Neo-Confederate Goes on CNN, Ducks Into the Punch

Pat Hines, chairman of the board of the white nationalist, neo-confederate group League of the South, went on CNN to defend the Confederate flag and ended up making the case against it instead. He started by claiming it’s a tribute to his ancestors, who fought against the invasion of South Carolina.

Don Lemon hosted the chairman Monday night of the South Carolina white nationalist League of the South to defend the Confederate symbol, reported Mediaite.

“We think it’s a memorial to our ancestors who fought to stop an invasion of South Carolina by the United States,” explained Pat Hines, the neo-Confederate group’s chairman.

And the reason why South Carolina seceded? Because of slavery. They made this abundantly clear in their secession declaration.

In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof…

The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the *forms* [emphasis in the original] of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that “Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,” and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

Guess what? That was the only reason offered for why South Carolina seceded, because the northern states and the federal government were becoming hostile to the idea that they could own other human beings. The Texas declaration of secession was even more blunt:

We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

White supremacy FTW!

“The flag is where it is as a memorial site,” Hines countered. “The entire site around the flagpole, with the flag is a memorial to, for instance, my ancestors. I had five South Carolina ancestors, then one from North Carolina, who fought in the Civil War.”

They fought for the right to continue to own slaves. That’s it. There’s no point in pretending otherwise.

The white nationalist group leader then turned his attention to Kimpson, the black lawmaker who represents Charleston, using rhetoric from the White Genocide Project endorsed by League of the South President Michael Hill.

“What I don’t understand is why the state senator is moving to do cultural genocide on the southern men and women,” Hines said, as Lemon reacted in shock. “ I don’t get that. Maybe he’s not from the South – I don’t really know him.”

Cultural genocide! Hilarious.

"[Moore supporter]A woman cop ... in Alabama ... in 1977 ...?Sounds unbelievable already!"

AL Cop: We Were Told to ..."
"We have created the most advanced civilization with the greatest opportunity for individual advancementCheck out ..."

Crokin: Trump Was Sending a Message ..."
"Like Lyekka, angels are smooth around the bend."

Wiles: Gays Would Rape Angels if ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • busterggi

    Only in Southern America could monuments be raised with pride for traitors.

  • StevoR

    @ ^ busterggi : ..Who proudly fought to keep other people enslavened

  • StevoR


  • D. C. Sessions

    I’ll bet he can recite “God Bless the USA” from memory, too. All while staring fondly at the flag of an enemy who killed more American troops than all of the others in all of our wars combined.

  • Pierce R. Butler

    … as Lemon reacted in shock.

    Doesn’t sound like CNN’s chosen representative packs much of a punch for LoSer Hines to duck into.

  • colnago80

    Re Butler @ #5

    Most of the hosts on the lamestream media are from the he said she said school of journalism. Anderson Cooper is a notable exception.

  • Erp

    Strictly speaking World War II had more US deaths since many of the deaths in the Civil War were Confederate. Total Union dead were about 364,000 with 140,000 of those being in combat. WWII had total US deaths at about 405,000 with about 292,000 being combat.

    Confederate deaths were about 300,000.

  • chuck c

    “fugitives from labor.” What a charming euphemism.

  • The Other Lance

    “Well, I’m an audacious kind of guy,” Hines said.

    Naw. Yer just an asshole.

  • Raging Bee

    chuck c: I guess that’s an earlier version of the old “those people just don’t want to work” trope.

  • scienceavenger

    @7 Yeah, but the population was about 10% of what it is now, so as a proportion of the populace the Civil War dead were far greater.

  • colnago80

    Re scienceavenger @ #11

    Many ignorant commentators like to make the accusation that General Grant was a butcher. In actual fact, he was nothing of the kind, as he realized that more of his men would die in camp of disease then would die in combat, given the primitive state of medicine at the time. Therefore, he realized that the best way to lessen the carnage was to end the war as quickly as possible, which involved hard fighting, which his predecessors, especially McClellan, tried to avoid.

    Incidentally, the Grant as butcher and Lee as skillful general is belied by the fact that the percentage of Grants men who died in combat were 1/2 of the percentage of Lee’s men who died in combat.

