Dead Confederates, A Civil War Era Blog

The Virginia Fraggers

Posted in Memory by Andy Hall on May 19, 2012

Update: Over at SHPG, Susan Hathaway responds to this post, which she refers to as an “irresponsible hit piece on the Flaggers. . . full of holes and untruths.” Okay.

Looks like the Virginia Flaggers are doubling down in their efforts to pick a fight with the leadership of the United Daughters of the Confederacy. You may recall that, back in March, they intentionally violated directives from the UDC not to come onto UDC property — a warning given in person, a few days previous, to Susan Hathaway, the leader of the Flaggers — and then portrayed themselves as the oppressed victim when the local police were called. Of course, the Flaggers initially neglected to mention the whole you were-warned-in-advance part, and only later acknowledged that after the President-General of the UDC, Martha Rogers Van Schaick, released a detailed statement and timeline of her organization’s interactions with the Flaggers, going back to late last year. Hathaway subsequently acknowledged that “the account in the the statement today by Mrs. Van Schaick, with a few minor exceptions, is accurate, and in fact, is almost exactly as has been previously reported.” Well, no, it wasn’t “as has been previously reported,” at least by the Flaggers themselves. They put out a self-serving, incomplete account of events, and it was President-General Van Schaick who called bullshit on them.

This eagerness to pick an entirely unnecessary fight with a group like the UDC, simply because they refuse to play along with the Flagger’s particular brand of activisim (i.e., “restoring the honor”) is just nuts. It’s short-sighted, self-gratifying idiocy. Yes, the UDC is a low-key group and probably pretty set in its ways. Yes, the UDC doesn’t seem interested in making dramatic headlines. The UDC is certainly not beyond criticism, but they’re entirely within their right to decide what issues they want to make a public stand on, just as they’re free to decide who is and who  is not welcome on their property. The only thing the UDC is guilty of is choosing not to play host to the Flaggers’ protest of of the VMFA, the UDC’s own next-door neighbor; everything else is just bombast and angry chest-thumping on the part of the Flaggers.

I read an observation the other day on a completely unrelated subject, to the effect that true believers “always require someone insufficiently pure enough to set themselves against, and they’ll manufacture them out of allies just as soon as they run out of enemies.” There’s a world of truth in that, and it strikes me as a fair assessment of the state of the Confederate Heritage™ movement generally, and the Virginia Flaggers in particular. For all their bluff and bluster, they haven’t got many victories to claim. They did succeed in getting Confederate flags restored to grave sites at a rural cemetery in Georgia, but in their primary protests they’ve been spectacularly unsuccessful. Their first big effort, to prevent passage of a city ordinance in Lexington, Virginia that would bar non-governmental flags from city light poles, was a flop. (No doubt local support for the measure, which was widespread, was in no small part due to the ludicrous spectacle that the out-of-towners brought with them.) There are no Confederate flags displayed at the Pelham Chapel in Richmond. After telling local media to expect “about 1,000 marchers” for the much-heralded Confederate Heritage Rally 2012 in Richmond in February, the actual turnout was about a third of that. No Confederate flag flies outside the Museum of the Confederacy at Appomattox. Mimi Elrod is still mayor in Lexington.

Waite Rawls is still gainfully employed.

With a track record like that, it’s easy to see why folks like Hathaway would decide to create melodramatic stories and faux confrontations. Thus a completely civil sidewalk encounter gets depicted as “Black woman attacked for carrying Confederate Flag.” A Flagger — does he always go around wired for sound? — actually catches on audiotape the egregious abuse of power in which a security guard says, “because I said so.” It’s played up for yucks when, outside the Museum of the Confederacy at Appomattox, the horse of a reenactor portraying General Grant gets spooked by a CBF carried by — you guessed it, a Flagger. They “restore the honor” by flashing  a CBF, hastily pulled out of a back pocket, near the Lincoln Memorial. Something tells me the sixteenth president would be highly amused by that sophomoric foolishness, like one of Tad’s infamous White House pranks. “Lucifer’s Temple,” seriously?

