Sunday, July 20, 2014

Poll: 29 percent of Mississippians would back a new Confederacy. Regarding the poll results and Jury duty.

The Sun Herald had an article about a recent poll taken of attitudes towards secession.

http://www.sunherald.com/2014/07/17/5701899/poll-29-percent-of-mississippians.html

The question pollsters question was:
"If there were another Civil War today, would you side with the Confederate States of America or the United States of America?"
It was run by Public Policy Polling (PPP). It was asked of 691 Mississippians.

Of all Mississippians polled, 29% would back the Confederate States of America (CSA).

The article states that only 2% of African Americans would support the CSA. One can only imagine how the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) would be interested in locating these African Americans to parade them around with a Confederate flag.

The article doesn't tell the statistics regarding white people in the U.S.A.

The article does break it down by party affiliation though.

Democrats: 82% for the USA and 9% for the CSA.
Republicans: 41% for the USA and 37% for the CSA.

What is astounding is that less than half the Republicans in Mississippi would support the USA.

Perhaps the whole point of this poll was to show that Republicans aren't that patriotic. As I have stated in earlier blog postings one of the Republicans regular political activities was to assert that the Democrats were somehow unpatriotic and the Republicans were more patriotic. When you have less than half of your supporters choose the USA your assertion of being more patriotic becomes absurd.

The results were further broken down by who people supported in the Republican primary.

For Thad Cochran supporters 61% chose the USA which I think is very low, but not surprising for a candidate that interviewed in Southern Partisan, 22% chose the CSA.

For Tea Party challenger McDaniels, 38% chose the USA and 37% chose the CSA. What is rather amazing is that 62% would choose the CSA or aren't sure that they would chose the USA.

I was not able to find a link to the poll results at the PPP website.

I think that in Mississippi screening out pro-CSA supporters from jury pools is a very reasonable activity. People who would choose the CSA should not be be jurors.

The poll adds additional justification to my article on jury duty published in the Black Commentator. The following is the free guest link.

http://www.blackcommentator.com/507/507_confederacy_jury_selection_sebesta_hague_guests_share.html



Sunday, July 13, 2014

Article on Neo-Confederate who won a Republican party primary in Maryland and neo-Confederate attempts to get involved with mainstream politics.

This article was published in the Huffington Post recently.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-hutson/meet-marylands-white-nati_b_5572556.html

It turns out that Michael Peroutka, a theocrat and former League of the South board member, was able to win the Republican party primary for an Anne Arundel County Council race in Maryland. and won a seat on the Republican Party Central Committee there. He runs an organization called Institute on the Constitution which is fairly openly neo-Confederate in its views.

What I found somewhat ominous is that Joseph Delimater III, who is closely tied to Peroutka, ran unopposed in the Republican primary for sheriff and could be elected in the general election.

The article is worth reading. It shows that neo-Confederates are not confined to some remote rural area or a particular region of the nation, or marginal.


Thursday, July 10, 2014

Professor at Valdosta University in Georgia says that the State of Georgia should drop all Confederate commemorations

The article is online here:

http://clatl.com/atlanta/activists-state-should-end-all-confederate-memorials/Content?oid=11620447

From Confederate Memorial Day to streets named for Ku Klux Klan founders, the state of Georgia should pull the plug on its official support of Confederacy celebrations, say two Valdosta activists in a recent open letter to Gov. Nathan Deal and the entire General Assembly. 
Such "Southern heritage" memorials are simply taxpayer-funded pseudo-history that celebrates white supremacy, they say. And state leaders so far aren't biting.
The letter is the brainchild of Mark Patrick George, a Valdosta State University sociologist who runs a project studying a local lynching spree of the early 1900s, and the Rev. Floyd Rose of the Lowndes/Valdosta chapter of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.
"We contact you today to respectfully call for an end to the state of Georgia's endorsement, promotion and support of all Confederate holidays, events, and its management of historic sites and monuments related to the Confederacy. We also call for an immediate change to all state roads and highways currently named for Confederate leaders," says the letter, sent on June 23. 
George says they are acting on their own, though they have started reaching out to civil rights groups. They want to spark discussion of racial issues and raise awareness that the "heritage, not hate" mythos is factually wrong. The idea came from a documentary film that George, who grew up in South Georgia, is making about Civil War re-enactors, many of whom, he says, falsely believe the Confederacy was not primarily motivated by slavery and racism. 
"What exactly are we celebrating?" George asks. The ultimate answer, he says, is leaders and soldiers "who said God declared white people should be in charge of black people ... Where are the thoughts and feelings of African-Americans who are citizens of this state? Black people are paying for, in many ways, their own degradation."
The whole Lost Cause nonsense needs to go into the garbage can. More people are seeing this.

Tuesday, July 08, 2014

Washington and Lee decide to pull Confederate Battle flag. Excuses and rationalizations don't seem to work anymore.

It appears that Washington & Lee University has decided to pull Confederate Battle flags out of the Lee Chapel. Evidently excuses and rationalizations weren't accepted by minority students in The Committee who were fighting Washington and Lee University's long standing plan to be a Confederate shrine. The story is here:

http://www.roanoke.com/news/virginia/w-l-will-remove-confederate-battle-flags-from-lee-chapel/article_a13cae23-4367-56c5-9861-8ffd90e673e1.html

I don't know if Washington & Lee University tried the rationalization that since African Americans spoke at the Lee Chapel the Battle flags were okay. Perhaps if Kevin Levin had talked to The Committee the flags would still be up, I doubt it though.

This is a significant breakthrough. As each university gives up pandering to the Lost Cause, other universities that continue to pander to the Lost Cause will find their pandering increasingly obvious and unacceptable to the public.

As one institution, place or group gives up the Lost Cause the remaining groups and institutions that still pander to it will increasingly seem unacceptable.

Though this doesn't seem to be a great victory. Mostly the university is shuffling things around.

Thursday, July 03, 2014

Starting to speak before the public about the neo-Confederate movement

In mid-August I will be speaking to the public about the neo-Confederate movement. I have been working on a Powerpoint presentation. Now I am working on what type of portable technology I want to use to do presentations with small groups.

With the time for the presentation I don't have time to cover all the various animosities that neo-Confederates have to one minority or another, so I am just treating on the topic of civil rights. The primary focus is going to be the neo-Confederates movement's hostility towards egalitarianism from their promotion of pro-slavery theology to their opposition to civil rights legislation to their hostility to democracy itself and the critical supports for a democracy such as public education.

The Southern Partisan hasn't been published for some time, so I am focusing more on the contemporary neo-Confederate movement. Some of the items from the Confederate Veteran, Southern Mercury, and other publications should get a lot of interest.

