Bump for Dixie
Posted on 06/05/2002 5:50:05 AM PDT by TexConfederate1861
I read with interest the story about the Confederate Battle Flag argument occuring in Biloxi between pro-Battle Flag folks and anti-Battle Flag folks. I find it very interesting that those who oppose the display of the Confederate Battle Flag do so on no merits other than the emotional, but un-factual, argument that the flag "stands for slavery" and "racism".
As a former associate professor of history at the Army's Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, I always ask people who posit the argument that an inanimate flag is "racist" or stands for "slavery" to explain why? This normally stops them cold. Other than illogical and emotional arguments, they cannot defend their theses. This irrational attack on the Confederate Battle Flag only started about ten years ago under the auspices of political action groups needing a convenient target to assail and has absolutely no basis in historical fact. As a teacher of history, I really like to deal with facts, not emotions, which so easily are manipulated by those who don't know their history.
After hearing the arguments regarding "racism" and "slavery", I decided to do some detailed research into the origins of the Confederate Battle Flag since I taught courses on the War Between the States. However, I notice with interest that the groups attacking the Battle Flag never attack the US flag. The answers which are sometimes provided to the question "why?" the Battle Flag is attacked include: "it flew over a country trying to maintain slavery and segregation" and "it's used by racists". These argument are fallacious. In fact, these argument might easily fit the US flag if we wished to take this line of illogic. Interestingly, if any flag could be labeled "racist" or a symbol of "slavery", it would more rightly be the US flag if the same parameters of condemnation are used.
First, the US flag (Stars and Stripes) that we know today was first flown in 1777. It flew over legalized slavery until 1865 when slavery was ended by Constitutional Amendment. This means that slaves were sanctioned legally by the United States under the Stars and Stripes for about eighty-eight years. In fact, under the provisions of the Emancipation Proclamation (as pointed out aptly by black author Lerone Bennett in his recent book on Lincoln), slaves were not freed in the areas controlled by the Union (US) Armies. This effectively prolonged slavery under the auspices of the US Stars and Stripes with the protection of the US government. Segregation continued for another eighty-three years in the US armed forces until halted by Presidential proclamation in 1948. It continued in Northern schools and society until the 1954 Brown vs Topeka (that's Kansas) Board of Education. If segregation is "racism", racism was sanctioned in the US armed forces until integration was completed in the early 1950s. Northern schools were (and many still are) segregated, which is "racism", and none of these were under a Confederate Battle Flag. So, guilt by association, the US flag is "racist" as demonstrated by the prima facie evidence that it flew over legalized slavery supported by the US government and it flew over official segregation ("racism") sponsored and sanctioned by the US government.
The other argument is interesting indeed: "The Battle Flag is used by racists", therefore, "it is a racist symbol". If the Battle Flag is used (misused) by racists, then what about the other symbols they misuse? Yes, please address the US flag and the Christian cross used extensively by the KKK and other racist organizations. Herein lies the inconsistancy. If the US flag and cross are not condemned as well, then this is outright hypocrisy! This is clearly a double standard if we condemn the Confederate Battle Flag but not the other symbols used by racists.
Of course the Battle Flag was only one of many used by the Confederacy. It was designed to identify military units on the battlefield. The primary purpose of flags in the nineteenth century armies was to identify unit locations and assist in battlefield identification. The "Battle Flag" obviously derived it's name from this purpose. It was never called the "Slavery Flag" or the "Racism Flag". This is all substantiated fact. There is absolutely no evidence that can be inferred that the flag was designed as a symbol of racism .... any more than the US flag which flew over slavery and segregation --- racism --- was designed to stand for "racism".
So all this hoopla by the anti-Confederate Battle Flag folks is much to do about nothing. It is invented rhetoric designed to attack a symbol which is convenient. If the facts be known, then the anti-Battle Flag folks would be hauling down our Stars and Stripes. That won't happen any time soon for reasons which are intuitively obvious to the casual observer. Or maybe they aren't obvious. As long as people are not willing to study the facts they will attempt to change history to fit their emotions. This is all part of the dumbing down of America and fits nicely into the stereotypes promulgated by those who think that the sinking of the Titanic started WWII.
Edwin L. Kennedy, Jr. Lieutenant Colonel, US Army (ret)
Bump for Dixie
Actually, I usually find that it causes them to attack me, either verbally or physically. Alternatively, if they are among similarly illiterate and/or uneducated friends, the result is a dismissive sneer. Never have I found any mere explication of logic, critical thinking, or analysis of actual facts to stop any fanatic "cold."
do I really need to ID this as sarcasm?
So all this hoopla by the anti-Confederate Battle Flag folks is much to do about nothing.
It was a campaign created by the NAACP to drive membership up. It's about money and power for these people. If you ask questions, just as the author suggests, you will find, many of these anti-CBF advocates are misinformed, uneducated, and have no logic to their reasoning. They are just running on hate!
This argument will backfire, since many of the "anti-racist" PC-loonies and black activists will be only too happy to condemn the stars and stripes too -- now that they have a "logical" reason.
The NAACP, unwilling to place any of the blame on blacks, keeps looking for a way to blame whitey. The Confederate flag is the answer they have come up with. It's the Confederate flag's fault, and thereby whitey's, fault blacks are living in poverty and ignorance, despite all of the social and economic programs designed to help them. Sometimes I wonder, if all of the Confederate flags disappeared overnight, what whould the NAACP attack next?
Great post Tex!! Unfortunately trying to use historical fact and logic on those that would continue to denigrate the Southern culture and history is virtually impossible, even as evidenced here on FR.
For Truth and For Dixie
Has anybody told uninformed and illiterate? Kudos to Lt. Col. Kennedy.
for a free dixie,sw
for dixie,sw
for a FREE dixie,sw
So typing this ...
< img src="http://civilwarclipart.com/Clipartgallery/usa.gif">
...gets you this
Oh really?
I believe at one time, the NAACP was an effective organization, however, it's time for change. The NAACP has overstepped the bounds upon which it was founded. With the elimination of the influence from racist organizations, and the advent of anti-discrimination laws, the NAACP is left without cause. It's an organization struggling for a purpose.
The NAACP's obsession with the CBF really does it's cause a disservice - there are more effective issues this organization could be focused on! Consider the effects of working positive causes such as improving welfare conditions, educating minorities, and focusing on the family. The NAACP would be better to pursue causes other than destructing Southern History.
![](http://www.qsl.net/kb5nb/page3/zbt.jpg")
Thanks...my ancestor who didn't believe in slavery!
< img src="http://www.qsl.net/kb5nb/page3/zbt.jpg"">
Try this:
< img src="http://www.qsl.net/kb5nb/page3/zbt.jpg">
It resulted in this:
Look familiar?
I have used CuteFTP for a nice client and I have my own website. You might can find a free website online (Geocities/Yahoo/Earthlink) or pay a small monthly fee for one.
http--www.sfgate.com-chronicle-pictures-2001-11-06-m??????
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.