Why Do We Call Them “Rainbow Confederates”?


Here’s the latest from the Southern Heritage Non-Preservation Group:

“Why is the issue of “White-Supremacy,” considered a Southern or Confederate ideology?

My guess would be that the South and the Confederacy really was based on white supremacy, that virtually all Confederates were white supremacists, and that defense of white supremacy was historically the most popular argument used to justify secession?

Moreover, there is no reason to believe that the Confederacy was based on anything other than white supremacy, and it never occurred to anyone to dispute this until the late twentieth century.

A natural state of evolution established racial diversity let alone biblical record.

As Alexander Stephens said, the Confederacy was based on acceptance of racial inequality, whereas the Union had failed because it was based on the weak foundation of the equality of man.

Racial Supremacy is dependent upon who has the security to dominate another, it is generally a socio-political norm held by the superior powers with the means to do so.

In the political sense, yes. In the biological sense, no.

We have spent the past fifty years trying to artificially raise the negro to equality with the White man. Even a black president with all the resources and power of BRA at his disposal has failed to bring about racial equality.

Europeans may have been conceited in the belief of their superiority, culturally or otherwise it wasn’t without a natural premise though.

The natural premise of European racial superiority has been powerfully reinforced by 50 years of fighting racism and using the government to legislate equality.

The government can no more legislate racial equality than it can legislate the abolition of gravity.

It was not an organized plot? It was coincidental with the moment.

The polls show that the South was “white supremacist” until the 1970s and 1980s.

So therefore the Confederacy was no different from the United States in as far as white supremacist views.


No different? Wasn’t chattel slavery a difference? Wasn’t black citizenship and voting rights a difference? Wasn’t the absence of anti-miscegenation laws a difference? Wasn’t the Emancipation Proclamation a difference?

Some argue that it was a Confederate ideology these are founded by one of two delusional presentist of either Anti-Confederate/Southern types SPLC or Southern Nationalist/racists.

Could it be that the Confederates themselves were white supremacists and were proudly so and were so opposed to “Black Republicanism” that Lincoln’s election was taken as an overt act that justified the dissolution of the Union?

The tendency is to focus solely upon Confederate writings, even though Northern Whites were in fact considered more racists than Southerners. see Alexis De Toqueville’s views

Actually, Tocqueville was just saying that negroes were free in the North, and consequently were a menace to civilization, and were of no economic value to Northerners, and thus Northern race relations lacked the feel of Southern paternalism.

Note: White Southerners don’t feel very paternalistic toward negroes today. Slavery and Jim Crow fostered paternalism, but that doesn’t mean those systems were not racist.

About Hunter Wallace 12380 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent


  1. The Oregon State Constitution which was passed in 1857 explicitly denied entry to the state to any Negroes who were not already there.

  2. Hunter, I’m glad you tell it like it is.
    I get so burned out. The internet should be freeing more people. What the hell is wrong with everybody. Like you, I am a reader of Kunstler. There are far too many warning bells going off for a little magic thinking to solve. When this whole monstrosity of BRA crashes down, most whites are going to be dumbstruck. I watched all the gates youtube vids you posted. Keep at it man. I really get a lot from your history lessons.

  3. yankees thought they could use negros to punish Southrons, and not knowing anything about negros it backed fired on them. What they did for negros was not out of love for the negro, for the most part, but a sign of their hatred for us

  4. While it is true that there were very few states that never had anti-miscegenation laws at some point in their history the details of when and how those anti-miscegenation laws came to an end reveals a trend of liberalizing racial attitudes in the Northeast especially among the elites.

    Seven states in the United States never had anti-miscegenation laws and all of those states were in the North.

    Of the nine Northeastern states five never had an anti-miscegenation law and the four states that had one all voluntarily repealed them before the year 1883. That is way ahead of the curve of the old Confederate States whose populations still wanted their anti-miscegenation laws when they were overturned by the Supreme Court in 1967.

    “So therefore the Confederacy was no different from the United States in as far as white supremacist views.”

    One thing you will often see these Rainbow Confederates claim is something along the lines of “lots of people in the Confederacy were against slavery” or were “abolitionists.” That Joshua Joscelyn guy was saying stuff like that at the LOS facebook page before he got banned.

    When they say things like this they need to be asked who these people were. Please give us names.

    You should defy them to produce a “Confederate Abolitionist.” Show us someone who willingly joined the Confederate armed forces or government who was on record as being for the immediate abolition of slavery and allowing the slaves to remain in the South after being freed. They can’t do it because no one with views like that would have sided with the Confederate cause.

    One of the problems the Rainbow Confederates have is they can’t distinguish between gradual emancipationism and abolitionism. There were people like Lee who thought slavery was in some sense “a moral and political evil” but that did not equate to going about publically announcing that slavery was a sin against God that had to be ended without delay. Also gradual emancipationist schemes in the South always involved the idea of removal of the blacks from America.

    The Rainbow Confederate’s only defense when people point out the reasons for the secession of the Lower South is to say “there were white supremacists in the North” which is a ridiculous reply because no one denies this. While not everyone in the North was an abolitionist virtually all abolitionists lived in the North. While not everyone in the North was for racial equality once again almost everyone who was for racial equality lived in the North. No one with views on racial equality like Thaddeus Stevens could have been elected anywhere in the South.

    Thaddeus Stevens was so obsessed with the idea of racial equality that he made sure that when he died he would be buried in one of the few cemeteries around that wasn’t segregated by charter rules. He even bragged about that decision on his tombstone and all his other work on behalf of racial equality which reads,

    “I repose in this quiet and secluded spot, not from any natural preference for solitude, but finding other cemeteries limited as to race, by charter rules, I have chosen this that I might illustrate in my death the principles which I advocated through a long life, equality of man before his Creator.”

    Link to photo of his tombstone below.


  5. One addendum, when I said seven states never had anti-miscegenation laws I was referring the 48 continental states. Alaska and Hawaii who both became states in 1959 never had anti-miscegenation laws either.

  6. “When they say things like this they need to be asked who these people were. Please give us names”

    Parson Brownlow of Knoxville comes immediately to mind. Although originally a slaveholder pre-war, after secession he supported black emancipation and used black votes to get himself elected governor when Tennessee was re-admitted to the Union in 1866. In fact much of Middle and most of Eastern Tennessee was Republican then and remains so to this day.

    The hillbillies in the Appalachian highlands of TN, KY, and WV were poor, didn’t own slaves, and many had no love for the Confederate cause. Kentucky raised 17 Union cavalry regiments, 55 of infantry, 5 artillery batteries plus various engineers and auxiliary troops. The Union Army raised a total of 59 Tennessee regiments consisting of many Union men from throughout the South.

    Tennessee had its own internal Civil War (much of which was truly brother against brother) which the Confederates lost and was the main reason it was never subjected to Reconstruction.

  7. Rudel what we are discussing here is the perspective of a Rainbow Confederate someone who believes that lots of people who supported the Confederacy also supported things like abolitionism and racial equality.

    What you have cited are Southern Unionists who by definition obviously did not support the Confederacy. So this in no way, shape, or form helps the case of the “Rainbow Confederate” in fact it hurts it.

    Furthermore being a unionist and an abolitionist are not necessarily the same thing which I absolutely pointed out in my previous post by saying not everyone in the North was an abolitionist but virtually all abolitionists lived in the North.

    Though Parson Brownlow was a Southerner, he most certainly was not a CONFEDERATE. Brownlow was jailed by the Confederate government and later exiled to the North.

    That being said even Brownlow was not an Abolitionist before the war. He believed Abolitionists and extreme slave holders were trying to break up the Union. He didn’t support Abolition until 1864.

    To get the 14th Amendment passed in Tennessee he had to force some of the legislators to show up for the vote at gunpoint and this was among whites who had been Unionists!, so that hardly proves strong views in favor of abolitionism and racial equality in East Tennessee.

  8. ” That is way ahead of the curve of the old Confederate States whose populations still wanted their anti-miscegenation laws when they were overturned by the Supreme Court in 1967.”

    You do realize, of course, that there is nothing sacrosanct in the Supremes’ decisions, if they go against the Law of God?

    Why does everyone bow down to this, as if it is a ‘fiat’ from on high. We have Jews, Lesbians, and overt traitors (Roberts) as the Supremes now; does that mean God is behind it?

    Hell, no.

    Unless you remove those whores and bastards physically from their position of authority, their laws (unjust, most of them) will stand.
    But if you remove them- via protest, secession, or outright war (all three valid for Christians, and invalid for the ‘goyim’ – Blacks, Mestizos, Asians, Proditors),

    then you can restore a more biblical form of governance.
    The choice is yours, gentlemen. What are you waiting for?

Comments are closed.