Skip to main content

To Hell With 'Confederate Heritage'

A pro-Confederate group is throwing a hissy-fit over a proposed MLK memorial on a mountain dedicated to Confederate "heroes."

Even in these modern times, it's too easy to feel as if you've unwittingly stumbled into a time machine and have been transported back to darker times. To wit, look no further than this headline in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution on Monday:

Georgia Confederate group blasts MLK honor at Stone Mountain

Confederate group? Is this 1862? No, wait it can't be; there's a reference to MLK in there. So it must be at least 1962 or thereabouts, right? No, wait. I read this headline on the internet, so it has to be at least 1995.

What's that? It's 2015?

That being the case, it behooves us to ask, What. The. Fuck.

Yes, a plan to honor Martin Luther King, Jr. atop Georgia's Stone Mountain is meeting fierce resistance from a "Confederate heritage" group called the Sons Of Confederate Veterans, headed by Tim Pilgrim, who doesn't much care for the proposal. According to him, Stone Mountain is sacred ground because it was dedicated as a Confederate memorial in 1916.

“This is an insult to us,” he told the Journal-Constitution, as if he personally lost a testicle at the Battle of Chickamauga. “This is like the government going down to Auburn Avenue and putting a monument of Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson on top of the King monument. How would supporters of Martin Luther King feel about that?”

Let's cut the horseshit and point out what is painfully obvious to everyone but Pilgrim and his fellow Confederate corpse-humpers: Davis, Lee, and Jackson have no claim to the moral high ground. They fought for an immoral cause, and lost. Martin Luther King fought for a just cause, and won. King's vision became the country's reality. Had the Confederates prevailed, he would've been born a slave.

As an added display of idiocy, here's an excerpt of the Sons of Confederate Veterans' statement on the King proposal:

"The park was never intended to be a memorial to multiple causes but solely to the Confederacy.  Therefore, monuments to either Michael King[sic] or soldiers of any color who fought against the Confederacy would be a violation of the purpose for which the park was created and exists."

Michael King. Outstanding.

Of course, Southerners who are fond of Confederate memorials and display the Confederate flag claim that their demented pride has nothing to do with slavery. Rather, it's all about states rights or some such bullshit.

In any sane and morally decent culture, Confederate anything would only be seen in history books, museums, and documentaries. The proud display of Confederate paraphernalia would be a relic of a bygone era in which slavery, ignorance, treason, and general buffoonery were supreme values for an inglorious half decade. Furthermore, such a display would herald a raining down of merciless and universal ignominy upon the offender.

Alas, we do not reside in a sane and morally decent culture. Instead, innumerable Confederate memorials dot the Southern landscape, while the Confederate emblem is proudly displayed on state flags, capitol grounds, and the rear bumpers of Southerners eager to show how proud they are of forebears too morally bankrupt and lazy to end the practice of slavery.

And thankfully, too incompetent to defend it.

Follow me on twitter