I believe that an informed public is a public which will critically examine what the neo-Confederates.

Wednesday, July 02, 2014

Hillary Clinton and the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC)

Bill Clinton sent three letters of congratulations to the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC), the first of them in slightly less than a year after Carol Moseley-Braun's victory over the UDC in the U.S. Senate. The link to the story is online.

http://www.blackcommentator.com/274/274_clinton_udc.html

Bill Clinton never retracted his letters or apologized for them. The question comes up whether Hillary Clinton would ever send a letter of congratulations to a neo-Confederate group or would send a wreath to the Confederate Monument in the Arlington Cemetery.

I will have to write both of them.


Wednesday, June 25, 2014

U.S. Senator Thad Cochran interviewed in the "Southern Partisan" how he was against the Voting Rights Act, but in recent primary has career saved by Democratic and African American voters


U.S. Senator Thad Cochran interviewed in the Southern Partisan, Vol. 15 3rd Qtr., starting on page 32.
Cochran in the interview is against the Voting Rights Act.  I don't think it is a great thing that Cochran won. He is the last congressional Republican who interviewed in Southern Partisan who is still in office. If the tea party guy had won, there was a good chance that he would have lost the general election.  Then there would have been two Republicans who have had dealings with the neo-Confederates.

Some highlights from the interview are:

Page 34  

Southern Partisan: Well, the South continues to be singled out in respect to Federal Civil Rights legislation, for example; do you think this is still justified?

Cochran: No, I think that it is regrettable, and it ought to discontinued. When we last had the Voting Rights act before the Senate, I offered an amendment to apply the law to all states not just to those of the old Confederacy. ...


Page 34-35

Southern Partisan: You mentioned of course, that a lot of changes have taken place in the South, still some things remain; the Confederate Battle Flag for example; that is part of the state flag in Mississippi, are you comfortable with it?

Cochran: I don't think Congress ought to decide. I think it is strictly up to the state legislature of Mississippi, and if I were a member of the legislature I would vote to keep the flag as it is.

Southern Partisan: You don't see a problem with separating heritage or ---
Cochran: I think it is unfortunate that some have used it in a way that it raised questions about their views. but our state, I think, has demonstrated by our actions that it is not a racist state. We have full rights and participation in all the political processes. It's a decision the Mississippi state legislature has made, and I respect their decision.

Page 35

Southern Partisan: Do you favor stronger roles in state government?


Cochran: I think states have been mistreated in the extent that the federal government has usurped the responsibilities that many of us think are the rights of the states or are more properly vested in state government. We are seeing a transition back to, I think, some of those notions of states' rights and the Tenth Amendment, which protects the privacy of states by preventing usurpation by the federal government. 

Tuesday, June 24, 2014

"Daily Caller" Jordan Bloom Opinion Editor's scatological and negative opinion of my Churches of the Confederacy campaign.

This is the blog posting by Jordan Bloom at the blog

http://mitrailleuse.net/2014/06/22/secession-lagniappe-7/

He is not very happy with my campaign against churches hosting neo-Confederate groups.

He is evidently the Opinion Editor at Daily Caller (www.dailycaller.com) which as far as I can tell is a competitor with WorldNetDaily.com for the right wing hysterical fringe market. Well maybe not exactly the same degree of hysteria as World Net Daily.

http://mitrailleuse.net/author/jarthurbloom/

http://dailycaller.com/author/jordan-bloom/

What is interesting is that despite all the pretensions of intellect, being Opinion Editor, obscure blog name, etc., the person is just a foul mouth character that has no argument to be put forth and thus resorts to name calling.

Always swearing, cursing, profanity, obscenity, etc. is a failure of intellect, the failure to express your objection in real terms and it is just ranting. Also, it is ineffective in stinging anyone. It is just noise that people tune out. It really shows the mental incapacity of Bloom.


Wednesday, June 18, 2014

Kevin LevIn, Washington & Lee University, White Paternalism and Black Confederates

A group of minority students at Washington & Lee have asked the university to stop glorifying Robert E. Lee, ban neo-Confederate groups from campus, and generally stop being a shrine to the Confederacy.

An article on their efforts can be read at this link:


Kevin Levin has a blog posting at this link. It really is incredible to read this exposition of white paternalism. 

Kevin Levin opposes the student's efforts to remove Confederate flags and have the university stop functioning as a shrine to the Confederacy. 
"Instead of calling for the removal of objects from the chapel and barring certain groups from using it, these students ought to take the high road and add to the meaning and legacy of this site. Organize events for the chapel that address issues that are deemed to be important. Leave your own mark that students who follow can build on in a constructive way."
Exactly why being accommodating to neo-Confederates and a Confederate shrine is the "high road" and why minority students should contribute to the meaning and legacy of a Confederate shrine and that should be considered "constructive" escapes me. What Levin is trying to do is stigmatize the student's effort as being the low road and as destructive.  Levin doesn't debate the issues that the student raise, he just stigmatizes the student and denigrates their goals.

What is interesting is that Levin's blog posting starts with pointing out that African American's have spoken at the Lee Chapel so that somehow the chapel is okay. He has links to YouTube videos of African Americans speaking in the Lee Chapel. This is the same strategy of the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) in parading around H.K. Edgerton to justify their agenda. It is the strategy of the neo-Confederate movement with their inventions of Confederate soldiers of African ancestry to legitimize the Confederacy.

Levin's book on Black Confederates is likely to be narrowly focused on the historical record and technical details on whether Black Confederate soldiers existed. He is unlikely to have a theoretical analysis in which the promotion of the idea that Black Confederate soldiers is put in a larger historical context of using token African Americans to justify discriminatory white racial attitudes, policies, and institutions. How can he when he engages in these same tactics himself?

On a side note one of the more amusing things is that he has a video of African American Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas speaking at the Lee Chapel. It doesn't occur to Levin that Thomas is just the type of African American that people would expect to speak at a Confederate shrine. There is this link to an article, "Clarence Thomas is the Last Confederate." http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/justice-clarence-thomas-050714.  Or there is this article: http://www.nytimes.com/1991/07/19/us/about-that-flag-on-the-judge-s-desk.html.

Another thing is that Levin posts a YouTube video of Gary Gallagher speaking at the Lee Chapel where the speaker introducing him makes it clear that the Lee Chapel is about revering Lee and the chapel is a shrine to Robert E. Lee.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCLPb_bUjCE

African Americans who speak at the Lee Chapel or hold events there are enabling the Lost Cause interpretation of history by proving a cover for this shrine.

What is happening is that America is moving into the future where more and more white paternalism won't have a place and won't be credible and where there is an oncoming generation of African Americans who won't be deferential to white paternalists.

I think we can expect that as the Lost Cause, neo-Confederacy, and white racialized landscapes are opposed we will see more of Kevin Levin rationalizing the Lost Cause, neo-Confederates and banal white nationalistic agendas. I think we will find him more and more upset also, such as shown in his response to the head of the Virginia NAACP's comments about the Museum of the Confederacy.

http://cwmemory.com/2012/03/19/king-salim-khalfani-speaks-truth-to-power-without-the-truth/

Levin is upset because King Salim Khalfani doesn't care for the Museum of the Confederacy and Levin is going to put that upstart in his place with his blog posting. (My expose of the Museum of the Confederate is a four part series at Black Commentator. You can find the free guest links at www.templeofdemocracy.com/resume.htm.)



Sunday, June 15, 2014

Wrote President of the United Methodist Church about hosting neo-Confederate groups.

I wrote Rev. Rosemarie Wenner, President of the United Methodist Church (UMC) about their hosting neo-Confederates.

The letter is online at www.templeofdemocracy.com/UnitedMethodistChurch.htm

I copied the other members of the Executive Committee.

I did include some bar graphs of UDC hosting and SCV hosting by Methodist denominations. There is only one bar on the graph since it seems that the other Methodist denominations: African Methodist Episcopal Church, and African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church, and the Christian Methodist Church have no record of hosting neo-Confederate groups. Perhaps there is some obscure doctrinal difference that I don't understand between these Methodist denominations and the United Methodist Church. 


Monday, June 09, 2014

Wrote to Most Rev. Schori Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church and Pope Francis about their churches hosting neo-Confederate groups.

I have been updating the Churches of the Confederacy web pages which you can access at www.templeofdemocracy.com/churchesoftheconfederacy.htm.

I added two pages.

www.templeofdemocracy.com/Episcopalian.htm where I have the letter to Most Rev. Schori Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church in America. I copied this letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury and the General Executive Council of the Episcopal Church which has something over 40 members and a couple other executive officers.

www.templeofdemocracy.com/RomanCatholic.htm where I have the letter to Pope Francis.

Other pages were updated.

I just sent them out in the last couple weeks so it is too early to expect to hear back.

It turns out that the Episcopal Church has had this big project about learning about its past involvement with slavery in the United States and a great many groups dealing with the issue of the historical past, race, and the Episcopal Church. Many statements about race are made. Yet despite all that the Episcopal Church is the leading church hosting neo-Confederate national convention services.

I don't think the general membership or most Episcopalians involved with the issues of racism in the Episcopal church are aware that their denomination is the leading denomination hosting neo-Confederate events.

I am going to write the United Methodist Church next.

Afterwards I am going to be writing all the religious groups that profess to be concerned about the issue of race in the three denominations.

Tuesday, May 20, 2014

League of the South Billboard in Alabama taken down resulting in national publicity.

The League of the South (LS) put up a bill board in Alabama like their billboard in Florida.

This is a link about the Florida billboard at the LS website.  http://dixienet.org/rights/2014/secede_billboard_in_florida.php

This is a link about the Montgomery, Alabama billboard at the Southern Nationalist Network website.

http://southernnationalist.com/blog/2014/05/16/secede-billboard-goes-up-in-montgomery/

The LS would have gotten some publicity with the billboard  It is a billboard after all and it has a message that you don't see everyday. However, after being up for a while, and some local commentary, it would have disappeared from public awareness.

However, the billboard advertising firm, Lamar Advertising, gave into pressure from its other advertisers and pulled the LS billboard last weekend. I am guessing, but I suppose the local chamber of commerce saw the billboard and imagined that it was bad for business. I don't think it is the type of thing you want a visitor from a company that might locate an operation in your city to see.

Censorship is always a topic of interest to the public and the AP distributed a story on the billboard being taken down. So the removal of the billboard has been in the media all over the nation. The LS is publicized not in ads which people often ignore, but in news stories.

Both the Washington Post and the Washington Times had coverage of the billboard being taken down.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ad-company-takes-down-southern-secession-billboard/2014/05/19/604c2ac0-df7b-11e3-9442-54189bf1a809_story.html

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/19/southern-secede-billboard-dropped-alabama-after-co/

The removal made the Miami Herald's "Weird News" section.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/05/19/4124729/ad-company-removes-pro-secession.html

Being in the "Weird News" section is actually a fairly good thing. People like to read those sections.

As the old saying goes, "You can't buy publicity like that."

Also, it is of interest that local business interests saw the billboard as a threat when most people would find it an amusing thing from a fringe movement. I thought it was interesting that in Florida a billboard actually went up in response to the LS bill board.

The suppression of the billboard in Montgomery was a stupid strategy. People don't like censorship. People generally feel that they can judge ideas on their own. This act of the Lamar Advertising generated national publicity for the LS and negative publicity for itself as a censor. It is surprising that Lamar Advertising didn't learn from the Florida LS billboard that their clients are probably not happy seeing secede billboards. The chamber of commerce in Florida did a counter billboard with the word "Succeed," which gave the LS more publicity.

The Lamar Advertising agency from here on probably won't be allowing a LS billboard anywhere in the future. The League can probably find some other means to get themselves before the public.

The billboard campaign I think is doing more than publicizing the LS and drawing to them potential members. It is making the public aware that there is a neo-Confederate movement. One thing about the billboards is that a person realizes that the LS has significant money to spend. It costs a lot of money to rent a billboard and it costs money to put it up. That a secessionist group has money like this to spend means it is to some extent a significant movement. The image of the South is being changed to that of a region where there is a contemporary secessionist movement.

I think now more people will look at the entire Lost Cause phenomenon such as Confederate Memorial days, Confederate monuments, ceremonies by groups like the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) and the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC) differently. If a person praises the Confederacy it isn't an unreasonable assumption that that person might to seek to emulate the Confederacy, that is support secession. Possibly reporters will ask the SCV and the UDC what they think about neo-Confederate secessionists. This could have all sorts of ramifications.

This shows that the LS is understanding how to be a viable movement. Instead of endless study events they are becoming active and getting in the news. The study events are not a mistake. A movement needs to define itself and have a world view and create its own core of individuals with that world view, but at some point it is time to get on to the next stage. The LS with the billboard being pulled down will certainly learn, if they haven't learned already, that getting your opposition to react foolishly is the most effective strategy.

So I think that we will see a continually more activist LS. They recently have had protests against gay marriage that has gotten themselves in the news. The LS likely has adopted provocation as its agenda.

Another development is that the Civil War and southern studies are likely in the future to be more and more considered in a context where there is a current secessionist movement and a realization who in these academic fields act as enablers whether these enablers are aware of it or not, such as Kevin Levin. Also, actions by elected officials will be evaluated in context of an ongoing secession movement like sending a presidential wreath to the Arlington Confederate Monument.


