Neo-confederate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Accuracy dispute This article may not be compliant with the content policies of Wikipedia.
To be compliant, it must be written from a neutral point of view and must not include unverifiable, unsuitable material, or original research.
Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page.
This article or section may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.
Please help improve this article or replace this tag with a more specific message. This article has been tagged since September 2006. (help, talk)

The term neo-confederate describes a political and cultural movement based in the U.S. Southern states that is characterized by celebration of the history of the Confederate States of America (CSA) and support for the CSA's aims. It is alleged that Neo-confederate issues include states rights, such as nullification (in which state laws override federal laws, up to and including the United States Constitution), a pro-confederate view of history, particularly regarding the American Civil War. Some groups in the movement support outright future secession, while others focus on preserving their image of southern heritage. The term "neo-confederate" is to many people a pejorative political epithet and its application to specific groups and individuals has caused controversy.

Controversy arises when targets do not call for future secession but are otherwise pro-confederate. For example, the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC) and the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV), both long-standing Civil War genealogical/historic preservation associations, have both been called "neo-confederate" by some critics although neither group advocates another secession.[citation needed] However both groups have energetically praised the secession of 1861.

A group that is frequently accused of being "neo-confederate" is the League of the South (LS), which indeed advocates future secession. It claims to seek the "well-being and independence of the Southern people." [1] A number of small political parties also call for secession, including the Southern Party and its offshoot, the Southern Independence Party.

Contents

[edit] Controversies over use of the term

[edit] Use of "Neo-Confederate" as political epithet

The term "neo-confederate" is often employed as a pejorative description of people who take a sympathetic view of Southern history (particularly in connection with the American Civil War) and views on the Civil War that are not deemed "politically correct" (see Political Correctness).[citation needed] It is also used sometimes to criticize people who echo the old Copperhead attacks against Abraham Lincoln and the emancipation proclamation.

In 1999 during a radio interview the Civil War historian James M. McPherson offended many Southern heritage organizations when he associated the UDC with the neo-confederate movement and described board members of the Museum of the Confederacy in Richmond, Virginia as "undoubtedly neo-confederate." He further said that the UDC and the SCV have "white supremacy" as their "thinly veiled agendas." The incident outraged members of the UDC and the SCV, who accused McPherson of unfairly attacking them. Some SCV and UDC chapters subsequently urged their members to boycott his books and engaged in letter-writing campaigns.[2]

Ed Sebesta, a "neo-confederate watchdog", frequently applies the label "neo-confederate" to organizations and political figures he opposes. Sebesta operates the Temple of Democracy website, which he styles as an "anti-Neo-Confederate movement" organization. He is also a well known Usenet activist and posts anti-"neo-confederate" alerts there under his name and formerly a pseudonym "The Crawfish" on Civil War discussion boards. Sebesta accuses several well known figures in politics and academia of being "pro-Confederate and pro-neo-Confederate" or "opportunistically trying to get neo-confederate or racist support." Among those he has levelled accusations against are Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, who he criticized for writing letters of commendation to confederate-related organizations such as the UDC, the SCV, and the Museum of The Confederacy, as well as several other members of Congress.[3][4] His tactics have been condemned by groups such as the UDC. He is also considered non-credible by many fellow participants on the moderated Civil War Usenet board. His critics include academics such as Civil War historian Brooks Simpson and mathematician James Epperson, who operates a popular Civil War website. The Virginia UDC chapter describes Sebesta as a "hater of all things Confederate" and states that his website is "especially slanderous" toward their organization [5]. Though these allegations have earned him a reputation among some for abusively using the term, Sebesta has been quoted as an "expert" or "researcher" on the neo-confederate movement by several media outlets on the political left such as Pacifica Radio and Salon.com[citation needed].

[edit] Alleged Neo-Confederate "Revisionism"

When asked about purported "neo-confederate revisionism" and the people behind it, Arizona State University professor and Civil War historian Brooks D. Simpson said that:

This is an active attempt to reshape historical memory, an effort by white Southerners to find historical justifications for present-day actions. The neo-confederate movement's ideologues have grasped that if they control how people remember the past, they'll control how people approach the present and the future. Ultimately, this is a very conscious war for memory and heritage. It's a quest for legitimacy, the eternal quest for justification. [6]

[edit] Controversy in identifying neo-confederate groups

Given that its use frequently has a pejorative or disparaging connotation, the application of the term "neo-confederate" to groups that do not readily fit the description of a secessionist organization is controversial. The term is commonly employed by organizations on the political left, while many of the organizations it is applied to are on the political right. There is little consensus over which groups are properly termed "neo-confederate" and which are not, even among the organizations that monitor them.

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a controversial private organization headed by Morris Dees, is the principal group reporting on the supposed "neo-confederate movement." A special report by the SPLC's Mark Potok in their magazine, Intelligence Report, describes a number of groups as "neo-confederate" in 2000. (see #Neo-Confederate groups). The SPLC has carried subsequent articles on the neo-confederate movement. "Lincoln Reconstructed" published in 2003 in the Intelligence Report focuses on the resurgent demonization of Abraham Lincoln in the South. The article quotes the chaplain of the SCV as giving an invocation which recalled "the last real Christian civilization on Earth." The article further mentions that the LewRockwell.com website hosts a collection of anti-Lincoln articles, which led Marcus Epstein of the von Mises Institute to compare the SPLC's tactics to McCarthyism[7]. "Whitewashing the Confederacy" was a review that alleged that the movie Gods and Generals presented a false, pro-confederate view of history. [8] Myles Kantor of the conservative FrontPage Magazine described the review as a "web of falsehood."[9]

An article in the liberal Institute for Southern Studies' magazine, Southern Exposure, uses the "neo-confederate" label for the League of the South, the Council of Conservative Citizens (CofCC), the UDC, the SCV, and the Museum of the Confederacy.[10]

An evangelical Christian organization has applied the "neo-confederate" label to various pro-southern groups, basing this characterization on various biblical interpretations and prophecies. The evangelical Liberty Advocate group claims that "neo-confederates" are "rooted in the occult" and identifies them as the Anti-Christ. The organization's Karen Pansler asserts that alleged "neo-confederate" veneration for civil war generals is a continuation of Celtic worship of pagan "warrior-gods" transposed into modern times. [11][12] Liberty Advocate also claims that historical Civil War reenactor groups are used to promote "neo-confederate" goals. Likening them to the Hitler Youth, Pansler describes historical reenactors as part of a "covert conspiracy to recruit our children to their evil cause."[13]

Not everyone avoids the term. Al Benson Jr., officer of the Southern Independence Party declares, "I am part of what demagogue Morris Dees calls the 'Neo-Confederate Movement'". [14][15] In an article posted to the "Patriotist" weblog Benson criticizes Professor McPherson for appearing on Pacifica and for being cited repeatedly on and giving interviews to a socialist website. Benson bemoans the bias of "social historians":

Is it any wonder that interested Americans have no real concept of what the War of Northern Aggression was all about? With 'historians' like Sandburg, Nolan, and McPherson, you are basically getting what amounts to a Marxist version of what the war was all about. [16]

[edit] Lists of alleged Neo-Confederates

The following groups have been labelled "neo-confederate" or "pro-confederate" by one or more organizations or persons as designated in parenthesis. Abbreviations Key: SPLC = Southern Poverty Law Center "Hate Group" watchlist [17]; IR = 2001 Intelligence Report feature by the SPLC's Mark Potok [18]; S = Ed Sebesta; M = James McPherson; LA = Liberty Advocate

The following have been accused only by Mr Sebesta, and deny it

Various SPLC publications and Sebesta have also accused several well known American scholars, political commentators, and political figures of having connections to or supporting "neo-confederate" causes or groups. The following are among those accused. Abbreviations Key: IR = SPLC Intelligence Report magazine[20]; S = Ed Sebesta

(Gail Jarvis on LewRockwell.com)

The following scholars and politicians have been named by Mr Sebesta and no one else:

[edit] External links

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/e/o/Neo-confederate.html"