"We Don't Reconstruct ... We Reload" Is that a slogan to use after the Charleston massacre?

The first thing you see on the 2020 National Sons of Confederate Veterans reunion page is a poster with a Confederate soldier re-loading a gun.

http://scv2020reunion.com/

The poster's headline is "We Don't Reconstruct .. We Reload."

Is that the slogan to have after Dylann Roof massacred church members in 2015? I am sure they mean it metaphorically, but I don't think it is it really a good statement to make.

Of course the head of the Sons of Confederate Veterans heritage defense is the author of "Rekilling Lincoln," which has that title rather than re-evaluating Lincoln or a negative name for Lincoln to reflect their view point.

Sexist comments at the Texas Sons of Confederate Veterans page

To learn what type of people support honoring the Confederacy I recommend going to the Texas Sons of Confederate Veterans page and read the comments.

The Facebook page owner may be all proper and everything, but the comments reveal the mentality of the supporters of the Confederacy.

https://www.facebook.com/TexasSCV/posts/2062424420471933?__tn__=-R

Sons of Confederate Veterans attacks Martin Luther King through a back channel

To lead a counter-revolution against the removal of Confederate monuments the Sons of Confederate Veterans has created a web page https://www.makedixiegreatagain.com/.  I believe, but I don't have documentation that the name of the website is intentionally derived from the Donald Trump slogan, "Make America Great Again."

They have a Facebook page also.  On this Facebook page is this posting.

https://www.facebook.com/makedixiegreatagain/posts/304273373557618

This Facebook posting is a sharing of this Facebook posting.

https://www.facebook.com/DixieAlliance/posts/1277040832448434

However, in either Facebook posting you can click on the  link to go directly to this article about Martin Luther King at the mydixie.org website. Dixie Alliance is the Facebook page of Mydixie.org.

https://mydixie.org/sources/the-new-american-magazine/the-secret-file-on-m-l-king

The publication The New American is in my opinion is a fringe rightwing publication.

https://www.thenewamerican.com/

The web page has a problem since the link to the article, "The Secret File on M.L. King" is actually to another article.

However, the page is an attack on their being a Martin Luther King holiday at all. MLK is attacked:

What almost must be said about the King record is that, apart from whatever may be in the sealed files, enough information about his associations with subversives is known to cast grave doubt on his character.

The article concludes a call to release some files on MLK and to repeal the MLK holiday.

Liberals, Communists and their sympathizers everywhere have won a great victory with the creation of an official King holiday. The measure authorizing it should be repealed. As a first step toward this and toward repairing the soiled image of America that the creation of this holiday has caused, the King files should be opened and made available to Congress.

Anyone who loves America and reveres truth should join in demanding of the appropriate authorities that they “Free The Files!”

This attack isn't on the official SCV Facebook page, but the Make Dixie Great Again Facebook page. It allows some plausible denialability in that it might be claimed that a rouge member of the SCV or operation made the posting.

However, even on the Make Dixie Great Again Facebook page posting, Make Dixie Great Again shares the posting without comment, and The Dixie Alliance Facebook (My Dixie Facebook page) merely says, "Remembering, "The Secret File on M.L. King." Click below to read facts that are not generally known about Martin Luther King, Jr."

There is plausible denialability. . The SCV didn't create the web page. It could be said to be a mistake that they shared the posting.

In the neo-Confederate movement there is a lot of this type of thing where a position or action is advocated, but in a way that is detachable and offers plausible denialability.