Dead Confederates, A Civil War Era Blog

The Slow, Deliberate Suicide of Confederate Heritage™

Posted in Memory by Andy Hall on November 10, 2013

Other bloggers have mentioned the dispute over a proposed monument to the Union soldiers that fought at the Battle of Olustee in 1864. There are three Confederate monuments on the site, but none that memorialize as a group the Federal troops that fought there. (There is, apparently, a marker where Union troops who fell were buried in a mass grave.) Initially I though that this was strictly a local issue, then Simpson posted a call to action sent out nearly a month ago on the official SCV blog, by that group’s commander-in-chief, Michael Givens. Typeface and spelling (“Darth Vadar,” “hallowed grown”) are as in the original:


A new heritage attack has been launched at Olustee (near Lake City, Florida), and your help is needed.
In anticipation of the 150th anniversary of the battle that protected Florida’s capital from falling, the Sons of Union Veterans has obtained approval from the State of Florida Parks Department for a special monument to invading Federal forces. The plan calls for a large black Darth Vadar-esque shaft that will disrupt the hallowed grown where Southern blood was spilled in defense of Florida, protecting Tallahassee from capture.
We fear the State may have a legal right to do so. Therefore, in order to stop this we must win the war through citizen objection.
Confederate Forces won the Battle in 1864 – but will we win the 2nd Battle of Olustee and prevent this menacing monument from disrupting this hallowed Southern soil?


Rational people can have legitimate disagreement on the design or placement of this new monument, but labeling the the SUVCW’s desire to put up a monument as an “attack” on “the hallowed grown where Southern blood was spilled” makes clear the intent is to prevent any monument being placed at all.

Then comes Tim Manning, a well-known figure in the Confederate heritage/Southern nationalist/secessionist movement, pouring gasoline on the fire as only he can. His post is nominally about Vicksburg, but it’s done in response to a news story about the Olustee dispute, in which the local SCV camp commander, Jim Shillinglaw, compares Union soldiers to fanatical jihadists. Manning describes Shillinglaw  as “a personal friend of mine” whose “message [should] go viral to every Southerner.” Here are some excerpts:


VICKSBURG & THE SCV: RETHINKING USA MONUMENTS TO THE U.S. GENOCIDAL WAR ~ EVERY U.S. MONUMENT to the U.S. Soldiers who fought the Southern States and people is a maniacal celebration of anti-Southern race-hatred and should be removed from every Southern State. These people want us to think that the men who killed our families to keep us in “their” subjugation are heroes of the USA and the Southern people. This is absurd. I call it stinkin’ thinkin’.
Only a pathological or psychopathic bully would approve and celebrate the killing of a persons family and then erect a monument to the genocidal violence committed on the property of the same people they violated. This is like building a monument in Nagasaki and Hiroshima celebrating President Truman and the crew of the plane that bombed these cities.
Our Stockholm Syndrome has kept many from “seeing” things like this in the past, but it is time to wake-up and from the shackles of the merchants of death. The man interviewed in the news clip below is a personal friend of mine. Help this message go viral to every Southerner.
A few years ago I visited Vicksburg Battlefield after someone had damaged dozens of Illinois monuments. It looked like they had shot the monuments with buck shot and then beaten on the monuments thousands of times with a sledge hammer. The huge Greek-godlike monument to Lincoln smelled like urine and there was feces on some of the smaller Illinois monuments. Most of these monuments were just unveiled. To think that the people of Illinois today would build new monuments to the men who did what was done in the Siege of Vicksburg is a symptom of a psychotic society in Illinois and the USA. . . .
Sadly, the National Sons of Confederate Veterans repeatedly, decade after decade, refer to the invaders of the South as “honourable men who fought bravely for their country.” There is NO HONOUR to any man who fights for a totalitarian dishonourable cause! Anyone who thinks these men were honourable to invaded the Southern States has a mind that is totally uninformed by the Holy Bible and the Will of God. The best that can be said of a person who would honour the USA invaders is that he is a spiritual inebriate. . . .
Those who will honour U.S. Veterans now living need to know that they are honouring men and women who are doing to foreign nations what the USA did to the South during the 1860s through the Period of Reconstruction in the 1870s. We must at least stop celebrating the American Holocaust committed against the Southern people of the Confederate States of America ! ! !​


He goes on to compare the Union to Nazis (and not favorably). It’s funny how they scream in righteous indignation when anyone makes a Nazi analogy to the Confederacy, while doing the reverse is a routine part of defending Confederate heritage. (“Abraham Hitler,” really?)

These people are clowns. Under their leadership, the Confederate heritage movement is marginalizing itself as fast as it possibly can, and it’s words and positions like these that lie at the core of the problem. Shillinglaw, Givens, and Manning would, I’m sure, gets lots of applause for saying this stuff at an SCV meeting, but most other folks will read posts like that and ask, “what the fnck is the matter with you people?” They can run their movement however they want to, but from where I sit it looks like they’re doing more harm to their own cause than all the shadowy, conspiratorial forces of “political correctness” they’re always carping about ever could hope to.

The other day, Kevin asked if the Lost Cause had actually been lost. It’s a fair question. If people like Shillinglaw, Givens and Manning are going to be the face of what passes for Confederate heritage, it’s doomed, and the cause of death will be suicide.


UPDATE, November 13. The current talking point of SCV opposition to the proposed SUVCW monument is that the latter would be placed “in front of” existing Confederate monuments. At the same time, there is general carping that the SUVCW hasn’t been open enough in publicly sharing the details of its plan with the SCV. The Confederate heritage group seems to be saying, in effect, “we are opposed to the specific details of the plan for which we don’t know the specific details.”

In fact, suggestion that the SCV is merely objecting to the placement “in front of” the existing Confederate monuments is a red herring. As Michael Givens’ public call to action above makes clear, the SCV is opposing placement of the marker anywhere near the others. Now comes a statement from the Florida SCV Division Commander, Jim Davis, arguing explitly that it should be nowhere on the 3-acre tract originally deeded to the state for a battlefield park by the UDC. Instead, he argues, it should be on the opposite side of the road, in an uncleared area off by itself. This is Davis’ proposal:



You know, separate but equal.

Davis also tells a flat-out falsehood, saying that “the 1912 monument is dedicated to the memory of the men who fought for the Union and the Confederacy.” The is a blatant untruth; this is the text of the dedication on the monument:


To the men who fought and
Triumphed here in defense
of their homes and firesides.
This monument is erected
by the United Daughters
of the Confederacy aided
by the State of Florida.
In commemoration of their
devotion to the cause of
Liberty and State Sovereignty


This is not a dedication to the memory of any soldier in a blue uniform.

Davis’ assertion is not a mistake; it’s flat-out misrepresentation. As I said in the original post, reasonable can have a rational disagreement over the position of an historical marker. But if you need to resort blatant falsehoods to make your case, as the Florida Division of the SCV does here, you damn well deserve to lose.




73 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. guitarmandanga said, on November 10, 2013 at 2:16 pm

    It’s par for the course. Both anti-southern arch-liberal mouthpieces and anti-whoever neo-Confederate mouthpieces spew venom at anyone and everyone on the other side, employing labels of “terrorists”, “Nazis”, and anything else that generally falls under Godwin’s Law—and then claim that THEY’RE the rational ones and that no one wants to dialogue with them, which they can’t understand. The rest of us—the vast, SANE middle-ground of centrists, scholars, buffs, and the merely curious—just roll our eyes back into our skulls. It’s a source of great sadness and great amusement…but perhaps, all in all, it’s a nice antidote to a hundred years of playing nice with each other in the name of reunion, reconciliation, and sweeping all manner of unpleasantness under the carpet.

  2. Jan Dresler, Denmark. said, on November 10, 2013 at 2:22 pm

    I wonder how they would react if someone suggested to tear all confederate monuments down in Gettysburg ?

  3. Betty Giragosian said, on November 10, 2013 at 2:35 pm

    The people you have named and othesr of their ilk are destroying ourConfederate Heritage. Every word, every action is indefensible. lt has only been in recent years, that this hatred has manifested itself, and it is growing by leaps and bounds. I can remember when the WBTS was a matter of visiting battlefields, holding Memoriol Day services, listening to speakers on both sides address the war, marking graves, scholarships, etc. Now they have formed into savage hate filled “heritage’ groups, ready to scream traitor and scalawag when someone is not on their page. I am sick of them. Do you think they have lifted a hand to support the MOC? NO, they have lought to destroy it.. they should be ashamed of themselve. I mention this because you referred to the MOC on another rpost. They will evenutally do themselve in–pity,because thas been in its day a fine institution. About one hundred years ago.

  4. godofredus said, on November 10, 2013 at 2:39 pm

    Thank you Andy. I am afraid, tho, that there are enough crazy folk out there that will actually agree with this fool. The Germans are just beginning – within the past ten years or so – to put up monuments to the men and children who resisted Hitler. The Japanese are still trapped in their own ego, so they are still honoring war criminals – which always creates a problem with the Philippines and China. But isn’t there a memorial to Mac
    Arthur in Japan? Have to research that….
    But these fools – well maybe we – SUVCW – should ship all the confederate monuments at Gettysburg back to their home states…

  5. Stan said, on November 10, 2013 at 3:08 pm

    I’m really glad I threw out my SCV membership certificate several years ago when I went on a de-cluttering path after watching an episode of Hoarders. These guys make ashamed of being from he south.

  6. Gretchen Adams said, on November 10, 2013 at 4:04 pm

    I’m going to make a bet that some of these quoted fellows like to yell “USA! USA!” every time they get the opportunity. They might want to consider that what they call “invading Federal forces” were United States soldiers. This might be the most disgraceful thing I’ve read in a while.

  7. jfepperson said, on November 10, 2013 at 4:07 pm

    This kind of idiocy only serves to further marginalize the SCV.

    • Andy Hall said, on November 10, 2013 at 11:28 pm

      Fun fact:The “Abraham Hitler” article linked above was written by Jack Hunter, who attained a bit of notoriety earlier this year as being the former “Southern Avenger” of the staff of Senator Rand Paul.

      • SF Walker said, on November 11, 2013 at 7:15 am

        I remember Jack Hunter; that guy’s definitely got a screw loose somewhere. He used to come on AM radio here a while back–this kind of rhetoric is standard fare for him.

  8. Kevin Dally said, on November 10, 2013 at 5:40 pm

    I on several occasions had suggested to folk (in the SCV) to get a program going to properly train folk in Camps, how to work with, and improve public relations…obviously no one listened.

  9. David Woodbury said, on November 10, 2013 at 7:16 pm

    This is pretty over the top. It may be that the neo-Confederates are emboldened by the ascendancy of Tea-billy Wingnuts in recent years into “mainstream” GOP circles. As if it were now okay to say aloud what used to be said privately. It used to be only fringe, not-to-be-taken-seriously types who voiced such extreme positions, but today it’s part of the routine vocabulary of Senators and Representatives from states of the old Confederacy.

  10. Jennifer M. R. said, on November 10, 2013 at 9:03 pm

    I stumbled across this blog while trying to teach my kids some things about the Civil War (nice blog by the way — love the naval posts).
    My family was for the most part not American at the time, so the heavy emotions of this are perhaps lost on me (so I can’t understand the anger at Union troops in this day and age anymore than I have any personal hard feelings against the Confederate dead; suffice to say the war’s long over, I’m glad the Union won, and I’m sorry all those soldiers had to die fighting over something so truly awful as slavery that should never have been in the first place).
    However, we are a multi-generational military family, and have been proud to serve this country. I have children presently in our armed forces; they and their friends have deployed on more than one occasion.
    So that last paragraph — about honoring, or not honoring really, living veterans — for me to have to read that on the eve of Veteran’s Day and on the birthday of our beloved Corps…let’s just say I’m a bit ticked off and leave it at that.
    Let alone the gross distortions of history and overheated, hysterical rhetoric.

    Who are these people?
    And truly, what is their major maladjustment?
    And more to the point: would they just please go away? First Amendment rights and all, but some things are truly hard to see in print and take with a cool head.

    • H. E. Parmer said, on November 11, 2013 at 1:38 am

      I see nothing wrong with admiring the fighting qualities and ingenuity my Southern ancestors exhibited in the Civil War, but that doesn’t mean I have to say they were for a good cause, or to defend a way of life that was worth preserving. Because it wasn’t.

      But I don’t think any of this is really personal: it’s been ideological since long before the last veteran of that war departed this mortal coil. The sub-text has always been about keeping those of darker hue in their proper place.

      • Jennifer M. R. said, on November 11, 2013 at 8:48 am

        People who make the comments that these people made are not being impersonal.
        I’m sure there are ideological reasons for this, but whoever these folks are, they have made their ideology personal.

        And with some of their comments, they have made it rather personal to me (my cousin got the treatment coming home from Vietnam; my kid got it once coming home from Iraq….the rhetoric these folks say and the rhetoric of those people are stunningly similar).

        As for your Confederate ancestors: I’m sure they were competent troops and brave men (who couldn’t be, to stand up to canister and mini ball?). I really have no problem with monuments to them (I have some issue with idolizing their leaders) — they always fill me with a great deal of sorrow and pity; the country would have been better off if slavery had been done away with willingly, but that wasn’t to be.
        It appears that what has come down to us now are a bunch of people who are so bitter at not being able to subjugate other people that they themselves would likely have no problem desecrating graves and likely committing atrocities…in short, perhaps more un-American than the most fervent of Confederates. This is a problem.

        • Jennifer M. R. said, on November 11, 2013 at 9:02 am

          I suppose a better way of saying this is: I view Confederate soldiers (and their graves) in the same vein as a line from Tolkien which remarks about the enemy dead that was this man truly an evil man or a man who was fooled into believing in a bad cause or even one who was unwillingly torn from his family to go fight for it. It’s a pretty good way of looking at things because it gives a person some level of humanity while regarding them.
          They were the enemy of the republic as well as supporters of a bad cause, and fighting them was the right thing to do, but there is no generalized rancor after the fact.

          • H. E. Parmer said, on November 11, 2013 at 11:34 am

            I guess my language was a bit imprecise. I’m just saying that once you scratch the surface, the motivation for such hatefulness is less about a war which took place five generations ago than a longing for the Good Ol’ Days when white males ruled the roost.

            You could be the lowest, scummiest individual in the county, but as long as you were white there was an entire class of easily distinguishable human beings over whom you could lord it, even in certain circumstances exercise the power of life and death. That’s a very attractive daydream, especially to a group which sees its power waning. The election of an African-American President — with a middle name of “Hussein”, no less — really, really rubbed their faces in it. Which is why their rhetoric has since become completely unmoored from reality.

            I agree with you absolutely: these people are un-American. They despise democracy, unless, of course, only the right sort of people are allowed to vote. “Rule or ruin” has been the name of the game for almost two centuries now.

            As if that wasn’t bad enough, there’s also the naked Stalinism of their approach to history. I don’t think all the Heritage types are overt racists, btw; I imagine some of them are just too childish to understand that good people can fight in a bad cause, and vice versa.

        • Andy Hall said, on November 11, 2013 at 9:03 am

          perhaps more un-American than the most fervent of Confederates. This is a problem.

          I’ve read a lot of Confederate’s memoirs, and those men are on the whole far less angry, far less focused on belligerent posturing, than the make-believe Confederates of today.

  11. Neil Hamilton said, on November 10, 2013 at 9:30 pm

    The stupidity of such comments can barely be believed.

    A monument to US soldiers, on US soil, and it is somehow compared to modern-day terrorists.

    And we’re to take such SCV representatives seriously?

    Fat chance.


  12. John Tucker said, on November 10, 2013 at 9:54 pm

    I know James. I know the kind of revision he and the Museum, in Jacksonville spout. When faced with the truth or documents they turn to hate not heritage.

  13. Jefferson Moon said, on November 11, 2013 at 7:19 am

    I don’t think it can be repeated enough times now, the SCV is a unAmerican,unpatriotic organization.

  14. BorderRuffian said, on November 11, 2013 at 7:54 am

    Oh, wow…

    How many times have I seen members of the Simpson/Levin/Hall camp refer to the Confederates of the 1860s as “terrorists.” And how many times have I seen them refer to Confederate heritage groups as “Nazis,” the “Taliban,” etc.

    And now that camp is upset about “jihadis” and “Darth In-Vaders.”

    Hoop de doop de doo…

    • Andy Hall said, on November 11, 2013 at 8:21 am

      I carry responsibility for what I write. Shillinglaw, Givens and Manning do, as well.

    • Jennifer M. R. said, on November 11, 2013 at 9:34 am

      Consider that last paragraph.
      “Those who will honour U.S. Veterans now living need to know that they are honouring men and women who are doing to foreign nations what the USA did to the South during the 1860s through the Period of Reconstruction in the 1870s.”

      In fact, this leads me to believe that it isn’t so much about those men lying in Confederate graves as it is about whatever it is these people are after in the present — and the fact that some of the descendants of those Confederate men are presently those very same “U.S. Veterans now living”, some of whom presently fighting, some with scars from fighting, and some no longer living and recently put into graves of their own is not lost on people like me. There is a lot of talk about “honour”, well, they have dishonored people me and mine care and have cared quite a bit about — and made this very present and very personal.
      This has given a good glimpse of what is really inside their minds, and it is not pretty.

      With that statement alone this matter became a bit more than a “Hoop de doo”.

    • Neil Hamilton said, on November 11, 2013 at 9:48 am


      So your anger at Confederate heritage groups being called such cannot transfer to an equal wrong of Union soldiers being called such?

      So two wrongs can make a right?

      You make no better sense than the leadership of the SCV on this matter.


      • Andy Hall said, on November 11, 2013 at 10:15 am

        Battalion BorderRuffian’s just being himself. No big.

        • Old Reb said, on November 11, 2013 at 7:52 pm

          Mr Hall
          How come you folk’s are alway right and us Son’s of the South are always wrong? I am a veteran, spent my 56th birthday in Kandahar Afghanistan, and a member of the SCV under my 4GGF PVT John D Sanford Co B 9th Mississippi Calvary. I understand the argument why not place a Union monument at the battle site but sir I ask you why now? As a Southern you must admit that our history is under siege good and bad
          and sir you and your friends here must admit the folks of the South where not the only bad fella’s in a very bad war.

          • Andy Hall said, on November 11, 2013 at 9:30 pm

            I’m not down on the South. I’m down on people who are an embarrassment to it and to me as a Southerner.

          • Jefferson Moon said, on November 11, 2013 at 9:41 pm

            Most of my folk that fought in our Civil War were from the South and most of them fought for the Union.The SCV doesn’t speak for my Southern Heritage.

            • Andy Hall said, on November 11, 2013 at 9:51 pm

              OK, you said that better than I did.

            • Oldsouth said, on November 12, 2013 at 9:17 am

              Mr. Moon
              Did they all fight for the Union or did some of them fight for their Southron homes? My folks may have been on the losing side but they resisted an invader that destroyed their way of life good or bad. We don’t try to speak for Unionist just our Confederate Fathers. I respect your folks for standing up for their beliefs and would not speak ill of them and I would ask them same of you.

              • Jefferson Moon said, on November 13, 2013 at 4:43 am

                Where have I spoke ill of Confederate soldiers,it is the SCA speaking ill of Union soldiers,lets not play that game.

              • Oldsouth said, on November 13, 2013 at 7:52 am

                O.K. fair enough got my facts wrong.

          • Jennifer M. R. said, on November 12, 2013 at 6:09 pm

            Old Rebel: I would have to ask the question: does it matter when someone suggested it (the placement of a Union memorial)? Is that memorial going to cause some object harm to the southern states, people, or heritage/history in any way? Will it cause some downfall of the south?
            I can’t really understand this argument as to who is right and who is wrong, North v. South at this point — the war is long over and the people who fought it are long dead. By all means the study of history is a worthwhile and interesting pursuit, but perhaps people shouldn’t bring that history to bear on today’s people in a manner that wants to re-fight it. I’m thinking many of those Civil War dead would likely concur.
            I’m also in the dark as to how this carry-on helps to make the history/heritage of the South not be under seige.

            The South and it’s people have many things to commend itself, but this is an aspect that is not one of them.

            Off topic, but when were you in the K? I’ve had a few family members, last one a kid, who passed through there at some point or another in the last decade; you probably crossed paths with one another! (which illustrates that we are all Americans, with immediate bonds between us)..

            • Andy Hall said, on November 12, 2013 at 8:35 pm

              It’s “Oldsouth” now. Very confusing, really.

              • Oldsouth said, on November 13, 2013 at 7:24 am

                Mr. Hall
                It is oldsouth don’t know where old reb come from. And no it want be the end of the South but I read everyday people in the news media attacking our heritage so maybe some of us folks are a bit touchy about the subject. Is there not a Union monument already at the battle site?

              • Andy Hall said, on November 13, 2013 at 7:47 am

                “Old Reb” was the name you used here and here and here and here.

            • Oldsouth said, on November 13, 2013 at 7:42 am

              I was in Kandahar November 2011-Sepetember 2012 1SG of an Engineering battalion and yes we had some Yankee companies with us fine bunch of folks was very proud to serve with them and yes we are all Americans but we are still a divide as a country. I see attacks on the Southern soldier every day and I take it personal because it’s my family they are talking about. The Union memorial is not a problem with me I just don’t understand why it took 150 years for someone to decide to put one up. Maybe you can explain it to me or someone on this blog can.
              Thank you for your response

              • SF Walker said, on November 13, 2013 at 10:22 am

                Regarding the absence of a Union monument, I think it probably has to do with the Battle of Olustee not being as well-remembered in the North as it is by the locals in that part of Florida—I believe the three Confederate monuments there were erected by the local UDC chapter. After all, in terms of the numbers involved, Olustee was a small battle compared to, say, Franklin or Stones’ River. Another factor may be that it was a Confederate victory, which is also the reason the Revolutionary War Battle of Camden, SC isn’t bedecked with American monuments.

              • Jennifer M. R. said, on November 13, 2013 at 10:52 am

                First off, there should be no “Yankee” or “Southern” used in our lexicon anymore, with regards to a war that was fought a long time ago — it really should be “American”. This is perhaps a problem; it divides people up (whether they wish to be or not) along lines made during a war fought a long time ago!

                As for long dead Southern soldiers — there will always be some jerks who think defacing a grave is cute; that’s probably a human condition (not all are decent). However, it isn’t focused just on Southerners — just about any sort of grave or memorial is fair game. My opinions about the soldiers has already been made…so has my opinions about idolizing their leaders — no leader should be idolized; it’s a mistake. Regard and remark upon them as the terribly human and imperfect people they were, but don’t make them godlike (aka. Robert E. Lee should never have been made into the marble man; it takes away from the truth and strips him of his humanity…just like William T. Sherman was not some supernatural demon; they are both brothers in how they have been stripped of their human elements).
                And that means that yes, we do have to pass some judgement on the “bad” — in order to search for the truth, sometimes we have to listen to things we might not want to hear (and to be honest, some Southerners have refused to listen to it for a long time) — we’ve all heard about the the dash and mastery of Bobby Lee, Stonewall, and the boys in grey, even up North this got into our learning as children in school, and later hints that Sherman and Grant had done terrible things to the South, and nothing of the bravery of Union troops, and the fact that their commanders were not all inept, nor that all of the Southern commanders and troops were not so virtuous all the time after all (which is a gross oversight and a gross misrepresentation of the truth). The truth is sometimes a hard thing to hear (there is always one side of it that will get you po’d) but perhaps it’s worth it in the end.

                In the K, you probably ran, literally, into my youngest kid! Said offspring has done quite well as a soldier, and is not only a “Yankee” due to place of birth, but due to genetic heritage would probably be considered not worthy of citizenship by Confederates of their day and age…do you believe that is a right and decent way to view your own comrades? Perhaps it isn’t only Southerners who are under attack? Perhaps it really is time to quit with re-living and re-modeling a war fought 150 years ago so that it causes division among Americans.

                As for why it has taken so long: well, from the looks of it, perhaps it has only been until recently that people felt they could actually broach the subject, or it could be that someone finally came up with the money, or they finally just got tired of some of the stuff thrown at them by the likes of these fellows in the links and decided “____it, we’ll build a memorial down there if they’re going to persist in acting this way”? Probably would be best to ask them.

              • Jennifer M. R. said, on November 13, 2013 at 11:15 am

                And you know as well as I that there are no “Yankee” and “Southern” companies in our modern military (perhaps the distinction could happen within the National Guard, but that has more to do with home state location of units than some heritage, unless someone tries to make it so, which would be a wrong thing to do).
                My husband was stationed at Benning and then at Stewart for a time, as well as Drum; my kids at Hood, Polk, Bragg, Elgin, and Carson — plenty of “Yankees” and “Southerners” in all locations, as well as those of us who never considered ourselves by either name tag.

                And while I’m sure that some actual Confederates did go fight over the notion that their homes were under threat, the same could be conjectured for some actual Union men as well — the CSA did fire on Sumter and did march into the Union states too, and Union supporters in the South probably had as much to worry about as Confederacy supporters in the North concerning the protection of their homes and families from an angry populace. So that notion isn’t unique to the South only.
                But again, this was some time ago — no Unionist has invaded the South, nor Confederate the North, in quite some time. They may move there, but it is after all, a free country and people have a right to move where they please.

              • Jefferson Moon said, on November 13, 2013 at 12:47 pm

                Mr OldSouth, not far from where I live there was a engagement between Union and Confederate forces,for a 150 years there was no marker,monument nothing telling what happened there,so folks got together and put up a marker detailing the encounter,why, the 150th anniversary of our Civil War,thats what folks do on important anniversaries.
                Now a question for you,how can you be a proud member of the United State military but yet belong to a organization (SCV) that would say such things against the United States and United States soldiers ?


                Note both the US flag and CBF…

    • Kevin Levin said, on November 11, 2013 at 12:11 pm

      Please point to a single post in which I refer to Confederates in the 1860s as terrorists.

      • Andy Hall said, on November 11, 2013 at 9:36 pm

        Did you know we had a “camp”? I didn’t. I’m not even sure I know where that old Coleman lantern is out in the garage.

      • Brooks D. Simpson said, on November 11, 2013 at 11:38 pm

        BR/B has his evidence stored right next to all that other evidence he never produces. But you note that in fact he’s not bothered by the terms used by his fellow advocates of Confederate heritage.

        The guy is simply pathetic.

    • Tim Manning said, on January 6, 2014 at 2:41 pm

      Thank you BorderRuffian. The only persom to mention Nazi or Hitler was Andy Hall which is typical of Southern Heritage detractors and they never or rarely actually address the issues we consider or propose. SCV offer no real Master Plan for Heritage Defence or Heritage Education and they are unlikely to do so.

  15. Tony said, on November 11, 2013 at 10:59 am

    I call BS. There is no Lincoln monument in the Vicksburg National Military Park, and I have never heard of this type of vandalism in that park. Pure fantasy on the part of the writer.

    • Andy Hall said, on November 11, 2013 at 11:20 pm

      There is the Kentucky monument, that includes both figures of Lincoln and Jefferson Davis.

  16. Dale Top said, on November 11, 2013 at 12:14 pm

    Well of course both Hitler and the Confederates went to war against the United States Of America. Fortunately both teams lost. The world is a much better place because we stopped these maniacs in their tracks. As far as the United States erecting a monument to the brave men who fought for us in Florida goes; Florida is still a part of the USA because of those men. We will build a monument to our soldiers anywhere we want, within the US borders. If you have a problem with that, I highly suggest you update your passport so you can go live in a country more suited to your beliefs.

  17. godofredus said, on November 11, 2013 at 12:37 pm

    Yesterday my group of SUVCW joined a group of reenactors at Rosehill Cemetary in Chicago to observe Veterans Day/Armistice Day… We had reenactors from the Revolutionary War thru Vietnam, and one guy, a member of SCV who wears butternut Confederate Uniform….
    There is a Sons of Conf Vets in the Chicago area, but for some reason he is the only one that shows up.
    Remember tho, Rosehill has no Confederate Vets buried there…The old GAR forbade it. I think there are 19 Union Generals buried there.
    My point? We are all respective of each others heritage. We do not piss on one another’s parade. Because of marriage, a number of the members of the Sons of Union Vets could also be members of the Sons of Conf Vets, but when we see one another we do not beat each other up.
    We also know when we put up a memorial to Union Dead in Southern towns – after all most of them died there – we have to be nice about it.
    This guy – or these guys – are so far out of line I can’t believe it. On the other hand, having known holocaust deniers, and folk who think Roosevelt deliberately engineered Pearl Harbor I can.

  18. H. E. Parmer said, on November 13, 2013 at 12:56 pm

    I recommend huffing a dry cleaning bag full of Easy-Off, then having someone whack you upside the head at least three times with a 2 X 4. (Note: Georgia residents may substitute an ax handle.) Repeat as necessary.

    That should get you in the required mental state to appreciate the Neo-Confederate POV.

  19. Al Mackey said, on November 14, 2013 at 7:21 am

    Hi Andy,

    Regarding your update to the post:

    Not being one to trust anything put out by the SCV, I did a little checking on the donation of land. The State of Florida begs to differ with the SCV on the land donation:

    “On August 6, 1909, the State of Florida obtained title to two acres from Austin B. Fletcher by donation that was followed by an adjacent one-acre donation on September 27, 1909 from John and Eliza Brown constituting what is now Olustee Battlefield Historic State Park. The purpose of these donations was to erect a monument in commemoration of the Battle of Olustee. The monument completed in 1912 and was officially dedicated on October 23, 1912. The United Daughters of the Confederacy (U.D.C.) administered the memorial until 1949, at which time the Florida Board of Parks and Historic Memorials assumed management of the park.

    “On December 31, 1994, the Division of Recreation and Parks (Division) entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USFS), which authorized the Division to manage a 688-acre property owned by the federal government as part of Olustee Battlefield Historic State Park.”

    Click to access OlusteeBattlefieldHistoricStatePark.pdf

    So the 3-acre plot was donated in two parcels by two different parties, none of them the UDC, and the purpose of the donation was to commemorate the battle itself, not any particular side. There is a UDC monument on the site that commemorates the confederate dead, but that wasn’t the purpose of the land donation, at least according to Florida.

    • Jefferson Moon said, on November 14, 2013 at 11:47 am

      Great find…

    • BorderRuffian said, on November 14, 2013 at 2:00 pm

      “Olustee Monument Soon Ready to Dedicate
      The monument is well under way, a few finishing touches remaining to be given to the structure…
      Arrangements were made for this work and to place the completed monument in charge of a competent guardian until the anniversary of the battle (February 21, 1912) when it will be unveiled, dedicated and turned over to the state with appropriate ceremonies….

      General [E.W.] Law, chairman of the [monument] commission, will deliver the monument and the deeds to the land on which it is located to Governor Gilchrist which will complete the official part of the program.”

      Miami Herald, August 15, 1911

      • Andy Hall said, on November 14, 2013 at 2:24 pm

        Ceremonial passing of the deed documents doesn’t definitively clarify who was actually doing the donating, Battalion.

      • BorderRuffian said, on November 14, 2013 at 2:29 pm

        According to this site the land was obtained by the UDC who turned it over to the State of Florida. The funding for the monument was from both the state, the UDC and the general public-

        “The monument and the title to the property was then handed over to Mrs. Esther Carlotta, state president of the the Florida United Daughters of the Confederacy. She then turned the deeds over to Mrs. Whitner who, after a short speech, presented them to Governor Albert W. Gilchrist. Governor Gilchrist responded and accepted the monument in the name of the State of Florida. Gilchrist then paid a tribute to the heroes of Olustee and related several historical facts connected to the battle.”

        • Al Mackey said, on November 14, 2013 at 2:45 pm

          No. This was a ceremony, and as Andy said, a ceremonial passing of deeds isn’t authoritative. Even this site, though, says that the purpose was to mark the battle, not to specifically honor one side of the battle.

          • BorderRuffian said, on November 14, 2013 at 3:04 pm

            The *Law* passed by the State of Florida says to honor “the Confederate officers and soldiers who participated in said battle.”

            As to the deeds…we’ll have to see who is listed as grantee.

        • Jennifer M. R. said, on November 14, 2013 at 6:27 pm

          Possession is 9/10ths the law, as the saying goes. Who owns the land now, and if they are ok with it, then well, where’s the beef?
          Yes, this is a bit of a rhetorical question. It looks as though the state owns the land, and if the state approves the Union monument, then they are presumed acting upon the will of the citizens of the state — which I would gather don’t have an issue with a monument to the Union dead, and placed right next to the Confederate one (which is, if anything, a politeness to any visitors — it would be an ungentlemanly thing to force a situation where someone’s poor, old grandmother collapses from heat stroke during an attempt to view both the Confederate and Union monuments due to the distance between them).

  20. Jennifer M. R. said, on November 14, 2013 at 9:59 am

    Way off topic, but I’d love to see somebody really delve into how both Union and Confederate forces developed and used COIN strategy during the war (it would have to have been known to at least some of the commanders, if perhaps not under that name).
    I’ve always thought that the Civil War provided an excellent example of how COIN could work, or not work (and the bigger question of if some form was not used, why). I”m also of the opinion that the truth of the matter might surprise in a number of instances (I’ve always had a sneaking hunch that Forrest, brilliant tactician that he could be at times, made several major strategic errors*, and that these were directly related to COIN, which imo, both sides would have had to employ).

    *and for which I’m eternally grateful…NBF was one of the people I find incredibly repugnant to idolize, yet it happens a lot, which is one of the reasons I”d like to see the truth out and the myth stripped

    If there is anyone out there who has explored this; I’d love to know.

    • Al Mackey said, on November 14, 2013 at 1:06 pm

      You would find that in actions against guerrillas, irregulars, and partisans. Forrest’s cavalry wasn’t any of those. Check into operations against Mosby, Morgan, Champ Ferguson, and Quantrill. For the confederate side, look at their responses to places like East Tennessee and Jones County, Mississippi.

      • Jennifer M. R. said, on November 14, 2013 at 6:20 pm

        Thanks. I realize that Forrest can not be categorized as a true irregular, from a purely military standpoint (especially a modern one) I can’t help getting the impression that he was a most irregular, regular — and thus has to be, imo, looked at from both vantage points.
        That the nature of civil wars create a dynamic where both sides engage in both insurgency as well as counter-insurgency, and thus commanders at tactical and strategic levels must take into account the opportunities for both, is a given I should think.
        Anyway, it’s something that interests me from both an historic and modern perspective.
        And it gives me something to knaw on with my eldest (we like to talk shop from time to time) as well as throw at my eldest kid at home to keep him occupied with something on days when he has no homework 😉

        Plus it’s perhaps a coping mechanism…I’m still pretty ticked when I think about the object of this thread…

        • Al Mackey said, on November 15, 2013 at 11:21 am

          Forrest was unconventional because he was mostly self-taught. He had an innate grasp of leadership and tactics. He didn’t think like a West Pointer or as anyone else who was trained in a military environment. He was unconventional from the standpoint that he used tactics that were the result of “outside the box thinking.” He and his men, however, operated not as insurgents but as regular troops, less cavalry and more mounted infantry.

          You might also want to look into Sherman’s responses to bushwackers in Kentucky and Georgia.

          • Jennifer M. R. said, on November 15, 2013 at 1:18 pm

            Yes…this is true, but it’s hard to find books etc. that deal with the reality vs. myth. A big problem, even for more recent history, especially wars — I think that line that history is written by the victors is often not so true; perhaps it should be “the history most people will listen to is written by the best story tellers”, and story telling is often not married to the truth always.

            COIN strategy is just something I’m personally interested in as it is very much of the present (admittedly, far more than I am with the Civil War in particular; I like history in a generalized sense, no one era holds my devotion) — even though it’s a very old concept. I just used Forrest as an example; it could be a focus of studying any commander (Sherman would obviously be an excellent one) — that war should be a textbook study of such strategies (or the lack of them), but it seems as though the big battles are all that many want to talk about…the lure of the grand story it seems.

  21. Roger E Watson said, on November 14, 2013 at 10:48 am

    There ya go Al ! Always trying to confuse these bright lights at the SCV with the facts.

  22. Larry said, on December 2, 2013 at 8:29 am

    If the UDC originally deeded the property with the Confederate monuments on it, I wonder what view they may have on the debate here….seems their input would be of more interest and at least equal to the questioning and opining here on the heritage motives of the SCV

    • Andy Hall said, on December 2, 2013 at 8:42 am

      The local UDC has not been a very strong voice in this particular dispute. I don’t know if that’s because they don’t have a very active chapter there, or exactly why. More generally, in situations like this the UDC seems to be less confrontational and more willing to find practical solutions (e.g., Reidsville) than the louder, more belligerent folks in the SCV. I actually think they tend to get more pragmatically accomplished that way than the all-or-nothing approach represented by folks like Shillinglaw and Givens.

      I have seen where some in the SCV seem to be under the impression that the UDC is a sort of support group or ladies’ auxiliary-type organization for the SCV. That’s emphatically untrue. They are separate organizations, and in fact the UDC is the older of the two. It’s an interesting role reversal, as well. As Carolina Janney described in a recent issue of the Civil War Monitor Magazine, it was the UDC in the late 19th and early 20th century that kept the fires of resentment and un-reconstructed-ness burning, much more so than the old veterans of the UCV themselves did.

      • Larry said, on December 2, 2013 at 11:13 am

        The SCV camp I belong to is very supportive of the local UDC and our membership/leaders understand the organization fully….not sure what your desires or thoughts would be if your were an old soldier or the wife or children of one that may or may not have come back the same (wounded mentally or physically), but I have a measure of respect for what they went through and the feelings they must have had…. and to the extent there was lingering resentment in all it’s forms, I try to be understanding of the people and their plight post war considering the devastation and subsequent reconstruction policies….after all, an unconstitutional war was promulgated upon the South, and the sacrifice of it’s people that chose to defend their state cannot be fully understood today… therefore, the SCV will be misunderstood at times in the difficult battle to portray the Confederate soldier/veteran and the Cause in a positive light in times where history is no longer taught in depth and political correctness abounds

        • Andy Hall said, on December 2, 2013 at 4:49 pm

          I’ve known lots of SCV members, and the rhetoric of folks like Shillinglaw, Davis and Givens is not really representative of them at all. (And Tim Manning is simply an ass.) My view is that the SCV has gotten to the point where the antics of folks like those three are rewarded, and they are leading the group farther and farther away from the mainstream. Maybe that’s where they want to be.

  23. Laqueesha said, on July 13, 2015 at 2:48 pm

    Always makes me chuckle when Neo-Confederates refer to the Union as Nazis, considering Hitler was an admirer of the Confederacy and lamented its downfall:

    “This is the last disgusting death-rattle of a corrupt and outworn system which is a blot on the history of this people. Since the Civil War, in which the Southern States were conquered, against all historical logic and sound sense, the American people have been in a condition of political and popular decay. In that war, it was not the Southern States, but the American people themselves who were conquered. In this spurious blossoming of economic progress and power politics, America has ever since been drawn deeper into the mire of progressive self-destruction. The beginnings of a great new social order based on the principle of slavery and inequality were destroyed by that war, and with them also the embryo of a future truly great America that would not have been ruled by a corrupt caste of tradesmen, but by a real Herren-class that would have swept away all the falsities of liberty and equality.” – Adolf Hitler, Munch, 1933.

    • Andy Hall said, on July 13, 2015 at 2:55 pm

      They CONSTANTLY compare people who disagree with them to Nazis, and scream bloody murder when someone make any mention of Nazis, no matter how indirect. They’re angry children.

  24. Nelson said, on August 6, 2015 at 2:06 pm

    Hey knucklehead, there were southern states that were part of the original 13 colonies, and they fought in the war for Independence !! Southerners (of all ethnicities) fought in the battle of New Orleans during or I should say after the war of 1812. Southerners of all ethnicities fought in the Spanish american war, ww1 & 2, Korea, Vietnam, and the gulf wars. The south is way more than the civil war. Clowns like you have totally ignored all the contributions of all other southerners, but civil war era southerners. You’re a sore loser. Lee said he wouldn’t be buried with the rebel flag. Washington and Jefferson were southerners. They did not divide the union. You are being one dimentional in your expression of southern pride, which you really mean white civil war pride.

Leave a Reply to H. E. Parmer Cancel 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: