The Confederate flag is not enough: Why our new race debate misses the point

Responding to widespread public pressure, South Carolina governor Nikki Haley is calling for the removal of the Confederate flag from the State Capitol inCharleston. Although my colleague, S.E. Smith, pointed out that Haley has no power to actually remove it, she has joined other GOP politicians in denouncing the flag—including Lindsey Graham, Mitt Romney, and Donald Trump. In addition, Walmart and Amazon have dropped all apparel donning the flag, while Virginia is dropping the flag as an option from their personalized license plates. While it’s absolutely time for the flag to go the way of the dodo, it’s hardly a cure for the real problems haunting Charleston less than a week after nine people were gunned down in the Emmanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church by Dylann Roof, a 21-year-old who subscribed to white supremacist ideologies. You can kill a symbol, but it’s not as easy to extinguish an idea—or the gun politics that help enforce it.

his is not to deny the power of the Confederate flag’s removal. The flag is not simply a memorial commemorating “bravery in the Civil War,” as Fox News’s Bill O’Reilly recently argued, it’s a reminder of the peculiar institution that the South fought to protect: slavery. If Barack Obama told Marc Maron that the slave trade “casts a long shadow and that’s still part of our DNA that’s passed on,” it is not an abstract idea. He was being literal—slavery’s shadow can be seen flapping in the Charleston wind every day.

However, if slavery is part of our DNA, the effects of America’s troubled history won’t be quelled by taking down the flags of South Carolina, Mississippi, or any other flags that honor “Southern heritage.” Instead, we must combat that heritage itself, which continues to be romanticized in our schools, our homes, and our entertainment.

In a widely circulated photo that’s indicative of Dylann Roof’s ideologies, he’s pictured in front of the Confederate Museum in Charleston, South Carolina, one emblazoned with the Confederate flag, and the image shocked Americans. But shouldn’t we be more concerned with the fact that such an establishment continues to operate? Or that it’s far from the only museum of its kind?

This speaks to the stark discrepancy between how different parts of the country remember the Civil War. While 52 percent of all Americans believe that the war was a dispute over slavery, a 2011 CNN poll found that an alarmingly high 42 percent still believe that it was about states’ rights. Even more disturbing is the fact that nearly a quarter of respondents reported that they empathize more with the South’s cause than the North—and that figure jumps up to around 40 percent among Southern white folks. Clearly Charleston’s Confederate Museum does not want for potential customers.

This divide comes down to the words we use to describe the Civil War itself, often known in the South as “Lincoln’s War” or “The War of Northern Aggression,” which suggests that it was a conflict started by the Abraham Lincoln and Union.Idaho Statesman writer Banyard Woods grew up in Charleston, where their classroom education about the “War of Northern Aggression” tiptoed around the painful realities of the conflict, truths that many in the South clearly still cannot face up to.

“When we studied the Revolutionary War, we learned about Francis Marion, the ‘Swamp Fox,’ but we did not learn that despite hosting more battles than any other colony, South Carolina contributed fewer fighters than any other to the Continental Army, because they needed the men to oppress the slave population, partially because of the fear of another Stono Creek,” Woods writes.

This apologia for the war—cherrypicking the aspects most ripe for nostalgia—is surprisingly common in popular narratives about the Civil War, from the absurdly successful Gone with the Windto Birth of a Nation, a movie that wasn’t just popular among Southern Democrats. Woodrow Wilson liked D.W. Griffith’s ode to “Southern bravery” so much that he regularly showed it in the White House. In the film’s most infamous scene, Griffith depicts the effects of allowing black people intoCongress after Reconstruction. It’s presented like a zoo.

However, our double consciousness around the Civil War reflects more than just how we view the past. It’s a reflection of our historical present. The current NRA president, Jim Porter, even referred to the “War of Northern Aggression” in a 2015 speech.

The NRA was started, 1871, right here in New York state. It was started by some Yankee generals who didn’t like the way my Southern boys had the ability to shoot in what we call the “War of Northern Aggression.” Now, y’all might call it the Civil War, but we call it the War of Northern Aggression down south.

But that was the very reason that they started the National Rifle Association, was to teach and train the civilian in the use of the standard military firearm. And I am one who still feels very strongly that that is one of our most greatest charges that we can have today, is to train the civilian in the use of the standard military firearm, so that when they have to fight for their country they’re ready to do it.

Porter’s statement (note the way he says “my Southern boys”) is a reflection of the ways in which we’ve allowed a debate over the removal of a flag to usurp the conversations we should be having instead. In addition to fighting the legacy of slavery—as well as America’s broader racial issues—Porter shows that racism and opposition to gun control often go hand in hand.

While they’re treated as separate issues, research has shown they’re all part of the same problem—white supremacy. In 2013, Pacific Standard’s Tom Jacobs reported on a study from Australia’s Monash University, which found that a “high score on a common measure of racial resentment increases the odds that a person will (a) have a gun in the house, and (b) be opposed to gun control. This holds true even after other ‘explanatory variables,’ including political party affiliation, are taken into account.”

It goes further than that: Our current gun control debate is actually a product of the Civil War itself, with the post-Reconstruction Ku Klux Klan fighting for gun control as a way to keep guns out of the hands of black people. “Before the Civil War, blacks in the South had never been allowed to possess guns,” the Daily Beast’s Adam Winkler writes. “During the war, however, blacks obtained guns for the first time.” That power scared whites so thoroughly that Southern states developed reactionary Black Codes, discriminatory policies that barred gun ownership from black people.

Although the development of the NRA should have then empowered black people (by lobbying for everyone’s right to own a gun), the gun laws that developed in the wake of the Uniform and Firearms Act continued to prevent equal access. The first gun control law, the Uniform and Firearms Act of 1934, required gun owners to apply for a license. But Winkler writes that there was a catch: “According to the law, only ‘suitable people’ with a ‘proper reason’ for being armed in public were eligible.” These terms were so vague that they could apply to anyone, and that loophole was often used to target prospective black gun owners.

While the Right’s stance on gun control has since shifted to the other extreme, policies continue to arm white men at the expense of people of color, who are structurally barred from ownership. “America’s most recent gun control efforts, such as requiring federally licensed dealers to conduct background checks, aren’t designed to keep blacks from having guns, only criminals,” Winkler writes. “Of course, the unfortunate reality is that the criminal population in America is disproportionately made up of racial minorities.”

Winkler reminds us that the more things change, the more they stay the same, especially for black folks in America. Retiring the Confederate flag might be a way to cosmetically address those concerns, but it doesn’t explain why it was still flying to begin with—or why so many people will fight to protect it, clutching their guns and heritage. Confronting the symbols of white supremacy means a true reckoning with a past that is very much alive—in Dylann Roof’s Facebook photos, on the streets of South Carolina, in our textbooks, and in our courts.

Throwing away a flag is a nice gesture, but for those mourning Charleston’s dead, it’s not the one they need.

Nico Lang is the Opinion Editor at the Daily Dot, as well as a contributor to L.A. Times, Rolling Stone, and the Onion A.V. Club. You can follow him on Twitter @nico_lang.

ought-six: "The Emancipation Proclamation, for instance, freed no one:"

Not true.
The January 1863 Emancipation Proclamation immediately freed around 25,000 slaves in Confederate areas then under Union Army control.
By war's end, Union Army control extended over most of the Confederacy, effectively freeing about 3,000,000 slaves.

The Emancipation was strictly a war-time presidential decree, not a duly enacted law or constitutional amendment.
By December 1865, amendment and laws were passed, constitutionally freeing all four million former slave.

So, in January 1863, Lincoln had done what he constitutionally could do, and it did have some good effect.

BilLies: "You mean like John Brown murdering and terrorizing non-slaveholders in Kansas..."

But John Brown was captured (by Col. Lee), tried and lawfully hanged for his crimes, on December 2, 1859, well more than a year before Lincoln took office.
So that issue was long settled.

But unlike John Brown, no Confederate was ever punished for provoking war against the United States in the months from December 1860 to April 1861.
During that period Confederates forcefully seized dozens of major Federal properties, including forts, ships, arsenals and mints, Confederates threatened Union officials and fired on Union ships -- all this before the Confederacy's military assault on Fort Sumter.

The Confederacy started war by its military assault on Union troops in Union Fort Sumter, on April 12, 1861.
Then on May 6, 1861 the Confederate Congress formally declared war on the United States.

At the same time, the Confederacy sent military aid to Confederate forces fighting in Union states such as Missouri.

That's what I meant.

lentusgracchus: "UnTruer words were never spoken.

There fixed it for you, FRiend.

lentusgracchus: "Lincoln cobbled up that war, and it's all going to come out eventually..."

The real history is clear and well known to even casual history-buffs.
Immediately after first declaring their state's secession in December 1860, South Carolina state authorities began forcefully seizing Federal properties, threatening Union officials and, in January 1861, firing on Union ships.
Over the next four months Confederates forcefully seized dozens of Federal forts, ships, arsenals and mints.
These were all provocations for war, for which Dough-faced Northern Democrat President James Buchanan made no response.

On April 12, 1861 the Confederacy started Civil War by a direct military assault on Union troops in Union Fort Sumter.

On May 6, 1861 the Confederate Congress formally declared war on the United States.
At the same time, the Confederacy was sending military aid to Confederate forces in Union states like Missouri.

And all of this happened before a single Confederate soldier was directly killed in battle with any Union force, and before any Union Army invaded a single Confederate state.

lentusgracchus: "~~Their~~ Confederate responsibility for initiating a war to conquer the ~~departing~~ Union States like Missouri and turn them into Confederate military provinces..."

Some of your words take more work than others to fix...

Civil War war began because the Confederacy provoked, started and formally declared war on the United States (on May 6, 1861).
Those are simple facts which no amount of your political propagandizing, spinning and twisting can change.

Kickass Conservative: "...so the Country can move on from the nasty little issue it was faced with back in the 1860’s..."

Sir, I believe the ladies referred to that as, ahem, "the Late Unpleasantness".

Kickass Conservative: "Funny, I can’t remember exactly what it was that happened back then, but I’ve heard it wasn’t good."

A lot of really good men died, on both sides, men who genuinely deserve to be honored for their courage, devotion, resourcefulness and, well, when you think about all the other wars in human history: their good behavior.

Let me put it to you this way: if there is such a thing as Christian Soldiers, those men, on both sides, were it, imho.

D*mn shame what Liberals are once again doing, running amuck, with their crazy political correctness.
But near as I can tell, what we're talking about here is just one Confederate Battle Flag being removed from one government memorial in South Carolina.

Somehow, I think we'll all survive it...

Back to my original point:
Effective in the election of 1856, and thereafter, the Radical Republicans controlled Congress. RReps were the Abolitionists and were dedicated to freeing the slaves in whatever manner necessary some as harshly as John Brown and some as gradually as Seward. Those Union men who entered the military elected the Abolitionists they served under.
Your are quibbling over dates .... the 330,000 White Union died over four years and did not die on the date of their first day in service and the slaves were not freed in a flash on the same date, BUT FREED THEY WERE because the 330,000 died following the instructions the government THEY elected, and knowingly followed.
Lincoln’s 1858 view of slavery, not like the citizens did not know slavery was out if Lincoln was in:
“I believe this government cannot endure, permanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided.”

BilLies: "Effective in the election of 1856, and thereafter, the Radical Republicans controlled Congress."

FRiend, for somebody who knows so little history, you sure spout off a lot.

The 35th Congress elected in 1856, along with Democrat President James Buchanan, was Democrat Majorities in both House and Senate.
So in 1856 and thereafter, Democrats ruled the Congress, the Presidency and the Supreme Court, and Southern Democrats ruled the Democrat party.

Beginning in 1859, Republicans picked up just enough votes to share in the leadership of House and Senate.
But Democrats still controlled the Presidency and Supreme Court.
Southerners also controlled the US Army.

Beginning in March 1861, everything changed, after Confederate state Senators and Representatives walked out of Congress, Republicans were, for the first time, in total control.

BilLies: "RReps were the Abolitionists and were dedicated to freeing the slaves in whatever manner necessary some as harshly as John Brown and some as gradually as Seward."

