The Un-American SCV Strikes Again

I said it almost two-and-a-half years ago and I’ll say it again.  The Sons of Confederate Veterans is an un-American organization.  They didn’t use to be, but they are.

Back in February, I posted about Jacob Hale, a teenager in Austin, Texas who is campaigning to replace Confederate Heroes Day in Texas with Civil War Remembrance Day.

On Tuesday, April 14, 2015 young Jacob testified before the Texas House Committee on Culture, Recreation, and Tourism.

Then someone must have called out, “Send in the clowns,” because a line-up of anti-American morons followed.  The chief clown, someone who calls himself “Johnnie Holley,” made this ridiculous statement:  “The state of Texas voted to secede from the Union, so any man from Texas who went to fight for the Union was a traitor to his country. So as a Texan I don’t want to honor someone who came and fought against the state of Texas.”  He doesn’t want to honor American soldiers.  He’s the commander of the Texas Division of the SCV and he doesn’t want to honor American soldiers.  That is proof the SCV is an un-American organization.  Mr. Holley also shows his racist side:  “I don’t care if they move Martin Luther King Day. That would be just fine. Our holiday was established long before his was.”  One of the other simpletons claimed, “If we start trying to change the historical record for political reasons, we do great damage to our heritage.”  This is hilarious because that buffoon doesn’t even know that “Confederate Heroes Day” has only existed since 1973.  “Amid rising calls nationally for a celebration of Martin Luther King’s birthday, the Texas Legislature responded in 1973 with the sort of passive-aggressive hostility so common in the late Civil Rights Era. They consolidated Lee’s and Davis’ birthday holidays into a celebration of the Confederacy which, by pure happenstance of course, would fall at almost the same time as King’s birthday, January 15th.”  Not only was it put in place for political reasons, but it was put in place for racist, spiteful political reasons.

You can see some more stupidity out of the Texas SCV here.



  1. You said “a teenage in Austin, Texas….” I’m guessing that should be teenage[r]. I hate when that happens to me.

    Do you think it’s fair to generalize all SCV camps into the Un-American category? Not all camps are the same nor do they bow down to the national organization.

    1. Thanks, Rob, I fixed it.

      It’s getting more fair every day. The folks I’m quoting are the leadership, who are elected by the rank and file. They speak for the organization, and if the organization doesn’t want to be tarred by that brush they need to change the leadership.

    2. Al has a point. You can’t say, “it’s just a few bad apples” when it’s people elected to increasingly prominent positions of authority within the organization, over a period of years.

      1. Exactly, Andy. While there are folks within the SCV who are most assuredly not anti-American, they are increasingly marginalized in the organization, and those who are speaking for the organization and setting its agenda are showing themselves to be anti-American.

      2. Yea…but isn’t that a generalization as well? I didn’t vote for Obama, but I agree with some of the things he does. In all liklihood, a President I would vote for, will probably do things I disagree with. Can one really lump the actions of elected leaders into the broad electorate?

        1. The President speaks for the country. If the country doesn’t like what’s being said, they change the president. The leaders set the agenda and speak for the organization. If the organization doesn’t like it, they change the leaders. If a person is being outvoted and doesn’t think the organization represents his views [since we’re talking about the SCV, “his” would be the correct pronoun], then he has a decision to make. Like it or not, the organization is speaking for him. If his ballot isn’t getting his views across and he wants to get his views across, then he can vote in another way–with his feet.

          1. The President speaks for the country as an elected official. This means that a significant part of the country has a person speaking for them who they did not elect to speak for them.

            Let’s remember that even the “vote with the feet” is propaganda to make democracy look supreme. In my opinion, for what it’s worth, the biggest issues with the SCV is that its work to preserve history and/or heritage, is completely overshadowed by their hostile rhetoric; but hostile rhetoric isn’t un-American.

          2. Hostile rhetoric as a concept isn’t necessarily anti-American, but anti-American rhetoric is anti-American.

          3. Anti-American is a pretty subjective term though.

          4. When it denigrates US soldiers for being US soldiers and doing honorable duty as US soldiers, it’s anti-American.

          5. So the Vietnam anti-war movement is also un-American?

          6. There were some members of that movement who were un-American, but the vast majority and the leadership of that movement weren’t, because the vast majority didn’t denigrate US soldiers because they were US soldiers doing honorable service. My Lai is an example of dishonorable service.

          7. We’re going to have to agree to disagree on this topic. Like I said, un-American is a pretty subjective term. Speaking out against the the country, the military, it’s leaders, etc., is controversially one of the most American things you can do.

          8. Speaking out against the country, the military , and its leaders, etc., isn’t necessarily un-American. As I said, denigrating American soldiers because they are American soldiers and doing honorable service is. I think that’s a clear criterion, but others may disagree and that’s fine.

          9. We’re also going to have to disagree about the word “honorable” in regards to Vietnam and service. But that’s my point, it’s subjective.

          10. Again, I see clear criteria for honorable service.

          11. In that respect, you see no honorable service being done by SCV members?

          12. I’ve written about it in this blog; however, they are allowing their leadership to taint their service. It’s up to them to fix it.

        2. I think it’s fair to say that if an organization continues to recognize and reward people who speak and act in a certain way, then that behavior should reflect on the group as a whole. The analogy with the president is not ideal because there’s not much practical choice in whether or not we’re U.S. citizens. That’s not true of organizations that have a voluntary membership; people are i those groups because they choose to be.

          1. And if they don’t like being represented by that organization’s leadership and can’t change the leadership, they have a choice to no longer be in that organization.

          2. It certainly reflects the group as a whole, but it shouldn’t brand the entirety of the group as one thing.

          3. The leadership sets the agenda and speaks for the group. It seems fair to me to hold the group to what the leadership does.

    3. Kristoffer · · Reply

      “There were some members of that movement who were un-American, but the vast majority and the leadership of that movement weren’t, because the vast majority didn’t denigrate US soldiers because they were US soldiers doing honorable service. My Lai is an example of dishonorable service.”

      Actually, the majority was un-American, because they did denigrate US soldiers who weren’t anywhere near My Lai as “baby killers” and “murderers”. Any time someone accuses someone in the same group of committing some injustice, with zero evidence and just because they were in the same group, I am reminded of Portia’s exacting definition of justice from The Merchant of Venice:
      “Therefore prepare thee to cut off the flesh.
      Shed thou no blood; nor cut thou less, nor more,
      But just a pound of flesh: if thou tak’st more,
      Or less, than a just pound, be it but so much
      As makes it light or heavy in the substance,
      Or the division of the twentieth part
      Of one poor scruple, nay, if the scale do turn
      But in the estimation of a hair,
      Thou diest and all thy goods are confiscate.”

      1. You’re equating a vocal minority with the majority and the leadership. Not the case at all.

  2. charlie · · Reply

    I know Sam Houston didn’t fight for the Union but he fought against succession and wasn’t loyal to the Confederacy. So i guess that makes him a traitor too……

    1. I can’t think of any Americans who have fought for succession. I was under the impression that we didn’t have a monarchy. Do you know something I don’t? B)

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: