So What About That Confederate Battle Flag?

NRO has an interesting give and take on the symbolic meaning of the Confederate battle flag. Here is Iraq war veteran David French:

Like many Southern boys, I grew up with two flags hanging in my room — an American flag and a Confederate battle flag. The American flag was enormous, taking up much of one wall. It was the “1776” flag, with 13 stars in a circle in the field of blue. My grandmother bought it for me on the bicentennial, and for years it was a treasured possession. The flag took on a special meaning later in life, when I learned more of a family history that included service with General Washington, suffering at Valley Forge.

The Confederate battle flag was much smaller, and it hung over my bookshelf. We bought it at the Shiloh battlefield in Tennessee, where one of my Confederate ancestors fought and where Albert Sidney Johnston died — the general that many considered the great hope of the Confederate Army in the West. My Confederate forefathers went on to fight at Vicksburg, at the battles of Franklin and Nashville, and in countless skirmishes across Tennessee and Mississippi. I grew up looking at old family pictures, including men who still wore their Confederate uniform for formal portraits — long after the war had ended.

So, family history and martial valor. However...

If the goal of our shared civic experience was the avoidance of pain, then we’d take down that flag. But that’s of course not the goal. Rather, we use history to understand our nation in all its complexity — acknowledging uncomfortable realities and learning difficult truths. 

...

It is telling that the South’s chosen, enduring symbol of the Confederacy wasn’t the flag of the Confederate States of America — the slave state itself — but the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia, Robert E. Lee’s army. Lee was the reluctant Confederate, the brilliant commander, the man who called slavery a “moral and political evil,” and the architect — by his example — of much of the reconciliation between North and South. His virtue grew in the retelling — and modern historians still argue about his true character — but the symbolism was clear. If the South was to rebuild, it would rebuild under Lee’s banner.

Since that time, the battle flag has grown to mean many things, including evil things. Flying it as a symbol of white racial supremacy is undeniably vile, and any official use of the flag for that purpose should end, immediately. Flying it over monuments to Confederate war dead is simply history. States should no more remove a Confederate battle flag from a Confederate memorial than they should chisel away the words on the granite or bulldoze the memorials themselves.

Jason Lee Steorts doesn't buy it:

Whether you think it’s all right for South Carolina to fly a Confederate battle flag over a Confederate memorial on its capitol grounds depends on whether you think that the Confederate war dead should be honored. If you do, then you can, as David French does, see the flag as a symbol of their valor and skill while decrying its use by white supremacists.

This strikes me as a whitewash of both the flag and the Confederacy. The Confederacy was a rebellion founded on the incoherent idea that the sovereign authority of the United States might be shucked off at the states’ pleasure, and the Confederacy’s primary reason for being was to preserve racial slavery — that is, to violate natural rights rather than to secure them. That is what Confederate soldiers fought for. Whatever else their battle flag may mean, it has to mean that. It did not become a banner of white supremacy in the mid 20th century when racial segregationists took it up. It was a banner of white supremacy, and of lawlessness, from the beginning.

Reihan Salan reviews the history and comes away suggesting that the use of the flag morphed from honoring the Confederate veterans and dead to resisting the civil rights movement of the 50's and 60's. This is from a study he excerpted:

From the end of the Civil War until the late 1940s, display of the battle flag was mostly limited to Confederate commemorations, Civil War re-enactments, and veterans’ parades. The flag had simply become a tribute to Confederate veterans. It was during that time period, only thirty years after the end of the war and fifty years before the modern civil rights movement, that Mississippi incorporated the battle flag into its own state flag – well before the battle flag took on a different and more politically charged meaning.

In 1948, the battle flag began to take on a different meaning when it appeared at the Dixiecrat convention in Birmingham as a symbol of southern protest and resistance to the federal government – displaying the flag then acquired a more political significance after this convention. Georgia of course, changed its flag in 1956, two years after Brown v. Board of Education was decided. In 1961, George Wallace, the governor of Alabama, raised the Confederate battle flag over the capitol dome in Montgomery to commemorate the hundredth anniversary of the Civil War. The next year, South Carolina raised the battle flag over its capitol. In 1963, as part of his continued opposition to integration, Governor Wallace again raised the flag over the capitol dome. Despite the hundredth anniversary of the Civil War, the likely meaning of the battle flag by that time was not the representation of the Confederacy, because the flag had already been used by Dixiecrats and had become recognized as a symbol of protest and resistance. Based on its association with the Dixiecrats, it was at least in part, if not entirely, a symbol of resistance to federally enforced integration. Undoubtedly, too, it acquired a racist aspect from its use by the Ku Klux Klan, whose violent activities increased during this period. However, it is important to remember that in spite of these other uses, there remained displays of the battle flag as homage to the Confederate dead, with no racist overtones.

Well. At the risk of a Godwin's Law violation, I would note that German history is complicated and many Germans fought valiantly and honorably during WWII. But despite its long history of other meanings we don't see Nazi flags at German war cemeteries, and, although tributes to conventional German soldiers are within bounds, the politics of a cemetery which includes the Waffen SS are deeply fraught. 

People who wanted to reserve the battle flag for honoring the soldiers of the Civil War should have piped up when that flag was politicized by the leaders of the retrograde South. They're a bit late now.

 

Comments

[daddy]

Morning Miss M.

Second suspect is dead. The new normal.

G'nite.

[Miss Marple]

Night, daddy! See you later today.

[Miss Marple]

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/the-last-race-unofficial-chariots-of-fire-sequel-starring-joseph-fiennes-in-the-running-10340745.html

I hope this movie gets made and I hope it turns out to be a good one.

[Jane]

I'd really prefer not to die by beheading.

[henry]

That's a heck of a thought for a Friday.

More SC hi jinx today. I hope the liquor store isn't empty when I leave work this afternoon.

[James D.]

It seems as if both the Left and Right in this country are lurching ever closer to acting on a desire to literally wipe out the existence of the other side. My feeling is that we all better be damn careful we don't get what we wish for.

This is flat-out wrong. The Right, speaking broadly (and certainly as demonstrated here) primarily wants the left to LEAVE US THE FUCK ALONE. We want the government to not tell us how to live our lives in the minutest detail. There is no moral equivalence here.

[Janet]

...ISIS Terrorist attack in Grenoble France this morning, that one of them after he decapitated a victim, he then wrote Arabic words on the head.

"The Quran teaches that God’s children should tread gently upon the earth and, when confronted by ignorance, reply “peace.” In honoring these familiar values together -- of peace and charity and forgiveness -- we affirm that, whatever our faith, we’re all one family." ~ President Obama Iftar dinner June 22, 2015

Wonder why he used God instead of allah?

[Miss Marple]

http://politicalwire.com/2015/06/26/bush-will-try-to-win-without-talking-to-top-strategist/

Seriously, this is a bizarre strategy.

[Miss Marple]

http://nypost.com/2015/06/25/why-liberal-racists-are-attacking-bobby-jindal/

[Captain Hate]

Seriously, this is a bizarre strategy.

That article gives very little information on what is being done and, more importantly, why; because it makes almost no sense that a candidate would have two entities working for him and not communicating with one which makes me believe that it's something underhanded.

[Thomas Collins]

Re sidwhite's query at 6:10 PM yesterday on whether a new POTUS could have new regulations promulgated that would overturn yesterday's SCOTUS ruling: SCOTUS did not defer to the Treasury Regulations. SCOTUS decided the case on the ground that the statute itself mandated that tax credits would be available for those buying prepaid health care under Federally established exchanges. Under this framework, SCOTUS would overturn Treasury Regulations to the contrary. Thus, the answer is no, a subsequent POTUS won't be able to undo this result.

[Miss Marple]

You guys just aren't positive thinkers.

[Captain Hate]

Levin pointed out that Anthony Kennedy was Reagan's third choice for the Supreme Court, the first being Robert Bork, about whom we all know that Mary Jo Kopechne's murderer led the opposition and the second was Douglas Ginsburg, who sent the GOPe to the fainting couches because he once smoked pot. Kennedy was thought to be a Constitutional originalist but has fallen sway to being more concerned about having the MFM say nice things about him, as has Roberts who also served in the Reagan administration.

[sbw]

Hi, all. Went to see “An Act of God” last night with Jim Parsons.

God appeared in the form of Sheldon Cooper. He reveals His new 10 commandments, admits His faults that even one who is perfect and all powerful can have, and then He reminds us to take charge of our own lives.

90 minutes long without an intermission.

It was funny, well staged, and well worth seeing. I think it runs until August.

[sbw]

ACA? Say, . . . isn’t the confederate flag a symbol for states rights? [Finding my inner Soylent]

[Captain Hate]

I again challenge all the opponents to an Article V convention to tell me why it shouldn't happen. All I get is a bunch of namby pamby crap about "OMG think of what they'd come up with". So what? We are living in a post Constitutional country as yesterday's decision points out again. The President is legislating. The Supreme Court is legislating. What exactly in the Constitution is being adhered to? At least by having something agreed to by 2/3 of the states, we would have a document that would indicate whether we sink or swim. Because we're sinking badly now and the Constitution obviously means nothing to the ruling class. People consistently have been polled as hating 404Care and the ruling class just ignores it. Our government does not reflect the will of the people on this and just about everything else.

[sbw]

why it shouldn't happen

Because you can’t control what would happen and might end up with something worse.

Far better to re“constitute” what we have.

[Cecil Turner]

Y'know, this whole thing is kinda ironic. Democrats, who want nothing more than to get votes (whether by stuffing ballot boxes with illegal immigrant votes, or by addicting a generation to OPM health care) got the decision they wanted, from a court they've been slandering daily; while the Repubs, who sometimes make noises like they respect the rule of law, got the election issue they desperately needed, and lost any confidence in the courts. SCOTUS, trying not to make waves, makes law out of interpretation, and loses respect from all sides. Hard to see who wins, but everyone has a good reason to be unhappy.

(And Kim Strassel is dead-on about this election now bringing a real choice. Speaking of which, how did she not manage to score in The 20 Hottest Conservative Women In The New Media For 2015? I mean seriously:

okay, that wasn't serious (Helen got robbed . . . that's serious.)

[Captain Hate]

Because you can’t control what would happen and might end up with something worse.

What control do we have now? None. The checks and balances don't exist. You are fearing the decisions of the majority of citizens more than you do of the ruling class which has ignored the Constitution and will continue to do so.

The Constitution would have never been ratified without Article V. They didn't put it there for it to be ignored in times like this.

If you don't believe in Article V then you are denying what is going on around you.

[Jack in Bah'sten]

The Air Products plant is outside Lyon on the main highway to Grenoble but not anywheres near there.

Surprised that no one has linked the tragic story of the 8 passengers on the Westerdam of Holland America Line that took a float plane excursion in Alaska and were killed along the pilot.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/26/us/alaska-plane-crash/index.html

h/t Mrs. JiB and DeStandaard

[Extraneus]

So now we know why Obama and left were so pissed about the Citizens United decision.

We: "Well, of course it had to go that way. There's a First Amendment right to freedom of expression right in the Constitution!"

They: "That has nothing to do with this, and anyone who thinks it does is a fool."

I believe they now have the edge on that argument.

[Captain Hate]

When not talking about his favorite obsession, Malor can analyze things well:

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/06/25/scotus-to-the-executive-branch-well-take-it-from-here/

[James D.]

CH, my problem with an Article V convention is that it would be the same corrupt ruling class who's shredded the existing Constitution, running it.

[Jane]

That's the boat we are taking in 2 weeks Jib.

[Captain Hate]

James, it would be the states running it which are generally closer to the people (and the state legislatures are, generally speaking, more conservative than the federal dimwits). In fact one of the biggest appeals of Article V is that it bypasses the feds.

But at least you've given a specific reason rather than a blanket "OMG THE HORROR".

[Jeff Dobbs]

leaving soon, i left you with a new thread....

[squaredance]

Perhaps the better route is large scale nullification by the States.

All of the solutions though require a predominance of Americans aware of the real menace. This seems unlikely. The average American, even the average patriotic American does not really understand what is happening in terms of the history of the Left. They do not understand who these people are and what they are really up too.

We can argue about Civil Rights, or minimum wage, or the EPA, or the ATF, or feminism or gay rights, but these are all just dodges for the Left. They control the discussion here and deflect it onto what seems like some sort of rational discussion. It is nothing of the sort. They mean an end to us. At this point it is not even about them setting up some sort of Communist Utopia. It is about raw power and destruction. Period. IT is a sickness of the soul; it is the rot of our apparently dying Civilization.

Moreover, the country has lost--or is losing--its traditional instinct and even desire for freedom at some fundamental, foundational level.

This ludicrous "flag" business is a case in point. Obviously, they have had this campaign all planned out and waiting on the shelf. They have been tying to provoke a racial incident like this, and finally got one. This is really a sort of Maoist "Cultural Revolution" American style.

Look how they have dismayed the nation with this. Look at the major businesses falling in line.

When coupled with the strange attack on Christians over wedding cakes, it is not hard to see where this is all headed.

Never before in our history would they have gotten away with this sort of thing, not even during the New Deal or the worst moments of Wilsonian "War Socialism". It would have been identified for what it actually is.

We are in for terrible times. The clock cannot be rolled back because we have allowed them to alter the very soul of America. We hare not far from complete abrogation of the Constitution and open, "legal" persecution of all who stand in their way. They have not even started.

And what is coming is not some sort of "just, modern future"--all the grievance mongering is just a ploy, one that will be discarded when power is achieved.

What is coming is the destruction of the USA.

And by whom? Hillary? ValJar? Soros? The Chamber of Commerce? Harvard? CBS?

The broad march of American History has heretofore not really been that of its elites.

Now we are destroyed by an "elite" that in the history of such things is the most pathetic, ludicrous parody of any true "elite", and yet they are winning where some many much more powerful and intelligent enemies have failed.

Historians in the future--and eventually there will be rational, objective historians, though they may be Asian--will ponder who such a nation could allow itself to be laid so low by such preposterous, ridiculous people.

Their answer, I fear, is that mankind cannot govern itself. What will this mean for the future of Mankind?

[squaredance]

where some many=where SO many

[Cispigmented Heteronormative Microagressive Ignatz]

As someone who has at times criticized some of what you have said or at least how you have said it, let me just say, amen squaredance to that 9:06 comment in its general scope and in every particular.

[Porchlight]

Ditto Iggy's response, squaredance.

[pagar]

Ditto, plus to "Ditto Iggy's response, squaredance."

[Publius]

As someone who has always agreed with, and appreciated, what you have said and how you have said it, let me just say, well done and well said.

BTW, I have some very strong feelings as to how we have arrived at our present predicament. I'd be honored to share them with you over a beverage some time.