Sunday, May 18, 2014

Kevin Levin, Sons of Confederate Veterans and Beauvoir

Developments concerning Beauvoir in Mississippi where Jefferson Davis, president of the Confederacy spent his last days, still a racist and pro-slavery, are very gratifying. It is also an opportunity to view and understand the true nature of Kevin Levine.

What happened at Beauvoir is that the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) who own it decided that they wanted to fly the Confederate battle flag over it. No one should be surprised by this. It has been documented that the SCV is run by neo-Confederates with a neo-Confederate agenda. This is an article in Black Commentator about them. The Southern Poverty Law Center has also reported on them.

In the conflict at Beauvoir between the staff, some directors and the SCV there were three resignations and two dismissals.  The Sun Herald had an article on it, 3/15/14, but I see that they pulled the article. I was able to find this article.  http://legalpronews.findlaw.com/article/9b3c51fec1f4f228fcd1784896a3060c#.U3kEj_ldWSo

The website for the Beauvoir property is online at http://www.beauvoir.org/. It is being redesigned and announces that it is under "Un-reconstruction." I can only imagine what it will be like when the SCV is done changing it.

The program for Beauvoir had been this subtle banal white nationalism of making Beauvoir a shrine to Davis and Varina Davis his wife, avoiding the issues of slavery and the Civil War and instead obsessing over things like Varina Davis plan for Beauvoir's garden.

Bertram Hayes-Davis, a direct descendant of Davis, and his wife Carol came down from Dallas to work at Beauvoir. This is good in itself because the fewer of these type of people in Dallas the better. (Sorry Biloxi better there than here.) I am sure Hayes-Davis was looking forward to living out his ancestral fantasies of being a descendant of Davis at Beauvoir.   The Sun Herald article reports:
He oversaw the opening of the library and the completion of Varina's Garden, which recreates the garden of Davis' wife, and with his resemblance to his grandfather and extensive knowledge of the family history, became the spokesman for Beauvoir. 
It is revealing of his attitudes towards race that he would want to be in Beauvoir rather than trying to move on from Jefferson Davis a pro-slavery advocate and white supremacist, though his attitudes do fit right in with that of the old guard of Dallas.

The SCV didn't want to go along with the usual so-called "professional" historical interpretation and not surprisingly wanted to use it to advance their agenda. This conflict has resulted in the resignations of three board members including Bertram Hayes-Davis and dismissal of two staff members.

I don't have any sympathy for any of them. They refused to acknowledge that the SCV wasn't really the sentimental "heritage" organization that it represented itself to be, refused to recognize the SCV for what it was and then were surprised that the SCV turned out to be what it obviously was. The agenda of the resigned and dismissed is actually worse than the SCV agenda. Instead of engaging the issues of Jefferson Davis and his pro-slavery views and actions and his white supremacy, they avoided these issues and instead pursued an agenda of avoiding these issues in the interpretation thus making a Confederate shrine which the public often uncritically accepts. Some call this a professional interpretation.

The article does point out that in Varina's will the Mississippi Sons of Confederate Veterans have the house unless they can't maintain it, then it goes to the state of Mississippi. If the state of Mississippi gets the house I am sure will promptly adopt the typical Confederate shrine interpretation and obsess over "Varina's garden" and avoid many issues about Davis, race, the Civil War, and slavery.

The SCV better keep Beauvoir in tip-top condition, because I am sure there will be people running to the state of Mississippi if they see as much as single paint flake or rusty nail or a leaf not raked up.

Kevin Levin wasn't happy over this turn of events.

http://cwmemory.com/2014/03/16/confederate-flag-flap-at-beauvoir/

Levin's comment about this change is:
Apparently, management is consulting with the Virginia Flaggers on how to respectfully and tastefully display the Confederate flag. I visited Beauvoir once years ago. It is a beautiful site and one that deserves to be preserved and professionally interpreted. It looks like the Mississippi SCV is capable of doing neither.
Levin believes himself to be a member of the elite interpreters of the Civil War and is upset that Beauvoir isn't going to be interpreted by people like him. Note his terms "professionally interpreted" and "respectfully and tastefully." He would be quite happy with Beauvoir continuing to be used as a Confederate shrine by "professional" interpreters as he is with the Museum of the Confederacy being a Confederate shrine.

Levin is also upset with manifestations of the neo-Confederate agenda. He puts neo-Confederate in quotes in his blog posts, as if it is a questionable term. With the SCV agenda at Beauvoir, it becomes harder to ignore the reality of the neo-Confederate movement when it is highly visible. The SCV agenda for Beauvoir will discredit the Confederacy whereas the "professional" interpretation would work to increase identification with the Confederacy.

This increased visibility is good since it will alert the public. It will also serve to discredit the Civil War enthusiasts who want the Civil War to be anything and everything but the issues of race and slavery and would like to enthuse over Varina's garden and count buttons on uniforms. These Civil War enthusiasts will also be seen as enablers as since they surely should have been aware of the neo-Confederate movement and did nothing.

Kevin Levin is representative of a certain faction of Civil War enthusiasts which would like to avoid a lot of the issues about the historical memory of the Civil War. So it is instructive to observe him. As the the issues of historical memory regarding the Civil War move into a future and away from representations that might have been acceptable in the past he is reacting to it and his blog postings are very revealing. I next hope to blog on his coverage of the opposition to neo-Confederacy at Washington and Lee University by African American students.  It is both hilarious and revealing.


The old regime is passing away.

Saturday, May 17, 2014

Sons of Confederate Veterans and their hate group policy

The Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) like to say that they are against hate groups in particular towards the KKK. This is supposedly proves that they aren't racist.

The White Citizens' Councils of the 1950s were against the KKK also, and the White Citizen's Councils were hysterically racist. This website has the White Citizens' Council newspaper online. http://www.citizenscouncils.com/

The SCV doesn't however have problems with people who are members of the Council of Conservative Citizens (CofCC) (www.cofcc.org).  The SCV had CofCC members write articles for its now defunct publication Southern Mercury and I keep coming across CofCC members involved with the SCV.

If the SCV "no tolerance policy towards hate groups" meant anything, the SCV would not allow CofCC members to have any influence or role in the SCV and would seek to have them banned from membership.

There is no indication that this will happen.

