Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Neo-Confederacy of a potential candidate for U.S. Senator from Georgia

Evidently U.S. House Representative Paul Broun referred to the Civil War as the "War of Yankee Aggression," in the U.S. House and now it is likely he will soon be a candidate for U.S. Senator from Georgia.

This is just one item of neo-Confederacy in the Republican party in the South. It isn't a trend yet. If he is successful I think other Republican candidates for federal elected office will seek to emulate him.

The link to the article is:

I am reminded of a T-shirt sold by Southern Partisan magazine. This was on the front of the T-shirt.

And surely this would be one of Lincoln's nightmares. And the following graphic was the back side. The prediction or claim made by the graphic is only half true. The Republican party has become a party centered in the former Confederate states, but it it isn't a majority party and increasingly becoming a minor party.

Monday, January 28, 2013

Another question for jurors

Another question for jurors would be:

Do you think it would have been good if the Confederacy had succeeded in becoming an independent nation?

A yes answer to this question would have been cause for disqualifying a juror where a minority member was on trial, since the juror thought it would have been a good thing if a pro-slavery and white supremacist nation had come into being.

I think this is the last question I propose.

Saturday, January 19, 2013

Additional questions for jurors and judges

I think these questions could be asked of both jurors and judges.

1. Do you identity with the Confederacy or the Union?

2. Do you think it is inappropriate for public officials to praise the Confederacy?

3. Do you think states, cities, municipalities should have or adopt Confederate symbols in their flags, logos, shields, seals, or other representations they create to represent themselves?

World Net Daily (WND) interviews Michael Hill President of League of the South on secession

Taylor Rose at World Net Daily (WND) a fringe website where Obama Birther theories are spun out, interviewed Michael Hill, President of the League of the South on secession. The story is here:

It will be interesting to see if WND will continue to report on secession as an issue. Though their site is really fringe, though they have mainstreamed some issues, notably Birtherism, the idea that Obama wasn't born in the United States and isn't a natural born citizen.

Perhaps this is a one time reflexive response in regards to Obama's response to the secession petitions.  An urge to oppose anything Obama might say.

Tuesday, January 15, 2013

"Los Angeles Times" editorial, "Neo-Confederates in Congress Resist Rapidly Changing World." UPDATE

At this link,0,5722362.story there is an article titled, "Neo-Confederates in Congress Resist a Rapidly Changing World," David Horsey.

It really is astounding how people are picking up on the geography of partisan politics. I am going to read it and comment on it later. I will put an update note in the title when I do. I thought I would share it right away.

A quote from the article:
Today, there are quite a few very vocal neo-Confederates who think gun rights, states rights, the protection of white American culture and elimination of "excessive" taxation on the rich are the nation's preeminent concerns. Their anti-bellum mindset makes it impossible for them to accept scientific reality -- climate change, evolution, the true age of the planet -- and political reality -- America is becoming a more diverse, tolerant nation that does not share their fear-driven philosophy.
One of our two great political parties has been captured by the neo-Confederates and, because so many of them have been elected to Congress, the political system is gridlocked. 
I don't know if the author David Horsey is doing more than capitalizing on the popularity of the Lincoln movie and Lincoln to oppose the policies of conservative Republicans. To some extent though the essay depends on an awareness that the Republican party has become a party centered in the South.

He talks about how progressive change is delayed in the United States, but he really doesn't explain where this delay comes from. Essentially if you have a section of a nation that is a reactionary fortress and they control 25% of the representation, you have to get 67% of the rest of the nation to support something before it has a bare slightly over 50% majority. If you need to get an amendment passed, requiring 75% of the states to ratify something, you will need 100% of the states outside the reactionary block to get an amendment passed. I discuss this in my essay at

I think this article raises awareness of the nature of reaction in this nation as being regional, but indirectly. He calls the reaction neo-Confederate, but doesn't explain why and it doesn't necessarily mean conservatives from the South, it could be applied to conservatives anywhere.

However, I think it will tend to jog the public's mind to think about neo-Confederacy and the national geography of politics. Referring to an earlier blog,, this essay will certainly seem to Rush Limbaugh a further justification for his argument that the South is being attacked because it is conservative. This would depend on Limbaugh conflating the South with the Confederacy.

Larry Pratt article on school shootings in a white supremacist neo-Confederate publication. Should his group be known as the Gun Owners of America, or the Gun Owners of the Confederacy.

