I-95 Flag Progress

Or lack thereof.

Today I stopped by to see how things were going  with the Virginia Flaggers’ Welcome Sign to Racists, aka the I-95 confederate flag.

It’s very easy to find from Old Bermuda Hundred Road.  It’s very close to Jeff Davis Highway.

There’s a nice turnoff beside the trailer park and you can park almost right in front of the flag.  As you can see, there are some really good views available from the side of the road (outside the posted no trespassing area).

1209031328 1209031328a 1209031329

It doesn’t appear to be so easy to spot from the highway, though.  I took these two shots from the other side of the overpass.  As you can see, there hasn’t been any progress on clearing out any timber to make the flag visible from the highway.

1209031330 1209031330a

I was under the impression, from comments made elsewhere, that they had plans to clear out the timber by the end of November.  It’s been over a month since the excavator went missing–whether it was stolen or simply moved to avoid embarrassment we don’t know.  There seems to be have been a reasonable amount of time elapsed to acquire a replacement, if there was going to be any additional clearing done.

Perhaps we should file this under … Amusing.


  1. My understanding is that the machinery has been recovered.

    I was hoping to see holiday lights adorn the site.

    1. If it’s been recovered, it’s not at the site–or at least I didn’t see it, anyway. No such luck on the holiday lights. Maybe next year. 🙂

      1. Maybe its in the trailer park?

        1. I think it would have been visible. The trailer park is right there and no trees are obscuring it.

          1. Maybe none of them are wood burners?

  2. Bob Nelson · · Reply

    When Pete, Mike and I were in Virginia the last week of September, we drove along I-95. Never did see the flag although we did look for it.

    1. You have to know where it is to see it. I didn’t try to look for it from the highway today. Perhaps I’ll have time tomorrow.

      1. Bob Nelson · · Reply

        Perhaps because we were more interested in visiting historic places rather than looking for floggers/flaggers/fliggers. LOL

        1. You probably blinked, which is why you missed it.

        2. Yes Bob, you are not supposed to blink!


  3. No ice down that way to freeze it up? They didn’t have it at half-mast for Nelson Mandela?

    1. Light intermittent rain, but no ice at that time. Apparently they are not mourning Mandela.

  4. “the Virginia Flaggers’ Welcome Sign to Racists” <——- This is a lie.

    "I was under the impression, from comments made elsewhere, that they had plans to clear out the timber by the end of November."

    Got a link to the comments made elsewhere?

    "It’s been over a month since the excavator went missing–whether it was stolen or simply moved to avoid embarrassment we don’t know."

    I have no idea who your "we" includes, but *I* know the excavator was stolen. And I know when and where it was recovered, by what law enforcement agency.

    "There seems to be have been a reasonable amount of time elapsed to acquire a replacement, if there was going to be any additional clearing done."

    Perhaps, but unlike some folks opposed to them, the VaFlaggers do not have access to near-limitless piles of money, and heavy equipment ain't cheap.

    "Perhaps we should file this under … Amusing."

    It would fit better under Flogger Animosity or Flogger Libel or Flogger Love of Lying….

    1. Well, hi there, Connie. Always a pleasure.

      No, it’s not a lie. The tie the flaggers have with their member Matthew Heimbach makes it clear what their message is. They could have disavowed him, but they didn’t. Obviously, then, they agree with him.

      As to the comments from elsewhere, I thought you monitored all the blogs. Missed one?

      Here are a few comments:

      “The site will be continued to be enhanced. Check back near the end of October for more photos.”

      “As for the trees that are still there, ‘Chainsaw’ ”

      “As for the trees that are currently on site blocking the flag, hopefully next winter they will be cut up and in my fireplace.”

      You know it was stolen? Did you steal it? 🙂
      Glad you know where it was recovered and by what law enforcement agency. I must have been shampooing my hair when the story came out. 🙂

      I thought you said one of the flaggers owns a construction company. You mean he couldn’t arrange to rent one? Insurance couldn’t arrange for a replacement? If it’s been recovered, where is it? Why isn’t it being used? Doesn’t seem like a limitless pile of money is required. Aren’t the flaggers still fund raising? What’s the matter? No contributions coming in? I thought the flaggers were really popular amongst the heritage instead of history crowd. Did they make a faux pas to get others mad at them?

      Amusing. Yes, it is. 🙂

      1. Not to mention the use of the CBF in Richmond as a less than welcoming message.

  5. Yes, it is a lie. There is no tie between the VaFlaggers and Matthew Heimbach any more than there is a tie between, say, Brooks Simpson and, oh, say, people who solicit minors, just because Ray O’Hara posted on his blog. The VaFlaggers never “avowed” Heimbach’s controversial beliefs, so there is nothing to “disavow.” Besides, it is ludicrous to imagine that if somebody doesn’t state they are against something (pedophilic conduct, for example) that means they agree with it.

    You mentioned no half-mast mourning for Mandela at the I-95 site. Does that mean you believe his death warrants mourning? And if so, does that mean you agree with everything his followers did, like “necklacing” — that HE never “disavowed”? Does that mean you agree with his non-disavowal — i.e., that youi approve of his followers’ practice of “necklacing”?

    The VaFlaggers DID stated perfectly clearly why they put the flag up. Only somebody looking for some reason to hate certain folks would disregard what they said in order to attribute false motives to them.

    As to the statements you cited, none of them say they had plans to clear out the timber by end end of November. They don’t mention November at all. There HAVE been more photos since the end of October. Site work HAS continued. Winter is not over.

    The story on the recovery of the excavator WAS reported.

    Your questions sound like they are coming from a three year old. Perhaps it’s time somebody broke it to you that the VaFlaggers aren’t answerable to you, nor work from your schedule.

    The I-95 Memorial Flag, for all the flogger obsession with it, was just one project. They have continued to flag the VMFA (and added flaggings at the Museum of the Confederacy), have participated in other projects (Capital of the Confederacy Civil War Show; cemetery cleanups, supporting other Flagger groups, making arrangements for participation in Christmas Parade that was canceled at the last minute, making plans for Lee-Jackson in Lexington, attending flaggings and flag raisings in other places, participating in the Sharpsburg Memorial Illumination). The VaFlaggers are volunteers, and usually finance their personal participation in these activities with their own money. Yes, donations are coming in, but the I-95 Flag isn’t the only project that requires financing. Stick flags for graves aren’t free, ya know?