Friday, May 02, 2014

Council of Conservative Citizens reporting on race: An Example

The Council of Conservative Citizens has a hysterical article at their website here:

http://topconservativenews.com/2014/05/nova-scotia-bar-owners-convicted-of-racism-for-calling-police-on-unruly-black-patron/

The head line reads, "Nova Scotia bar owners convicted of racism for calling police on unruly black patron." The article tells the reader, "Dino Gilpin, a black immigrant, was asked to leave a Halifax bar because he did not have a valid picture ID. When he refused to leave and made a scene, the bar called police," and "So, in Canada, it is now literally illegal for a business to call the police on a black customer who is causing trouble and refusing to leave." in bold print.

So is that the case? This is the Canadian coverage of the story.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/halifax-man-wins-discrimination-case-against-alehouse-1.1344565

From the news story:
"Dino Gilpin — who is black and originally from Sierra Leone — went to the commission after he was refused service at the Halifax Alehouse on Feb. 20, 2010, when they wouldn't accept his Canadian citizenship card as a valid form of photo identification."
Further from the news story:

In a decision dated June 13, the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission ruled the decision to refuse to serve Gilpin was based on the bar's rigid ID policy, rather than his race.
But the commission also said the Halifax Alehouse broke the Human Rights Act when staff called the police, ruling that only racial discrimination could explain that action when Gilpin was simply drinking a glass of water.
"I find that the worst that can be said of Mr. Gilpin is that he overstayed, lingering over his water. I find that he was calm and behaved appropriately throughout," wrote J. Walter Thompson, the chair of the Board of Inquiry.
"I find that he did not become loud, rant and rave or cause a huge commotion. I find he showed no signs of intoxication and was not in fact intoxicated."
Thompson went on to say Gilpin was "publicly humiliated."

 An African immigrant stood up for his rights. Good for him.

This should tell the reader how much credibility to accord a Council of Conservative Citizens story.

Wisconsin GOP set to vote on secession resolution, Wisconsin Republicans embarrassed. Update:

At the Daily Beast there is the following article about the upcoming Wisconsin GOP statewide convention in which they are going to vote on a resolution which says that a state has a right to secede.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/02/wisconsin-s-gop-secession-panic.html

Since the Sixth Congressional Republican Party voted on a resolution saying a state has a right to secede it is coming up for a state wide vote much to the embarrassment of the Wisconsin party and the national republican party. The Republican Party embarrassment is what the article is about.

In earlier blogs I have stated that this secession nonsense would be an embarrassment for the Republican Party. It is going to be difficult for the Republican Party to manage since the Republican Party activists seem to be in a competition with each other to adopt a more ultra position on being hostile to modernity and government.

When a political party passes a resolution like this they can't then go and say they are the patriotic party. If you are patriotic to a nation you don't discuss destroying it.

The patriotism of those who advance these secession resolutions can be questioned as well as media outlets which enable secession activity.

Update:

Further evidence of the embarrassment of Wisconsin Republican elected officials that have to run for re-election and don't want to be the candidates of the crazy party.

http://wuwm.com/post/50-assembly-republicans-call-wi-gop-reject-secession-resolution


Monday, April 21, 2014

Questions sent to the Sons of Confederate Veterans UPDATE: 27 Days no answer.

BACKGROUND: Dr. Thomas Y. Hiter, head of the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) sent me a letter criticizing that I was writing churches asking them not to host the SCV meetings and convention services. Hiter said that if I had questions I should ask the SCV "instead." So I have sent him questions. The UPDATE section tracks whether Hiter or the SCV has responded.

UPDATE: So far as the morning of 5/18/2014 I have not heard back from Hiter or the SCV regarding these questions. Hiter's letter strongly urged me to ask questions and so I have. Perhaps I will hear back. I will be updating the date in the UPDATE until I hear back. I may not be updating it as frequently since they haven't emailed me back even as to whether they received my questions.

I sent the following email to Dr. Thomas Y. Hiter, head of the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) Vision 2016 effort and the SCV Chief of Heritage Defense.

Email of 4/21/2014 follows:

Dear Dr. Hiter:

Since you have strongly suggested in your letter to me post marked March 25, 2014  that I ask the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) regarding questions I might have about the SCV, I am submitting these 15 questions to the SCV.  I look forward to a timely reply.

I had other questions, but I think these 15 questions are a good start.  Please note I am copying these to the SCV Chief of Heritage Defense with this email since perhaps it is his authority within the SCV to answer these questions.

Sincerely Yours,

Edward H. Sebesta

QUESTIONS FOR THOMAS Y HITER AND THE SCV

1.   The prefix “neo” means new in a case where something is a new version of something in the past. For example there is neo-Classical architecture, music, and art. Today a group of people who claim to have the “principles” and “ideals” of the Confederate soldier, which is part of The Charge to the SCV, are certainly not surviving Confederate soldiers, but are new holders of their beliefs. Wouldn’t neo-Confederate be a proper recognition that these are new Confederates?

Question: What is the SCV objection to the term “neo-Confederate”?

2.   The states which are considered as being former states of the Confederacy vary with different groups and individuals.

Question: Which states does the SCV consider former states of the Confederacy?

3.   The SCV has a program called Vision 2016. It is described in an article “Our Southern Vision,” by Thomas Y. Hiter, SCV Chief of Heritage Defense, in the Nov. /Dec. 2011 issue of the Confederate Veteran, official publication of the SCV, on pages 10-11. In reading the article it can be perceived that the SCV has a political agenda though it is partly stated in terms that the non-member might not understand.

Hiter reports that in February 2011 the General Executive Council adopted “The Vision” statement. This vision statement sets goals for the year 2016 reunion of the SCV of membership growth, and from the statement, “… and is widely seen by others as the pre-eminent authority on Southern heritage and American liberty.”  The reference to “American liberty” might be understood that they are going to have a historical interest in American concepts of liberty and the Constitution, however reading further it becomes apparent that there is a political component.

Hiter in bold face has a statement of belief of the SCV, “We believe in God, home, family, heritage, duty, liberty, freedom, self-determination, self-government, patriotism, truth and self-defense,” and further asserts that “most Southerners” believe this and that the actions of the SCV “can make a difference in achieving these things.”
It is subsequent to this statement that Hiter it becomes more apparent that it is a political agenda.

After the statement of belief Hiter writes, “In other words, we believe in our heritage. Now there are other facets of the SCV than Heritage Defense.” He then lists the usual “heritage” activities of the SCV and then states, “But all in all, over and above that, we stand ready to fight all over the battles which President Davis predicted we would fight when the Cause they fought for once again rears its head and calls for attention and eventual victory.”

To persons outside the neo-Confederate movement this reference to Confederate president Davis may be obscure. Davis asserted that the issues of the attempted secession were ideological and that the issues would arise again in the future. Davis said:

“The principle for which we contend is bound to reassert itself, though it may be at another time and in another form.”

This quote is commonly referred to by neo-Confederates as being from an 1871 address to the Mississippi state legislature. I haven’t found the historical reference for it. Hiter is explaining with this reference to Davis prediction that the SCV is preparing to get involved in “battles” over principles.

Hiter becomes even more clear that it is a political agenda in his statement about media awareness of the SCV.

Today they know us, but are a bit confused about who we are and what we want. Some confuse us with the Klan, or some other undesirable group. Others think we are reenactors or some other worthwhile but essentially benign, association.

We are neither. We are the descendants of the men who gained our freedom from English despotism and who fought a bloody four-year-long war against Yankee despotism for the same reason, and who have no intention now of surrendering to modern one-world-socialist despotism now!

Here Hiter declares that the SCV isn’t just an association unengaged in the political questions of the day, but instead they are going to be ready to fight future political battles.

More ominously Hiter refers to a yet potential armed conflict:

Now it is our turn to step into the breach and show the world the same God-given truths which motivated the patriots of 1776, motivated those of 1861, and that we stand today to advance the same cause they stood for then.

Happily, we are not called, yet, to arms in defense of our liberties or our lives.

In online presentations Hiter states that the goal of the SCV is to reclaim “American liberty,” which again implies a plan of action to achieve a goal.

Question: What is “American liberty” and what is the agenda of the SCV to “reclaim American liberty”?

4.   The SCV sells and endorses the movie “Birth of a Nation” which glorifies the Ku Klux Klan and has been selling it for sometime as a Confederate gift. In the Confederate Veteran the SCV has endorsed in a book review Michael Andrew Grissom’s book, “Southern By the Grace of God” which portrays the KKK as saviors of the South during reconstruction and recommends the books of Thomas Dixon. The SCV sells this book as a “Confederate” gift. The SCV sells this book online, in their catalog, and in the Confederate Veteran.

Question: If the SCV is against the KKK why does it sell pro-KKK material?

5.   The SCV sells and endorses a book “South Under Siege” by Frank Conner in which he argues that the 20th Century Civil Rights movement was a Jewish conspiracy to an attack the South.  Here are some quotes from the book:
From page 391:
Thereafter, the German Jews and Russian Jews cooperated to the extent necessary to direct the postwar Southern black-civil-rights movement in the U.S (as we shall note), and oversee the destruction of the traditional white Southerners as a people.
The American Jews seem to have reached a compromise position between the Reformed Jews’ desire to stay out of government and instead run the people who run the U.S. (and the world), so as to retain their moral superiority; and the Russian Jews’ desire to take over the government and run the U.S. (and the world) themselves.
From page 393:
Until after the turn of the 20th century, anthropologists had routinely recorded genetic as well as cultural differences between races and ethnic groups—that being the whole point of anthropology. The highlighted differences among races hand include those of intelligence. But as Kevin McDonald points out in The Culture of Critique, a German-Jewish-immigrant anthropologist named Frank Boas changed all that. At Columbia, Boas arbitrarily claimed that biological differences between the races were miniscule—that environment alone shaped the behavior of the different races and ethnic groups (a la Rousseau). A number of other Jewish anthropologists swiftly adopted the Boas’ position; and soon the Jews dominated the field of cultural anthropology. As MacDonald points out, by 1915 the Jews had gained control of the American Anthropological Association; and by 1926 they were chairing the anthropology departments at all of the major universities.

Question: Why is the SCV promoting anti-Semitic books?

6.   In the April 2008 issue of the Chaplain’s Corp Chronicles, a publication of the SCV’s Chaplain’s Corps, is a review praising “Antebellum Slavery: An Orthodox Christian View,” by a Council of Conservative Citizens leader Gary Roper, reviewed by Michael Andrew Grissom who praises the book. The view of the book is that the Bible justifies slavery. This book is sold by the SCV in the Confederate Veteran as a “Confederate” gift and in the SCV catalogs.

Since 2001 the SCV has also sold in the Confederate Veteran, as either “Southern Gifts” or “Confederate Gifts,” books which are defenses of antebellum slavery such as “Myths and Realities of Antebellum Slavery” by John C. Perry, “Myths of American Slavery” by Walter D. Kennedy as well as other defenses of slavery such as Albert T. Bledsoe’s “Liberty and Slavery.”

The SCV’s latest catalog, an insert in the Sept. /Oct. 2013 issue of the Confederate Veteran, as well as the “Confederate Gifts” bookstore section in the Sept./Oct. 2012 issue of the Confederate Veteran sold “Myths of American Slavery” by Walter D. Kennedy with his condemnation of the Southern Baptists for their apology over slavery and claims that abolitionists were anti-Christian.

Question: Does the SCV feel that the Bible defends antebellum slavery?

7.   Starting in the Vol. 1 2001 Confederate Veteran to the Sept./Oct. Confederate Veteran catalog insert, as either a “Classic Southern Reprint” or a “Confederate Gift,” the SCV has sold the book, “The Legal & Historical Status of the Dred Scott Decision,” by Elbert William R. Ewing which is a defense of the Supreme Court Dred Scott decision. One key part of the Dred Scott decision was that persons of African descent inherently weren’t citizens and had no rights.

Question: Does the SCV think the Dred Scott Decision was right or wrong?

8.   The Southern Mercury was published by the Foundation for Preserving American Culture, Inc. which is listed on its masthead that it is “An educational foundation of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc.” In the Vol. 4 No. 4, July/Aug. 2006 Southern Mercury is an article titled “The Tolerance Scam,” pages 8-9, 30-34, by Michael W. Masters, who has been involved with the Council of Conservative Citizens (www.cofc.org). The editor for this issue is Frank B. Powell, III, who is also the editor of the Confederate Veteran.

The article isn’t so much about the Southern Poverty Law Center as an attack on the civil rights movement as a Marxist conspiracy, fear mongering about immigrants, and an attack on the very concept of anti-racism itself.

From Page 30

Using the wedge of anti-racism cultural Marxists orchestrated judicial and legislative changes over the course of decades ¾ e.g. Brown v. Board of Education in 1955, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Immigration Reform Act of 1965. … The cultural Marxists relentlessly hammered away at Western cultural norms using the sledge of anti-racism as a battering ram to bring down the walls of traditional Western culture.

Given the type of books that the SCV endorses and sells it appears that there is a public face and private face of the SCV regarding racism.