No, in 1860 very few Northerners, and zero Northern politicians, wanted to abolish slavery in the South.
What they certainly wanted in 1860 was to first reverse the effects of the Supreme Court's Dred-Scott decision and second, to prevent the expansion of slavery into western territories which didn't want it.

BilLies: "Those Union men who entered the military elected the Abolitionists they served under."

Some did, but almost half of Northerners were Democrats, political allies of Southern Democrats.
And the Union Army was lead by Democrats like "the Young Napoleon" General George McClellan, who was dedicated to the proposition that no battle should be won if another alternative was readily available -- just like today's Democrats.
These Union Army Democrats were far from Abolitionists, and expected to "fight" until a peace could be arranged, presumably one which preserved slavery.

BilLies quoting Lincoln: "Lincoln’s 1858 view of slavery..."

You forgot, didn't you, that this comment from Lincoln came after the Supreme Court's Dred-Scott decision, which effectively made slavery lawful in every US state and territory.
Lincoln is here predicting that slavery will take over the whole country, if the Supreme Court's decision stands and is confirmed.

In 1858 Lincoln had no idea of fighting a war to abolish slavery, instead he foresaw that slavery was to become the United States law of the land.

(Sherman, note the Lincoln quote and context)

A:)John Brown was never punished for his murders in Kansas (or Missouri) he was hung only for his transgression(5 murders, etc) at Harper Ferry. Therefore those murders are not “long settled” often they are hardly mentioned.
B:) Secession was an open question during December 1860- April 1861, and had been for scores or years of before Lincoln took office.. He enforced his and the abolitionists view of UNION.... nothing in the constitution explicitly forbade secession;
C:)Provoking? like provoking a response when you do something that you think you have a right to do: Like Czechoslovakia provoked Hitler when he would not remove his troops from their country.?

Your layout of the historical control of Congress in different periods is entirely right. One of the things I've noticed about the CSA apologists is that they telescope history.

They confuse the Tariff of Abominations of the 1830s with the situation in 1860.

They ignore that the attitude towards slavery and emancipation changed in the Union over the course of the war, as if everybody still felt the same in 1863 or 1865 as in 1860.

Most frequently they make claims about Lincoln's "beliefs" about blacks and slavery as if they were of necessity the same in 1865 as in 1858 or 1860.

There is absolutely no way to more effectively change people's minds about something than to fight a great war over it. The astonishing thing would have been if northerners had the same beliefs about slavery in 1865 as they did in 1860. Southerners, of course, didn't learn anything at all over this period, except that starting the war was a big mistake.

BTW, Bill appears to lump all Republicans together as Radicals. They were a faction that started up with, indeed preceded, the formation of the Party, but they did not have control until after the 1866 election. They never would have gotten control if Lincoln had lived or if Johnson hadn't been the President least effective as a politician.

I suggest you're wrong to say "in 1860 very few Northerners, and zero Northern politicians, wanted to abolish slavery in the South." Quite a few wanted to do this, but kept it quiet because they knew it was politically inopportune at the time. Much as Obama and Clinton pretended to be in favor of traditional marriage till it was safe to say otherwise.

Their public positions were as you say, but they didn't really fool anybody on either side of the issue. Southerners were entirely correct to believe that the ultimate goal of anti-slavery types was abolition. Even Lincoln, I believe, was open about his ultimate goal being the elimination of slavery, as of course were Jefferson, Washington, etc. That was, of course, one of the big changes from 1800 to 1860. In 1800 I am unaware of any prominent American politician who would defend slavery as not being an evil, though one that would be hard to get rid of safely. By 1860 no politicians in the South, that I'm aware of, the Deep South anyway, said anything other than that slavery was a positive good. Holding a dissenting position on the issue was socially and often even personally hazardous even for private citizens. Much like gay marriage today.

I think you're wrong about Dred Scott making slavery legal throughout the Union. In fact, Lincoln's speech quoted expressed his opinion that there was a conspiracy to do so, and he was probably right, though not necessarily in the sense of secret meetings and messages. Just people who agreed with each other working towards a common cause.

Lincoln was concerned a future Supreme Court decision would make slavery legal throughout the country. There was, in fact, a case from NY making its way thru the courts that could have been used to do exactly that.

I think you're wrong about Dred Scott making slavery legal throughout the Union.

I think that this fits the category of "We'll never know". Had the south kept their panties hitched and instead mounted a legal war I believe they would have prevailed in a challenge against every and any northern law prohibiting slavery, thanks to Dred Scott v. Sandford. In essence it not only sanctified slavery (as contemptibly illogical as that is) but encouraged expansion of slavery by simultaneously dehumanizing the negro race and scoffing at any heretofore laws which allowed slaves their freedom.

Like the abhorrent Fugitive Slave Act, it forced northerners to be unwilling co-conspirators the the Peculiar Institution.

BilLies: "John Brown was never punished for his murders in Kansas (or Missouri) he was hung only for his transgression(5 murders, etc) at Harper Ferry.
Therefore those murders are not “long settled” often they are hardly mentioned."

But "Bleeding Kansas" suffered deaths & destruction from terrorists on both sides, not just John Brown.
Do you recall how many pro-slavery terrorists were punished for their actions, FRiend?

BilLies: "Secession was an open question during December 1860- April 1861, and had been for scores or years of before Lincoln took office..
He enforced his and the abolitionists view of UNION....
nothing in the constitution explicitly forbade secession"

That's right, and there was no Civil War from December 1860 through March 1861:

There was no Civil War when seven Deep South states declared their secession (South Carolina through Texas).
There was no Civil War when those seven states formed a new Confederacy, selected their own Congress and President.
There was no Civil War when the Confederacy began unlawfully seizing Federal forts, ships, arsenals and mints, threatening Union officials and firing on Union ships.

Civil War only began when Confederates launched a military assault on Union troops in Union Fort Sumter (April 12, 1861) and then formally declared war on the United States on May 6, 1861.

Having once officially declared war, that made pro-Confederates in Union states guilty of the Constitution's definition of "treason", and it guaranteed that President Lincoln could do nothing other than defeat the Confederacy militarily.

BilLies: "Provoking? like provoking a response when you do something that you think you have a right to do."

Even if you consider the Confederacy a separate country, all of it's actions in seizing Federal property, threatening and firing on Union officials are provocations of war in any law.

If you then launch a military assault on the military forces of another country, i.e., Fort Sumter, that is an act of war, period.
If you then formally declare war on the United States, you have no recourse, none, and no reason to complain when the United States defeats you and forces you to surrender unconditionally.

So what is all this nonsense you people keep blathering?

Sherman Logan: "Lincoln was concerned a future Supreme Court decision would make slavery legal throughout the country.
There was, in fact, a case from NY making its way thru the courts that could have been used to do exactly that."

Thanks for a great post, I agree with most of it.

I think I accurately stated both the actual situation regarding Dred-Scott and Lincoln's opinion on it.

In fact, the Dred-Scott decision, taken to it's logical conclusion, meant that no state could effectively outlaw slavery, since it said slaves were still slaves, regardless of where their owners took them.
Yes, in practical effect it was not yet interpreted that way, but as Lincoln predicted, one more such case would confirm that slavery was, indeed, the law in every state and territory.

And that was the core fact and fear which drove the 1860 Republican revolution.

Sherman Logan: "I suggest you're wrong to say 'in 1860 very few Northerners, and zero Northern politicians, wanted to abolish slavery in the South.'
Quite a few wanted to do this, but kept it quiet because they knew it was politically inopportune at the time..."

Sure, there is no doubt that Abolitionism as an ideal was growing in popularity in 1860.
Still, neither the Republican National Platform, nor any major politician called for Abolition in the South.
Indeed, it's totally fair to say that in 1860 no serious politician thought that was even possible without causing secession and disunion.

In 1860, Republicans were far too modest to seek Abolition in the South.
What they certainly did seek was to prevent the spread of slavery to their own states (via Dred-Scott) and to western territories which didn't want it.

And that alone was enough to excite Deep South Fire Eaters to declare their secession and a new Confederacy dedicated to the proposition that slavery was now and forever.

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.