    And, how do you know that the recovered excavator isn’t being used?

    1. Well, you tried, Connie, but your effort was really half-hearted.

      If you’ll recall, the flaggers claimed Heimbach as a member. To this day, at least in my knowledge, they haven’t claimed he is not a member. That’s a huge tie between Heimbach and the flaggers, not to mention the personal friendships between at least two flaggers and Heimbach. Your attempt at an analogy fails miserably because the two scenarios aren’t anywhere near comparable.

      I think Mandela’s presidency should be celebrated. My understanding is Nelson Mandela was in solitary confinement at the time of the necklacings. His actions after his release were a disavowal of the practice.

      The flaggers’ message is that racists are welcome. It’s very clear.

      That’s a desperate grasp of a straw there, Connie. The statements do claim that the trees would be cleared out. The actual statement was October, which is actually worse, since I gave them an extra month to live up to their claims. You should check the calendar. October comes before November. You’re welcome.

      You must know some three-year-olds that regularly kick your butt in IQ tests.

      I’m just commenting on their failure to live up to their statements. They can certainly tell us why they haven’t done so.

      Like I said, I must have missed the story. I did blink a few times between when it was “missing” and now, though, so I could have missed it.

      There hasn’t been any progress in clearing out timber to make the flag more visible from the highway. One can see that by comparing the photos I took yesterday with the photos taken when the flag first went up. The only difference in view from the highway is the leaves have fallen. In case you need help with that, the leaves will come back in the spring. You’re welcome again. As I said before, I didn’t see the excavator there, and it’s not in any of the photos I took yesterday. That doesn’t mean it’s not hidden somewhere in the area, but it wasn’t visible to me when I looked down toward the base of the flagpole.

    2. Seems to me that Mr. O’Hara and Ms. Chastain used to chat a fair bit. By the way, at least get O’Hara’s offense correct (what he was accused of was despicable enough) … and then note that I made clear to one and all that I despised him … as opposed to Heimbach’s remaining friends with many Flaggers who continue to tell us that he’s a wonderful guy.

      I found the crime of which O’Hara was accused to be disgusting. You, on the other hand, have much in common with Mr. Heimbach, especially when it comes to white supremacy.

      You just aren’t very bright, Ms. Chastain. Guess I’ll post that video of Heimbach marching at the head of the Flaggers in Richmond just to remind you of the association. Caught on tape, I’d say.

      More to come. 🙂

      1. Normally I would have edited out the “aren’t very bright comment,” but I’ve been a bit liberal in allowing Connie to be free in throwing about the accusation of “lying,” so this would be fair play.

  6. […] reports actually seeing that Confederate flag in Virginia off I-95. […]

  7. If you google “virginia flaggers excavator recovered” the first 3 hits are all from the virginia flaggers blogspot site. There are hits on the local tv station sites for the reporting of it going missing, but NONE of them reported it being recovered. It was in Brunswick County according to the Virginia flaggers site.

    1. Thanks for the information. I did try to Google the recovery, but as you saw there weren’t any stories from any news agencies. I didn’t see the flaggers website. Brunswick County is a ways off. I guess they were trying to sell it down there, which indicates it may have been premeditated, and if so it was the flaggers’ own publicity about themselves that drew attention to the excavator and the perps saw through the flaggers’ photos that the excavator was there and unguarded–provided, of course, it wasn’t an inside job.

  8. [edit]

    1. Please refer to the rules for commenting.

      1. [edit]

        1. Another troll shows an inability to engage in an adult conversation.

  9. Ed and Bettie · · Reply

    Al, Why are you so obsessed with the exercise of people’s First Amendmend rights i.e. the display of the Confederate Battle Flag along I-95? You should be supporting the federal Constitution, not attempting to make a mockery of the First Amendment. Do you only support the exercise of the First Amendment by those people with whom you agree? If so, then you’re in for a world of disappointment, because we believe that all Americans enjoy the protection of their federal Constitution, and their right to exercise its requisites.

    1. Where have I said they don’t have the right to display their welcome to racists symbol? In fact, when they announced this project I praised them for putting their money where their mouths were and actually doing something instead of talking about it. All along I’ve supported their First Amendment right to display the flag.

      Typically for the flaggers, though, they completely botched the whole thing. It was incompetently handled because the flag is nearly invisible from the highway, they failed to get the proper permits which they should have known to at least investigate, they allowed their message to be defined by their linkage with Matthew Heimbach, and they’ve been completely tone deaf regarding the message they’re sending out. That’s where my criticism comes in.

      I disagree with their message, but I’ve consistently supported their right to broadcast it. The mockery of the First Amendment is their incompetence in handling their message. Kindly show where I have not supported their First Amendment rights. Go to the links here and see that I’ve always supported their rights.

      1. Ed and Bettie · · Reply

        Thank-you for the clarification. I’m glad that you are a supporter of the First Amendment, however, you appear to fail to understand what the Confederate Battle Flag represents. You need to research the flag’s meaning, and if you still insist that the the flag represents racism, then you must include “Old Glory” in your criticism to be accurate. Sadly, we are a racist country, whether you want to admit it or not.

        1. The flaggers have had ample opportunity to distance themselves and their message from Heimbach’s white supremacist ideology. They have repeatedly refused to do so. John Coski’s book on the confederate battle flag is an excellent source that gives a balanced treatment of the flag and how it has been used over the years. The flag is perceived as a racist symbol because of how it has been used from its very beginning, designated at its design as “a white man’s flag.”

          – It was carried by soldiers who were fighting for an entity that was formed for the purpose of protecting slavery and white supremacy.
          – After the war it was used as a symbol by white supremacist terrorist organizations such as the Carolina Rifle Club.
          – It was used as an emblem for the “Dixiecrats,” who were opposed to racial desegregation.
          – It was used as a symbol by crowds protesting civil rights for African-Americans.
          – It’s used this very day as a symbol of racial intimidation.

          The US flag, like any flag, has its own baggage, but it also has its redeeming characteristics.

          – The soldiers who fought under that flag ended slavery in the US.
          – National Guardsmen who were mobilized and deployed under that flag enforced racial desegregation and saw to it that African-American students were able to get quality education.
          – The nation that flag represents, through its government, upholds racial equality today.

          There are no such redeeming characteristics for the confederate battle flag. It is the standard go-to symbol for every racist group. While some of them may have used the US flag on occasion, every one of them used or uses the confederate battle flag.

          1. Ed and Bettie · ·

            Yes, many racist groups have used the Confederate Battle Flag, just as they have used the U.S. Flag, to promote their agendas. As intelligent citizens of the greatest country on Earth, we know that these flags represent much more than these groups’ pathetic “causes.” However, you are mistaken, as are the majority of folks who follow the “Yankee myth” of the Confederacy’s being established for one thing only…preservation of slavery. The Confederacy was founded in hopes of re-establishing the limited constitutional form of government envisioned by the Founding Fathers, when they established the United States. Southern Americans believed that Northerners were slowly destroying the federal Constitution, when they failed to uphold all the requisites of the Foundation Document, and misinterpreted the federal Constitution to permit such things as the use of federal monies for internal improvements, establishing a national bank, and permitting the existence of “protection” tariffs, when clearly the only tariffs that were constitutional were “revenue” tariffs. Add the encroachment of the federal government on the territory of State governments, and you have a major break in the Union. These divisive issues, primarily between the North and the South, were not responding to compromises, and many Southern Americans believed that the only way to preserve the original plan for a limited constitutional government was to secede from the Union, and found a new country called the Confederate States of America. To claim that the only reason for secession was to preserve slavery is a bogus argument, since slavery was sanctioned and protected by the federal Constitution, and was “alive and well” in the United States. All the Southern States had to do to preserve slavery, was to remain in the Union. Thus, the reason for secession was not to preserve slavery, but to preserve a limited constitutional government.

            I always find it mildly amusing to read claims that the United States fought the War for Southern Independence to free the slaves, because most of us know that claim is simply not true. In fact, if people like U.S. Grant had thought that the war was to free the slaves, he would not have participated. Neither would a majority of the soldiers saddled with the job of fighting in that war…they simply had no interest in slavery, or in the plight of the slaves. And just look at the results of the war…the freeing of the slaves…Northerners wanted nothing to do with the newly freed slaves, and let the slaves know it by enforcing their Black Codes, etc. And isn’t it interesting how many of the free blacks who had moved North following the war, ended-up returning to their former “masters” and worked-out agreements to live in the South again, and work the plantations? So much for the claim that Northerners cared for the former slaves. (This could help explain why racism, in its most insidious form…defacto segregation, is so successful outside the South, as we speak.)

            What was the price for freeing the slaves? It was the destruction of the original “union by choice,” and replacing it with the “union by force” with which we live today. And we can’t overlook the failure to uphold our founding principle…”consent of the governed” when Southern Americans were denied their God-given right to self-determination, by A. Lincoln, even as Mr. Lincoln and his Northern co-horts were permitted to exercise their God-given right to self-determination. What is wrong with this picture? The answer, of course, is that thousands of Americans were denied “consent of the governed,” and forced to return to a government they no longer trusted. How sad a reality if the Revolutionary Generation ever learned the truth, as to what happened to the young country they had sacrificed so much to see to fruition.

            BTW…in case you’ve forgotten, God-given rights cannot be taken from people, and people cannot give them away, as they are God-given, not given by Man to Man. Take-off your rose-colored glasses and face the truth: the South did nothing wrong when choosing to secede, but the North did do something wrong when opposing Southern Americans’ exercising their God-given right to self-determination. Northerners destroyed the “union by choice” in the process. Thus, the Confederate Battle Flag, as the soldiers’ flag, represents the God-given right to self-determination, not slavery.

          2. Oh, how can someone write so many wrong things in such a short period of time?

            “Southern Americans believed that Northerners were slowly destroying the federal Constitution, when they failed to uphold all the requisites of the Foundation Document, and misinterpreted the federal Constitution to permit such things as the use of federal monies for internal improvements, establishing a national bank, and permitting the existence of “protection” tariffs, when clearly the only tariffs that were constitutional were “revenue” tariffs.”
            That’s not why the confederacy was created. Take a look at the Declarations of Causes for Secession. They all come down to one thing: the argument over slavery. Look at the letters and speeches of the Secession Commissioners. They all come down to one thing: the argument over slavery. Look at Jefferson Davis’ first message to the confederate congress: the argument over slavery. Look at Alexander Stephens’ Cornerstone Speech: slavery and white supremacy. Tariffs didn’t drive secession. So-called “internal improvements” didn’t drive secession. Slavery drove secession, and the fear that with the end of slavery would come black equality. “Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone 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 normal condition. [Applause.] This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.” Alexander Stephens, March 21, 1861, Savannah, Georgia.

            One has to ignore history and dream up a fantasy world to think that slavery wasn’t the primary motivator. There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits a protective tariff or spending on railroads, canals, roads, bridges, dredging, etc. There was also no encroachment by the Federal government on State Government “territory.” In fact, one of the major complaints the secessionists had was there wasn’t ENOUGH encroachment on states by the Federal government–when it came to protecting slavery. Slavery was the only reason claimed for secession by all seven of the cotton states. Read what they wrote at the time of secession, not a bunch of goofball neoconfederate websites or the Kennedy Brothers.

            “I always find it mildly amusing to read claims that the United States fought the War for Southern Independence to free the slaves…”

            You didn’t read that here, so I’ll leave that particular straw man to you to take care of.