Question: Given the type of books the SCV endorses and given that the SCV’s educational publication instructs its readers that anti-racism is a tool to destroy Western civilization, can the SCV’s claims of being anti-racist be taken seriously”

9.   Along with the books mentioned in the prior questions the selection of books the SCV sells raises issues as to how the SCV selects the books it decides to sell. For example, on unpaginated page 35 in the Vol. 2 2002 Confederate Veteran Patrick J. Buchanan’s book “The Death of the West: How Dying Populations and Immigrant Invasions Imperil our Country and Civilization,” is offered as a “Classic Southern Reprint,” with the endorsement, “Bursting with facts, from which the reader can draw his own conclusions. Should be required reading for every American voter.” This book isn’t about the Confederacy and it doesn’t present itself as a southern issue, but it is offered as a “Classic Southern Reprint” with the SCV’s endorsement of the book.

Question: What is the decision making process in the SCV’s selection of books it offers for sale?

10.                In the Sept. /Oct. 2003, Vol. 1 No. 2, pages 10-14, Southern Mercury Frank Conner has an white supremacist article “Where We Stand Now: And How We Got Here.” In it, African Americans are asserted to have low IQs, a fact which has supposedly been covered up by a liberal conspiracy. In a section of his article titled, “Liberals Create a False Public Image of the Blacks,” Conner writes:

Previously, anthropologists had routinely recorded the notable differences in IQ among the races; but at Columbia, a liberal cultural anthropologist named Franz Boas now changed all of that. He decreed that there were no differences in IQ among the races, and the only biological differences between the blacks and white were of superficial nature. The liberals swiftly made it academically suicidal to challenge Boas’ flat assertion. Meanwhile, the liberals in the media heaped special praise upon black athletes, musicians, singers, and writers – and treated them as typical of the black race. The liberals were creating a false image of the blacks in America as a highly competent people who were being held back by the prejudiced white southerners.

The 1954 Supreme Court decision Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka is denounced by Conner as “patently-unconstitutional.” Conner also sees the landmark civil rights legislation the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 as “patently-unconstitutional”. Civil rights legislation is denounced by Conner as being part of a liberal conspiracy, which he calls “Reconstruction II.” He explains: “Black civil rights was simply the best moral weapon with which to destroy the white Southerners as a people – just as it had been in the 19th century.” The creation of Jim Crow is defended. Conner calling African Americans “a childlike people” and that “the white Southerners had disenfranchised and segregated the blacks, in perhaps the mildest reaction possible at that time to the black’s transgressions.”

Conner sees civil rights and efforts against racism as a means to destroy the South and America stating: 

Thus reinforced, Reconstruction II is steadily shredding the traditional white society – first in the South and then the rest of the nation. But the liberals are in a big hurry to replace Christianity with secular humanism and limited government with socialism.

This article was not an isolated example in the Southern Mercury. In another Southern Mercury article, Vol. 2 No. 1, pages 5-7, 32-33, “The Enemy’s Strategy,” the Frank Conner writes:

The liberals overran the South’s main defenses during the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s, and outthought and outfought and intimidated and demoralized the white Southerners so badly then that most of our people reacted by pretending that this war is not even happening.

Nor are such sentiments confined to just the Southern Mercury. In the March/April 2012 Confederate Veteran, in the cover article by Boyd Cathey, “The Land We Love: Southern Tradition and Our Future,” pages 16-23, 56-59, civil rights is held to be an attack on the South. Boyd states, “Southerners have understood perforce that the races must live and work side by side, and hopefully harmoniously, but that did not imply legal and social equality for all, either black or white.” 

Cathey also believes that the “Southern republicanism is anti-egalitarian” and as a consequence everyone didn’t “have some unqualified right to participate in or rule over the commonwealth. Participation in government wasn’t based on the modern concept of ‘one man, one vote.’”

Cathey perceives the 1950s and 1960s civil rights movement as an attack on the South:

The decisions of the Supreme Court, the triumph of the civil rights movement which in some ways was a frontal attack on constitutional republicanism and the rights of property, and the triumph of political correctness and cultural Marxism, all signaled the beginning of a “Second War of Northern Aggression” aimed at totally reshaping and restructuring our culture and at rejecting the principles and beliefs our ancestors.

The SCV also sells and endorses books such as the “South Was Right!” by James Ronald Kennedy and Walter Donald Kennedy which denounce the Voting Rights Act.

Questions: What is the SCV position on the mid-20th century civil rights movement, court decisions, and laws? Is there any civil rights legislation of the 19th, 20th or 21st century of which the SCV approves?

11.                SCV chaplains in the SCV Chaplain Corps use the terms ‘sodomites’ and ‘sodomy’ when referring to and condemning gays.

H. Rondel Rumburg, past Chaplain-in-Chief of the SCV, in the March 2007 issue of the Chaplain’s Corps Chronicles of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, pages 4-8, condemns those who would support historical apologies by the State of Virginia for past wrongs stating that “these same people need to confess their own offenses to God and to the people they have mislead,” among the things Rumburg considers offenses, is that of being, “guilty of protecting sodomites, thus spreading AIDS.” In another article in Sept. 2009 issue of the Chaplain’s Corp Chronicles, unpaginated, pages 10-13, Rumburg laments that after the Civil War “Deconstructionists” worked to bring humanism to the South which he claims has had disastrous results, among other things such as “an enthroning of sodomy as a preferred lifestyle.”

Former Chaplain-in-Chief Alister C. Anderson gave the Invocation delivered at the Confederate Evangelistic Sesquicentennial Service on February 25, 2012 which was reprinted in the April 2012 issue of the Chaplain’s Corp Chronicles, pages 12-15. In it he enthusiastically praises “Southern ancestors” that they were “manly men who preached about ‘tough love’ and who would not condone the ministry and preaching of non-Biblical, cheesy, whinny, quiche-eating, effete, effeminate pastors who were afraid of their own shadow,” which presumably is a criticism of contemporary pastors. Further, Anderson worries, “O Lord Jesus Christ, could the radical, despotic, contempt for women, Jihadist Muslim critique of our supposedly Judeo-Christian civilization be true?,” and “O Lord, are we a narcissistic, selfish, self-centered, spectator-oriented, voyeuristic pornographic culture that is possessed with the desire for elicit [sic] sexual activity, fornication, and sodomy?”

In the Sept. /Oct. 2009 Confederate Veteran Chaplain-in-Chief Cecil A. Fayard, Jr., in the Chaplain’s Comments section, pages 12-13, 45, asserts that America is in trouble.  Fayard says that America has become immoral, "We have sown immorality," he writes and "We live in a very loose society, a wicked nation morally. All types of unspeakable and deplorable acts are being committed by deviant men and women." Fayard also states as a sign that America is in trouble is that “One school curriculum in America teaches acceptance of homosexuality in the first grade…”

Michael Masters in the previously mentioned Southern Mercury article, “Tolerance Scam” sees the campaign for Lesbian and gay rights as a Marxist conspiracy against society writing:

And just as the Bolsheviks inflamed the masses to violence against the Russian aristocracy, today’s cultural Marxists harness the massed numbers of a new proletariat – composed of people of color, feminists, homosexuals and other disaffected groups – to secure social acceptance and the numbers sufficient to convey political power.

In the Vol. 6 1999 Confederate Veteran, in the column, “Chaplain’s Comments,” pages 60-61, Chaplain-in-Chief Alister C. Anderson tells the SCV membership:

My brother compatriots. I ask you to remember that we are soldiers in the Army of God and are organized along the military lines of our ancestors. We are called to discipline ourselves so that we can train and teach our posterity about the true history and moral foundation of our ancestors’ lives. I ask you to remember that the spiritual discipline within our brotherhood is essential for the success of our missing and in a larger sense is crucial for the survival of our Republic in these dreadfully immoral times.

Question: Is the SCV opposed to legal protections against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, same-sex-marriage, the elimination of laws against same sex relations, or gay and Lesbian clergy?

  1. The Nov. /Dec. 2012 issue of Confederate Veteran cover article is, “Lincoln’s Band of Tyrants.” In this article President Lincoln’s preservation of the Union during the Civil War is held to have advanced a communist agenda against states’ rights. Lincoln’s preservation of the Union is supposed to parallel Adolph Hitler’s creation of the Third Reich. The essay concludes that, “Lincoln, Marx, Engels and Hitler are indeed a strange but deadly ‘Band of Brothers.’” Kennedy further asserts that the communist and Nazi dictators of the 20th century are held to be inspired and instructed by Lincoln.
In the March/April 2008 issue of Southern Mercury is an article by Alan Stang titled “Republican Party: Red from the Start,” in which the Republican Party is asserted have had Communist influence from the beginning. Stang discusses complaints made by supporters of Ron Paul that the Republican Party has lost its way and needs to return to its original principles. Stang rejects this arguing that the Republican Party did not “go wrong,” did not “go left,” and further stating:

It has been wrong from the beginning, from the day it was founded. From the beginning the Republican Party has worked without deviation for bigger, more imperial government, for higher taxes, for more wars, and for more totalitarianism. From the beginning, the Republican Party has been Red.

By “Red,” Stang means communist. Stang thinks that if Robert E. Lee and Thomas (Stonewall) Jackson had been better informed about the issues of the Civil War he would have “hanged our first Communist President [i.e. Abraham Lincoln]”. Stang explains:

Lee and Jackson did not fully comprehend what they were fighting. Had this really been a “Civil” War, rather than a secession, they would and could easily have seized Washington after Manassas and hanged our first Communist President and the other war criminals.
Question: Aren’t these articles comparing Lincoln to Hitler and calling him a communist as well as alleging that the Republican Party has been part of a communist conspiracy from the beginning, and asserting that Robert E. Lee and Thomas Jackson would have hanged Lincoln if they were better informed fairly extremist beliefs?
  1. Why is the SCV restricted to persons descended from Confederates? If a person has a positive view of the Confederacy why not have them be members instead of auxiliary members? What is the necessity of being a descendant? Is the SCV setting themselves up, intentionally or unintentionally, as a hereditary cast of Southerners who are more southern than others?
  2. Why only male members? This is the 21st century and not the early 20th century. True the name is Sons of Confederate Veterans, but names can be changed. The SCV has changed its name before. The SCV allows a person to join with proof being a descendant and paying dues. The UDC has more restrictive policies in which you have to be asked in or have a sponsor. The UDC isn't an alternative, but even if they were, why not open up to women instead of confining them to an auxiliary group The Order of the Confederate Rose?
  3. The original name of the SCV was the United Sons of Confederate Veterans (USCV) similar to the names United Daughters of the Confederacy and United Confederate Veterans. In the book “Ghosts of the Confederacy,” LSU Press, Gaines M. Foster states that the name of the USCV was changed because its members were horrified that the initials were the same as for the United States Colored Volunteers.
Question: Why did the USCV drop "United" from their name?


Sunday, April 20, 2014

Will have questions for Thomas Y. Hiter about the SCV UPDATE:

Dr. Hiter is head of the 2016 Vision program at the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) which is defining what the SCV is. In his letter to me has the following sentences:
"We are more than willing to enter into a dialog with you or anybody else at any time concerning the Confederate solider; that is our charge."
"If you have questions concerning our stand on race, history, or the Confederate soldier, why not ask us?"
"We will answer anybody's questions; we will enter into public debate."
Hiter also criticizes me conducting my letter campaign "instead" of asking questions of the SCV.

----------------------------------------------------
UPDATE: Questions were sent to the SCV. You can read them at this blog posting.
http://newtknight.blogspot.com/2014/04/will-have-questions-for-thomas-y-hiter.html#.U14qifldWSo
Also, at this same blog posting I am  updating as to whether the SCV responded.
---------------------------------------------------
Resuming original post:

So I do have some questions regarding the SCV and I do plan on utilizing this opportunity to learn about the SCV.

I did some brainstorming this morning and came up with 91 questions or topics on which to ask questions. With this unique opportunity I wanted to think about some questions regarding the SCV regarding its identity, history, and how they conceive of historical memory. There are some particular questions about race and racism, but there are broader questions. Let me list here three of them that people might not think to ask.

1. Why is the SCV restricted to persons descended from Confederates? If a person has a positive view of the Confederacy why not have them be members instead of auxiliary members? What is the necessity of being a descendant? Is the SCV setting themselves up, intentionally or unintentionally, as a hereditary cast of Southerners who are more southern than others?

2. Why only male members? This is the 21st century and not the early 20th century. True the name is Sons of Confederate Veterans, but names can be changed. The SCV has changed its name before. The SCV allows a person to join with proof being a descendant and paying dues. The UDC has more restrictive policies in which you have to be asked in or have a sponsor. The UDC isn't an alternative, but even if they were, why not open up to women instead of confining them to an auxiliary group The Order of the Confederate Rose?

3. The original name of the SCV was the United Sons of Confederate Veterans similar to the names United Daughters of the Confederacy and United Confederate Veterans. Why did the USCV drop "United" from their name?

I have other questions. Sometimes people just assume they know the answer. In other cases no one thinks to ask a question about something, how ever things are now, the person takes them as a given. I think I will have a core set of ten questions, but it might be more.

I have not as of the time of this posting heard back from Dr. Hiter.

UPDATE:

My questions which I sent to Dr. Hiter by email are in this blog posting.
http://newtknight.blogspot.com/2014/04/questions-sent-to-sons-of-confederate.html#.U1W3vPldWSo



Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Popular Posts Last 30 days

Popular Posts All Time