Larry Pratt is the head of an organization called the Gun Owners of America (GOA), but really with his involvements in neo-Confederate organizations and their extremist publications shouldn't his organization be titled Gun Owners of the Confederacy?

His involvement goes way back.

In the May-June 1995, Vol. 2 No. 3 issue of the Southern Patriot, official publication of the League of the South (LoS), on page 24, is a section titled "Noteworthy Publications," in which it recommends a book put out by the GOA noting that the publication is "edited by GOA chairman and SL member, Larry Pratt." The LoS used to have the name Southern League hence the abbreviation SL.

It is not known whether or if Pratt resigned from the LoS or if he is still a member. Someone should ask him.

In a white supremacist publication, Southern Mercury, published by the Sons of Confederate Veterans education PAC, Pratt has in the Vol. 1 No. 2 Sept.-Oct. 2003 issue on pages 5-6, an article, "Judge Roy Moore is Right," concerning the case where Alabama Supreme Court Justice Judge Moore decided to erect a monument to the Ten Commandments and keep it in defiance of a court order to remove it.

In the Vol. 6 No. 5 issue, on page 18, Pratt has an article "Of Schools and Bodies," written in response to the Virginia Tech massacre. He argues that gun free zones at universities are the cause of school massacres and argues that having persons in schools armed is the solution and cites two cases where someone who was armed was able to shoot a homicidal intruder, one case at a church in the U.S., and another case in Israel. Pratt argues that both teachers and students should be allowed to carry guns to schools concluding his article with the statement.
We are told that having students or faculty (with concealed handgun permits) carrying guns scares many students and teachers. Maybe so. Which is worse -- being scared or being dead? 
What is also interesting is that Pratt's GOA regularly ran a full page advertisements in this white supremacist publication in each and every issue and thus was giving it significant support. The Southern Mercury ceased publication for lack of funding, so the GOA ads helped keep this publication going since without the advertising it might have run out of funds sooner.

This is a publication that defended slavery and endorsed books defending slavery.

Again, should the GOA be called the Gun Owners of the Confederacy instead?

For an example of the white supremacist writings in this publication go to this blog:

(Interesting note, the other major advertiser was whose owner has been tried and convicted for a ponzi scheme which defrauded thousands of right wingers of tens of millions of dollars.)

Monday, January 14, 2013

Rush Limbaugh rages like a neo-Confederate

You can read the entire transcript of Rush Limbaugh comments on his show at this link.

What is of interest in this show is that Rush Limbaugh talks about the South being under attack from elites, such as an article in The New Yorker magazine. Limbaugh's comments sounds like something that neo-Confederates would say.

Rush's comments:

New Yorker article:

The author of the article is somewhat sympathetic to the South, but discusses how it is becoming culturally isolated from the rest of the nation. Limbaugh suggests that the article is part of some conspiracy to isolate the South which it clearly isn't:
And what this is about is a very approving story from the New Yorker about the attempt here to isolate the South.
Limbaugh sees the South being attacked by liberal media elites because it is conservative and that these supposed enemies of the South love the movie Lincoln because Lincoln attacked the South; Quoting Limbaugh:
Have you asked yourself why is Hollywood so gaga over Lincoln, the movie? Why is Bill Clinton all of a sudden out there at the Golden Globes last night being brought on stage to thunderous standing ovation to talk about Lincoln and what he did during the Civil War? 
What did Lincoln do, as far as these people are concerned? He wiped out the South.
The rest of Limbaugh's comments also sound like something the league of the South would say. Indeed the League of the South (LoS) is very enthused about Limbaugh's comments as shown in their posting about them which you can read at the LoS's blog at the following link. 

I don't know if this is just a one time thing by Rush Limbaugh or if it represents a new ongoing theme in his performances. It could be that Limbaugh has recognized that his likely listeners are geographically concentrated and that he needs to orient his narratives towards that demographic. Or that the geography of current politics has become obvious and he needs to be relevant to this developing public awareness of this geography of current politics. Rush points out a recent article at in his comments:
Last week, had a story called, "Welcome to the new Civil War -- Lincoln's Unfinished War Rages On, as the Neo-Confederacy Tries to Turn Back the Clock on Women, Gays, God and Guns."
(Article is online here:

I don't think for a second that Limbaugh's bringing up this issue about the South was accidental or just the result of a meandering monologue. I think Limbaugh is shrewd and carefully considers his topics and presentation of them.

If this new theme is successful for Limbaugh, as the leading figure of conservative news entertainment, I think that other media figures in the same field will rush to do pick up this theme of the South being under attack. 

There have been articles in the past which have referred to the Civil War in discussing the modern geography of partisan politics and mapping it to the geography of the Civil War. However, these have been all in liberal or progressive publications or in non-partisan publications. Now Limbaugh is responding to these articles and affirming that there is a modern geography of partisan politics.  If groups in both sides of the political spectrum see the same modern geography of partisan politics that it is likely that the general public will accept this geography as a given. 

Finally, if the South is seen as the conservative region and southern is identified as being identical to conservatism, will not many see conservatism as being Confederate? 

Well one commentary is a trend. We will have to see. 

Sunday, January 13, 2013

Another question for potential jurors

I think potential jurors should be asked whether they display Confederate flags or representations of Confederate flags such as flags themselves, flag decals, bumper stickers, tattoos or other visual display.

I think if a person demonstrably identifies with material objects an identification with the Confederacy, a nation created for white supremacy, then I think that juror can be excluded with cause from a jury.

I think this is important since there are many people who have a strong identification with the Confederacy but aren't members of a neo-Confederate organization.

Saturday, January 12, 2013

White House rejects neo-Confederate arguments for secession with no answer to secession petitions.

The white house has answered no to the secession petitions. You can read the White House reply here:

The reply to the petition quotes Lincoln from both his 1st inaugural address and his "Gettysburg Address," refers to the Civil War and secession in 1861, asserts that the Union is indestructible. These issues are brought up in two paragraphs in the White House reply. Links are provided to Lincoln's "1st Inaugural Address," "Gettysburg Address," and the Supreme Court ruling on Texas vs. White in which the court rules that secession violated the U.S. Constitution. In this blog I will discuss the response after the quotation of these two paragraphs with historical references which follows:
Our founding fathers established the Constitution of the United States "in order to form a more perfect union" through the hard and frustrating but necessary work of self-government. They enshrined in that document the right to change our national government through the power of the ballot -- a right that generations of Americans have fought to secure for all. But they did not provide a right to walk away from it. As President Abraham Lincoln explained in his first inaugural address in 1861, "in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual." In the years that followed, more than 600,000 Americans died in a long and bloody civil war that vindicated the principle that the Constitution establishes a permanent union between the States. And shortly after the Civil War ended, the Supreme Court confirmed that "[t]he Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union composed of indestructible States."
Although the founders established a perpetual union, they also provided for a government that is, as President Lincoln would later describe it, "of the people, by the people, and for the people" -- all of the people. Participation in, and engagement with, government is the cornerstone of our democracy. And because every American who wants to participate deserves a government that is accessible and responsive, the Obama Administration has created a host of new tools and channels to connect concerned citizens with White House. In fact, one of the most exciting aspects of the We the People platform is a chance to engage directly with our most outspoken critics. 
It should be noted that the White House could have given a reply that didn't have historical references or just limit it to the Supreme Court decision Texas vs. White, but they choose to anchor the reply historically, and specifically in Lincoln's speeches, the Civil War and the secession of slave states in 1861 and one of the most emotionally charged events in American history both then and now.

I don't know if this response will get much coverage in the media, but it is in some ways very historic. I did a study in 2011 and 2012 of presidential statements regarding the Civil War and associated issues, such as the terminology they used, for example "War Between the States" versus "Civil War" back to Herbert Hoover.

Presidents have avoided the issue of the constitutionality of secession since the 19th century as far as I have been able to find. Presidents have avoided saying anything that can be construed as a rejection of the Confederacy in the 20th century since President Hoover who used the term "War Between the States" in the fall before he lost his bid to be re-elected.

However, President Obama White House response directly rejects the constitutionality of secession or any justification for it and thus directly rejects a key argument of the neo-Confederates and the Lost Cause historical mythology. It is a direct rejection of a core belief of the United Daughters of the Confederacy and the Sons of Confederate Veterans and millions of Americans many of concentrated in the region of the former Confederate states. It is indirectly a rejection of the Confederacy, the leaders of secession and the supporters of secession in 1861. It directly rejects the very phrase "War Between the States." Though presidents haven't used this term since President Clinton used it once in 2000. Importantly it isn't just a rejection on some general reasoned principles, but a rejection based on the arguments used in the Civil War against secession by Lincoln the president who defeated the Confederacy. Obama is using specifically the historical narrative of the Union in the Civil War to reject these petitions.

Lincoln's 1st Inaugural Address contains a lengthy argument of secession which though is an argument that would apply to any effort at secession, is specifically applied by Lincoln to the secession of slave states in 1861. It is a rejection of the secessionists, such as Jefferson Davis, secession convention delegates, and many others.

The response with its reference to the "Gettysburg Address" implies that the defeat of the Confederacy was a great and heroic thing for the world and not just America, for as Lincoln said in that address:
It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us--that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion--that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth."

In an earlier post I referred to some opinion polls taken about the issues of secession.

It refers to an opinion poll that were taken on secession in Georgia.

I also had an early post on another opinion poll on secession.

Which referred to the following Pew opinion poll result.

The Georgia opinion poll said that 42% of Georgia Republicans would be willing to secede.

When you look at who identifies with the Confederacy in the Pew opinion poll you see that they are primarily white people who identify themselves as Southerners and they mostly live in a former Confederate state. I would hazard to guess that what white votes Obama got in the former Confederate states were largely not from whites who identify themselves with the Confederacy. In short those Obama might antagonize are very unlikely to vote for him anyways.

I blogged on how Obama would respond to these secession petitions at:

Basically I predicted that Obama would make a response that was provocative without seeming to be provocative. His hope would be to provoke the Republicans to respond in a way that would identify them with secession and the Confederacy. I don't know for a fact that Obama's response had this intent. However, if you wanted to get a reaction that would identify your opponents with secession and the Confederacy without seeming to provoke, Obama's reply would be the way to do it.

The Sons of Confederate Veterans and the United Daughters of the Confederacy will certainly have response to this White House reply. Whether Obama's rejection of secession gets a wider response it remains to be seen.

Incidentally the link on the Politico reporting of the response goes to the wrong petition and response.

To keep a record of this White House reply I quote the entire reply following:
OFFICIAL WHITE HOUSE RESPONSE TOPeacefully grant the State of Louisiana to withdraw from the United States of America and create its own NEW government. and 8 other petitions

Our States Remain United

By Jon Carson
Thank you for using the White House's online petitions platform to participate in your government.
In a nation of 300 million people -- each with their own set of deeply-held beliefs -- democracy can be noisy and controversial. And that's a good thing. Free and open debate is what makes this country work, and many people around the world risk their lives every day for the liberties we often take for granted.
But as much as we value a healthy debate, we don't let that debate tear us apart.
Our founding fathers established the Constitution of the United States "in order to form a more perfect union" through the hard and frustrating but necessary work of self-government. They enshrined in that document the right to change our national government through the power of the ballot -- a right that generations of Americans have fought to secure for all. But they did not provide a right to walk away from it. As President Abraham Lincoln explained in his first inaugural address in 1861, "in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual." In the years that followed, more than 600,000 Americans died in a long and bloody civil war that vindicated the principle that the Constitution establishes a permanent union between the States. And shortly after the Civil War ended, the Supreme Court confirmed that "[t]he Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union composed of indestructible States."
Although the founders established a perpetual union, they also provided for a government that is, as President Lincoln would later describe it, "of the people, by the people, and for the people" -- all of the people. Participation in, and engagement with, government is the cornerstone of our democracy. And because every American who wants to participate deserves a government that is accessible and responsive, the Obama Administration has created a host of new tools and channels to connect concerned citizens with White House. In fact, one of the most exciting aspects of the We the People platform is a chance to engage directly with our most outspoken critics.
So let's be clear: No one disputes that our country faces big challenges, and the recent election followed a vigorous debate about how they should be addressed. As President Obama said the night he won re-election, "We may have battled fiercely, but it's only because we love this country deeply and we care so strongly about its future."
Whether it's figuring out how to strengthen our economy, reduce our deficit in a responsible way, or protect our country, we will need to work together -- and hear from one another -- in order to find the best way to move forward. I hope you'll take a few minutes to learn more about the President's ideasand share more of your own.
Jon Carson is Director of the Office of Public Engagement

This was copied from January 12, 2013.

Friday, January 11, 2013

White House Petition asking Obama not to send a wreath to the Arlington Confederate Monument

I have submitted a petition asking Obama not to send a wreath to the Arlington Confederate Monument.

You can view it at this link:

Another link is:

Until it has a 150 signatures it won't appear in the listing on the website.

We have 30 days to get 25,000 signatures.

2013 Letter to Obama is posted at the Arlington Confederate Monument Report

The 2013 Letter to Obama is posted at the Arlington Confederate Monument report blog at this link.

There is also a White House petition at:

You will not be able to view it at excepting by the use of the above link until it has 150 signatures. Please sign it today.

The letter is as follows and focuses on the issue of the secession petitions.
                                                                                                May 15, 2013
                                                                                                Edward H. Sebesta

President Barack H. Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Hon. President Obama:

As widely reported in the press, nearly a million people had signed secession petitions at the website by December 10, 2012.  By their very definition these petitions are a complete rejection of American ideals and they seek to damage the country.  Why are these petitions not viewed as offensive or odious?

Further secessionism has made inroads to mainstream politics. In Minnesota at the 2010 2nd Congressional District Republican convention a resolution that a state had a right to secede came within two votes of passage, “but only after Sutton, who was functioning as the convention’s chair, reminded his fellow Republicans that opposition to secession by states was a founding Republican principle in the late 1850s.”[1] However, about two weeks later the Minnesota 5th Congressional District Republican convention did pass a resolution both supporting nullification and endorsing “secession as options to enforce state sovereignty.”[2]

Perhaps because they had listened too many times to the Charlie Daniels Band song, “The South is Gonna Do It Again,” in 2009 the Georgia State Senate passed resolution SR632, conditionally calling for both nullification and secession by a margin of 43-1.[3] Tennessee Congressional Rep. Zach Wamp brought up secession as a response to health care legislation in 2010.[4] Former Vice-Presidential Candidate Sarah Palin spoke to the Alaska Independence party which wishes that Alaska secede from the Union.[5]

Then there is the now widely known statement of Texas Governor Rick Perry speaking before a Tea party group in Texas in 2009 saying, “When we came into the Union in 1845, one of the issues was that we would be able to leave if we decided to do that,” and “We’ve got a great Union. There’s absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, who knows what may come of that?”[6]

Ron Paul went to a secession convention in Charleston, South Carolina held by the Ludwig von Mises Institute ( in 1995 where he was a speaker.[7] He has been heavily involved with the pro-secession Ludwig von Mises Institute over the years.

Why is secession not odious?

I think the answer is obvious to even the most casual observer. At the federal, state, and local level Confederate secessionists who sought to destroy the United States of America are honored and glorified with monuments and symbols. This normalizes and makes the idea of secession to break up the United States morally acceptable.

We believe that a president of the United States of America should not send a wreath to the Arlington Confederate monument as it glorifies both a violent rejection of the United States and normalizes secession.

Earlier we have written you about other practices by the federal government that normalize secession: Allowing the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) to get involved with the Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps; Allowing the United Daughters of the Confederacy to give awards to cadets at the U.S. Military academies named after treasonous secessionists; and allowing the SCV to be part of the Federal Combined Campaign.

I ask you to stop normalizing secession by ending the Presidential practice of sending a wreath to the Arlington Confederate monument on Memorial Day or any day and to end any federal activities that allow the SCV and UDC to spread their secessionist message to our military.


                                                                                    Edward H. Sebesta

[1] Lori Sturdevant, “Party of Lincoln flirts with a house-divided resolution,” Star Tribune, March 30, 2010, online.
[2] Lori Sturdevant, “Secession gaining fans in MN GOP,” Star Tribune, April 12, 2010. Online.
[3] Jay Bookman, “Georgia Senate threatens dismantling of USA,” Atlanta Constitution Journal, April 16, 2009,
[4] Emi Kolawole, “Tennessee Rep. Zach Wamp talks of secession,” Washington Post, July 24, 2010. Online
[5] Jon Swaine, The Telegraph (UK), Sept. 2, 2008, online; Max Blumenthal and David Neiwert, “Meet Sarah Palin’s right-wing pals,” Online.
[6] James McKinley, jr., “Texas Governor’s Secession Talk Stirs Furor,” New York Times, April 18, 2009, online.
[7] Ludwig von Mises flyer, “Secession!,” Ludwig von Mises Institute, post marked Feb. 27, 1995. 

Thursday, January 10, 2013

Disqualifying Judges who are members of neo-Confederate groups

In going through and indexing neo-Confederate periodicals I come across judges. Not many but some.

I don't think a judge who identifies with the Confederacy should preside over a trial. So one of the questions I think that needs to be asked of a judge is whether he or she is a member of a neo-Confederate organization such as the Sons of Confederate Veterans, United Daughters of the Confederacy, League of the South, Council of Conservative Citizens, etc.

