The Virginia Flaggers have proudly embraced Confederate heritage blogger Jerry Dunford as one of their own, and he in turn has celebrated their cause with some powerful prose (if that’s what you think typing in ALL CAPS means).
So what did Jerry have to say about black people recently?
Abraham Lincoln , did not like blacks, did you know this, and he wanted them gone from our American soil. He wanted them some way exported back to Africa, and I agree with he desires, as I think he was correct in his thinking, as the Black man in general is a troublemaker, and has harmed the cultures of every nation they have existed in. Progress in any black land is at a standstill, disease is higher, culture is shameful, unwed motherhood, fatherless children, and crime is much higher than in non black nations, and those that have very few black citizens. Ask the Pope, as God, use facts, not opinions, and you will see this is true, and Lincoln was correct in his observation then, just as Thomas Jefferson and others had observed and so stated many years prior to Lincoln. I wish this was not true, but it is.
This doesn’t sound much different than Connie Chastain, who helps the Flaggers with their website. Heck, Jerry’s about as articulate as Connie. And, so long as the Flaggers welcome such support, it’s reasonable to conclude that they really don’t mind these sorts of expressions … and some may actually agree with them.
Maybe that’s what they really mean by “restore the honor” …
Why, I’ll show you:
That’s right … and see this explanation from our hero:
I doubt David Grove will link to this one, either. :)
Note: Seems Mr. Grove now knows that just because he won’t link to something doesn’t mean it’s not circulated …
He can now return to moderating a Facebook group that’s as much about conservative politics as it is about a slice of the Confederate heritage movement.
Here’s what one defender of Confederate heritage had to say about the sesquicentennial of Fort Pillow:
Yup, this fellow.
And, thanks to Andy Hall, we have a description of what happened to the defenders of Fort Pillow:
All the wounded who had strength enough to speak agreed that after the fort was taken an indiscriminate slaughter of our troops was carried on by the enemy with a furious and vindictive savageness which was never equaled by the most merciless of the Indian tribes. Around on every side horrible testimony to the truth of this statement could be seen. Bodies with gaping wounds, some bayoneted through the eyes, some with skulls beaten through, others with hideous wounds as if their bowels had been ripped open with bowie-knives, plainly told that but little quarter was shown to our troops. Strewn from the fort to the river bank, in the ravines and hollows, behind logs and under the brush where they had crept for protection from the assassins who pursued them, we found bodies bayoneted, beaten, and shot to death, showing how cold-blooded and persistent was the slaughter of our unfortunate troops.
Of course, when a work is carried by assault there will always be more or less bloodshed, even when all resistance has ceased; but here there were unmistakable evidences of a massacre carried on long after any resistance could have been offered, with a cold-blooded barbarity and perseverance which nothing can palliate.
Something to think about when we are told that it’s all about “restoring the honor.”
Today, 150 years ago, Confederate forces under Nathan Bedford Forrest attacked Union forces at Fort Pillow, Tennessee, along the Mississippi River. What happened next has been a matter of controversy ever since.
Watch and listen as some descendants of soldiers who fought that day reflect on their ancestors’ experience. And here’s one historian’s reflections on the battle and its legacy.
To this day there are two critical issues that spark much controversy:
(1) Was there a massacre of black soldiers?
(2) What responsibility does Forrest bear for the behavior of his men?
All too often, these arguments are blurred, to the point that I’ve seen arguments that since Forrest wasn’t responsible for the behavior of his men, there was no massacre at Fort Pillow. However, it’s rather easy to argue that. regardless of what Forrest desired or ordered, there was a massacre of black soldiers, and there’s a great deal of documentation to support that point of view.
When it comes to Forrest’s responsibility (or culpability), I’ll simply note that one cannot claim that William T. Sherman is a war criminal without accepting that Nathan Bedford Forrest is a war criminal. After all, Sherman did not issue orders calling for the raping of women or the destruction of property outside the laws of war. Nor did he issue orders for the destruction of Columbia in February 1865. One can hold him accountable for (a) the orders he issued and (b) his actions (or inaction) in punishing his own men for violations of the law of war. One would have to hold Forrest to the same standard, unless you think the destruction of property is a greater crime than cold-blooded murder … or whether you think crimes against white people bother you more than crimes against black people, especially those wearing the uniform of the United States armed forces. Once you say that Sherman must be held responsible for the actions of his men, you must say the same for Forrest.
You’ve heard it before: those darn bloggers are going after the Virginia Flaggers by suggesting that they are friends with white supremacists. What falsehood! How unfair!
