One often wonders how someone could be a neoconfederate. It takes certain qualities:
1. Stupidity. For instance, our favorite troll, Austin/Caldwell/Sara Lee/etc. was told by me that a state cannot enter the Union without the permission of the other states. In a comment I kept in the spam bin, he said I was wrong because, “it is the U.S. Congress who admits new States.” Stupid people don’t understand that senators and members of the House of Representatives represent their states and districts. Here’s another example. I told the troll a state did not have an unalienable right to alter or abolish their government in order to protect slavery. He claimed that slavery was irrelevant. Stupid people can’t understand the plain language of the Declaration of Independence. People have the natural right to alter or abolish their government when that government becomes destructive to the end of preserving their natural rights. There is no unalienable right to deny the natural rights of other people to them. If anyone in the confederacy had an unalienable right to rebel, it was their slaves. Of course, if you’re a racist and don’t consider blacks to be people, then you might not understand this easy concept.
2. Lack of Intellectual Integrity. Even though 7 out of 7 of the Cotton states told us in no uncertain terms they were seceding to protect slavery, and therefore wanted their independence in order to protect slavery, the troll claims slavery had nothing to do with the war. We can see another example in the case of the permits required for the I-95 flag. Instead of acknowledging the error, some folks appear to be questioning the county.
3. Lack of historical knowledge. This explains the popularity of charlatans like Charles Adams, the Kennedy Brothers, and Thomas DiLorenzo among neoconfederates. They don’t have a good knowledge of history and so they believe anything they’re fed as long as it claims to “defend the south.”
(added) 4. Lack of ability to use logic. Whenever confronted with the truth that the confederacy was formed in order to protect slavery, neoconfederates will often point out that both Lincoln and the US Congress said their objective in the war was to preserve the Union. These neoconfederates obviously don’t realize there were two sides in the conflict and that the two sides could have two different objectives. They’ll also point to things Lincoln said during the Lincoln-Douglas Debates regarding not wanting blacks to have social and political equality–as if Lincoln determined why the confederacy was formed.
Unfortunately for neoconfederates, these are all interrelated. Their stupidity means it’s very difficult for them to overcome their lack of historical knowledge, and their lack of intellectual integrity means they claim they’re right when they’re shown to be wrong. (added) Their stupidity is also related to their lack of ability to use logic. Because of their stupidity they don’t understand that their illogical reasoning is flawed.
Student of the American Civil War 
Don’t worry, Al. There’s no such thing as a neo-Confederate. It’s a made-up word, and made-up concept… fabricated by self-appointed civil war thought cops and assorted leftists who are fearful of, or otherwise don’t like their preferred historical, political and cultural narrative challenged, or even questioned.
Hello, Connie. Sorry to contradict you, but unlike the alleged legions of so-called “black confederates,” neoconfederates are real. I’ve run across many of them.
Al, probably what you’ve run across are either Confederate heritage advocates/defenders, or Southern nationalists — or someone who is both. But there’s no such thing as a neo-Confederate. That’s a pejorative made up by critics.
Connie, while I haven’t taken a poll, my estimate is that most confederate heritage advocates are neoconfederates. I also estimate that most southern nationalists are neoconfederates. Every word in existence, Connie, was made up by someone at some point. Words are created to fill the need. In this case, it was a need for an accurate label of some folks, and the word “neoconfederate” fits the bill.
Well Al, what can you expect from that babbling idiot? He is going on now about the State power of ratification by citing Article V to everyone (something he has apparently not read). I pointed out that in his microanalytical logic that it was actually state legislators or conventions that ratify amendments. Men and women that represent their constituencies within the state itself.
But honestly….what can you expect?
Exactly what we get, Rob. 🙂
Al, could you please post a link to the discourse you refer to having with Austin/Caldwell/Sara Lee/etc…?
Michael, if you read the post you’ll see it was spammed. I’m not posting a link to my spam folder.
Returning to this thread I think you can add a fifth category. A complete unwillingness to accept any fact that contradicts their cherished beliefs. Also, the repeated parroting of the same thing over and over again. The “secession is not in the Constitution, therefore it must be legal,” argument is way up high on that list. Of course that also fits in with the lack of ability to use logic.
For that matter, the inability to understand what sources are would apply, but I think some of them do know very well what they are. The real problem is they have no understanding of context when sources are used. They cherry pick what they want and ignore everything that contradicts what they want to belief even when the same source does so. We could say that’s from the David Barton School of (Incorrect) Historical Thinking, but it predates him.
It just gets to the point where it is the same thing over and over again. They seem to think if they say it enough it will become fact. That isn’t happening.
All true, Jimmy. When I made the categories, I was thinking this would be included in lack of intellectual integrity. I may include this in some expanded explanation regarding that category. What do you think?
That does sound good. The inability to use sources would fit there. Context would fit in with lack of historical knowledge really well now that I think on it some. Basically the Five C’s of History as expressed by Andrews and Burke fit in there as well. When you get right down to it, these folks do not think like a historian does. They do not have the training nor the desire to do so. They use history for their purposes which for them is to construct a past that fits their beliefs. It is the antithesis of what a historian does.
Someone suggested that they do this via the legalistic approach to history which is that lawyers use history as needed to fit their needs in winning a case. They do not look at anything other than that. It serves a need and is discarded. Historians do not do this because we have developed the profession over the last century and a half into a real science where we explore everything from multiple points. A historian doesn’t use history to fit their needs. They study history so that they can understand what was going on and why. Actually, for a historian, history has no needs to fit it into other than being accurate.
This takes us back to the neoconfederates. Accuracy is not their goal. I really think this is what bothers me the most about neoconfederates and historians. The two do not meet professionally because they approach history differently. They have different views, different needs, different goals, and different philosophies about history. Neoconfederates really fit into a larger group that uses history for their own purposes. You can say religious, ideological, political, heritage, whatever. They’re the ones that want history to reflect their beliefs and identities. Instead of shaping those to actual historical fact, they would prefer to shape history to suit their wants. I just find that to be extremely appalling.
I was looking at inability to use sources as simply being stupid. Saying it is the antithesis of what a historian does is encapsulated in “heritage instead of history.” In many cases they’re about making themselves feel good about themselves because of something done by someone else in the past. In other cases they have a political agenda they’re pushing. In neither case are they trying to understand the past.
history is written by the victors
A truly historically ignorant claim that shows you have what it takes to be a neoconfederate–in spades. Apparently you’ve never heard of Jubal Early, John B. Gordon, Richard Taylor, Joseph E. Johnston, John Bell Hood, James Longstreet, William N. Pendleton, Edward Porter Alexander, Henry Kyd Douglas, or any of the other former confederates who wrote memoirs and histories of the war. You’ve never heard of the Southern Historical Society or Confederate Veteran magazine. You need to start reading some history for a change. You should also learn how to construct a sentence. You start with a capital letter and end with a period. Even elementary school children can do that. At least you spelled the words correctly, so we’ll give you that one.
Have a nice day.
“There is no unalienable right to deny the natural rights of other people to them.”
Forgive me if I’m wrong, but weren’t slaves considered 3/5ths of a human back then?
Actually, no. For purposes of determining congressional representation and direct taxes, their aggregate number would be counted as 3/5 of their total number; however, in all other things they were not counted as 3/5 of a human being.
I have found that DiLorenzo is one of the easiest NeoConfederates to debunk. Much of what he presents could have merit, but the way he cherry-picks quotes, presents facts out of context, and uses half-truths and out-and-out lies to support his tariff pet theory and his anti-Lincoln campaign nullifies any legitimate points he could make.
I recently came across this speech by Ron Paul speaking in front of the Confederate Flag. It is infused with common DiLorenzo and NeoConfederate misinformation. No surprise, I suppose.
However, I do want to make one qualifier on what it takes to be a NeoConfederate. Without making any assessment here on the validity of the “states’ rights” political philosophy or on the doctrine of “nullification”, I do believe that one can ascribe to those principles and not be a NeoConfederate. Take for example the practice of “sanctuary cities”. That can be viewed as a modern day utilization of those political principles.
See “Sanctuary Cities: A Study in Modern Nullification?”
https://content.sciendo.com/view/journals/bjals/8/1/article-p37.xml
Certainly one can believe one or two minor beliefs of neoconfederates without one being a neoconfederate, but if one believes the confederacy was right and defends the confederacy, one is a neoconfederate.