SCV Videos Pulled from History Channel

Please be sure to read the comments for important updates about this post.

I received an email on Saturday morning (10/23/2010) from Mr. Timothy F. Pilgrim – Adjutant, Georgia Division of the SCV – regarding the excellent series of videos that they produced. It appears that the History Channel received a complaint from a liberal blogger and Friday they reacted as liberals so often do – they have pulled the videos from their broadcast schedule.

As common as this sort of thing is, I would think that it would no longer shock me, but it does. The irony of this is a thing of beauty. Here we have a major media outlet, calling itself the History Channel, pulling a series of paid videos that present historical facts that go against what today is accepted as unquestionable fact in America. What are they afraid of? What is so dangerous about this information that they would turn away paid advertising to keep it from being shown?

The History Channel is a privately-owned business, and unless there are contractual reasons prohibiting it, has every right to accept or reject anything on their channel without having to answer to anyone. That is their right and we must respect it – but we don’t have to take their decision as a defeat. (There may well be other legal issues involved here that I am not aware of – if so, I wish them all the best should they take legal action against The History Channel.)

How do we turn this to our advantage? We spread these videos far and wide. We post embedded links everywhere we can. We send the links to our friends and family. Along with each link to these videos, we ask the question, “What is so dangerous about these videos? Why did the History Channel pull them from their schedule? Watch them and make your own decision.” If you want to just post a single link for all the videos, you can post a link to the Georgia SCV YouTube channel, or to this page on Confederate Colonel where we have compiled all the videos on a single page.

We will cover the story behind how these videos came to be in a later post, but for right now, this refusal to run the videos is the most pressing issue. We have got to do whatever we can to make sure these videos have the widest audience possible, and few things pique the curiosity of people more than hearing that something has been banned. Take full advantage of it.

About Stephen Clay McGehee

Born-Again Christian, Grandfather, husband, business owner, Southerner, aspiring Southern Gentleman. Publisher of The Confederate Colonel and The Southern Agrarian blogs. President/Owner of Adjutant Workshop, Inc., Vice President - Gather The Fragments Bible Mission, Inc. (Sierra Leone, West Africa), Webmaster - Military Order of The Stars and Bars, Kentucky Colonel.
This entry was posted in history. Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to SCV Videos Pulled from History Channel

  1. Barry says:

    Stephen, hope you are doing well. Confederate Colonel continues to do a wonderful job speaking and documenting the Truth about the South, our history and culture.

    This article came out in the past day or so and just wanted to pass it on to you. It shows how this destruction of cultures is happening on an international level and thankfully more people including Christian religious leaders are speaking out against it…..IHN

    Argentine Catholic Archbishop accuses the UN of secularist neo-colonialism.

    It is the very same parallels we face in Southern culture. The liberals/socialist/ideologies from the North are trying to twist and subvert our culture.

    “Archbishop Hector Aguer of La Plata, Argentina has charged that the UN and its affiliates are engaged in a campaign to undermine the traditional bases of Latin American culture.

    “Where do these ideas come from? Have we come up with them on our own” the archbishop asked rhetorically during a television address. “We must answer: No.” The drive to change public morality, promoting acceptance of abortion and homosexuality, is driven by “the United Nations and various satellite organizations,” he charged.

    The archbishop said that the UN, with support from major financial powers, is seeking to “shift paradigms of behavior and alter the definition of what real human rights are.” Thus, Archbishop Aguer said, “in the name of human rights the UN—which should be entrusted with their care—instead becomes a transgressor of natural law.”

  2. Thank you, Barry!

    I should also mention here that before this post was published, I sent it to Mr. Pilgrim (Georgia Division Adjutant) asking him to confirm that I had all the facts correct on this. I received an email back from him saying that it was correct as written.

  3. I hate to have to report this, but when reading about this on a very anti-Southern site, I have learned of at least one factual error on one of the videos. The date given for the Morrill Tariff was given as 1859. I did a quick Google search on “Morrill Tariff 1859″ and could find no logical link between the two. This would have been a simple thing to fact-check, yet it didn’t happen. Why do we keep shooting ourselves in the foot like this? Just because those who hate The South and everything we stand for twist and distort facts is no excuse for us to do the same.

    We will, as quickly as possible, correct errors when we make them regardless of what others do. The blog post that I am referring to quoted this post and attributed it to “Stephen Clay McGehee (aka “Confederate Colonel)”, giving folks ample opportunity to portray me as some guy pretending to be a Confederate Colonel. I pointed out that “Confederate Colonel” is the name of this blog project and nowhere on here will you see “Confederate Colonel” referring to me or anyone else. It is the name of the blog. Period. Despite pointing that out and asking that the description be changed, it still stands as written. It serves their purpose, so facts don’t matter to them.

    Just because they won’t let facts get in the way of their agenda is no excuse for us to do the same. We MUST do a better job of checking facts. We have all read enough to know that the truth is on our side. Things like this just make us look like fools.

    As far as the details of exactly why the video series was pulled by The History Channel – I have reported it exactly as it was told to me by someone with the authority to do so and I followed up by asking that what I wrote was accurate. End of story.

  4. Ghost says:

    “I hate to have to report this, but when reading about this on a very anti-Southern site…”

    These type folks always fashion themselves as being “open minded,” “tolerant of all views,” &etc.

    I believe that is vastly overrated.

  5. Rattlesnake says:

    Is there a copy of the complaint received floating around the internet somewhere?

  6. Michael Simons says:

    It is so sad to see almost any effort to share the truth be swept aside by the PC movement that seems to rule these days. May God Prosper these efforts as the SCV moves forward from here.

  7. Rattlesnake,
    I am not aware of anything like that, and I really doubt that it would be made public if it exists. Just my guess though – all I know of this is from an email correspondence.

    This was a golden opportunity. A great idea that got lost in the execution.

    This whole thing – and I refer mainly to the posts on another blog – is why I don’t try to get into historical discussions with folks. They were attacking the lack of attention to detail in the videos. They were legitimate points, but does it really matter that a piece of legislation was adopted in 1861 and not 1859? Certainly it matters to some degree and not getting that correct was inexcusable, but those who focus on that sort of thing are giving the right answers to the wrong questions. The focus was effectively shifted away from the topic and onto a date. They cannot argue on principle, so they focus on relatively meaningless details as though that somehow proves that The Southerners were the bad guys. Pathetic.

  8. Ghost says:

    Note the outrageous hypocrisy on this site. One poster denies there is any aim to make Southerners the “bad guys”…then a few posts later another does exactly that-

    The owner of this blog has referred to himself as an “activist historian.”

    He’s right. He uses history as a tool to promote an agenda.

  9. Ghost,
    Hypocrisy is right. You’ll note that the one comment I made on that thread (and the only one I will make) pointed out a factual error that he made in describing me, yet there was no correction, only more mockery. How sad it is that this guy is a “teacher”.

  10. I do need to add here that among the comments written on the high school history teacher’s blog, I have seen evidence that at least one of the comment writers has some level of interest in accuracy rather than the all-out Slam The South agenda that the school teacher has. It’s not worth dealing with though. Ultimately those who post on places like that will be satisfied with nothing less than a signed confession that The North was the Knight in Shining Armor that saved the country (if not the world) by thoroughly vanquishing the evil and wicked slave-beating Southern white trash who had the audacity to withdraw from political enslavement. Yes, that’s what it is – political enslavement. Those states who dare to leave the federal plantation will be hunted down and shot; their homes and fields and cities will be burned to the ground; their cultural memory erased by politicians and history teachers. It makes individual slavery look pretty tame by comparison.

  11. Pingback: If one person is offended, we edit history | Amerika: New Right, Conservationist, Traditionalist, Deep Ecology and Conservative Thought

  12. Claire says:

    “As common as this sort of thing is, I would think that it would no longer shock me, but it does.”

    Indeed. Every time an individual is offended by the facts, we edit history. And their “logical” argument that a single error in presentation constitutes a total negation of all other facts is a common tactic. The liberal generally cannot see beyond their emotional response to things, so why should they let something like pesky facts get in the way of them feeling superior and remaining deluded? All that matters is that they feel that they are right. You cannot argue logically with the illogical.

  13. Hi there folks, just thought I’d drop this link here:

    This is the contact form for the History Channel. I figure that if one complaint got the videos pulled, we should show them the other side, which is that many people are also in favor of these videos.

    Here’s my message:

    “To whom it may concern:

    I am saddened that The History Channel chose to stop airing the ads from the Georgia Division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans. While these ads expressed views that are unpopular to some, they are not unpopular to all. History is the progress of ideas through time and often we find out that our assumptions were bad, but before that occurs, those who claim anything other than the status quo belief system are demonized. This marginalization of important ideas often culminates in people demanding they be removed, or those who adhere to them removed, as happened when our world’s first democracy executed an elderly philosopher for corrupting the youth of Athens with his ideas.

    Please reconsider your decision to drop these ads. I and other watchers who are open-minded to multiple views of history would be grateful.


    Brett Stevens
    Houston, TX”

    Maybe that will help.

  14. Mike Crane says:

    Stephen, the Morrill bill was initiated in 1859 so the word “passed” should have been “initiated.” It did pass in the 36th Congress whose term was March 4, 1859 until March 4, 1861. It passed the US House somewhere in May 1860 by a sectional 105-64 vote, passed the US Senate in February, 1861 and then final passage after conference committee was March 2, 1861.

    So the wording error was probably an oversight and is not a major thing from my perspective. Both Toombs (Georgia) and Rhett (SC) gave major speeches referencing the bill specifically by name before their State secession conventions.

    During the campaign Lincoln openly supported the passage, support of the bill was one of the reasons he won the Republican Party nomination on the third ballot and prior to taking office after the election he stated if it was not in force it would be his first priority after taking office.

    Mike Crane

  15. Mike,
    Thanks for stopping by and commenting – and for laying out the correct sequence of events. I have absolutely no doubt that it was an oversight. I don’t know that I would go along with considering it not a major thing, but it doesn’t really matter at this point. My main concern is that this sort of “oversight” gives them ammunition to shoot back at us. Every time we give them something like this, it is something that they will continue to throw back in our face and make all sorts of false claims based on sloppy research. I know that we can do better and that is what really frustrates me.

    On the one hand, we have some dedicated Southern patriots who put a lot of time – and money – into this project. We all owe them a debt of gratitude for their efforts, and I certainly don’t want to overlook that in the discussion. I know that I have been unnecessarily harsh and not given them credit for taking the initiative and making it happen.

    On the other hand, the subject is a matter of history. The specific facts being presented should have been carefully checked and rechecked. The wording of the script should have been carefully checked. It just frustrates me that it didn’t happen. It frustrates me even more because I know that the facts are on our side and that we can do better.

    Again, thanks for stopping by and commenting, Mike. There are few men who work as hard for the Southern Cause as you do and it is truly an honor to have you commenting here.

Comments are closed.