Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Confederates In the Backyard?
Cornell Sun ^ | April 12, 2005 | Andy Guess

Posted on 04/21/2005 8:17:08 PM PDT by stainlessbanner

The defining moment of my visit to New Orleans a year ago occurred in a gift shop. I'm somewhat embarrassed to admit this, but at least it wasn't the kind that sells feather boas and t-shirts with jazz-playing lobsters. I wasn't a sorority girl nursing my hangover at Café Du Monde during Mardi Gras; I was a tourist visiting what used to be a sprawling, stately slave plantation.

I was busy mulling over that subtly troubling experience, browsing through the gift shop's bookshelves, when I came to a curious array of volumes. The title The South Was Right! jumped out at me first, and it took me a few minutes of thumbing through it to convince myself that it wasn't actually a joke. Stunned, I went down the line, looking in disbelief as each title lamented the once-great Confederacy and the common values it stood for. My favorite item was The Jefferson Davis Coloring Book, which I suspect is perfect for young Dixiecrats of all ages. I bought it just to remind myself that it exists.

I wonder how many parents in Louisiana are reading their children bedtime stories about their heroic ex-president.

It is this experience and others that have made me curious about a sliver of the South that -- apparently -- exists right here in upstate New York. Plenty of students coming back from breaks, sometimes along with their bubbly parents, have driven past a specific abode that has one memorable defining feature. On Route 79, that country road that often takes us home, there boasts a large, proud Confederate flag on the front wall of this particular house. You've probably seen it.

Why here, 200 miles north of the Mason-Dixon Line? That was the question that ricocheted in my mind one night as I drove past; so to find my answer, I pulled over and knocked on the door. Since that moment last semester, I've been chronicling the lives of the family that lives there with a video camera.

I dove in without knowing what to expect. I wasn't the only one, of course. No less than three different professors I pitched this to warned me to "be careful." They all said -- some more jokingly than others -- that I should bring a gun.

It was at this point I realized that I wasn't dealing merely with an outdated symbol of the Confederacy; I was dealing with a powerful and common conception, even among us Ivy League educated, that we are a shining City on a Hill among barren fields of hicks with mullets who watch NASCAR all day and grill roadkill venison on their pickup truck radiators. I finally wanted to find out if these cartoons that we've come to accept as "the other America" really exist.

My grand project to get behind the stereotypes of rural America wasn't off to a great start when the door opened and I came face to face with a man, a mullet and the vicious guard dog he was holding back (but no shotgun). I realized this was going to be a bit more difficult than I'd envisioned.

No matter: He directed me to the house next door, which happened to be the residence of his entire family. Not one of the Cornell professors or friends I'd spoken to would have predicted what happened next -- that I'd be greeted warmly; that I'd be invited in, even as an unexpected guest; that the family would listen to my pitch to follow them around with a video camera; and that they'd send me off, wishing me well.

These people are not white supremacists who love Jefferson Davis and hate minorities, who want to send the all-American middle finger to people with dark skin by putting up the rebel flag. I've spent too much time with them to believe it's true. Otherwise, the daughter of the family -- art school, anti-Bush, dyed hair, goth -- would have been booted onto the street long ago.

At the same time, I've spent enough of my life in Southern states to know that the racist sentiments interpreted as the meaning behind the rebel flag are still alive in some places, even if they are pushed underground. That's true of an enlightened city like New York as much as rural Pennsylvania or Jackson, Mississippi.

But instead of trying to argue that this is not a family of true racists -- which the film will do better than words, and which would rely entirely on my subjective experience -- I return to the question I began with: Why do they have that rebel flag hanging there for all the passing cars to see?

I spoke to them, as well as many people who share their view -- that the Confederate flag symbolizes not slavery but a rebellious spirit, an identity of a people who merely sought to defend their homeland as it was being invaded by a Yankee army. This view was the one I'd stumbled upon in a Louisiana gift shop, peddled by historians far out of the mainstream of academic life.

Yet this view is prevalent among a minority of rural white Americans. They don't care that the big-city elites say it's a symbol of slavery -- and by most scholarly accounts, that's exactly what it is. They've taken the symbol back, as an identity for themselves. Not an identity of hatred, but one of self-assertion.

Even if misguided, I came to respect their choice of home decoration. After all, they'd been told for generations that it was a symbol entirely separate from the question of slavery, without the corrective influence of a Cornell history professor to intervene.

Even so, I can't help but feel a bit off guard whenever I drive past. Not because I know what the flag means, but because I know who lives behind it.

Andy Guess is a senior in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be contacted at guess@cornell.edu. The Last Boy Scout usually appears alternate Fridays.


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: 1865; alabamarednecks; anticonfederacy; backward; bigots; booth; cbf; confederate; cornell; damnyankee; davisbutcher; daviscoloringbook; dixie; dixiecrats; dixielosers; dixielost; hategroups; heritage; klansmen; lincolnbutcher; masondixon; neoconfederate; neorebels; proslavers; proudyankees; racist; rebelflag; rebellious; redneck; redneckflag; segregationists; slavery; slaves; south; union; unionists; unionvictory; unionville; whitesupremists; yankeearmy; yankeeslavetraders
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300 ... 381-384 next last
To: MacDorcha
Now, is there a natural law for invading a country that poses no threat and houses no (prior) enemies?

In 1861 the Mississippi River was the interstate highway system of its day. The federal government spent a lot of money and effort making transportation up and down it as safe as possible. It carried huge amounts of goods to midwestern states like Illinois and Iowa and, via the Ohio River, to Ohio and Pennsylvania as well. If formed the only outlet for those states to the export markets of Europe. After secession one of the first acts of the governor of Mississippi, John Jones Petts, was to announce that the river was closed to Northern traffic and mounted cannon near Vicksburg. On January 11, 1861 he fired on a steamboat passing by.

Don't try and pitch that crap that an independent Confederacy posed no threat when their first act was an economic act of war on the midwest states remaining in the US.

261 posted on 04/24/2005 5:27:03 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Smoote
There is no specific prohibition within the Constitution against States seceding from the Union.

There is no specific authorization within the Constitution for states seceding, either.

262 posted on 04/24/2005 5:28:16 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: libertarianben
Here's a quote some might find interesting: "If I thought this war was to abolish slavery, I would resign my commission and offer my sword to the other side."...Ulysses S. Grant, Union General and a slaveholder until the 13th Amendment.

Sorry to bust your bubble, but Grant never said that. And all Grant/Dent family slaves had beed freed long before the ratification of the 13th Amendment. Some people might find those facts intersting as well.

263 posted on 04/24/2005 5:32:57 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: libertarianben
The winners of war write the history, ya know.

And the losers write the myths, as we all know all too well.

264 posted on 04/24/2005 5:34:00 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy; dixiechick2000
You will note that many South bashers are also big Open Borders types.

OTOH- Some of the biggest Yankee haters are reduced to regurgitating their trash over at the LePer colony. Go figure.

265 posted on 04/24/2005 5:35:35 AM PDT by mac_truck (Aide toi et dieu l’aidera)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]

To: libertarianben
Never taught you that is history did they? Maybe they should recite that instead of the Gettysburg Address huh? Didn't think so.

You don't mind if I post the rest of the quote, do you? Lincoln went on to say, " I have never said anything to the contrary, but I hold that, notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects-certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. But in the right to eat the bread, without the leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man."

Please present to me a quote from any southern leader, civilian or military, that indicates that they believed that the black man was their equal in any respect whatsoever. Please give us a quote that indicates that any southern leader, civilian or military, believed that the black man had any rights at all that the white man was bound to respect. Surely you can do that, can't you?

266 posted on 04/24/2005 5:38:32 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: dixiechick2000
My information tells me that less than 25% were slave holders.

When I was growing up, we had one car and title was in my father's name. So only 20% of our family owned a car. But 100% of the family benefitted from car ownership. Likewise in the south. Some small percentage actually owned slaves, but they had families and the families benefitted. In some states, like Mississippi or South Carolina, close to half of all families owned slaves. And countless other non-slave owining families derived benefits from the afluence of the slave owners. So slavery was deeply ingrained in southern society and was the pillar of their economic well-being.

To be honest with you, it was the first time in my academic history that anyone had said this, not to mention that he taught us that the WBTS was the result of tariffs on cotton.

You might want to get a new professor. Cotton was exported. There has never been a tariff levied on exports. The Constitution prevents it.

267 posted on 04/24/2005 5:48:55 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: dixiechick2000
... not to mention that he taught us that the WBTS was the result of tariffs on cotton.

The Confederacy was "founded...its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based on this great physical, philosophical, moral truth." --Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederacy, March 21, 1861

268 posted on 04/24/2005 5:50:15 AM PDT by mac_truck (Aide toi et dieu l’aidera)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

Well either you're full of it or Lincoln just flip-flopped during a speech.

Honest Abe huh?


269 posted on 04/24/2005 7:06:43 AM PDT by libertarianben (Looking for sanity and his hard to find cousin common sense)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: libertarianben

I'd say the answer is A) You're full of it.


270 posted on 04/24/2005 7:22:40 AM PDT by mac_truck (Aide toi et dieu l’aidera)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies]

To: libertarianben
The U.S. Senate declared from the beginning that the purpose of the war was to restore the Union and nothing else. They passed the following resolution on July 26, 1861:

Resolved. That the present deplorable civil war has been forced upon the country by the disunionists of the southern and northern States, that in this national emergency Congress, banishing all feeling of mere passion or resentment, will recollect only its duty to the whole country: that this war is not prosecuted upon our part in any spirit of oppression, nor for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, nor purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States, but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and all laws made in pursuance thereof, and to preserve the Union, with all the dignity, equality, and rights of the several States unimpaired; that as soon as these objects are accomplished the war ought to cease.

Also in 1861, a proposed amendment to the Constitution would have stated that the federal government had no authority ever to interfere with slavery in the states where it existed. Lincoln supported this amendment, saying:

"I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution... has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service... Holding such a provision to now be implied Constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable."
271 posted on 04/24/2005 7:30:41 AM PDT by libertarianben (Looking for sanity and his hard to find cousin common sense)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies]

To: mac_truck

You are correct sir!


272 posted on 04/24/2005 7:31:33 AM PDT by libertarianben (Looking for sanity and his hard to find cousin common sense)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur; MacDorcha
After secession one of the first acts of the governor of Mississippi, John Jones Petts, was to announce that the river was closed to Northern traffic and mounted cannon near Vicksburg. On January 11, 1861 he fired on a steamboat passing by.

Don't try and pitch that crap that an independent Confederacy posed no threat when their first act was an economic act of war on the midwest states remaining in the US.

Interesting. I'd never seen that before. I will correct you though that firing on the steamboat would have been the independent act of Mississippi, not the Confederacy. Mississippi didn't join the Confederacy until February 4, 1861. The Confederate Congress passed the following act on February 25, 1861. Free river transport posed no economic threat to states that depended on the Mississippi River system.

The Congress of the Confederate States of America do enact, That the peaceful navigation of the Mississippi river is hereby declared free to the citizens of any of the States upon its borders, or upon the borders of its navigable tributaries; and all ships, boats, rafts or vessels may navigate the same, under such regulations as may be established by authority of law, or under such police regulations as may be established by the States within their several jurisdictions.

SEC. 2. Be it further enacted, All ships, boats, or vessels, which may enter the waters of the said river within the limits of this Confederacy, from any port or place beyond the said limits, may freely pass with their cargoes to any other port or place beyond the limits of this Confederacy without any duty or hindrance, except light money, pilotage, and other like charges; ...

P.S. You messed up, non-seq. You capitalized Confederacy in your post.

273 posted on 04/24/2005 7:44:44 AM PDT by rustbucket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: libertarianben
Well either you're full of it or Lincoln just flip-flopped during a speech.

Had you even bothered to read the quote in context you would know better than to say that. But like the vast majority of your southron bretheren you find research too taxing.

How about answers to my questions?

274 posted on 04/24/2005 8:12:14 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies]

To: rustbucket
Interesting. I'd never seen that before. I will correct you though that firing on the steamboat would have been the independent act of Mississippi, not the Confederacy. Mississippi didn't join the Confederacy until February 4, 1861.

Sure, and firing on the Star of the West was an act of an independent South Carolina. But both acts indicate the basic lack of interest in living peacefully with the United States, and the intent of the states along the Mississippi to cut off the US from the sea.

You messed up, non-seq. You capitalized Confederacy in your post.

I'll have to watch that.

275 posted on 04/24/2005 8:14:47 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies]

To: libertarianben

How tall are you?


276 posted on 04/24/2005 8:17:35 AM PDT by mac_truck (Aide toi et dieu l’aidera)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 272 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

What questions?


277 posted on 04/24/2005 8:48:42 AM PDT by libertarianben (Looking for sanity and his hard to find cousin common sense)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 274 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

Great! A holier than thou Yankee.


278 posted on 04/24/2005 8:52:07 AM PDT by libertarianben (Looking for sanity and his hard to find cousin common sense)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 274 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
"There is no specific authorization within the Constitution for states seceding, either."

So what? Are you suggesting that equates to prohibiting it?

279 posted on 04/24/2005 9:43:42 AM PDT by Smoote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: libertarianben
What questions?

Name a single southern leader who's views on the races were more...enlightened than Lincoln's. After all if you are going to condemn him for racism then you should also take after other's with equal or worse views, shouldn't you?

280 posted on 04/24/2005 10:01:55 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 277 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300 ... 381-384 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson