The AP has an article entitled Biden Wants Confederate Flag Off Grounds, having to do with Sen. Joe Biden’s comment that he thinks the Confederate flag should not be displayed on South Carolina’s statehouse grounds.
In Columbia, S.C., more than six years after the Confederate flag was taken down from the Capitol dome, its location in front of the Statehouse remains an issue.
“If I were a state legislator, I’d vote for it to move off the grounds out of the state,” Biden said at an NAACP march and rally at the Statehouse.
Jim Hanks stood across from the South Carolina Statehouse with about 35 Confederate flag supporters.
“We love this flag. We love our heritage,” said Hanks, of Lexington.
. . .
Biden expects legislators here will eventually move the flag. Pointing to his heart, he said, “as people become more and more aware of what it means to African-Americans here, this is only a matter of time.”
For my part, my distaste for a State displaying the Confederate flag has nothing to do with questions of race — though I can certainly see why it would for others. For me, it’s a question of patriotism. Simply put, the Confederate flag represents treason against the United States of America. South Carolina’s “heritage” is a heritage of disloyalty to our country. I don’t think people in the present day should be punished for the sins of their fathers; but, at the same time, I don’t think they should be celebrating acts of violence against the U.S.
I think the State of SC should decide what is best for SC…
Mike Sylvester
Not when it includes firing on a federal military base — i.e. Fort Sumter. If they want to celebrate their insurgency, I suppose they can. But they should be condemned for it.
Ive come around alot on this issue, mainly from reading Born Fighting by Sen. Jim Webb. I now believe its right to distinguish between displays of a Confederate battle flag as a rememberance to the men who lost their lives (damn near a whole generation of men in the south) – and displays of the rebel “stars and bars” flag which was not official Confederate colors and often has been used to represent rebellion and racism.
I believed SC (and GA, whose state flag is similar) displayed offical colors of the Confederate military? If its square its official, if its rectangular its rebel.
Its a tough issue. I reject the intellectual and economic basis for the cessation of the Southern states, and do view it as treason. It was a war between economic elites – the Southern slave-owning plantations (5% of VA held well over 50% of all slaves) and the Northern textilists and industrialists that wished to have complete economic dominance over the south (dont get me into Reconstruction).
However, the men who fought and died for the Confederacy were often no better off than the slaves everyone says the war was about. They fought for each other, their families, their homes, their right to be left alone. And their sacrifice was immense, the brutality toward them by Union soldiers was often beyond cruel (some of the Union prison camps for Confederates would rival Gtmo), and they fought with extreme courage despite overwhelming odds against.
The flag in front of the SC capitol is a traditional square Confederate battle flag that is next to a monument for Confederate soldiers. From an article on the 2000 state law removing it from the top of the capitol:
I have no ploblem with the display at the SC capitol as it currently stands. This coming from a rabid progressive Democrat, and son of the very Yankee city of Chicago.
Brian, I think you make some decent points, and despite the repugnance of the cause, I doubt many would disagree that many confederate soldiers fought bravely and honorably.
Still, as to the flag issue, I think it’s important to recall that most of these displays began in the 1950s and 1960s, when the federal government began to assert itself against Jim Crow laws and pervasive discrimination against blacks. The Georgia legislature added the battle flag to its state flag in the mid 1950s, and South Carolina started flying the flag (what is now commonly known as the “confederate flag” is apparently actually the navy jack of the confederacy, and the “stars and bars” was a flag that more closely resembled the US flag). One can debate the root causes of the Civil War, but it is undisputable that the display that began in 1962 and continues in modified form today was intended as a statement in favor of racial discrimination, in favor of the position described by Strom Thurmond in 1948:
Brian, I also reject the notion that the white men who died were as bad off as the slaves. While “rags to riches” tales are more the expection than the rule, now and as then, they are possible. Abraham Lincoln went from dirt floor poverty to the presidency. Poor whites in the south had the chance to improve themselves, to move north or west for jobs or land, and so fort. A slave, no matter how bright and ambitious, was a piece of meat.
Also, as I forgot to add in my last comment: I think it’s possible to honor confederate dead without flying the flag of an army of rebellion against the United States. And while I agree with Mike Sylvester that the flag is not an issue requiring federal intervention (unlike Jim Crow), as a citizen of the United States I reserve the right to criticize my fellow citizens in South Carolina for a display that I find repugnant and wrongheaded.
John M,
My omission of the role of segregationists in using the confederate flag as a means of upsurping federal mandates regarding integration – was unfortunate. Thank you for bringing that forward and providing context. It is indeed very true, and is the primary source of the controversy in all of this.
I agree that all citizens have a right to (and given a day after MLK day, have a duty to, for “silence is a betrayal”) critize those that would engage in displays that are disrespectful to the Union or any of its solemn citizens. Like I said, I feel the flag issue can be complex: how to seperate the cause of recognition of heritage from the evil of racism .
Regarding slavery: there is huge difference between the enslavement of man versus the impovershment of man through a currupt system. I recognize that – and appologize if I was unclear. However the plight of the southern white from our country’s inception through reconstruction (and in some way through today) is also a moral burden of our history. Many southern whites were in a system of indentured servitude due to corrupt lending practices and poor wage standards. And many didnt have options to leave under heavy financial and family burdens. Many felt the North woul provide no better (and were fairly well justified in that regard).
I’ve long seen the struggles of American history as economic in their nature – while we’ve written our history as the struggles of race, or creed, or gender. Each had a underlying struggle of economic elites versus the laborer and common man. Dr. King Jr. recognized this very well as he tied his cause of civil rights to the fight against poverty and wage standards.
They could fly a regimental flag over the graves. Most of the troops from a particular state fought together. Fly that flag.
The South needs to understand that their “heritage” was repellent. They kept people in bondage, sold them like cattle, beat and raped them as they please, divided families, etc. Then, when it looked like that “way of life” was going to be restricted after the democratic election of President Lincoln, they threw a four year temper tantrum that resulted in hundreds of thousands of Americans being killed, and one of our greatest presidents being murdered. As if that weren’t enough, segregation and wholesale murder of blacks continued on for another CENTURY after that. In Mississippi alone, over 500 documented lynchings took place in the first half of the last century. Their “heritage” as represented by that flag is one of a few years of battlefield heroics, and centuries of utter vulgarity and disgrace both before and after that sacrifice. That they would choose to fight so hard to honor that doesn’t say much for them.
I say this as the great great great grandson of a soldier from Georgia who saw action in most of the battles in the east from 1961-Dec.1864. I probably owe my existence to the fact that he finally deserted and went home, since very little of the Georgia Brigade was alive to surrender a few months later. I’m impressed with his sacrifice. I know he fought for his homeland, etc. But really, his homeland was fighting for a really repellent cause. When I see that Confederate flag, I’m less reminded of the common soldier than I am the dead-ender hooded losers of the 1950’s murdering people in defense of their precious “heritage”.
Symbols often come from an historic reference and that’s one way( the intellectual way) of looking at them..as a relic of history),but in this modern age of instant and complete access to everything put on line by anyone they’ve become even more dangerous.’Truth’ is easily defined and a compeling case can be quickly made and broadcast for any point of view.
IMO, the Confederate flag hoisted over State Houses in recent times speak to a certain constituency and nothing has to be put into words or discussed.Symbols are the godsend for ‘rallying the troops’and the intellectual ‘educated-types’ are left to put into persective the historic and cultural background of these symbols.
And when someone says ‘let the states decide’ isn’t that the same as Dick Cheney and a few oil men determining what our country’s energy policy would be? Is state government on a higher democratic plane than that? I would say ‘lower’.Grassroots aren’t necessarily inclusive,especially under conservative government. (Civil rights laws have come from the feds,and they always will)
To some extent, I think symbols have always been used to short circuit rational thought. If you have to articulate what you mean precisely, uncomfortable truths and inconsistencies are revealed. Symbols allow a sort of truthiness that avoid such discomfort.
Yes, it’s truet that symbols have always short circuited reasoned analysis. But doesn’t it seem that the rational, educated analysis counts for so little anymore? But maybe it never did count for much. Everyone has a blog where they are daily convinced everything they believe is documented and valid.And blogs identify themselves by recognizable symbols or headings.It’s like a computerized New Middle Ages.
Right on, Lou. To give another example… the flag lapel pins that the Bush Administration and the Fox News folks wear. Normally these might signal a general support for, and love of, our country. Worn by these leaders and commentators though, I always see these little pins as shorthand for “I’m on board with the war, the tax cuts, and whatever else our leader wants.” It’s a powerful symbol, another thing to serve as a reminder of who is “in the club”, and putting those not of that mindset in a position to not really object.
In today’s New York Times there’s article by Libby Sander ( sorry I dont have a link)about Marshall Field’s flag ship store in Chicago’s loop and its new name ‘Macy’s’.There’s a petition already with 60,000 signers wanting the name changed back to Marshall Field.It was pointed out that the store has long been owned by Federated Department Stores of cincinnati, but that’s not the issue for the boycotters,who parade in front of the doors. It’s the symbol, the name itself that’s the issue.’Give us back the name’ is the battle cry!
We’re a small state with small minds, afraid of progressive thinkers and change. All one needs to do is to look at the last election. Apparently SC didn’t get the memo.
Doug,
While I do believe that the Confederate battle flag in its popular use these days is little more than a cipher for anti-black racism, I don’t share your angle on it being objectionable because it symbolizes disloyalty to the union.
I don’t have a problem in the abstract with the idea of states seceding from the United States. The most significant moral failing of the antebellum South was slavery, not secession. The most significant moral failing of the antebellum North was its toleration of slavery in the South.
History is written by the victors-one person’s rebellion is another person’s revolution. I don’t see what the south did as treason any more than what the 13 colonies did when they broke away from Britain. Both wars were about the right of a people to govern themselves. Lincoln himself said that the people have a right to “rise up and shake off their existing government, and form a new one that suits them better…….a most sacred right….
Once a state enters the union, it has no right to leave it at all? Today the 10th amendment is virtually ignored and the federal government is growing in power and influence all the time. But I guess that is a good thing?
Well, I’d be opposed to a decision by a State Government to fly the British flag to honor their Tory ancestors.
Doug,
Wouldn’t they do that if the British head of state were making an official diplomatic visit?
This argument is an entertaining one. I, perhaps unusually, agree with Branden in not seeing secession from the union by a State as morally or legally shocking, though I have long resented how the South, particularly the deep South, gave “States’ rights” a bad name. States’ Rights could have had a much more honorable pedigree if the term had come to be associated with honorable resistance to federal overreaching, as occurred when Virginia and Kentucky stood up to Adam’s odious Alien and Sedition Acts.
Anyway, to term secession “treason” exposes treason to have the same potential to be a political offense as “Sedition” has. On purely legal grounds I rather think secession as more defensible than revolt against the crown. Now that was treason in the purest sense of the word.
As an aside, one State government, Hawaii has long used the Union Jack as part of their flag.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Hawaii.svg
The position of Hawaii highlights that our Union came from disparate parts and not all of those parts can be expected to see the Revolution in quite the same light as does the East. Hawaii’s history with the United Kingdom is very different than that of the original 13 colonies (or the original territory of the United States established by the 1783 treaty). The inclusion of the Union Flag (the British Union, not our) reflects that.
All that said, what do the opening words of the Declaration of Independence mean to States such Hawaii, or even New Mexico, that had established populations, territories and functioning governments, even in the European sense of the word. The declaration says:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume, among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
Jefferson didn’t favor us with a definition of what made a collection of individuals “one people”, and the eventual American answer to that question that it is a purely political step is an answer that truly was revolutionary. But if it is purely a political step our system has a built in tension when it extends citizenship to people upon birth on United States’ soil.
Treason has this tension built into it. “Treason” was so politically charged an offense that the framers of the Constitution (Art. III) explicitly limited its definition, the only offense I am aware of which this was done for. I think they should have gone one step more and abolished it. Very few people have been convcted of treason against the United States, which may reflect its limited utility. I don’t think any official of the Confederate government was tried for treason (though some were charged), which if nothing else, was exemplary good taste on Andrew Johnson’s part. More limited, and explicity defined acts, can be made criminal. Treason, which was tainted by its abuse by the British Crown, can be relegated to a history of medieval law.
Paul,
Let me shock you back by, in turn, agreeing with you. :)
I don’t see treason as a concept with utility for any aim except oppression of the populace. If someone can be charged with the treason, but not with murder, assault, arson, theft, kidnapping, or any other plainly detestable crime against person or property, then why should a prosecutor have a case?
Given how frequently the term “treason” was bandied about just a couple of short years ago by some pundits to characterize any critique of the policies of the Bush Administration, I think we have all the evidence we need that the concept is much too slippery to be tenable.
Incidentally, over the past couple of decades, secessionist rhetoric has come overwhelming from extreme-right groups — the circles in which Timothy McVeigh ran — rather than from the extreme left. If the 2008 elections build on the Republican losses of 2006, the GOP might be wise to start getting treason statutes off the books, lest a future Democratic Justice Department pay attention to the noise the Republicans have been ignoring.
I suppose every Confederate soldier could have been hung for murder. They intentionally killed or attempted to kill their fellow citizens without any legal sanction.
That could be logistically difficult to manage from a prosecutorial perspective. I suspect something like South Africa’s truth and reconcilation commissions might be better suited to handle cases of large-scale insurrection.
But, more to your point, murder isn’t recognized as a capital offense by the Constitution, but treason is. Does it really matter to the convicted which offense they’re going to the gallows for? If nothing else, a treason charge makes for a better martyr (á la Thomas Paine, Patrick Henry, and Ben Franklin — though interestingly none of them were actually executed by the British).
Terming the actions of the Confederates to be a “large scale insurrection” revives an interesting old point that I recall from college U.S. History, that is whether Lincoln’s own actions shot down any legal claim the U.S. had to call those actions “insurrection”. The Wikipedia captures the argument succinctly:
“Some have contended that the announcement of a blockade carried de facto recognition of the Confederate States of America as an independent national entity since countries do not blockade their own ports but rather close them. Under international law and maritime law, however, nations had the right to search neutral vessels on the open sea if they were suspected of violating a blockade, something port closures would not allow. In an effort to avoid conflict between the United States and Britain over the searching of British merchant vessels thought to be trading with the Confederacy, the Union needed the privileges of international law that came with the declaration of a blockade. Under the Declaration of Paris, 1856, international law required that a blockade must be (1) formally proclaimed, (2) promptly established, (3) enforced, and (4) effective, in order to be legal. However, by effectively declaring the Confederate States of America to be belligerents—rather than insurrectionists, who under international law would not be legally eligible for recognition by foreign powers—Lincoln opened the way for European powers such as Britain and France to recognize the Confederacy. Britain’s proclamation of neutrality was consistent with the position of the Lincoln Administration under international law—the Confederates were belligerents—giving them the right to obtain loans and buy arms from neutral powers, and giving the British the formal right to discuss openly which side, if any, to support.”
As a belligerent the Confederacy could convey all the legal sanction their soldiers required, at least under widely recognized International Law. It is true that the United States withheld ratification of the Paris Declaration, but Lincoln’s proclamation was couched in the terms demanded by the treaty.
As for hanging most ex-Confederate soldiers on any grounds after the war though, I think practical and moral restraints argue against that. For one thing, the surrender documents of the Confederate armies included paroles for the soldiers and officiers. To have attempted their arrest would have violated the paroles (something that I cannot imagine would have pleased many, excluding maybe Sheridan, in the U.S. Army). I could easily imagine the Forrests and the Gordons locating some of their men and retreating into the Appalachian wilderness to resume the fight.
Paul,
Interesting point regarding port closures and blockades; thanks for the information!
You also make a valid point regarding the terms of surrender.
As a former resident of Chicago (which is Midwestern, NOT Yankee/Northeastern) and a current resident of South Carolina, I have had the opportunity to see the Confederate Flag from a few different viewpoints.
I truly do not believe that the vast majority of Confederate Flag supporters see the flag in racist terms- celebrating the flag can represent a desire to embrace a distinct (as from the North) regional identity. South Carolina has had a long and proud tradition of taking contrarian stands, something evident leading up to and important to the outcome of the Revolutionary War. So identifying as a Rebel does not mean that one wants a return to slavery, or even that one holds racist views.
As a celebration of an independent streak, I do not find the Confederate Flag, even on statehouse grounds, offensive. Far more offensive to me is one of the statues facing the Confederate flag: the statue of “Pitchfork” Ben Tillman.
Tillman was, in fact, instrumental in dismantling Reconstruction, in disenfranchising African-Americans (and many poor whites), and was not reluctant to use force to do so. Much as Iraqi reconstruction is destabilized today by insurgency and ethnic bloodshed, he mobilized insurgent Red Shirts to hurry the collapse of federal control in South Carolina. It is appropriate that Tillman’s statue gazes upon the Confederate flag, for not only did he champion the cause of the Confederacy, he also set a political precedent in aligning its symbologies with the poor white farmers of the state.
Champions of the Confederate flag are not all poor white farmers, nor by stereotypical extension are they stupid, backwards, or mean-spirited. Surely some are, of course, but the point is that it is possible to have positive feelings towards the flag without meaning support for some of its negative connotations.
That said, should the Confederate flag fly on public land? Regardless of how some view the flag as a symbol of positive attributes, it does have some valid negative connotions:
1 It is the flag of a defeated army that fought against the USA.
2 Part of what the aforementioned army fought for were property rights of the southern aristocracy, which extends to the enslaved ancestors of South Carolina’s current African-American population.
3 After being banned during Reconstruction, the Confederate flag was used as a rallying point and as a means of intimidation to assert white supremacy.
Perhaps this last point is not fair to the flag itself, as one could argue that the flag was appropriated for these purposes AFTER the war which killed so many American soldiers who fought under both flags.
But symbols are appropriated all of the time, and I think it is generally wise to retire symbols that become associated with the oppression of entire groups of human beings. An extreme example would be the swastika. Though a pervasive symbol of good luck on the Indian subcontinent and other parts of Asia, and roots extending back to the prehistoric in Europe and the Americas, its association with Nazi Germany has rendered it a tainted symbol. To display it outside of an otherwise carefully defined context, and especially on a Nazi Flag would be justly percieved as evidence of racist intent.
I would definitely understand if a Jewish person, even one of German descent, would take offence if I decided to fly the German National flag adopted in 1935 as a symbol of my heritage (proud though I am). There are other ways I can show pride in my heritage without using a flag that conveys hatred.
Likewise (and perhaps less emotional for many in the USA), it would also not be appropriate to fly the apartheid-era South African flag in South Africa.
Should Southerners be proud of their heritage? Sure, except for those parts of their heritage that involved the opression of others. Southerners are also justifiably proud of the sacrifices that were made at home and on the battlefield during the Civil War. As awful as war is, there is a certain heroism in fighting well, even if for the losing (or wrong) side. And lets not forget that the vast majority of those who sacrificed during the war (on both sides) were not to be the primary beneficiaries of any possible outcome.
Part of that heritage represented by the Confederate flag is a heritage of a slave-based plantation economy. Whether or not most of the soldiers would benefit from the continuation of that economy, the Confederacy for which the flag stood relied upon and advocated the enslavement of many.
I just hope that someday the State of South Carolina could see fit to honor the heritage of all its people. The Confederate flag may honor the heritage of some South Carolinians, but to view is simply as a celebration of heritage serves to deny that the Confederacy did not recognize what was then the majority of South Carolina’s population as people.
It may not be appropriate to term the former South African flag as an “apartheid” era flag. It certainly isn’t the symbol that Apartheid die hards in South Africa use. The flag predated de jure Apartheid and was actually rather unpopular with Afrikaners since it incorporated the Union (British) flag and had also served as the flag of the Union of South Africa, as distinguished from the Republic (which was a long held dream of the Afrikaners finally established in 1961). The Afrikaner nationalists seem to prefer to display the old four color Transval flag (or something awfully similar called the “Vryheidsvlag”). The more ominous and openly racist Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging also uses a flag similar to that of the German Nazis. I’d guess that either of those two flags are vastly more provacative than the old South African flag.