Connie Chastain’s War on Women … And Guess Who Supports Her?

It’s not been a good week for Confederate heritage advocates. They are unhappy about what’s happened at the University of Mississippi, where it appears that advocates of flying a Confederate flag have had a rough time telling the truth as they suffer setback after setback. Now comes news that the favorite candidate of most Confederate heritage advocates, Republican nominee Donald J. Trump, is in serious trouble because of his crass and lewd remarks (and that’s kind) anout women, which most observers believe includes an endorsement of sexual assault. No word yet from Virginia Whine Country, which has been very protective of candidate Trump, about whether protests against sexual assault are simply new examples of political correctness, the target of many a mindless post that are little more than a clipping service of the alt-right. We await efforts to find a Gordon Wood quote that can be twisted in suppport of that blogger’s position.

Without a doubt, however, one need only look at what Virginia Flaggers spokesperson and webmaster Connie Chastain says about Trump to understand that some corners of Confederate heritage advocacy are also busily engaged in conducting a war on women. Like Trump, Chastain favors criminalizing the decision of women to have abortions:

Even Trump has thought better of this, but Chastain has not.

And, just like our friend at Virginia Whine Country, Chastain decides it’s all the fault of the left and the media:


Note the identity of the single retweeter. Note also that I guess that one can conclude that Trump’s past is irrelevant, but not so Clinton’s past … or that non-leftists don’t care about treating women with respect.

Of course, one remembers that Chastain was also a big fan of claiming that women often made false claims about being raped (unless the person being accused was Bill Clinton, I guess). This was a theme of two of her underwhelmingly successful novels. Endorsing sexual assault as a way to approach women is okay in Chastain’s mind, because we can set it aside as “locker room talk”; that such talk, if put into action, results in rape seems irrelevant (will it elicit more squawking ¬†from her about false rape accusations?).

It’s a small step from here to the reasoning of sexual predators that women “really want it” and that “no” means “try harder.”

After all, just saying one’s sorry is good enough.

war-on-women-5Note who retweeted both of these as well.

After all, Chastain wants Trump to whack people, including Clinton:


Funny that she chose that means of expression.

Mind you, Chastain thinks something’s wrong with women (“cackling hens”?) who protest such treatment:


Moreover, “real women” wouldn’t get upset:


That’s right … this controversy about advocating sexual assault is simply “nothing,” and the best proof comes from the sales of a book that is not Chastain’s (jealous, Chastain?). Let’s mock the outrage over such behavior as nothing more than make-pretend about “women’s delicate widdle feelings.”

What else could you expect from someone who seems obsessed about false rape accusations? So … anger over language advocating sexual assault is nothing more than an act to placate “women’s delicate widdle feelings”? Really?

(Yes … Chastain’s gone the fake-name route in crafting an alternative identity of “Polly Graff,” although it did not take her long to drop the pretense that it was her.)


We await Chastain’s efforts to identify which men engage in such talk. As her previous interaction has been with Republican politicians, Confederate heritage apologists, and false rape accusation protesters, we can’t wait to hear about her experiences about what is said in these locker rooms.

But don’t mistake Chastain for a feminist …


Note the wording: it’s not “pseudo-feministic women,” but “feministic pseudo-women.” Real women aren’t feminists: feminists are “pseudo-women.” And no, folks, that’s not a mistake … she says “pseudo-women” twice.

We await the usual retort from Virginia Whine Country that protesting lewd talk and endorsements of sexual assault are nothing more than exercises in political correctness from a leftist academic who’s attacking a political candidate … because, apparently, these things should not be attacked. They are nothing more than locker room talk, as if that’s an acceptable excuse.

Finally, note who likes (and retweets) Chastain’s Twitter activity on behalf of sexual predators … Susan Hathaway. The fact is that Hathaway and her followers have politicized their movement in explicit ways by endoring Trump, not just as individuals, but as an organization:

flaggers-trump-1Oh, well.

The heritage of hate continues. If anything, it’s grown, because it now includes people who protest sexual assault and the victimization of women not named Susan Hathaway.


News From Stone Mountain

It now looks as if the plan to erect a bell tower atop Stone Mountain to honor Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., has been shelved. Given the opposition offered by several groups who honor King to the idea, that does not come as a surprise.

What remains of the original proposal, however, is also sure to spark some controversy. Plans remain to tell the story of African Americans who saw military service during the American Civil War. And, as you might expect, to some people that means the story of black Confederates.

Here we go again. I can’t wait for those historians who proclaim that any discussion of this issue is regrettable because responsible scholars dismiss it out of hand discover that not everyone agrees (and that their strategy of ignoring the controversy has backfired yet again). After all, advocates of the black Confederate tale are sure to cite Harvard professor John Stauffer in support of their position … and perhaps Skip Gates and Jim Downs will jump on this bandwagon as well once more.

Let’s see whether scholars abdicate their responsibility to educate the public responsibly once more because they simply dismiss what some people say out of hand … until they see the result at Stone Mountain. Then we’ll see who’s “freaking out.” And we’ll also see who falls silent.

November 11, 1918

Last June, I traveled to Europe, where for nearly three weeks I visited sites in Luxembourg, Belgium, and France. Among the places I visited was the place where the armistice of 1918 was signed at Compi√©gne, France. It’s a little bit off the beaten path, but a historical site is a historical site, and so we made our way over one morning.


A rather large monument marking the triumph of France over Germany and the restoration of Alsace and Lorraine to France marks the entrance to the park.

Continue reading

The Continuing What-Ifs of Reconstruction

Note: Not too long ago I finished a manuscript that will appear in next March’s Journal of the Civil War Era. It addresses particular counterfactual queries concerning the course of Reconstruction and the policy pursued by Republicans. I have long been interested in Reconstruction policy, especially at the national level, as my 1998 book, The Reconstruction Presidents, suggests, although those readers who peruse the pages of The Political Education of Henry Adams (1996) will find it also addresses Reconstruction from the perspective of one of its critics. Thus what follows is in response to recent discussions, but it also reflects a far longer interest that has its most recent expression in the above-mentioned manuscript.

One of the most fascinating aspects of Reconstruction history to me is the degree to which some historians speculate about the what-ifs of Reconstruction in their eagerness to believe that what happened was not largely preordained if not inevitable. Then again, historians also don’t like to consider that something’s inevitable: whether a certain outcome to a historical process was inevitable sits along the same spectrum as speculating about what-ifs, for it’s useless to ponder “what if …” if something was inevitable. Moreover, the what-ifs we choose to explore reveal a lot about what we would “like” to have happened, and all too often one’s tale grounded in considerations of the counterfactual conforms closely to one’s personal fantasy about what ought to have happened.

Continue reading

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.