History Channel rejects Georgia Sons of Confederate Veterans ads
The Georgia Sons of Confederate Veterans organization is up in arms over the History channel’s decision not to run its ads promoting the 150th anniversary of the start of the Civil War, or what the group calls “The War of Southern Independence.” The group accused the cable network to succumbing to political correctness.
According to a Morris News Service story:
The organization asserts that in seceding, Southern states were exercising a right that New England states had claimed since the country’s founding and that Confederates fought to defend that right when Union forces “invaded” to prevent secession.
The ads also argue that the South seceded partly because “northern congressmen were able to vote themselves virtually anything they wanted, using southern tax money, while the South was powerless to stop it.
Slavery? Not the primary issue and besides, the North trafficked heavily in slavery and profited from it more than the South, the group says in this video.
The History channel (apparently “channel” is no longer part of the name) in a statement says it does not allow such ads as a matter of policy:
History channel does not sell time for advertising that presents a partisan position on a controversial issue (of course we do accept ads from political candidates under the political advertising rules). We have confirmed that the ad was never pitched to A&E Television Networks (AETN), but to a local distributor who accepted the ad without AETN’s awareness or approval. We have informed them that the ad is outside the scope of our guidelines and may not be aired during any of our programming. AETN’s advertising guidelines, which are similar to those of other broadcast and cable networks, do not permit such an ad as explained above. Indeed, AETN is not aware of any other network who has accepted or aired the ad.To our knowledge, it is not currently running on any of our networks, including History.
The state division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans has been running ads in various radio and TV outlets in Georgia including local stations in Atlanta and plans to do so for the next year, said Jack Bridwell, commander for the group, in an interview today.
“We’re trying to help tourism,” said Bridwell, a retired educator who lives in Moultrie. “Georgia has so much rich history in relationship to the War Between the States. We’d like to get it out there.”
“We were very careful in constructing the ads,” Bridwell continued. “The one thing they seem to be kicking on was the verbiage when we said the South was invaded. That seemed to bother them. We were invaded. We had legally separated from the union. We were a separate country. If they take offense to the truth, they are losing their reliability. It offends me they aren’t going to use it. I had been a big fan of the History Channel. I’ve quit watching it.”
The ads are also on YouTube. Here is the lead ad:
And here’s the video script:
The year 2011 will mark the 150th anniversary of the War for Southern Independence ; and the Sons of Confederate Veterans encourage you to celebrate this noble time in our history when men and women of the South stood courageously for liberty, even in the face of insurmountable odds.
Not a “civil war” fought to take over the united States, as it is called in history books today, this was a war in which Southerners fought to defend their homes and families against an aggressive invasion by federal troops. The South peacefully seceded, just like our Founding Fathers did in 1776 with England ; and all we wanted was to be left alone to govern ourselves. But the north and Abraham Lincoln would not allow the South to peacefully leave because of the taxes and tariffs the South paid.
So the South fought for her liberty… and fought valiantly. Men like Jackson, Forrest and Lee. Outnumbered in some battles 5 to 1.
Don’t let others do your thinking for you. Don’t allow them to rob you of your heritage while they celebrate their own. Be proud of your Southern history and heritage .
Join my Facebook fan page and Twitter.
By Rodney Ho, rho@ajc.com, AJCRadioTV blog
accessAtlanta Partner Sites
Sections
Advertise on accessAtlanta.com »
Reach the audience you want by advertising on accessAtlanta.com
Join the Access Atlanta Network »
Advertisers and Publishers, expand your reach by joining the Access Atlanta Network.
Tell us what you think about the site
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement | About our ads
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
71 comments Add your comment
JTesla
December 7th, 2010
7:50 pm
“why aren’t you out banging the drums for getting rid of…” But I am banging the drums to get rid of those items, as I do not believe that the government should be involved in those matters. However, your last assumption showcases the errors that you continue to make with your assumptions. And again you make me laugh because this time you speak of science, something that your paragraph shows you know nothing about. It’s time to read something published after 1955.
It must be hard for you, a “mixed breed” as you would put it, to argue the virtues of race to a purebred such as me. LOL
JTesla
December 7th, 2010
7:52 pm
Jealous much?
Motocross Survivor
December 7th, 2010
7:56 pm
I don’t make assumptions, I state facts; facts that your little pointed and ignorant head can’t or won’t accept. It messes up that lala land world view you’ve fabricated/followed for your own silly purposes.
Brad Quinlin
December 7th, 2010
7:58 pm
Motocross, By the way you should read more then one page of a book. The book you quote had no historical notations, not worth the paper it was written on. If you want I can give you a history course and teach you about the time in America from 1848 until 1875. I have read over 300 books on the Civil War from all sides and researchers, and have spent 30 years on my own research. But the question is do you want the education?
JTesla
December 7th, 2010
8:11 pm
That’s ok Motocross, I know that your anger stems from envy. You didn’t choose to be born non-white, but no need to be so envious of me for being born so.
Brad Quinlin
December 7th, 2010
8:30 pm
Hey Fundad, The north did not invade the south until the south took all citizens property by taking federal forts and stores. The states did not file their withdraw papers until they already had taken up war on the U.S. The first shot was fired by the south and the President did not want war. He said if there is to be blood shed the south will have it in their hands. 80% of slaves were owned by 2 % of the population in the south. But the money powers to be in the south went around and said to the whites, that if the slaves were free they would take your land. They instilled fear in the poor southern share farmer. You keep living this myth that the south was so good. Look at the stats of life in the south and see 89% of the people lived in poverty. What was so good about that. Also the southern state ran out on 3 million dollars worth of loans they owed to northern banks. I will tell you a story of the great south. My 3rd great grandfather has his 3 oldest sons enlist in the 37 North Carolina, one died, one lost a arm, the third was shot in the face at Gettysburg. The Confederate 1st Cav. wanted his 3 younger sons. He said I have given all I am giving to the Confedercys. The beat him burned down his home with his 2 year old grandbaby in the house. Took him to Richmond a put him in Jail to die. The issue that caused the hatred in the country from 1838 untill 1861 was Slavery. Look at the facts and try to see what was true.
Motocross Survivor
December 7th, 2010
8:34 pm
@JT Hit a bit of a nerve there?
I’ve never met/seen ONE person who quacks your mantra who wasn’t a bit of a misfit. Get rid of the hate. Not everyone can be the cheerleader or high school starring QB. It was European-Americans who provided you with that computer, the WEB, your c-phone and all the other toys you play with. And I don’t believe you’re against Affirmative Action or any of the other race-based programs–except maybe when it might interfere with YOU getting hired somewhere.
JTesla
December 7th, 2010
8:59 pm
ROTFLMAO that’s great, now you are just making stuff up. Here let me try… I’ve never met/seen ONE person who quacks your mantra who wasn’t poor and uneducated. I would say poor white trash, but we know that doesn’t apply here.
For the record I’m a libertarian, so I really am opposed to those programs, and also I don’t hate the cultural group I was born into. In fact I’m quite proud of what we have done. I just know that the accomplishments of my culture are not based on genetics. Which is backed by science, science which was developed after the books you read were published. Lot of new stuff out there.
You sure are entertaining Motocross, it’s nice to interact with someone as steeped in racist lore as you are, and here I thought I’d have to drive to Idaho to me someone like you. Well sorry if I struck a nerve, and I also want to apologize for saying “Indians” in a prior post, I know that you would probably prefer us to use Native Americans.
Gary
December 8th, 2010
2:04 pm
Some of you obviously failed history or had a bad history teacher. The main reasons for the War are out there. Yes the South was motivated to secede from the union because of state rights issues. The northern states were prohibiting the south from benefiting from their durable goods in trade. Yes the issue of slavery played a role as the states voiced the opinion that they should have the right to decide if they were going to be a free state or a slave state. However, the economic issues that the south had in regards to the trade of agriculture is the primary reason for their dissatisfaction with the union more than the slavery issue.
Contrary to popular opinion – yes opinion, not fact – the large majority of land owners/farmers in the south did not own slaves as it was too costly for them to purchase. The large plantation owners did own slaves, but those numbers are very few. For some strange reason the south is lumped in with the issue of slavery, but the fact remains that most northern states benefited financially from slave trades and slave labor. The north was also just as prejudice to the ex-slaves once they were freed as much as the south was. However, you won’t find that in any government history book.
As for the Sons of the Confederacy, they are a group that looks to preserve the historical significance of the war between the sates and the heritage of the descendants of confederate soldiers and leaders. Celebrating our heritage, whether there are faults or not, should be done. It shows who we are as country and how we have changed for the better or in some instances the worse. Everyone has their opinions about the war and the south, but all I ask is that you please look at the facts first. Some of these comments suggest that many of you haven’t.
Voice of an Adult
December 8th, 2010
2:10 pm
“As for the Sons of the Confederacy, they are a group that looks to preserve the historical significance of the war between the sates and the heritage of the descendants of confederate soldiers and leaders. Celebrating our heritage, whether there are faults or not, should be done”
——
Um – they’re a group of adult men who dress up in Halloween costumes and march around when they get mad about something under the dome. Let’s not elevate a fringe group into something they are not.
Gary
December 8th, 2010
2:12 pm
Brad Quinlin, the 89% of southerns who lived in poverty was a main focal point of the confederate leaders. They claimed that the north was prohibiting them from benefiting from their goods in trade and thus keeping the majority of the south in poverty. Remember that the south was pretty much 98% agriculture back then and all of their incomes were from farming and selling those goods. The south continually felt that their efforts for foreign trade of those goods were being undermined by the northern leaders in Congress and thus the primary reason for seceding from the union.
You are correct that the large plantation owners – who were about 1-2% of the southern population – did want to maintain their right to own slaves. That was their primary reason for wanting the south to secede and they were major political players back in the middle of the 19th century.
Gary
December 8th, 2010
2:15 pm
Voice – how are they anymore of a fringe group than the Daughters of the Revolution? They dress up and march around for issues regarding the American Revolution and they – like the Sons of the Confederacy – are very active in preserving their heritage.
Case Quarter
December 8th, 2010
3:56 pm
@ Moto – I’m an African-American from the South, and I’m proud of it. I can trace my heritage back to beyond the Civil War, which is hard to do for a black person. Anyway, I do not swear every other word that comes out of my mouth. Nor do any of my friends and family. Are there African Americans who do? Yes. But, I know Whites who do also. And yes, I love my Blackberry, but I have White friends who equally love their Androids. Point being that you are a troll, and you probably know better. But, I bit.
Brad Quinlin
December 8th, 2010
9:32 pm
Gary ,War between the states is a term that did not come in to use until 1880, the UDC did not want their fathers to be called rebels. a term the confederate soldier thought of as a good term. Slavery was the one issue that caused hatred and conflict. The southerns states had control of the office of President, congress, the senate and the supreme court for all most 70% of the early history of America. The 1855 tariff reduction act and the 1858 Mitchell act solved much of the issues of trade and tariffs. The issue that could not be solved was slavery. Kansas, Nebraska, Missoui, were all thrust in violent conflict. The expansion of slavery was the issue. States rights is a nice package to place slavery in a good tearm. Look at the CSA constitution and the only changes made in it from the US constitution was the right to own and sell slaves. If the war was not slavery what was Alexander Stephens corner stone speech all about “Slavery is the conerstone of southern society and we will defend it.” To keep saying slavery was not the cause of the civil war is old. Lets face it. I honor those brave men who fought for both the gray and blue. I had family on both sides, who are in unknown graves, and it breaks my heart I can not pay the final tribute to them for their gift. Were there problems in both cultures YES We are now 150 years away from the war and we should be paying honor to these men. That is what is important. I am hearing states rites but what rites did they want. The best book to read is Porter’s book “impending Crisis 1848 to 1861″ read that and get back to me.
Brad Quinlin
December 8th, 2010
9:48 pm
To All, this Saturday December 11th at 12 noon, we are doing the Wreaths Across America Program In Marietta National Cemetery and the Ga. National Cemetery. We have voiced our views in a calm and free way. Let us honor the men and women who gave us this right. We have 4 million people in the Atlanta area. Let us show America that we know what our freedom means. Join us and all the hard work that was done this year by Evanthe and Paige to raise money for wreaths to place on our soldiers graves. Marietta has a soldier who has fought in every war buried there. Take the time and give the greatest gift you will give this year. Your time and respect for our men and women who gave us the greatest gift. Join us please
JimmyJam048
December 9th, 2010
1:39 pm
The SCV ignores a substantial portion of history while trying to revise the rest. They capitalize on the ignorant by trying to present the CONfederacy in a politically correct light.
As each CONfederate state left the Union, they created articles of secession, explaining why they were leaving the Union. Gerogia’s articles of secession mentions slavery 37 times. Let’s see what the ACTUAL CONfederates had to say on this matter
Here’s the one for Mississippi: (They all read about the same, but this one is the most concise).
In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery– the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.
That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.
The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.
The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.
The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.
It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.
It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.
It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.
It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.
It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.
It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.
It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.
It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.
It has invaded a State, and invested with the honors of martyrdom the wretch whose purpose was to apply flames to our dwellings, and the weapons of destruction to our lives.
It has broken every compact into which it has entered for our security.
It has given indubitable evidence of its design to ruin our agriculture, to prostrate our industrial pursuits and to destroy our social system.
It knows no relenting or hesitation in its purposes; it stops not in its march of aggression, and leaves us no room to hope for cessation or for pause.
It has recently obtained control of the Government, by the prosecution of its unhallowed schemes, and destroyed the last expectation of living together in friendship and brotherhood.
Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property. For far less cause than this, our fathers separated from the Crown of England.
Our decision is made. We follow their footsteps. We embrace the alternative of separation; and for the reasons here stated, we resolve to maintain our rights with the full consciousness of the justice of our course, and the undoubting belief of our ability to maintain it. “
Bo Duke
December 9th, 2010
1:59 pm
To sum it up………if it’s white then it ain’t right………………..that is the PC BS world in which we now live especially here in the A T L.
Dear lord, who wrote this article….Ho are Cytnthia F-N Tucker ??????
Matt the Brave
December 9th, 2010
3:36 pm
I’m a proud Southerner and a former Civil War reenactor, and even I found the commercials to be in poor taste. The War for Southern Independence? Really?
It WAS a war for slavery plain and simple. The Southern economy was based off of the free labor of those who were enslaved. The North fought the irrationality of Southerners. It was a useless effusion of life and blood and could have been worked out had the South been able to see the evils of keeping people in bondage.
No matter how you paint it, the reasons are what they are. We do remember the bravery of those who died and should remember why they died. But to promote it as the Sons of Confederate Veterans have is doing a disjustice.
Brad Quinlin
December 9th, 2010
9:31 pm
Jimmyjam048 and matt the brave I need to meet you. you have put great facts into this panel. We also need to look at why East Tenn, Western Va. and Northern Alabama, when they wanted to beak away from their states to rejoin the union that was stamped on by the State and Confederate govenment, how far is states Rites. Are the counties in the states not allowed to act when it does not favor with the state. Funny how they use states rites only when it fits their use. But when the counties wanted to return to the union is was smashed by force and jail terms. If the war was not about Slavery why were newspapers not allowed to run anti slavery articles, it they did this in Mississippi, Texas, Alabama and South Carolina, these newpaper editors were thrown in Jail and even beaten to death with out a trial. the individual freedom of speech was thown out the door, but they talk about freedom and the rites of the states. Slavery is the issue that winds its way into every violent event in the nation from 1848 until the first shot fired by the south.
The American civil war re-enactment society | Diane Roberts
December 10th, 2010
9:03 pm
[...] us, forcing Johnny Reb into a “war for southern independence”. The History Channel refuses to air the ad on the grounds that it’s [...]
CB
December 12th, 2010
9:43 pm
I have watched all twelve ads and I think they are OK. I knew the History Channel would not put them on. They love only History from a Northern point of view. It’s time the South had a chance to tell their side of what happened. I think that’s fair.