Take the case of one Brian Pace. Mr. Pace is a southern nationalist. He runs an online store and has a website. He’s been involved in Mississippi politics, where his presence became an issue with some Republicans. And here’s what he’s said on a message board about the Ku Klux Klan:
And whom might Brian Pace count among his friends?
This should come as no surprise to anyone … although we await more non-denial denials, just as we heard them when we highlighted the links between the Virginia Flaggers and Matthew Heimbach.
Some people claim that the term “Lost Cause Myth” and “Lost Cause Historiography” are inventions devised by certain “anti-southern” folks who are also usually described as “left-wing academics.” One example of such a complaint can be found here.
And yet that very example suggests why there’s something to the understanding of the “Lost Cause Myth” as an exercise in avoidance and amnesia as practiced by certain people. Look, for example, as this quote from Grant’s Memoirs about his meeting with Robert E. Lee on April 9, 1865:
Now let’s look at what Grant actually said:
What General Lee’s feelings were I do not know. As he was a man of much dignity, with an impassible face, it was impossible to say whether he felt inwardly glad that the end had finally come, or felt sad over the result, and was too manly to show it. Whatever his feelings, they were entirely concealed from my observation; but my own feelings, which had been quite jubilant on the receipt of his letter, were sad and depressed. I felt like anything rather than rejoicing at the downfall of a foe who had fought so long and valiantly, and had suffered so much for a cause, though that cause was, I believe, one of the worst for which a people ever fought, and one for which there was the least excuse. I do not question, however, the sincerity of the great mass of those who were opposed to us.
I wonder why that was omitted.
UPDATE: The blogger in question rather begrudgingly admitted his mistake in a non-apology apology. However, using his own standards for editing quotes, I’ve rendered his admission as follows: “So, yes, I did omit much of this particular quote…. I should have included an ellipsis to indicate this was not a complete quote. That was admittedly sloppy on my part.”
Apparently the news that there’s going to be an integrated prom has upset some people, including John C. Hall, Jr., and his soul mate, Pat Hines.
It got uglier with others.
We await the usual defense of such vile racism from those so-called defenders of Confederate heritage who have rallied behind these two before … especially now that one of them has a new computer.
UPDATE: Her response? “Ho hum.” Well, that’s how one Confederate heritage blogger might put it. In truth, she also declares:
Sooooo, the recent furor in the floggosphere about it is just much ado about little, or nothing. They only showcased it to indulge in the misleading flogger practice of finding negative comments made by one, two or an handful of people and then attempting to smear the Virginia Flaggers, the SHPG, the SCV, the UDC, the Southern heritage community and the entire white South with it.
Note that none of these groups was mentioned in my post. Note also that she shows no objection to the comments made. Of course, you know why that is. Of course you do. That’s right. Absolutely.
It’s April 9, 2014. Some 149 years ago today, this happened:
Within days, this happened:
No word yet on whether certain Confederate heritage groups will fly white flags and furl their Confederate flags, just as their honored ancestors did, to mark the occasion on the road to national reunification.
I spent the weekend in Virginia, where I spoke on Saturday at an NPS-sponsored event. I’ll say more about that later, but for now let me report that it was an extremely pleasant event. Little did I know that down the road a few score miles things were a little more interesting in the former capital of the Confederacy.
First, it seems that the governor of Virginia has decided to ignore Virginia Flagger Susan Hathaway in declining to issue a proclamation declaring April Confederate Heritage Month (it could also be called Confederate Surrender Month, but I digress). What a shame. Do you think the Flaggers will flag the governor’s office? Surely they would if they really wanted to restore the honor. Besides, they need the publicity.
Second, it looks as if the Virginia Flaggers were busy recently dealing with a counter protester. Apparently the Flaggers think that they alone should be able to express their opinions (here’s a sample); apparently they also like to do things that promise to get them into trouble with the authorities. We await word that yet another legal defense fund has been established to help out another Flagger in need (anyone heard anything about those lawsuits the mighty Norwood “Tripp” Lewis threatened to file?). The Flaggers don’t need that sort of publicity, although they will now get it. Where’s Rob Walker when you need him, Susan?
We should expect some squawking from Pensacola any moment now, because someone has a new computer. Apparently she’s quite happy, even if she forgot a few things.
In the aftermath of Glenn McConnell’s selection as president of the College of Charleston, the discussion has been (as I warned you) fairly predictable, although we now have a spat over the nature of the new president’s library (and what he sold at his store).
I confess that I am not terribly interested in this matter in terms of McConnell’s interest in Confederate heritage. The College was well aware of his interests when it chose him, and the reaction should have come as no surprise. But other people are far more interested. Are you?