Confederates, Nazis, and Obama Haters: Who Links Them Together?

Why, I’ll show you:

Hall FB page

That’s right … and see this explanation from our hero:

HALL nAZIS 2

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 …
Grove Hall
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.

Quotes of the Week: April 6-12, 2014 (A Fort Pillow Remembrance)

Here’s what one defender of Confederate heritage had to say about the sesquicentennial of Fort Pillow:
Hall on Forrest

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.”

April 12, 1864: Massacre at Fort Pillow

Battle_of_Fort_Pillow
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.

Some Flaggers and Their Friend … Brian Pace

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!

Really?

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:

WhiteCSA My Name Is Brian Pace A

WhiteCSA Our Klan Movement A

WhiteCSA Our Klan A

And whom might Brian Pace count among his friends?

Susan Hathaway Friend A

Tripp Lewis Friend A

Billy Bearden Friend A

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.

Lost Cause Historical Practice

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:
OVB Appomattox Grant

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.

(emphasis added)

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.”

That’s better.

Remember … It’s Hate, Not Heritage (Redux)

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.

Hall and Hines on Proms

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.

Trouble in Old Virginny

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.

McConnell and the College of Charleston: Kerfuffle or Controversy?

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?

Lincoln on Slavery, Presidential Power, and the Constitution

On April 4, 1864, Abraham Lincoln wrote the following letter to Albert G. Hodges, a Kentucky newspaper editor, recounting the contents of a conversation he had days earlier with Hodges, Governor Thomas Bramlette, and former senator Archibald Dixon. You can see the original here.

Executive Mansion, Washington, April 4, 1864

 

A. G. Hodges, Esq
Frankfort, Ky.

 

My dear Sir: You ask me to put in writing the substance of what I verbally said the other day, in your presence, to Governor Bramlette and Senator Dixon. It was about as follows:

 

“I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I can not remember when I did not so think, and feel. And yet I have never understood that the Presidency conferred upon me an unrestricted right to act officially upon this judgment and feeling. It was in the oath I took that I would, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. I could not take the office without taking the oath. Nor was it my view that I might take an oath to get power, and break the oath in using the power. I understood, too, that in ordinary civil administration this oath even forbade me to practically indulge my primary abstract judgment on the moral question of slavery. I had publicly declared this many times, and in many ways. And I aver that, to this day, I have done no official act in mere deference to my abstract judgment and feeling on slavery. I did understand however, that my oath to preserve the constitution to the best of my ability, imposed upon me the duty of preserving, by every indispensable means, that government—that nation—of which that constitution was the organic law. Was it possible to lose the nation, and yet preserve the constitution? By general law life and limb must be protected; yet often a limb must be amputated to save a life; but a life is never wisely given to save a limb. I felt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful, by becoming indispensable to the preservation of the constitution, through the preservation of the nation. Right or wrong, I assumed this ground, and now avow it. I could not feel that, to the best of my ability, I had even tried to preserve the constitution, if, to save slavery, or any minor matter, I should permit the wreck of government, country, and Constitution all together.

When, early in the war, Gen. Fremont attempted military emancipation, I forbade it, because I did not then think it an indispensable necessity. When a little later, Gen. Cameron, then Secretary of War, suggested the arming of the blacks, I objected, because I did not yet think it an indispensable necessity. When, still later, Gen. Hunter attempted military emancipation, I again forbade it, because I did not yet think the indispensable necessity had come. When, in March, and May, and July 1862 I made earnest, and successive appeals to the border states to favor compensated emancipation, I believed the indispensable necessity for military emancipation, and arming the blacks would come, unless averted by that measure. They declined the proposition; and I was, in my best judgment, driven to the alternative of either surrendering the Union, and with it, the Constitution, or of laying strong hand upon the colored element. I chose the latter. In choosing it, I hoped for greater gain than loss; but of this, I was not entirely confident. More than a year of trial now shows no loss by it in our foreign relations, none in our home popular sentiment, none in our white military force,—no loss by it any how or any where. On the contrary, it shows a gain of quite a hundred and thirty thousand soldiers, seamen, and laborers. These are palpable facts, about which, as facts, there can be no cavilling. We have the men; and we could not have had them without the measure.

 

["]And now let any Union man who complains of the measure, test himself by writing down in one line that he is for subduing the rebellion by force of arms; and in the next, that he is for taking these hundred and thirty thousand men from the Union side, and placing them where they would be but for the measure he condemns. If he can not face his case so stated, it is only because he can not face the truth.['']

 

I add a word which was not in the verbal conversation. In telling this tale I attempt no compliment to my own sagacity. I claim not to have controlled events, but confess plainly that events have controlled me. Now, at the end of three years struggle the nation’s condition is not what either party, or any man devised, or expected. God alone can claim it. Whither it is tending seems plain. If God now wills the removal of a great wrong, and wills also that we of the North as well as you of the South, shall pay fairly for our complicity in that wrong, impartial history will find therein new cause to attest and revere the justice and goodness of God.

 

Yours truly

A. Lincoln

The letter gives a fairly good idea of where Lincoln’s thinking was by 1864 when it came to assessing the constitutionality of the measures he had taken to strike at slavery.

Comments?