The ‘Racist’ Confederate States of America (hmmm…)

(Total BS from the 21st century political correctness police)


Summer 2015 – As a result of another ‘questionable’ shooting event, where the perp was photographed with a version of the Confederate flag, the government and its compliant media pushes for the removal of the “racist” flags of the CSA from every venue they can.  There are even calls from a few nitwits to remove statues and memorials of Jefferson because he once owned slaves.  I tend to concur with James Webb-Secretary of Navy And Assistant Secretary of Defense under Ronald Reagan who said: “To tar the sacrifices of the Confederate soldier as simple acts of racism, and reduce the battle flag under which he fought to nothing more than the symbol of a racist heritage, is one of the great blasphemies of our modern age”.  The government’s position is that the war between the states was all about “racism”, “hatred” and the moral battle to free the slaves and promote equality between men.  As a history buff I can see it’s time to reinvent the past and if you don’t jump on board, you’re a terrorist, a racist and you advocate ‘hate’.

Woodrow Wilson (President) was quite right when he stated:   “It was necessary to put the South at a moral disadvantage by transforming the contest from a war waged against states fighting for their independence into a war waged against states fighting for the maintenance and extension of slavery…and the world, it might be hoped, would see it as a moral war, not a political; and the sympathy of nations would begin to run for the North, not for the South.”  Thus, you’re expected to believe (but never actually look into) the contemporary myth, created and perpetuated by the government in its schools, books and other media is that the ‘Civil War’ was fought to defeat slavery.  The people and states of the south were intent upon keeping the blacks (sorry, I meant “African Americans”) in bondage and that these southerners were cruel and brutal savages who required, as we say today, “a beat down” in order to change their evil ways.

When one reads remarks such as those below one can not but ‘feel’ the “racist” and “hate filled” mindset of the period:  

“I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races [applause]: that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, [sorry, he meant “African Americans”] nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”  

The ‘reinventors of history’ demand that you believe the war against the south was required to put down ‘white supremacists’ such as the speaker above.  But, were the comments above spoken by the President of the evil Confederate States, Jefferson Davis or one of his treasonist military minions such as General Robert E. Lee, General Stonewall Jackson or some other satan’s spawn of the Confederate States?  No.  They were spoken by Lincoln, our “Great Emancipator” on September 18th 1858 in a speech in Charleston, Illinois ( who, through his Emancipation Proclamation of 1863, ‘freed’ only the slaves of the Confederacy but NOT those in the north.  Lincoln was a virulent racist (by today’s standards) and a founding member of the Illinois “back to Africa” movement called the “American Colonization Society” – little different than the nazi plan to send all the jews east for “resettlement” – wherein blacks were to be sent back to Africa but you’re supposed to forget that.  In his inaugural address of 1861, Lincoln stated that he had “no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.” 

In spite of Lincoln’s historical remarks coupled with the fact that he never really “freed” the slaves those ‘reinventors of history’ (the Kool-Aid drinkers) still insist that it’s the Confederacy and its flags that are symbols of “hatred” and “racism”.  The Confederacy, and all it stood for, was “racist”.  The war, according to the ‘federal’ government (north) was all about freeing the slaves, establishing equality and freedom and the rule of law.  Really?

I might ask these history challenged, liberal/progressive, fact blind individuals that if the Civil War was all about slavery, why on earth did the U.S. Congress pass (on February 28th 1861) the proposed ‘Corwin’ Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?  Why would the U.S. Senate approve it without changes and the the President (on March 2nd 1861) personally sign/endorse it and forward it to the States for approval by their legislatures?  The Amendment would have shielded the States and their ‘institutions’  {slavery} from future abolition or interference by Congress. Specifically, it read:

“No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State. 

If the war, which was about to be launched in a mere 41 days by the North and Lincoln, was about slavery why, on the eve of such a moral crusade, would the North attempt to codify slavery, by Constitution Amendment and why would Lincoln, in his first inaugural address say of that proposed Amendment, that would enshrine slavery into our Constitution, that “I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable. 

When the Virginia Compromise Delegation asked, in March 1861, “Why not let the South go in peace?”, Lincoln replied: “I can’t let them go. Who would pay for the government?”  This, in spite of the American Declaration of Independence of 1776 which states: “Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed… Whenever government becomes destructive to life, liberty, or property [i.e., the pursuit of happiness], it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it… It is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.”  But the southern states were the federal ‘cash cow’.

Tariffs were the real issue of the day and had been for decades.  South Carolina threatened succession in 1832 not over slavery but tariffs but never went forward at that time. The Manchester Union Democrate which is today the Manchester Union Leader stated in February, 1861:  “The Southern Confederacy will not employ our ships or buy our goods. What is our shipping without it? Literally nothing… it is very clear that the South gains by this process and we lose. No…we must not let the South go”.  Were the war really about slavery, hate and equal rights why would the famous author, Charles Dickens (himself an Abolitionist) say in 1862: “The Northern onslaught upon slavery was no more than a piece of specious humbug designed to conceal its desire for economic control of the Southern states.” so, it was clearly a ‘revenue’ issue.  Indeed, Lincoln reminded congress during a July 4th, 1861 address (paragraph 5) the war was about taxes “My policy sought only to collect the Revenue (a 40 percent federal sales tax on imports to Southern States under the Morrill Tariff Act of 1861).”  According to Major General John B. Gordon CSA, later a two term US Senator, Governor of Georgia and the first Commander-in-Chief of the United Confederate Veterans stated in his book Causes of the Civil War that it was an “undeniable fact that at any period of the war from its beginning to near its close the South could have saved slavery by simply laying down its arms and returning to the Union.”

Confederate President Jefferson Davis said, at the time that: “I tried all in my power to avert this war. I saw it coming; for twelve years I worked night and day to prevent it, but I could not. The North was mad and blind; it would not let us govern ourselves, and so the war came, and now it must go on unless you acknowledge our right to self government. We are not fighting for slavery. We are fighting for Independence.

Were it “slavery”, why would one suppose that Ulysses S. Grant, Lincoln’s Commanding General would write in a letter to The Chicago Tribune in 1863 saying: “Should I be convincedthat the government designs using its soldiers to execute the wishes of the Abolitionists, I pledge to you on my honor as a man and a soldier, I would resign my commission and carry my sword to the other side.”  This guy would refuse to free ‘his’ family’s slaves until until after the war and the passage of the 13th Amendment while, William Mack Lee (Robert E. Lee’s black servant) stated for the record that “All of his (Gen. Robert E. Lee’s) servants were set free ten years before the war, but all remained on the plantation until after the surrender.”

grant lee1

Were the war and the Confederacy about “slavery” and “racism”, why would one suppose that Frederick Douglass, the famous black (sorry again, I meant “African American”) leader of the Abolitionist movement, warn Lincoln that unless (Northern) slaves were guaranteed freedom and land bounties, “they would take up arms for the rebels.”  



Why would Douglas, an intelligent guy one presumes, think for one moment that slaves from the north would ‘defect/flee’ to the Confederacy to fight on their side if the Confederacy cause was racism?

The ‘facts’ were that some eighty percent of the South’s military (volunteers) were neither slave-holders, or had the remotest interest in the institution of slavery.  Some even say that slavery was an issue involving less than 2% of white people in the South who had slaves.  As such, it would be incongruous to think that the ‘war’ was fought over it.  Nor were all blacks slaves.  According to the 1860 census there were a quarter million free blacks within the Confederacy and that number grew as the war progressed.  Union General William T. Sherman, (himself a slave owner [A Soldier’s Passion for Order,_ pp. 45-46]] was ‘astounded’, during his “March to the Sea” which was intended to terrorize Georgia’s civilian population by killing civilians and burning and destroying everything in his army’s path (war crimes), how many plantations he found (and burned) that were owned and operated by blacks.  

Not just plantation owners and merchants they were uniformed soldiers defending the Confederacy. Frederick Douglass (again) reported, “There are at the present moment many Colored men in the Confederate Army … real soldiers, having musket on their shoulders, and bullets in their pockets, ready to shoot down any loyal (Union) troops and do all that soldiers may do to destroy the Federal government and build up that of the…rebels.”  When enlistment was opened to all blacks 83% of Richmond’s male slave population volunteered for combat duty in the Confederate Army and a special ball was held in Richmond to raise money for uniforms.  They were not alone.  Were these  “African American” men fighting for racism and slavery?

There were an estimated 65,000 blacks actively fought not only for the Confederacy in their Army and their state militias as soldiers but also in the Confederate Navy.  (One black Navy seaman was among the last Confederates to surrender, aboard the CSS Shenandoah, six months after the war ended. )  It’s interesting to note that not just soldiers but even those blacks in support positions for the Confederate forces ~ musicians, cooks and teamsters earned the same pay as white Confederate privates, yet this was not the case in the Union Army where blacks did not receive equal pay.  Dr. Lewis Steiner, Chief Inspector of the United States Sanitary Commission (a northerner) observed during Gen. “Stonewall” Jackson’s occupation of Frederick, Maryland, in 1862 that:  Over 3,000 Negroes must be included in this number of Confederate troops…and were manifestly an integral portion of the Southern Confederate Army.

If the Confederacy was all about “racism” and “hatred” why is it that the first military monument in the US Capitol that honors African-American soldiers is the Confederate monument at Arlington National cemetery. The monument, designed 1914 by Moses Ezekiel, a Jewish Confederate who wanted to correctly portray the “racial makeup” in the Confederate Army and a uniformed black Confederate soldier is depicted marching in step with white Confederate soldiers.  


There is however, another history that the establishment doesn’t talk of in their schools because it clashes with their racist narrative of the Confederacy’s cause.  Maybe, just maybe, the root cause of the war wasn’t all rainbows and unicorns as they tell you. 

The above facts being noted, the federal government, their schools, their books and their shills have continued to perpetuate the myth of southern “hatred” towards blacks and institutionalized “slavery” which the historical record shows ended in the south before it ended in the north, to justify their war of oppression – beating the Confederacy into submission to the central government and occupying it with military troops for twelve years – for economic reasons. “Freedom” and “the Union” was saved and only required Lincoln to order the suspension of the Constitution; its writ of habeas corpus for the duration of the war in the North was gone, which netted around 20,000 political prisoners (by comparison, Mussolini rounded up only 12,000 in his day). Nearly one in every 1,500 citizens of the Union including the editors of some 300 newspapers were arrested without trial. The arrest of the Maryland legislature who, on August 7th, 1861 were incarcerated in the prison at Fort McHenry resulted in Secretary of War, Simon Cameron’s remarks: “The passage of any act of secession by the Legislature of Maryland must be prevented. If necessary all or any part of the members must be arrested.” (Interestingly, Cameron sent a letter to several newspapers demanding a “slave army” be raised and used against the rebels.)  The Baltimore Mayor and a host of others were also arrested without charges; Lincoln even wrote an order for the arrest of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who had ruled against suspending the writ of habeas corpus. Thus was “freedom” saved.

You WILL NOT read history books and form your own opinions.
You WILL NOT research a subject that your government
has rendered their interpretation of.
You WILL NOT contradict your government because that demonstrates a lack of “tolerance”, “hate” and “racisism”.
If you ‘do’, the ‘terrorists’ win.

If you don’t know these facts it’s because the schools (run by the government) didn’t allow them to teach actual ‘history’. In 1864, Maj. General Patrick R. Cleburne, CSA (who did not own slaves) warned: “Every man should endeavor to understand the meaning of subjugation before it is too late… It means the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern schoolteachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the war; will be impressed by the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit objects for derision… It is said slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all. Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all our enemies are fighting for. It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties.” How avowedly accurate were his remarks considering what utter nonsense we’re witnessing now? 

George Orwell said, in his book 1984: “Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book has been rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered…History has stopped. Nothing exists except the endless present in which the party is always right”  Clearly, we’re there are we not?

In spite of historical facts articulated above, here we are listening to nitwits and pundits going ‘full retard’ over the Confederacy’s naval flag because they’re too indoctrinated by myth to open a few history books. If these fools read/studied a ‘history’ book rather than Facebook they would know the war resulted from northern instituted tariffs and taxes that crippled the southern states economically and their State’s Rights to see to their own destiny and NOT the hatred of people of color. Removing flags and talking of taking down monuments to southern heroes because some damn fool is ‘offended’ by myths perpetuated by shills proves the saying that “stupid never goes out of style.”

The Confederate flag represents resistance to what was (then) a growing federal tyranny that refused to ‘listen’ to the People of the south. I sort-of wonder if, rather than ‘disappearing’ the Confederate naval flag, that it should be reinvented having 50 stars rather than 13 because based upon the government’s current treatment of its People and the sovereign States, we should ALL be Confederates now.  

Winston Churchill said: “The flags of the Confederate States of America were very important and a matter of great pride to those citizens living in the Confederacy. They are also a matter of great pride for their descendants as part of their heritage and history.”

As a northerner, I suggests folks leave the southerners their pride, their history, their dignity and their flags rather than submit to cultural marxism.  After all, Lee only surrendered the ‘Army’ at Appomattox Court House – the rest of the Confederacy…

Veterans of the CSA

Worth watching:


This entry was posted in Dictatorship, Domestic tyranny, History, police state, Propaganda, Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to The ‘Racist’ Confederate States of America (hmmm…)

  1. Wow. You completely removed the comments. Way to avoid discussion.

    • mildlypissed says:

      Admittedly Scott, perhaps I was dismissive of your prior remarks the first line of which was “Curious as to why your entire entry is written in italics.” Seriously, was that your foremost reaction? Was the font I chose also of great concern?

      Your second sentence was “Just because Wilson made that statement, doesn’t mean he was correct. ” Well, perhaps we might also question if he was only kidding when he said it. ‘Then’ it was correct while by today’s standards of political correctness it could be construed as incorrect which is the entire point of my post. Today’s impressions do not reflect the reality of the times

      You go on in your comment with regard to my statement of the fact that he (Lincoln) never really “freed” all the slaves with his Emancipation proclamation that: “Well, he did. Instead of living under the Fugitive Slave Act, slaves had the opportunity for freedom where it didn’t exist before. ” My point was he freed the slaves in the Confederacy and NOT in the Northern states. Wikipedia (god forbid) seems to agree with me where it states: “Because it was issued under the President’s war powers, it necessarily excluded areas not in rebellion –

      Thus my impression of your remarks being little more than nitpicking was formed. You contend: “the Confederacy and its symbols stood for bigotry.” I (and many other people – scholars and well read individuals alike) disagree.

      Perhaps next time I post something I’ll remember you and not use italics.

  2. Sorry for the late response. I just ran back across this.

    My questioning of your use of italics was simply a style question. Usually italics are the exception used to bring attention to a certain word or phrase. I was just curious if you had a particular reason is all.

    I don’t archive comments I make in forums, so I’ll respond as best I can…

    Your response to my comment on Wilson: My comment was on the accuracy of his comment. Not the interpretation through the lens of a different era. Lincoln was always clear about his stance on slavery and that he was trying to preserve the Union. And it wasn’t as though the EP came out of nowhere. The South knew about it for months in 1862. Lincoln even said he wouldn’t enact it if the South would stop their rebellion.

    Yes, the EP only freed the slaves in the South. Lincoln couldn’t free the slaves in the Union. It was protected by the Constitution. Although, he did push for and got the 13th Amendment out for ratification before he was killed.

    Because of the seceded states’ stated reasons for secession, and the CSA’s proclamation of the foundation of their new government being slavery and the superiority of the white race, that is why the Confederacy and its symbols stand for bigotry.

    Again, sorry to ruffle your feathers in questioning your font choice, I just wanted to understand your decision.

  3. ? says:

    Technically the war was about States Rights…to enslave people non-white individuals. According to Alexander H. Stephens: The Confederacy was to support “The Master Race.” The Confederacy, for all intents and purposes, was truly a White Supremacist ideology who insisted Slavery was their natural right, that Blacks were theirs to enslave. When Jefferson Davis considered abolishing slavery to get more support from blacks, he ultimately chose not to because then his soldiers would rebel.

    The confederate flag did not even become popular among southerners until around the time of the Civil Rights movements. Meaning it stands for support of the “White race” and the idea any person of color is worth less than a white person’s life.

    • mildlypissed says:

      With respect, the quoted phrase, “The Master Race” was coined by author Pierre van den Berghe regarding a Herrenvolk democracy describing a regime that is “democratic for the master race”. As for the Confederacy being a “White Supremacist” government, I would point out that virtually all western countries practiced white supremacy at that time; the Confederacy was no different. Not sure why you’re capitalizing these phrases except for the fact that capitalizing them in the 20th/21st centuries equates them to modern movements (nazism and, perhaps 60s era racists) that gained ground long after the war. Properly written, both phrases, during the era, would not have been capitalized.

      That said, were the war about “enslaving people” why did Grant say he would fight for the Confederacy were the war about slavey? Why did Frederick Douglass warn Lincoln that northern slaves (still enslaved) would join/fight for the Confederacy? Why did Charles Dickens state “The Northern onslaught upon slavery was no more than a piece of specious humbug designed to conceal its desire for economic control of the Southern states.

      Again, with respect, I think you’re looking at the historical record through the eyes of current political correctness and what’s an anathema today rather than what was reality on the ground ‘then’. Slavery (and I fully agree) is an abomination and folks were waking up to that in the 1860s. But that was not the reason for the establishment of the Confederacy in the view of many of the political/military leadership nor for the vast majority of those fighting for the south’s independance.

  4. Brad says:

    Bang up job! The Civil War (War of Northern Agresssion) was the vehicle which brought us this tyranical, disfunctional, beaurocratic mess of a federal government we currently find ourselves under. God forbid the citizenry should be made to understand how far we have drifted from the intent of the founders, and percisely how we got there. We have the Civil War followed by the Federal Reserve Act, so on and so forth…The rest is history.

    I was born and raised in the Northeast, and took the time and initiative to further study the conflict, seeing flaw in the popular narrative and being disgusted with the political exploitation of the era in Hollywood film.

    • Shinimegami says:

      Why should we worship the “intent” of 18th century slave-owning aristocrats?

      • mildlypissed says:


        Precisely what “intent” of 18th century aristocrats are you claiming we (or I) am “worshiping”?

        The point of my piece was that the actual ‘history’ of the Confederate nation and its conflict with its northern neighbor was not solely about “racism”. There were other issues at play in their secession from the Union. So, again, what are you alleging about worshiping?

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 )

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s