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It was at this point I realized that I wasn't dealing merely with an outdated symbol of the Confederacy; I was dealing with a powerful and common conception, even among us Ivy League educated, that we are a shining City on a Hill among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.
but then, you (unlike most of the unionist coven of MORONS on FR) are SMART enough to KNOW that!
free dixie,sw
wee willie klintoon was just as honest & about the same sort as 'ole DIShonest abe. they were two of a kind.
if cannibalism was in vogue with a percentage of voters,BOTH would have promoted people as FOOD.
free dixie,sw
may i introduce you to Minister Non-Sequitur, the Damnyankee's Minister of Propaganda, AND the ONLY DY on FR, who has BOTH a brain & an education?
free dixie,sw
DAMNyankees are HATERS, BIGOTS & (mostly) MORONS.
it is a LEARNED PREJUDICE & HATRED directed against dixie, her tattered & bloodstained battleflags,her HERO-MARTYRS, her separate culture & her people.
damnyankees HATE all of US, in other words!
free dixie,sw
YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEHHHHAAAAAAAAAAA!
free dixie,sw
Thank you for your post.
You are one of the few to whom I "listen".
You have proven that you know your stuff.
It's hard for me to understand how anyone
can claim that there were so many slaveholders.
If their claims were true, then half of the
South was rich, and that's just not the case.
There were far more dirt farmers who worked
the land all by themselves, with help from
their children.
Sam Houston owned about 12 slaves, IIRC.
It is true that he did what he could to obstruct the secession of Texas. He preferred to wait and see whether Lincoln would enforce the fugitive slave law that was being ignored/disobeyed by some Northern states.
Houston wrote the following in December 1860 [Source: a letter to his fellow Texans that was published in the Daily Picayune, New Orleans, Dec. 2, 1860]. These are excerpts from the letter:
It will be well if those States which have yielded to a fanatical sentiment, so far as to interpose between the Federal authority and the constitutional rights of a whole section of the Union, will now, inspired by a spirit of patriotism and nationality, retrace their steps. Upon a citizen of their own section, and one of their own party, they have now placed a responsibility he cannot avoid. As the Chief Executive of the nation, he will be sworn to support the Constitution and execute the laws. His oath will bring him in conflict with the unconstitutional statues enacted by his party, in many of the States. Elected by that party, it is but natural that the conservatism of the nation will watch his course with jealous care, and demand at his hands a rigid enforcement of the Federal laws. Should he meet the same resistance which our Executives have met, it will be his duty to call to his aid the conservative masses of the country, and they will respond to the call. Should he [Lincoln] falter or fail, and by allowing the laws to be subverted, aid in oppressing the people of the South, he must be hurled from power.
I need not assure you, that whenever the time shall come when we must choose between a loss of our constitutional rights and revolution, I shall choose the latter; and if I, who have led the people of Texas in stormy times of danger, hesitate to plunge into revolution now, it is not because I am ready to submit to Black Republican rule; but because I regard the constitution of my country and am determined to stand by it. Mr. Lincoln has been constitutionally elected, and much as I deprecate his success, no alternative is left me but to yield to the constitution. The moment that instrument is violated by him, I will be foremost in demanding redress, and the last to abandon my ground.
Whenever one section of this country presumes upon its strength for the oppression of the other, then will our constitution be a mockery, and it would matter not how soon it was severed into a thousand atoms and scattered to the four winds. If the principles are disregarded upon which the annexation of Texas was consummated, there will be for her neither honor nor interest in the Union – if the mighty, in the face of written law, can place with impunity an iron yoke upon the neck of the weak, Texas will be at no loss how to act, or where to go, before the blow aimed at her vitals is inflicted. In a spirit of good faith she entered the federal fold. By that spirit she will continue to be influenced until it is attempted to make her the victim of federal wrong.
As she will violate no federal rights, so will she submit to no violation of her rights by federal authority. The covenant she entered into with the Government must be observed, or it will be annulled. Louisiana was a purchase; California, New Mexico and Utah a conquest – but Texas was a voluntary annexation. If the condition of her admission is not complied with on the one part, it is not binding on the other. If I know Texas she will not submit to the threatened degradation foreshadowed in the speech from the Senator from New York. She would prefer restoration to that independence which she once enjoyed to the ignominy ensuing from sectional dictation. Sorrowing for the mistake which she had committed in sacrificing her independence at the alter of her patriotism, she would unfurl again the banner of the Lone Star to the breeze, and reenter upon a national career, where, if no glory awaited her, she would at least be free from a subjection by might to wrong and shame.
Interesting - Thanks
LOLOL!! You've still got Piper behind Elvis in one of your mouseovers!!
Most people at the time had racist views on both sides. I never said otherwise.
"Wonderful, another southron supporter"
That's wonderful Southern, not southron, supporter. Thank you.
You're ignorance is amazing. There's no point in debate with you.
How neat it would be if the 'mouseovers' would work here on Free Republic!!
LOL thanks moron.
I have thought things out seriously and in conclusion have come to the realization that you're just like the rest of the no brain Yankees who think that "Honest(?)" Abe was the saviour of the nation and what he did was greatest for liberty. You haven't a clue as to what the Founders' really intended and think that when the Constitution was ratified the States were giving up their sovereignty and been voluntarily sucked into this black void known as America. But then what proves your theory is full of sh*t is the words of James Madison himself upon the adoption of the Constitution. He said " This Constituion is NOT a NATIONAL document, rather it IS a federal document." Once more for your edification, Federal means SHARED POWER!
The Founders' knew that the preponderance of power was to lie with the State governments as it was the State Governments who ran interference with Britain's government during the despotic years leading up to the American Revolution. So they knew that the State governments would better protect their Peoples' interests. Thus there was to be a check on the power of the central goverment. And at that time it was viewed that the States (i.e. The People) had the right to nullify any legislation from the federal government deemed tyrannical or limiting the liberty of the People. Yes the Founders' wanted to form a more perfect Union, however they put the Bill of Rights into the Constitution because they knew that Public SERVANTS can become corrupted by power, especially those in the central government. And they knew and firmly believed that the absolute seat of power was the People themselves. So the 9th and 10 amendments were added and further strengthened by State constitutions which stated "Whenever government power shall become despotic or abusive, the States' i.e. The PEOPLE can throw off the yoke of tyranny by resuming those powers delegated to that government." It was viewed as a right, not something the government gives through its stingyness, but rather something (if you're a liberal you'll hate this) that GOD gave to People and that it was an inalienable right! Now I know you're going to say something stupid like "No its only Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." But go back a few words in that line of the Declaration and you'll find that it says - AMONG THESE meaning there were more GOD given rights than just those three. So your putrid argument that the Southern States were wrong is in error. They fought for their God given rights as stated in the 9th and 10th Amendment, but were denied those rights by the Federal Government.
No knees twitching here, just stating facts to someone with the brilliance of a 4 watt bulb.
"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. "
As I recall, both were still only acts that took place within the borders of said states. The only thing they asked for was to be left out of the US. The western states you refer to had a very active railway system in place. The same could not be said of Mississippi, whose only real transportation means was the river. Anybody who has studied any naval history knows that the first thing one must do when focussing on a boat-based economic system, one must control access to the waterways.
An attack on a vessel in waters that were already declared "off limits" is not hostile. That'd be like saying "if one of our boys is patroling a no-fly zone and shoots someone down, we were being 'aggressive'"
I think you will both find that REAL Sutherners fly the Rebel Flag under ONLY Old Glory.
Funny, that's the same "/end topic" I get when I argue with liberals!
And God said "it is good"
:)
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.