If a judge is a member of a neo-Confederate organization he or she should recuse him or herself from the case.

Again, why defense attorneys don't pursue this question and eliminate biased judges seems to me not to be giving the defendant a full defense.

Potential Questions for Jurors. Using historical memory for juror selection

Using Historical Memory of the Confederacy to Select Jurors

People might have racial biases, but they may not recognize them and even if they were aware of them would be very unlikely to admit to them. A lot of people think they aren't racist if they don't feel active hostility towards a group or feel an urge to attack a member of a group. However, they can have all sorts of biases against a group. People think that since they don't say crude racial statements or are a member of a group like the Ku Klux Klan, they don't have racial biases. I discuss some of these issues of banal white nationalism at a web page

I think some questions probing specific aspects of a person's historical memory can determine to some extent this persons racial attitudes.

So I am coming up with some questions that defense attorneys should ask potential jurors, particularly in the case where the defendant is a member of a minority group. I will be blogging them here and tweeting references to them on @EdwardHSebesta as well as putting them on the Facebook page

The first question I think defense attorneys should ask is:

Are you associated with or are a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, United Daughters of the Confederacy, League of the South, Council of Conservative Citizens, Order of the Confederate Rose, or any other neo-Confederate group or group that venerates the Confederacy?

The Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) alone has over 30,000 members, the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC) has about 10,000 roughly I estimate from the subscriptions to their magazine. There is overlap in membership in some of these groups, but I estimate that there are at least 50,000 or more members of neo-Confederate groups. They get called for jury duty like anyone else.

These are people who believe that African Americans were largely content to be slaves, that being brought over to America as slaves was largely beneficial, etc. They frequently if not almost always have racial biases and often support white supremacy. Should these people be jurors, no. Besides their racial biases, their historical beliefs inherently set a low or no value on freedom for African Americans so they are not going to worry as much as others about mistakenly convicting an African American and taking away that person's freedom. Also, it is inherently repugnant that persons who glorify the Confederacy should be allowed to judge any African American.

A yes answer would not just be a means to select jurors to be rejected without cause. I would argue that membership in a neo-Confederate organization would be cause for rejection.

If you have a question that you would think would be good to identity individuals with a Lost Cause pro-Confederate attitude, email them to me or go like my Facebook pages and propose them there.

As always I don't have time for neo-Confederate nonsense.

Wednesday, January 09, 2013

Sons of Confederate Veterans goes Tea Party, sees election as a terrible trial for the nation.

In the Jan./Feb. 2013 issue of Confederate Veteran, the official publication of the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV), SCV Commander-in-Chief R. Michael Givens in his regular column "Report of the Commander-in-Chief" has a column titled "We must soldier on." (Pages 4-5)

The theme of the column is that the re-election of Obama is a terrible thing, but people must not give up hope. Givens writes:

"After the election many people across America, dissatisfied with the results, have called for secession. They feel hopelessly dejected and are certain that their present needs will not be met under the current circumstances. They feel as if the real problems of the economy and the dangers of this volatile world are not being address. Does this condition seem familiar? What might our revered ancestors thing of our current situation? One hundred and fifty years later and the struggle is the same. Fact is, 225 years ago our ancestors where [sic] putting all they had into a struggle for liberty based on similar circumstances as ours."
So Obama is being compared to King George III. Obama is seen to be an oppressor. He is also compared to Lincoln which SCV members feel was a tyrant and a villain.

Givens can't seem to bear to mention Obama by name but expresses his fear of him that he will be like Lincoln writing:

Only in Reagan did we enjoy a moment in time when a president came close to recognizing the unique rights of our states as prescribed by the founders. Will our current president do more than try to be Lincoln? Will he succeed? Will his actions, like those of Lincoln, create a deeper divide in our country? Are we destined to repeat history? 
The election of Obama is compared to the defeat of the Confederacy during the Civil War which for the SCV is a bad thing.

In the same issue, Mark W. Evans, "Chaplain-in-Chief" in writing that the states seceded for states' rights, comments about the current political situation. (page 12)

Some 150 years later, the issues of governmental tyranny and states' rights are seen as something more than Southern paranoia. Now, the entire country awaits the outcome of a struggle between the vestiges of a Constitutional republic and a self-determining bureaucracy. What was thought to be a regional problem has become a national crisis. 

Columns like this should dispense with the fiction that the SCV is merely a historical organization. They have had a political agenda and do have a political agenda.

Descendants of Mexican War Veterans advertised in the "Confederate Veteran"

There is an organization called Descendants of Mexican War Veterans (DMWV), and they have a website They advertise regularly in the Confederate Veteran, the official publication of the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV).

They advertise with a slogan, "Before Manassas, there was Mexico," and explain in their ad:

"Many Civil War leaders like Lee, Jackson, Bragg, Beauregard, Longstreet, Johnston and soldiers they commanded saw action in the Mexican War."
This is to connect the DMWV to Confederate "heritage."

This organization seeks to portray the invasion of Mexico as entirely justified.

Ulysses S. Grant, Union general during the Civil War and later President said about the Mexican American War that it was "one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation. It was an instance of a republic following the bad example of European monarchies, in not considering justice in their desire to acquire additional territory."

The mailing address of the DMWV is in Garland, TX. I came across this organization in the last 10 or 15 years. I don't really track them, so I don't know what their real agenda is. However, it is odd that after there being no organization for veterans of the Mexican American war since some time in the early 20th century that they think there needs to be one now.

Also, their triumphalist view of the Mexican American War can do no good for the American Southwest. 

Maps of the Confederacy

I used to have a web page where I had U.S. maps of various types which basically showed imprints of the Confederacy on the geography of the U.S.

Here is a map of the Confederacy.

The old Confederate Veteran magazine of the late 19th and early 20th century, and the official publication of the United Confederate Veterans, Sons of Confederate Veterans, United Daughters of the Confederacy, and the Confederated Southern Memorial Associations didn't defend lynching directly, but opposed criticism of the South for lynching so this map as a map of the Confederacy is very appropriate.

Monday, January 07, 2013

Anti-Neo-Confederate Institute Facebook Page

I have an Anti-Neo-Confederate Institute Facebook Page. You can go to it at:

I am trying to organize an institute where neo-Confederacy, both organizations and in the popular imagination can be studied, to conduct research and education and reach out to the public.

This website is largely unknown. With an institution effort could be made to publicize it and this website

Lesson plans could be created for school teachers to correct for deficiencies in American history school textbooks.

More papers about the neo-Confederates could be written for scholarly publication.

Also, see the Anti-Neo-Confederate Super PAC page. This is is for political actions to oppose neo-Confederacy.

I would appreciate people visiting and liking the pages.  Thanks. Also follow me on @EdwardHSebesta

I am on twitter now. @EdwardHSebesta

I am on twitter and my handle is @EdwardHSebesta. Twitter is online at

Saw Spielberg's movie "Lincoln," entertaining, liked it.

I saw Spielberg's movie Lincoln yesterday afternoon with two African American friends neither of whom were particularly interested in history. However, it was my turn to pick the movie and we saw it.

I grew up with movies having historical themes in the 1960s. They were in black and white and had a type of acting where often the actors are made of marble and lived for the ages, but not for morning breakfast. They were often very didactic. Another thing about historical dramas is that often you know the story and how it will turn out. So I am generally not that interested in these type of films. There are exceptions, I didn't know the life of Gandhi much, so seeing the movie Gandhi was interesting.

However, the movie Lincoln has had a big impact and from reading the reviews I realized that it was well done and might be very interesting to see. Also, knowing that the neo-Confederates hated it made it attractive.

First it is an entertaining movie. I enjoyed seeing it. Second it was interesting that it portrayed Radical Republicans in a positive light. Radical Republicans have been denigrated in American history texts for generations and this is a significant change.

It showed the rabid racism of the Democrats at the time which was an eye opener for my two friends accompanying me to see the movie. One of my friends couldn't believe that the Democratic members of the House were really that racist, but thought they pandered to racism as political opportunists. I explained that  that these representatives were sincerely racists. I explained that there were pamphlets at the time, one endorsed by Jefferson Davis, that held Africans were a separate species from white people.

I thought the acting was good. The carnage of the Civil War was shown. The film wasn't didactic. If you haven't seen the movie already I recommend doing so. We all enjoyed seeing the movie.

I think the movie is good because it shows that the abolition of slavery wasn't inevitable and the 13th amendment passed by a slim margin and through strenuous effort and barely was passed. I think now days people think it was inevitable that slavery would be abolished. It wasn't inevitable, things might have turned out differently.

With this movie Lincoln and the movie Django, it shows that the Lost Cause view of history is beginning to fade away from popular historical consciousness.

Sunday, January 06, 2013

Courtland Rogers stupidly gets Confederate flag tattoo

Courtland Rogers, husband of Teen Mom 2 show star Janelle Evans, got a Confederate battle flag tattoo just recently. I am sure we will hear the usual excuses that it is "Southern heritage" or "Southern pride." He won't openly admit to racism, but he would have to be totally disconnected from reality not to know that it is a provocative racist symbol. Obviously that is what he wanted. Maybe this makes him daring bad boy in his mind.

The story and picture of the tattoo is online here:

For those of you who think the Confederacy is about states rights, and the other usual self-serving rationalizations given by its supporters as excuses to the public when their real reason is an antipathy to African Americans and probably modernity in general, the following is a link to the reasons Texas seceded.

This is an article from a speech given at a Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) meeting that was printed in the Confederate Veteran, in which the speaker, SCV Texas Division historian wants to ship African Americans back to Africa.

If fact just visit for numerous primary documentation which will show that Confederate "heritage" is really hateful.

However, I doubt that any of these documents would make Courtland Rogers regret the tattoo, they probably would make him happier that he got the tattoo.

It says something about Janelle Evans that she went along with the tattoo.

It was a thoughtless stupid thing to do.  What type of lesson does Teen Mom 2 want to teach her child? Not very good parenting in my opinion.

Saturday, January 05, 2013 writer talks about the Neo-Confederacy.

Interesting article at The title is "Welcome to the New Civil War," and the link is:

I am going to read it, seems interesting so I decided to share it.

Charles M. Blow, "New York Times," columnist on the legacy of slavery and incarcerations, also public opinion on the Confederacy

Charles M. Blow of the New York Times has a column titled, "Escaping Slavery," about the legacy of slavery, popular attitudes towards the Confederacy, towards African Americans.

Two polls mentioned in the column are online and well worth reading.

Pew Research

In their poll they found a majority of people who identify themselves as Southerners think it is okay for public officials to praise the Confederacy.



CNN found that 4 out of 10 Southerners sympathize more with the Confederacy than the Union.

Yet defense attorneys in the South do not question potential jurors about their attitudes towards the Confederacy. We think they should.

My co-author and I are going to write a letter to the New York Times  proposing that defense attorneys should be asking these questions along with whether a potential juror is a member of a neo-Confederate organization. Neo-Confederates should not be allowed to be jurors in almost all situations. They have a wide ranging animosities and would be biased in most trials.

Friday, January 04, 2013

"Django Unchained": Neo-Confederates hate it and they should

I saw Django Unchained last weekend at the movie theater. It was basically a spaghetti western in many ways. There were numerous anachronistic elements in the film which I ignored.

The movie had two strongly expressed messages: (1) Antebellum slavery was horrific. (2) Antebellum slave owners and slave traders were criminal lowlifes worthy of being shot down like rabid dogs.

The horrors of slavery are made clear in the movie. Racists are portrayed as intellectual idiots. Slavers and slave owners get what's coming to them in the movie, mostly being shot dead when not being dynamited. The plantation house of a sadistic slave owner is blown up completely in the end.

Jamie Foxx, who plays Django, triumphs over white supremacists.

This has gotten the neo-Confederates up in arms and they are leading campaigns against the movie. They are using the strategy of attacking Tarantino personally. Representing the film as some anti-white racist film which it isn't. Django's good friend and partner in the movie is a German immigrant dentist named Dr. King Schultz turned bounty hunter who is favorably portrayed as Django's good friend.

The real opposition to the movie is that it is a complete rejection of Lost Cause mythology about slavery before the Civil War. More importantly it isn't some sentimental pacifistic rejection of slavery weeping over the horrors of slavery and wishing couldn't we all be nicer people in history. It is a film which sees slave holders as worthy as being shot dead as criminals.

Some links:

The League of the South had this comment. Their blogger uses sarcasm and name calling when he doesn't really have anything to say.

The Council of Conservative Citizens (CofCC) has these postings:

Any assertion made in any CofCC posting has to be taken with a grain of salt. The story line is explained in the movie as being a parallel to the German mythological story of Brunhilde and Siegfried. Django saves his lost love from monsters. Django isn't out to get all white people but the slave owners who oppress, in particular his love.

However, facts don't weigh much with neo-Confederates who are delusional and hysterical regarding race.

What upsets the neo-Confederates is that there is emerging a public which doesn't accept the Lost Cause view of slavery at all and really regards slave holders as criminals.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Popular Posts Last 30 days

Popular Posts All Time