            “if people like U.S. Grant had thought that the war was to free the slaves, he would not have participated”
            Wrong again, as anyone whose read Grant’s letters can tell you. He wrote specifically:

            “The times are indee[d] startling but now is the time, particularly in the border Slave states, for men to prove their love of country. I know it is hard for men to apparently work with the Republican party but now all party distinctions should be lost sight of and evry [sic] true patriot be for maintaining the integrity of the glorious old Stars & Stripes, the Constitution and the Union. The North is responding to the Presidents call in such a manner that the rebels may truly quaik [sic]. I tell you there is no mistaking the feelings of the people. The Government can call into the field not only 75000 troops but ten or twenty times 75000 if it should be necessary and find the means of maintaining them too. It is all a mistake about the Northern pocket being so sensative [sic]. In times like the present no people are more ready to give their own time or of their abundant mea[ns.] No impartial man can conceal from himself the fact that in all these troubles the South have been the aggressors and the Administration has stood purely on the defensive, more on the defensive than she would dared to have done but for her consiousness [sic] of strength and the certainty of right prevailing in the end. The news to-day is that Virginia has gone out of the Union. But for the influance [sic] she will have on the other border slave states this is not much to be regreted. Her position, or rather that of Eastern Virginia, has been more reprehensible from the begining than that of South Carolina. She shoul[d] be made to bear a heavy portion of the burden of the War for her guilt.–In all this I can but see the doom of Slavery. The North do not want, nor will they want, to interfere with the institution. But they will refuse for all time to give it protection unless the South shall return soon to their allegiance, and then too this disturbance will give such an impetus to the production of their staple, cotton, in other parts of the world that they can never recover the controll [sic] of the market again for that comodity [sic]. This will reduce the value of negroes so much that they will never be worth fighting over again.” [US Grant to Col F. Dent, 19 Apr 1861]

            “I do not write you about plans, or the necessity of what has been done or what it doing because I am opposed to publicity in these matters. Then too you are very much disposed to criticise [sic] unfavorably from information received through the public press, a portion of which I am sorry to see can look at nothing favorably that does not look to a war upon slavery. My inclination is to whip the rebellion into submission, preserving all constitutional rights. If it cannot be whipped in any other way than through a war against slavery, let it come to that legitimately. If it is necessary that slavery should fall that the Republic may continue its existence, let slavery go. But that portion of the press that advocates the beginning of such a war now, are as great enemies to their country as if they were open and avowed secessionists.” [US Grant to Jesse Root Grant, 27 Nov 1861]

            “Northerners wanted nothing to do with the newly freed slaves, and let the slaves know it by enforcing their Black Codes, etc”
            Actually, after the war, Northern states rescinded their black codes. The only black codes that existed in the country after the war were the ones that were passed in the south.

            “And isn’t it interesting how many of the free blacks who had moved North following the war, ended-up returning to their former “masters” and worked-out agreements to live in the South again, and work the plantations?”
            I don’t doubt that some did. Why would they not want to live where their families were? “To attract laborers, many planters in 1866 and 1867 found it necessary to raise wages, promise additional pay for harvest work, and offer land free of charge for garden plots.” [Eric Foner, Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877, p. 139] Though many former “masters” found the going difficult. “Dissatisfied with their treatment the previous year, Howell Cobb’s former slaves not only refused to sign contracts in January 1867, but ‘have been busy spreading tales about our overseers and trying to prevent new hands from coming to us.’ ‘They feel no gratitude towards us,’ Cobb added, ‘and I now feel no obligations to them.’ ” [Ibid.]

            “What was the price for freeing the slaves? It was the destruction of the original “union by choice,” and replacing it with the “union by force” with which we live today.”
            The Union we have today is the same Union we had the day the Constitution was ratified. No state then or now can unilaterally secede from the United States under the US Constitution.

            “And we can’t overlook the failure to uphold our founding principle…”consent of the governed” when Southern Americans were denied their God-given right to self-determination, by A. Lincoln, even as Mr. Lincoln and his Northern co-horts were permitted to exercise their God-given right to self-determination.”
            What a load of baloney. They participated in a free and fair election and they lost the election. By participating in the election, they agreed to abide by its results. They didn’t like the results, so like a bunch of spoiled 6-year-olds, they threw a temper tantrum. They had full self-determination. They participated in elections, they had representatives in the National Government, they elected their own state and local governments. Anyone who claims they didn’t have self-determination simply doesn’t know what they’re talking about.

            The confederate battle flag represents two things most of all: the preservation of slavery and white supremacy, and treason against the United States.

          3. Ed and Bettie · ·


            It’s always disappointing to hear someone regurgitate the same old tired theories to support the myth that A. Lincoln chose to go to war to preserve the Union, when in reality he did just the opposite. A. Lincoln failed to uphold the founding principle of the United States when he denied Southern Americans their God-given right to self-determination, even though he enjoyed it for himself. The fact that you are unable, or unwilling, to understand the seriousness of his choice of action is sad indeed. You make the false claim that the States were not permitted to secede from the Union, when in fact they most certainly could…and still can. Americans did not forsake their God-given right to self-determination when their representatives ratified the federal Constitution, thus if Americans decide to change their form of government, they may do so…just as Southern Americans had the right to make a change in 1860-61. It’s unbelieveable that you should make such false claims, when if you take the time to study the federal Constitution, you’ll better understand the rights the American people granted to themselves via their Constitution.

            Unfortunately, your anti-Southern bias is too overwhelming to permit you to think more objectively, and to grasp the importance of upholding the right of the American people to exercise their God-given right to self-determination when they believe it necessary. It’s also strange how you have forgotten that A. Lincoln wasn’t even on the ballot in the Southern States in the 1860 Election. And to think that the issue of slavery was the only issue that caused Southerners to vote to secede from the malfunctioning Union is pure balderdash. How could you forget the long-standing divisive issues between primarily the North and the South, that paved the way to secession? You simply can’t ignore more than a half-century of strife between these two regions, and claim that that part of history didn’t actually happen. Wow! Talk about having blinders on, while claiming to be knowledgeable re: the history of the United States. And how can you claim that the issue of whether or not certain legislative actions were not a problem is beyond reason, and out and out “Pollyanna-ish.” LOL. All the divisive issues between the North and the South were based on a difference in interpretation of the federal Constitution. Perhaps if you would think of the federal Constitution as being at the hub of the wheel called the Union, and the divisive issues as the spokes of said wheel. Each of the spokes is attached to the hub, and together the wheel is able to roll. When one or more of the spokes is broken i.e. a divisive issue, then the wheel can no longer function as planned, and the Union isn’t able to move forward. Try to take the time to consider the role these divisive issues played in the Southern Americans’ final decision to secede. This decision wasn’t made as the result of one election…it was a long time a’comin.’

