Home / Ole Miss gives up on PC mascot

Ole Miss gives up on PC mascot

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

In Ole Miss’ ongoing efforts to be more “inclusive” and shed its image as a relic of the Confederate South, Colonel Rebel was banned from football games this year.

Colonel Rebel is the 25-year-old school mascot, who resembles a disgruntled Colonel Sanders with horrible fashion sense.

It’s worth noting that the university still licenses the Colonel Rebel image for sale on all sorts of Ole Miss merchandise. Political correctness is fine as long as it doesn’t impact licensed product sales, I suppose.

In any case, the Colonel is no longer welcome at football games. I think each entry gate at Vaught-Hemingway Stadium has a photo of the Colonel with “DO NOT ADMIT!” written under it now.

In his place, university officials came up with two potential new mascot designs and asked students, season ticket holders and other Ole Miss VIPs to pick the winner by online vote.

The contenders were:

• “Rebel Bruiser” – He looks kind of like the Colonel’s bastard son. He’s gone prematurely grey, is apparently pumped up on steroids and wears football pants, a fashionable Britney-cut bare-midriff shirt and a pimp hat. The Bruiser, I suppose, represents Ole Miss’ traditions translated to the modern age; he’s your typical Mississippi redneck wearing the pimp hat and goatee in a desperate attempt to cling to the glorious past of the Old South. In other words, he’s a member of Kappa Alpha.

• “Rowdy Rebel” – Yep, he’s rowdy alright. And he’s damn sure pissed off at something. He’s clinging to a football, but is also lunging toward us and is ready to clock somebody with a left hook. The look on his face tells me perhaps he was just gang-raped by a bunch of KAs or something. Maybe he’s a pledge.

Over the past two decades, Ole Miss have been told they can’t wave the Stars and Bars (hence the ridiculous “Battle M” flag – which the school appears to have retired now) at football games. The school took Colonel Rebel off the helmets some years back, and has banned him from games altogether now.

So when the interested Ole Miss fans were asked to vote for either the redneck KA member of the anally-raped KA pledge as their new mascot, they ignored the request in overwhelming numbers. Of the 40,000 people qualified to vote, only 2,400 bothered, prompting the embarassed athletic department to cancel the vote and put off any decision on a new mascot.

And, thus, the Rebels will remain mascot-less.

Powered by

About Capn Ken

  • Say, Ken, is it true that “Keeping the Niggers Down,” used to be the unofficial school song at LSU?

    I have been following the Colonel Reb saga as part of my neo-Confederate beat. The rational response would be to come up with a non-person mascot, perhaps something common in the state. And, inoffensive, of course. I don’t understand why that would be hard to do.

  • Not sure if that’s a joke or not, but Louisiana has a better race-relations record than most of the rest of the South (i.e. there’s no movie called “Louisiana Burning”, their governor didn’t stand in the doors of LSU to keep blacks out; they’ve never had a Confederate emblem on the flag …)

    As long as Ole Miss’ name is the Rebels (which I don’t have a problem with), they are going to have this issue. You just can’t make a Rebel mascot who doesn’t evoke Rebel (as in Old South) images. It’s just fun to watch them try to make it non-controversial.

  • Really, I’ve heard that from people who know about Louisiana. (No, it wasn’t David Duke.)

    So, why can’t Rebel be tossed and replaced with something else at Ole Miss?

  • I’m not saying Louisiana is some utopia of racial harmony, but there’s historically been less racial tension there than elsewhere in the South (I’m an LSU grad myself and lived in the state for about 14 years).

    Ole Miss won’t lose the Rebels as their mascot. If you’ve never been to Oxford it may be hard to understand just what being The Rebels means to Ole Miss, just what Ole Miss means to Mississippi and just what Mississippi means in terms of the Old South mentality. The “aristocracy” of Mississippi, which is primarily what produces Ole Miss students, is as Old South as you can get. They will always be Rebels, but they are trying to soften that image.

  • How about a confederate rebel soldier lying in a pool of his own blood? That would seem to have something for everyone.

  • kara

    Oooh, aren’t you clever!

    I love how it’s perfectly acceptable to make that kind of joke about southerners, but if you’d said “a black guy” or “a Jew” or “a gay guy”, people would be chasing you through the streets with torches.

    Southerners: The last socially-acceptable scapegoat.

  • yes, i am. and if ole miss wants to celebrate the insurrection that would have preserved slavery, fine, but they should compromise, which is what my suggestion would do.

    when you figure out whether to accuse me of watching fox news, let me know.

  • JR

    Wait, shouldn’t Chris be accusing kara of watching FoxNews? I’m confused.

    In any case, nobody’s chasing people through the streets with torches. That would at least be honest persecution.

    I think we should be thankful to southerners for being the last socially-acceptable scapegoats. Without them, we might have to outlaw humor.

  • Civil War was about states’ rights, not slavery.

    [poking the fire]

  • Oh, Gawd! Just a few weeks since my series on why the Civil War was definitely about slavery and here is another one of those people who don’t understand that the
    states’ right at issue was keeping people as chattel.

  • Well, if Mac Diva writes it, it MUST be true!!!

  • “Poking the fire,” indeed.

  • kara

    Mac’s clearly one of those delusional northerners that believes that all southerners were (and are) racist slaveowners, while the noble northerners would never DREAM of such inhumane behavior.

    Yeah, right.

    Whatever it takes so you can sleep comfortably at night.

  • kara


    You watch news? I figured you for a cartoon guy. You certainly seem to have a “Foghorn Leghorn” perspective on the South.

    Perhaps you should turn them ALL off and watch a little History Channel.

  • kara,

    well I figured YOU for an embittered killjoy, and it looks like i was right.

    because you insist on fighting a losing battle (kind of like… the south in the late stages of the war), explain exactly how my statement that a rebel soldier, bloodied, would offer something to all sides of the confederate symbolism debate reveals a “foghorn leghorn” grasp of history.

    pro-reb people get their noble soldier, anti-reb people get him whacked around.

    or are cheap insults the best you can do?

  • Eric Olsen

    The two sides to this are: the South had slaves, they fought a brutal war to retain them, hundreds of thousands of Northerners died to – among other things – free them. This is reality – don’t try to sugarcoat the immoral, anti-human, anti-Christian, despicable ugliness of slavery, nor the racism that allowed it to perpetuate. Suck it up and deal.

    That said, the war was 150 years ago. The vast majority of Southerners have done exactly what I mentioned above and should not be blamed for what their vile ancestors did. Many areas of the South are now more enlightened than many areas of the North. With modern mobility, many people in the South do not descend from slave-era Southerners anyway.

    Symbols count, don’t pretend they don’t. The Confederacy was an abomination, any non-negative reference to it is unacceptable. Clear your minds of any uncertaincy in this regard and the South may finally be said to have overcome its heinous past.

  • kara

    Feel free to dismiss me as some revisionist historian if you like, but the cause of the Civil War was not as black and white as you make it sound. There WERE slave owners and slaves in the North. And many of those slave-owners fought on the Union side in the war. And there were millions in the South who did not at any time own slaves. And they fought for the Confederacy. No war is EVER as simple as you make the Civil War sound.

    I agree that symbols count. The confederate flag is as much a symbol of racism as the nazi flag is of anti-semitism, though neither of those were the original intent. And neither should ever be flown or displayed publicly.

    But to say that the Ol’ Miss “Rebel” mascot is a symbol of racism is looking for meaning where there is none. Southern history may be ugly, but we should acknowledge it and move on, not rewrite it to our own benefit or erase it to ease our collective consciences.

  • chris

    Since when are sarcasm and caustic wit the exclusive property of northerners? I figured since you seem to have a sarcastic sense of humor, you’d recognize it when you saw it.

    Seems you can dish it out, but not take it, eh?

  • kara

    My mistake. The above was posted by me (kara) TO Chris. In my haste, I typed his name in the name field instead of my own. Apologies all around.

  • Eric Olsen

    yes, the Civil War was more complicated than just pro-/anti-slavery, but that doesn’t change the fact that the South sanctioned slavery and the North did not, nor that this was THE central bone of contention between them. Neither did any but a tiny number of Northerners have slaves and it was illegal if they did. Neither does it matter that most people in the South didn’t own slaves, it wasn’t that most of them didn’t believe in it, they just couldn’t afford it.

    I reiterate: there is NOTHING noble about the Confederacy, nothing to defend, nothing to explain away, nothing but shame. When ALL stop trying to defend this or that aspect of it, the legacy of slavery can finally be put to rest.

  • The notion that the Civil War was “about” state’s rights (as opposed to slavery) as been batted around for the 150 years Eric mentions. It is easy to set up the “states’ rights” argument as some sort of defense – but could you please articulate what states’ rights were at issue? The economy of the southern states at the time absolutely depended upon slave ownership, despite the fact that many southerners did not own slaves. The fact of the matter was that many in the South saw the election of Abraham Lincoln as a threat to their way of life.

    The primary right at issue in the context of the war was the right of the southern states to secede (or withdraw) from the Union. One can say then that the war was over whether or not a state could secede (thus “states’ rights”). However, the only reason the southern states wanted to withdraw from the Union was over the fear that slavery would be abolished or that some of the recent legislative or judicial battles (such as the fugitive slave act or the Dred Scott decision) would be overturned. There was no other reason for secession. Period.

  • kara


    It wasn’t that “northerners” didn’t believe in slavery. It’s a matter of geography. Slaves arrived on ships. Ships need ports. The majority of ports in the United States at the time were in the Southeastern U.S. Shipping slaves north was both expensive and often not cost-effective because many of the slaves would become ill or die in transit. Plus, the climate in the northeast isn’t as conducive to agriculture as the South, so fewer slaves would be needed for farm work there. The issue of slavery in the north wasn’t a moral one, it was an economic one. And it was easy for the north to take the “moral high ground” and abolish it, because their economy didn’t depend on it. If the north had a better climate and more ports, there’d have BEEN no war.

  • kara
  • Eric Olsen

    Contributing factors to the way things ended up are interesting, but are wholly unimportant compared to the way they ended up. And they way they ended up was with the South fighting to secede so they could maintain slavery.

    What is the net result of your “mitigating circumstances”? Do you see moral equivalence between the North and the South? Do you not see the South fighting for slavery and the North fighting against it? Is it that you want the Confederacy’s relative moral standing elevated or do you want to see that of the North reduced?

  • kara


    I’m not trying to justify slavery. It was an abomination. But I am trying to get you and others to realize that in reality, there is no elevated northern moral standing to BE reduced. Slavery existed in the North. Period. Had it been practical, there would have been more slavery in the North. Period. There were circumstances other than the percieved “evil intentions” of the South that contributed both to the existence of slavery and to the Civil War. If you want to believe that the North has some “elevated moral ground” here, fine. The fact that (a) the largest known slave burial ground in the United States is right in the middle of Manhattan, and (b) New Jersey was one of the last states to abolish slavery would seem to contradict that belief.

    The war’s over. The south lost. If the south had won, I don’t believe for a minute that slavery would still exist today. It was an immoral and unethical system that should never have been put into place. But the North has no business scapegoating the South for it. There’s blood on everyone’s hands.

    Yes the South fought to secede in order to preserve their economy which was based on the abhorrent system of slavery. Had the northern economy been equally dependent on slavery, the war would never have happened. Your “elevated moral standing” is based on economics, not some inherent moral superiority that the north had or has over the south.

  • Eric Olsen

    Kara, okay, now I understand where you are coming from. I don’t agree about your moral equivalency – I see it as unhealthy equivocation. Without question and unambiguously, the North took the moral stance, the South fought against morality. Location is not destiny: the South was not REQUIRED to end up dependent on slavery, but it became that way. This was a moral, not an economic, failing. Period.

    I am not sure what you mean by the statement “New Jersey was one of the last states to abolish slavery.” Do you mean of the North? Surely you aren’t saying any state in the South abolished slavery before NJ did.

    Let me leave it at this: I love the South. I hate the Confederacy and everything it stood for. The sooner all vestiges of the Confederacy and what it stood for are wiped from the South, the better.

  • I’ve been way out of the loop as this battle has raged on …

    To quickly catch up on big points as I see them:

    1) Eric’s comment that any non-negative reference to the Confederacy is unacceptable … unacceptable to whom? You? Fine, but what’s acceptable or not to you really doesn’t concern me.

    2) Almost all wealthy American landowners – North and South – owned slaves at some point between 1700 and 1865. The North was just as immoral, anti-human, anti-Christian (please), etc. as the South. They just stopped being that way sooner.

    3) The Civil War was about states’ rights. That the people who voted to secede did so over slavery does not change the fact that the issue was the right to govern the state as its people saw fit.

    4) States’ rights is a noble and just cause. The U.S. would be better off if the powers of the federal government were limited. The western states suffered under the 55 MPH federally-imposed speed limit. Louisiana would prefer to have a higher legal blood-alcohol limit for drivers, but can’t because they would lose federal dollars. Georgia is struggling to cope with the federal requirements for homeland security. These are all states’ rights issues. None get addressed because the states do not have the right to self-govern on these things.

  • kara


    The 13th Amendment was passed during the Civil War when no Southern States were represented in Congress. So, by your “moral” argument, it should have passed unanimously, right?

    It didn’t. In fact, It passed Senate but was defeated in the House, 93 to 65. Why would the moral Northerners defeat the 13th Amendment? Lincoln had to FORCE it through Congress.

    Here are the dates of ratification:

    Illinois, February 1, 1865
    Rhode Island, February 2, 1865
    Michigan, February 2, 1865
    Maryland, February 3, 1865
    New York, February 3, 1865
    Pennsylvania, February 3, 1865
    West Virginia, February 3, 1865
    Missouri, February 6, 1865
    Maine, February 7, 1865
    Kansas, February 7, 1865
    Massachusetts, February 7, 1865
    Virginia, February 9, 1865
    Ohio, February 10, 1865
    Indiana, February 13, 1865
    Nevada, February 16, 1865
    Louisiana, February 17, 1865
    Minnesota, February 23, 1865
    Wisconsin, February 24, 1865
    Vermont, March 9, 1865
    Tennessee, April 7, 1865
    Arkansas, April 14, 1865
    Connecticut, May 4, 1865
    New Hampshire, July 1, 1865
    South Carolina, November 13, 1865
    Alabama, December 2, 1865
    North Carolina, December 4, 1865
    Georgia, December 6, 1865.

    Ratification was completed on December 6, 1865.

    The amendment was subsequently ratified by:
    Oregon, December 8, 1865
    California, December 19, 1865
    Florida, December 28, 1865
    Iowa, January 15, 1866
    New Jersey, January 23, 1866
    (after having rejected the amendment on March 16, 1865)
    Texas, February 18, 1870
    Delaware, February 12, 1901
    (after having rejected the amendment on February 8, 1865)
    Kentucky, March 18, 1976
    (after having rejected it on February 24, 1865)

  • I must still disagree with Cap’n Ken and Kara about the “states’ rights” issue. To argue that the Civil War was “about” states’ rights is to set up an artificial defense to what was going on. Yes, the southern landowners wanted to govern as they saw fit – but the only concern, and the only reason for secession, was that the southern states wanted unfettered slavery. Slavery was the root cause of the civil war. The southern states weren’t going to leave the Union for any other reason, any more than one would argue today that a state would secede over homeland security requirements.

    I agree that the federal-state dichotomy is a touchy one, but I think that the period of time this country lacked a strong national government (namely, during the time covered by the Articles of Confederation) demonstrates the necessity for federal (or national) supremacy. Sure, individual states may struggle to meet certain requirements, but often those “requirements” are conditions – for example, speed limits, driving age requirements, and the like are usually conditions for getting federal money.

    Finally, I don’t see any justification for arguing about the issue of “moral equivilency” or anything else. Many in the north were willing to tolerate slavery, it’s true (and some of them also had slaves). Many in the north were also willing to accomodate the south in many ways – but the south wanted, as I said earlier, total autonomy over the issue of slavery and would tolerate no discussion of any further limits or conditions upon it. The fact that northerners tolerated slavery or were themselves bigoted is irrelevant in terms of isolating the root cause of the war, which was simply the maintenance of the institution of slavery as the south wanted it.

  • Bill:

    The problem with the “conditions” as you put is that the U.S. budget is structured so that the federal government controls things such as highway construction to such a large degree that a state is forced to go along with the federal rules.

    That’s absolutely been the case in Louisiana, where the state fought as long as it could against raising the drinking age and the DUI threshhold.

    Of course, I suppose you and Eric would say these are moral issues that the South is backwards on and should be forced to accept, anyway.

  • … one more thing for Bill:

    If (and that’s a big “if”) the Civil War was solely about the states’ right to maintain slavery, that’s a “states’ rights” issue.

  • i still await an answer on that scurrilous foghorn leghorn accusation, and explanation of why suggesting a compromise made me such meanie…

  • Ken:

    2 things:

    1. I agree that in many instances the states don’t have the funding for things – such as highway construction – and feel obligated to honor the federal conditions/requirements in order to get the necessary funds. Of course, they could choose to go it alone, but that means they’d have to raise the taxes on their citizens – hardly a palatable choice for most politicians. It’s rather like the golden rule: he who has the gold makes the rules. Do I think that the states should automatically concede to the federal government on these issues? No. Do I think that the federal government should be putting so many conditions on the funding? No. Do I think the federal government should stop trying to legislate so many things that could be handled on a state level (especially in the criminal arena)? Yes.

    2. I have, from the inception of my comments, indicated that the “states’ rights” issue here was the ability of the southern states to secede from the union rather than have their control over slavery tampered with by the national government. I do not contend that there isn’t a states’ rights issue. But tossing up “states’ rights” is nothing more than an attempt to obscure the fact that the only national-state problem was that the southern states didn’t want any interference with slavery. That makes slavery – not, say, a tax on cotton, or tea, or stamps, or taxation without representation, or the way Abraham Lincoln looked in a stovepipe hat, or a theoretical argument about the rights of the individual states to govern themselves – the root cause of the Civil War.

  • kara

    sarcasm, Chris … sarcasm.

  • kara

    I’d just like to add that the majority of opponents in the House who voted against the 13th Amendment were (gasp!)…


  • Eric Olsen

    Ken and Kara, I will ask again: are you in any way defending the Confederacy? “States rights” is a term that should be retired, and if the meaning is “more authority at the non-national level” that’s fine, but the term “states rights” has been little more than code for slavery, racism, Jim Crow and the like for 150 years. There is nothing remotely noble about it.

    And I DO CARE what is acceptable and unacceptable to me. I will cut off this comment now and tell you I am about to get very pissed.

  • Eric Olsen

    Perhaps there is more to the neo-Confederate movement than I have given Mac Diva credit for.

  • Eric, I stand by my previous assertion that apologists for slavery like kara often argue honestly out of pure ignorance rather than malice towards any person of any color or background.

    That’s why ignorance is so dangerous. It comes with a tone of morality with which people who know that they’re oppressing others don’t tend to bother.

    [ I figured kara might as well get as pissed of as you are! 😉 ]

  • This intolerance of Southern pride wearies me. Opponents absolutely insist that when anyone expresses any form of sympathy or identification whatsoever with the Confederacy that it is simply code words for racism. Hey, you don’t get to tell me what I “really” mean.

    Specifically, let me bust a cap in Eric. The Confederacy was an abomination, any non-negative reference to it is unacceptable. Oh, no, Southern pride is PERFECTLY acceptable. I’m expected to tolerate a great deal of actual racial NONSENSE from the likes of Jesse Jackson and the NAACP. Y’all will just have to deal with not getting to dictate everyone else’s opinions, and not getting to shoehorn every issue into your pet dogmas.

    Further Olsenian nonsense: Without question and unambiguously, the North took the moral stance, the South fought against morality. This is simply factually WRONG. Slaves were held in the North, and the North clearly fought a war of aggression to occupy the South, for starters.

    I can understand that some people see the Civil War as just being about slavery, because these racial issues were important, and certainly far more important to us in this present day than any of the economic issues and other things that were going on then. Nonetheless, those who insist on this viewpoint that the Civil War was just about slavery are absolutely factually incorrect. I’m not saying that slavery was not a highly significant issue, but there was a hell of a lot more to the Civil War and North-South issues than that.

    They are also grossly oversimplifying the racial issues to make such an interpretation.

    The victors write the history books, so we’ve all been raised in government schools being fed the same Northern propaganda. The fact that you’ve been taught that Saint Abe led a moral crusade for the principle purpose of freeing the black man does not in fact make it true.

  • MD- The actual title of the song to which you are apparently referring in comment #1 is “Rednecks” by Randy Newman. If you look at it closely, you’ll see that it is not just a satire of Southerners. Pay attention to the bridge, in which the redneck points out some basic Northern hypocrisy. This in fact gives at least a hint at a more balanced view of North vs South on racial issues than what is evidenced in much of your writing.

  • Eric Olsen

    Ah yes, the Bargerian blindspot. The sepia vision of a romantic, honorable, chivalrous, benevolent South with jolly darkies a-singin’ “Doo Dah” shattered by the agglomerative hand of the federal despot Abe, who sought to impose from afar outrageous demands for such absurdities as the non-chattelhood of human beings, leading inexorably to the stunning imposition of drunk driving laws upon the fair state of Louisiana and the abomination of income tax!

    It’s the long-term effect of mint juleps.

  • the pro-reb people here have done a nice job of moving this argument into all sorts of IRRELEVANT north-south comparisons.

    it’s funny, because it’s a typical hard left tactic being used here by conservatives, including the commandante of the anti-pinko patrol.

    try sticking to the issue: the SYMBOL and what it means. then if you like you can campaign to make big 10 and big east teams wear ass decals on their helmets if you like.

  • I want to thank the people who have made the argument against the pretext that the Civil War was about ‘states’ rights’ for me. I get tired of having to reiterate what I had hoped was established during the Trent Lott debacle, that the neo-Confederate movement is a fraud. (Note that the neo-Confederates actually ‘owned’ a Senate majority leader, Eric. That hints at just how strong they are in the Deep South.)

    Some of the more extreme claims neo-Confederates make are just way out there. For example, most Northern states had abolished slavery long before the Civil War. The problem was that the Fugitive Slave Acts made all Americans participants in slavery regardlessly. No matter how opposed to slavery a Northerner was, he still had a legal duty to return human chattel to the South. That is the kind of reality that fueled the abolitionist movement. If one is looking for heroes, one should consider the people who were not in danger of being enslaved but were utterly opposed to slavery in my opinion — not those who were willing to fight for slavery, whether they actually owned slaves or not, i.e., most Confederates.

    Good news that might help people understand the peculiar institution better. Ed Jones, a fine writer, has had his novel, The Known World, nominated for the National Book Award. The novel is about a black man who as a result of his father haven’t bought family out of slavery, is a slave owner in S.C. It brings the whole moral dilemma of how one can claim the right to control and possibly destroy other people’s lives while also claiming to be a good person to the fore. I will try to write a review of the book next week.

  • JR

    Not a big fan of Southern culture myself. But if people who defend the Confederacy believe they do so on the basis of States’ rights and not racism, EVEN IF THEY TURN OUT TO BE HISTORICALLY INCORRECT, how does that make them racists? Disagreeing over why the South fought the war is one thing. But to say “The South fought to preserve slavery, and if you disagree it is because you are a racist” does not seem to me to be a logical argument. The fact that they insist that the war was over “States’ rights” (depending on what they take that to mean) would seem to imply that they don’t think slavery or racism are defensible, doesn’t it? (Unless you believe it is some “Jedi mind trick” to get us all to stop worrying and love the Confederacy so that they can then reinstate slavery.)

    The question you might want to address is whether States’ rights means “more authority at the non-national level” or it means the right to own slaves, or segregate, or otherwise discriminate. Once you have established what the other person means by that, then you can argue what the Confederacy faught for (such as what “States’ right” OTHER than slavery they were trying to preserve), and thereby whether the Confederacy was at all defensible. But if the other person doesn’t think the war was over slavery, then that person is NOT defending slavery by defending the South.

    It does seem to me that States’ rights… excuse me, “more authority at the non-national level”, is a perfectly valid political position; although I don’t necessarily agree with it on all issues. But then, I grew up in one of those Western states under that asinine 55-mph speed limit mandated by Congressmen from postage-stamp-sized states.

    And Al, we weren’t all fed the same “Northern propaganda”. I’ve met a number of people raised in the South who were taught that the “War of Northern Aggression” was fought over “States’ rights”, not slavery. So I don’t blame people for having a different interpretation of the Civil War from mine. Again, being fed pro-Confederacy propaganda does not mean they accept slavery.

    Regardless of the what the “truth” is, we should figure out what others BELIEVE to be the truth before we condemn them of anything other than ignorance.

  • kara

    I take issue with several claims that have been attributed to me that are false, namely:

    1) that I am an apologist for slavery
    2) that I claimed the war was about “states rights”

    I never made any apologies for slavery. It was an absolutely immoral practice that should never have taken place. I was simply attempting to point out that the South has – for far too long – been the scapegoat for the sins of slavery that were committed by both the North and South.

    I have also made NO statements in ANY of my posts about states rights, but since at least two of you continue to try to drag me into THAT debate, hten fine – yes, the war was fought over “states rights”, and the biggest “right” in contention was the right to hold slaves. So in that sense, yes, the Civil War was about slavery. Does that mean that all southerners are or were racist? No. Does that absolve the north of their own “guilt”? No.

    I don’t see how any of my arguments have been out of “ignorance” either. In FACT, I have been one of the few to post actual FACTS about the Civil War, including the dates the 13th Amendment was ratified by the states. (Did you notice New Jersey’s date, Eric? Not ONLY did they ratify after ALL the Confederate states, they REJECTED it the first chance they had to ratify it.)

    If you want to continue scapegoating the South, fine. At least we accept our history and try to learn from it rather than rewriting it to absolve our own guilt.

  • kara

    Chris, nobody’s talking about flying the Stars and Bars here. Their mascot is about as offensive as KFC’s (or Foghorn Leghorn for that matter). Should they be abolished? This is a matter of political correctness run amuck, and people finding offense where there is none.

    Eric, when you propose destroying the last vestiges of the Confederacy, how far are you willing to go to do that? Destroy Confederate cemeteries? Another burning of Atlanta perhaps? The demolition of old plantation homes? Erasing the remnants doesn’t erase the facts. Slavery, no matter how regrettable adn reprehensible, did exist. Destroying the remnants won’t change the past, it only makes it easier to forget. And those who forget the lessons of the past are doomed to repeat them.

  • Dan

    Al, as usual you are an island of reasoned objectivity in a sea of arrogant and irrationally indignant absolutists. The presence of 60 thousand or so black confederate soldiers should at least give one pause. So too should the presence of over 3000 free black slaveholders, according to the 1830 census, cause closed minds to re-think the racial implications of slavery in general.

    More to the issue, as Chris suggests, “the SYMBOL and what it means” : I think the caricature of the “disgruntled Colonol Sanders” is simply an innocent expression of heritage. The attack on it is sheer provocation. It is the behavior of petty and over-empowered people, who are angry but charmed to find they can push people around. Moreover, it is damaging to race relations. The constant braying about white racism where there is none is bound to foster animosity where there was none.

  • (Holding nose.) Now, we get the big arse ‘black Confederates’ falsehood. There were absolutely no black Confederate soldiers. Slaves were used as support staff to do menial jobs by the Confederacy. But, that is a heck of a long way from fighting for the Confederacy. The manpower shortage of the Confederacy, caused largely by desertion, had its limits. About a month before the war ended, Virginia paraded a group of would-be black Confederate slaves in uniform out of desperation. The citizenry of Richmond attacked them. With good reason, too. The point of slavery (and segregation) is white supremacy. If blacks were allowed to do whatever whites did, that would undermine white supremacy. Having slaves fight to maintain slavery made no sense. Either they were a brave, intelligent people capable of waging war or they were subhuman chattel. Most white Southerners believed then, and well into the 1960s, the latter.

    As I explained when I initially wrote about the neo-Confederates for Atrios, there are variations in the movement. During the last decade, a splinter group of neo-Confederates has tried to make the movement multiracial by claiming thousands of blacks fought for the Confederacy. They do that by converting slaves forced to work for the Confederacy into Confederate soldiers. Nothing could be further from the truth in reality. Many of those slaves crossed Northern lines and fought, as free men and real soldiers, for the Union. That shows just how Confederate they actually were.

    Nor does the ‘blacks were slaveowners’ claim hold up to scrutiny. The handful of blacks who owned slaves generally had bought a spouse or children out of slavery to reunite their families. That is the far cry from owning people to grow wealthy from their labor.

    The person who posted these claims strikes me as definitely a neo-Confederate or sympathizer.

  • Dan

    Handful? The 1830 census found that more than 3,000 free Blacks owned slaves, and there were Black owners in every state in which slavery was legal. In 1830, free Blacks owned more than 10,000 slaves in just the four states of South Carolina, Louisiana, Maryland, and Virginia. Andrew Durnford,a free Black from Louisiana, owned more than 100 slaves. Madame Ciprien Ricard, free Black and lady to boot, owned 168 black slaves in Louisiana as well. These would need to be very large families.

    The record on Black Confederate Soldiers is less clear, yet many prominent and respected Civil War historians conclude that Blacks did fight, not for the continuation of slavery, but for the Confederacy.
    I wasn’t there of course, so I don’t know for sure. It shouldn’t matter in 2003 except for revisionists with a racial agenda. If we are ever to fully integrate, respect of our common heritage will need to run both ways.

  • Dan, if there was any proof for your neo-Confederate fantasies, it would have been offered by now. However, since there isn’t, it obviously can’t be. Your claims about free blacks in the South are laughable. Those people had next to no rights. They were lucky to maintain their own freedom. The few who owned slaves had usually bought relatives. Nor is there a single serious historian who supports neo-Confederate claptrap. Case closed.

  • Dan, you are a voice of reason and sophistication in the midst of the self-serving oversimplifications of much of this debate.

    Again, I’m not saying that slavery was not an important issue in the War of Northern Aggression. Again, however, there was a hell of a lot more to it than that.

    As to the original mascot issue, ask yourself what the supporters of the old rebel imagery mean. Do you really think that the point of it is that these southerners are simply exerting code phrases to express their support for oppressing black folks? As Jimmy would say in South Park, “I mean, COME ON.”

  • don’t be a shy about getting a room.

    this issue isn’t just what the pro-reb people MEAN, it’s also about what other people, and even the dreaded
    “reasonable man,” THINK they means, and whether or not public institutions should associate themselves with such images.

    while i don’t think the “i mean, come on” argument is terribly strong, the timing of much of the confed symbol renaissance (50s and 60s) sure was suspicious.

    i really think my original solution merits consideration (#5)

  • A hearty non-Rebel yell in favor of Chris’ suggestion!

  • Eric Olsen

    Okay, I’m coming back to this with some distance and a little perspective. Here is what I want to know: without hyperbole, what does “Southern Pride” mean? What are we celebrating? What should we value about the Confederacy? What to honor? No one is serious when they use the term “War of Northern Aggression,” right? Would the world be a better place if the North had kissed the South goodbye? Who would be better off other than the Southern white aristocracy?

    Educate me – I am genuinely astonished to hear apparently intelligent people say these things.

  • andy

    and I’m confused as to how Southerners who flaunt their “souther pride” are all of a sudden slapped into the same category of homosexuals and racial minorities. You chose to hold on to your racist redneck background…now don’t bitch about it.

  • kara


    Thanks for taking the time to come back with a fresh perspective. I’m not sure why “southern pride” == “confederate pride” in your mind. If it’s regarding Ol’ Miss’ mascot, I’ve stated before that Col. Reb’ is about as offensive as Col. Sanders or Foghorn Leghorn. In fact, the only reason this is an issue is because Ol’ Miss was proactively trying to update their mascot with something they considered “less offensive”, when there’s nothing really offensive about the one they have now. Does trying to be inoffensive to minority students and players smack of “confederate pride” to you?

    There’s plenty to be proud of in the South. We gave birth to blues, rock and roll, and country music. We boast some of the finest, most diverse food in the world. We produce the best bourbon and whiskey in the world. We have good manners. We know what sweet tea is, and how to make it. And while we are not proud of our racial history, we ARE proud of many of our Civil War landmarks for their historical and cultural significance and (in the case of the plantation homes) their architectural beauty.

    Frankly, we have worked HARD over the past 150 years to learn from our history and create a community and culture of racial harmony and co-existence. Sure, racism still exists in the south, as it does in everywhere in the U.S. But it gets better with each passing generation. Atlanta currently has a black (WOMAN!) mayor and a predominately black city council. How many OTHER major US cities can boast the same level of political integration?

    Andy, we don’t “choose” to hold on to our racist past. Northerners do it for us, and then force it down our throats at every opportunity with their dumb Southerner jokes and redneck stereotypes.

  • Eric Olsen

    Kara, thank you also. I said earlier that I love the South, and I do for all the reasons you mentioned. I’m not particularly concerned about the mascot issue, but I am glad the school felt it appropriate to make a change because the symbolism of the Confederacy MUST be distinguished from that of the South. I have zero problems with the things you mentioned, but previously in this discussion you and others ALSO seemed to be defending elements of the Confederacy – as opposed to the South – and in particular downplaying the unique role of slavery in the reality and the mythology of the South’s Confederate past.

    I want nothing but the best for the South and that is why i feel that every effort must be made to disentangle it from the poison of the Confederacy.

    I am not PC, I do not believe in censorship nor the legitimacy of the thought police, but I also think when a set of symbols is as powerful as those of the Confederacy here, or of the nazis in Germany, that people should have the “good manners” to recognize the still fresh hurtfulness of these symbols and do all they can to disassociate themselves from it.

  • andy

    I’ve lived in the north my entire life, and have never heard any “southern jokes”. The only time comments about the “racist south” or “redneck south” come up is when things like this happen. It seems to be holding on to parts of the Confederacy. It would be like a German flaunting the swastica(sp?) around, then wondering why people call him a nazi.

  • Eric:

    On the subject of “the symbolism of the Confederacy MUST be distinguished from that of the South”:

    I don’t think you can lump all “symbols” of the Confederacy into what I call the “racist redneck” camp. The Confederate Battle Flag? That’s absolutely become a racist redneck symbol, and I’d no more put that flag on my car than waive a Swastika in front of the Holocaust museum.

    I have a little version of the first CSA flag instead. Nobody knows what it is, and therefore can’t get offended.

    But the image of, say, Robert E. Lee? VERY much a “Confederate” image. But anyone who takes the time to understand Lee, his background and his choice as the Civil War broke out can see he’s a very positive representation of Southerners and the honor of men back then. His is a positive Southern image from the Confederacy.

    So how about “the symbolism of racist rednecks MUST be distinguished from that of the South”? That’s a statement I can get on board with.

  • Allow this Southerner to speak. (Yes, Kara, I am a North Carolinian by birth.) There is no disentangling racism from the heritage Southern whites too often defend.


    1) The blues, jazz and country music grew out of the sad history of African-Americans in the South. (Yes, country, too. The banjo is a West African instrument.)

    2) Those lovely plantation homes, Monticello included, were built with slave labor.

    3) Atlanta has a black political structure mainly because of white flight to the suburbs. (BTW, the money still disproportionately remains in the hands of white Atlantans.)

    4) Robert E. Lee, the epitome of the Southern gentleman, was an avid defender of slavery. He even objected to black Union troops guarding his home after the Civil War ended.

    Most importantly, white Southerners have NOT been trying to undo the sin of racism for 150 years. Instead, they set up a system of segregation and deprivation of rights that extended the legacy of slavery another 100-plus years. A society that wanted to get rid of its racist legacy would not have been engaged in Jim Crow, lynchings and bombings, not to mention the elections of people like Lester Maddox, George Wallace and David Duke. Not to mention the current governor of Georgia, elected because neo-Confederates thought he would restore the Confederate symbol to the state flag.

    Some white Southerners have tried to be realistic about the region’s history. Williamsburg now includes slaves in its depiction of the colonial South. Richmond has erected a monument to President Abraham Lincoln. The federal government is trying to save the landmarks of Reconstruction, such as Freedmen’s Bureau offices. However, conservative whites, including the neo-Confederates, have fought against each of these efforts every inch of the way.

    To buy any of the neo-Confederate bombast, one must remain woefully ignorant of the real history of the South. Yes, there are degrees of how wrong these people are, but they all are wrong.

  • kara


    I’m tired of your blathering about neo-Confederate BS. I’m not a neo-Confederate. I do not believe “the South will rise again.” I’m not interested in propagating slavery or racism. But you paint any defense of the South (not the Confederacy, just the South) as neo-Confederate propaganda, and that is simply false.

    You may be from North Carolina, but you’re no Southerner. In fact, you’re the most venomous, misinformed Southern-hater I’ve ever had the displeasure to cross paths with. You’ve repeatedly ignored or brushed off historical facts that have been posted here regarding Northern and Southern slavery, facts that should be easily verifiable or disputable with a little research on your part. But you refuse to do your own research and you refuse to present any facts of your own to refute what’s been presented. Instead, you simply parrot your “Southerners are evil” crap over and over again. It’s as though you’ve shoved your fingers in your ears, closed your eyes tight, and are are shouting nonsense at the top of your lungs so you don’t have to deal with anything that might contradict your southern-hating beliefs. So you lump all white southerners who don’t hate their homeland, and who dare to take pride in where they’re from even if they’re not proud of their racist history, brand them neo-Confederates, and sit back with a satisfied sigh.

    Not all Southerners are racist, Mac. In fact, the majority of them are not. Some cities are better than others. Some people are working harder than others. I think that we deserve a little more credit than you seem willing to give us.

  • TCL

    This thread of posts (sorry if I’m using outdated terminology) illustrates the problem with a site titled “blogCRITICS”: anyone and everyone feels the need to comment critically on subjects concerning which they have done no serious study; possess barely a spoonful of information, which is either based on anecdotal or personal observation; and (worst) hold their beliefs all too fervently. This combination of too-strong adherence to misguided premises results in argument that boils down to “I know I’m right because you haven’t convinced me otherwise.” While one of the facets of my job involves the protection of free speech rights and I personally believe in the marketplace of ideas, I’m convinced that the world needs less critical commentary of this sort, not more.

    1. Thanks to whomever (sorry for not caring enough to go back and check) pointed out that the correct title of the song in Post 1, which started this whole debate, is “Rednecks.” I would like to think that everyone involved searched for and read the lyrics as the person who posted the correction suggested, given how easily done that would be. But it is obvious that the only person who responded did no such thing. As noted, the song condemns the ghettos of the industrialized North as well as skewering the popular view of the eternally racist South.

    2. The phrases “the Civil War was about slavery” and “the Civil War was about states’ rights” are one equally as insufficient as the other. Note, however, that the former is decried, mostly by Southerners, as being shortsighted and overly condemnatory because it insists on ignoring everything but slavery, while the latter is decried as being Southerners’ code for racism.

    3. The reason why “the war was about states’ rights” is more accurate is because the “right to secede” was the primary right at issue. Someone in a previous post recognized this. The opposing viewpoint is that because the right to maintain slavery is what prompted the push to secede, and the right to secede is what the war was “about,” then the war was about the right to maintain slavery. That’s a tenable argument, but the fact remains that the Union armies did not fight “to free the slaves”; the North, the Union did not possess a superior MORAL position evidenced by its opposition to the Confederacy. The war was fought to stop half the United States from seceding, and for no other reason. The abolitionist beliefs vel non of the administration figures or of decision makers in the political and economic spheres, while of some consequence to the move to secede, played little part in the decision to wage war. The potential removal of a huge chunk of the nation’s area and economy were the singular concern. Any contention otherwise is ignorant of the realities of the day (and of today).

    4. Similarly, the North possessed no moral superiority to the South by its earlier abandonment of slavery. I hate terribly to disagree with kara, but the reason why slavery was predominantly Southern was not because of the greater number of seaports in the southern United States, but because the South was a rural, agricultural economy, while the North was growing more industrialized. If Massachusetts, New York, and Delaware had the same climate and geography as did Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi, there would have been cotton plantations and the concomitant desire to maintain slavery in those states, at that time.

    5. Southerners chafe at the misguided moral, cultural, political superiority attributed to the North. Aside from the immigrant subcultures dotting the landscape of Northern cities (with easily traced and resolutely maintained boundaries), the North has no identifiable “culture.” In contrast, there is a Southern culture. Problematically for anti-Southerners, it represents an organic melding of many different subcultures to a degree not seen in the North.

    6. Before leaving the discussion, it is probably important to note the following: Slavey is indefensible. Secession was wrongheaded. I personally believe that the Union was on the right side of history, but not for the nonsensical reasons put forth here. In his second inaugural address, Lincoln denouced slavery as “America’s Original Sin”; not the South’s, but the entire people’s. No reasonable person suggests that America shouldn’t celebrate its identity, history, and culture because of that early stain. Give the South the same right, as it is due.

    You can post responses if you wish, but I won’t be coming back to read them.

  • Eric Olsen

    Thank God TCL dropped by and set us straight, I am not sure where we would have been without his large turd sitting right in the middle of the site.

  • Actually Eric, TCL’s comment was thoughtful and sophisticated. I might argue with his assertion that secession was wrongheaded, but we could at least argue from some point of intellectual honesty, and a basic recognition of the actual historical facts.

  • Tim

    I’ve enjoyed reading this debate of the Col. Reb mascot (yeah right, more like civil war all over again), so here is my first, last and only posting this board. Even though after I read the responses, that will probably come mainly out of negative and hateful attitudes, I will not reply.

    I have only a few questions. But in short here is my moral character. I’m Christian, American, caucasion, male and a proud Southerner. To most of the rest of the U.S. and world for that matter, that would automatically stereotype me as a racist biggot with a burning cross, and without any formal education. Listen to the media, Hollywood and Comedy Central if you think I exagerate.

    1st Qustion: What flag were we waiving when we stole this land, smothered native heritage, and in effect enslaved (Forced Reservation encampment) the only true native Americans.

    2nd Question: What flag flew during all of the years after 1865 that the Black race was forced to sit in the back and not allowed to vote.

    3rd Question: What flag represented our nation during all of the years that women were thought to be less than men, expected to stay in the home or fields, and also not allowed to vote.

    4th Question: What flag do we waive when we allow the burning of the same flag, allow so called musicians to hate and discriminate on CD’s sold to our children and becoming more prevelant in today’s so called politically correct society, sit by and allow Christianity to be considered public taboo by activists and Hollywood.

    Don’t misunderstand me, I love the “Stars and Stripes” as well as the “Stars and Bars”. I’m extremely patriotic and a good citizen without hatred. That’s my point, if we want, we could find immoral behavior and hatred behind almost every symbol used to represent regions, groups, assemblies and countries. Does that mean that all flags and Uniforms should be banned. I don’t think so. I’m not racist nor a biggot. I’ve showed that in my life, as a large portion of my closest and most beloved friends have been from races and ethnic heritages other than my own, and if you could ask any of my friends (Black, Hispanic and White) they would tell you the same thing about me.

    So my final question is: Why do we seam to trample, destroy and eliminate heritage, mascot and school spirit emblems, and for that matter spiritual representations. If anyone thinks that by having a Col. Reb sticker on my bumber means that I’m trying to reinvent slavery or recruit people into a hate group they are just out there looking for a cause to complain about that will accomplish nothing but more segregational attitudes. We all know that our problems lie within our hearts, not our school spirit and historical past symbols. I’m sick about the mistakes we’ve made in history but even more proud of the lessons learned in this great country’s history. But, I will not denounce Col. Reb nor the confederate flag (both of which, until recent years, I never put in the same thought patterns with racism and hatred). Nor, by the same token, will I denounce the American flag for the many mistakes made under it’s shelter. We need to find real issues to debate in order to improve our society, not these that will in no way improve harmany, but only cause the bickering and hating that I read in the responses (from both sides of the issue) above.

    I know by now, most of you are really glad, due to the length of my post, that this will be my last and only response. I hope and pray that I have not offended anyone, and if so, please know that I have no hatred, except for hate itself, and skin color nor ethnic background has ever caused me to be hesitant about the love of my fellow man. God Bless you all, stay proud of the freedoms we have, and by all means, struggle to improve upon them.


  • D Beeson

    Most of you people are way off the mark. The fact is that the average Confederate Soldier did not care one way or the other about slavery, as did the average Union soldier. They fought for mainly for their home states and a sense of patriotism. Most of the large southern plantations had strong northern interest. It is also a fact that .99 % of the Confederate army was made up of poor boys from rual famrs who never had any slaves whatsoever. If any of you enlightened liberals cared to read in depth about the reasons of the conflict, you may find out that the real truth of why the war was fought is a little different that what you learned in the 4th grade. It’s called a Library go find one!!

  • TLC and D, we demolish neo-Confederate apologia, what you are engaging in, here quite often. In fact, the blogosphere, thanks to several of us who follow the neo-Confederate movement’s activities closely, is pretty aware of you guys. Heck, I probably understand Michael Hill as well as I do my brother. You’re wasting your time.

  • It is entertaining to see the people whose ignorance allows them to think that the War Between the States (official government-speak) was over slavery or even over states’ rights when it was entirely over economics.

    Of course, these are also the people ignorant enough to think there were no slaves in the Union and no Free PEople of Color in the South.

    They even think there were no Black Confederate combat soldiers and likely have no inkling that the Union Army was strictly segregated while the Confederate Army included as combat soldiers 13,000 Indian (one of them the only non-whtie General officer of the War), 6500 Hispanics (nine of the colonels and one the Surgeon General of the CS Army), 5500 Jews (including the CS Secretary of State), tens of thousands of immigrants, a handful of Filipinos from Louisiana, two Amerasian sons of Chang and Eng (the original “Siamese Twins”) who served with Virginia cavalry and were both wounded…and that unknown but very documented group of Black Confederate soldiers.

    Documented? Yes…

    “Negroes in the Confederate Army,” Journal of Negro History,” Charles Wesley, Vol. 4, #3, (1919), 244-245 – “Seventy free blacks enlisted in the Confederate Army in Lynchburg, Virginia. Sixteen companies (1,600) of free men of color marched through Augusta, Georgia on their way to fight in Virginia.”

    Confederate Mound at Indianapolis, Indiana, there are 26 Black Southerners, four Hispanics, and one Cherokee at rest with their white Confederate comrades-in-arms. Although the Blacks were listed universally as “Negro Servants” through the convention of Northern mindset of the 1930s, you will find those which cannot be explained as “servants.”

    Since the death rate at Camp Morton was about 10% we can surmise that about 250 Black Southerners passed through there or were held there:

    Christian, J. (Negro Servant), Co. D, Morgan’s 2nd Cavalry, d. 11/22/63
    Vance, J.W. (Negro), CSA Mail Carrier, d. 3/14/64

    Littleton, Solomon (Negro Servant), 3rd Inf., d. /3/62

    Mayo, Henry (Negro Servant), Co. G 36th Inf., d. 3/23/62

    Frazier, George (Capt) (Negro Servant), CSA, d. 1863*

    Considering that the other Black Southerners listed were not listed in relation to any Confederate unit or with a specific occupation such as “Mail Carrier” it is unlikely these men so uniquely listed were personal servants, cooks, or the like. As for George Frazier* it is likely we will never know how or why he became listed with the rank “Captain” following his name as none of the other Black Southerners buried there had any rank specified as if it might have been their master’s rank.

    North Carolina Troops, Volume I:

    “When Fort Fisher fell to the Union troops in January, 1865, the following blacks are recorded [by Union forces] as being among the captured Confederates:

    Charles Dempsey, Private, Company F, 36th NC Regiment (2nd NC Artillery), Negro. Captured at Fort Fisher January 15, 1865 and confined at Point Lookout, MD, until paroled and exchanged at Coxes Landing, James River, VA, February 14-15, 1865.

    Henry Dempsey, Private, Company F, 36th NC Regiment (2nd NC Artillery), Negro. Captured at Fort Fisher January 15, 1865 and confined at Point Lookout, MD, until paroled and exchanged at Coxes Landing, James River, VA, February 14-15, 1865.

    J. Doyle, Private, Company E, 40th NC Regiment (3rd NC Artillery), Negro. Captured at Fort Fisher January 15, 1865 and confined at Point Lookout, MD, until paroled and exchanged at Boulware’s Wharf, James River, VA, March 16, 1865.

    Daniel Herring, Cook, Company F, 36th NC Regiment (2nd NC Artillery), Negro. Captured at Fort Fisher January 15, 1865 and confined at Point Lookout, MD, until released after taking Oath of Allegiance June 19, 1865”

    Union forces recorded three of them as soldiers and took them as POWs, then paroled and exchanged them exactly as they did all other Confederates.

    Perhaps some of them had been stationed there a very long time:

    “The Daily Journal,” Evansville, Indiana, November 1, 1862 : “…Now the news comes to us that seven regiments of negroes have been drilled by the rebel authorities to man their fortifications in North and South Carolina…seven regiments of negroes, armed and equipped, had arrived at Wilmington, N.C., to occupy the various rebel fortresses during the sickly season. Is any one so ignorant as to suppose that the operations of these negroes are to be confirmed to the sickly season? Not a bit of it. They will be used in all seasons.”

    Letter of Private Frank Bailey, 34th New York Infantry Regiment to his brother in Middleville, New York: – “West Point, Virginia, 12 May 1862 – I hear that the Rebels sent out a Regt. of ni**ers to fight our men and that they were as naked as when they were born, except the brogues on their feet, and they incited to all sorts of cruelty. It is said that they cut the throats of our wounded and then rob them of every article of any value. The soldiers are death on ni**ers now. If they catch a ni**er in the woods, and there is no officer near, they hang them without any ceremony. Now if this is true that the Southern chivalry as they style themselves put these ni**ers up to such deeds as this, may the curse of good light on them. It is worse than the English were in the Revolution to hire the Indians, but their race is about run when the stoop to such barbarism as that. Yesterday there was two ni**ers hung close by here by our men. One of them had $20.00 government note in his pocket. There is no mistake but the Rebels have black soldiers for I have seen them brought in as prisoners of war. I saw one who had the stripes of an orderly sergeant on his coat. I don’t beleive in taking them prisoner, but kill them where ever they find them, that they may never more curse the land with their hateful presence.”

    Frederick Douglass, Douglass’ Monthly, IV (Sept. 1861), pp 516 – “It is now pretty well established that there are at the present moment many colored men in the Confederate Army doing duty not only as cooks, servants, and laborers, but as real soldiers, having muskets on their shoulders, and bullets in their pockets, ready to shoot down loyal troops, and do all that soldiers may do to destroy the Federal government and build up that of the traitors and rebels. There were such soldiers at Manassas and they are probably there still.”

    “Perryville: This Grand Havoc of Battle,” Kenneth W. Noe, The University of Kentucky Press, Lexington, KY, 2001. (page 270) – “The part of Adams’ Brigade that the 42nd Indiana was facing were the ‘Louisiana Tigers.’ This name was given to Colonel Gibson’s 13th Louisiana Infantry, which included five companies of ‘Avegno Zouaves’ who still were wearing their once dashing traditional blue jackets, red caps and red baggy trousers. These five Zouaves companies were made up of Irish, Dutch, Negroes, Spaniards, Mexicans, and Italians.”

    From James G. Bates’ letter to his father reprinted in the 1 May 1863 “Winchester [Indiana] Journal” (the 13th IVI [“Hoosier Regiment”] was involved in operations around the Suffolk, Virginia area in April-May 1863 ) – “I can assure you [Father], of a certainty, that the rebels have negro soldiers in their army. One of their best sharp shooters, and the boldest of them all here is a negro. He dug himself a rifle pit last night [16 April 1863] just across the river and has been annoying our pickets opposite him very much to-day. You can see him plain enough with the naked eye, occasionally, to make sure that he is a “wooly-head,” and with a spy-glass there is no mistaking him.”

    “Indianapolis Daily Evening Gazette” 12 March 1863 refers to the 5 March 1863 fight around Thompson’s Station, near Franklin, TN The 85th Indiana Volunteer Infantry reported: “NEGRO REGIMENTS IN THE REBEL ARMY – During the fight the battery in charge of the 85th Indiana [Volunteer Infantry] was attacked by [*in italics*] two rebel negro regiments. [*end italics*] Our artillerists double-shotted their guns and cut the black regiments to pieces, and brought their battery safely off. . . . It has been stated, repeatedly, for two weeks past, that a large number, perhaps one-fourth, of Van Dorn’s force were [*in italics*] negro soldiers [*end italics*], and the statement is fully confirmed by this unfortunate engagement.”

    After the action at Missionary Ridge, Commissary Sergeant William F. Ruby forwarded a casualty list written in camp at Ringgold, Georgia about 29 November 1863, to William S. Lingle for publication. Ruby’s letter was partially reprinted in the Lafayette (Missouri) Daily Courier for 8 December 1863: “Ruby says among the rebel dead on the [Missionary] Ridge he saw a number of negroes in the Confederate uniform.”

    Federal Official Records, Series I, Vol XVI Part I, pg. 805, Lt. Col. Parkhurst’s Report (Ninth Michigan Infantry) on General Forrest’s attack at Murfreesboro, Tenn, July 13, 1862: “There were also quite a number of negroes attached to the Texas and Georgia troops, who were armed and equipped, and took part in the several engagements with my forces during the day.”

    Federal Official Records Series 1, Volume 15, Part 1, Pages 137-138, report of the Union commander: “Pickets were thrown out that night, and Captain Hennessy, Company E, of the Ninth Connecticut, having been sent out with his company, captured a colored rebel scout, well mounted, who had been sent out to watch our movements.”

    Federal Official Records, Series I, Vol. XLIX, Part II, pg. 253 – April 6, 1865: “The rebels [Forrest] are recruiting negro troops at Enterprise, Miss., and the negroes are all enrolled in the State.”

    Federal Official Records, Series I, Vol. XIV, pg. 24, second paragraph, Colonel B. C. Christ, 50th Pennsylvania Volunteer Infantry, official report of May 30, 1862 regarding Confederate forces opposing him at Pocotaligo, SC., “It is also difficult to state the force of the enemy, but it could not have been less than from 600 to 800. There were six companies of mounted riflemen, besides infantry, among which were a considerable number of colored men.”

    From the diary of James Miles, 185th N.Y.V.I., entry dated January 8, 1865 – “Sargt said war is close to being over. saw several negros fighting for those rebels.”

    Miami Weekly News of Miami, Missouri, September 01, 1905 – “The following is an account of the Eighth Annual [Quantrill’s Raiders] Reunion at Independence on August 25-26,1905 : “Among those registered Friday morning were Captain Ben Morrow of Lake City, Lieutenant Lee Miller of Knobnoster, Hi George of Grain Valley, Sylvester Akers of Levasy, William Greer of Lexington, John A. Workman of Wellington, George (Jim) Holand of Kansas City (this the Negro spy Quantrill sent to Lawrence)…”

    THE PICTORIAL BOOK OF ANECDOTES AND INCIDENTS OF THE REBELLION (p. 319) by Frazer Kirkland, 1889. A collection of Grand Army of the Republic –


    One of the best morning’s work done at Yorktown was that of reducing to a state of perfect inutility in this mundane sphere, a rebel negro rifleman, who, through his skill as a marksman, had done more injury to our men than any dozen of his white compeers, in the attempted labor of trimming off the complement of Union sharpshooters. The latter had known him a long time, had kept an eye on him, and lain in wait to pick him off. His habit was to perch himself in a big tree, and, keeping himself hid behind the body, annoy the Union men by firing upon them. He climbed the tree as usual one morning, but in advance of the others coming out, and, smuggling himself into his position, was anticipating his usual day of quietude. The Union men might have killed him as he came out, but purposely avoided shooting, so as not to alarm the others. His tree was about twenty rods from one of the Union pits. When our men fired on the advancing rebel pickets, he of course saw the fix he was in–that he was indeed and decidedly up a tree.

    ‘I say, big ni**er,’ called out one of the Union soldiers, ‘you better come down from there.’

    ‘What for?’ returned the big ni**er.

    “I want you as prisoner,”

    ‘Not as this chile knows of,’ replied the concealed Ethiop.

    ‘Just as you say,’ replied our sharpshooter.

    In about an hour the ni**er poked his head out. Our man was on the lookout for him; he had his rifle on the bead-line ready–pulled the trigger–whiz-z went the bullet, down came the ni**er. He was shot through the head.”

    “Reminisces of the Blue and Gray ’61-’65, Embracing the most Brilliant and Thrilling Short Storeis of the Civil War,” 1895 – Frazier Kirkland: “One of the best morning’s work done at Yorktown was that of reducing to a state of perfect inutility in this mundane sphere a rebel Negro rifleman, who, through his skill as a marksman, had done more injury to our men than any dozen of his white compeers, in the attempted labor of trimming off the complement of Union sharpshooters. His habit was to perch himself and keeping himself hidden behind the body, annoy the Union men by firing upon them.”

    Federal Official Records: Series 2, vol 6, Part 1 (Prisoners of War) p. 17-18 – “…before one single negro or mulatto was mustered into the U.S. service you had them organized in arms in Louisiana. You had Indians and half-breed negroes and Indians organized in arms under Albert Pike, in Arkansas. Subsequently negroes were captured on the battle-field at Antietam and delivered as prisoners of war at Aiken’s Landing to the Confederate authorities, and receipted for and counted in exchange.”

    Federal Official Records, Vol. XIII, Chapter XXV, pg. 688 – September, 1862 -“…We are not likely to use one negro where the rebels have used a thousand. When I left Arkansas they were still enrolling negroes to fortify the rebellion.” –

    Federal Official Records, Correspondence, Etc., Vol. II, pg. 218 – July 11, 1862 – Rich D. Yates, Governor of Illinois – “…they [the Confederacy] have, by means of sweeping conscription, gathered in countless hordes, and threaten to overwhelm the armies of the Union, with blood and treason in their hearts. They flaunt the black flag of rebellion in the face of the Government, and threaten to butcher our brave and loyal armies with foreign bayonets. They arm negroes and merciless savages in their behalf.”

    Federal Official Records, Vol. XIX, Chapter XXXI, pg. 617 – Record of the Harper’s Ferry Military Commission (U.S.Army)
    “Question. Do you know of any individual of the enemy having been killed or wounded during the siege of Harper’s Ferry?
    Answer. I have strong reasons to believe that there was a negro killed, who had wounded 2 or 3 of my men. I know that an officer took deliberate aim at him, and he fell over. He was one of the skirmishers of the enemy
    [Confederate, ed.], and wounded 3 of my men. I know there must have been some of the enemy killed.
    Question. How do you know the negro was killed?
    Answer. The officer saw him fall.”

    Federal Official Records, Vol. XLI, Chapter LIII, pg. 670 – PATTERSON, [November] 24, 1864 – “Colonel MAUPIN: I have arrived with my squad on return. Captain McClanahan has gone on the upper road for Pilot Knob; will all arrive there to-morrow. No rebel force below. We have turned up eleven bushwhackers to dry and one rebel negro. No man hurt on our side. The men are generally well.”

    Federal Official Records, Series 1, Volume 4, p.569 – Report of Colonel John W. Phelps, First Vermont Infantry: “CAMP BUTLER, Newport News, Va., August 11, 1861 – SIR: Scouts from this post represent the enemy as having retired. they came to New Market Bridge on Wednesday, and left the next day. They-the enemy-talked of having 9,000 men. They were recalled by dispatches from Richmond. They had twenty pieces of artillery, among which was the Richmond Howitzer Battery, manned by negroes. . . Their numbers are probably overrated; but with regard to their artillery, and its being manned in part by negroes, I think the report is probably correct.”

    Federal Official Records, Series 1, vol 35, Part 1 (Olustee), Page 442-443, S.C., FLA., AND ON THE GA. COAST. Chapter XLVII – Report of Bgen Asboth, USA: “…when I proceeded to Milton, Fla., a distance of 9 miles, and after rebuilding the destroyed bridge on the Arcadia Creek, I came upon the enemy, about 100 strong, and consisting of Captain Goldsby’s (Alabama) cavalry company and a new militia infantry company, mounted…Having received early information of the arrival of two army steamers at Bayou Mulatte, the enemy had sent his stores on seven wagons in time toward Pollard, and seemed prepared and decided to accept a fight in the camp at the upper end of the town, but fled, upon our impetuous charge, in all directions. We pursued them closely for 7 miles, and captured 4 privates of Goldsby’s company and 3 colored men, mounted and armed, with 7 horses and 5 mules with equipments, and 20 Austrian rifles.”

    Federal Official Records, Series I, Vol. XVII, Chapter XXIX, Pg. 635-637 – December 28, 1863 – “…It had to be prosecuted under the fire of the enemy’s sharpshooters, protected as well as the men might be by our skirmishers on the bank, who were ordered to keep up so vigorous a fire that the enemy should not dare to lift their heads above their rifle-pits; but the enemy, and especially their armed negroes, did dare to rise and fire, and did serious execution upon our men…The casualties in the brigade were 11 killed, 40 wounded, and 4 missing; aggregate, 55. – Very respectfully, your obedient servant, D. STUART, Brigadier-General, Commanding”

    Federal Official Records, Series I, Vol. III, Correspondence, etc., pg 767-768 – “CAMBRIDGE, September 4, 1863. His Excellency A. LINCOLN, President of the United States: …excitement here growing out of the recruiting of colored troops, and as some of the recruiting officers are acting rather indiscreetly, I fear, by taking slaves in their recruits, and the slaves of loyal as well as disloyal persons…to enlist slaves as well as free people is creating a great deal of anxiety among the people…we ought to use the colored people, after the rebels commenced to use them against us. ”

    “The Negro as a Soldier” – Written by Christian A. Fleetwood, Sergeant-Major 4th U.S. Colored Troops, for the Negro Congress at the Cotton States and International Exposition, Atlanta, Ga., November 11 to November 23, 1895 – “It seems a little singular that in the tremendous struggle between the States in 1861-1865, the south should have been the first to take steps toward the enlistment of Negroes. Yet such is the fact. Two weeks after the fall of Fort Sumter, the ‘Charleston Mercury’ records the passing through Augusta of several companies of the 3rd and 4th Georgia Regt., and of sixteen well-drilled companies and one Negro company from Nashville, Tenn. ‘The Memphis Avalanche’ and ‘The Memphis Appeal’ of May 9, 10, and 11, 1861, give notice of the appointment by the ‘Committee of Safety’ of a committee of three persons ‘to organize a volunteer company composed of our patriotic freemen of color of the city of Memphis, for the service of our common defense.'”

    Slave Narratives – July, 1937, interview with James Cape, former slave and by his own words Black Confederate combat soldier wounded in action: “One day Marster Bob comes to me and says, ‘Jim, how you like to jine de army? You see, de war had started. I says to him ‘What does I have to?’ And he says, “Tend hosses and ride ’em’ So de first thing I knows, I’s in de army away off east from here [Southest Texas].’ . . . After I gits in de army, it wasn’ so much fun ’cause tendin’ horses and ridin’ wasn’ all I does. No, sar, I has to do shootin’ and git shooted at! . . . You’s heard of de battle of Independence [Missouri]? Dat’s whar we fights for three days and nights. I’se not tendin horses that time. Dey gives me a rifle and sends me up front fightin’ , when we wasn’ runnin! . . . I gits shot in de shoulder in dat fight . . . ‘nother time we fights two days and nights . . .”

    Slave Narratives, June 5, 1937 – Alexander B. Johnson, Birmingham, Alabama – “They is all gone, scattered, and old massa and missus have died….Then de war came and we all went to fight the Yankees. I was a body servant t! o the master, and once a bullet took off his hat. We all thought he was shot but he wasn’t, and I was standin’ by his side all the time…I remember Stonewall Jackson. He was a big man with long whiskers, and very brave. We all fought wid him until his death. We wa’n’t beaten, we was starved out! Sometimes we had perched corn to eat and sometimes we didn’t have a bite o’ nothin’, because the Union mens come and tuk all de food for theirselves. I can still remember part of my ninety years. I remembers dey fought all de way from Virginia and winded up in Manassah’s Gap…In all de years since de war I cannot forget old massa. He was good and kind. He never believed in slavery but his money was tied up in slaves and he didn’t want to lose all he had…I knows I will see him in heaven and even though I have to walk ten miles for a bite of bread I can still be happy to think about the good times we had then. I am a Confederate veteran but my house burned up wid de medals and I don’t get a pension.”

    Reprinted in the “Memphis Daily Avalanche,” May 3rd 1861, pg. 3, col. 3 – “Free Colored Men. – A List of thirty-two worthy free negroes of this city, who have offered their services in the work of defense, or in any other capacity required, has been sent in to the Captain of the Woodis Rifles…They express an earnest desire to meet their Yankee enemies, or miserable sable brothers of the North, in a regular hand-to-hand fight. Some of those who have offered to serve in the cause of Southern honor have fought under the old flag…A large number of free negroes of Petersburg have expressed a desire to fight for the South, and we learn that 500 will come down as soon as the word is given…We noticed yesterday several colored men in uniform. They came as musicians with the gallant Georgia troops.”

    “Memphis Daily Avalanche,” April 23rd 1861, pg. 3, col. 2. – “An Enthusiastic Negro. – Jim Moore, a negro barber of Bolivar, Hardiman county, in this State, a slave of Dr. Thomas Moore, subscribed $50 for a military company to fight against Lincoln. He also visited Montgomery to see Jeff Davis inaugurated. With few exceptions such is the feeling of all our slaves, who are loyal to a degree that would astonish the fanatics of the North.”

    Letter from a Union soldier, published in the Indianapolis (Indiana) Star, December 23, 1861: “Attack On Our Soldiers By Armed Negroes – A body of seven hundred [Confederate] Negro infantry opened fire on our men, wounding two lieutenants and two privates. The wounded men testify positively that they were shot by Negroes, and that not less than seven hundred were present, armed with muskets. This is, indeed a new feature in the war. We have heard of a regiment of [Confederate] Negroes at Manassas, and another at Memphis, and still another at New Orleans, but did not believe it till it came so near home and attacked our men.”

    Religious Herald, Richmond, VA, September 10, 1863 (From unedited microfiche of the original article): “To the Confederate army goes the distinction of having the first black to minister to white troops: ‘A correspondent of the SOLDIER’S FRIEND mentions a Tennessee regiment which has no chaplain; but an old negro, ‘Uncle Lewis,” preaches two or three times a week at night. He is heard with respectful attention — and for earnestness, zeal and sincerity, can be surpassed by none. Two or three revivals have followed his preaching in the regiment. What will the wise Christian patriots out of the army, who denounce those who wish to see competent negroes allowed to preach, as tainted with anti-slaveryism, say with regard to the true Southern feeling of that regiment, which has fought unflinchingly from Shiloh to Murfreesboro?'”

    “Antietam and the Maryland and Virginia Campaigns of 1862 from the Government Records, Union and Confederate, Mostly Unknown and Which Have Now First Disclosed the Truth: Approved by the War Department:” Gaithersburg, MD, Isaac W. Heysinger [Captain, USA], Olde Soldier Books, 1987., (Reprint of 1912 edition) – “At 4 o’clock this morning the Rebel army began to move from our town, Jackson’s force taking the advance. The most liberal calculation could not give them more than 64,000 men. Over 3,000 Negroes must be included in the number. athese were clad in all kinds of uniforms, not only cast off or captured United States uniforms, but in coats with Southern buttonms, State buttons, etc. Most of the Negroes had arms, rifles, muskets, sabers, bowie knives, dirks, etc. They were supplied, in many instances, with knapsacks, haversacks, canteens, etc., and they were manifestly an integral portion of the Southern Confederacy army. They were seen riding on horses and mules, driving wagons, riding on caissons, in ambulances, with the staff of generals and promiscuously mixed up with all the Rebel horde.”

    “Civil War Curiosities,” Webb Garrison, 1994, Rutledge Hill Press, pg. 107 – “Like some of their counterparts in the North, a few Southern officers made unofficial and irregular use of black soldiers. From start to finish, an estimated four hundred of them served in the Eighteenth Virginia and other units raised in the state.”

    Elgin (Illinois) Daily Courier-News, Monday, April 12, 1948 – “Robert (Uncle Bob) Wilson, Negro veteran of the Confederate army who observed his 112th birthday last January 13, died early yesterday morning in the veterans’ hospital at the Elgin State hospital…He enlisted as a private in Company H of the 16th regiment of Virginia Infantry on Oct. 9, 1862 and discharged May 31, 1863. ”

    “Into The Fight – Pickett’s Charge at Gettysburg; ” John Michael Priest, White Mane Books, 1998, pp 128:, 130-131 “Color Corporal George B. Powell (14th Tennessee) went down during the advance. Boney Smith, a Black man attached to the regiment, took the colors and carried them forward…The colors of the 14th Tennessee got within fifty feet of the east wall before Boney Smith hit the dirt —wounded. Jabbing the flagstaff in the ground, he momentarily urged the regiment forward until the intense pressure forced the men to lie down to save their lives.”

    “The Sable Arm: Black Troops in the Union Army, 1861-1865”, written by D.T. Cornish. pp 16: “The scouts of the 1st Vermont Infantry reported a Richmond howitzer battery manned by Negroes at Newmarket Bridge, Virginia, in August (1861).”

    The Chicago Tribune cited by the Leavenworth (Kansas) Daily Conservative, Sept. 13, 1861: “Negroes are employed by the thousands in the rebel armies to fight against the Union…”

    The Leavenworth (Kansas) Daily Conservative, Oct. 6, 1861: “It is well known that negroes and Indians serve in the rebel army…”

    “Between Two Fires – Black Soldiers in the Civil War,”Joyce Hansen, 1993, Franklin Watts, 42: “This war between the North and the South gave enslaved men and women an opportunity to take advantage of unstable conditions created by the warring whites. This was one way for some black people to initiate their march for their own freedom. Caught between two fires, they to find a way to survive the conflict. And for some, one way to survive was to volunteer to help the Confederates…The promise of freedom for themselves and their families was enough of an incentive to join the Confederate Army, and the Union had said that it was not fighting to end slavery.”

    “Negroes in the Confederate Army, Journal of Negro History,” Charles Wesley, Vol. 4, #3, (1919), 244: “The Governor of Tennessee was given permission in June 1861 to accept into the state militia black males between the ages if fifteen and fifty. The men were to receive eight dollars a month, plus clothing and rations.”

    THE NEW YORK TIMES Nov. 11, 1864, Vol. XIV – No. 4098, front page: “Jeff. Davis’ Message–He Opposes the Theory but Urges the Practice of Arming the Slaves – The message of Jeff. Davis to the rebel Congress, which assembled on the 7th inst., has come to hand…Mr. Davis opposes in general the arminng of the negro slaves. He says he cannot see the propriety or necessity of arming the slaves while there are so many white men out of the ranks. He would only [in italics] drill and arm such negroes as are already employed in the Quartermaster and Commissary Departments [end italics] and fill the places of such by a draft of negroes from the planters. He would give only [in italics] the reward of manumission to such slaves as shall have served efficiently with arms in the field. [end italics]”

    One only has to recall the frustrating decades-long struggle to gain recognition of the United States Colored Troops, the “Buffalo Soldiers,” the 9th and 10th Cavalry at San Juan Hill, Black Americans who fought valiantly under French command in World War 1, the World War 2 Tuskegee Airmen and 761st Tank Battalion (the “Black Panthers”), to see a direct parallel to the effort to properly research, document, and create public awareness of the role of Black Confederate soldiers.

    There is certainly more proper documentary evidence which exists and there will be more discovered in the future, but what is provided suffices to prove that the Union Army and the Federal government obviously knew that there were Black Confederate combat soldiers facing them in the field in more significant numbers than previously realized. While it is unlikely they numbered in the tens of thousands there were certainly more than a “handful” as alleged by naysayers who refuse to research themselves or even read available documentation.

    Black Southerners were complex human beings who made difficult personal decisions based on their experiences, thoughts, and hopes. Black Confederate combat soldiers deserve further research as well as respect, understanding, and honor. To deny them despite evidence is not professional or scholarly.

    “The first law of the historian is that he shall never dare utter an untruth. The second is that he shall suppress nothing that is true. Moreover, there shall be no suspicion of partiality in his writing, or of malice.” – Cicero (106-43 B.C.)

    Your Obedient Servant,

    Colonel Michael Kelley, CSA
    Commanding, 37th Texas Cavalry (Terrell’s)
    “We are a band of brothers!”

    “I came here as a friend…let us stand together. Although we differ in color, we should not differ in sentiment.” – LT Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest, CSA, Memphis, Tennessee – July, 1875

  • Doncha love the Internet?!? It makes it so easy to resurrect a dead horse to beat…

  • There are Rebel images not linked to the Confederacy.

    Unfortunately, in order to adopt such a Rebel for its mascot, Ole Miss would have to obtain permission from George Lucas.

    May the farce be with you.

  • Just an update regarding the former controversy as to whether or not there were Black Confederate soldiers.

    In the past naysayers have cited that the Federal government failure to recognize that there were Black Confederates was “proof” that they did not exist. That has changed and the Federal position, via the National Park Serivce, now admits to their existence and is undertaking to research and document them:

    “June 20, 2005

    Much more information is available, especially from official, preserved government records, about the role of African American soldiers in the Union army. The numbers of those soldiers per se were undoubtedly greater than in the Confederate army. In addition, the federal government officially approved a recruitment policy for African Americans, including slaves (the majority of African Americans) into the Union army by 1863. The Confederate States did not officially approve the recruitment of African American slaves into the Confederate army until nearly the end of the war.

    While some free African Americans served in the Confederate army, their role is not as well documented and preserved. In addition, many African Americans who served in some capacity in the Confederate army, often anonymously, were slaves. It is difficult to have precise information in the present about the ways in which they served, and the exact military role they played.

    We hope over time to be able to include more information on all African Americans who served, both slave and free, including those who served in any capacity in the Confederate war effort. As some writers have pointed out even the official records preserved by the federal government have episodic references to this subject. It is a matter of collecting material from disparate sources to compile a portrait of the issue. It is a less well known part of Civil War history, because it was not as well documented, but it is a part of the overall history that we would like to include over time.

    Marilyn W. Nickels, Ph.D.
    Project Manager
    African-American History Web Project
    Office of the Chief Information Officer/NISC
    National Park Service”

    Col. Kelley
    37th Texas Cavalry

  • Steve Martini

    All right, just my 2 cents here – then I’m done. Football if football – no one is still fighting the Civil War here, just playing football. Let’s ban all Bulldogs (Georgia and Mississippi State) for fear someone who was once bitten by a bulldog would take offense. Let’s ban Tigers (Auburn and LSU) because one attacked that magician from Siegfried and Roy. Let’s ban that Daniel Boone mascot from Tennessee because he wears a coon skin cap and that’s offensive to PETA people. Does anyone want to talk about how offensive the Game Cocks are? Just seeing a baseball cap featuring the word “COCKS” is enough to get my day off on the right foot. If we have nothing better to do than debate the offensiveness or non-offensiveness of college mascots, it indeed is a sad day.

    And yes, I’m an Ole Miss alum. I grew up in Utah and came to the South of my own free will. My ancestors hail from Italy, three generations ago. Just a little support for “all folks from the South aren’t ignorant, slave-owning fascists.”

    Now, y’all go find something more interesting to argue about.

  • Red

    I think all this fuss over a mascot is just absurd. It’s just a school mascot. But it’s something people can raise hell about. I think it’s time these people got a life and stop stirring up trouble just because they’re bored.

  • The North and their lies

    Truth about slavery. More African slaves were sold on WALL STREET than anywhere else in the South. Funny how Yanks have buried that little fact in their so called morality kick. Another fact about the Northern Americnas have conveniently buried, was not the slavery issue that had them concerned. It was that cheaply picked cotton by slaves they would not be getting if the South was to be successful in building a separate nation. Oh the Hypocricy!!! No that I care one way or another. I am Canadian.

  • Clayton Branch

    Everyone needs to read a little history. Our country was built on the belief that the Government or the KING (England) should not rule over the people. So America was built with the idea of States Rights, and with the idea that the Federal government was to protect the States from other countries. When Lincoln started to run for office… the states knew that his Federalist views were bad for this country. He was elected only because the South had more than one candidate on the Ballot and thus the southern votes were split. When Lincoln was elected..the South left the union using its Constitutional Right as writen by our founding fathers. Lincoln knew this would devastate the Economics of the country and so he created War… and waged a war unlike any other war ever fought. Then as the war wasn’t going his way (the south dominated the early years)…he passed the Emancipation Proclamation to create a reason to fight, because the north wasn’t completely understanding the deadly war they were fighting.
    The “Fight to end Slavery” was created by Lincoln so that even today .. people would think that the War was about Slaves. Lincoln was smart…because he fooled all of you.

    That is the truth.. and if you dont understand that…then you should study your history and stop accepting what this country tells you as truth.

    Slaves were not right, but every state in the union had them, not just the South. Also, the north wasn’t even ordered to stop using Slaves until after the war. Some Great Slave Hero Lincoln was.

    Clay Branch

  • lost cause

    Stop going to Ole Miss. Stop going to their games, stop watching or supporting this college in any way, shape or form. Let them know how you see this as an act of reverse discrimination against those who feel their heritage is being stolen by the politically correct. If these ignorant PC type feel the war was about slavery, so be it. The blind will lead the blind. Let them walk off the cliff.

  • TRUErebel

    Here’s an idea that will fix it all!!! If you don’t like colonel Reb, feel free to get the hell out of my school. We’re not forcing you to be here and we’re VERY tired of your whiney asses. There are lots of other schools to choose from. PLEASE feel more than welcome to look into somewhere else.

  • DTG

    One question. Who sold the slaves to the slave traders that brought them to America?

  • Todd Ross

    Interesting old posts here.

    I wonder why no one commented that Col Reb was based on Blind Jim Ivy. In case you don’t know who he was, he was a peanut vendor in Oxford and was considered the mascot for Ole Miss. He was an icon at Ole Miss for 6 – 7 decades.

    Blind Jim Ivy was black.

    Maybe if they make Col Rebel black there would be no fuss?

  • cj

    The black chiefs of Africa sold ther own people to the slave traders.
    For a few trinkets and some rum and maybe a few loaves of bread.
    If don,t like America go back to your africa where the problems started.
    Nuff said!

  • yo

    DTG and cj,

    You forgot the part where Black Africans wouldn’t have engaged in the transatlantic slave trade were it not for pressure from white colonialists in the first place. But hey, continue with revisionist history.

    – Yo

  • WC

    Regarding the last comment – perhaps you are correct that Africans would not have participated in the transatlantic slave trade without white pressure. What you failed to point out, however, is that they would have simply continued capturing and trading black African slaves among themselves as they had done for tens of thousands of years and continue to do even today.

  • holly

    I’m doing research for a book on the Old South & Ole Miss. Can anyone tell me the dates when Ole Miss stopped-

    1)allowing the Rebel flag at school events
    2)allowing Colonel Reb at school events
    3)playing ‘Dixie’ at school events

    Ole Miss banned Colonel Reb?

  • Dave

    I always think it is interesting when Civil War discussions start. There are almost always comments about Lincoln and the wicked south. Did you know that Lincoln rose to power off his wife’s family’s money? Did you know that they were the largest owner of slaves in Kentucky? Hmmm… Then there is the statement that Lincoln freed the slaves. Hmmm… Nope! He freed the slaves in the southern states only. It’s amazing how revisionist history turns some Americans into heroes and others into villains. The Civil War was about the rights of states to govern themselves. IMHO we need another Civil War.

  • Don

    The University of Mississippi has banned display of the Confederate Battle Flag in any official capacity as well as students or fans. It was replaced with a non-offensive immitation. They recently banned the singing of a song that contained the lyrics “the South will rise again”. I don’t know what that was replaced with (We Are the World?). Now Colonel Rebel is banned. I thought our universities were supposed to be institutions promoting freedom of speech and thought.

    Surely the enlightend leaders of the University cannot be finished with their mission to eliminate every last vestige of the ties that bind it to the Old South. First, the team cannot be called “Rebels” can they? That’s bound to offend someone. Maybe “Los Ninas” would give the team enhanced recruiting capabilities.

    Second, the colors red, white, and blue simply must go. Not only do they conjour up visions of the Confederate Stars and Bars, it’s much too reminicent of the American Flag and all the evil that stands for. I would suggest maybe the rainbow colors or a bright Chinese red.

    Third, the new mascot should be something cute and cuddly like Tinkerbell or Thumper. That would offend no one and appeal to all.

    Lastly, how can the name “Ole Miss” be tolerated any longer. Old Mississippi was evil and bad with no redeeming qualities whatsoever. I would suggest “Nuevo Sud”, once again, for it’s wide appeal and lack of offense (except to wrong thinking people). Then again, just being in Mississippi is offensive. Maybe the University should move to San Francisco.

  • burntup

    Hey look this is freaking crazy. People don’t relize that the northern people was outraged when lincoln passed the emancipation. They wanted to keep their slaves thay pulled their families out the war. RaciSim will never go away if we continue to have things like naacp,black history month, and wanting to be considered the minority. If the black people are so offended by everything well so am I. I’m offended by all blacks on a basketball team, or the crazy stuff they do in the mall like walking dead center of the isle and won’t move. The only race that needs to be pissed is the american indian. I don’t see the black race going to africa and depending on the govt to be the minority. No one makes u go to ole miss or makes u watch the games I personally don’t like olemiss but I think if your offended about something as stupid as a mascot your crazy. How offended when you call each other nigga! I ask some black guys that and its just slang. If you want to be respected then change something by working at it not complaining about it or whinning or using the slavery or minority crutch. I’m handicapped but I hate to be called that just like I hate for someone to hand me or do it for me I don’t want to depend on you or anyone depend on your self NO ONE OWES YOU ANYTHING

  • burntup

    the thing that is wrong with this country is we have gone to long doing what the minority wants why should we conform to what ever the minority says….its time that the naacp be considered just as the kkk. why dont the university use a cotton ball as the mascot or maybe the magnoila flower then the tree huggers would fuss cant have n animal cause the peta will fuss

  • mjs

    why is yankee acceptable but rebel is not/

  • james blakely

    ole miss should not longer be called rebels,because they are not. what a bunch of losers

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Eric –

    That said, the war was 150 years ago. The vast majority of Southerners have done exactly what I mentioned above and should not be blamed for what their vile ancestors did. Many areas of the South are now more enlightened than many areas of the North. With modern mobility, many people in the South do not descend from slave-era Southerners anyway.

    I grew up about thirty miles from Ole Miss, when Archie Manning – the dad of Peyton and Eli Manning – was quarterbacking the Rebels. Perhaps what you say is true of some areas of the South, but in my experience, for the vast majority of the South it is NOT true…particularly in the MS Delta, ground zero for racism in America then and now.

    It’s a lot better than it was…but I do so wish I could take you for a little tour around Sunflower and Bolivar counties and show you just how far we haven’t come.

    I’ve written about it several times, but it bears repeating: in 1984 I went home to the Delta on leave from the Navy. I went to Shaw, MS where I had graduated high school four years earlier. The town doctor’s office was on the main drag, and it had two entrances. Above each door was a marble slab – one said “white”, and the other said “colored”. Sure, the marble slabs were painted over with a solid coat of green…but a coat of paint can’t hide letters chiseled an inch deep!

    And the townsfolk still abided by those signs and no one said anything!

    This was twenty years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act. If I’d had any brains, I’d have called up Time or Newsweek and blown the whistle…but I didn’t. Why? That’s the way it had always been while I went to school and helped run my mother’s used-clothing store there…and (being stupid as most 21 year-old men are) I couldn’t see the big picture, what it really represented.

    The South is indeed changing, Eric…but slowly, so very slowly, like the River itself, a lazy meandering of the days of the oppressive Delta heat in midsummer to the eventual cool breezes after the harvest of the cotton and soybeans in the fall. But the cotton fields (and the cotton choppers who were all black) have mostly gone, replaced with more-profitable corn. Perhaps that’s a good sign.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    And for all – I agree – Ole Miss should no longer keep ‘Rebels’ as its mascot. Personally, instead of the “Ole Miss Rebels”, I’d like to see the “Ole Miss Civil Rights Activists” if only to tweak the sensibilities of those racists who comprised most of my friends and family in my youth in the Delta.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Eric –

    One more thing – about five miles from my house are the graves of an unbroken line of my family dating back to before the War – which is what we called the Civil War. I’ll be the first in the line to be buried outside that cemetery – and it’ll be in a country where I’ll probably be the only grave in the cemetery that contains a white guy.

  • james

    how come black people are not racist and white people are no matter what

  • razorbackforlife

    arkamsas is the best college in the world{whites rule}

  • getoffthatbs

    If they change ole miss name and mascot, might as well change the following: New York Yankees (Yankees…) Milwaukee Brewers (Drunkedness), Washington Redskins (Native Americans…has to be the most offensive!) and the list goes on..

  • getoffthatbs

    and on the note of the civil war. Opposed to contrary belief, the civil was was fought to keep the Federal laws and the state laws separate. Read some books for gods sake! If u wanna go there we are in a similar situation with the “gay Marriage”. We gonna have a civil war over that? Who knows.

  • Taylor

    Im sorry KA cut you during rush Ken, but that was YEARS ago. Your bitterness is unending.

  • Dee

    The AKC is adding a new dog breed, Blue Tick Hound. Since Colonel Reb is out. Why not adopt the blue tick hound and name it Rebel?

  • BarefeetBob

    The Confederate battle flag previously waved at Ole Miss games is not the “Stars and Bars”. The Stars and Bars was the first national flag of the CSA, which resembles the “Betsy Ross” with only three stripes.

  • hard feelings?

    what’s your problem with KA? You go out of your way to bash the fraternity twice.

  • YourWelcomeforYourWhiskey

    So you poor delusional souls are actually trying to argue that there was “nothing noble” about fighting for the south?? Are you insane? How many people do you think were fighting for their homeland and their family? This is the kind of northern snobbery we’ve had to put up with for 150 years. Complete idiots.

  • HogFan

    The plantation owners and the wealthy wanted to keep slavery for money. They’d have to start paying the people to work if they didn’t have the slaves.. So you had lobysist and people with money ruling the country. Just like today. The average citizen didn’t own slaves.. The people who actually fought in the war more than likely didn’t own slaves…

    I would figure that alot of the normal people would want to get rid of slavery so they could have some jobs…

    Bottom line is the majority of America and the Confederacy thought they were above the blacks / slaves… Not every person did but most did. But the big plantation farmers were the one’s who actually had the slaves… Arkansas was in the war but only like 3% of the population owned slaves… Go figure… Arkansas sides with fellow southerners… Thats what the south is all about.. Kinsmenship…

    As for the mascot idea… I would think the only thing you could go to would be patriotic revolutionary rebels… Or like an earlier post said, do away with human mascots and have a Turkey or something.. lol

  • Gomer

    I wonder where Mac Diva and Chris Arabia are from to have such uninformed views on this issue?

  • Gomer

    The crazy thing is none of the PC snobs can name even one predominately black town in the entire world that is not overwhelmingly violent. This is not true for any other race on the planet. Now, I know that is not a PC stat but can it be explained intelligently by any of the mental giants on this post? I would gladly donate money, guns, shovels, hoes or work boots to any cause that might be able to remedy this huge but unspoken problem.

  • The Ugly Truth-Majority Rules

    There has recently been a American segregration study conducted by a notiable school which had some very interesting results. The study was to research the projected survival and mortality of the American majority vs. various American minority subcultures. They found that if each of the groups were segragated into their own individual territories/countries (mexicans, cubans, blacks, homosexual groups specifically) the groups would start to decompensate from the inside out, eventually turning into 3rd world countries without the assistance and skills of the American caucasion majority. If you took America and divided it into sections, this is what was projected would occur; the American black culture would demise from diseases(as they are predisposed to numerous inherited diseases involving heart, endocrine system, blood diseases and autoimmune disorders, fewer inclined to persue medical training and predisposition to addictive disease),crime (lack of structure in the family unit, lack of motivation)and hunger(poor agricultural/hunting skills); the American homosexual group’s demise would be from disease (HIV, AIDS), lack of progeneration (reduction in conceptions); the mexicans and cubans would die from crime(motivated by predisposition to addictive diseases),

  • The Ugly Truth-Majority Rules

    Mexicans and Cubans cont.; would also die from disease (lack of motivation to get medical training and inherited disease). The Caucasian group was found to prosper and grow as their population was greater in numbers and although genetic and inherited disease would be present they would not lack pursuit of medical training, agriculture and hunting skills and a natural inclination to family structure. Sorry about grammar and spelling as I am still trying to perfect the English language. I only share this because I am minority and this information I found to motivate me to continue my education and not despise the Caucasian race because they are the majority of America and have helped this great country and people stay alive. Majority is the majority, it is the order of the human race and I do not question God’s design. During my time in America I have lived both in the northern and southern regions and I find I enjoy the southern region best. People are friendly and nice, I have never felt hatred even with my dark skin. I remember visiting Ole Miss before the mascot was removed and neither I or my American “black” friends had problem with it. We feel the ones that had a problem with the mascot must harbor hatred for the white race and are more guilty of racism themselves. I must point out I never new a black person from Ole Miss who had a problem with the mascot and I knew a large number of people.

  • Dear Ugly Truth,

    The school was so notable you couldn’t remember the name of it? Could you please share the name of this “notable school” with us?

  • Buman

    Seems to me that someone wants “Admiral Ackbar”, get rid of a few letters amd ad one and it would be “allah akbar”.

    Hmmm, either a star wars freak or a fox in sheeps clothing..

  • Buman

    Oh heres one, hang a person of a certain race and call the mascot
    “The Ole Miss Longnecks”… To many people are crying over a friggin mascot because it’s not PC.. There the ones that sit here enjoying thier freedom to piss and moan.. Not overseas fighting for that right. PC has nothing to do with race, that would be RC, politically or racially.

  • Bob The Grounded


    Brewer = someone who brews beer. Specifically, in the cause of you mentioning the Milwaukee Brewers, the team was named for the city’s association with the brewing industry – they play their games at MILLER part and their logo has barley grains on it, you know… like that is beer.

    People who brew beer USUALLY are not drunks. Reason? If you brew beer you enjoy good beer therefore you aren’t out to just get drunk of your ass.

    Not sure why I even bothered responding to this.

  • Warren

    As someone who grew up in Mississippi, I am deeply ashamed of Ole Miss for abandoning its heritage. If the old mascot was not good enough for them, they don’t deserve a mascot!

  • Red Neck …good ole boy

    Time for a history lesson .
    States rights …well fact is the union wanted to impose huge taxes on the cotton sales the South was selling to our cousins over the pond .
    The Union wanted in on the cash crop ..wanted to control it .
    Jeff Davis …pulled Mississippi out of the Union …the other Southern states soon followed ………get it ??? sounds like politics doesn`t it ….the Union came up with the idea of working the slave issue into it ( even though northern slaves built the white house ) so the yankee boys thought they were fighting for a nobel cause …..sure they`ll kill each other if we make it nobel …right …anything changed in the last 150 years ? NOPE

  • joy

    I guess you would have to be a true blue Mississippian to understand what a slap in our face this was. Liberals are destroying our heritage one step at a time and I for one am so sick of it. long live the Col. Reb for he represents something many will never understand……