do so.
    We have several awards. Our latest is the Judah P. BENJAMIN Award/pin, awarded for outstanding public service.
    Membership is open to women who are descendants, lineal or collateral of all races. We have several African American members. The most outstanding is the archivist for the Daughters who works at our headquarters on the Boulevard in Richmond. Know what a certain blogger said?? ‘
    ‘Why did it take you so long?’

    We have been in existence since 1894, when much of our work was for the care of Confederate veterans. I am proud of my Organization. We are individuals and we are not perfect, but we do have high standards. I have only scratched the surface. You are welcome to join us.
    What matters do you want us to address?

    • Sherree December 5, 2015 / 4:51 am


      Thank you for the invitation. I am almost persuaded to join the UDC, so that I can better understand you. I would not last very long, however, I feel quite certain, so, at least, thanks to our blog host, we can have a civil conversation here.

      Brooks has documented for years now, the overtly racist, anti-Semitic use of the Confederate flag by many groups, and the UDC and SCV, to my knowledge, have both remained silent.

      It is not enough to say that the flag has been misappropriated and that these groups do not represent the UDC and SCV. In order to have a legitimate voice on matters of race, actions should follow. Strong actions. In addition, apparently Lee himself said to put the flag away. (I am not certain that this is documented history yet, and will defer to historians on this) If Lee did, indeed, say this, then the appearance of the flag in different venues for the past 150 years does not conform to the wishes of the commander of the Confederacy’ s army, including the flag’s use in Lee’s chosen house of worship, St. Paul’s. Lee also advised his men to get on with their lives. What would he think of some of the descendants of those men putting up enormous Confederate flags on 50 foot flagpoles?

      This is the major issue that I would like to see the UDC address at this time.

      • Betty Giragosian December 7, 2015 / 10:13 pm

        Muhammad, it was ‘writ sarkastic’ as Kilpatrick of the News Leader used to say. I don t tell my choice for president.

        • Muhammad E.Lee December 9, 2015 / 10:26 pm

          Fair enough to say that sarcasm does not translate on the internet. But I just love that your reference here (James J. Kilpatrick) would be one of the intellectual architects of massive resistance in Virginia.

  11. Betty Giragosian December 7, 2015 / 10:50 pm

    Sheree, I really think it is time for our conversation to end. As you earlier stated,we have nothing in common. I cannot place you..are you f ish or fowl? Not literally, of course. I have read your comments and find them in tune with most who respond. This is a historical blog where most of the commenters are not kindly desposed towards the Confederacy. No problem, because I have no reason to even comment on this blog, much less read it. I like to read Brooks’ comments on the Flaggers. Did you know that I was flagged by a fat, solitary figure, carrying the Confederate Battle Flag when I was performing in the Chapel?
    He was told t o leave, as it was a Sunday, so he waddled across Grove Avenue and flagged there all afternoon. Sadly, there was no hot dog stand nearby

    You have no need to understand me. Don’t try.I am happy in my own skin. I know who I am. I am a s southern woman who loves the Confederacy. It is my heritage. I do not understand you.’Let us leave it at that.

    Tell your preacher who cried that the Confederate Battle Flag
    is racist that he is dead wrong. We tried to protect it from the racists who took it for their own, to no avail. A.murderous little punk who took a picture of himself with that flag, is an example.


  12. Sherree December 8, 2015 / 4:20 pm


    If anything I have said has offended you–my sincere apology. That is not my intent. I truly would like to understand your point of view.

    As far as the pastor of my family’s church goes: no. I will not deliver your message. He is very gifted, very spiritual, and a true man of God. And, he is right.

    • Betty Giragosian December 8, 2015 / 5:17 pm

      Oh, please. Give me strength. Your words reek of insincerity.You don’t give a rip whether you offend me or not. You just want a forum. Ooze all over someone else.
      Preacher might be a man of God, but he is just another mortal with the same weaknesses we all have.
      He is dead wrong, with a flair for the dramatic.

      • Sherree December 8, 2015 / 11:12 pm


        You may insult me all that you want, but you may not insult the pastor. He was friends with Reverend Pinckney. His message came straight from the heart.

        Now, I am ready to end this conversation, if you are. Neither of us can end it, however, if we insult one another.

        I commend your work with our veterans.

      • Jimmy Dick December 9, 2015 / 6:06 am

        You have demonstrated once again your penchant for one dimensional thought. When confronted by evidence that you dislike you ignore it. Your belief structure is showing rather badly. To ignore the racism inherent in the CBF and its creation is to willfully suspend historical facts. Hopefully one day the UDC will begin to acknowledge reality, but that is probably going to be one or two generations down the road as some still can’t accept the truth about the Confederacy’s purpose.

  13. Betty Giragosian December 9, 2015 / 7:48 am

    I am tired of this. As for the Reverend, I told the truth. He is a mortal, like the rest of us. Mortals can be wrong. I love my minister, too, a brilliant and warm young Korean American, beloved by his congregation. I do not think he is infallible, however. Nor does he.

    • Jimmy Dick December 9, 2015 / 8:25 am

      The point is that you disagree with others over the meaning of the CBF. Instead of using the factual evidence that proves it is a symbol of racism you try to project a false image of it as a symbol of a cause that never existed.

      The CSA existed to put forth a nation built upon the foundation of slavery. It created a government that restricted democracy and established an elite system of rule. Forty percent of its population was made up of slaves. Almost three-quarters of its population had no voice in government in any way. It was created by a group of men who rejected the lawful government of the United States in order to project their own vision on their region. They started the bloodiest war in US history. That is what the CBF represents from the Civil War.

      • Betty Giragosian December 9, 2015 / 9:15 am

        Dickie, there is no way in this world or the next that you and I will agree on this subject or even discuss it with grace. You are a teacher/professor but you are not infallible, either.

        We disagree totally on the causes of the War Between the States. Slavery became one with the advent of the Emancipation Proclamation.

        I tremble to think of crossing swords with you, so I say: ‘bye.

        • Jimmy Dick December 9, 2015 / 2:52 pm

          That might be because you refuse to accept the facts regarding the war and instead stick to a lie as being truthful. Until you and the UDC come to accept historical reality all you are doing is literally whistling Dixie.

      • Sherree December 9, 2015 / 1:19 pm

        Yes. And from the 1960s add George Wallace and Bull Conner. Today, we can add Micheal Hill and Pat Hines.

        Same story. Same set of beliefs.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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