  • Modusoperandi

    I used to play for the Basketball League of the South. We were awful.

  • Raging Bee

    Just in case anyone wants to restart a certain old debate about what the Civil War, the Confederacy, or any of the CSA’s flags were “about,” here’s a link to the last fun debate Ed hosted on those subjects:

    I see Ed failed to cite his own previous work, so I figured he was being modest and waiting for someone in his adoring fan-base to do it for him. “Friend, go up higher,” as the Bible (as quoted by Linus) says…

  • Raging Bee

    …hard fighting, which his predecessors, especially McClellan, tried to avoid.

    Yeah, McClellan was a fucking disaster — which is probably one big reason why Lee ended up looking to skilled in comparison. And probably also why Lee was so emboldened as to try to take Gettysburg later on.

    Incidentally, the Grant as butcher and Lee as skillful general is belied by the fact that the percentage of Grants men who died in combat were 1/2 of the percentage of Lee’s men who died in combat.

    In fairness to Lee, that could have been for a variety of reasons, such as specific conditions of the battles either general fought, or strategy, tactics and risk-taking behaviors of each general. A general can lose a greater percentage of troops because of incompetence, or because of a bold risky move that ends up being recorded as a brilliant stroke of genius, if only because the enemy didn’t expect it.

    Lee won a few battles by attacking armies that outnumbered his 2-1. I’m sure that would have resulted in greater casualties for his own troops, whether or not it succeeded.

  • gadfly47


    My Dad taught high school history and I recall, long ago, discussing Civil War generals with him. He expressed contempt for McClellen and I pointed out that he was popular with his troops. The old man replied, “it’s easy to be popular when you never make your troops fight.”

  • Modusoperandi

    gadfly47 “My Dad taught high school history…”

    Seems kind of niche. Who the heck would take a history course about high school?

  • colnago80

    Re Raging Bee @ #14

    A very interesting discussion with virtually everybody discrediting ole Connie. What I especially liked was her claim that the rest of the state was subsidizing Northern Virginia. I notice that when I quoted some statistics proving otherwise, she changed the subject.

    Actually, I rather enjoyed the discussion that ensued a year or two ago on this blog where ole Don Williams claimed that the Civil War was fought over coal mines in West Virginia. I really miss ole Donaldo, who unlike numbnuts like Connie at least contributed some levity to the discussion.

  • dingojack

    McClellen wasn’t a bad general – just a bad fighting general*.



    * rumour has it that at one stage McClellen received a rather terse note that read:

    “My dear McClellen –

    If you are not doing anything with The Army of the Potomac, I should like to use it.


    A. Lincoln.”

  • Raging Bee

    Another joke about McClellan: Lee announces to his soldiers that Gen. McClellan has brought umpteen thousand Union soldiers to attack them. Then he adds that Gen. McClellan has also brought himself, and all of Lee’s men breathe a sigh of relief.

  • colnago80

    Re dingojack @ #19

    I think that’s fair; his organizational abilities were quite good.

    After the Battle of Antietam, Lincoln visited McClellan on the battlefield and, upon hearing that he had withheld 2 entire corps from the fighting, gave the latter some sound advice, “General, next time put in all your men.”

  • Who Cares

    They fought for the right to continue to own slaves. That’s it. There’s no point in pretending otherwise.

    Wasn’t it also because they wanted to be able to export slavery to newly founded states? Something that the pre-South/North war U.S. wanted to prohibit?

  • Mobius

    I was listening to NPR a few days ago and there was a Confederate apologist being interviewed. He made the claim that the Confederate flag was not racist because blacks had fought for the South.

    This ignores the facts that 1) there were very few blacks that fought for the South, and almost all of those did so only because they were granted freedom from slavery to do so, and 2) in the vast majority of cases where black Union soldiers were captured they were summarily executed.

    Sadly, the NPR interviewer didn’t not call him on this.

  • caseloweraz

    So, according to the South Carolina declaration, the problem was that certain states (enumerated), by abolishing slavery, had gone against the U.S. Constitution?

    My first thought was that this position obviates any claim that the Civil War was about states’ rights. Then I realized that such arguments are just like today’s diatribes about “activist judges” in that an argument for states’ rights is made only when the right in question is desired by a certain group. In other words: not a good argument, but a predictable one.

  • colnago80

    Re Mobius @ #23

    When Confederate general Pat Cleburne, in 1862, proposed that black slaves be recruited by the Confederate Government on the condition of being given their freedom for joining the Confederate ranks, his proposal was summarily rejected by Jefferson Davis. When Robert E. Lee proposed the same thing in 1864 when the Confederacy was running short of cannon fodder, it was again summarily rejected by Jefferson Davis. That’s sometimes referred to as cutting of your nose to spite your face.

  • Raging Bee

    No, colnago, that’s called a basic precaution — don’t give guns to people who have generations of damn good reasons to use them against you. That’s about the most sensible decision a slaveowner, or the government he supports, can make.

    Seriously, what do you think would have happened if the South had won, with whole army units of ex-slaves surviving and taking another look at how other people of their race were still being treated by their government? There could easily have been bloody mutiny and chaos, black army units supporting slave revolts, and Union “military advisors” pitching in to help them along. (If the black army units had stayed loyal till the end of the war, that is…)

  • colnago80

    Re Raging Bee @ #26

    Good points. However, desperate times require desperate strategies. By 1864, the Confederacy was headed for the shitter, having just about run out of cannon fodder. The North had recruited over a hundred thousand free blacks and former slaves into the ranks by that time. Of course, Cleburne never owned any slaves and Lee and his wife had freed all their slaves in 1862.

    By the way, my understanding is that Lee’s proposal included not only freeing the black recruits but also their families.

  • lorn

    Don’t bag on old McClellen too much. Granted he wasn’t very aggressive in moving toward battle , or very good fighting, but he was a great administrator and organizer for an army that, before his efforts, was in sore need of organization and administration. He reorganized training so that every unit passed trough rigorous training and was regularly retrained, inspected and drilled. He made sure supplies made it to all the units in his command and worked diligently to clean up and regulate the camps. As Erp @ 7s numbers indicate, far more men died from disease than combat. McClellen cleaned up the camps and demanded that all the troops get supplies of clean water and good food. The rates of disease went from shocking to naggingly miserable. He restored pride in the troops through training, discipline, and requiring that they dress and act as soldiers. With better living conditions and increases pride the Union soldiers grew to love McClellen. It was widely acknowledged that McClellen built the army that defeated the Confederacy.

    Despite his talents for creating an effective fighting machine, he never showed any skill in using it. It would take Sherman and Grant to fight the army he built. What is clear is that without McClellen Grant wouldn’t have had an army to fight with.

    When considering the Fugitive Slave Act it might serve to remember that the law allowed anyone tracking down slaves to forcefully deputize anyone they thought necessary to regain possession of their “property”. Property which had stolen itself from its rightful owner by running away. This impressment and cooperation was enforced by up to six months in jail and a $1000 fine. There was no exemption for conscience or religious belief.

    Keep this in mind when pro-Confederate people claim that the South was all about individual rights and conscience. When it came to a conflict between property, their slaves, and the rights of individuals to act according to their religion and conscience, it was property rights that won out.

  • colnago80

    Re lorn @ #28

    I entirely agree with you about McClellan’s abilities. However, they were far more suited to a staff position then to a command position. To describe McClellan as “not very aggressive” is a vast understatement. He was almost totally incompetent at commanding troops in battle. Take the Peninsular Campaign of 1862. Despite the misgivings of Lincoln, and some later critics, the strategy of using the Navy to transport the Army of the Potomac to the Peninsula was entirely sound and an example of the proper use of sea power (see MacArthur at Inchon). He got his army there and approached the Confederate trenches defending Richmond, with Johnston over a hundred miles distant north of Fredericksburg. Unfortunately, he then lost his nerve and instead of attacking, despite having better then a 3 to 1 advantage in manpower he believed himself outnumbered as he always did, and he resorted to a siege campaign. As Harry T. Williams opines in his book, Lincoln and his Generals, siege warfare was just the sort of campaign that McClellan favored. This resort to siege warfare allowed Johnston time to withdraw from his position north of Fredericksburg and march to confront McClellan’s forces. Had he attacked Magruder’s force in the trenches upon encountering them, he could have brushed them aside like so many cobwebs and easily beaten Johnston to Richmond and taken the town. I already commented above about his failure to go for victory at Antietam. As Lincoln sagely commented, “next time general put in all your men.” As Lincoln finally concluded, the North would not win the war with commanding generals like McClellan and sacked him.

    IMHO, Lincoln made a grave mistake in relieving McDowell after 1st Bull Run and replacing him with McClellan. McDowell was not responsible for the federal defeat, Patterson commanding a Union force at Martinsburg was for failure to prevent Johnston from reinforcing Beauregard at Bull Run, much like Grouchy was responsible for Napoleon’s defeat at Waterloo by failing to preventing Blucher from reinforcing Wellington there. The parallels are almost uncanny. McDowell had victory within his grasp and Beauregard was only bailed out by the fortuitous arrival of Johnston’s men.

    Perhaps leaving McDowell in command and assigning McClellan as his chief of staff would have been the ticket. McDowell at least proved that he was competent to command troops in battle.

  • lorn

    McClellan was a great administrative general with a nearly modern understanding of training, doctrine, and logistics. As you point out he was really bad as a battlefield general. Almost adequate on the defense he was less than useless on offense. Too many times he could have won by simply advancing against wispy thin Confederate lines that he imagined were far better manned than they actually were. Self-doubt and hesitancy gave McClellan a real talent for snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory. I think you are right, McDowell would have been better.

    Of course the weaknesses of McClellan have to be seen in the context of widespread misunderstanding and incompetence:

    US troops fought with rifles scarcely changed from what we fought the Revolutionary war with. The main difference was the use of percussion cap ignition instead of flintlocks. Cartridge-fed and repeating rifles were known and available but the bureaucracy, specifically a few generals in high places, didn’t want to spend the money it would take to get new rifles and thought that single-shot rifles encouraged marksmanship, limited the need for ammunition, and was conducive to better military efficiency. Only very late in the war was this bureaucratic logjam sidestepped and cartridge-fed repeaters allowed.

    Irony is that at the very beginning of the war Confederate troops seized several of the main armories where the latest version of US rifles were stored. that and they imported better arms from Europe. For the first half of the war Confederate troops had significantly more advanced rifles than those carried by US troops.

    At the time of the war doctrine was based upon tactics suitable for armies using smooth-bore muskets. The plan was to advance en-mass so command was easier and fire could be concentrated, give several volleys of fire to weaken the foe, and then charge in and finish it with cold steel. It was a sound tactic for short-range and wildly inaccurate smooth-bore muskets.

    The technology that changed it all was the Minie Ball, which was much quicker to load and both accurate and deadly out to several hundred yards. It made such tactics suicidal. This meant that defenders, particularly if they had prepared defenses, had a big advantage. The first half of the war was a near constant string of US losses. In large part because the Confederates would get there first and be on the defense as US troops used those obsolete tactics. When Confederates were forced to attack prepared lines they also suffered huge losses. Despite the piles of bodies as evidence of failure the lesson wasn’t often learned, and when learned, it wasn’t often talked about.

  • colnago80

    Re lorn @ #30

    Well, the generals in the 1st World War were equally clueless early on, even given the increase in firepower available through breech loading rifled munitions. As General Fuller pointed out in his book, Lee and Grant, a Study in Generalship and Personality, they failed to appreciate the power of the bullet in terms of range and rate of fire, which led to travesties such as Plan 17, in part due to their failure to study the battles fought in the Civil War. Not even McClellan was as incompetent as the developers of Plan 17.

  • Anri

    My understanding is that another reason the Confederacy had for rejecting the concept of black soldiers was that it pretty much undermined their entire premise for being: if blacks made good soldiers, they clearly weren’t the shiftless, cowardly, subhumans that justified their being enslaved.

    Part of the Confederate fear of making blacks into soldiers was that they would be wasting arms on people who were incapable of fighting. Part was the worry that they would be arming people who would turn on them. And part was that they would be soldiers equal to their white men. They didn’t want to risk black soldiers being incompetent. And they didn’t want to risk them being competent, either.