Beating Up on the Confederacy

On April 9, 1998, Virginia's Governor James Gilmore proclaimed April as Confederate History Month. This action immediately drew angry protests from the blacks who, each year, organize to prevent just such a proclamation.

King Salim Khalfani, of the NAACP's Virginia State Conference, claimed that his organization was "not pleased that April once again will commemorate Confederate history and heritage month."

That goal is to eradicate all symbols of the Confederate past once celebrated by most southern white Americans.

In his declaration, Governor Gilmore denounced slavery as a practice that "deprived African-Americans of their God-given inalienable rights."

However, this acknowledgement of a negative aspect of the southern past was not enough to satisfy the keepers of the civil rights flame.

Khalfani's recalcitrance underscores the battle that has been simmering between white southerners who strive to preserve the Confederate heritage and blacks who now have acquired the political clout to undermine such efforts. Feeling under seige, memorializers of the Confederacy are reeling from a series of persecutions, beginning with demands for the destruction of particular southern statues and monuments, to a call for the abolition of Confederate holidays, to the brutal murder by black youths of Michael Westerman, a white man whose "racist" crime was to display the Confederate flag on his jeep.

The NAACP and an assortment of black "activists," scratching around for visible signs of white "racism," have now fixed on the historical Confederacy, especially as represented by the Confederate flag, that is still close to the hearts of so many white southerners.

In 1991, the NAACP issued a "Confederate Flag Resolution," in which it referred to the flag as an "abhorrence to all Americans and decent people" and an "odious blight upon the universe." Since then, black activists have refused to turn down the volume of their heated denunciations of symbols of the Old South.

Wayne Byrd, of the Heritage Preservation Association, does not find himself alone when referring to the NAACP as a "racist hate group." Byrd's stinging remark, uttered in reaction to black objections to Governor Gilmore's declaration, seems almost shocking in an age when an accommodating media and a penitent, contrite public tend to treat the demands of civil rights advocates as sacrosanct and off limits to criticism.

As if the rebukes coming from blacks are not enough, today's Confederates must endure the calumny of being piled on by other whites, who are fearful of appearing incorrect on the issue of southern culture. Such whites, seeking to distance themselves from a scorned period in history, almost daily place obstacles in the way of the new Confederates.

For example, in Chapel Hill, Tennessee, the city council ordered Confederate flags removed from southern memorials. At Virginia Military Institute, orders were given to remove all Confederate symbols from the campus.

In several towns, students have been suspended from schools for wearing T-shirts with Confederate logos, and parade permits are denied Confederate groups. There are now ongoing attempts to change the names of schools and public places originally named for Confederate heroes of the Civil War.

These are just a few of the dozens of "heritage violations," as they are called by the new Confederates, who bristle at attempts by intolerant opponents to outlaw cornerstones of their history.

The Heritage Preservation Association is just one of several organizations that have been formed in recent years to give voice to those who defend the right to honor the southern past. Also prominent is the League of the South, a group that encourages reverence for the Confederacy and its cultural symbols, that has branches in all the southern states.

In 1995, a legal defense group was founded. Until recently, Confederates hesitated to get embroiled in legal battles over their right to publicly acknowledge the past. In March, 1996 however, the Southern Legal Resource Center faced off with the Pickens Civitan Club that sponsors the annual Azalea Festival in Pickens, South Carolina.

Threatened with a lawsuit, festival officials decided to reinstate booth space for the Sons of Confederate Veterans, whose application they had previously rejected. The SCV branch has maintained a Confederate booth at the annual festival for years, but this year they encountered hostile forces.

Once shy about entering into political controversy, various camps of the Sons of Confederate Veterans have now become active in protecting their right to memorialize their ancestors. On the Internet, several dozen websites now exist to share the history of the past and keep Confederate sympathizers informed about current events. There are listservs, or discussion groups, where strategies for confronting opposition are among the main topics.

Time will tell if such organizing is too little, too late, given the years spent by the NAACP and its media supporters to publicly disparage white southern history and to equate all things Confederate with racism.

To justify trampling on the rights of Confederates, their enemies intrude extraneous arguments about slavery, segregation and past attitudes of bigotry. Yet it is clear that the only issue here is one of constitutional rights. Do white southerners have the same freedom of statement as blacks? The NAACP claims that blacks experience "hurt feelings" and "feel uncomfortable" when viewing symbols such as the Confederate flag.

Even if this is so, does it preclude the right of whites to display such symbols?

These might seem like ironic questions given the years of complaints by blacks, who have made a fetish of wresting away from whites the right to interpret black history and cultural identity. Do only the feelings of blacks count when it comes to interpreting history? Although the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the display of any flag is protected by First Amendment rights, this fact appears to be lost on those who would protect black sensibilities.

Whenever opponents of Kwanzaa contend that this holiday was invented to undermine the uniqueness of Christmas and the significance of Christ, Kwanzaa advocates swiftly deny the claim. They then explain their version of what the holiday and its symbols mean to them. A great many white southerners, whose sentiments are far removed from the racist tendences of a bygone era, feel that association with the old Confederacy, in the words of historian Eugene Genovese, links them with "those who value privacy and a responsible individualism that resists state intervention in community, family, and personal life."

Those who admire the old Confederacy's obstinate refusal to give in to an overbearing government are not relegated only to southern partisans. Modern day Confederates are not alone in comparing their ancestors' struggle to free themselves from an unconstitutional government to today's dissidents who make similar charges against the excessive authority of federal as well as state governments.

As is evident from a series of recent events, some of them tragic, we live in an era of growing disgruntlement over the heavy-handed role of government. There is protest on the home front from diverse political quarters--libertarians, who are staunch opponents of burdensome government, are joined by conservatives, left-leaning progressives, and varying shades of populists.

Non-southerners have adopted the Confederate spirit of rebellion, as they crusade against perversions of the Constitution, which include: an ever-growing central government, whose power to intervene in state and local affairs seems unlimited; a federal judiciary that usurps for itself new duties and, in some cases, even levies taxes on the people; district judges who prohibit the implementation of Propositions duly voted into law, thereby overriding the will of the people; and questionable, if not illegal government seizures of private property.

Over the years, symbols of the Confederacy have been known to show up in foreign countries where secessionist movements seek to overthrow tyrannical powers. Like many powerful symbols, the Confederate flag potentially has multiple meanings--certainly more than the narrow emphasis on slavery and segregation relegated to it by the NAACP.

In the 1960s, radicals claimed that Old Glory represented the imperialistic tyranny of the United States. They set about burning it, shredding it, and sometimes performing gross acts upon it. Even today, for many Americans, the American flag is a symbol of despotism. Should their objections be taken seriously?

In the minds of some Puerto Ricans, the flag of Puerto Rico carries a negation of American sovereignty over their island. In New York City, at least a week leading up to the annual Puerto Rico Day parade, my Bronx neighborhood is inundated with hundreds of flags of this commonwealth territory. Flags hang from windows and fire escapes, they fly from cars and trucks, and decorate baby strollers and shopping carts. Some hardy souls even manage to hang them high atop lamp posts.

Is the flag of Puerto Rico to be granted more protection than the indigenous Confederate flag?

A common belief among many blacks is that civil rights pertain only to them. It is considered acceptable for me, a black woman, to celebrate May 19, the birthday of Malcolm X, yet a white who reveres Jefferson Davis is expected to hide his reverence in a closet.

One would think that, of all groups, blacks would be the last to pick other people's heroes for them.

Blacks who publicly speak out on the issue of Confederate observance are almost unanimous in their disregard of the rights of white southerners. The subject of constitutional rights is usually sidetracked in favor of vituperation over past injustices. An exception is Terry Foster, a reporter for the Detroit News. In an article last December, where he called the Confederate flag "a banner of hate," Foster insisted on the right of others to carry or display the flag.

He wrote, "With that said, this is America. There are things called freedom of speech, freedom of choice and freedom of statement."

Concerning the ongoing furor over the administration's attempt to ban the display of the Confederate flag on the campus of the University of Mississippi, Foster claimed that "It is the fans' right to carry the flag to the game. I would not try to stop it, even if I had the power. Neither should anyone else." He called the right to free statement and choice the "bedrock" on which this country is founded.

Preventing the display of the Confederate flag and other southern memorabilia has nothing to do with lessening "anguish" among blacks, but has everything to do with asserting power. For those blacks who feel that the tables are now turned in the South, the power to flex political muscle is irresistible.

Yet it is a power that must be resisted, since it possibly could lead to tragic consequences. It is not farfetched to surmise that the rhetoric of condemnation regularly flowing from the civil rights camp might have sparked an unfortunate incident last March in Oxford, Mississippi.

One night, over 15 black youths stormed into the Rebel Barn convenience store, vandalized it by tearing to shreds several hanging Confederate flags, while shouting anti-white slogans and threatening violence to the store employees. Will similar incidents be the tinderbox that ultimately sets off widespread retaliation?

Such potential strife could be avoided, if responsible leaders brought more light to bear on the rights of all citizens, and turned down the heated rhetoric that can only set back attempts at racial harmony.

"I would have our children's children to know not only that our cause was just, but to have them know that the men who sustained it were worthy of the cause for which they fought."

Funny how Nawtherners conveniently ignore that northerners had slaves, who were not freed at the beginning of the war, nor before the war, nor by the Emancipation Proclamation, which applied only to slaves in the South, despite Lincoln's arguable lack of jurisdiction in 1863.

Funny how no one recalls, nor admits that there were free blacks who owned negro slaves.

Funny that the Constitution was written by Southerners, but that Northerners denied and continue to deny Southerners the right to "interpret" that same document.

But somehow, I find it not so odd that the history books which have distorted the causes and effects of the war have been written by Northerners and published and printed in the North.

But what could one expect from the people who brought the culturally demeaning "Dukes of Hazard", "Deliverance" and "Beverly Hillbillies" to the fore to shape the modern opinion of Southern Culture.

This is "Ethnic Cleansing" at its most insidious. A "Union", restored and maintained by force,was not then, and is still not a union.

Odd that VMI should be so politically corrected, when in the heritage of that institution, cadets forced-marched to the Battle of New Market, where they charged and took a Union Cannon emplacement, changing the tide of battle. What regiment, what culture turns its back on its heroic youth?

Another sad day for history, and for the American people, when our diversity has been thrown out in the name of "diversity".

Lincoln had all the jurisdiction he needed.

"But to be plain, you are dissatisfied with me about the negro. Quite likely there is a difference of opinion between you and myself upon that subject. I certainly wish that all men could be free, while I suppose that you do not. Yet I have neither adopted nor proposed any measure, which is not consistant even with your view, provided you are for the Union. I suggested compensated emancipation; to which you replied you wished not to be taxed to buy negroes. But I had not asked you to be taxed to buy negroes, except in such way, as to save you from greater expense, to save the Union exclusively by other means.

You dislike the emancipation proclamation; and perhaps, would have it retracted. You say it is unconstitutional--I think differently. I think the Constitution invests the commander in chief with the law of war, in time of war. The most that can be said, if so much, is, that slaves are property. Is there--has there ever been--any question that by the law of war, property, both of enemies and friends, may be taken when needed? And is it not needed whenever taking it helps us, or hurts the enemy?

....but the proclamation, as law, either is valid, or it is not valid. If it is not valid, it needs no retraction. If it is valid, it can not be retracted, any more than the dead can be brought to life....The war has certainly progressed as favorably for us, since the issue of the proclamation as before. I know as fully as one can know the opinions of others that some of the commanders of our armies in the field who have given us some of most important successes, believe the emancipation policy and the use of colored troops, constitute the heaviest blow yet dealt the rebellion, and that at least one of those important successes could not have been achieved when it was but for the aid of black soldiers....

I submit these opinions as being entitled to some weight against the objections, often urged, that emancipation, and arming the blacks, are unwise as military measures, and were not adopted, as such, in good faith. You say you will not fight to free negroes. Some of them seem willing to fight for you; but no matter. Fight you then, exclusively to save the Union...

negroes, like other people act upon motives. Why should they do anything for us if we will do nothing for them? If they stake their lives for us, they must be prompted by the strongest motive--even the promise of freedom. And the promise, being made, must be kept....peace does not appear as distant as it did. I hope it will come soon, and come to stay; and so come as to worth the keeping in all future time. It will have then been proved that, among free men, there can be no successful appeal from the ballot to the bullet; and that they who take such appeal are sure to lose their case, and pay the cost. And then, there will be some black men, who can remember that, with silent tongue, and clenched teeth, and steady eye, and well-poised bayonet they have helped mankind on to this great consumation; while, I fear, there will be some white ones, unable to forget that, with malignant heart, and deceitful speech, have strove to hinder it. Still let us not be over-sanguine of a speedy final triumph. Let us be quite sober. Let us dilligently apply the means, never doubting that a just God, in his own good time, will give us the rightful result."

8/24/63

To A. G. Hodges:

"You ask me to put in writing the substance of what I verbally said the other day, in your presence, to Governor Bramlette and Senator Dixon. It was about as follows:

"I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I can not remember when I did not so think, and feel. And yet I have never understood that the presidency conferred upon me an unrestricted right to act upon this judgment and feeling. It was in the oath I took, that I would, to the utmost of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. I could not take the office without taking the oath. Nor was it my view that I might take an oath to get power, and break the oath in using the power. I understood too, that in ordinary civil administration this oath even forbade me to practically indulge my primary abstract judgment on the moral question of slavery. I have publically declared this many times, and in many ways. And I aver that, to this day, I have done no official act in mere deference to my abstract judgment and feeling on slavery. I did understand however that my oath to preserve the constitution to the best of my ability, imposed upon me the duty of preserving by every indispensible means, that government--that nation--of which that constitution was the organic law. Was it possible to lose the nation, and preserve the constitution? By general law life and limb must be protected; yet often a limb must be amputated to save a life; but a life is never wisely given to save a limb. I felt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful, by becoming indispensible to to the preservation of the of the Constitution, through the preservation of the nation. Right or wrong, I assumed this ground, and now avow it...

When in March, and May and July 1862 I made earnest, and succcessive appeals to the border states to favor compensated emancipation, I believed the indispensable neccessity for military emancipation and arming the blacks would come, unless averted by that measure. They declined the proposition; and I was, in my best judgment, driven to the alternative of either surrendering the Union, and with it the Constitution, or of laying strong hand upon the colored element. I chose the latter. In choosing it, I hoped for greater gain than loss; but of this, I was not entirely confident. More than a year of trial now shows no loss by it in our foreign relations, none in our home popular sentiment, none in our white military force, no loss any how or any where. On the contrary, it shows a gain of quite one hundred and thirty thousand soldiers, seamen and laborers. These are palpable facts, about which there can be no cavilling. We have the men; and we could not have them without the measure.

And now let any Union man who complains of the measure, test himself by writing down in one line that he is for subduing the rebellion by force of arms; and in the next, that he is for taking these hundred and thirty thousand men from the Union side, and placing them where they would be but for the measure he condemns. If he can not face his case so stated, it is only because he can not face the truth.

I add a word which was not in the verbal conversation. In telling this tale I attempt no compliment to my own sagacity. I claim not to have controlled events, but confess plainly that events have controlled me. Now, at the end of three years struggle the Nation's condition is not what either party, or any man devised, or expected. God alone can claim it. Whither it is tending seems plain. If God now wills the removal of a great wrong, and wills also that we of the North as well as you of the South, shall pay for our complicity in that wrong, impartial history will find therein new cause to attest and revere the justice and goodness of God."

4/4/64

Quoted from "Lincoln; Speeches and Writings, 1859-65, Library of the Americas.

Walt

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.