Posted on 06/10/2002 5:38:06 AM PDT by TexConfederate1861
Only in America can a coalition of minorities coalesce to abolish the history of the majority. Although history is rife with majorities imposing their will over minorities, there are few cases where the minority can control the majority. One of these cases afflicts citizens of the Southeast, and it concerns the Confederate battle flag.
On one side are the NAACP and the ACLU, whose battle cry is that the flag represents slavery and white oppression and enflames the social struggle of African Americans.
On the other side is a majority of Southern whites whose ancestors fought against the Northern armies in the U.S. Civil War. They've defined their heritage with that flag ever since.
The NAACP and the ACLU have strong influence on the policies of the federal government, but, unfortunately, the state governments in the South are technically still fighting battles many thought were resolved in 1865. But, unlike the Civil War where guns decided debates, today's weapons are the public support each side can muster.
Philosopher Rene Descartes taught us that opinions exist because we see, touch, hear, taste and smell the things around us, but this doesn't mean they're necessarily true. The flag in question is widely considered the flag of the Confederacy. In truth, that popular insignia, known as the Naval Jack, is actually one of 200 battle flags used by Confederate army regiments during the Civil War. The actual flag for the Confederacy, the Stars and Bars, is only well known among historians.
Famed racial justice advocate and self-proclaimed reverend Jesse Jackson has often stated that the Naval Jack is the pure embodiment of white pride and the South's nurturing of the unethical slave practice. Advocates for the flag's removal from public places say the flag is morally unjust.
The flag was used in the South, and, yes, the South had slavery as an institution, but that doesn't mean the flag supports slavery. And this is what the NAACP and ACLU refuse to acknowledge. Jackson, as well as his counterpart Al Sharpton, have made it their crusade to seek the permanent removal of the Naval Jack from all government buildings and monuments, even those built to honor the men who died fighting for the South. It is this simple fact that has the former Confederate states in an uproar. These men put on a face of decency and proclaim they want to improve our lives, but their rewriting of history shows contempt for their own heritage as well as that of the majority.
Ironically, if the states know their heritage is threatened, while the protesters know the flag is one of the many things that still promotes racial injustice, then who's to say which side is right or wrong? The controversy might be resolved if protesters understand the flag is nothing more than a piece of colored cloth made so one regiment could identify itself in the chaos of battle and in the pride of parades. It is not the epithet of slavery. Focus on the flag keeps protesters from addressing the real issues plaguing blacks in America, such as teen mothers, single-parent families, drugs, crime and education.
With power comes great responsibility. Is it responsible to use vast political and social power to boycott tourism and blackmail governments in Southern states to remove the flag?
During the Civil War, an estimated 65,000 African Americans fought in the Confederate army. The general of the Confederate army, Robert E. Lee, was actually against slavery, while the commander of the Northern armies, Ulysses S. Grant, owned slaves. Of course, these facts are omitted from NAACP propaganda.
The NAACP and ACLU are civil rights organizations. But can't they be civil in their pursuit of civil rights? Ironically, should these clubs succeed in their efforts, their success will eliminate the very reason for their existence.
Both sides are looking for two things, sympathy and support. Every cause needs an enemy to succeed, gain membership and solicit adequate funding, but in this case the organizations' real enemies are themselves. These organizations claim their interpretation of history is the only accurate one. They attempt to champion minority history. The real victim is legitimate history.
Teen View columnist Austin Jameson is a 2002 graduate of High Point Central High School. He can be contacted at Blue_Dog_Anchorite@hotmail.com
©High Point Enterprise 2002
For ONCE...the guy is (ugh, choke) right on that one statement....Lee did state that he felt secession was unconstitutional, but nevertheless, he served his new country with honor......
eeeeewwww...that hurt to have to say that!
Please keep the following in mind when reading my posts in the future... For this reason I don't appreciate the unwarranted and unprovked attacks on "yankees" who have moved here that are far to common on this site. I will jump to the defense of Yankees and I will make stereotype attacks and references on southerners to rile them up as a response to their unprovoked attacks.
The natives here are upset with Detroit making fun of us and calling us Mayberry, yet they don't see that they do the same thing every day when they attack yankees.
So, in the future when you see me make fun of "rednecks" and the such, keep in mind I don't mean it and that I am just engaging the 'rednecks' after being provoked. I dont mean any of it and others here who know me know that. I just want to make you aware of it so in the future when you see me going off on southerners you will not take it the wrong way and understand the context in which I am doing it and keep me on your "OK" list.
Now for a little fun...
Did you see the news recently, the number of homes with an outhouse in NC has dropped by 50% over the past 10 years. Headline in paper should read...
January 23, 1861
"Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom, and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It was intended for "perpetual union" so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution, or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession. Anarchy would have been established, and not a government, by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, and the other patriots of the Revolution."
Great post, Goldenstategop.
JohnHuang2; Quote of the day material?
CD
Shut up and keep your silly SPLC/NAACP/CPUSA ideas to yourself.
Very few were 'abolitionists' in the 1850s. The Republican Party platform did not even support abolition and Grant was a Democrat. Even Lincoln was not an abolitionist then. You could be opposed to slavery and especially opposed to the expansion of slavery, without being an abolitionist. That is the category most northerners fell into. Abolitionists were a small minority.
Grant, while serving in the army in Missouri, married into a southern 'slave holding family' known as the Dents. After he left the army, he settled in Missouri and lived for times at the Dent family plantation. Williams, (parroting neo-reb propaganda which he did not bother to check against original sources) said that Grant owned slaves. That is a false statement. The “slaves” were property of his father-in-law, and documents exist from the time that when Grant paid those slaves higher then the prevailing wage for white labor when they did work for him. Grant had title to one slave for a little over a year. That slave was most likely a gift from Dent family, and he freed that single slave when he could have sold him to pay off some of his considerable debt, long before the war began. Willians said that Grant's slaves were not freed until December of 1865 and that is also false. The Dent family slaves were gone by mid 1863 while Missouri abolished slavery in January of 1865.
Walter Williams is fun to listen to on the radio. But when it comes to history, he is pitiful. This stuff is too easy to research and not doing so indicates either laziness or indifference to historical accuracy.
My teenage son was shopping with his mother this weekend. He knows she takes the liberal slant toward the Stars and Bars and, being the instigator he is, he asked her if he could get a confederate bandana to wear on his head. She replied "You might as well just wear a tee-shirt that says 'I love Satan' ".
On January 23, 1861. The quote in it's entirity is as follows:
"The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom and forebearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It was intended for 'perpetual union' so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution, or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession."
Yes, there are detractors who bastardize our Southern symbols, but let us remember our fallen fathers in honor.
"All that the South has ever desired was the Union as established by our forefathers should be preserved and that the government as originally organized should be administered in purity and truth."
Gen. Robert E. Lee
He fought for his people, right, wrong, or indifferent. He could not turn his sword on the people of his home state: his friends, family, and fellow statemen. That is an honorable cause.
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.