North Carolina United Daughters of the Confederacy KKK postcard
Ed Sebesta
Carolina Div. United Daughters of the Confederacy post card of the Ku Klux
Klan flag which they are very proud of that it is in the Museum of the
Confederacy. The post card, quite appropriately used a Robert E. Lee,
Stonewall Jackson 4 cent stamp.
Ed Sebesta
ray o'hara
"Ed Sebesta" <edward...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:HcadnbhHcsskDzDe...@comcast.com...
so edfish, do you wish to change society{ a laudable goal} or erase
history,{not so laudable}
pretending the past didn't happen is wrong on every level you can be wrong
on.
Ed Sebesta
It seems that Neo-Confederates just whirl and spin and through out
generalities without any supporting information
Ed
ray o'hara
> Posting a picture of a old post card is erasing history?
>
> It seems that Neo-Confederates just whirl and spin and through out
> generalities without any supporting information
>
> Ed
> ">
complaining that they have it is.
the virginia war memorial in hampton has a section of the belsen fence and a
bar of soap made there. that doesn't mean they endorse what happened there.
Cash
"Bad Jim" <jc...@csa.gov> wrote in
>> Regarding Brook Simpson, this is what your run into in the Civil War
>> history
>> circles. Historian Umfleet's history is inline what is generally known
>> about
>> the event. Simpson's comparison of Umfleet to white supremacist
>> historians is
>
>> a gratuitous insult and is to distract and deflect from the historical
>> work.
>> Does Simpson know of a problem with Umfleet's history, or is general
>> slanderous comments all he can do? Why is Simpson, a Civil War historian
>> even
>
>> contacted about an event in 1898? Why does the journalist think his
>> opinion
>> is relevant to an event in 1898.
>>
>> The tactics of people like Brook Simpson are unfortunately all too often
>> the
>> stuff of which our national historical consciousness is constructed.
--------------------------------
Anyone who reads the CSM story knows Mr. Sebesta has grossly misrepresented
Brooks' comments.
This is the second time in the last couple weeks Mr. Sebesta has
irresponsibly and maliciously libeled a respected Civil War historian.
Regards,
Cash
Jane Margaret Laight
the outward adoration of such relics was much more common--I don't
think that the current membership of North Carolina chapter of the UDC
(including my three older sisters) are presently "quite proud" of the
fact that the banner is in the Museum of the Confederacy; and I doubt
that the present-day membership would permit the issuance of such a
postcard. However, to deny the existence of the banner itself now is
rank hypocrisy. Excrescence like the KKK and its offshoots and bastard
offspring is, sadly, a portion of American History that must be faced,
discussed and dealt with. To hide it away or ignore its existence is
just as worse as championing or advocating those organizations and what
they stand (or once stood) for.
Brooks Simpson
> From http://newtknight.blogspot.com re: Professor Poltroon's comment in the
> Christian Science Monitor:
>
> > Regarding Brook Simpson, this is what your run into in the Civil War history
> > circles. Historian Umfleet's history is inline what is generally known about
> > the event. Simpson's comparison of Umfleet to white supremacist historians is
>
> > a gratuitous insult and is to distract and deflect from the historical work.
> > Does Simpson know of a problem with Umfleet's history, or is general
> > slanderous comments all he can do? Why is Simpson, a Civil War historian even
>
> > contacted about an event in 1898? Why does the journalist think his opinion
> > is relevant to an event in 1898.
> >
> > The tactics of people like Brook Simpson are unfortunately all too often the
> > stuff of which our national historical consciousness is constructed.
It's typical of Ed Sebesta that he can't figure out how to read a
simple interview.
Here's what I'm represented as saying:
---- begin excerpt ----
"We do have a national amnesia about these incidents and about the
degree to which force and terrorism were part of American politics,
especially in the Southeast," says Brooks Simpson, a Civil War
historian at Arizona State University and the author of "Let Us Have
Peace," about the Reconstruction era.
Umfleet says that the coup d'etat ended the social progress blacks had
made in Wilmington after the Civil War.
"North Carolina can point to 1898 and say, 'This is when Jim Crow
started,'" says Umfleet. "Wilmington happened, and it was that catalyst
that proved that the Democrats could do whatever they wanted and get
away with it."
But with her report, Umfleet is also wading into a riptide of emotions.
The fact that a government-paid historian is doing the research is
bound to upset a lot of people, says Mr. Simpson.
"She's going to be worried about a perception that, here's another
person who spun a story in order to advocate a policy, which is exactly
what the white supremacists did," says Simpson.
---- end excerpt ----
Now, any person of reasonable intelligence will understand that
Umfleet's going to be worried that white supremacists will accuse her
of tailoring her facts toward a specific end. That's one reason why
she's so restrained in what she has to say in terms of recommendations.
In fact, if you read the next two paragraphs in the article, this is
what you come across:
---- begin excerpt ----
Indeed, many Southerners take umbrage to her findings. They say the
commission is a project to color the past with modern-day political
correctness.
"If the state of North Carolina is revisiting the 1898 riots, they're
doing it for one reason: to make sure that nobody thinks that the riots
were in any way the fault of the Negroid race or anybody that might
want to support the negroid race for political gain," says Randy
Jamison, Virginia state chairman of the League of the South, which is
part of the Southern independence movement.
---- end excerpt ----
So I was exactly right.
I'm not surprised that Ed Sebesta uses tactics much like the white
supremacists he deplores in his blatant misrepresentation of the
article. Apparently he's upset that the CSM didn't turn to him, but
recognized someone with actual credentials. I may think "Bad Jim"
mistreats Ed, but then again it's long been recognized here that Ed
makes himself a target by some of his own claims, and his desire to be
portrayed as the only person who cares about these things. In fact, Ed
has no credentials worth considering, and it's best to understand his
comments as an expression of envy. It's the sort of behavior that
discredits Ed in the minds of many and offers joy to people who take
BJ's view of the world.
Brooks Simpson
> Anyone who reads the CSM story knows Mr. Sebesta has grossly misrepresented
> Brooks' comments.
>
> This is the second time in the last couple weeks Mr. Sebesta has
> irresponsibly and maliciously libeled a respected Civil War historian.
Here's the article:
Brooks Simpson
Bad Jim wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 13:26:13 -0500, Ed Sebesta wrote
> (in article <HcadnbhHcsskDzDe...@comcast.com>):
> Christian Science Monitor:
>
> > Regarding Brook Simpson, this is what your run into in the Civil War history
> > circles. Historian Umfleet's history is inline what is generally known about
> > the event. Simpson's comparison of Umfleet to white supremacist historians is
>
> > a gratuitous insult and is to distract and deflect from the historical work.
> > Does Simpson know of a problem with Umfleet's history, or is general
> > slanderous comments all he can do? Why is Simpson, a Civil War historian even
>
> > contacted about an event in 1898? Why does the journalist think his opinion
> > is relevant to an event in 1898.
> >
> > The tactics of people like Brook Simpson are unfortunately all too often the
> > stuff of which our national historical consciousness is constructed.
>
Ed would have to learn how to read and write first. English must not be
his first language.
ray o'hara
"Brooks Simpson" <bdsim...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1135487477.1...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
c'mon brooks don't hold back, tell us how you really feel.
Brooks Simpson
ray o'hara wrote:
> c'mon brooks don't hold back, tell us how you really feel.
I really feel Damon was an overpriced short-term fix.
Brooks Simpson
Bad Jim wrote:
> Actually, I was dumbfounded when I read it. It is such a total distortion.
> You have enough real faults without someone having to make them up :-). I
> guess you can take Ed out of the Temple but you can't take the Temple out of
> Ed.
Actually, Ed slidles up to lots of people, and then, when they find out
more about him, they slip away. Fortunately for me, I always knew it
was more about Ed than it was about what he claimed to believe, so I
never fell for the act. That's why his blog is such a hoot: I love the
c.v. Major journals indeed.
> Merry Christmas and God Bless Us, Every One.
Amen.
ray o'hara
>
> ray o'hara wrote:
>
> > c'mon brooks don't hold back, tell us how you really feel.
>
> I really feel Damon was an overpriced short-term fix.
>
very much so. and the yanks still have no pitching.
but they did get aguy who will sign autographs and pose for pictures. johnny
is a great guy off the field. that is why the boston fans loved him.
Brooks Simpson
> > Regarding Brook Simpson, this is what your run into in the Civil War history
> > circles. Historian Umfleet's history is inline what is generally known about
> > the event. Simpson's comparison of Umfleet to white supremacist historians is
> > a gratuitous insult and is to distract and deflect from the historical work.
> > Does Simpson know of a problem with Umfleet's history, or is general
> > slanderous comments all he can do? Why is Simpson, a Civil War historian even
> > contacted about an event in 1898? Why does the journalist think his opinion
> > is relevant to an event in 1898.
> >
> > The tactics of people like Brook Simpson are unfortunately all too often the
> > stuff of which our national historical consciousness is constructed.
Obviously, I should not be trusted, according to Ed (as only he can
write it). By the way, Umfleet's narrative revises the traditionally
accepted narrative, which is why it has been controversial. Clearly
Sebesta knows nothing of the facts of the case.
Ed will have to explain this:
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=254
Judging from what Ed's said, one can't trust the Southern Poverty Law
Center, either. And yet he claims on his blog:
Southern Poverty Law Center. They do a great job tracking the
Neo-Confederates.
And yet they chose to interview me (and not Ed ... yet again) on this
issue, a person whose "tactics ... are unfortunately all too often the
stuff of which our national historical consciousness is constructed."
Given what I said in the interview, that means that Ed thinks we have
to return to the "Birth of a Nation" view of things .... but wait ...
isn't that what Ed claims he is fighting in his blog?
So, just how confused is Ed Sebesta?
One thing's for sure, if you are a neo-Confederate, then Ed Sebesta's
something of a blessing for you.
As for Ed, life's become a little more complicated in the temple.
Perhaps he needs to look into padded pillars.
Brooks Simpson
After all, look at this:
From: http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=249
----- excerpt begins -----
"They're getting frustrated and just dropping their pretenses," says Ed
Sebesta, a longtime researcher of the neo-Confederate movement.
"They certainly want the revival of the principles of the Confederacy,"
adds Arizona State University historian Brooks Simpson (see interview
White Lies), "and one of those principles would in fact be white
supremacy, unquestioned and explicit. The racism that's woven into
their comments is often quite astonishing."
----- excerpt ends -----
Now, Ed and I are quoted in support of the same point in consecutive
paragraphs, and yet we all know what Ed thinks of me. One wonders then
what Ed thinks of himself, since he is quoted as being on the same
side.
Ed's confused. The temple's becoming a safe room ... maybe an asylum.
j...@ams.org
Brooks Simpson wrote:
> Ed's confused. The temple's becoming a safe room ... maybe an asylum.
Ed's on record as thinking Bud Robertson is a neo-Confederate. That
tells
you that Ed's elevator is not stopping at every floor.
JFE
Brian Hampton
Hash: SHA1
j...@ams.org wrote:
> Ed's on record as thinking Bud Robertson is a neo-Confederate. That
> tells you that Ed's elevator is not stopping at every floor.
I'm shocked, shocked I tell you, that one of Sebata's rants has been
found to be devoid of intellectual integrity.
Same train, different junction.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFDsfa4Pk+fPfjDYVcRApDxAJ9fuW9vyMDJr522urOomVG3UZBDYgCfZF7b
5OCqUH4IDmG6xpKqGbSTIoo=
=6G4z
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Mike Griffith
Carolina Div. United Daughters of the Confederacy post card of the Ku
Klux Klan flag which they are very proud of that it is in the Museum of
the Confederacy. The post card, quite appropriately used a Robert E.
Lee,
Stonewall Jackson 4 cent stamp. >>>
This is misleading. The postcard is in the Museum of the Confederacy
because it's an historical artifact. It's not from the modern KKK but
from the 19th-century one.
And where did the UDC say they were "proud" to have the postcard in the
Museum of the Confederacy?
Finally, Lee and Jackson were not racists. Both men were known for
treating blacks with kindness and respect. Lee attempted to break down
racial barriers after the war. Jackson started a Sunday school for
slaves in his town and donated money to it during the war. If they
were alive today, both men would angrily strongly reject the KKK. If
you don't know this, then you have some homework to do.
Mike Griffith
Civil War website
http://ourworld.cs.com/mikegriffith1/id163.htm
http://michaelgriffith1.tripod.com/griffitharticles2.htm
Mike Griffith
Carolina Div. United Daughters of the Confederacy post card of the Ku
Klux Klan flag which they are very proud of that it is in the Museum of
the Confederacy. The post card, quite appropriately used a Robert E.
Lee,
Stonewall Jackson 4 cent stamp. >>>
This is misleading. The postcard is in the Museum of the Confederacy
because it's an historical artifact. It's not from the modern KKK but
from the 19th-century one.
And where did the UDC say they were "proud" to have the postcard in the
Museum of the Confederacy?
Finally, Lee and Jackson were not racists. Both men were known for
treating blacks with kindness and respect. Lee attempted to break down
racial barriers after the war. Jackson started a Sunday school for
slaves in his town and donated money to it during the war. If they
were alive today, both men would angrily and strongly reject the KKK.
scribe7716
Mike Griffith wrote:
> Finally, Lee and Jackson were not racists. Both men were known for
> treating blacks with kindness and respect. Lee attempted to break down
> racial barriers after the war.
Post rebellion, Robert E. Lee advised his cousin Thomas H. Carter
against using black labor on his plantation, saying, "I have always
observed," Lee said, "that wherever you find the negro, everything is
going down around him, and wherever you find the white man, you see
everything around him improving."
Tesifying under oath before the Joint Committee of the United States
Senate, Lee said, "I do not think that he [a black] is as capable of
acquring knowledge as the white man is... They are an amiable, social
race. They like their ease and comfort, and, I think look more to the
present time than the future.
He testified further that blacks "At this time, they cannot vote
intelligently," and warned that black voting would "exclude proper
representation, that is, proper intelligent people would not be
elected."
He also testified that "I think it would be better for Virginia if she
could get rid of them [the blacks]."
Seems that Lee's preferred method of breaking down racial barriers was
the expulsion of all these amiable, comfort-loving, unintelligent folk
from Virginia before they took some political power away from the
proper intelligent (read white) white, folk.
Barry
"Mike Griffith" <mikegri...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:1136118381.5...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
> Finally, Lee and Jackson were not racists. Both men were known for
> treating blacks with kindness and respect. Lee attempted to break down
> racial barriers after the war. Jackson started a Sunday school for
> slaves in his town and donated money to it during the war. If they
> were alive today, both men would angrily and strongly reject the KKK.
> If you don't know this, then you have some homework to do.
>
> Mike Griffith
> Civil War website
> http://ourworld.cs.com/mikegriffith1/id163.htm
> http://michaelgriffith1.tripod.com/griffitharticles2.htm
>
Lee & Jackson were not racists by the standards of their time, but would
surely be derided as such in this corrupt & irrational era, in which the lie
of racial "equality" has such sway. They both wanted blacks to prosper &
live in peace, but if they returned from the grave today, to see tax $$
forcibly collected from whites in order to pay nigresses to have large
broods, and saw whites forced to attend school and work with negroes, and
became aware of the thousands of whites raped & murdered each year by
negroes, who often are acquitted by affirmative action juries; and witnessed
all of the mulatto children being born to half-witted white wenches, they
would probably found a new Invisible Empire at once! The Invisible Empire
reputedly got its name because Gen. Lee stated that his support of it would
have to be invisible.
ray o'hara
"Barry" <bhac...@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:oJ0vf.24080$g_6....@tornado.texas.rr.com...
you are amazing nazi boy.
Barry
is more ugly name-calling, like the low intellligence troll you are.
"ray o'hara" <r...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:sZ-dnacTE8e...@comcast.com...
Mike Griffith
scribe7716 wrote:
> Mike Griffith wrote:
>
> > Finally, Lee and Jackson were not racists. Both men were known for
> > treating blacks with kindness and respect. Lee attempted to break down
> > racial barriers after the war.
>
> Post rebellion, Robert E. Lee advised his cousin Thomas H. Carter
> against using black labor on his plantation, saying, "I have always
> observed," Lee said, "that wherever you find the negro, everything is
> going down around him, and wherever you find the white man, you see
> everything around him improving."
And the vast majority of Northern citizens felt the same way. So did
most whites in Europe.
> Tesifying under oath before the Joint Committee of the United States
> Senate, Lee said, "I do not think that he [a black] is as capable of
> acquring knowledge as the white man is... They are an amiable, social
> race. They like their ease and comfort, and, I think look more to the
> present time than the future.
>
> He testified further that blacks "At this time, they cannot vote
> intelligently," and warned that black voting would "exclude proper
> representation, that is, proper intelligent people would not be
> elected."
>
> He also testified that "I think it would be better for Virginia if she
> could get rid of them [the blacks]."
>
> Seems that Lee's preferred method of breaking down racial barriers was
> the expulsion of all these amiable, comfort-loving, unintelligent folk
> from Virginia before they took some political power away from the
> proper intelligent (read white) white, folk.
Again, the views you're quoting were shared by most white Americans of
that day--and you know it.
None of this means or proves that Lee was a racist. He believed in
white supremacy, as did most of his fellow white Americans and most
whites in Europe, but he wished blacks no ill-will, wished the best for
them, and treated all blacks with whom he came into contact with
dignity and respect.
scribe7716
Mike Griffith wrote:
> > Post rebellion, Robert E. Lee advised his cousin Thomas H. Carter
> > against using black labor on his plantation, saying, "I have always
> > observed," Lee said, "that wherever you find the negro, everything is
> > going down around him, and wherever you find the white man, you see
> > everything around him improving."
>
> And the vast majority of Northern citizens felt the same way. So did
> most whites in Europe.
Truly?
Surely the people who pushed passage of the 13th, 14th, and 15th
amendments did not think so. And in the south the big mule planters
were perfectly content to prfot from the labor of blacks upgraded from
slavery to de facto peonage under state black codes.
By the way, "So's your old man" is an inadequate defense.
> > Tesifying under oath before the Joint Committee of the United States
> > Senate, Lee said, "I do not think that he [a black] is as capable of
> > acquring knowledge as the white man is... They are an amiable, social
> > race. They like their ease and comfort, and, I think look more to the
> > present time than the future.
> >
> > He testified further that blacks "At this time, they cannot vote
> > intelligently," and warned that black voting would "exclude proper
> > representation, that is, proper intelligent people would not be
> > elected."
> >
> > He also testified that "I think it would be better for Virginia if she
> > could get rid of them [the blacks]."
> >
> > Seems that Lee's preferred method of breaking down racial barriers was
> > the expulsion of all these amiable, comfort-loving, unintelligent folk
> > from Virginia before they took some political power away from the
> > proper intelligent (read white) white, folk.
>
> Again, the views you're quoting were shared by most white Americans of
> that day--and you know it.
"So's your old man" again?
> None of this means or proves that Lee was a racist. He believed in
> white supremacy, as did most of his fellow white Americans and most
> whites in Europe, but he wished blacks no ill-will, wished the best for
> them, and treated all blacks with whom he came into contact with
> dignity and respect.
And his best for them was that they be banned from voting and exiled
from Lee's beloved Virginia so that the white folks could get on with
the business of perpetuating rule by the "proper intelligent people."
Does it take a white hood and lynch rope to qualify as racist in your
book?
ray o'hara
"scribe7716" <>
> And his best for them was that they be banned from voting and exiled
> from Lee's beloved Virginia so that the white folks could get on with
> the business of perpetuating rule by the "proper intelligent people."
> Does it take a white hood and lynch rope to qualify as racist in your
> book?
>
for barry the nazi a hood and noose are the highest form of patriotism.
to him a racist is a white who doesn't hate blacks or jews. to him that
person hates fellow whites. which in his warped world is the height of
racism
Barry
"ray o'hara" <r...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:M_-dnaEyJIAxP0_e...@comcast.com...