            There was no treason against the United States, when American citizens made a decision to exercise their God-given right to self-determination. There was the destruction of the original “union by choice,” however, when A. Lincoln chose war over peace. The War for Southern Independence was not a “rebellion” as so conveniently claimed by A. Lincoln, so he could unconstitutionally set-aside the “Writ,” and deny additional Americans their God-given rights, as well. Perhaps you actually do realize how wrong it was to destroy the original “union by choice,” and are groping for some excuse to hide behind such an atrocity to the American people. My Revolutionary War hero, Abel, would be turning in his grave, if he realized what A. Lincoln and his cohorts did to the young country he so willingly sacrificed to see to fruition. He would not understand how Americans had been denied the very founding principle the new country was established upon…”consent of the governed.” Do you really not understand that this concept of “consent of the governed” was the basis for the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the federal Constitution, and the establishment of the United States? How can you not, since you sound as if you never realized this fact before I presented it to you? It’s time for you to re-visit the history of the founding of the United States, and to appreciate the struggle it took to establish our country in the first place. When you have a better understanding, then let’s discuss the issues again. Good luck with your research.

          4. You continue to show an appalling lack of understanding and knowledge of the history of your country, especially for someone who lives close to a major university. You really have no clue at all what self-determination means, do you? And it’s rather hypocritical to bleat about self-determination when the secessionists attempted to break up the Union because they feared they would no longer be able to deny the right of self-determination to 40% of their population. I’ve forgotten nothing. There is a constitutional way for the American people to change their government. It’s called a Constitutional Amendment. Have you heard of it?

            Anyone who claims there was a right for a state to unilaterally secede merely shows their ignorance. There was never any such mythical right under the US Constitution. This is settled law. No constitutional scholar with any credibility today argues there’s any such mythical right. The question left is whether people who make that claim have the ability to learn. If not, they have nothing more worth listening to. I’ve already given you the link to see the law on it. It is simply ridiculous to claim a single state can claim it is no longer part of the Union. Single states have no power at all over the composition of the Union. That power belongs to the National Government. A single state can no longer claim that the laws of the United States no longer apply to it than it can claim a single law of the United States doesn’t apply to it. Nor can a single state make the claim that the Constitution doesn’t apply to it any more than it can claim a single part of the Constitution doesn’t apply to it.

            You obviously don’t know what consent of the governed means. You neglect the consent of 40% of the confederate states. They were governed, yet gave no consent. But of course, since they were black, they didn’t count, right? When people participate in an election, they are consenting to the results of the election and agreeing to abide by those results. Apparently you find lack of integrity to be admirable. Personally, I find it repulsive.

            As unilateral secession was not a legal act, every confederate remained a citizen of the United States, and thus every confederate was a traitor to the United States. It was only by the magnanimity of the United States that they were pardoned instead of standing trial and being hanged.

          5. Ed and Bettie · ·


            I have a question for you. Why did Northern Americans think the Union would be destroyed if the Southern States seceded? Why did they have such little faith in their States’ ability to continue as members of the Union, and carry-on their existence in a Union of fewer member States? Did they really think that New York or Pennsylvania or Ohio or Illinois were going to up and disappear? And since so many Northerners supposedly detested their Southern counterparts, why would they want Southerners to remain in their Union? Oops! I have asked you more than one question, but I’m sure you can manage to find the answers to all of them, can’t you? One more question “for the road” so to speak. Why did Northern Americans think it was their right to interfere in the lives of Southern Americans, while Southern Americans didn’t find it necessary to interfere in the lives of Northern Americans?

          6. I’m not going to repeat myself, so I took out your patently false repetitions. I’ve addressed them already and the matter is settled whether you understand it or not.

            As to your last paragraph. As anyone with any shred of understanding of logic knows, if a state could unilaterally secede from the United States because it didn’t like the outcome of an election, then the Union is destroyed. Eventually they would all secede and become little fiefdoms because nobody is going to like the results of every fair election. Thomas Jefferson put it best:

            “Be this as it may, in every free & deliberating society there must, from the nature of man, be opposite parties & violent dissensions & discords; and one of these, for the most part, must prevail over the other for a longer or shorter time. Perhaps this party division is necessary to induce each to watch & delate to the people the proceedings of the other. But if on a temporary superiority of the one party, the other is to resort to a scission of the Union, no federal government can ever exist. If to rid ourselves of the present rule of Massachusets & Connecticut we break the Union, will the evil stop there? Suppose the N. England States alone cut off, will our natures be changed? are we not men still to the south of that, & with all the passions of men? Immediately we shall see a Pennsylvania & a Virginia party arise in the residuary confederacy ,and the public mind will be distracted with the same party spirit. What a game, too, will the one party have in their hands by eternally threatening the other that unless they do so & so, they will join their Northern neighbors. If we reduce our Union to Virginia & N. Carolina, immediately the conflict will be established between the representatives of these two States, and they will end by breaking into their simple units. Seeing, therefore, that an association of men who will not quarrel with one another is a thing which never yet existed, from the greatest confederacy of nations down to a town meeting or a vestry, seeing that we must have somebody to quarrel with, I had rather keep our New England associates for that purpose than to see our bickerings transferred to others.” [Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 4 June 1798]

            The detestation is only in your imagination. Sure, there were some radical abolitionists who were glad to see any slave states leave, but they were in the tiny minority. You don’t define a group by its fringe, you define it by the majority.

            “Why did Northern Americans think it was their right to interfere in the lives of Southern Americans, while Southern Americans didn’t find it necessary to interfere in the lives of Northern Americans?”
            You really have no idea what happened in the 19th Century, do you? I have neither the time nor the inclination to teach you American history. I suggest you read about the personal liberty laws and how the slave states demanded that free states repeal those laws. I suppose you think demanding that another state repeal its own law isn’t interfering? You should also read about the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 and its affects on the lives of Americans living in the free states. Then you should read an actual history book about the antebellum years to rid yourself of the delusion that people in the free states were interfering in the lives of people in the slave states.

          7. Wow! Unbelieveable! You really have no clue as to the meaning of the founding principle of the United States…”consent of the governed”…do you? How can you over-look the words of the “Declaration of Independence” which state: “When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.” It continues: “…Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and institute new Government.” Do you actually believe these were just words, to take-up space on the paper upon which they were written, and that they had no meaning? I suggest you take a refresher course on the meaning of the “Declaration of Independence.”

            You gave a quotation from Thomas Jefferson, so I want to share with you another quote of Thomas Jefferson. He stated: “If any State in the Union will declare that it prefers separation with the first alternative, to a continuance in union without it, I have no hesitation in saying ‘let us

            Here is what James Madison thought re: preventing a State from seceding: “A Union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a State would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound.” (This was during the 1787 Constitutional Convention, when James Madison rejected a proposal that would have allowed the federal government to suppress a seceding State). And I’m sure you recall that Madison actually wrote the federal Constitution and is known as the “Father of the Constitution.” I’d surmise that he knew of which he spoke…his “creds” knock your’s “outa the park.” LOL.

            Secession was not prohibited by the Founding Fathers, and they accepted the reality of secession possibly occurring at some point in the future. (Perhaps you’re using your 21st century mindset, instead of engaging the 18th/19th century mindsets). Ideally, the Revolutionary Generation hoped the Union would survive, intact, but they were also realists, and understood the divisive issues between the various regions could very easily erupt, and result in the withdrawal of some States. Didn’t you learn this mindset from your Revolutionary ancestor(s)?

            So, I’ll give you another chance to answer my questions: Why were Northerners afraid that the Union would disappear, if the Southern States seceded from the Union? Why were Northerners willing to enjoy their God-given right to self-determination, while choosing to deny it to their Southern counterparts? What is wrong with this picture?

          8. Edward, you do all you can to present a slanted view of the Declaration of Independence, but the attempted deception won’t work. The parts you tried to cut out are very important.

            “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

            Let me spell it out for you. The DoI identifies unalienable rights. Governments are instituted to secure these rights. They derive their powers from the consent of the people. Whenever any form of government becomes destructive to the end of securing the natural rights of its people, then the people can alter or abolish it and institute a new government.

            Such was NOT the case in 1860 and 1861. Your ancestors rebelled and committed treason against the greatest country on Earth not because their natural rights were not being secured, but because they were afraid they would be stopped from violating the natural rights of African-Americans. To claim the DoI applies to their case is to flat out lie. Your ancestors weren’t interested in self-determination because they already had it. They wanted to continue to deny self-determination to African-Americans and they were afraid they would be stopped from doing so. To claim anything else about that is to flat out lie. They freely participated in a free and fair election, they lost the election, and like petulant 6-year-old spoiled brats they threw a temper tantrum.

            The Jefferson quote you gave in no way supports what happened in 1860 and 1861. What Jefferson is talking about is a mutually agreed-upon secession, whereby a state declares it wants to secede and goes to the US government, and then gets the consent of the United States for that secession. That would be a legal way of seceding. Instead, the spoiled 6-year-old brats tried to act on their own and they were rightly and justly spanked for it. It’s a shame their lust for slavery cost over 600,000 lives, but spoiled brats often cause damage. Jefferson, by the way, was opposed to unilateral secession. When Aaron Burr tried to get the Louisiana territory to secede from the United States, Jefferson had him brought up on charges of treason. John Marshall, who presided over the trial, said for there to be treason an armed body of men had to be in the field. Since that wasn’t the case, Burr was acquitted. Jefferson wanted to impeach Marshall because of that.

            There was no proposal to suppress a seceding state in the Constitutional Convention, so stop making things up. Madison said that regarding a proposal to use force against a state that refused to comply with a constitutional obligation. See Farrand’s Records, Vol I, pp. 52, 53, and 54. They are clearly talking about a state that was, in their words, “delinquent in its duties,” not a state that was in rebellion. You have a complete misunderstanding of what Madison is saying, and you’re simply lying by claiming they were talking about a seceding state. But really, that’s all supporters of unilateral secession have on their side–lies. This is settled law. James Madison very clearly said a state could not unilaterally secede. He called unilateral secession “a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged.” [James Madison to Daniel Webster, 15 March 1833] He said, “Applying a like view of the subject to the case of the U. S. it results, that the compact being among individuals as imbodied into States, no State can at pleasure release itself therefrom, and set up for itself.” [James Madison to Nicholas Trist, 15 February 1830]

            Madison wrote, “A political system which does not contain an effective provision for a peaceable decision of all controversies arising within itself, would be a Govt. in name only. Such a provision is obviously essential; and it is equally obvious that it cannot be either peaceable or effective by making every part an authoritative umpire. The final appeal in such cases must be to the authority of the whole, not to that of the parts separately and independently. This was the view taken of the subject, whilst the Constitution was under the consideration of the people. It was this view of it which dictated the clause declaring that the Constitution & laws of the U. S. should be the supreme law of the Land, anything in the constn or laws of any of the States to the contrary notwithstanding.” [James Madison, Notes on Nullification]

            According to Madison, “The essential difference between a free Government and Governments not free, is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually and equally bound by it. Neither of them therefore can have a greater right to break off from the bargain, than the other or others have to hold them to it. And certainly there is nothing in the Virginia resolutions of -98, adverse to this principle, which is that of common sense and common justice. The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding a SINGLE [emphasis in original] party, with the PARTIES [emphasis in original] to the Constitutional compact of the United States. The latter having made the compact may do what they will with it. The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the power created. In the Virginia Resolutions and Report the PLURAL [emphasis in original] number, STATES [emphasis in original], is in EVERY [emphasis in original] instance used where reference is made to the authority which presided over the Government. As I am now known to have drawn those documents, I may say as I do with a distinct recollection, that the distinction was intentional. It was in fact required by the course of reasoning employed on the occasion. The Kentucky resolutions being less guarded have been more easily perverted. The pretext for the liberty taken with those of Virginia is the word RESPECTIVE [emphasis in original], prefixed to the ‘rights’ &c to be secured within the States. Could the abuse of the expression have been foreseen or suspected, the form of it would doubtless have been varied. But what can be more consistent with common sense, than that all having the same rights &c, should united in contending for the security of them to each.

            “It is remarkable how closely the nullifiers who make the name of Mr. Jefferson the pedestal for their colossal heresy, shut their eyes and lips, whenever his authority is ever so clearly and emphatically against them. You have noticed what he says in his letters to Monroe & Carrington Pages 43 & 203, Vol. 2, with respect to the powers of the old Congress to coerce delinquent States, and his reasons for preferring for the purpose a naval to a military force; and moreover that it was not necessary to find a right to coerce in the Federal Articles, that being inherent in the nature of a compact. It is high time that the claim to secede at will should be put down by the public opinion; and I shall be glad to see the task commenced by one who understands the subject.” [James Madison to Nicholas Trist, 23 Dec 1832] And it was James Madison who wrote, “The Constitution requires a ratification in toto and for
            .” [James Madison to Alexander Hamilton, 20 Jul 1788]

            When we tell the truth about what Madison believed, instead of neoconfederate lies, we get an accurate picture that he was always against the idea that a state could secede on its own from the Union.

            You really need to read some actual history instead of those SCV lies.

            Since I’ve already answered why the Union would disappear I’m not going to repeat myself. If you can’t understand the answer, that’s your problem. If you don’t like the answer because it shows the intellectual bankruptcy of your position, well, that’s your problem also. Your question on self-determination is based on a lie, and so I’ll just refer you to what I wrote above.

          9. John Weir · ·

            You state that you believe that the conditions requisite for the people to alter or abolish a government destructive of rights and institute a new government did not exist in 1860 and 1861. That is not for you to determine. That is for the people doing the altering and abolishing to determine. Since the power the government has is based on consent of the people, it is also not for the government to say if the people have a solid basis for their altering or abolishing just as a rapist cannot claim consent by not considering “no” for an answer or resistance to force he uses as being legitimate.

            Secondly, the South and her people did not rebel or commit treason against the greatest country on Earth because secession is not rebellion, nor is it treason. Additionally, the United States of America is not a country. Look at the U.S. Articles of Confederation and the U.S. Constitution. I challenge you to find anywhere in those two documents where the United States of America describes itself as a country – great or otherwise. What the people of the Southern States did was with draw from a Union based on voluntary association. The European Union is not a country. The United Nations is not a country. The United States in 1860 was not a country. Withdrawing from an association to which one joined voluntarily is not treason.
            The Declaration of Independence applies to the Southern States. It was the document in which they declared their sovereignty, for pity sake. It concludes with “by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.” Please note the plural. The thirteen colonies declared themselves free and independent states. Some of these states were Southern States with slavery. To say the principles of the Declaration of Independence do not apply to them, but instead to the institution of slavery is absurd.
            To confirm this interpretation of the Declaration of Independence, Article 2 of the Articles of Confederation declares “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.” Echoing this language, the Tenth Amendment reads:” The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

            Treason is defined in the Constitution as attacking the states and giving aid and comfort to their (not its) enemies. That is what Lincoln did. It was those who attacked the states that committed treason. Comparing Aaron Burr’s attempt at armed adventurism to the people of the states in convention exercising their rights as sovereigns employs mysterious logic that only adds to the hilarity. Comparing them to spoiled children for doing so is insulting. The states are not the children of the Union. The Union is the agent of the states to whom its authority is delegated. The source of that authority has the right to reclaim what it has delegated in cases of, in Madison’s words “an intolerable abuse of the power” delegated to its agent.

            Thirdly, it is contradictory to claim people have self-determination and simultaneously claim betrayal when they exercise that right by withdrawing from one association to form another more to their liking.
            Fourthly, the Southern did not secede because they were afraid they would be stopped from violating the natural rights of Negroes. Lincoln stated he would defend slavery where it existed. He stated, however, that slavery would not be allowed in the territories. As part of the Union, States had an obligation under the Constitution to return fugitive slaves. Slaves fleeing Confederate States, however, would be free. A State that remained in the Union would be under no such obligation to return them. With regard to slavery, the Southern States believed, and rightly so, that they joined the Union as equal partners. By banning slavery in the territories, which were administered by all of the states as the joint property, Southerners were getting less than equal treatment. Additionally, the protection Northern States gave co-conspirators of the Harper’s Ferry raid left the Southerners with the impression that their murder was justifiable in the eyes of Northerners. It appears you also believe that to be the case since murderous intent is not a violation of natural rights, nor an infringement of self-determination.
            1860 was not just a loss of an election. It was the foreseeable loss of control of both the Presidency and both houses of Congress. The strategy of denying the South access to the territories meant nearly all of the new states entering the Union would have cultural ties to the North rather than the South. This meant the South would no longer be able to block the political agenda that the North had been pushing since the aftermath of the War of 1812. It was the agenda endorsed by the Illinois Whig Abraham Lincoln: a central bank, a high tariff, and internal improvements. Without the South, the American System would not work because it was designed to drain the South of its wealth. The South was dependent on international trade in cotton, rice, and tobacco. The new Morrill Tariff trebled the tax on imports. This meant the death of the South’s economy. Unlike when the Tariff of Abominations was passed thirty years earlier, the South no longer had enough political power to force a compromise. It looked like it would not be getting it back ever.

            Fifthly, you take Madison out of context in his letter to Nicholas Trist. Madison views the Constitution as a compact to which each state is bound. As long as the terms of the compact remain unviolated, it remains binding on the states as members to it. The existence of the Union is not unconditional. That is why there is a Constitution. If the compact is violated, it becomes a nullity. Read the articles of secession of South Carolina. Being the first state to declare secession it took pains to list violations to the compact by other states and the unwillingness or inability of the federal government to correct them. The logic is as I have stated. A violated compact is invalid. South Carolina, as a consequence, was not bound to the Union any longer.
            Now, you might argue that the terms of the compact had not been violated; Therefore, Madison’s arguments against secession apply. The problem is you are not the one to determine that. As sovereigns, the peoples of the states are to have the final say in that matter. A sovereign does not have to ask if it can leave a compact if it has become void. A state only has to reach an agreement to withdraw with the other members if the terms of the Union remain unbroken. That is what Madison told Trist; States cannot leave the Union on a whim. It requires a violation of the terms to free them. Similarly, you quote Madison to Webster that “a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged.” The key words are “without cause.” With cause, it is no violation at all. It does not matter if the Constitutional Union has no expiration date. Once it is violated, it becomes void. Like a marriage that has vows, when a vow is broken, the marriage becomes void – even if it is until death do you part. Otherwise, what are the vows for? Arguing that the Union is unconditionally permanent is false on its face.

          10. It’s late and I am out of patience.

            There is absolutely nothing right in your post, John. Yes, it is for me to say because first of all I have a First Amendment right to say it. If you disagree, kindly explain why the First Amendment doesn’t apply. Secondly, in making a judgment on historical events it is for me to say as part of my judgment of those historical events.

