Imagine someone holding himself up as being a Christian leader but never having read the Bible or the major works by Christian theologians from the past. It would surely be difficult to take such a person seriously, even if they used a lot of Christian symbolism and rhetoric.
Over the last couple of years I have found most Rainbow Confederates to be like this. Typically, they know something about the battles of the 1860s. Sometimes they have even studied those battles in detail and know a great deal about the Confederate military. And yet, invariably, they have not read the works of the Southern nationalist leaders who worked for decades to made secession a reality. They have not studied the writings and speeches of Robert Barnwell Rhett, Edmund Ruffin or William Yancey and their fellow Fire-Eaters. They have not read the speeches of the Secession Commissioners who were sent out by the seceding Lower South States to convince the other Southern States to join them. In fact, if one brings up the names of these leaders in a conversation with a Rainbow, chances are that they have no clear idea who these great Southern nationalists were and what they actually believed. If the Rainbows have any knowledge at all of Southern politics of the period they will generally praise Jefferson Davis and the entire Confederate Government as if it were a monolithic body in accord on all the major issues. This was certainly not the case. In fact, Southern nationalists were pushed aside after they had convinced the South to pursue a path of independence, and the reins of the newly established Confederate Government were given to moderates and conservatives who had opposed secession (such as Jefferson Davis) or had only lately come to accept it. Rhett, Yancey and other Southern nationalist leaders became bitter critics of the Confederate Government and believed that the South was being led to its ruin by people who were not capable or sufficiently dedicated to the cause of Southern independence. Whether one agrees with this assessment or not, you would think that someone who wants to be a leader in the Southern movement would at least be aware of it. You would think that such a person would know about the Fire-Eaters and their views, even if they disagreed with them.
Likewise, wouldn’t it make sense for a would-be Southern leader to understand the values upon which Southern civilisation was built and how these differed from those of the North? These concepts are not terribly difficult to understand. And thanks to the Internet, they are readily available for folks to study. Yet, I have found that Rainbows typically have no understanding at all of these values. They invariably attempt to impose modern US values upon the traditional South. This is what makes them Rainbows: they will take values of Modernity and the United States today (such as democracy, equality and universalism) and attempt to wrap these in a Confederate flag. In their view, the South is the most ‘American’ part of ‘America’ whereas Southern nationalists see the South as part of an entirely different civilisation which rejected the destructive values of Modernity that grew out of the Enlightenment. Even if a would-be Southern leader rejected the values and basis of the traditional South and wished to impose Modernist values upon the South movement today, one would think that such a leader would at least be aware of the Southern tradition – if for no other reason than to be able to effectively counter it in debate. However, without fail, when confronted with the Southern tradition, these Rainbows who claim to represent the South resort to precisely the same sort of name-calling and behaviour as the likes of openly anti-Southern and anti-White leaders such as Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Tim Wise.
Also see: Debating another Rainbow Confederate, Defending Confederate heritage with PC rhetoric, A warning from the past about Rainbow Confederates, PC Confederates, More on PC Confederates and Rejecting defeatism, egalitarianism & universalism in the Southern movement
The put it plainly…they are nothing more than reconstructed, fully indoctrinated, willful subjects of the empire that slaughtered their ancestors and forced the filthy culture we have today on them. They are not southerners at all. Just folk born in the south who embrace most of the rhetoric and ideology of the conquerors. They are deathly afraid to not be liked by the Yankee and lick the boots of their masters ideology to make sure they fit in.
Seems that these days one only begins to understand the difference between “equality” and “equality before the law” are two entirely different concepts which one learns only after leaving the government education system. The former is a Jacobin concept which spawned the French Revolution, years of terror and bloodshed in France, the aegis of Napoleon Bonaparte, and currently serves as one of the chief concepts of yankeedom. The latter is a stricture of the Law of Moses and is one of the precepts upon which our current legal system, Christendom, and the culture of the Old South, was based.
That’s an excellent definition of the Rainbow Confederate, Michael. Just a few minutes ago, one of them remarked on something I wrote in the LoS group. I have no idea what “she” said, I couldn’t be bothered to look at her group to find out.
They are, collectively, mostly a pain in the hind end, but we must keep up with their activities lest they become more than that.
“In their view, the South is the most ‘American’ part of ‘America’…”
I used to be like that myself and had this “utopian” view of the old South being a “better version of America” until I read Lew Rockwell, SNN, the LoS and listened to Mike Church. I’ve also read DiLorenzo’s books on Tyrant Lincoln and how the Hamiltonians won the day in 1860..
I too have come to realize the existence of Rainbow Confederates. I’ve only been a member of the SCV for 3 years, but became instantly aware of the type described by Michael in his article. I’ll have to say I’m not a military historian, nor do I hold that as the singular aspect of “Confederate Heritage”. I’ve dedicated myself to studying the political history and the varied makeup of the Confederacy.
I’m not going to overly criticize most of these “Rainbows”, because they simply don’t know any better. The “pastor without reading the bible” is a perfect analogy. I don’t find myself in any disagreement with Rhett, and intend to read more of him. The more I learn: I realize how much more there is to learn. I share what I’ve learned of southern governmental philosphy with my SCV compatriots, and they are very interested. Current Commander Givens has done a good job in filing the “Confederate Veteran” with articles to present the non-military aspects of “The Cause”. Many of those authors are well known in the LoS.
There are probably more “Rainbow” folk out there who can be brought around by better information than otherwise. So, keep the info and primary references coming. I’ll be buying books on Rhett for myself very soon.