Browse By

Louisiana Republicans Vote to Maintain Celebrations of Confederate Terrorists

Let’s speak plainly about the Confederate States of America: It was a terrorist nation, using widespread violence for political ends, to maintain the enslavement of a huge number of people. Slaves were regularly and systematically whipped and beaten, and even killed, in order to prevent African-Americans from organizing to obtain equal legal rights. The Confederacy approved of this violence, and even encouraged it.

Roland Martin was right when he wrote, “If your great-great-great-granddaddy was a Confederate who stood up for Southern ideals, he too was a terrorist… I will never, under any circumstances, cast Confederates as heroic figures who should be honored and revered. No – they were, and forever will be, domestic terrorists.”

When Southern Republicans say that they oppose terrorism, but then say that they want to keep memorials celebrating the Confederacy in place, they’re being hypocrites. Among these hypocrites is Republican Louisiana State Senator Beth Mizell, who sponsored legislation designed to create a commission with the power to prevent local Louisiana governments from removing Confederate memorials that they consider offensive.

Yesterday, every single Republican member of Louisiana’s Senate and Governmental Affairs Committee voted to move her pro-Confederate legislation forward. Luckily, there were also 5 Democrats on the committee, who all voted to block the legislation.

Republican Former State Senator Elbert Lee Guillory helped organize support for Mizell’s bill, saying that without monuments celebrating Confederate leaders who organized terrorist violence against African-American slaves, his children and grandchildren could not “have full access to history”.

Isn’t it more important for Americans to remember that the Confederacy shamefully denied African-Americans access to life and liberty?

confederates were terrorists

28 thoughts on “Louisiana Republicans Vote to Maintain Celebrations of Confederate Terrorists”

  1. ella says:

    I believe the term you are looking for here is “insurgents”. It was a civil war, The Northern half a nation declared war on the Southern half, which defended itself. And lost. But if the American flag represents slavery then so all of the flags of the world. Do we then, eliminate flags as symbols? Or perhaps create a new One World Flag?

    1. J Clifford says:

      Is it a normal part of insurgency to hold millions of people prisoner for their entire lives, force them to work for your profit, and to beat them, sometimes to the point of death?

      Your Confederate apology is akin to Nazi apology.

      1. Dave says:

        You watch too many movies, J. Besides, invading, conquering and holding millions of people in the Union against their will, impoverishing them for many decades and then denying them the simple human dignity of remembering their forbears by preserving their memorials, well, that’s bad stuff too.

        1. J Clifford says:

          First, Dave, Dignity and honoring the Confederacy are mutually incompatible.

          Second, if people can’t find human dignity in ways other than creating monuments that praise the Confederacy, well, they aren’t very creative, are they?

          Third, the Louisiana bill was drafted to create a centralized state committee that could stop SOUTHERNERS in their own local communities from deciding to take down Confederate memorials that they didn’t feel comfortable with.

          Hey, can you tell me a story again how you don’t like big government making decisions for people? I love those stories.

          1. Stephen Kent Gray says:

            Mr. Clifford, can you chime in on the newer comments? Dave is spoutning ahistorical nonsense.

      2. ella says:

        As both sides held prisoners, and for the most part, none to gently, they are tit-for-tat in that category. As for it being the usual thing to do? As far as I have heard, or read, throughout history, yes. Or after torturing them, then cruelly killing prisoners is done mostly world wide and always has. The American way is really the exception. The American flag stands for the more intellectual, commonsense way handling prisoners by comparison, historically. Although sometimes that also is none to gently and many have been killed, still many have been freed, left prison to go home. That is not a usual habit with most countries. As for slaves – absolutely no other nation has ever, that I have read about – actually apologized for using paid for labor, paid the descendants of those who actually did the labor, educated those descendants, and integrated them into their society and still continued to pay them for the labor of their ancestors. No, that is strictly an American thing. Of course those citizens in need, whoever they are, now benefit from that experience as well.

        I’d say the American flag stands for a security and freedom that has never existed anywhere else in this world, or this age.

    2. Stephen Kent Gray says:

      Ella, the Confederates started the war by firing on Fort Sumter. The South shot first actually! So, actually, the South declared War on the North and the North defended itself. Also, America abolished slavery. Every flag in the world currently, except the IS flag, reperesent countries where slavery is illegal. No flags currently representing slavery exist or are flags representing past regimes no longer in existence.

      1. ella says:

        ” Every flag in the world currently, except the IS flag, represent countries where slavery is illegal.” S.K. Gray

        Slavery is nearly universally condemned today, but it is also still practiced. Mostly in the areas where it has traditionally been practiced throughout modern history. It has been given a new description to make today’s societies seem more civilized, but it hasn’t changed at all.
        Please go to this link and refresh your memory concerning slavery in the world today. Slavery has been in the news this week, the girl slave camps, some have been released to go home.

  2. Dave says:

    Rowan, I think you’re trying to make this about something that it will never be about. Imagine if you will, someone taking a wrecking ball to the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Washington, or flattening all the stones at Arlington. After all, these are significant reminders of a government that sent Japanese-Americans to camps, and burned Vietnamese villages. When that’s done, then remove every image that reminds us of a U.S. Army that systematically killed Native Americans and destroyed their way of life even at the same they were invading states that had left the Union and formed their own government. That’s right, even the bronze images of the brave ex-slaves fighting for the Union at Ft. Wagner would have to go.

    Some might argue that these are simply memorials to the ancestors of living Americans and that the sins and excesses of the government at those times are not relevant, that they are memorializing their parents, grand-parents, great grands, etc. who did what they saw as their duty when they were called up. Racists.

    People in the South get it that wealthy slave owners and corporate interests — many of them from outside the South — are to blame for the catastrophe of the civil war. Memorials are personal, and remembering what happened is just that; remembering what happened.

    1. ella says:

      ” Memorials are personal, and remembering what happened is just that; remembering what happened.” Dave

      That is what it is all about. Some will remember it one way, others yet another. Why because ancestors will relate what happened to them, how they say the world at that time,their personal truth. Other than that the memorials relate to events that we never personally were involved in, never had any personal share in the suffering or joy, never personally felt the pain of, nor ever will. All we can do is have empathy for the people of the past who have long settled the controversy and now understand what part they played in forming our nation. It is questionable that they would approve of being used in the manner that they have been and still are being used, by all sides. They would, I imagine, wish that we would all just live in today and work for the future as a whole.

  3. Stephen Kent Gray says:

    Why are Republicans from Southern ex-Confederate states so crazy compared to Republicans from others states? Why are they either silent or pro-?Confederate whenever there is time to speak on it? Why is the state a Republican politician from the most likely indicator on their view on this topic?

    Example: Rand Paul (Senator from the border state of Kentucky) has said that the Confederate flag is inexascaply as symbol of human bondage, racism, and slavery as well as only being useful for spreading hatred and murder, therefore it shouldn’t be flown or displayed. He also has said people who fly that flag anger him.

    There is a civil war in Iraq and Syria right now. It would be equally absurd for a future Iraqi or Syrian to fly the IS flag in the name of Sunni Arab heritage or other such reasons simmilar to the excludes people say for flying the Confederate flag. The same goes for the flag of Al-Qaeda or the Syrian rebels. The flags of Iraq and Syria are their flags, just like the flag of the Union is the flag of America.

    1. Dave says:

      So those who run to the battle, only to lose the war should sit down and shut up. I get it. And if Al-Qaeda should win this war, will you remove all the American symbolism from the graves of our dead who fought them?

      1. Stephen Kent Gray says:

        Neither Al-Qaeda or IS will win this war. The Russia, Syria, Iran, Iraq, and Hezbolah collation will win it! Only flags of legitimate government’s like Russia, Syrian, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, and America count as flags. Al-Qaeada (via the Al-Nusra Front) controls minimal territory.

        America still exists as a country. America’s graves are on American territory, so even if we lost a war, that’s not a reason to remove American symbolism. But the Confederacy cases to exist, there its symbols are meaningless. All its territory belongs to America now, so America has the right to control all symbols within its territory. If Southerners don’t like that, they can go to Brazil where the Confederate symbolism and stuff isn’t that controversial. Brazil is accepting of their Confederados.

        America won the war and its territorial integrity. It has the right to ban Confederate symbolism, memorabilia, and other stuff related to it that is on its territory. Again, if Southerners don’t like that, there is always the move to Brazil option for them. Flags and other symbols of a country are only sacred, inviolable, and to be respected as long as the government that it represents exists. Ever since 1865, when the Confederacy ceased to exist at all, all of the Confederate stuff should have been destroyed and no nods Confederate stuff should have ever been produced.

        Dave, consider how you think, maybe you should move to Brazil to with all the other Confederacy lovers! Think about it, never having to argue with people ever again about the Confederacy and its symbols ever again in Confederate accepting Brazil.

        1. Dave says:

          Jeepers Stephen Kent Gray, you didn’t hear a word I said. You really should hear yourself, though. Your bigotry is profound. Do you understand that Southerners are Americans, and as you say, have a right to control symbols within their territory? Yes, the war is over and the U.S. invasion and subduing of another smaller, weaker country is complete. As they say, ‘the USA, kickin’ ass since 1776.” Your opinion, like the opinion of the Republicans of 1860 of the South as just a subserviant vassal of the U.S. is one of the main reasons why the U.S. fought and won the war but is having the dickens of a time winning the hearts and minds of the people down here. Carpetbagger.

          Your wish that those who disagree with you should move to another country is not an argument, it is an immature, uninformed and bigoted statement. The KKK has made similar statements about people they don’t like.

          1. Stephen Kent Gray says:

            You’re analysis is flawed. America is one whole country. The South isn’t speerate from the rest of the country where they are immune from the votes of the rest of the country. Americans as a whole get to define symbols in America. The South’s regional pro-Confederate symbol sentiment shouldn’t be able to veto the majority of Americans overall who are against it. The South wanted to speerate from America because at the time Americans in general wanted to end slavery despite a majority of Southerners wanting to continue it and even expand it. The South has never had any autonomy to make its own rules speerate from the rest of the country. Southerners keeps throwing hissy fits each and every time America is general has different political opinions of the South.

            Southerners don’t believe in democracy according to your argument. If America as a whole makes a decision, the South has no regional veto to our democracy. If a majority of all Americans vote a way, all Americans must agree to the consequences of the election rather than throwing a hiss fit, seceding, and declaring war on the country. The Constitution defines America as a democracy or a majority rules defines the law. Let’s say hypothetically every single non-Southerner voted to ban Cofenderate symbolism in all of America, the fact the Southerns voted against the ban wouldn’t be enough to prevent the law from passing. If Southerners disagree with America’s laws they lack the mathematical numbers of people and of state to actually veto any laws.

          2. Dave says:

            I have had in these comments little interest in defending the use of the Confederate battle flag, but have attempted to make those who criticize Southern sentiments in any regard understand why the world hates the U.S. It starts in your attitude toward those you think are your lessers.

            From what I know about people down here (and I know a lot) they understand they are viewed by the rest of the country as backward, uneducated, knuckle dragging, snaggle toothed, inbred dimwits and that it’s not hard to find movies and entertainment that reinforce that view (think Honey BooBoo) and I think for the most part, aside from their belief that the flag is about heritage, not hate (a view I do not espouse) the use of the flag by the usually poorer and less educated folks down here is a way of saying “up yours” to those who look down on them. Stop looking down on them and see if this whole thing doesn’t eventually go away on its own.

          3. Stephen Kent Gray says:

            So Southerners hate America? And how exactly is flipping off the rest of the country with pro-Confederate Pride going to make Northerners and Westerners look at the South any better? It’s a deserve reputation as the South keeps getting second chances to improve itself, but always fails at it. Don’t Southerners realize their actions pissing off the rest of the country exacerbates rather than solves their problems? Also, what’s with all the anti-LGBT laws in the South also?

          4. ella says:

            “Southerners don’t believe in democracy according to your argument. If America as a whole makes a decision, the South has no regional veto to our democracy.” S. K. Gray

            Stephen, for national issues, the nation as a whole, votes. You refer to Ratification of the Constitution, to change freedom of speech, or States Rights. Not very wise. For States Rights issues, the individual states vote, as it is laid out in the Constitution. Thus each state has the right to vote on whether to continue to fly the Confederate Flag over the Statehouse, for instance. When it comes to individuals, on their own private property, they have a right to display or build any symbols they wish, as long as they are within the covenants of their area. Groups, such as the Daughters of the Confederacy, have a right to meet and greet as do any other group organizations, such as knitters clubs.

          5. ella says:

            “You refer to Ratification of the Constitution, to change freedom of speech, or States Rights. ”
            I meant: “You refer to a Ratification of changes to the Constitution,…”

  4. Stephen Kent Gray says:

    Wikipedia deals with the whole controversy behind it. It also links to an article on the post World War II legality of the Nazi flag which is a aptly simmilar situation. All arguments defending the Confederate flag are absurd. If you replaced the word Confederate with Nazi, people wouldn’t like those arguments at all.

    1. Dave says:

      “The South keeps getting second chances to improve itself…”

      That’s a quote from Stephen Kent Gray that illustrates my point entirely. Your attitude that others need to “improve” themselves is a holdover from colonial Puritanism that had its origins in New England and spread to the Midwest. Millions of Americans who are descended from Northern Europeans have what they see as an imperative to improve the peoples of the world and make them more like the U.S. Imposing your cultural heritage on others goes hand in hand with U.S. foreign policy, which derives from this attitude, with its wars of conquest in Southeast Asia, the Middle East, Japan, Europe, Chile and Central America, and this behavior began in earnest in 1860 in the South.

      As regions go, the South is the most populous region in the U.S. Most African-Americans and Hispanics in the U.S. live in the South. On your Quixotic quest to improve the people here, where do you start; by trashing their ancestors? By telling them they’re not living up to your social standards? By mandating only the behavior you approve of, as if they are all waiting with bated breath to learn what Stephen Kent Gray approves of? Your desire that they just go to Brazil sounds like Donald Trump deporting Mexicans, Dude. I’ve got an idea; next time they decide to have their own country, just let them go. Maybe then you can view them as just another Cuba with good beaches.

      Oh, and LGBTs are as rare as unicorns here, so our focus will remain on the carpetbaggers for now.

      1. Stephen Kent Gray says:

        Actually most Hispanic live in the West, not the South. Also, lots of moieties live outside the South. Heard of the Great Migration where minorities left the South in droves?

        Back to what I said earlier, the South as part of America has to abide by American rules and laws. America is one country. America as a whole makes the rules. The South deosnt have any devolved powers to make its own rules. There is no Congress of the South of President of the South to make rules and laws for the South as some sort of country within a country. Your analysis ignore that the South is actually part of America rather than a state within a state.

        Also, what states are part of the South anyways? Arizona, New Nexico, Texas, and Oklahoma are considered the West now. Missouri and Kentucky are considered the Mid West now. West Virignia, Maryland, and Delaware are considered part of the North East. Florida and Virginia are considered part of the South, but they’re way better than those other parts of it.

        1. Dave says:

          You’re right that Florida isn’t exactly “Dixie”, wrong about Texas unless you’re from Austin, and Arizona and N.M. were never considered part of “the” South. Keep reading your history, Stephen, you are getting some things right. You have not addressed, however, your odious opinion of the people themselves, which is the only reason I have written in their defense. “Florida and Virginia … they’re way better than those other parts of it.” Jeez Man, can you hear yourself? I am sure those “other parts” wish they could be as righteous as you.

          And don’t get me going on the African-Americans you have penned up in your cities and the resulting white flight to your suburbs. If you have been reading the news, many Af-Am’s are returning south because, sit down for this, they like it here.

          1. Stephen Kent Gray says:


            Many? It only a few percentage points. America originally has around 93% of AFAMs in the South, then it went down to 53%, but only went up to 57%.

            The Great Migration was the movement of 6 million African-Americans out of the rural Southern United States to the urban Northeast, Midwest, and West that occurred between 1910 and 1970. Blacks moved from 14 states of the South, especially Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, to the other three cultural (and census-designated) regions of the United States. Georgia was especially affected, seeing net declines in its black population for three consecutive decades after 1920.

            Some historians differentiate between a first Great Migration (1910–1930), which saw about 1.6 million people move from mostly rural areas to northern industrial cities, and a Second Great Migration (1940–1970), which began after the Great Depression and brought at least 5 million people — including many townspeople with urban skills — to the north and to California and other western states.

            By the end of the Second Great Migration, blacks had become an urbanized population. More than 80 percent of blacks lived in cities. A bare majority of 53 percent remained in the South, while 40 percent lived in the North, and 7 percent in the West. In 1991, Nicholas Lemann wrote that the Great Migration:

            was one of the largest and most rapid mass internal movements in history—perhaps the greatest not caused by the immediate threat of execution or starvation. In sheer numbers it outranks the migration of any other ethnic group—Italians or Irish or Jews or Poles—to [the U.S.]. For blacks, the migration meant leaving what had always been their economic and social base in America, and finding a new one.

            In the context of the 20th-century history of the United States, the Second Great Migration was the migration of more than five million African Americans from the South to the North, Midwest and West. It took place from 1941, through World War II, and lasted until 1970. It was much larger and of a different character than the first Great Migration (1910–1940).

            In the Second Great Migration, more than five million African Americans moved to cities in states in the North, Midwest and West, including California, where Los Angeles, Oakland, Richmond, California, and Long Beach offered skilled jobs in the defense industry. Most of these migrants were already urban laborers who came from the cities of the South. In addition, African Americans were still treated with discrimination in parts of the country, and many sought to escape this.

          2. ella says:

            “he Second Great Migration was the migration of more than five million African Americans from the South to the North, Midwest and West. It took place from 1941, through World War II, and lasted until 1970.” S. K. Gray

            And from around 1965, the slowing of the industrial revolution, a reverse migration has brought blacks back to the New South, where job opportunities are increasing. They came back where they had family ties, connections to resettle and find new employment. As the collapse of major industrial cities in the North and Mid-West continued. “The New Great Migration is not evenly distributed throughout the South; primary destinations are those states that have the most job opportunities, especially Georgia, North Carolina, Maryland, Virginia, Tennessee, Florida, and Texas. Other southern states, including Mississippi, Louisiana, South Carolina, Alabama, and Arkansas, have seen little net growth in the African American population from return migration.”

    2. ella says:

      “If you replaced the word Confederate with Nazi, people wouldn’t like those arguments at all.” S.K. Gray

      You must remember that “Nazi” is a German flag, and there are many people alive today who actually still agree with what it stood for. The American Confederate Flag, was brought about by the economics of the day and abolishing slavery was a later consideration. The Emancipation Proclamation was an after thought. The southern farmers could not sell their produce to the North for so little and continue to be viable.

      1. Dave says:

        Actually, Ella, they couldn’t sell their cotton to British mills because of high tariffs on imported products returning to the U.S. As the Northern states saw it, the economy in the South had to be destroyed so the problem would go away. They did a good job. Now they chuckle at the trailer parks full of black and white hicks and wonder that the poor folks have so little to be proud of other than their “glorious” past with it’s flags and memorials.

        1. ella says:

          The cotton sold to Britain was a part of it, but there was more. Still the crops and lifestyle of the entire region was decimated. Then to rub salt in the cut, they sent Carpetbaggers and put field slaves in governing positions where the had no idea what they were doing. There were well trained servants who could have and, as I understand it, in many instances, did take over some running of local governments. Since the general reality of Southern Plantation life is misunderstood today, the history is distorted and for the most part only refers to some of the “breeding” farms, which provided labor for all sectors of society. The real problem lay to the south of Florida, and in the Bahamas, where slaves were treated worse than insects. In the latter days, there was an increase in cruelty in the Southern states, but mostly these people were given a place to live, clothing, and medical care. Some were freed, and some were educated and worked with the owner and the family.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Psst... what kind of person doesn't support pacifism?

Fight the Republican beast!