Democrat activists in Colorado and Maine dictatorially kicked Trump off the primary ballot in those states.  Historically ignorant Neocons had a field day, labeling the Left as “Neo-Confederates.”

Fox News Jesse Watters ranted, “Democrats booted Lincoln off the ballot in 10 states.” Declaring that “history always has a way of repeating itself,” he continued, “Just like Southern Democrats did to Lincoln, the Colorado Supreme Court banished Trump from the ballot.”

Anti-South in all things Victor Davis Hansen took to X with a rambling post about “Ballot Banishing and Our New Leftwing Confederates.”  Parroting the leftist lies about history Hanson wrote, “In the election of 1860, southern Democrats in 10 states of the soon-to-be formalized Confederacy made it almost impossible for their own voters to cast ballots for Abraham Lincoln for President.  In that sense, the Left in Colorado would have felt right at home in the ante-bellum South—erasing the name of a presidential candidate whom they loathed and by whom they were similarly terrified.”

Except that this is a lie.  USA Today accurately reported the facts.  Experts with whom USA Today consulted said the comparison between 1860 and now makes no sense.  Before the 1880s, political parties printed and distributed the ballots, not the state.  In 1860 there were four parties vying for power: the Republican Party, the northern and southern Democratic parties, and the Constitutional Union Party.  Ballots were not secret so voter intimidation was an issue.  Ten of the 11 states that later would form the Confederacy did not have Republican ballots with Lincoln’s name on them because the Republican Party essentially did not exist in the South and so did not campaign there.  Since the party’s platform was anti-slavery, it was believed that distributing Republican ballots in the South would have been useless.  Because the Constitution left the responsibility of running elections to the states, in the late 19th century states assumed control of printing and administering ballots.

The Left well understands that, if they repeat their lies often enough, eventually the lies will be believed even by conservatives, influencing and altering a nation’s values and culture.  By constantly linking slavery and the South – no matter that the North imported the slaves and sold them to the South and kept slaves even after the Civil War and that slavery was accepted worldwide at that time – the Left has been able to use slavery to divide the American people – even Southerners.

The exent to which the Left has influenced conservative opinion has had far reaching negative consequences.  The Gateway Pundit, in reporting the story, quoted another conservative media outlet: “As Randy DeSoto reported at Western Journal back in November – The last time Democrats pulled such a stunt was in the presidential election of 1860, when Republican nominee Abraham Lincoln’s name did not appear on most Southern states’ ballots.”

Christian actor Kevin Sorbo reacted to the ballot issue:  “The last presidential candidate to be removed from the ballots was Abraham Lincoln, by the democrats, because they wanted to keep their slaves.”

Founder of Family Research Council and former Under Secretary of Education under Reagan, Gary Bauer in a recent “End of Day Report” about the 14th Amendment being used to keep Trump off the primary ballot wrote, “By the way, the last time Democrats did this to a Republican presidential candidate was in 1860, when ten Democrat slave states kept Abraham Lincoln off the ballot.”

Bauer also noted, “The ‘insurrection’ the 14th Amendment was referring to was the Civil War, in which 600,000 Americans died. Thirteen states raised an army and attempted to take control of the United States. That’s the kind of thing the 14th Amendment was intended to prevent when it comes to holding public office.”  Obviously he was referring to the 11 seceded states which did not raise an army to take control of the federal government.  The term “Civil War” is a misnomer because the seceded states did not want to take over the government, but rather to leave it and set up their own government — the Confederacy.  They were forced to fight because the Northern – federal — army illegally invaded the South that was no longer a part of the United States.

It’s imperative that conservatives learn the facts about our nation’s history and stop listening to Neocons trumpeting fake history in their quest to demonize Democrats.  Southern historian and founder of McClanahan Academy, Brion McClanahan, says that telling the truth about this “doesn’t allow them to run the South as the bogeyman thesis of American history and to virtue signal about their moral self righteousness.”

Of course, readers of the Abbeville Institute website well know that if you want to understand the real Southern tradition, you’ve come to the right place.

Carole Hornsby Haynes

Carole Hornsby Haynes, Ph.D. is an independent historian and Southerner who taught American and Southern history at the secondary and college levels. She is a national education policy analyst and legislative adviser. A classically trained pianist and organist, she loves the many genres of American music. She’s especially proud that nearly all American music is Southern in origin and identity.


  • James Persons says:

    “Historically ignorant Neocons” is redundant isn’t it? 😉

    “Anti-South in all things Victor Davis Hansen …”. Hanson is not just anti-South, he’s a genuine anti-Southern bigot. He can’t get the South/Confederacy off of his mind. He will make connections to the ‘Civil War’ in his writings that no rational mind would, and invent ‘facts’ for the purpose of saying negative things about the South/the war/we Southerners. In Boomer parlance, ‘The guy is mental’ on this subject. A few others are too and do the same thing as he.

    On the positive side, the Dems, RINO’s and the rest of the Statists are creating more and more 21st C. Neo-‘Confederates’ every day. They are forcing people to actually look at true American history, and by doing so people are discovering the original intent of the Founders and the actual words of the DOI and Constitution and the people are realizing that they ‘have been had’/conned. The Texas border matter is just the most recent example of where the Swamp is driving things. I pass along links to articles, videos and books by all the writers at Abbeville Institute, as well as Brion McClanahan’s podcasts, and Tom Woods’, Tom Di Lorenzo’s works, and more that I don’t recall at the moment because my enthusiasm gets so charged up when I think about all the things going on around the country that I can’t type fast enough to keep up with my thoughts and all the evidence there is. I liken it to a ‘Great Awakening’ to true Am. History. All the info I pass along is well received. Of course the truth is not accepted by all. As one of my mentors, a psychologist, informed me, ‘Before someone can be helped by therapy, they must be willing to accept that maybe there is a problem.’ Even Jesus did not convince all who witnessed his teaching and miracles and resurrection of his Divinity. So take heart if you are discouraged. I’m in my 70’s and the turnaround in the country back toward original intent is amazing from the days when I was young.

  • Paul Yarbrough says:

    It has always (in my thinking) been the case that pitiful little men like Victor Davis Hanson, Gary Bauer, Jesse Waters et al are the sweet little tulips of manhood that are the authors of fabrication simply because honor and/or honesty are less profitable and often require great strength.
    Mark Twain could find (for whatever his reasons) a way to defend the Devil but at least the Devil had written about him attributes of beauty and strength: “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!”

    But the set of characters above revel in lies and dishonor. Each time I read their words or hear them speak it makes me believe that even Twain could not defend them. They are DISGUST, writ large (as the groupie journalists lie to parrot).

  • Paul Yarbrough says:

    This is not a comment from me.

  • Douglas L. Yarbrough says:

    Wow! I am pretty young, but even I am old enough to remember when mainstream conservatives did not talk like this and had a deeper understanding of American History. This neoconservative “Democrats=bad guys and Republicans=good guys” cartoon narrative is a fairly recent thing only in the past 10 or 20 years.
    Does anybody else remember that entire hour Michael Medvid devoted in the final hour guest hosting for Rush around 1997 (it was when judge Ruth Vader-Ginsburg was involved in forcing Virginia Military Institute to admit women) to calling out the political Left for it’s “Stalinizing memory” of the South and it’s culture and memory of the costliest war in American History and what the South and it’s Confederates have mean’t in the positive character of America.
    Professor Walter Williams also used to frequently bring this up as well when guest hosting for Rush.
    And mainstream Americans from all over called in agreeing and/or engaged in meaningful discussion whether they thought the Confederate side was necessarily right.
    The likes of Hanson need to be left behind. It is they that strive to divide us and stir hatred.

  • William Quinton Platt III says:

    Selective enforcement of law is what leads to civil war. Dred Scott wasn’t enforced…and now immigration law isn’t enforced.

    The yankees insist upon calling it the “American Civil War that was fought to free the slaves”…at least that is what they want linked to the “American Civil War”. So I challenge my yankee “brothers”, “Why don’t you grow a pair and call it “The War to Free the Slaves”? I can usually get a few head nods…then I suggest to call it “The War Between the Free States and the Slave States” and man, you ought to see the bobbin’ heads. “So just between us girls, we will agree to call the conflict, “The War Between the Free States and the Slave States to Free the Slaves”? By this time, they’re foaming at the mouth in agreement…then I tell them there were slave States in the union…and watch the jaws drop.
    The above will happen ANY TIME you put it before a group of yankee morons…they don’t know history at all…but you can convert them, one knucklehead at a time.

  • Barbara says:

    I see this online every day. Even Judge Napolitano had McGovern on his program and McGovern attacked not only Lindsey Graham but went out of his way to attack the state of South Carolina. They seem to have some serious superiority complex. Mark Chrispin Miller posted a photo of two Alabama white women taken during the fight against desegregation. Apropos of nothing. He just wanted to demonize southerners. Luckily for him he can still keep his tolerant, liberal credentials as long as it’s only southern whites he demonizes.

    But for reasons unknown they still won’t let us go.

  • Jd says:

    What percent of the slaves did the North import and sell to the South? Could you cite please, thanks

    • William Quinton Platt III says:

      Almost the entirety of colonial shipyards were centered around New England. The reason was simple…the South was a penal colony for England and you don’t invest in penal colonies. So, to answer your question, nearly all slave ships built in the colonies came from New England…that is one way to answer your question. Nearly all banking was centered in New England…so nearly ALL financing of slavery originating in the colonies came from New England.

      But the preponderance of slaves imported into the New World originated in England. You had to have a license issued by the King to travel his Atlantic ocean.

      The Anaconda Plan put forth by General Scott absolutely understood this logistical structure…if the South had shipyards (produced slave ships), there would have been no way possible for the yankees to place a naval blockade around the Confederate States from Maryland to Mexico and up the Mississippi.

      The importation of slaves into the United States ended in 1808…prior to the attempted formation of the United States (we can call it 1776, if you like) importation of slaves was controlled by the British Empire in the 13 colonies that would form the United States. Britain had many other colonies in the New World, so what I am talking about is US centric. In the 20 years where slaves were imported into the United States (1788 to 1808) as defined by the US Constitution, the volume of slaves imported is insignificant compared to the 1655 to 1776 time frame. 1655 being when Anthony Johnson (free black British citizen) was awarded John Casor as a slave for life, thus ending blacks being treated as indentured servants and becoming property.

      Everything you think you know about US history from public education to the ivy leagues has been told from the perspective of those who formerly controlled the narrative.

      Ask yourself, “Why do the yankees insist upon calling the war the “American Civil War”?” Why don’t they just call it “The War to Free the Slaves”? They lie about everything else, so why confuse people by insisting the AMERICAN CIVIL WAR was actually THE WAR TO FREE THE SLAVES?

      I hope this helps.

      • William Quinton Platt III says:

        The difference between the “north” and the South is the South is the malarial zone of the United States. Malaria rages uncontrolled in Africa, even today, and blacks from West Africa developed resistance to malaria through sickle cell anemia. If it had not been for malaria, there would have been no need to import Africans into the New World…native Asians (Indian tribes) would have been the majority of the work force…this is to assume the other diseases introduced into the New World would have a much smaller impact upon “native” populations than malaria.

        Smallpox, for example, may have killed off the natives at a very high rate as well…but they were already dead from malarial exposure, which remains the most deadly disease on Earth.

Leave a Reply