Saturday, March 15, 2008

Bill Clinton Enables Neo-Confederates & Betrays Carol Moseley-Braun: UPDATED has picked up this story with all the documentation. 4/20/08 Direct link to story is:

I have updated this essay.


On July 24, 1993 in a New York Times’ editorial, “Ms. Moseley Braun’s Majestic Moment,” the editors praised the U.S. Senator Braun from Illinois as follows:

On Thursday, Carol Moseley Braun woke up a sleepy Senate to the unthinking way the white majority can offend minority Americans. Before Ms. Moseley Braun interrupted, that body was about to renew the patent of the United Daughters of the Confederacy. Alone at first, then joined on the Senate floor by others whose awareness she raised, the Senate’s only black member stopped the renewal of the Daughters’ design patent with the Confederate flag insignia.”

Moseley-Braun’s oratory was eloquent and persuasive. In an article titled, “Daughter of Slavery Hushes Senate,” writer Adam Clymer in the July 23, 1993, New York Times writes:

The Senate’s only black member, Carol Moseley Braun, made the chamber listen today as freshman seldom do. Her oratory of impassioned tears and shouts, stopped Jesse Helms in his tracks as he defended the Confederate flag.”

The U.S. Senate reversed itself from a 52 to 48 vote in favor of the United Daughters of the Confederacy to a 75 to 25 vote against the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC) and the patent was not renewed.

However, one powerful white politician wasn’t touched by Moseley-Braun’s oratory. U.S. President Bill Clinton, Toni Morrison’s “first black president,” wrote his first letter, dated June 21, 1994, of congratulations to the UDC celebrating their 100th anniversary. Later Clinton wrote a letter September 8, 1994 letter of congratulation to the Georgia Division of the UDC celebrating their 100th anniversary, then August 9, 1995 welcoming to Washington, D.C. for their 1995 national convention. Each letter was given a full page with Clinton’s picture in the United Daughters of the Confederacy Magazine (UDC Magazine) giving legitimacy to the UDC.

What type of organization is the UDC? Some might say that they are just a harmless organization of “little old ladies.” However, racism isn’t heavy lifting and doesn’t require physical strength. One recent example is in the Nov. 2007 issue of UDC Magazine, where in an article titled, “Confederate Classics,” in her regular column, “Confederate Notes,” Retta D. Tindal writes:

Some books are classics that never go out of style. As we approach the gift-giving season, there are four books that I treasure and use over and over, whether for research or reference or just to refresh my memory of the special heritage I have.”

Tindal recommends these books for UDC members children and grandchildren, friends, and family members saying that “these books are sure to become their treasures too.” The first book which Tindal recommends is the white supremacist racist text, “Southern By the Grace of God,” by Michael Andrew Grissom, a Ku Klux Klan praising book, not just the Klan of Reconstruction but the Klan of the 1920s, a book which recommends the racist books of Thomas Dixon, “The Clansman” which later was made into the notorious movie “Birth of a Nation,” and the movie itself, and recommends the organization of the Council Conservative Citizens, praises a lynching and much, much more. The UDC helped launch this book when it was first published by running a segment of the book in its September 1988 issue of UDC Magazine.

Nor is this a unique example of the UDC’s promotion of racism. The prior columnist for “Confederate Notes” Clara Erath promoted the neo-Confederate magazine Southern Partisan and the books it published. Erath promotes and praises Richard Weavers’ book “Southern Tradition at Bay,” an anti-democratic racist book defending slavery. Other neo-Confederate texts are also promoted, such as “Secession, State & Liberty” by David Gordon of the neo-Confederate Ludwig von Mises Institute. The horrors of the Transatlantic slave trade are minimized in a speech by Walter W. Lee III printed in the April UDC Magazine. The Red Shirts, violent white terrorists of Reconstruction in South Carolina are held up as heroes in the June/July 2001 issue of the UDC Magazine.

The racism of the UDC isn’t a new phenomenon but goes back generations of Klan praising and white supremacy to the early 20th century. In the late 1950s the UDC Magazines were clogged with denunciations of Brown vs. Brown, integration and civil rights. A typical article is “Jefferson Davis – The Man America Needs Today, an address by Bruce Dunstan printed in the June 1958 UDC Magazine. The article explains that Jefferson Davis was for states’ rights, and the nation needs states’ rights for local control of education for the following reasons:

This constant waste of America’s wealth, together with forced shameful race-mixing, that causes lowered educational standards, immorality, and finally a mongrelized people, will bring about the down fall of America, as integration of races doomed the once cultured, and prosperous cities and nations of Carthage, Athens, Rome, and Sparta; and made of Egypt the weak world power that she is today.

This is the organization that Bill Clinton congratulated. These are the “special memories,” “traditions,” and “community spirit” which Clinton’s letters congratulated. That the UDC is a proponent of racism and white supremacy is not surprising. It is the Confederacy and did not Bill Clinton or anyone in the Clinton administration know what the Confederacy was about. This well known and infamous speech by Alexander H. Stephens should have given them a clue.

The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the Constitution, was the prevailing idea at the time. The Constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly used against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it; when the “storm came and wind blew, it fell.”

Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery―subordination to the superior race―is his natural and moral condition. (Applause.)

This, our new Government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

The larger issue is the empowerment by elected officials of neo-Confederate organizations. When a public official, whether president or governor or mayor or senator or other elected office, writes a letter to a neo-Confederate organization they lend the prestige of their office and their name to legitimatize neo-Confederate organizations and to normalize the Confederacy. Elected officials enable neo-Confederate organizations and normalize the Confederacy in other ways, by participating in ceremonies and events to celebrate the Confederacy or take actions on their own to celebrate the Confederacy.

Will the next president of the United States praise and honor the Confederacy. Will the next president of the United States annually around the time of Jefferson Davis’ birthday send a wreath annually to the Confederate monument in Arlington cemetery? When will the president of the United States serve as an example that public officials shouldn’t by their actions normalize the Confederacy and empower neo-Confederate organizations.

Sunday, March 09, 2008

"Washington Times" gives neo-Confederate editors the boot.

The Washington Times has given its neo-Confederate editors the boot. Both Wesley Pruden and Robert Stacy McCain are gone.

Interestingly enough, the new editor is John Solomon, who I think is the same John Solomon who has done some excellent reporting on the neo-Confederates.

Also, it is interesting that The Washington Times is ditching its neo-Confederates while The Charleston City Paper is putting on its staff The Southern Avenger Of course The Washington Times, for all its failings, isn't likely to have columnists for the amusement of its readers. Well at least not intentionally.

Wednesday, March 05, 2008

Leonard Pitts, columnist explains, "Nazis have a heritage too." Students harass anti-Confederate student editor

The article is at this link: or this link

Leonard Pitts in his column introduces the story as follows:

"Last week, a fellow journalist wrote to ask me for help. His name is David Tintner, and he's a senior at Cooper City (Fla.) High South, where he's the editor of the school paper. Recently, he wrote a column criticizing those who wear what he regards as "an extremely offensive symbol": the Confederate battle flag. David says a group of students known on campus as "the Redneck Nation" took exception. A gang of them cornered him at lunch to yell at him. They've made threats and tried to stare him down."

Leonard Pitts explains in his column:

"They will tell you the flag just celebrates heritage. Remind them that "heritage" is not a synonym for "good." After all, Nazis have a heritage, too."

My sense is that a group that harasses people and calls themselves "the redneck nation" are truly representative of "Confederate heritage."

I doubt the Southern Avenger will comment on this story since it does reveal what the issue of Confederate heritage is all about.

Tuesday, March 04, 2008

Hilarious cartoon on automobile license plate with the Confederate flag.

The above is a link to a hilarious cartoon.

Is Southern Avenger calling me politically incorrect?

That is essentially what Southern Avenger is doing. I am pointing out the possibility that Southern Avenger is a new Joe Bog Briggs for the Charleston City Paper, and in response, besides some gratuitous name calling, he is calling me elitist.

There is yet another blog by the Southern Avenger on my assertion that he is possibly hired as a colorful character for the amusement of the Charleston City Paper.

Southern Avenger writes:

Regardless, Sebesta’s latest blog suggests that the Charleston City Paper only publishes my stuff (and CP readers only read it) for pure amusement. His proof is that the CP also features articles on the arts and wine tasting - cosmopolitan tastes, worlds apart apparently, from the redneck diatribes of “da Suthern Avingerr.” Woodoggies!

However, in my blog I made no such claim that these interests are worlds apart.

What I do claim is that people who are engaged in these things often, though not always, think that these things are worlds apart. In regards to art galleries, expensive resturants, the people interested are often, though not always, are young professionals with various roles relating to class status which can be enacted through various activities. They may not be at all conscious of it, but it is true. Modern consumerism is about purchasing identities through the purchase of a style of clothes, cars, wine, art, etc. It may be politically incorrect to point this out, but the readers of The Charleston City Paper can be understood to some extent from the advertising and articles directed towards them.

In the 19th century, one Southern magazine, either the "Southern Review" or "Southern Magazine," I think it was the later, had a serial with a fictional speaker with heavily dialectical language, colorful and comical speaking, speak on the Civil War and other things. I think Moses Adams was the characters name, but when he spoke it it was spelled Mozas Adums or some such thing. Southern publications have been doing this for some time. It is nothing new. Maybe Southern Avenger is continuing a southern tradition.

Publications do parade around some fictional characters or real people in their publications thinking it will amuse their readers.

Evidently, it is politically incorrect for me to bring up that publications do this. That the alternative weeklies have a readership that would like to think they are avant guard, chic, cool, hip or whatever and these readerships might find Southern Avenger amusing.

Finally, I never said Southern Avenger was a redneck. My paper on banal white nationalism specifically points out the problems with such stereotypes.

Let me see, Southern Avenger episode No. 101, in the last episode, Pauline Pureheart was being cornered by Bart Blackheart, when the Southern Avenger spoke out, "Never fear, Miss Pureheart, I am here to save you." "My hero, replies Pauline Pureheart."

Like I said, who is kidding who?

Monday, March 03, 2008

John McCain's South Carolina Presidential campaign head Richard M. Quinn, another Hagee.

As people may remember, John McCain got a lot of political heat over the employee of Richard Quinn, editor of the Southern Partisan, as the director of his South Carolina campaign in 2000.

Later Quinn left the editorship and some erroneous information is circulating out there that the Southern Partisan doesn't exist anymore. It does exist and seems to be doing as well as ever. Another piece of misinformation that seems to be out there, is that Richard Quinn is no longer associated with the Southern Partisan.

Quinn is still involved with the Southern Partisan, he is one of two owners of Southern Partisan.

In the Vol. 24 No. 5, Sept./Oct. 2004, published date Oct. 2005, on page 34, has a statement of circulation. In the statement of circulation the owners are given as Charles Hamel, and Richard M. Quinn. The Southern Partisan now has a dual dating system, one date given is an "official" date and the other is a published date.

John McCain never has rejected Richard M. Quinn despite the expose' of the Southern Partisan. It seems odd that Obama is questioned about Farrakhan, but McCain is not questioned about Quinn.

Kevin R. Gutzman, author of "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution" claims not be a neo-Confederate.

Some how Kevin Gutzman, author of "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution" found out that I had blogged a reference to a review of his book at the Claremont Institute. The blog is here:

The review of his book is here:

Gutzman emailed me and in a short email he said that he wasn't neo-Confederate as claimed in the Claremont Institute review. The claim didn't have a lot of credibility with me, because he refered to an article at the site where in an article he denies that he is a neo-Confederate.

His name seemed familiar. So I searched my indexes and he came up as a contributor to Southern Partisan for several book reviews and a letter to the editor about a book review in Southern Partisan.

I replied that I would form an opinion based on reading his book reviews in the "Southern Partisan."

I have ordered his book, and I have also ordered the books he reviewed that I didn't already own. The books I have ordered have started to come in. I going to be reading his Southern Partisan book reviews this week.

I am thinking that I will blog something on Gutzman in a couple weeks. I need to write up something on who is and isn't a neo-Confederate. I suppose when the book, "Neo-Confederacy: A Critical Introduction," is published there will likely be some people who will deny that they are neo-Confederate for one reason or another.

Southern Avenger's serious interest in professional wrestling. Avenger's further response to my idea that he might be on the papers staff for laughs.

Southern Avenger has this item as one of his latest blog entries.

He thinks it is hilarious, but I am sure he will be outraged that I think it just reveals his neo-Confederate racism. (His blog is at

Southern Avenger did another blog continuing his theme that I am elitist. This time it was because I couldn't imagine him as merely being on the staff of the paper for his ideas.

All I can say is come off your soap box. The name of your blog and column is "Southern Avenger." It isn't Southern Conservative, Southern Heritage, Southern Viewpoint, or some other name, it is "Southern Avenger." Some people who read the Charleston City Paper are reading you for amusement.

This is a few of the articles that run in the paper:

I am sure to the readers of these articles the Southern Avenger is delightful local color. Perhaps they will talk about him at the arts and wine festival or at Starbucks after seeing an art house movie.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Popular Posts Last 30 days

Popular Posts All Time