« Commitment vs. Comprehension | Main | New Polly Goodness! »
April 12, 2007
And Lions Will Lay Down With Lambs
Mark your calendars and call your mothers, I agree with a Jamie Kirchek post. Responding to news that Giuliani has declared the Confederate Flag a state's rights issue, Kirchek explains:
The Confederacy was, should Giuliani need any reminder, from the firing on Fort Sumter, an act of treason against the United States. Never mind the crime against humanity that the Confederacy was formed to protect or the lives that were lost in order to defeat that treason. Of course, an individual who wants to fly the Confederate flag or put its likeness on the back of his pick-up truck is perfectly permitted to do so, just as one can legally fly a Nazi flag outside his house or goose-step around his neighborhood wearing a swastika. But the same freedom of expression should not apply to government institutions (in this case, state legislators and the public property in which they conduct their legislative business).
Well said.
April 12, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
What, there's not enough endless flame wars in your comment threads?
BTW, this post on the same subject got some attention a while ago.
/blogwhoring
Posted by: Stephen | Apr 12, 2007 11:26:52 AM
I don't understand why Democrats don't use the confederate flag issue more. Just like Republicans will make fun of taxacussetts to pick up votes outside the NE region, can't Democrats do the same?
Posted by: Tony V | Apr 12, 2007 11:32:48 AM
This might help you to understand a little better the economic forces moving against the South and why the drastic action. Stephen has a short, pat answer that is easy to swallow, but it is not very accurate.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Apr 12, 2007 11:43:01 AM
As a matter of historical fact, this is a no brainer.
However, as recently demonstrated by lucianne Goldberg's kid, fact can have a hard time when goes up against historical mythologies.
Sad to say, my home section is overpopulated with people who think that "Gone With the Wind" was an honest portrait of the pre-Civil War South. Moon light and Magnolias with loyal, contented darkies singing spirituals to Massah and his family. Considering what the reality was, it isn't so hard to understand why folks might cling to this fantasy. Rather like an elderly German woman I once knew who sweetly insisted that Hitler hadn't known about all the terrible things that Goering, Goebbels and Himmler had been up to.
The point is that there's a significant section of the electorate in the South that thinks the Confederate battle flag is the stainless banner of some lost golden age. Not a majority but a sizeable chunk that is nestled in the GOP. They have enough influence in my own state that they're close to getting April declared Confederate History Month. That much of this interest in conserving "Southern Heritage" is just a cover for the same old white supremacist poison ought to be obvious but unfortunately it isn't.
Guiliani is doing what any politician seeking the GOP nomination will be obliged to do. Especially if their a quasi-moderate from a place like New York City and an "eye-talian" to boot. Pander, pander, pander.
Posted by: W.B. Reeves | Apr 12, 2007 11:45:07 AM
As some (but not enough have noted), any residual popularity the Confederate flag has in the South is not because of any Southern pride from the 19th century. For about 80 years after the Civil War, there were virtually no Confederate flags flying. It was subsequent efforts toward segregation that sent some Southerners running out to buy and fly Confederate flags. It's specifically motivated by the legacy of anti-segregationism from the 20th century, not vague notions of pride from the 19th.
Posted by: Mark | Apr 12, 2007 12:03:09 PM
it is time to put an end to racism, bigotry and bitter reminders of racism in this country.
...just like the excellent news that don imus has finally been called on his blistering, arrogant, hurtful racist, sexist and homophobic comments.
.....it is time to do the right thing in this country.
the waffling on issues of social justice by people in power is truly sickening.
...it is time to turn the page on that unbelievably painful chapter in american history and strive for healing and unification.
what a shameful affront to african-americans, that a confederate flag flies near our government institutions. it is horrifying in this century that such a thing still occurs.
this seems crystal-clear.
it is time to put out the fires that incite hatred and hurt between americans and find our higher ground.
those flags need to come down and what cowardice for any political figure not to demand it.
Posted by: jacqueline | Apr 12, 2007 12:04:28 PM
For about 80 years after the Civil War, there were virtually no Confederate flags flying.
That doesn't mean the attitude wasn't there. You are correct that much of the south's dysfunction comes from the civil rights struggles, but their cult of victimization dates to before The War of southern Treason.
Posted by: Stephen | Apr 12, 2007 12:13:27 PM
Fred, that's a very good article you linked to. What I find mysterious is why you think it refutes anything that Stephen said. Did you actually read it?
Posted by: W.B. Reeves | Apr 12, 2007 12:15:59 PM
i wish they could be taken down, and juneteenth flags could be flying in their place.
Posted by: jacqueline | Apr 12, 2007 12:21:39 PM
Basic Fred: The ECONOMIC interest that the South had in exploiting human chattel was really what the war was about. For the South, it was never about the MORALITY of slavery.
It explains a lot about Fred that he seems to believe that this somehow constitutes "economic forces moving against the South", which in turn expiates the sin of slavery for which the South was moved to treason and which the white South celebrates to this day with the Confederate battle flag and the mythology they tell themselves about the noble cavalier and the happy negro.
Posted by: paperwight | Apr 12, 2007 12:23:50 PM
It's specifically motivated by the legacy of anti-segregationism from the 20th century, not vague notions of pride from the 19th.
Which makes it... worse? Certainly no better. And that it's rationalized by "pride in heritage" doesn't help, especially when the specific heritage it represents is treason in defense of slavery.
Posted by: paperwight | Apr 12, 2007 12:27:07 PM
For about 80 years after the Civil War, there were virtually no Confederate flags flying. It was subsequent efforts toward segregation that sent some Southerners running out to buy and fly Confederate flags.
You may be right about this. Certainly the movement in the 1950's by southern states towards incorporating the confederate battle flag into their state flags was part of the strategy of "massive resistance" to de-segregation. However, I can attest that in 1961 at Chickamauga National Battle Field, the gift shop sold both the US flag and the confederate battle flag as souveniers. Note, this was a national, not a state park.
Posted by: W.B. Reeves | Apr 12, 2007 12:31:01 PM
Can someone please provide a legal argument why the State of Alabama should not be allowed to fly whatever it pleases from State of Alabama government buildings? No table pounding, please. I completely agree with the moral argument that flying that flag would be repugnant, but without being an expert on the subject tend to agree with Rudy on the legal argument.
Posted by: ostap | Apr 12, 2007 12:31:08 PM
Fred,
Are you suggesting that southerners were the victims of mistreatment by powerful economic and political interests? That owners of corporations influenced the political process so that their desires were met instead of those who were less wealthy?
Could it be that you believe the south was a victim of a. a. . a conspiracy?
You should double-check your pro-Confederacy arguments against what you think are progressives' arguments.
Posted by: Stephen | Apr 12, 2007 12:32:07 PM
"Can someone please provide a legal argument why the State of Alabama should not be allowed to fly whatever it pleases from State of Alabama government buildings?"
We had a war, a few amendments, and about 150 years of struggling jurisprudence to diminish federalism, state independence, etc. Residents of Alabama are citizens of the US first and foremost, and state, as representing the majority of Alabamans may not infringe any of its residents rights and privileges in any fashion not acceptable to the majority of all US citizens. Reference for example, Lawrence, tho that may be doomed if Scalia gets his way.
Not only should the Battle Flag be banned, but all official favorable references to Confederate leaders should also be illegal. No Robert E Lee University getting Federal funds, no municipalities with statues of Stonewall Jackson or neat dioramas of slave markets with whips and chains labeled "God's Will"...they are equivalent...should receive any Federal funds or recognition.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Apr 12, 2007 12:43:56 PM
It's hate not heritage.
But of course history teaches us nothing if not that people are mighty attached to their hatreds.
And WB, you're so right -- pander on Rudy. Mitt will probably get a stars and bars tattoo on his ass now.
Posted by: Klein's Tiny Left Nut | Apr 12, 2007 12:49:51 PM
as jeralyn at talkleft points out:
yes, the confederate flag should be a "state's rights" issue. but do you think he'll say the same when it comes to the federal harassment of medical marijuana providers in states where medical mj has been made legal?
i think not.
Posted by: rigel | Apr 12, 2007 12:52:28 PM
Ostap, I sort of think you're distracting from topic at hand, because as far as I can see from context Giuliani wasn't responding to a claim that Alabama's flying of the Confederate Battle Flag is unconstitutional or otherwise forbidden by federal law. Rather, he was just using the state right's issue to avoid taking a stand against an abhorrent practice. But anyway, in the one case against the flying of the Confederate Flag which I'm aware of, the argument was that it was in violation of an Alabama state statute which forbade anything but the state or federal flag from being flown over the state capital.
Posted by: washerdreyer | Apr 12, 2007 12:58:13 PM
The Confederacy was, should Giuliani need any reminder, from the firing on Fort Sumter, an act of treason against the United States.
And the United States was an act of treason against Britain. Hope the Brits forgive us for taking pride in that someday.
But the same freedom of expression should not apply to government institutions (in this case, state legislators and the public property in which they conduct their legislative business).
This doesn't quite get at the issue. There's no question that the government is free to fly the flag. They shouldn't, but it's not because they aren't free to.
However, as recently demonstrated by lucianne Goldberg's kid, fact can have a hard time when goes up against historical mythologies.
Just can't get in enough gratuitous insults in one thread, so you have to spread them in others too?
That much of this interest in conserving "Southern Heritage" is just a cover for the same old white supremacist poison ought to be obvious but unfortunately it isn't.
It should also be obvious that much of it isn't. This isn't so simple as many on both sides make it out to be.
As some (but not enough have noted), any residual popularity the Confederate flag has in the South is not because of any Southern pride from the 19th century. ... It's specifically motivated by the legacy of anti-segregationism from the 20th century, not vague notions of pride from the 19th.
You're conflating origins with present reality.
Posted by: Sanpete | Apr 12, 2007 1:01:06 PM
Sanpete, I ought to have my head examined for even responding to you but, gratuitous insults against whom?
It is not at all obvious that much of the obsession with "Southern Heritage" isn't bound up with "white supremacy." If by claiming such you are saying that an equal portion of the "Heritage" movement is untainted by racial prejudice. If you actually want to argue this point, you had better be prepared to offer more than unsubstantiated opinion, because I certainly am.
Posted by: W.B. Reeves | Apr 12, 2007 1:27:40 PM
"And the United States was an act of treason against Britain. Hope the Brits forgive us for taking pride in that someday."
You're right, it was an act of treason against Britain and, frankly, I couldn't give a damn about whether the Brits forgive us for that. I'm an American and owe no allegiance to Britain. Southerners are also Americans and many of them quite frequently trumpet how "patriotic" they are while at the same time seeming to take pride in that 19th century act of treason that seems to go so far in defining who and what they are.
Though some people look at the list of grievances in the Declaration of Independence and find them trivial, I find it much easier to justify an act of rebellion based on those than on the desire to be able to continue to enslave people.
Posted by: mrgumby2u | Apr 12, 2007 1:33:10 PM
Posted by: ostap | Apr 12, 2007 9:31:08 AM
Can someone please provide a legal argument why the State of Alabama should not be allowed to fly whatever it pleases from State of Alabama government buildings? No table pounding, please. I completely agree with the moral argument that flying that flag would be repugnant, but without being an expert on the subject tend to agree with Rudy on the legal argument.
I am not a lawyer, and don't even play one on the internet, but I would assume its somewhere in the equal protection clause, which was, after all, passed explicitly to give the federal government the power to protect the rights of the new freedmen and not to grant real rights to fictitious persons.
A state celebrating the struggle to keep the ancestors of current state residents in bondage and lamenting that the struggle was lost and that those state residents are citizens today ... it seems likely that there is some equal protection issue in there somewhere.
Posted by: BruceMcF | Apr 12, 2007 1:46:23 PM
WBR, what I said was clear enough to understand quite a bit better than that.
You're right, it was an act of treason against Britain and, frankly, I couldn't give a damn about whether the Brits forgive us for that.
Some citizen of the world you would make. If we had lost the Revolutionary War and were still members of the Commonwealth, I'm sure you'd be proud to denounce Washington, Jefferson and the others who led that treasonous and bloody act.
I find it much easier to justify an act of rebellion based on those than on the desire to be able to continue to enslave people.
Indeed, but that doesn't actually justify either revolution, does it? Pointing out that salvery was wrong and not a good reason to leave the nation isn't the same as decrying the South for being treasonous just for leaving.
Posted by: Sanpete | Apr 12, 2007 1:52:47 PM
WBR, what I said was clear enough to understand quite a bit better than that.
Hogwash Sanpete. We both know why you won't answer the question.
Posted by: W.B. Reeves | Apr 12, 2007 1:58:42 PM
Sanpete, if the Revolutionary War had been lost, I'll guarrantee that flying the Stars and Stripes would be good for a short rope and a long drop. Or one-way ticket (steerage class) to Australia.
Posted by: Barry | Apr 12, 2007 2:05:20 PM
