The Confederate battle flag:a racist symbol or proud history?

After reading Marcy Newman’s article "Symbols of Racism" (1/13/05) in The Arbiter, I had to wonder if Boise State is an institution of higher learning or just another of those campuses specializing in a type of politically correct indoctrination.

In her article where she mentioned "what the Confederate flag really means," Newman told of a student who, according to her description, violated her space by wearing a jacket displaying the Army of Northern Virginia (ANV) battle flag. She rambled on with her interpretation of what the Georgia legislature had in mind when it adopted the ANV battle flag into its state flag in 1956 — a means of intimidating Black men and women in Georgia.

However, some Georgia legislators and others living today who were instrumental in designing the ’56 Georgia flag deny that was the case. That flag more realistically represents Georgia and its Southern-Confederate history and heritage. Not only in the south today, but throughout the country, many Americans revere the ANV battle flag as an honorable, soldiers’ flag that their ancestors fought and died under. It represents an important part of tens of thousands of individuals’ ancestral history and heritage.

As to the ANV battle flag being flown when African-Americans are lynched, I will submit to Dr. Newman that as a historical researcher of some 35 plus years, I have seen many photos of lynchings. Virtually all of those were devoid of images of any flag except for the occasional United States flag. In a great many lynching photos, no reason existed to display a flag with a Southern-Confederate history, because the lynchings took place in northern states. And some of the worst spectacles of lynchings (lynching does not just mean hanging) that I have seen occurred in states such as Iowa, Nebraska, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, and as far west as California. Those spectacles included the severe whipping, hanging, and public burning of a body on a public street while a crowd of onlookers stood by. No Confederate flags are seen. In California, a long list of lynchings that took place from the late 19th century until the mid-20th century showed a few Blacks and Hispanics that were lynched, with the majority having been white. No need for a Confederate flag to intimidate there.

However, as she continued in her article, Dr. Newman was partially correct, although slightly skewed in her observations about the ANV battle flag in more modern times. She leans hard on the idea of "white, Christian supremacy woven into these flags…used historically by groups such as the Ku Klux Klan, Aryan Nations, and neo Nazi organizations…and it is waved when white supremacist Christian groups march in predominately Jewish communities such as Skokie, Ill."

To address the latter comments: recently the History Channel (cable TV) ran back-to-back showings of two productions, the History of the Ku Klux Klan and the American Nazi Party. These films did, indeed, show both groups, Klan and Nazi, displaying at least one ANV battle flag in public demonstrations, including the one by the Nazi’s in Skokie, Ill. Recall that the Nazi’s applied more than once for parade permits and were continually denied. Finally, of all groups, the ACLU stepped in and sued on the grounds that the Nazi’s First Amendment rights were being denied. But what Dr. Newman fails to mention in her diatribe about "white, Christian supremacy," is that another flag was also prominently featured in these marches, the flag of the United States. What in the world shall we do with that flag?

Since its modern revival in 1915, the KKK claimed as its own the U.S. flag and the Christian cross. Almost immediately, the flaming cross became the foremost symbol of hate and intimidation in this country, vividly portrayed in the History Channel production about the Klan. Does that mean crosses everywhere, at places of worship or hanging from necklaces, should be eliminated? And contrary to popular belief fed by "Hollywood history," the Klan was not resurrected to intimidate Blacks. Those of us of the Roman Catholic faith and select white politicians became the KKK’s first targets. Next came the Jews, and Black folk were an afterthought. It took decades before the Klan chose to desecrate the ANV battle flag.

Historically, the flag flying over every school and government building in the country — the U.S. flag — has its dark side, from flying over slave ships that plied their trade through New England seaports long before the Confederate States of America existed, to the brutal, genocidal war waged by the U.S. Army against Native Americans and in the Philippine, Islands during the Spanish American War.

In the spring of 1941, just months before Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, the Klan and American Nazi’s held a joint meeting at Camp Nordland, New Jersey, with an estimated 50,000 in attendance. Camp Nordland, one of five such camps in states such as Illinois and Pennsylvania, was not unlike our Boy Scout camps of today. The young German-American boys who visited in the summer wore uniforms with armbands that displayed the swastika. The boys weren’t there to learn scouting skills. They were being taught the doctrines of the Third Reich.

Photos of the Klan-Nazi meetings show robed Klansmen and Nazis in storm-trooper uniforms giving the well know stiff-arm salute. The Klan had done that salute for years, and some think the American Nazi’s may have borrowed it and exported it to Germany. While Klansmen and Nazi’s rubbed elbows and spouted hate speeches, the Nazi flag bearing the swastika and the U.S. Stars and Stripes flew boldly side-by-side. The Confederate battle flag had not yet been misappropriated by either group, nor would it be so for many years to come.

Those who insist on removing from view all symbols that act as reminders of hate, oppression, or intimidation could begin their historical house cleaning by changing the U.S. flag. Or, you could consider that each flag has two sides and two stories.

A more productive action would be to acknowledge that a growing number of students and adults revere the historic Confederate battle flag, not as a racist symbol, but as a strong emblem of history and heritage. And it’s not just white heritage; it belongs to Hispanics, Native Americans, and the descendents of Black Americans who fought as soldiers or otherwise served the Confederate Army. Or is the popular concept of diversity limited only to certain subjects and groups?

If students want to wear Confederate flag images to school, let them lead discussion groups to convey what the historic flags mean to them. Allow those students to share their heritage and discuss the history of their ancestors who fought in the War Between the States (erroneously called a Civil War). Our schools should be for learning, not for suppressing legitimate history.

Men of honor, valor, and courage followed the Confederate flag into battle only for the short span of a single war, fighting an oppressive Federal government for the freedom they believed in. And that is the only history by which their descendents prefer to see their banner remembered. The strength of a flag does not lie in its fabric or color, but with the spirit of those who died defending the beliefs for which it stood. To that end, the United States and Confederate battle flags share much common ground.

Matter of interpretation. Speaking of which just rec'd the below via email this a.m.

The following shows you that it's all a matter of Interpretation.

Several centuries ago, the Pope decreed that all the Jews had to convert or leave Italy. There was a huge outcry from the Jewish community, so the Pope offered a deal. He would have a religious debate with the leader of the Jewish community. If the Jews won, they could stay in Italy, if the Pope won, they would have to leave.

The Jewish people met and picked an aged but wise Rabbi, Moishe, to represent them in the debate. However, as Moishe spoke no Italian and the Pope spoke no Yiddish, they all agreed that it would be a "silent" debate.

On the chosen day, the Pope and Rabbi Moishe sat opposite each other for a full minute then... the Pope raised his hand and showed three fingers. Rabbi Moishe looked back and raised one finger.

Next the Pope waved his finger around his head. Rabbi Moishe pointed to the ground where he sat. The Pope then brough! t out a communion wafer and a chalice of wine. Rabbi Moishe pulled out an apple.

With that, the Pope stood up and declared that he was beaten, that Rabbi Moishe was too clever and that the Jews could stay. Later, the Cardinals met with the Pope, asking what had happened. The Pope said, "First I held up three fingers to represent the Trinity. He responded by holding up one finger to remind me that there is still only one God common to both our beliefs. Then, I waved my finger to show him that God was all around us. He responded by pointing to the ground to show that God was also right here with us. I pulled out the wine and wafer to show that God absolves us of all our sins. He pulled out an apple to remind me of the original sin. He had me beaten and I could not continue."

Meanwhile the Jewish community was gathered around Rabbi Moishe. "What happened?" they asked. "Well," said Moishe, "First he said to me that we had three days to get out of Italy, so I flipped him off and said to him, 'Up yours'. Then he tells me that the whole country would be cleared of Jews and I said to him, we're staying right here."

"And then what," asked a woman.

"Who knows?" said Moishe, "He took out his lunch, so I took out mine."

Nothing nonsense about "the War of Northern Aggression." My great granny always called it that. It sorts stuck with me. The South would have never fought against the north if the North would have left fort Sumter. The South was invaded. My great granny use to tell us kids about what happened when she was a little girl. She would tell us how Genral Jackson rode by one day with soldiers, he stopped, came into the house, gave her mom some food, asked if everything was okay, gave her some little sweets, prayed with the family and then moved on. This was opposed by the northern soldiers who came in, stole the food, raped her mom and moved on. Heck, I didn't know that "damn Yankee" was two words until I went to school. My great granny died in 1966 and the ripe old age of 108.

Not trying to argue with you, but remember, South Carolina seceeded from the United States, It was no longer part of the Union. As a free nation, South Carolina asked that all union forces be removed from South Carolina soil. Linclon refused and in an effort to press the matter, sent supplies to the troops at Fort Sumter with the message, hold out until the end. If we have a military base in Mexico, and mexico tells us to close it down and leave and all we do is re-supply it, can we not expect Mexico to militarily remove it.

Nothing nonsense about "the War of Northern Aggression." My great granny always called it that.

Being from south Georgia myself, I grew up learning the same history and hearing the same kinds of stories.

Several years ago, my wife and I took a trip to DC where I saw a statue of Sherman. General Sherman is apparently a hero to the north. He is considered a ruthless conquerer in the south. I was incensed that there would be a statue on the mall celebrating anyone who perpetrated acts of genocide.

From the point of view of my forebears, the war was one of conquest by the north. Reconstruction was the subjugation of a people under the thumb of an aggressive, malevolent military machine.

My family has a long and proud history of being Southerners which dates to 1712. They owned a large plantation south of Atlanta but did not have slaves. They had sharecroppers on the plantation, not slaves. According to the account books my sister was given, there were black and white sharecroppers, and both were treated very fairly. There are also diaries written by different members of my family. In these diaries, the main reason given for the war was states rights. The political machine of the North wanted to control the resources and riches, i.e., cotton, tobacco, etc., of the South. Slavery was the excuse given to invade the South. I do not believe in slavery nor did my family, yet we are condemned with the slave owners because, we are Southern.
Reconstruction of the South was a joke. Taxes were raised so high that many Southern land owners lost everything to the wealthy "carpetbaggers" who descended on the South like locust. Even landowners like my family were punished. All livestock and foodstuffs were taken by the Union army on their way to invaded Atlanta. Had it not been for the sharecroppers hiding essentials, all would have starved. Thankfully my family had hidden their valuables before the army arrived and could pay the taxes levied on them.
Do not talk down to those of us who are proud of our Southern heritage. We are very proud of our ancestors and should be allowed to fly the flag of the Confederacy, as we also fly the U.S. flag. The only time Southerners show their ire is when someone, like yourself, deems to feel superior in heritage. According to the aforementioned diaries, many of the YANKEE persuasion were thieves, murders and rapist. They pillaged the South, burning homes, murdering the occupants, raping the women, black and white, and stealing everything of value. Do not feel that you have the moral high ground in your heritage. YOU DO NOT.

Assuming for a moment that the South Carolina secession was actually legal to begin with, they had no claim to Sumter. It was in all respects the property of the United States government. The very act of demanding it be turned over could be seen as an act of war, never mind surrounding it with artillery and shooting at anything flying the Stars and Stripes that came near.

they had no claim to Sumter.

They were negotiating for rights to Sumter, Moultrie, and other arsenals. Buchannen agreed to not reinforce the forts until a decsion was made. Unfortunately, the commanders disregarded this agreement, raided the arsenal, abandoned Moultrie, and prepared for conflict at Sumter. Lincoln would not even address the SC envoys in early 1861 and further ignited the war by provisioning Sumpter.

Yes. "Isle of Canes" written by Elizabeth Shown Mills is about 4 generations of black women who went from slaves to become "free people of color" and the Metoyer family of Louisiana. the second book ont he Metoyer family is "Cane River." I don't know the author's name.

The third book is "The Unknown World" about black slave owners in Virginia/North Carolina. Don't remember the author's name.

The Metoyer family is still present in the Natchez area of Louisiana. It's a mix of French, black - hence Creole. Their well-known plantation is Melrose Plantation, built by them and their slaves.

The Metoyer family were Catholic, and St. Augustine Metoyer built a "compound" if you will, for his family, including a Catholic church and a private school in which to teach his children and other black children in the area - and some white children as well.

The Metoyer girls "came out" in a debutante sort of way. They Yetoyers were well-educated, well-bred people.

It was only after the Civil War ended that it became illegal to secede from the United States. South Carolina was within it's right to secede. Just like America was within it's right to leave England. What must be remembered is that South Carolina gave the union fair warning and asked like any other nation that the troops be removed. And for that matter, why did the north invade Virginia? if anything, they should have only invaded South Carolina. Northern revisionist history at work here folks.

" Assuming for a moment that the South Carolina secession was actually legal to begin with, they had no claim to Sumter."

According to you the South was supposed to ask for permission to leave the Union first?! Now that is stupid! Its like saying that the Founders were supposed to ask permission from King George and Parliament to leave the crown and become independent for it to be legal. You missed the "Liberty" boat, and are standing at the dock with your ticket in hand wondering what happened.

For something to be a right, it means that you don't have to ask permission from anybody for it. It is something that exists and that you avail yourself of.

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.