The Neo-Confederates Are Alive and Well, Part 2

Eric,

As you know, I visited the HQ of the SCV in Columbia, TN this past June, and it was an eye opening experience, and one that scared the hell outta me. For once, I did not blow a gasket, and left earlier than I was supposed to after listening to an hour of “rhetoric”. No point in staying, and knew I was in another world when the only flag flying there was the Confederate flag.

There are 2 sides to the story of the Civil War, and yet I keep coming in touch with those who only focus on one side, and do so as if the war is still not over. My advice to them is to honor their ancestors who fought and died in the CW and remember them for their courage and duty. I know I do, whether they wore Blue or Gray. I have no ancestors who fought in the war, and while I am a Yankee, I have never disrespected the soldiers who fought for the South.

I have a hard time understanding folks like the aforementioned Dixie Dawn, and am with you. Have the guts to post your real name if you are gonna spout off such nonsense. The Southern soldiers who fought in the war were not cowards, but it is easy to see that Dixie Dawn does not follow their example. Talk about a disgrace to Southern heritage.

Hope all is well.

Steve

“In other words, the idea that “Sherman was brilliant.” OR “Sherman was a bastard.” is a perfect example of two TRUTHS depending upon where you ’sit.’”

I would argue that both claims are meaningless as historical statements. They are staements of personal opinion that are not subject to any amount of evidence.

Perhaps Eric, but I think it all depends on what your ‘angle’ or audience is. Since I write more in the Christian realm, my ‘freelance’ work has an agenda. I try to focus on positive and uplifting subjects. The work I do in the newspaper and magazines is more mainstream and/or secular and I tend not to write from that focus. Therefore I respect both approaches depending on their intended audiences and applications. There is quite a difference between a devotional and a tactical study.

My point in this discussion is that there are clearly different sides to every history and that the interpretations should be looked at from both sides. Yes there are extremists, but there are also those who look at things from a regional perspective based upon their own interests and experiences. The idea of this ‘neutral’ realm where everything is intentionally 100% impartial bores me to tears. I couldn’t do anything in life with any kind of passion if I didn’t love it. Then it would be too much like a job and who the heck wants that?

Clearly the reasoning behind my religious vignette on Stuart and your excellent tome were different, but I think that we both respect the heck out of this guy and felt drawn to him. My book paints him as a hero to look up to. Your book presents the story of what made him heroic. I like to think that we’re both correct even though we have very different approaches.

“Anyone know anything about the ref on “Dixie Dawn” to pension records of several thousand Virginia Confederates?”

A number of Southern states were quite liberal in granting Civil War pensions to blacks who claimed to have provided labor for the Confederate army. As I understand it, all they had to submit was some form of documentation, often in the form of a letter from an ex-Confederate soldier, to the effect that they had been “employed.” This is similar to the argument that blacks showed up in Union prisoner of war camps, so they must have been enlisted as soldiers. When these individuals are investigated, they are listed as having been cooks, musicians, etc… not exactly military ranks.

Marc

“The South Was Right” is the neo-Confederate bible. I’ve poured through it for some online discussions before, and the ignorance and misinformation in that book is astonishing. It would be a humorous parody if so many people didn’t quote it as “research.” Richard McMurry tore it to shreds many years ago in a brilliant review for “The Civil War News.” For some reason, none of McMurry’s quotes showed up as dust jacket blurbs. (g)

What I can’t understand is why, year in and year out, you see “The South Was Right” on the shelves of major chains like Barnes & Noble.

David

Because at B&N we sell whatever we can to make money. I’m in charge of the history section and sometimes I have to hold my nose when I sell a book but I’ve had to do that for the past 10 years I’ve been there in various sections. And believe me, I agree the book is dumb, but it does sell (mores the pity!)

Best
Rob

A lot of what’s in “The South Was Right” reminds me of the play “Springtime for Hitler” in the movie (and musical) “The Producers.” Although the Kennedys, unlike Mel Brooks, didn’t write their stuff for laughs, they might as well have because it’s just as over the top.

For me, the most hilarious part of all is when the Kennedys argue that slaves in the South were better off than free blacks in the North because according to the 1850 census records (why do they just look at this one census?) only one in 1,464 Southern slaves was “deaf, dumb, blind, insane, or idiotic” where as one in 506 free blacks in the North are recorded as being one of these things. But they also say that one in 1,000 whites, Northerners and Southerners, are listed this way in the census. So by their reasoning, it was better to be a black slave than a white person in pre-Civil War America! If I heard someone suggest that to me, I’d think the person should be committed to a mental institution!

Who knows, maybe it was better to be a Jew in Germany in 1939 than in the United States! We’ll have to look at the numbers of Jews in both countries who had physical or mental problems before we can say for sure 🙂

Jim, I had submitted the manuscript for my 3rd book which was more ‘Confederate-centric’ and was on the verge of a deal when they suddenly pulled out in the 11th hour. I wasted 6 months after they sent promising emails that made the deal look close. I even had an excellent review by the assigned reader. I was very surprised when they canceled. They said they were concerned about marketing the piece, which was fair. So I used my media contacts and acquired pledged press support with magazine, newspaper, and radio outlets. Unfortunately they said that they don’t reconsider works that have been rejected. It was a tad unprofessional in my opinion and they don’t return my emails anymore. Thankfully I’ve moved on to bigger pubs, but that stung for a while. As they do publish both Christian and Southern materials I thought I was a shoe-in w/ a Civil War Devotional titled “The Southern Cross”… Wrong! 🙂

That’s a good question, Jim. Seeing as they’re still all over the place in major bookstores, the Kennedy books are probably a bit of a cash cow for them. But is this outweighed by harm to their reputation or their ability to attract better manuscripts?….I don’t know. I am sort of uneasy including them on my publisher links because of the Kennedy books. Confederate-themed books do seem to dominate there, but on your question of ‘Yankee-centricity’, the recent Jim Lane bio they published is very sympathetic to the subject and his actions, so I don’t think one can maintain that they reject books simply on those grounds. The author’s Blunt bio presumably has the same tone. The Shelby book is quite evenhanded. There is a mix of craziness and levelheadedness in their catalog.

I initially had high regard for Pelican, when they came out with Jerry Potter’s book on the Sultana disaster. But the Kennedy books, and one or two others, make it unthinkable for me personally to ever consider submitting a manuscript to them. I would not want to have something of mine associated that stuff in a catalog, or on a website, or on a dealer’s table at a bookshow (easy for me to say, since I don’t have a manuscript to send to anybody).

David