Some excuse the Confederate as patriots fighting for their country. Their country was founded on the right to engage in chattel slavery at the expense of fellow human beings. If you wish to romanticize their love of their state over the Union be clear that their state wished to continue an economy, culture & society built on the abuse of others’ freedom.
Let’s ask a different question: Should these now United States celebrate & honor those who rebelled against it in order to deny freedom from others? Should the Confederate Battle Flag, the Southern Cross, which has also been used by those embracing Nazi philosophy, be allowed to be exhibited on Federal property?
The provocative protester had the right to speak. I would prefer engaging the celebrants in conversation rather than confrontation. Both sides retired from the field of battle claiming victory in an otherwise stalemate.
Given that this man invoked Frederick Douglass, one might ask: What would Douglass himself have thought about it? While Douglass was certainly firm on his stance that there was a right side (the U.S.) and a wrong side (the Confederacy) in the war, he also made it clear that he didn't believe in continued malice toward the wrong side. Given that, it's very hard to believe he would have approved of disrupting a Confederate memorial service at a cemetery.
I was watching a news report on the Patriot Front marching with Confederate flags through downtown Virginia Beach last week. Most were young, without the body fat in your feature screen grab. Curtis Yarvin, the philosopher of Silicon Valley says that Blacks were better under slavery than Emancipation. The Lost Cause Is Dead is a modern historians cry that does not recognize that in the 21st Century the ideals of the Confederacy can be resurrected without the cover of the Lost Cause.
Doug Wilson, the head of a large denomination of Protestant churches, is the spiritual guide to Pete Hegseth. He has been invited to address military leaders at the Pentagon on a number of occasions, most recently in February of 2026 during the leadup to the United States attack on Iran. He is definitely not a Lost Causer because he does tie the defense of slavery to the Civil War. He has written two books on the Civil War. His first was "On Southern Slavery As It Was." He wrote: "“Slavery as it existed in the South was not an adversarial relationship with pervasive racial animosity. Because of its dominantly patriarchal character, it was a relationship based upon mutual affection and confidence. There has never been a multi-racial society which has existed with such mutual intimacy and harmony in the history of the world. The credit for this must go to the predominance of Christianity. The gospel enabled men who were distinct in nearly every way, to live and work together, to be friends and often intimates. This happened to such an extent that moderns indoctrinated on “civil rights” propaganda would be thunderstruck to know the half of it.”
Wilson is one of the leaders of Christian Nationalism in the United States, which is hardly fading away.
Doug Wilson does not try to ignore African Americans, like the old Lost Causers. He presents a new version of African American history that is increasing in its widespread acceptance among right-wing Protestant churches. Wilson writes:
“Given this testimony, it is not surprising that most southern blacks (both free and slave) supported the Southern war effort. Some of course supported that effort from purely seltish motives. Fully 25% of the free blacks owned slaves.’* Most of these were quite wealthy, and knew that a Northern victory would bring economic and social ruin on them, which, of course, it did. But many Southern blacks supported the South because of long established bonds of affection and trust that had been forged over generations with their white masters and friends. They gladly supported the war effort with food, labor, and sometimes fighting. Their loyalty to the principles of the South rivaled and was sometimes even greater than that of some whites.”
Thanks for this comment, Pat. I've always been pretty clear as to what I mean by the decline of the Lost Cause. I am almost always speaking of it in terms of its presence in the public sector. Most of what people refer to as "ideals of the Confederacy" are part of the broader story of this country. That almost always precede the Civil War entirely. By constantly pinning it on the Confederacy and the Lost Cause we distance this country from its own history.
"By constantly pinning it on the Confederacy and the Lost Cause we distance this country from its own history." Perhaps all history does that. However, modern opinion makers at elite circles are using the myth of slavery and the Confederacy as an example of the proper relations among the races. The Patriot Front may be marginal, but growing, but Yarvin and Wilson have been cited by powerful people like J.D Vance and Pete Hegseth.
Do the Post-Lost Cause influencers lie about the cause of the Civil War being about "States Rights?" No. They don't want states rights now that they have control of the Federal government.
The Patriot Front represents the worst of this country going back to the pre-Civil War period regardless of the historical rhetoric they choose to use.
General observation: It was an extremely inflammatory, stupid, and even disrespectful thing to do.
More specific observations:
1.) If he's going to call the Confederates "traitors to their country," he should in fairness acknowledge that as James McPherson has pointed out, Confederate soldiers and sailors considered the Confederacy to be their country during the war. This was not simply public propaganda--McPherson cites private letters/diaries where they call it that. It's also interesting to note that after the war, John Singleton Mosby was hardly a Lost Cause apologist--he acknowledged that slavery had been the cause of the war and said he disapproved of the institution. But he also said that "The South was my country," and accordingly that he wasn't ashamed to have fought for it.
2.) It's EXTREMELY disingenuous to engage in speech that is guaranteed, given its content and context, to cause a heated and even dangerous situation and then claim that you're "just there to speak." If this man didn't know what he was doing was likely to cause trouble, he's a total idiot. If he DID know, then he was shamelessly dishonest about his purpose in being there.
Took a post for my colleague, The Self-Emancipator, to coalesce my reactions to Kevin's post. My tribute is about a dozen posts down; my reactions are:
In the immortal (a.k.a. pre-MAGA) words of the US Dept of Agriculture's star spokes-bear, Smokey: "Only YOU can prevent racist fires!" (I could find nothing that reported anti-DEI finks telling US Forest Service that Smokey was dark-complected.)
Many "embers" of the Confederacy and its multitude of army campfires went un-doused. We ignored them, because we had thought they had died out. Then, in the idiotic misapplication of the principle of "free speech" we allowed them to be rekindled.
It took an unscrupulous Southerner (I'll narrow that down: Mister Eighty-Seven Votes, LBJ himself) who taught school to impoverished Mex-Am children in beyond-rural Texas, to push through the first effective Civil Rights Law in a century (give or take).
Now, instead of a firefighter's shovel in Smokey's Paw, we had to literally SEE firesetters relighting racist embers with lit Tiki-Torches in Charlottesville.
I stand firmly with the man channeling Frederick Douglass. (Loudly, I Hope, and with panache: I suddenly flashed on Dick Gregory in a tux, with a cigarette, mockingly asking a KKK demonstrator to hold his torch steady, so he can get a light.)
As you may remember Kevin there was a time years ago that I too was hypnotized by the Lost Cause. I've come very far over the years and it has greatly improved all of my work. Some of that conversion is due to your work which I have come to greatly respect. I completely understand this guys intent and logic but interrupting a ceremony in a graveyard is in bad taste. This guy appears to be well educated on the subject. Perhaps he could of had a bigger impact if he waited until they left the cemetery and initiated a discussion.
Almost a koan: if a graveyard has already been desecrated, what does talking to the desecrators desecrate?
OR: waiting until the sadsacks are getting into their cars is not the ideal time to tell them anything, except, inviting them to a quiet bar for a round on yourself. But: be sure you already have the barkeep as a pal!
There are people who love to attack the weak, imagining themselves the moral equivalent of people who once faced real power and risked their lives for it.
I don’t agree with the protestor’s method. All he did was rile up a bunch of MAGAs and he could have really gotten hurt. Much as I disagree with honoring those who fought for the Confederacy, those men had every right to hold a ceremony honoring them. Like somebody else said, standing outside the cemetery with a sign would have been a much better and safer way to go.
This one really made me think about both sides of the coin.
I know there are some who feel that making people uncomfortable is a good way to jumpstart learning and get them to think about a certain issue or topic. That is perhaps true in some instances, particularly after the confrontation is over (bearing in mind if the person has any intellectual curiosity), however, in my experience, many people when confronted either dig in or shut down rather than opening up their minds.
In this instance, I dont' think the protester was going to change anyone's mind, if that was even his objective. It probably wasn't. If it was, he may have been more effective if he stood outside the cemetery with a sign conveying a message he wanted to get across rather than being so belligerent, especially in a cemetery.
I agree with Tim. I think we all agree on the diagnosis, but differ on the remedy.
What I mean by that is we all acknowledge that conversing over the realities of slavery, the Confederacy, and the Lost Cause are essential. While reciting FD’s speech is powerful, these men are most likely set in their ways and will not see a different perspective. These types of protests, and even candid conversation are helpful, but you’ll also need to know your audience.
Protesting at a memorial service for anyone is generally a bad idea, very poor optics.
Modern historians broadly agree the war's root cause was slavery and its expansion per secession ordinances, Confederate constitution, and contemporary statements, and soldiers' motivations reflected that intertwined reality. The "Lost Cause" view emphasizing only states' rights or pure defense—while downplaying slavery—emerged postwar and is not supported by primary evidence from the era. Soldiers could sincerely believe they fought for "liberty" while defending a slave society; these were not seen as contradictory in their context.
In short, the typical Confederate soldier fought primarily to defend his home against invasion while believing he was upholding Southern independence, liberty, and a society built on slavery.
And today society views the Confederacy and the Civil War through the lens of modernism, but it is important to realize that in 1800 slavery was a reality across all societies and eras. It was a near-universal human practice for most of history, practiced by people of all races and on all continents.
The Greeks and Romans had slaves, the Native Americans had slaves, medieval Britain had slaves, and slavery was an ancient institution in Africa and China.
This does not excuse the immorality of slavery, but it was not an evolved position for most of humanity until the 19th century.
"Not every fading ember needs to be stamped out. Some are best left to go cold on their own. What do you think?"
I support what this post says, but also: I think it's important to remember that the death of the Lost Cause is not the same as the arrival of general enlightenment about Civil War small-m memory. My sense, for example, is that people still harbor enough thoughtless both-sidesism that they balk, some of them, if you describe the Confederate program as what it was: crimes against humanity.
Steve, thanks for helping me clarify deep-seated reactions to Kevin's even-deeper-than-usual post today. I happened to be up at 4AM and made the mistake of reading it before my cuppa. Yes, crimes against humanity, but before #45$47 I used to believe "humanity" was a forward-evolving concept. Took me nearly a half-day to crystallize my feelings and thoughts, posted in order of postings....
Some excuse the Confederate as patriots fighting for their country. Their country was founded on the right to engage in chattel slavery at the expense of fellow human beings. If you wish to romanticize their love of their state over the Union be clear that their state wished to continue an economy, culture & society built on the abuse of others’ freedom.
Let’s ask a different question: Should these now United States celebrate & honor those who rebelled against it in order to deny freedom from others? Should the Confederate Battle Flag, the Southern Cross, which has also been used by those embracing Nazi philosophy, be allowed to be exhibited on Federal property?
The provocative protester had the right to speak. I would prefer engaging the celebrants in conversation rather than confrontation. Both sides retired from the field of battle claiming victory in an otherwise stalemate.
Given that this man invoked Frederick Douglass, one might ask: What would Douglass himself have thought about it? While Douglass was certainly firm on his stance that there was a right side (the U.S.) and a wrong side (the Confederacy) in the war, he also made it clear that he didn't believe in continued malice toward the wrong side. Given that, it's very hard to believe he would have approved of disrupting a Confederate memorial service at a cemetery.
I was watching a news report on the Patriot Front marching with Confederate flags through downtown Virginia Beach last week. Most were young, without the body fat in your feature screen grab. Curtis Yarvin, the philosopher of Silicon Valley says that Blacks were better under slavery than Emancipation. The Lost Cause Is Dead is a modern historians cry that does not recognize that in the 21st Century the ideals of the Confederacy can be resurrected without the cover of the Lost Cause.
Doug Wilson, the head of a large denomination of Protestant churches, is the spiritual guide to Pete Hegseth. He has been invited to address military leaders at the Pentagon on a number of occasions, most recently in February of 2026 during the leadup to the United States attack on Iran. He is definitely not a Lost Causer because he does tie the defense of slavery to the Civil War. He has written two books on the Civil War. His first was "On Southern Slavery As It Was." He wrote: "“Slavery as it existed in the South was not an adversarial relationship with pervasive racial animosity. Because of its dominantly patriarchal character, it was a relationship based upon mutual affection and confidence. There has never been a multi-racial society which has existed with such mutual intimacy and harmony in the history of the world. The credit for this must go to the predominance of Christianity. The gospel enabled men who were distinct in nearly every way, to live and work together, to be friends and often intimates. This happened to such an extent that moderns indoctrinated on “civil rights” propaganda would be thunderstruck to know the half of it.”
Wilson is one of the leaders of Christian Nationalism in the United States, which is hardly fading away.
https://thereconstructionera.com/pete-hegseths-minister-says-that-slavery-wasnt-that-bad-part-4/
Doug Wilson does not try to ignore African Americans, like the old Lost Causers. He presents a new version of African American history that is increasing in its widespread acceptance among right-wing Protestant churches. Wilson writes:
“Given this testimony, it is not surprising that most southern blacks (both free and slave) supported the Southern war effort. Some of course supported that effort from purely seltish motives. Fully 25% of the free blacks owned slaves.’* Most of these were quite wealthy, and knew that a Northern victory would bring economic and social ruin on them, which, of course, it did. But many Southern blacks supported the South because of long established bonds of affection and trust that had been forged over generations with their white masters and friends. They gladly supported the war effort with food, labor, and sometimes fighting. Their loyalty to the principles of the South rivaled and was sometimes even greater than that of some whites.”
https://thereconstructionera.com/pete-hegseth-religious-leaders-shocking-conclusion-on-slavery-emancipation-part-5/
Thanks for this comment, Pat. I've always been pretty clear as to what I mean by the decline of the Lost Cause. I am almost always speaking of it in terms of its presence in the public sector. Most of what people refer to as "ideals of the Confederacy" are part of the broader story of this country. That almost always precede the Civil War entirely. By constantly pinning it on the Confederacy and the Lost Cause we distance this country from its own history.
"By constantly pinning it on the Confederacy and the Lost Cause we distance this country from its own history." Perhaps all history does that. However, modern opinion makers at elite circles are using the myth of slavery and the Confederacy as an example of the proper relations among the races. The Patriot Front may be marginal, but growing, but Yarvin and Wilson have been cited by powerful people like J.D Vance and Pete Hegseth.
Do the Post-Lost Cause influencers lie about the cause of the Civil War being about "States Rights?" No. They don't want states rights now that they have control of the Federal government.
The Patriot Front represents the worst of this country going back to the pre-Civil War period regardless of the historical rhetoric they choose to use.
General observation: It was an extremely inflammatory, stupid, and even disrespectful thing to do.
More specific observations:
1.) If he's going to call the Confederates "traitors to their country," he should in fairness acknowledge that as James McPherson has pointed out, Confederate soldiers and sailors considered the Confederacy to be their country during the war. This was not simply public propaganda--McPherson cites private letters/diaries where they call it that. It's also interesting to note that after the war, John Singleton Mosby was hardly a Lost Cause apologist--he acknowledged that slavery had been the cause of the war and said he disapproved of the institution. But he also said that "The South was my country," and accordingly that he wasn't ashamed to have fought for it.
2.) It's EXTREMELY disingenuous to engage in speech that is guaranteed, given its content and context, to cause a heated and even dangerous situation and then claim that you're "just there to speak." If this man didn't know what he was doing was likely to cause trouble, he's a total idiot. If he DID know, then he was shamelessly dishonest about his purpose in being there.
Took a post for my colleague, The Self-Emancipator, to coalesce my reactions to Kevin's post. My tribute is about a dozen posts down; my reactions are:
In the immortal (a.k.a. pre-MAGA) words of the US Dept of Agriculture's star spokes-bear, Smokey: "Only YOU can prevent racist fires!" (I could find nothing that reported anti-DEI finks telling US Forest Service that Smokey was dark-complected.)
Many "embers" of the Confederacy and its multitude of army campfires went un-doused. We ignored them, because we had thought they had died out. Then, in the idiotic misapplication of the principle of "free speech" we allowed them to be rekindled.
It took an unscrupulous Southerner (I'll narrow that down: Mister Eighty-Seven Votes, LBJ himself) who taught school to impoverished Mex-Am children in beyond-rural Texas, to push through the first effective Civil Rights Law in a century (give or take).
Now, instead of a firefighter's shovel in Smokey's Paw, we had to literally SEE firesetters relighting racist embers with lit Tiki-Torches in Charlottesville.
I stand firmly with the man channeling Frederick Douglass. (Loudly, I Hope, and with panache: I suddenly flashed on Dick Gregory in a tux, with a cigarette, mockingly asking a KKK demonstrator to hold his torch steady, so he can get a light.)
Honestly I loved the bit when he talked about the cowhide whip and that guy freaked out. It spoke volumes
Possible assault which happened to the protester.
The protester knew there were great risks involved he felt he could not do otherwise or he could not live with himself. James A. Cousineau
What "great risks" are you referring to?
As you may remember Kevin there was a time years ago that I too was hypnotized by the Lost Cause. I've come very far over the years and it has greatly improved all of my work. Some of that conversion is due to your work which I have come to greatly respect. I completely understand this guys intent and logic but interrupting a ceremony in a graveyard is in bad taste. This guy appears to be well educated on the subject. Perhaps he could of had a bigger impact if he waited until they left the cemetery and initiated a discussion.
Almost a koan: if a graveyard has already been desecrated, what does talking to the desecrators desecrate?
OR: waiting until the sadsacks are getting into their cars is not the ideal time to tell them anything, except, inviting them to a quiet bar for a round on yourself. But: be sure you already have the barkeep as a pal!
There are people who love to attack the weak, imagining themselves the moral equivalent of people who once faced real power and risked their lives for it.
I don’t agree with the protestor’s method. All he did was rile up a bunch of MAGAs and he could have really gotten hurt. Much as I disagree with honoring those who fought for the Confederacy, those men had every right to hold a ceremony honoring them. Like somebody else said, standing outside the cemetery with a sign would have been a much better and safer way to go.
The old saw about discretion etc. comes to mind.
This one really made me think about both sides of the coin.
I know there are some who feel that making people uncomfortable is a good way to jumpstart learning and get them to think about a certain issue or topic. That is perhaps true in some instances, particularly after the confrontation is over (bearing in mind if the person has any intellectual curiosity), however, in my experience, many people when confronted either dig in or shut down rather than opening up their minds.
In this instance, I dont' think the protester was going to change anyone's mind, if that was even his objective. It probably wasn't. If it was, he may have been more effective if he stood outside the cemetery with a sign conveying a message he wanted to get across rather than being so belligerent, especially in a cemetery.
Thank for alway finding ways to make me think!
I agree with Tim. I think we all agree on the diagnosis, but differ on the remedy.
What I mean by that is we all acknowledge that conversing over the realities of slavery, the Confederacy, and the Lost Cause are essential. While reciting FD’s speech is powerful, these men are most likely set in their ways and will not see a different perspective. These types of protests, and even candid conversation are helpful, but you’ll also need to know your audience.
Protesting at a memorial service for anyone is generally a bad idea, very poor optics.
Modern historians broadly agree the war's root cause was slavery and its expansion per secession ordinances, Confederate constitution, and contemporary statements, and soldiers' motivations reflected that intertwined reality. The "Lost Cause" view emphasizing only states' rights or pure defense—while downplaying slavery—emerged postwar and is not supported by primary evidence from the era. Soldiers could sincerely believe they fought for "liberty" while defending a slave society; these were not seen as contradictory in their context.
In short, the typical Confederate soldier fought primarily to defend his home against invasion while believing he was upholding Southern independence, liberty, and a society built on slavery.
And today society views the Confederacy and the Civil War through the lens of modernism, but it is important to realize that in 1800 slavery was a reality across all societies and eras. It was a near-universal human practice for most of history, practiced by people of all races and on all continents.
The Greeks and Romans had slaves, the Native Americans had slaves, medieval Britain had slaves, and slavery was an ancient institution in Africa and China.
This does not excuse the immorality of slavery, but it was not an evolved position for most of humanity until the 19th century.
"Not every fading ember needs to be stamped out. Some are best left to go cold on their own. What do you think?"
I support what this post says, but also: I think it's important to remember that the death of the Lost Cause is not the same as the arrival of general enlightenment about Civil War small-m memory. My sense, for example, is that people still harbor enough thoughtless both-sidesism that they balk, some of them, if you describe the Confederate program as what it was: crimes against humanity.
Steve, thanks for helping me clarify deep-seated reactions to Kevin's even-deeper-than-usual post today. I happened to be up at 4AM and made the mistake of reading it before my cuppa. Yes, crimes against humanity, but before #45$47 I used to believe "humanity" was a forward-evolving concept. Took me nearly a half-day to crystallize my feelings and thoughts, posted in order of postings....
_