The problem is that the Franklin officials are themselves ignorant on the subject. That would be the blind leading the blind.

Like many of the other comments posted, I’m getting sick of these attempts to rewrite history in the name of “sensitivity.” The only thing missing from the arguments of the Franklin officials is that they didn’t say it would offend Muslims.

“When one determines to make the ‘race’ issue the ONLY issue in any discussion on the Civil War, then the above posts are not only expected but statements of orthodoxy that do not allow any other point of view by there presenters.”

That was a pretty creative way of dodging the previous posts. Of course, slavery and race issues were the overarching issue of the war in the first place. And in a discussion about the Confederate flag, race and slavery is the issue.

Reply:
I am not ‘dodging’ anything. I have made my points. I find the ‘fixation’ on the issue of slavery as being the ONLY cause of the war – and then having that issue translated by some into the modern understanding of the term ‘racism’ – is a position that simply cannot BE refuted because those holding same do not allow it to be debated. They’re ‘right’ and any other viewpoint is ‘wrong’, period. How does one address that mindset? I don’t think that one can although in the past – foolish me – I certainly did try. I shall not try again for every point I have made in the past – here and elsewhere – was either ignored or ‘re-interpreted’ as something I never said.

As for people ‘pledging allegiance’ to the Confederate flag: frankly, many of those espousing the ‘politically correct’ ideology don’t want us pledging allegiance to the AMERICAN flag! And since the number of people who choose to pledge allegiance to something that no longer exists is minimal, I am FAR more concerned about those whose numbers and positions of power in the establishment put them in a position to eventually expunge ANY statements of patriotism, Union OR Confederate.

The Confederacy is history; it doesn’t exist. Are there still people in the South who ‘carry a grudge’? You bet! But I would suggest that any objective examination of what happened and why including the reasons that the War was fought at all – as noted in earlier posts on other threads, I agree with Judge Andrew Napolitano that it needn’t ever have been fought – will enlighten those who ‘can’t understand’ – always providing that they approach the matter with an open mind. Yet, the truth is that the majority of Southerners are more ‘patriotic’ than most and certainly more willing to defend the United States militarily than many who are located in areas of the former ‘Union’ which now are hotbeds of political correctness.

As for understanding why Southerners have carried their ‘grudge’ for so long, I would suggest that a short study of the history of Ireland will immediately inform the student that people have VERY long memories, especially when they continue to live in the area in which the injustices and tyrannies (both real and as perceived in their own minds) took place and their kinsfolk and ancestors were victims of said injustice and tyranny. The answer that General Chamberlain received when he approached a Confederate officer in hopes of beginning a ‘reconciliation between brave men of honor’ – and was severly rebuffed for his pains – has not, I fear, changed very much in over 150 years.

Frankly, the present p.c. efforts to destroy the Confederate past is only going to fan the flames of resentment, strengthen the resolve of those who still adhere to ‘The Lost Cause’ and add new members to their ranks. But worst of all, if this battle is perceived as arising out of the issue of RACE, more damage will be done to the cause of racial relations by adherents to political correctness than was every done by the KKK.

>

I totally agree with you Dave on all counts. A few years ago I went to some pinning ceremony at the Richmond Chapter of the SCV with a friend who receiving one of the pins, can’t remember what for. But what I do remember is thinking my father would be spinning in his grave if he saw all these very normal, doctors, lawyers, etc., swearing allegiance to the flag of the Confederate States of America. You don’t want to know how excited they all got as they sang “Dixie.” Anyway, I asked my friend why they pledged allegiance to the CSA flag and the only answer I got was “it doesn’t really mean any thing as we also pledge allegiance to the American flag FIRST! ” When I asked, “if it doesn’t mean anything, then why do it,” he allowed it was probably a bad idea to bring me in the first place.

Teej Smith

That was a pretty creative way of dodging the previous posts. Of course, slavery and race issues were the overarching issue of the war in the first place. And in a discussion about the Confederate flag, race and slavery is the issue.

As for ‘Biblical nation’, I would suggest that another reading – and NOT a p.c. reading – of my post clearly states that I – and the Founders -were addressing the nation’s MORAL ethics, that is, those VALUES upon which a nation is built. ANYONE can have those moral values whether they are ‘religious’ or not or whether their ‘religion’ is or is not Christian or Jewish. It would be DEEPLY appreciated if the debate did not immediately ‘default’ to the old saw about wanting to establish a Christian nation – although if one is at all familiar with the writings of most statesmen and philosophers prior to the 1960s, one will see the claim that ours IS a ‘Christian nation’.

As for the Confederate battle flag or any other symbol of the Confederacy: I refuse to allow hate groups on EITHER side (and, yes, the ‘other side’ contains people who are equally ‘racist’) to determine the value of the symbols used by honorable men (and women). Everyone else is free to defer to these groups if they wish, but I refuse to do so and were I a voter in Franklin, I would be sure to make that known the next time I went to the polls.

Funny how any internet discussion involving the battle flag, W. T. Sherman, or African Americans in uniform ends up looking just like what we have here.

First, in regard to the “evidence” for “black Confederates,” I should point out that a line from my Perryville book is often quoted on the web to support the contention–except it’s not a quote, it’s a misquote, rewritten my someone in a seemingly deliberate attempt to change its sense. If that represents the quality of the “evidence” on the issue, I think we can dismiss the subject out of hand and move on.

Given their deist sentiments, I also think it unlikely that people like Franklin and Jefferson were trying to create a “biblical” nation.

On the wider issue, as Kevin knows, this same debate flared up on another site a few weeks ago, featuring the same agruments and in one case the same participant, Val. At that time I posed a radical idea that of course no one took seriously. Instead of shooting from the hip with the same old tired arguments and phrases we all know now by heart, how about everyone try something novel? Let’s read a book or two. David Blight, Bill Blair, and John Coski have all demonstrated recently that this past golden era of cultural “heritage” toleration Michael Aubrecht relates never existed. The flag and wider arguments about the war have always been an issue. As far back as 1865 people were arguing about when and where the flag should appear, and who should control public space for commemoration. During my Virginia childhood the battle flag was used actively as a symbol of opposition to desegregation. But why take my word for it? We have good literature on the subject that could be discussed here by folks at length.

Or you could start talking about how bad Sherman was. But I’ll be watching the Dodgers stage that dramatic comeback from two down.

Ken

My biggest problem with flying ‘the flag’ to show heritage is that their take is as often “PC”ed as the other attitude. The Rebel Flag is not just about the noble Confederacy. To a very large segment of our population, it does represent fear, oppression, murder and torture. It means men coming in the night to kill them. Dismissing that aspect by pretending the flag was hijacked by a few fringe hate groups is erring way to far on the other side.

I am comfortable with the flag being present in commemorations like the one at Franklin. I think it should be there – an open acknowledgement of _all_ our history, good and bad. But I am not really comfortable with the idea that the flag is a harmless expression of a benign heritage, which is how it is often portrayed by supporters.

And I agree with Kevin and David. I think that the whole debate about “Black Confederates” is as much about a version of PC trying to re-write history as any flag banning effort. Education cuts both ways…

Dave Powell

Do we really have to go through this again? I suggest you pick up Bruce Levine’s recent study _Confederate Emancipation_ (Oxford University Press, 2006). We are really beyond this overly simplistic line of thought.

As for Val’s lengthy treatise on black Confederates, racism in the North, Lincoln’s views on colonization, and the breakdown of the moral fiber of society, I don’t have the energy or desire to tackle this hodge-podge of familiar talking points. It’s interesting that a challenge to the notion of black Confederates prompts a reply about how Northerners were also white supremacists in that era, as if that had some bearing.

Suffice it to say that blacks fighting for the Confederacy were few to the point of being exceptional, while 10s of thousands of slaves fled at the first opportunity, and upwards of 180,000 fought in Union armies. You do the math and draw your own conclusions.

Regarding the founding fathers, today’s moral decay, the idea of moral absolutes, and God in the public square, these are complicated issues. Myself, I’m firmly in the camp of Sam Harris, author of The End of Faith, and Letter to a Christian Nation. I think we’ll all be better off when we throw off archaic belief systems, and strive to live ethical lives simply because it’s the natural, rational way to live.

dw