Did y’all remember to write “Abe is a doo-doo-head” in the Park Service restroom stall while you were at it?

So the Southron Heritage™ movement is now, increasingly, turning its rhetorical weaponry on its own members. It’s not an entirely new phenomenon, of course; there have been grumblings about insufficiently-activist SCV camps that “meet, eat, and retreat” for years. Mark Vogl, who was reportedly pushed out of his senior role in the Texas Division of the SCV because that group didn’t want to get dragged into the culture wars battles he was waging, continues to complain about the “grannies” who now lead that group. But the gray-on-gray sniping does seem to have taken on a sharper edge of late, and the Flaggers are in the front rank. The vitriol now directed against fellow heritage advocates is remarkable, with an unprecedented level of nastiness. Conservative Republican governors of a Southern state are derided as “scalawags” and “traitors” for failing to embrace Confederate symbols. A well-known SCV color guard is targeted with epithets of “stink faces (above)” for refusing to renege on a prior agreement to participate in ceremonies at the new Appomattox facility. And now the leadership of the UDC, by declining to participate in shenanigans like this, is guilty of “sell[ing] off their birthright!!!

It’s important to understand that folks like the Flaggers and their supporters, regardless of how much time they spend fluffing reassuring each other that they’re the true Defenders of Southron Heritage, are a small-but-noisy group of folks who aren’t aren’t very representative of Southerners, or even of the descendants of Confederate veterans. They certainly don’t represent the SCV or UDC members I’ve known over the years. The name-calling, sneering mockery and over-the-top rhetoric isn’t the sign of strong, self-confident movement; it’s emblematic of deep and abiding insecurity, a realization that it’s they who are badly out of step with society as a whole, and consequently are desperate to make a name for themselves, even if they have to pick utterly unnecessary fights to do it. The UDC, I’m sure, will survive this just fine, as will the Museum of the Confederacy and the City of Lexington. The Flaggers, not so much, because every contrived outrage distances themselves a little more from the people with whom they should be making common cause.

I used to be pretty ambivalent about the Flaggers; while I thought they were often injecting themselves, as outsiders, in matters that were fundamentally local in nature (e.g., the Lexington ordinance), I also have sympathy, even admiration for acts of smart, clever protest. But after months of watching them their supporters, through their own YouTube clips, blogging, and elsewhere, I’ve come to the conclusion that there’s not a lot of there, there. There’s much angry vitriol and puffery about this or that party not “honoring” the Confederacy, which really seems to begin and end with prominent display of the Confederate Battle Flag. It’s protesting for the sake of protesting, to establish — mainly to each other — that they’re more Southron than all the rest.

So they go off on their own would-be allies, who (in their view) are insufficiently patriotic about the Confederacy. It’s fratricide, it’s unnecessary, and it’s ugly.  The Flaggers and their partners will come out on the short end of this one, and it will be of their own doing.

Have at it, y’all. Knock yourselves out.



44 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Thom Bassett said, on May 19, 2012 at 12:55 pm

    Great title, excellent analysis. The phrase “own worst enemy” came to mind more than once as I read this post.

  2. Dave Tatum said, on May 19, 2012 at 1:59 pm

    Hey Andy !! Come on up tp Richmond, I will save a spot on the sidewalk for ya!
    The flaggers are gonna be around for a while, so don’t rush !


    • Andy Hall said, on May 19, 2012 at 2:34 pm

      I don’t know when I’ll be in Richmond, but I’ll stop by, don’t worry.

      I’m glad you stopped by Dave, because if gives me a chance to ask you (again) about the Flaggers and the UDC. Given your active involvement with the Flaggers, and your role as a professional security officer whose job it is to enforce such laws, do you agree or not with the Flaggers’ going onto UDC property after they’d been warned not to, and told that doing so would be considered trespassing?

      You were awfully quiet about the UDC incident at the time — which is not like you at all — but as someone with a unique and knowledgeable perspective in the question, I thought you’d want to be formally “on the record” about it. 😉

      • Dave Tatum said, on May 23, 2012 at 12:44 am

        Well Andy, if ya been told to stay off and ya go on the propery you are trespassin, no two ways about it !

        • Andy Hall said, on May 23, 2012 at 7:19 am

          That’s kinda how I had it figured, too.

          • Dave Tatum said, on May 24, 2012 at 1:05 pm

            Do I endorse the Flaggers Actions ? Well I will put it this way, I will pitch in for bail money if any of them, (including myself) get locked up !

            • Andy Hall said, on May 24, 2012 at 1:10 pm

              I don’t expect you to renounce the Flaggers, Dave; you’ve made your support very clear. I just hoped you would be clear about that specific incident.

              • Dave Tatum said, on May 25, 2012 at 6:57 am

                OOOOOK, Had any flaggers been locked up at that time I would have pitched in for bail !
                I do find it strange that trespass is a class 1 and not a class 3 offense. But Hey I don’t make the laws.

              • Andy Hall said, on May 25, 2012 at 7:30 am

                I’d rather not see anyone get arrested in this business.

              • Dave Tatum said, on May 25, 2012 at 1:03 pm

                Man oh Man I’m gonna get struck by lightning for saying this, ” I agree with ya Andy”

              • Andy Hall said, on May 25, 2012 at 1:08 pm

                You’re indestructible, Dave.

                Incorrigible, maybe, but indestructible.

  3. theravenspoke said, on May 19, 2012 at 4:25 pm

    ….is just nuts. It’s short-sighted, self-gratifying idiocy.

    Kinda like the Confederacy itself.

    I guess some people never learn.

  4. Billy Bearden said, on May 19, 2012 at 11:39 pm


    Thanks for making lots of this post about me 🙂
    Come on now though, hoss. Let’s be honest, the Heritage Rally in Richmond was an SCV affair.
    True the Flaggers attended, but press releases and crowd predictions were not based on
    anything the Flaggers offered.

    Above you say the photo at Hopkins Green was a ludicris spectacle. Just a few weeks ago
    you said I brought some dignity in my uniform of the same photo. I had a special gold
    engraved plaque of your words made just below a framed matted picture and it hangs
    on my wall. I am sticking with that and not this new statement 😉

    Speaking of Hopkins Green and Lexington #1 (9/1/11) The Virginia Flaggers weren’t
    even begun until September 5th, then didn’t really start in full till October 1st, 2011

    Mayor Elrod is still Mayor because of the lack of any elections, however, her last opponent,
    Mrs Mary Harvey Halseth who lost last election by a 1000 or so votes is her current opponent,
    and gaging resident sentiment since her becoming Lexington’s 1st female Mayor, she will
    become Lexingtons 1st EX female Mayor 😀

    Andy, man, you have the most sense out of that whole cadre of folks you associate with in
    the blogosphere. We all love you and hold you in such high esteem, yet you keep doing
    this kind of stuff to try and shake our faith in you. But we know better! Come on out to the Boulevard.
    We will treat you extra nice, feed you a brat, and even lend you a flag and pole to fly it.

    We really ain’t like you what all you are saying on here.

    • Andy Hall said, on May 19, 2012 at 11:45 pm

      Hey Billy.

      I don’t know anything about Lexington politics, apart from the flag story, but if Mimi Elrod is defeated next cycle, I’d be surprised if the Confederate flag ordinance plays a big role in that. The reporting suggested that Lexington residents pretty solidly backed it; it was folks from outside the city that were the ones protesting. I don’t think her stand on it is likely to hurt her much with the voters.

      I will also point out that, in that picture from the Lexington protest, you’re the only one in it that actually has any dignity, and that’s to your credit. You need to find some better friends. 😉

      • Billy Bearden said, on May 20, 2012 at 12:21 am

        The issue in Lexington was initiated by W&L Prof Anna Brodsky, certainly an outsider, being all Russian and stuff. She was the only woman to complain to the media “I am offended in front of my students” and “I have embarrassed feelings” was her quotes. Certainly the stuff that subjects others to lose rights and subjects cities to lawsuits.

        She alone initiated the 350 anti flag petition, signed by her students (95% intenerant) and fellow staff members

        I have a copy of an email from City Manager Ellistad that states until Brodsky, not a single complaint was lodged about the flags.

        Not even the main complaining Lexington store owner, Mr Hockaday, resides in Lexington. But he does sell numerous Confederate items….

        Karen, Susan, Ol Dave, they are some of the nicest folks you’ll ever meet.

        • Andy Hall said, on May 20, 2012 at 9:08 am

          But Brodsky is a resident and (I presume) a citizen and a voter, regardless of where she was born. The assumption that her voice in this is somehow invalid, or less important, than those of non-residents who feel like they have some connection to the flag, is problematic for me. Brodsky may have initiated the petition, but I still don’t believe it would have (A) gotten traction, and (B) passed overwhelmingly without wide public support.

          • Billy Bearden said, on May 20, 2012 at 11:05 am

            Traction without wide support?
            Yes, a small segment of well connected lefties brought about September 1st, 2011.

            To fully appreciate the current situation in Lexington, you have to go back just prior to 2001…

            During his tenure, a former W&L President with the assistance of his wife removed much of
            the artifacts related to the military career (both USA and CSA) and life history of Robert E Lee
            from the Lee Chapel. That President passed away in 2001. His name was John William Elrod,
            and his wife was Mimi Elrod. :O

            At the bottom of the obituary for President Elrod, it was requested that in lieu of flowers,
            donations be sent in his name to the Southern Poverty Law Center. :O

            Mrs Elrod entered local politics after statewide attempts failed. As a Councilman in Lexington,
            hers was the leading voice against the location of the proposed satillite of the Museum of the Confederacy. Even Waite Rawls attempts to appease her by dropping the name “Confederacy” from MoC failed. :O

            It was during these hearings in 2007 that 2 local citizens, Mary Alexander and George Pryde made media reports by also speaking against the MoC as racist. :O

            Professor Brodsky certainly had a friend in Mimi Elrod. All of the staff signatures on the 350
            name petition knew her very well. Quid Pro Quo. :O

            By September 1st, 2011, Councilman Elrod is Mayor Elrod, and Alexander and Pryde are now
            councilmen. I can personally vouch for the fact that Mr Pryde’s vehicle sports an Obama/Biden
            bumper sticker. 🙂

            I can only assume there are more than double 350 individuals at W&L University. I can also
            safely guess that whatever the number who spoke up at the council meeting that night for
            the flag ban, it wasnt even 2% of Lexington’s 7,000+ residents. 🙂

            What is overlooked in all this is the Pro-Flag 1,670 name petition, which wasn’t even considered in the vote that night. 😦

            It was a well connected stacked deck of Obama Democrats who made it happen. Now the city is
            made to suffer. 😦

            Come November 2012, a new day will dawn on America, and the largest removal of one party
            will occur with the removal of the Obama progressive liberal elites. Mayor Elrod and her heritage haters will have to seek honest jobs. 😀

            • Andy Hall said, on May 20, 2012 at 11:13 am

              That would be the same President Obama who continues to send a wreath annually to the Confederate Memorial at Arlington, right? While the Republican candidates keep publicly renouncing the CBF? It’s all very confusing to me. 😉

              • Billy Bearden said, on May 20, 2012 at 11:28 am

                Ah, that would be he, but there is a difference between wreaths and flags 🙂

                The same Barry Obama who back in 2005/6 wrote a letter to the VA Administration
                on behalf of the NAACP demanding the Sons of Confederate Veterans not be allowed
                to use a Confederate Battleflag at the unvieling and dedication service of the 7 foot tall
                obliesk honoring the 866 dead Confederate POWs at Camp Butler in Ill-Annoy 😦

            • Billy Bearden said, on May 20, 2012 at 11:15 am

              2 things before I forget, one is to say thanks about your comment on me bringing dignity
              although I was a scruffy looking Nerf-Herder and the other relates to this thread where the photo of the Dynamic Trio above.

              They are celebrating 150 years since the official creation of the Virginia State Flag,
              and Mayor Elrod refused to sign a proclamation for that occaision.
              Outside of the Hammer and Sickle, I believe Elrod dislikes any flags

            • Rob Baker said, on May 23, 2012 at 4:40 pm

              I am still confused as to how the city is made to suffer. It can still have its parade and still have the CBF. The flag just cannot be flown from public property.

              • Andy Hall said, on May 23, 2012 at 6:05 pm

                As part of the True Southron’s™ campaign against the proposed ordinance, Brandon Dorsey, the local SCV camp commander posted online the home addresses, telephone numbers, and personal e-mail addresses of members of the Lexington City Council on a site dedicated to “heritage defense.” I don’t know how many people called, e-mailed or wrote, but it’s hard for me to believe that a wave of angry calls and e-mails from out-of-town, and out-of-state, threatening boycotts and Lord-knows-what-else, made any of those city officials more sympathetic to the Southrons’ cause.

  5. Rob Baker said, on May 20, 2012 at 11:01 pm

    Just to add to the delimma about remember the CIvil War and the division within that; did you know that there were recently two Shiloh Reenactments for the 150th Anniversary? They were held less than a mile from each other. I went to one of them.

    • Andy Hall said, on May 20, 2012 at 11:16 pm

      I didn’t know that. That’s the second-most-pathetic reenactment story I ever heard.

      The first, of course, was the bicentennial celebration of the Battle of Trafalgar in 2005 where, in order not to offend their French and Spanish partners in the EU, the the ships fighting the “battle” were divided into generic red and blue teams.

      • Rob Baker said, on May 21, 2012 at 8:25 am

        I’m glad you could figure out what I wrote, writing from a phone isn’t easy.

        But yea, two Shilohs. I’ve heard rumors of two Antietams. The reenactors just can’t get alone. Neutral groups like mine have to choose and hope we picked the largest of the two.

        The Trafalgar reenactment sounds absolutely hilarious/pathetic.

  6. Neil Hamilton said, on May 21, 2012 at 4:40 pm


    To me, it sounds like Confederate Heritage advocates of the Flagger’s outlook are looking more and more like a rear guard of a period in history decided 150 years ago. After all, when the parents begin eatting their young (attacking other heritage groups) it won’t take but a few more decades until the movement dies entirely out.


    • Andy Hall said, on May 21, 2012 at 5:24 pm

      It’s very much an internal conversation. The rhetoric and tactics are tailored to impress fellow True Southrons, to win the applause of like-minded folks. They’re striving to be more “unreconstructed” than the next guy. It’s a common phenomenon: the more ideological purity you demand, the smaller and more detached from the mainstream population and values you become.

  7. Nicole Dollins said, on May 23, 2012 at 3:50 am

    Well sir, if you don’t like the Virginia Flaggers, there’s always the Florida Flaggers, or the Tennessee Flaggers, or ….oh, that’s right, you said there weren’t that many of us…*waves flag & smiles*

  8. Neil Hamilton said, on May 23, 2012 at 7:38 pm


    The need to shout loudly and often is usually because such groups that do so are growing smaller and smaller and somehow feel shouting will cover for the fact of few numbers. And those few numbers may be scattered in other states, but it does not subtract from the fact, they are getting smaller, no matter where they reside.


    • Andy Hall said, on May 24, 2012 at 11:13 am

      One thing I’ve noticed is that real Confederate veterans — as opposed to people who play-act self-identify as Confederates today — didn’t feel the need to shout and name-call and generally be drama queens about their experiences and their views.

      Yes, they embraced the standard narrative of the “Lost Cause,” that is at odds with the actual historical record leading up to 1865. Yes, they waxed poetic about “loyal slaves” and the like. Yes, they decided that the war was about some abstract notion of “states rights,” when the fire-eaters of 1860-61 were very explicit about exactly what state’s right they were committed to protecting. As history, it’s a mess. But at the same time you won’t find old issues of the Confederate Veteran filled with screeds about Lincoln as a big-gubmint Marxist, or references to the Union flag as the “yankee rag,” or “jokes” about lynching people with whom they disagree, all of which are commonplace among self-appointed Defenders of Southron Honour™ today.

      Those old guys were wrong about many things, but they had a real dignity that today’s make-believe Confederates decidedly lack.

      • Thom Bassett said, on May 24, 2012 at 11:29 am

        Andy makes a really good point, to which I just want to add a small observation: Over the last couple years I’ve read quite a few pieces in Con Vet that are either about or mention William Tecumseh Sherman. While the authors of those articles made clear their contempt and disgust for Sherman, they almost always also did so with decorum and respect for themselves, their audience, and even, in a way, for their enemy himself.

  9. Valerie Protopapas said, on June 4, 2012 at 10:27 am

    While various groups contest what is good or bad regarding a response to the ongoing cultural genocide against the South, it is well to remember that while Southerners did NOTHING, they lost a great deal of ground. That those displaying Southern symbols like the National flags and the battle flag should have to contest against those who SAY that they are defending Southern heritage makes about as much sense as trying to carry water in a strainer. Furthermore, calling in the police because someone shows up with a flag that is directly connected to a cause which you SAY you revere makes about as much sense as trying to light a candle underwater. In other words, what’s going on here is at best nonsensical and at worst suicidal for the South.

    I have an essay done by a gentleman entitled “While the South slept…” which includes a great many (but by no means ALL) of the defeats suffered by Southern patriots over the years. It certainly proves in no uncertain terms that “making nice” with your enemies accomplishes the same thing that appeasement always accomplishes: defeat and oblivion.

    And as for “trying” Lincoln (you wouldn’t need his remains, just his reputation) and other Northern war criminals: well, it’s about time we did! What we are dealing with today regarding socialism and government tyranny is directly connected to Lincoln, his government and his military. Unfortunately, all of these traitors – and yes, they were traitors according to Article 3, Section III of THE CONSTITUTION – are lauded and revered as the men who “saved the Union.” When you include that with the atrocities committed against the people of the South, civilian and military, I would say that a new Nuremburg Trial is definitely in order though the defendants are long gone to their unholy graves.

    • Andy Hall said, on June 4, 2012 at 11:36 am

      Calling in the police because someone shows up with a flag that is directly connected to a cause which you SAY you revere. . . .

      It’s a trespassing case, period, full stop. The Flaggers were warned to stay off the property, and that they would be considered to be trespassing if they came onto the property, and the police would be called. That’s what happened, and the Flageers were shocked, shocked! to discover that the UDC did exactly what they said they would. WHY the Flaggers were there, or arguments about why someone thinks the UDC SHOULD have welcomed them, are immaterial.

      You can agree or disagree with the UDC’s decision not to let themselves be dragged into the Flaggers’ protest against the VMFA, but the UDC was within its rights to take the action they did, just as much as you or I would be if someone came onto our property after they had been warned not to.

      You should also be aware (as others have pointed out) that the over the last century-plus, the UDC has done more to protect the dignity of the Confederate flag than just about any other group. It would behoove the Flaggers to take a longer perspective on these things, rather than their present approach, which seems to be to gin up a wholly-unnecessary fight with the UDC because that group chooses not adopt the same tactics. The UDC is an older group even than the SCV; if I had to put money on whether the UDC or the Flaggers would still be around come the Civil War bicentennial, my money’s on the UDC.

      I have an essay done by a gentleman entitled “While the South slept…” which includes a great many (but by no means ALL) of the defeats suffered by Southern patriots over the years.

      I’ve read it. It’s a bit of a mess, a hodge-podge of “heritage violations” going back a decade or more, some of them extremely petty. There are also some pretty sloppy factual errors in them, too, such as the reference to the plaques formerly in the Texas Supreme Court building being put up “in the early 1900’s” — the building wasn’t built until the late 1950s — and he refers to the former Confederate Air Force being called the “Memorial Air Force.” It’s not; it’s the “Commemorative Air Force,” which retains the CAF initials the group is known by. These may seem like unimportant errors, but they really do undermine Coleman’s credibility, and leave the reader with the notion that being factually accurate is not a very high priority with him, or the people who like to quote him.

      More important, many of the examples he cites — like that of the Confederate Air Force, or Coca-Cola, are very clearly the result of market forces, not some vast, Yankee-led conspiracy to eradicate Confederate heritage. Investors, donors and consumers express their displeasure with certain symbols or language, and the company or organization responds. That’s pretty much how the free market works, isn’t it?

      As for “trying” Lincoln (you wouldn’t need his remains, just his reputation) and other Northern war criminals: well, it’s about time we did!

      Edgerton is a well-paid performance artist, but I see no indication that he was speaking figuratively when he called for Lincoln’s grave to dug up and the corpse put on trial. He sounded serious — if slightly crack-brained — to me. Edgerton says all sorts of nonsensical stuff, but I can never tell when he’s dead serious or just using a metaphor.

      Come to think of it, I’m not sure he can, either.

      I would say that a new Nuremburg Trial is definitely in order.

      Lincoln = Hitler? Stanton = Goering? Well done! And y’all wonder why most Americans are turned off by such rhetoric.

      More important than all of this, though, is that you and others continue to define “the South” as “the Confederacy,” and commitment to its history and heritage as fealty to its symbols, particularly the Confederate flag in its various forms. The South I know and love is much bigger, much more diverse, much more valued place and people than that.

      You have a nice day.

      • Valerie Protopapas said, on June 4, 2012 at 12:35 pm

        And why did the “ladies” of the UDC find it necessary to force people off “their property” or call the police when this gang of obviously very dangerous and desperate “criminals” actually thought that they might be accorded what is known as “Southern hospitality?” A couple of years ago, a large black councilman from Auburn, Alabama, trespassed into a private cemetery. Not only that, he pulled battle flags off the graves being decorated by ladies of the local UDC who were still on the premises and were very much cowed by this large man claiming to be “offended.” However, when the time came for them to PRESS CHARGES which were necessary because there were no police present to see the trespass, the intimidation of the ladies OR the theft of the flags (which were subsequently returned), these ladies of the UDC REFUSED TO DO SO.

        So much for your vaunted trespass nonsense. It would seem that the UDC shows more favor to its enemies than to those who support what is SUPPOSED to be its cause.

        • Andy Hall said, on June 4, 2012 at 12:45 pm

          And why did the “ladies” of the UDC find it necessary to force people off “their property” or call the police when this gang of obviously very dangerous and desperate “criminals” actually thought that they might be accorded what is known as “Southern hospitality?”

          Whether you or I think they were justified is (again) immaterial. The UDC was within its rights to act as it did.

          As for “Southern hospitality,” that’s a little much to expect given the over-the-top rhetoric directed at the UDC leadership, like these from the Southern War Room — I think you’re familiar with that forum, yes?

          the guardians embrace treason

          The South has been betrayed by her very daughters, the United Daughters of the Confederacy!

          Sucking the breast of the PC crowd!

          Well for me, they have Sold Their Soul To The Devil, they are Traitors Of The Highest Measure…

          Maybe we could convince the UDC chapters to secede from the National Chapter.

          If it sleeps with the enemy, acts like enemy, talks like the enemy…. It IS the enemy!

          The SCV National & your camp…. Should have their hands around the necks of those that don’t up-hold the charge.

          And of course, there’s the casual, sort-of-joking-but-maybe-not-really reference to lynching:

          Well, we all knew what the founders did to treasonous leaders……..there was usually rope involved. The founding fathers would roll in they’re graves if they could see what we’ve allowed. Please understand I’m talking about federal leaders…..but some of our UDC are giving in to liberals and their ideas.

          It never ceases to amaze me, the spittle-flecked rhetorical bile that “Defenders of Southron Honor” will throw at people they don’t like, and yet take great offense when someone criticizes them. Coming from someone who travels in those circles, your expectation of “Southern hospitality” on the part of the UDC rings just a bit hollow.

          A couple of years ago, a large black councilman from Auburn, Alabama, trespassed into a private cemetery. . . .

          I don’t know what went into the that decision-making process in that case, but (again) it’s up to the property owners to make that call. Keep in mind, though, that the UDC in Richmond never pressed charges against the Flaggers, only had the police order them off the property.

  10. Terry D. Ford, Monroe, LA said, on March 3, 2013 at 8:03 pm

    If it were possible for an actual Confederate Veteran to simply walk up to the front door of The UDC Headquarters holding a Battle Flag, I’m curious to see what greeting, the Confederate Veteran would be given?
    I feel that the members of the UDC need to reevaluate the foundation on which their organization were founded.

    • Andy Hall said, on March 3, 2013 at 8:21 pm

      Thanks for taking time to comment. The UDC, of course, is free to carry out its mission as it sees fit. They are under no obligation to actively and publicly support the Flaggers, who have intentionally picked a fight with them.

      If a real Confederate veteran were to arrive, he might want to know what the fuss was about, since the CBF wasn’t displayed on the outside of the Pelham Chapel until 1993, decades after the last real Confederate veteran had passed.

      • Valerie Protopapas said, on March 5, 2013 at 11:56 am

        While the UDC is not “obligated” to support the “flaggers,” it IS morally bound to live up to its founding principle of upholding the heritage of the South which INCLUDES resisting censorship of symbols such as the Confederate National and battle flags.

        As that is the case, given a choice between supporting those who fight AGAINST cultural genocide – the “flaggers” – and those attempting to consign Confederate flags to oblivion, WHY would the UDC choose to reject the former and, in some instances, even support the latter?

        This seemingly inexplicable situation must of needs cause people to think that at least SOME members of the UDC have chosen political correctness over their duty to both the South and the UDC.

        • Andy Hall said, on March 5, 2013 at 12:08 pm

          Thanks for stopping by. The UDC is not “morally bound” to a course of action as directed by the Flaggers, the SCV, or anyone else. It is up to them to determine how they fulfill their stated mission.

          The vitriol directed at the UDC is ludicrous, given that that organization is not a party to the dispute over the Pelham Chapel at all. When will the Lee Camp of the SCV, that agreed to a legally-binding lease that excluded flags from the exterior of the chapel, be denounced as “traitors” to their heritage?

          • Valerie Protopapas said, on March 5, 2013 at 2:59 pm

            You have mis-stated my point. I HOPE that it was not intentional.

            I spoke of the UDC’s MORAL obligation to protect Southern Heritage including its heroes, symbols and monuments – of which the various Confederate flags are a part. My point was this: WHY did at least SOME prominent members of the UDC support those who wish to CENSOR the flags rather than those who did exactly what the UDC is MORALLY obligated to support?

            • Andy Hall said, on March 5, 2013 at 3:12 pm

              I don’t believe I misunderstood your point at all, but I will not attempt to restate it. Here is my point: the UDC should have the autonomy to make its own decisions about how best to accomplish its mission. They have an elected leadership, and they will sort it out for themselves.

              • Valerie Protopapas said, on March 5, 2013 at 3:54 pm

                Such sophistry is the strategy of those who claim to be one thing but are actually quite another. The UDC CANNOT “accomplish its mission” as you put it, acting as many of the leadership are now doing in this matter. To suggest otherwise is to be either naive or dishonest. You may call a mule a horse, but don’t try to enter it in the Derby.

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 )

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: