The Hatewatch blog is managed by the staff of the Intelligence Project of the Southern Poverty Law Center, an Alabama-based civil rights organization.

SCV Plans to ‘Celebrate’ Racist Confederate Government

By Mark Potok on August 31, 2010 - 1:33 pm, Posted in Neo-Confederate

The American Civil War was the costliest, most devastating conflict in the history of our country. At least 620,000 soldiers died, as did some 400,000 civilians who fell to disease, suicide, murder and similar causes. Hundreds of thousands of others suffered horrible wood-saw amputations and terrible wounds. In the four years the war lasted, it cost $2.5 million daily — an incredible amount at the time. In the end, the South was laid waste, its industries, its grand homes, its roads and its farms largely destroyed. It would be a century before the region fully recovered.

Yes, it was a splendid little war — that is, if you believe the Sons of Confederate Veterans, the Southern heritage society that in the last decade has seen a large number of racial extremists in influential and sometimes top positions.

“CELEBRATE THE BEGINNING OF THE CONFEDERACY IN MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA,” the SCV wrote its members in a breathless announcement on its E-mail list Monday. The event, scheduled for Feb. 19, 2011, will feature a parade up Dexter Avenue to the Alabama State Capitol — the end of the very same route taken by Martin Luther King Jr. and thousands of others who participated in the Selma-to-Montgomery voting rights march in 1965. It is to be followed by other events around the South commemorating the sesquicentennial of each year of what some Southerners still call the War of Northern Aggression.

But the SCV isn’t interested in commemorating King or the civil rights march. And it’s certainly not interested in the end of slavery, or the Fourteenth Amendment that gave freedmen citizenship. Instead, it plans to reenact the swearing-in of Jefferson Davis as the president of the Confederate States of America and fire off a few cannons to ensure that “the Heritage of the Confederacy … is remembered and portrayed in the right way.”

The right way. Whatever can they mean?

Well, if you take a look at the essays — and essayists — on the SCV’s “150 Years: History, Heritage & Honor” website, it isn’t too hard to figure out. There’s the Alabama reverend who complains in a speech reprinted on the page about how “liberals, Yankees, scalawags and the generally misguided” have been unfairly making white Southerners feel guilty about slavery and racism. The reverend discusses the “righteousness of our cause” and concludes  that “the South was right!” Then there’s Chuck Rand, who once belonged to the racist League of the South, which opposes racial intermarriage, defends slavery and argues that the war had nothing to do with “the peculiar institution.” Rand writes on the SCV page that “there is no difference between the invasion of France by Hitler and the invasion of the Southern States by Lincoln.” He argues that Lincoln’s purpose was never to free the slaves.

[Editor's note: The name of the reverend in the paragraph above was deleted on Sept. 8, after he wrote the SCV and asked them to remove the text of his speech from its website "for my good, and for the good of the SCV."]

That may not have been Lincoln’s original intent, but it certainly became a major war aim — as anyone who has read any serious Civil War history knows. The years leading up to the war were marked by endless battles over the extension of slavery to the new territories, a move that Southern rulers, fearful of losing control of the nation to an abolitionist Congressional majority, backed virtually without exception. And, contrary to the revisionist history offered by the SCV, the authorities of the South at the time were perfectly clear on what secession was aimed at. The Texas Declaration of Causes of Secession, for example, explained plainly that the free states were “proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality for all men, irrespective of race or color,” adding that blacks were “rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race.” Alexander Stephens, vice president of the Confederacy, put it like this in his infamous “Cornerstone” speech of 1862: “Our new Government is founded on 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.” As definitively shown by scholar Charles Dew in his Apostles of Disunion, states throughout the South adduced the same reasons for secession — a defense of “white supremacy” and an attempt to spread the institution of slavery to more states. At around the same time, Uncle Tom’s Cabin, hugely popular in the North, was critically important in building Yankee abolitionist sentiment.

Of course, the SCV honchos behind the upcoming sesquicentennial commemoration of the South’s bloody defense of slavery don’t see it that way. Just listen to the Rev. Steve Wilkins, who complains on the SCV page that the war was really about replacing a federal republic with a centralized federal government. “Slavery,” he writes, “so far from being the cause of the war, was merely the pretext for revolution.” And that, if you read some others of Wilkins’ writings, was a pretty pathetic pretext. Together with a far-right Idaho pastor named Douglas Wilson, Wilkins offered this highly unusual take on antebellum slavery in the book Southern Slavery, As It Was: “Slavery as it existed in the South … was a relationship based upon mutual affection and confidence,” the two men wrote in their 1996 tome. “There has never been a multiracial society which has existed with such mutual intimacy and harmony in the history of the world.”

  • Michael B Davis

    People
    First of all I am an SCV Member , and something some of yall do not know about the sons of confederate veterans is we have members and associate members that our black in our organization (that is something the P-C crowd wont let you know )and is open to ANYONE whom can prove the anscestor fought or died for the south .
    Also has any unionist on this actually read the emancipation proclimation , it only freed slaves under union control, so how many slaves did it free, well here it is in percentage 0% , it would be like Barck Obama calling over to Sudan and telling the slaves there they were free . he has no control over there , and Lincoln had no control in the south I do believe they formed there own gov’t .What about northern slave states ?KY, Md, ect.? bet some didn;t even know there were any ? What about U.S. Grant he had slaves , and had to be forced by the military AFTER the war and after the amendment to let them go and when asked why he did’nt he said ” That good help was just so hard to find ” and later said that if he thought the war was being fought for slavery he would of handed over his sword to R.E. Lee and to another comment that the war cost 2.5 million daily , would it not been cheaper to do a Gradual Emancipation like everyone else in the world was doing other than the loss of so many lives ? but if any one reads this I encourage you to think beyond the political correct box . and also encourage you to look this gentlemen up ou you- tube H.K. Edgerton he is truly someone to look up , he is also a former NAACP Pres. what made him change his veiws? I dare you to look.
    and while colored troops were forced to segregate in the north, colored troops in the C.S.A fought freely right beside the white man ,gun in hand . Here is the resource and what was said during the war about colored troops in the south.
    Fredrick Douglas :” There are at the present moment many colored men in the confederate army doing duty, not only as cooks, servants and laborers, but real soldiers, having muskets on there shoulderds and bullets in their pockets, ready to shoot down any loyal troops and do all that soldiers may do to destroy the federal goverment and build up that of the rebels.” and here is one more if that was not enough.
    Dr. Lewis Steiner,chief inspector of the u.s. sanitary commision while observing Gen. “Stonewall” Jackson’s of Fredrick,Md. in 1862 : ” Over 3,000 Negro’s must be includedin the no. of (confederate troops). These were clad in all kinds of uniforms, not only incast-off or captured union uniforms, but in coats with southern buttons,state buttons,ect. these were shabby, but not shabbier than those worn by white men in rebel ranks, Most Negroes had arme, rifles,muskets , sabers, bowie knives,dirks,ect..and were integal portion of the southern confederate army .” its estimated that b/w 60 and 70 thousand colored troops fought for the south, and it took till the 1920′s for what was left of these brave men to get recognized by the federal goverment to be able to draw a pension. though they were recognized by the goverment , I know some whom have tried to have a military marker ordered for these brave men in grey and with all the proof ,in hand and been denied . to give these men such a simple honor for the struggles and hardships they endured from 1861-1865. thanks for reading and God Bless

  • Ruslan Amirkhanov

    “It wasn’t until the 8th century, just after the establishment of Islam that the slave trade was instituted.”

    This is the most ignorant statement I have ever heard. The slave-trade has existed almost as long as there were slaves in the first place.

  • http://www.johnkillian.blogspot.com John Killian

    Dear Mr Potok
    I have never made nor approved any statement that would refer to any race as “retrograde species of humanity. A statement of this sort is offensive to me and a serious violation of a belief in Creation. Acts 17 declares that God has made of one blood all men (humans).
    To link me to this statement is blatantly dishonest. Besides, I have not been a member of the Council for ten years or so.
    John H. Killian
    Opposed to racial hatred and mistreatment

  • Dick Lancaster

    James King is exactly right. Brad Cranford’s comments are insightful as to judging history from a century and a half out. To put slavery in an understanable contemporary context we can loosely compare it to the abortion issue today. Many people see it as murder. Many see it as a woman’s right to choose. But most are indifferent to it. A century and a half from now we may find our offspring judging us just as harshly for the indifference to genocide as we now judge our ancestors who held slaves.

    But one corrective note on Cranford’s history lesson. Slavery has always existed. You could be a slave of any nationallity of ethnic group simply by being conquered by an invading army. It wasn’t until the 8th century, just after the establishment of Islam that the slave trade was instituted. It was a concept of the Arabs inflicted on those from east Africa. Soon the profits became so alluring that the primary supplier of black slaves were black Africans who obtained their product the old fashioned way–conquering their potential products.

  • Bill Vallante

    Hey Mo, Hey Mark, Hey Heidi (or, “Hey Mo, Hey Larry, Hey Curly” if you prefer)….no one is forcing you to join in the festivities or the celebration. In fact, no one is even asking you to do so, so the way I figure it, the whole thing really doesn’t concern you. Go celebrate whatever it is that floats your boat and leave others alone to celebrate what is important to them…. It’s called “Live and Let Live”….ever hear of it? Naaah, didn’t think so. I’m sure you’ve heard of this one though – I have no doubt that you’ve been told this many times – Mind your own business! Of course, if y’all did follow these pearls of sage advice, you’d all have to get real jobs.

  • Jim Tarleton

    I am always amused by those who purport to know what I think because I am a Southerner and a member of the Sons of the Confederacy. If you look at 98% of the posts above, they say absolutely nothing that even approaches original thought. It’s the same old derogatory comments about Southerners. It is truly tiresome, and shows the ignorance and the immaturity of the speaker.

    If one takes stock of today’s internal situation, it is the South that is the industrial giant, and the most progressive in all matters of race. If we so desire to celebrate our heritage, we will do so. Your rude and incorrect definition of our celebration matters not, and only serves to irritate a few. Your utter ignorance of our history is saddening and lamentable. During the war, blacks were hung from light poles in NYC, and a black orphanage was burned with the children inside. I thus find your supposed superior attitude to be one of only imagination.

    I am an old man, and I have lived in the South all my life, and not once have I ever heard anyone say they wanted to return to the days of slavery, or that they hated people of color. On the other hand, the black population appears to have been re-enslaved by the welfare system in this country. Congratulations.

    JT

  • Jimmy L. Shirley Jr.

    If it had not been for the visceral hatred of the yankees, especially those from New England, there might never have been the agitation over the Black race/slavery question. For though they may not have thought it right for humans to own other humans, they were mostly consumed with a driving hatred of the Southern people. What to do with the displaced Black race never entered the always heating-up rhetoric of the yankee. Just as long as the Black was not in yankeeland was what they cared about.
    _______________________________________________

    Early in the 19th century New England Federalists worked out the first nativist racial ideology. New Englanders thought themselves to be a superior race because descended from pure Anglo-Saxon Puritan stock. There was some truth in this. There had been hardly any immigration into New England from 1620 to the 1820s. For two centuries the original Puritan stock had intermarried to form a strong regional identity. They thought the blood of the rest of the Union was diluted by foreign peoples who did not have a title to be the “true Americans.” Particularly disgusting was the South with its mixture of French, Spanish, Aboriginal and even African blood. The defeat of John Adams and the election of Thomas Jefferson as president was a racial trauma for New Englanders. They referred to him contemptuously as the first “Negro president.” Jefferson had lived with Africans for so long that to New Englanders he had become African. His election meant that inferior and racially compromised Southerners would come to dominate the Union, and his purchase of the Louisiana territory, which more than doubled the size of the Union, confirmed their worst fears. They saw it as a plot by Virginia to dominate the Union which would turn it into a mongrel nation instead of one controlled by a morally superior, white Anglo-Saxon New England.
    By Donald Livingston, professor of philosophy, Emory University

  • jlw

    James King. I really enjoyed your input. Your knowledge of the War is stating the correct version. Also, one person wrote that George Washington was the ultimate cause of the war, because he had slaves. I was in Washington DC in 2005 and went to Mt. Vernon. There was a letter written in George Washington’s own hand on display. He said that he would set all slaves free, but it would cause such an uprising that it might divide the country. The slave quarters he had were very nice. All brick with nice fireplaces and beds. He also set aside a portion of his land at Mt. Vernon for a cemetery for his slaves.

  • jlw

    To begin with, I am not a racist. Some of my best friends are Black. I have worked side by side with Blacks for many years. But the Civil War was not started over Slavery. In fact, many Northerners had slaves as well. The war started when President Lincoln wanted to tax the south because they were more prosperous, because they were able to trade with other countries more so than the North. That is the reason so many foreign countries supported the south during the war. When President Lincoln announced that taxes would be levied on the South, Congressmen from South Carolina went to Washington to negotiate with Lincoln. He refused to see them. So they went back home and the secession started. That is another reason that when Sherman rode through South Carolina, He made the statement that because of the State Starting the secession, He would rip the state to pieces. And that he did.The war started in 1861/62, and it was not until 1863 that Lincoln introduced the emancipation proclamation. He did so to get the blacks to join the North, in hopes that the slaves in the south would rise up against their owners and squash the South, and the war would be ended. However, many slaves joined the Confederacy and fought with the South.
    It is good that the war ended the way it did, otherwise we would be two different countries.

  • James W. King

    THE 1 Cause Of The Civil War and 10 Causes Of Southern Secession.
    Technically the 10 causes listed are reasons for Southern secession. The cause for which the South fought was to obtain Southern Independence from the United States of America. Many parallels exist between the War for American Independence ( 1775-1783 ) and the War for Southern Independence (1861-1865).
    On a human level there were 5 causes of the war–New England Greed– New England Radicals–New
    England Fanatics–New England Zealots–and New England Hypocrites. It was a political coalition between the New England economic interests and the New England fanatics and zealots that caused Southern secession.
    1. TARIFF.
    Prior to the war about 75% of the money to operate the Federal
    Government was derived from the Southern States via an unfair sectional tariff on imported goods. Only 10%–20% of this tax money was being returned to the South.
    2. CENTRALIZATION VERSUS STATES RIGHTS.
    The United States of America was founded as a Constitutional Federal Republic in 1789 composed of a Limited Federal Government and Sovereign States. The Confederate States of America fought to preserve Constitutional Limited Federal Government as established by Americas founding fathers who were primarily Southern Gentlemen from Virginia. Abraham Lincoln had a blatant disregard for The Constitution of the United States of America. His War of aggression Against the South changed America from a Constitutional Federal Republic to a Democracy ( with Socialist leanings ) and broke the original Constitution.
    The infamous Socialist Karl Marx sent Lincoln a letter of congratulations
    after his reelection in 1864.
    3. CHRISTIANITY VERSUS SECULAR HUMANISM.
    The South believed in basic
    Christianity as presented in the Holy Bible.The North had many Secular
    Humanists ( atheists, transcendentalists and non-Christians ). Southerners
    were afraid of what kind of country America might become if the North had
    its way. Secular Humanism is the belief that there is no God and that
    man, science and government can solve all problems.
    4. CULTURAL DIFFERENCES.
    Southerners and Northerners were of different Genetic Lineages. Southerners were primarily of Western English (original Britons), Scottish, and Irish lineage (Celtic) whereas Northerners tended to be of Anglo-Saxon and Danish (Viking) extraction.
    5. CONTROL OF WESTERN TERRITORIES.
    The North wanted to control Western States and Territories such as Kansas and Nebraska. New England formed
    Immigrant Aid Societies and sent settlers to these areas that were
    politically attached to the North.
    6. NORTHERN INDUSTRIALISTS WANTED THE SOUTH’S RESOURCES.
    The Northern Industrialists wanted a war to use as an excuse to get the South’s resources for pennies on the dollar.
    7. SLANDER OF THE SOUTH BY NORTHERN NEWSPAPERS.
    Beginning about 1830 the Northern Newspapers began a vicious slander campaign against the South that created sectional animosity. They used slavery as a scapegoat and brought the morality claim up to
    a feverish pitch. Southerners deeply resented this New England hypocrisy and slander.
    8. NEW ENGLANDERS ATTEMPTED TO INSTIGATE MASSIVE SLAVE REBELLIONS IN THESOUTH.
    Abolitionists were a small but vocal and militant group in New
    England who demanded instant abolition of slavery in the South. These
    fanatics and zealots were calling for massive slave uprisings that would
    result in the murder of Southern men, women and children. Southerners were
    aware that such an uprising had occurred in Santa Domingo in the 1790 era and that the French (white) population had been massacred. Lincoln and most of the
    Republican Party ( 64 members of congress ) had adopted a political platform in support of terrorist acts against the South. Some (allegedly including Lincoln) had contributed monetarily as supporters of John Browns terrorist activities.
    9.. SLAVERY.
    Indirectly slavery was a cause of the war. Most Southerners did not own slaves and would not have fought for the protection of slavery.
    However they believed that the North had no Constitutional right to free
    slaves held by citizens of Sovereign Southern States. Gradual emancipation would have allowed the economy and labor system of the South to gradually adjust to a free paid labor system without economic collapse. Furthermore, since the New England States were responsible for the development of slavery in America, Southerners saw the morality claims by the North as blatant hypocrisy. he famous English author Charles Dickens stated ” the Northern onslaught upon Southern slavery is a specious piece of humbug designed to mask their desire for the economic control of the Southern states.”
    10, NORTHERN AGGRESSION AGAINST SOUTHERN STATES, Proof that Abraham
    Lincoln wanted war may be found in the manner he handled the Fort Sumter
    incident. Original correspondence between Lincoln and Naval Captain G.V.Fox shows proof that Lincoln acted with deceit and willfully provoked South Carolina into firing on the fort ( A TARIFF COLLECTION FACILITY ). It was politically important that the South be provoked into firing the first shot so that Lincoln could claim the Confederacy started the war. After setting up the Fort Sumter incident for the purpose of starting a war, Lincoln called for 75,000 troops to put down what he called a rebellion. He intended to march Union troops across Virginia and North Carolina to attack South Carolina. Virginia and North Carolina were not going to allow such an unconstitutional and criminal act of aggression against a sovereign sister Southern State. Lincoln’s act of aggression caused the secession of the upper Southern States.
    For a complete unedited copy of this article contact me at jkingantiquearms@bellsouth.net
    James W. King
    Albany, Georgia

  • http://www.budsconfederate.webhop.net Bud Cranford

    I enjoy reading these many comments from people with little knowledge of history, but a plethora of opinions based on what someone else told them,
    I am a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans and the descendant of slave-owners. I have studied this era for almost 20 years, ever since I discovered the many contradictions in the “recorded” History and the writings of Southern authors who lived through these unfortunate times.
    My first realization that something was amiss was the fact that slavery had existed for 156 years before the U.S.A. was founded and for 89 years under the sponsorship of the United States. The primary slave trading centers were in Massachusetts and Rhode Island; both so called yankee States. The Confederate States of America only existed for four short years. How, pray tell, is it all the fault of the Confederacy?
    My second enlightenment was that it is impossible to judge the acts of 150 or more years ago by the standards we use today. Trying to apply today’s standards to the actions of our ancestors is not only illogical, it is nonsensical. Times have changed and opinions have changed. The past can only be examined thoroughly through an understanding of the mindset of the times.
    Both the north and the South were racist by today’s standards, but not by the standards of their contemporaries.
    The north, through tariffs and excessive taxation were using the South as a cash-cow to promote their industrial growth, while restricting the commerce the South needed to maintain it’s standard of living. When faced with unequal taxation and unable to correct it through government action, secession became their only course of action.
    The proposed 13th Amendment (see Corwin Amendment) , which Lincoln stated he favored would have protected slavery from federal intervention FOREVER, if the South had stayed in the union. Why then would the South have seceded and fought a bloody war when all they needed to do to protect slavery was remain in the Union?

  • Bennet Young

    The event being planned is a commoration of historical events. People with Southern/Confederate heritage want to mark and importaant event history. Too bad for them, that the “tolerant people” have no tolerance for anyone to clelebrate their heritage except for groups they offically approve of. Every other group that has events that are specific to their racial or ethnic background are preaised for doing so. Yet every one of those has events in their background that are certainly not acceptable by modern standards. Bottom line.potok and his fellow travelers here are jjust bigot against souhterners who are proud of the honorable aspects of their ancestors.

  • Al Kirke Plano, Texas

    The Civil War was BAD because it concentrated the political and economic power of most of a continent in Washington. That concentration allowed Woodrow Wilson to put us into WW I when Winston Churchill pulled the cruser escort of the Lusitania, so a U-Boat could sink it and so put America into World War I, for the Treaty of Versailes, and the promise of another war in a generation.

    In John Charmley’s book, Churchill’s Grand Alliance
    p.57 Charmley quotes Anthony Eden:
    “We have to maintain our position as an Empire and a
    Commonwealth. If we fail to do so we cannot exist as
    a World Power. And we have to accept out full share of
    responsibility for the future of Europe.” “If we fail to do
    that, we shall have fought this war to no purpose, and
    the mastery of Europe which we have refused to
    Germany by force of arms will pass to her by natural
    succession as soon as the control of our arms is
    removed.”

    p.359 Charmley writes:
    “It was all very odd. The British had fought two world wars to keep Germany from dominating Europe, and they had still ended up in a German-dominated Europe. They had fought to preserve their independence, but they had lost it all the same.”

    “So, at the end we have a version of events which casts
    doubts not only on the need for ‘their finest hour’ and the
    necessity for Britain to have stayed in the war, but one
    which also portrays American policy as the product of
    calculation and not sentiment, the results of which were
    not beneficent for Great Britian. It is consistent, perhaps
    wrongly so, in arguing for accommodation with Hitler and
    Stalin…ballances of power are usually to be preferred to
    the imballance which results from one or two Powers
    dominating the world.”

    Churchill’s Deception, by Louis C. Kilzer. p161
    “Robert Vansittart, Britian’s chief diplomatic adviser,and a political ally of the new First Lord, understood this. Vansittart said that Hitler’s policy of uniting the German-speaking peoples of Central Europe was a quite clear and compre-hensible program, but it is quite incompatible with our interests. We fought the last war to prevent this’ “

  • Al Kirke Plano, Texas

    You folks are ignorant. Please read Booker T Washington’s book, Up From Slavery. In his book he tells that, “When the white males went off to kill Yankees (God’s Work), the biggest male slave on the plantation was selected to sleep in the big house, and if anyone had come by night to harm old misses, or young misses, they would have had to step over the dead body of that slave to do so.”

  • Jimmy L. Shirley Jr.

    The top says the article was posted by Mark Potok, so presumably he wrote it also.
    So, he quotes a portion of A.H. Stephens “cornerstone speech”. He conveniently ignores lincoln’s own racist attitudes towards Blacks. During his famous debates with Stephen Douglas, lincoln declared for all time he was a White supremacist. In his inaugural address, he declared his support for the 13th Amendment (the Corwin Amendment) which would have made it impossible for the federal government to interfere with slavery. As President, twice in his State of the Union Address, 1861/62, he strongly recommended that all the Blacks be deported with the taxpayer paying for it. And in the book by Lerone Bennett, Jr. which deals with lincoln’s White supremacy, late in his life, just a few days before he died, he was strongly urging to a couple of his generals that we must deport all the recently freed slaves.
    So, play fair, Mr. Potok. White supremacy was a matter of fact in those days. Even the vast majority of abolitionists, while abhoring slavery, were not friends of the Blacks. And for all their bluster over slavery, when did they ever offer up a sound idea for a solution?

  • Al Kirke Plano, Texas

    Where would American blacks be now, if there had never
    been slavery in the South? The Culprit was Geroge
    Washington. If George had not won the war of independence, then American slaves would have been set free in 183 3, when the British King bought all the slaves in the British Empire and set them free, after a year of teaching them to be carpenters, shoemakers, an such, so they could earn a living.,

  • skinnyminny

    JosephineSouthern,
    You are showing your racism! Yes, I said it! I can see right through your writings that you have a hatred for Blacks – the give away, you just had to mention Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson along with the SPLC. It’s always a dead giveaway when Blacks are mentioned in this manner.

    It’s interesting how racists complain about LaRaza, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Black Panthers…yet, they fail to realize/recognize that minorities wouldn’t need these organizations if America wasn’t sooo racist. Racists complain when minorities have or want their own media outlets, such as Telemundo, yet everytime we look at MSM we are underrepresented. Example, the new discovery of Mitrice Richards, the media covered one day, and guess what, we’re back to Casey Anthony and Misty Cummings – stories that the MSM drag on and on.

    I remember when some of the native Americans were buying slot machines for their casinos, the slot machines would be confiscated before delivery, and sometimes the driver of the delivery trucks arrested under the pretext that they were illegal in California.

  • Mitch Beales

    JOSouthern it sounds like Erik Rush is using race to line his pockets as well.

    “…teach themselves our history and discern the truth…” do you mean like the blind leading the blind? If you think this is a good idea you have already been “played the fool.”

  • UnpoliticallyCorrect

    Though morally indefensible, slavery was in fact legal except in those states which had abolished it. The U.S. constitution permitted it. Yankee industrialists profited from it as much as southern planters. Leading scholars of the constitution agree that secession was also legal. The South was right in that respect. Lincoln wanted and needed the war for political purposes. He cared not one whit about the slave, except to the extent that the slave served Lincoln’s political power objectives. If you accept the moral superiority of the Northern abolitionist position as justification enough for the war; if fighting an illegal war is justified by the moral superiority of one’s cause, then we immediately need to bomb Iran and North Korea into submission, just for starters. Lincoln, deified through assasination, was a political genius but no moral giant. The ruling class will rule, whether by chattel slavery, wage slavery, or government despotism disguised as socialism. The war redefined who the ruling class would be for the next century. Race and color should be the least of our concerns. We must all join together to ensure our continued liberty. Thank you, SPLC.

  • Ruslan Amirkhanov

    How many Sudanese people owned slaves in the US, Johnson?

  • Larry

    To Frank Foster,
    I think I may be able to help explain your point. Poverty has long been a part of being White in the South. Exploitation has also been a way of life for “Superior” Whites and their response to any White Person who challenges the way things are is to tell them that any attempt to pull themselves up… to better themselves, is a put down of their “Heritage”. Thus the White Working Man, when he watches Blacks march and fight to better themselves develop the hate that you see today. They lack the courage to stand up for themselves, to confront the powers that be AND they are bound and determined to prevent Blacks from doing that as well.

  • Larry

    I was born and raised in the South and yet I can NOT understand the mentality. A child of 6 can go to the debates over proposed compromises and UNDERSTAND what the War was about. Are these people just determined to refuse to accept reality? Yes and I doubt that will change anytime in the future.

  • JosephineSouthern

    Real Americans will teach themselves our history and discern the truth. Don’t be played the fool. Read

    “Ne.gro.phi.li.a From slave block to pedestal-America’s racial obsession” by black author Erick Rush.

    The real racist in the room is the phony SPLC and Mark Potok. The SPLC fits right in with Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton race mongers using race to line their pockets.

  • Donald R Barbera

    Thanks to the Southern Strategy put in place by the Nixon administration, the Dixiecrats of Strom Thurmond are now Republicans and Southern Evangelicals–a toxic and dangerous mix. Sedition is what it is called. The South turned traitor, were whipped and the story is done. This is little more than the racists of the past speaking through today’s connections. They are rearing the country apart. The Republican Party of Dwight D. Eisenhower lays shattered in the gutter. I’ve often wondered when they would take it back or if they can,

  • Helen

    Of course, Michael, you do have the right to be a jerk!

  • Helen

    Michael, who has the right to do what according to the constitution. You are surely not saying the constitution gives people the right to own slaves! Are you saying that people have the right to hate other people? What good does that do?
    How is that being a patriot? I thought being a patriot was working to make our country strong and healthy and successful. I hope you are not defending the right to tear it down with your hate.

  • http://www.amazon.com/Marylanders-Without-Shelter-Crumb/dp/0788443925/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1256773070&sr=1-1 Stephen D. Calhoun

    It is a shame the SCV cannot acknowledge what the Civil War was. It was a bloodbath to preserve slavery. Slavery is man’s inhumanity to man.

  • Nessus

    The Biblebelt has always been racist.

  • jjjohnson

    yeah. uh whites weren’t the only ones to own slaves. but whites did go to war to stop slavery. yet it exists today in countries such as Sudan. funny how whites are potrayed as such evil people. seems to be a trend by the media. who owns the media?

  • http://Swingthatmusic.com Frank Foster

    Question: Did the poor, non-slave-owning white families hate us (blacks) just because they needed someone to hate and blame for their poverty, or what? I just don’t understand hate. What’s ‘hatred’ based on, difference in color, economic situation, land ownership,or what? Or is it the chocolate —– and the pink —–? All I know is that I’m SICK of it! For poor old ME, hatred of one group for another takes ALL THE FUN OUT OF LIFE !! i’M left with one sordid realiy: THE WORLD SUCKS!

  • michael

    Its nice how you people are not happy unless everybody lives and does things the way you want them too. They have the right to do this according to our constitution, and that is all you need to know.

  • kevin

    I was raised in Alabama and have always been fascinated with the somewhat schizophrenic relationship many modern southerners have with their history. Certainly the south fought courageously, but unfortunately for all the wrong reasons. As a history professor I have students who say things like, “the Civil War wasn’t fought for slavery it was fought for state’s rights’ and I always respond “Yes, the state’s right to have slaves!” Unfortunately too often we cling to the “magnolia myth” of the antebellum south that just did not exist. Even further, recent scholarship shows that 75% of white southern families did not own any slaves. So those poor souls fought and died to preserve a way of life that only benefited the rich slave-holding majority by enslaving 4 million human beings.

  • Kate De Braose

    I do agree that we still have a class system in America presently. Maybe it is human nature to pick out any kind of differences in people or in their economic status so as to discriminate against them for gain.

    However, that is no excuse for ignoring the fact that discrimination against people for their characteristics or circumstances is not at all rational and IS definitely unfair.
    In the end, nothing can be gained by it either. On the other hand much of value in a civilization is always lost.

  • Phred

    I am proud to be all 3: A liberal, a Yankee and a scalawag!

  • Tango4

    daemonesslisa somehow tied The Tea Party in with SCV and its upcoming sesquicentennial commemoration, “They—much like the teabaggers—want to celebrate the good ol’ days before the Emancipation Proclamation and the 14th amendment.” What’s the connection there? Another agenda, perhaps, daemonesslisa?

  • Thomas Beck

    “Funny, defeated people usually don’t celebrate.”

    What makes you think the South was defeated? Considering the racism of Fox News and the Tea Party movement and how the southern-dominated GOP is still in existence, the South still pretty much runs things in this benighted country.

  • Bingo Long

    When you found a country on profit margins, you’re not going to get the most compassionate assortment of folks. Forty-five years after Jim Crow, and if they could, they’d be back to pure slavery in a heartbeat. Evil.

  • The BarbaryFalcon

    “At least 620,000 soldiers died, as did some 400,000 civilians who fell to disease, suicide, murder and similar causes. Hundreds of thousands of others suffered horrible wood-saw amputations and terrible wounds. In the four years the war lasted, it cost $2.5 million daily”

    Funny, considering how Abe Lincoln himself silenced any reporters who brought up any information like that to the public, by throwing those persons in jail and shutting down the newspapers that employed them. Nothing was allowed to stand in the way of Abe’s war.

    “In the end, the South was laid waste, its industries, its grand homes, its roads and its farms largely destroyed.”

    Then, does it comes as a surprise that in such an environment, Klan was able to rise up and thrive?

  • Alan Aardman

    Take a close look at what tends to happen to rebels who are overrun by the state they rebel against in history.

    Former Confederates were shown incredible mercy after the war- far more mercy than they showed the people they enslaved.

  • Ruslan Amirkhanov

    Funny, defeated people usually don’t celebrate.

  • daemonesslisa

    To be fair, there are some things you can celebrate about the South; the agriculture, the architecture (much of which is a throwback to old England), the formal get-togethers and the environmental climate.

    But does the SCV want to celebrate those things? Not likely. They—much like the teabaggers—want to celebrate the good ol’ days before the Emancipation Proclamation and the 14th amendment. They think that it was such a harmonious society…but only as long as “they” knew their place, right? That’s what they want to celebrate.

  • Paen

    The depravity of slavery included the white masters using their own children as slaves including Thomas Jefferson.

  • Mitch Beales

    It’s easy to see from the skin tones of the descendants of slaves that Wilson and Wilkins were right about at least one sort of intimacy that existed during slavery. I seriously doubt though if much affection was involved.