            Since they participated in a free, fair election, they consented to abide by the results of that election. Personally, I don’t think spoiled, petulant brats who throw a temper tantrum because they didn’t get their way should be rewarded or get to say what the result should be. The Declaration of Independence is very clear on the conditions necessary for the proper exercise of the natural right of revolution. Those conditions did not exist in 1860 and 1861, and anyone who says anything different is just not telling the truth. The fact that each state agreed to abide by the Constitution means they all consented to what powers the United States government had, so the powers of the government were consented to by all the states.

            You’re wrong about whether they rebelled or committed treason. They did. Not by secession alone, but rather by putting armed men in the field and levying war on the United States. Because unilateral secession is not a legal act, they all remained citizens of the United States, and their levying war against the United States is both rebellion and treason. Anyone who thinks differently just doesn’t know what they’re talking about because this is settled law. The United States of America most certainly is a country, and anyone who says anything different has no clue whatsoever what they’re talking about. Anyone who says the United States is not a country has no credibility whatsoever. I’m not going to waste any time on that. You can claim all you want that the United States isn’t a country. You’re wrong.

            They did have self-determination because they had a say in elections, they elected their representatives to the National Government, they elected their state governments, and they elected their local governments. Self-determination does not include illegal acts such as unilateral secession. Please, get a clue about what self-determination means.

            You obviously have no idea why the confederate states attempted secession. You ought to read what they said one of these days. For God’s sake read a history book for a change. I’m in the process of posting their exact words. Read them. They were very clear they were seceding because they perceived a threat to slavery and white supremacy, and they seceded in order to protect those two things. Claims that they didn’t do this simply show the person making that claim is clueless about history. The Morrill Tariff wouldn’t have been passed in the Senate if it weren’t for secession, so the claim that it was a reason for secession simply shows the person making that claim is ignorant of history.

            I don’t take Madison out of context. The claim that I did is simply a falsehood. You’re simply not correct about what he’s saying. He doesn’t talk about just any violation of the Constitution. He’s talking about a violation so severe that it abrogates the compact. Such was not the case in 1860 and 1861. Some Northern states passed Personal Liberty Laws. Those laws were struck down by the US Supreme Court. The states then passed new laws they believed would meet constitutional muster. Those laws were not yet tested in the Supreme Court when the confederate states illegally attempted to secede. Our system is that the Supreme Court ultimately determines the constitutionality of a law, not a single state or even a group of states. If a person doesn’t understand that, they don’t understand American Government. One state refused to extradite two criminals. Another state agreed to extradite two criminals and did so. Did they sue in Federal court for extradition? That’s how our system works.

            And again, I do get to determine that when making a judgment on history and also because I have a First Amendment right to do so. The United States Supreme Court ruled on the attempted secessions of 1860 and 1861 and ruled that they were unconstitutional acts, so the body that has the authority to rule with the force of law has spoken.

          11. Michael Rodgers · ·

            While your neoconfederate interlocutors blather on, I will point out that the Declarations of Secession are pale imitations of the Declaration of Independence and that war, with history written by the victors, inevitably follows such declarations.

            The basic (and yucky) principle in the secession documents is: In order to preserve the institution of African slavery, to curtail the escape of African slaves, and to expand the geography of White slaveholders, a state can (oh, ever-so-reluctantly), on its own, declare broken what it calls a contract between the states.

            The basic (and awesome, even though they were then, as now, works in progress) principles in the Declaration of Independence are “all men are created equal” and “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

            The secession declarations explicitly go against these two principles. First they explicitly declare that Africans are inferior to Whites. Second they explicitly declare that a state, not the people, can withdraw its consent from a federal government that the people participated in electing.

            Finally, secession declared was not secession accomplished any more than independence declared was independence accomplished. George Washington won the American Revolution and the signers of the Declaration of Independence became fathers of our country. Robert E Lee lost the Southern Rebellion and the signers of the Declarations of Secession became traitors to our country.

          12. Good points, Mike.

  10. […] her brazen stupidity? After all, on December 10, 2013, she posted the following on Al Mackey’s […]

  11. Jimmy Dick · · Reply

    Same stuff from the same people. It is pretty sad that the heritage people want to make up all kinds of excuses for the Civil War that the people who actually participated in the era did not say. It is extremely clear from the words and documents of the people living in that time what the Civil War was about and Al says it very succinctly.

    The bottom line here is that the heritage folks conflate the past with the present to support their warped ideology. The South fought the war for slavery. Until the heritage folks get that part figured out there is no point in dealing with them. It is basic US History, not heritage that obscures the truth.

    1. It’s heritage instead of history once again, Jimmy. The myth of heritage trumps accurate history for them every time.

  12. [edit] it is too bad you choose to shame our ancestors and our beloved flag, [edit]

    Jerry Dunford
    Urbanna, Va.

    1. Well, Mr. Dunford, if I truly wanted to shame your ancestors and your beloved flag, I would post your bigoted, uninformed comment in its entirety. Happy Holidays.

    2. Bob Nelson · · Reply

      You know Jerry, no Northerner here or probably on any other CW group has tried harder to understand the “Southern POV” than I have. I even joined the SCV for about 3 years to get the magazine and access to the website. You know what? I just don’t understand it. Cannot get past the “S” word. As for the CBF, I remember walking Pickett’s Charge from the Lee statue to the Copse of Trees a few years ago around the 4th of July and finding a hundred or more little CBFs stuck in the ground, no doubt in memory of ancestors who died on that terrible day in July 1863. Probably the most emotional walk I ever took. I appreciate the CBF for what it stood for back then. But now it has become a symbol of racial hatred, bigotry and intolerance. Who’s to blame? The “Running Rebels” who used is as a symbol for their football team, the “Confederate” cotillions at Southern universities who used it as a prop, the 1950’s KKK, the Dixiecrats and all the anti-civil rights demonstrations in the 60s. If you want to see who disrespected the CBF, you need look no further than your back door. Oh, and one other comment. This past September, some CW buddies and I spent a week in eastern Virginia covering battlefields from South Mountain to Petersburg/Appomattox. During that time, I only saw a dozen or so CBFs, mostly at battlefields such as the “Angle” of Spottsylvania. So it would seem that even Southerners are distancing themselves from the CBF.

    1. Jerry has shown he lacks the ability to engage in an adult, intellectual discussion.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: