Brooks D. Simpson on Robert E. Lee

Brooks D. Simpson on Robert E. Lee

New York

Brooks D. Simpson has noticed the recent post here about Robert E. Lee’s support for the expulsion of African-Americans from Virginia.

He also cited a comment that I made a few days ago about Facebook groups like the “Southern Heritage Preservation Group” and the “180 Degrees True South.”

These groups are typically composed of Baby Boomers like Connie Chastain who are highly invested in the project of propagating a false and disingenuous account of the Confederacy and Southern heritage on the internet.

The real Confederates would have been shocked by their liberal racial views which were well known in the South at the time and which were denounced as “Black Republicanism” and “Radicalism” and which were commonly associated with John Brown, William Lloyd Garrison, Thaddeus Stevens and “the Radical party” that was seen as the enemy of White Southerners.

They would have certainly found it strange to hear their descendants rambling on about “Black Confederates” and denouncing “racism” and “white supremacy.” After all, it was Confederate veterans who formed the Ku Klux Klan, the White League, the White Line, the Red Shirts, the Regulators and the other race based paramilitary organizations which violently overthrew Reconstruction in the Lower South.

Every former Confederate state was given the opportunity to rejoin the United States on the terms of the 14th Amendment. The White majority in every Confederate state (with the exception of Tennessee, which was under “Parson” Brownlow’s dictatorship) overwhelmingly rejected the 14th Amendment.

If the Confederacy was this multicultural utopia that these liars on the internet make it out to be, why did the ex-Confederates violently overthrow Reconstruction, demonize Lincoln and John Brown, vilify General Longstreet for joining the Republican Party, describe the overthrow of Reconstruction as the “Redemption” of the Southern states, and work tirelessly to create the Jim Crow South?

It would be accurate to say that the racial views of the “180 Degrees True South” and the “Southern Heritage Preservation Group” are objectively to the left of Andrew Johnson and the scalawags. They are also to the left of the White population of Kansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Ohio, New York, and Connecticut which all voted down negro equality in the first years of Reconstruction. Ohio even rescinded its ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868 for being “contrary to the best interests of the white race.”

The Confederacy was unabashedly based on the defense of slavery and white supremacy. The vast majority of White Southerners believed that negroes were an inferior race who lacked the capacity for equal citizenship in a republican government. They were horrified by the thought that fanatics in the North like Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens wanted to degrade them by making negroes their social, political, and civic equals.

The typical White Southerner believed that the free negro was nothing but a curse and a burden upon civilization. It was a common belief in the South that the free negro wouldn’t work without coercion and would die out after the abolition of slavery from his own stupidity and laziness. Nowhere was the prospect of black majority rule greeted in the South with anything but disgust and opposition from the White population.

As late as 1964, White Southerners in Congress filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for over fifty days and voted 9 to 1 in the House and Senate against integration. White Southerners also voted down the Civil Rights Act of 1957, the Civil Rights Act of 1960, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the Civil Rights Act of 1968.

The only reason these bills ever passed Congress is because Northerners and Westerners united across party lines to vote for them by greater margins than Southerners could oppose them. Anyone who claims that “anti-racism” or “multiculturalism” are in anyway “Southern” or “Confederate” is either grossly ignorant of Southern history or a mendacious liar trying to mislead the public.

It is highly significant that no Southern generation before the Baby Boomers (and this includes Jefferson Davis, Alexander Stephens, Robert E. Lee, and Confederate veterans) ever attempted to defend the Confederacy in such a disingenuous way. Previous generations were unconflicted about their racial values and defending the memory of their ancestors.

“Southern heritage” is synonymous with racialism, slavery, segregation, and white supremacy. The tension between the Baby Boomer counterculture and Southern heritage is why there is a market for black eccentrics like H.K. Edgerton to earn a $15,000 speaking fee to sing Dixie and pose with a Confederate flag.

This need for social approval from the liberal establishment media is also why Baby Boomer conservatives are always slobbering over the likes of Tim Scott, Allen West, Herman Cain and Marco Rubio. The existence of BRA is why there are all these silly Facebook groups trying to prove they are “not racists” by desperately searching through archives to find “Black Confederates.”

In reality, there were probably more “Gay Confederates” than “Black Confederates.” There isn’t a search for “Gay Confederates” though because the whole project is driven by Southern Christian neocons who still object to homosexuality for religious reasons. It says far more about contemporary Southern culture than the mindset of the generation that created the Confederacy.

Real Confederates wouldn’t have recognized “Southern heritage” as it is presented by the “Southern Heritage Preservation Group” and the “180 Degrees True South.” No generation of White Southerners before the Baby Boomers accepted their racial views. There are Gallup polls going back to 1940 that have tracked Southern racial attitudes for the past 72 years that confirm this.

The only thing these people have ever successfully accomplished is making themselves look ridiculous and losing virtually every battle they have ever fought in defense of “Southern heritage.” Their unprincipled defense of Southern heritage has actually undermined their own cause and made it less attractive than it otherwise would be.

Those of us who have never known any world other than BRA have no use for such apologetics. We have no use for people who defend that system that was imposed upon us without our consent either.

Follow Hunter Wallace on Gab, VK, Facebook and Twitter.
About Hunter Wallace 5903 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent


  1. Suppose for a moment that these are liberals attempting to rationalize and sublimate their own racism?

    It’s possible. It may be an indication of cracks in the BRA foundation. They are confused obviously but they are attempting to reconcile the cognitive dissonance in their own minds. Their liberal mindset simply Ends up making them look silly.

    Just a thought. Might be sign of victory rather than defeat. They are saying that the Confederacy wasn’t heresy as the TAKEAWAY.

  2. The Confederacy represents an historic Orthodoxy on citizenship and ethne, that goes back to Greece and probably beyond. They know it but can’t just say it.

  3. Thanks for posting this, HW. It’s much better stated by you than I could ever do. Still, I have no illusion that the Chastain generation will see the error of their ways. The newest generation, whatever letter of the alphabet it’s labeled today, is seeing the calamities it is faced with, and I have more confidence in them than in any since Lee’s. There’ll be a lot of suffering, however, as the rodents pack their bags for China.

    The newest frontier sounds like a good thing, and it will be. But frontiers are very rough terrain.

  4. This inability to see the Nigger as less than human is tied inextricably to the fallcy of universal salvation, which came about because of the Roman Cult’s schism from the other 4/5ths of the Ecumene (the inhabited Euro/Caucasoid ‘world’ of the Gospel’s Great Commission- [Matt. 28:16-20]) in AD 1054.

    By swallowing the Papacy’s Thomistic Rationalism, the subsequent Protestant missions boards, created to ‘bring the Gospel to the lost,’ were both:

    a) led to believe (via adopting wholesale the ‘Second Europe’s’ Augustinianism, viewed solely through the lens of Thomas Aquinas- remember, Luther was an Augustinian monk, anda Thomist!!) as well as;
    b) forced to compete with the ‘Catholic Nations’ (i.e., Spain and Portugal) in both:
    1) conquering, and
    2) thereafter, seeking (or merely hoping) to convert the unconvertable heathen in the “New World,” which never should have happened to those who held the ‘White Man’s Religion.’ (Look at the Negroes. – We’ve been trying to convert them into White Men for 400 years, and they STILL are like pagan savages. Only now it’s [c]rap and bling, instead of cannibalism and demon possession… )

    So, these “pseudo-Psouthernors” are merely being philosophically consistent, (and damned thereby) when contrasted to both the South’s Biblical antebellum racial praxis (to be a ‘nation set apart, that partakes not of the sins of the ‘heathen’ roundabout) and to the first thousand years of Missionary endeavor among the ‘heathen of Europe,’ before the Roman Schism.

    These types of Southernors may say they are not ‘Romanists,’ but their multicultural and multiracial churches belie them. Their actions as whores and sluts in God’s eyes, belie their ‘orthodoxy’ in their confessional statements. They are as equally damned in worshiping the Nigger, as the “Whore of Babylon” is, in elevating the Nigger to god-like status (as Cambria wrote last week)
    and holding the Christ-killing Jews as ‘children of the Covenant.’

    Even Jews who have converted to [Orthodox] Christianity have made this heretical stance clear, among Rome’s whoring minions and nancy-boys: the examples of the latter statement first, the first statement, last.

    “Philips is not against Christianity per se (or she would write for a different audience); she imagines for us a thoroughly Judaised, subdued Christianity-for-Goyim, a lower-tier entry-level faith for non-Jews. Adherents of Melanie Phillips’ Christianity-Lite will daily ask the Lord that He permit them to better serve the Jews. She denies Replacement Theology (Supersessionism), even though this is at the root of Christian dogma. She is shocked that Christians consider themselves to be the True Israel. What about the Jews, she shrills. Educated Christians understand that modern-day Jews have no valid claim on the title Israel (the Chosen People of God); they are false pretenders. The title belongs now and forever to the Christian Church…” – Israel Shamir, [former Jew, Israeli, convert to Orthodox Christianity] in his book review of a Jew’s poisonous tome, Melanie Phillips’ book called the The World Turned Upside Down. – accessed at

    -quoted in

    THIS is the ‘faith’ of people like Chastain and Simpson, the modern multicultural whores, and the Whore of Babylong/Church of Sodom… and teachers, principals, spokespersons, and hierarchs in all of the major denominations are guilty of this blasphemy…..that is, if they even HAVE a Faith in Christ, as the Kinsman-Redeemer of HIS People [Matt. 1:21] and ONLY His People.

    This stuff is not tangentially about religion, folks. It is ALL about a false vs. a TRUE faith. And y’all are iterating the TRUE stance on matters racial, as the bible has made clear, for 2000 years. And your enemies are the Jews…. just as they have ALWAYS been.

  5. It seems to me the vast majority of baby boomers have a terrible malady. They abhor taking ANY stance that would make it impossible for any individual to join their side. A racial stance means ideology sharing is not enough to become part of the ‘in’ group, therefor they reject it and seek to cleanse their particular ideology from anything that may preclude anyone else from joining them.

  6. Great post, Fr. John.
    The jews of now are not even jews, they hate goyim, yet they are goyim.
    The irony of this is mind numbing.
    A race of thieves and liars. This race of thieves has no humanity or faith in anything other than their own blood lust.

  7. Why don’t somebody just ask them why they side with the anti-whites (and you must use the term anti-whites or you just repeat the errors from the past decades)?

  8. @Simmons

    Because that will hurt someone`s feelings and it will also mean having to accurately identify our enemies from that point onward.

    What we really need is more theorizing and more sh1t and woe.

  9. When will these people ever learn? For over ten years, they been trying to pander to negroes in order to show that they are not racists or white supremacists and where has it got them? Nowhere.

    As I said before about all this “Black Confederate” and “Rainbow Confederacy.” It was b******* then, and its b******* now. Yet they still haven’t learned their lesson after all these years.

  10. The term “anti-white” kills the anti-whites they hate it, they loath it, they shriek at you for calling them that. O’Reilly used it to describe that registered Professor up at Haarvaard during a segment of his blowhorn and Jerry Rivers blew a fuse.

    In hundreds of exchanges with anti-whites that phrase brings the most return fire. If I had a buck for each time an anti-white wrote me back to tell me that they are not anti-white I could easily buy an iPad 3.

  11. Vanishing American says it started out as a strategy back in the 1990s. Then it became institutionalized as the movement attracted new recruits who were stupid enough to believe their silly rhetoric.

    The same thing happened to conservatism. Race was downplayed for strategic reasons. Then the Whites who became conservatives began to lose their racial consciousness.

  12. That’s the fatal thing. If the GOP were in some active positive way racially conscious it would help to provide balance. Without balance there will be a tipping point. Simple physics.

  13. The Confederacy was unabashedly based on the defense of slavery and white supremacy. The vast majority of White Southerners believed that negroes were an inferior race who lacked the capacity for equal citizenship in a republican government.

    The most interesting thing for me is, what about our situation today indicates that this vast majority was anything but right? If we could bring a White Southerner from that time to ours, what would he say but, “we told you so”? What of the supposed “fruits” of “civil rights” would sell him on our status quo? Other than simply going along to get along, of course.

    Which is what we’re left with; go along to get along. The ideology of the slave. Don’t get massuh angry wit you, o he’ll punish you.

  14. If we could bring a typical Southerner from 1860 to our time and show him around, and then send him back to his, how would the experience change him?

    He’d be twice as likely to fight to the death for the Confederacy?

  15. Why don’t somebody just ask them why they side with the anti-whites (and you must use the term anti-whites or you just repeat the errors from the past decades)?

    I prefer “racist” to “anti-White.” Liberals have successfully demonized “racism.” They’re also a pack of racists. So why not bash them with their own, perfectly applicable term? Call liberals “racists” and they’re on the defensive, forced to start defining terms and splitting hairs and “who-whom”-ing. Once they’re down in the trenches with us, bayonet warfare, they lose every time.

  16. Also, using the “racist” label against liberals is not only effective and appropriate, it also serves to debase their coinage. I believe this is what they call poisoning the discourse?

  17. @Svignor

    The anti-whites are not “racist” they are anti-white,and like you say,our fellow white citizens have had more than enough of that silly word being tossed about like confetti.

    Out with the old,in with the new!

  18. Since it wasn’t clear what his problem was with your post (whether he thought it was misrepresenting Lee, or whatever), I posted a rather comment asking him what was wrong with it, and he deleted it instead of answering it. That shows how close-minded and insular these people are.

  19. Simpson is an enormous intellectual fraud. Every criticism he lodges against “White Southerners” is equally true of “White Northerners”, but he deliberately conceals this fact. Additionally and in general, his writing is bromidic and unspiring, his research sloopy and carelesss, his arguments are vacuous, fatuous, and dishonest, and his sanctimonious posturing is comical and pathetic. Overall, Simpson is useless as a historian.

Comments are closed.