Noting today’s post on Kevin’s blog about the recently raised Confederate flag (yes, another huge one) in Tennessee and a few comments made by H.K. Edgerton. I thought I’d bring up a point that appears to have been totally and completely ignored in Edgerton’s comment. He said… “This is a southern flag. You can’t attack this flag and call yourself a southerner. You can call yourself a traitor.”
Really?! That’s such a brash statement… and reflective of ignorance of the history of the people of the American South, even those Southerners who were alive during the American Civil War. Southerners, black and white, took issue with that flag, even during the American Civil War, and… here’s a news flash… they were still culturally Southerners, before, during, and after the war. Not only that, but many Southerners were well aware of the fact that the flag represented the continuance of slavery (and yes, this fact was even frowned upon by many Southerners at the time), even though the Union did not initially go to war to free slaves. Three years before he was murdered by Confederate irregulars, and before the war opened, Elder John Kline, a Southerner, wrote:
TUESDAY, January 1, 1861. The year opens with dark and lowering clouds in our national horizon. I feel a deep interest in the peace and prosperity of our country; but in my view both are sorely threatened now. Secession is the cry further south; and I greatly fear its poisonous breath is being wafted northward towards Virginia on the wings of fanatical discontent. A move is clearly on hand for holding a convention at Richmond, Virginia; and while its advocates publicly deny the charge, I, for one, feel sure that it signals the separation of our beloved old State from the family in which she has long lived and been happy. The perishable things of earth distress me not, only in so far as they affect the imperishable. Secession means war; and war means tears and ashes and blood. It means bonds and imprisonments, and perhaps even death to many in our beloved Brotherhood, who, I have the confidence to believe, will die, rather than disobey God by taking up arms.
The Lord, by the mouth of Moses, says: “Be sure your sin will find you out.” It may be that the sin of holding three millions of human beings under the galling yoke of involuntary servitude has, like the bondage of Israel in Egypt, sent a cry to heaven for vengeance; a cry that has now reached the ear of God. I bow my head in prayer. All is dark save when I turn my eyes to him. He assures me in his Word that “all things work together for good to them that love him.” This is my ground of hope for my beloved brethren and their wives and their children. He alone can provide for their safety and support. I believe he will do it.
Being knowledgeable of one’s own heritage, and especially the larger heritage of a people (e.g., Southerners), is bigger than picking and choosing only the parts of history that work to sustain a rather narrow-minded argument.
Cenantua's Blog 
Naim Peress
June 10, 2009
People should also remember that the flag was debated heavily during the war itself. The Confederate national flag was changed three times during the course of the war.
cenantua
June 10, 2009
Mr. Peress,
Thanks for the comment, however, the focus in the debate, today, is in the symbolism. At the time of the war, the flag had significantly fewer meanings symbolically.
Richard Williams
June 10, 2009
Robert:
I would agree that’s brash, but no worse than calling those who honor the flag racists or traitors or “neo-Confederates”. Balance is what seems to be in such short supply these days. There is narrow-mindedness on both sides of the issue.
RW
cenantua
June 10, 2009
Richard,
So tit for tat is justifiable, especially in “heritage recognition” efforts such as this? The point here is that this is a statement made by a person who claims to know and understand Southern heritage to the point where he feels validated in his beliefs by calling Southerners who criticize its display (without giving full consideration to the range of reasons why they critique the symbolism) in the same way “traitors.” I am the one presenting the criticism of the remark in my blog post, yet where have I in my earlier posts, called ALL those who embrace the flag racists and traitors? The fact is, I haven’t. His comment reflects a narrow understanding of the complexities of Civil War-connected Southern heritage… so is that acceptable and not meriting clarification by others that he misrepresents? I’m a Southerner…
Richard Williams
June 10, 2009
“So tit for tat is justifiable, especially in “heritage recognition” efforts such as this?”
Please don’t put words in my mouth or make assumptions. I neither said nor implied any such thing.
“where have I in my earlier posts, called ALL those who embrace the flag racists and traitors?”
None that I know of, did I accuse you? You know it is a frequent criticism though.
I don’t quite understand your defensive posture. I agreed with you, but just wanted to point out that Mr. Edgerton hasn’t cornered the market on “narrow understanding.”
cenantua
June 10, 2009
Richard, I’m not being defensive, but allow me clarify. On one hand you agreed that it is brash but then said, “but no worse than” as if that overturned the “brashness” as if, even to some degree, this gives him some justification in saying what he did.
Regarding the racists/traitors affiliation with the flag, no, you didn’t accuse me of that, but I want to make it clear that my criticism is without the other element that you suggest prompts other criticisms. Call it a remark made in anticipation of criticism of my criticism, not necessarily by you, but by others who seem to infrequently pop in and out of the blogosphere and snipe based on their readings of merely one blog post.
I wholeheartedly agree with you that there is narrow understanding in various comments and they dot the landscape in discussion when it comes to the ACW.
Free speech permits Edgerton to say what he wants, but he all too frequently spreads more misunderstanding than understanding. For those who want to spread an understanding of Civil War connected Southern culture, he continues to distort and befoul, yet seems an unofficial spokesperson of the SCV, especially when what he says goes on and on without the SCV offering something to the contrary. From what I understand, Edgerton insulted a greater crowd of people in Arlington, at the Confederate event there, for what he said. This is no effort to encourage understanding.
Richard Williams
June 10, 2009
“as if that overturned the “brashness” as if, even to some degree, this gives him some justification in saying what he did.”
Your words and opinion, not mine Robert.
“Free speech permits Edgerton to say what he wants, but he all too frequently spreads more misunderstanding than understanding.”
You view it as misunderstanding and his latest statement was certainly a bit over the top, but he likely views it as clarifying. Just as you so correctly point out that not all Southerners were “pro-secessionist”, Mr. Edgerton, like Nelson Winbush, are living examples that not all African-Americans today are “anti-Confederate flag.” It’s easy to fall into either trap.
Would you disagree?
cenantua
June 10, 2009
Richard,
Regarding the “brash” et al, consider your remark clarified.
Regarding efforts by Edgerton to clarify, I think he fails miserably for the fact that he calls Southerners who are critical of the flag, “traitors.” I’d even offer that such a remark makes it even easier for others call Confederates traitors.
Also, while, at one point, he is there “representing” those African-Americans who are not “anti-Confederate flag,” would you not agree that he goes too far in the other remarks he made in the same breath? The “I represent four and a half million black folks who’ve been beat down and would love to be here, too” is another remark that goes over the top.
Richard Williams
June 10, 2009
“I’d even offer that such a remark makes it even easier for others call Confederates traitors.”
Perhaps, but which do you hear more often?
“would you not agree that he goes too far in the other remarks he made in the same breath?”
I already acknowledged as much.
“The “I represent four and a half million black folks who’ve been beat down and would love to be here, too” is another remark that goes over the top.”
No disagreement there.
cenantua
June 10, 2009
Yet he continues to speak as if what he says is a reflection of sentiment in the SCV. After all, there are no SCV press releases to the contrary, not even a subtle suggestion of something to the contrary. As you have suggested in other posts on other blogs, does not even silence suggest something? Is it complacency on the part of the SCV or acceptance of what he says? Would Nelson Wimbush even support what Edgerton says as representative of all those of a like mind? My questions are rhetorical, I know, because I don’t really expect you to know the answers and speak as a representative of the SCV or Mr. Wimbush. These are simply the questions that come to mind.
Richard Williams
June 10, 2009
Mr. Edgerton is well-liked for his willingness to speak unpopular sentiments. Agree or not, right or not, I would assume that is why some of his more brash statements are tolerated. But that is just an assumption on my part. I don’t know him nor have I ever heard him speak.
Of course, the same rhetorical questions could be asked of other groups and organizations which present the opposite view. Again, Mr. Edgerton has not cornered the market on brashness, nor the SCV on silence.
Best,
RGW
cenantua
June 10, 2009
“Of course, the same rhetorical questions could be asked of other groups and organizations which present the opposite view.”
Are you speaking of heritage and even other CW-related organizations? If so, in what situations have such groups or organizations that present opposite views remained silent over the brash comments of a member?
cenantua
June 10, 2009
Richard,
Perhaps I should clarify where I am coming from on this. In the military (Army and Navy) we were told that what we did and what we said was a representation of the branch, especially when in branch-related activities and most especially while in uniform. With that came a level of responsibility, at least in the majority of us. I think this made us more conscious of what we said and less likely to misrepresent.
I realize there is quite a difference between the military and a heritage group, but there is a similar degree of responsibility that should come with “representing” a group and the diversity of opinions in it. Likewise, for the group to gain or retain respect and be taken seriously, especially since heritage organizations are not the military, a certain amount of damage control can be expected in the form of press releases or simple commentary that offers clarification. Is this really expecting too much, especially considering the effort by the SCV in it’s “struggle” to preserve the image of the persons that it honors? It seems equally necessary, in these efforts, to make clear an organizations position on historical points on which heritage awareness is based.
Richard Williams
June 10, 2009
“Are you speaking of heritage and even other CW-related organizations?”
No, I am not.
I think its an over-reaction, to some degree, to the constant “racist” charges against Southern/Confederate heritage folks. Push back.
Its the same reason you see all the large CSA flags going up. Push back. The current flag flap (no pun intended) really heated up during the SC state house debate. Ruffin Flag company’s sales soared during that time. Push back.
For every action, there is an equal, but opposite reaction. Push back.
Its human nature.
cenantua
June 10, 2009
“Push back” reflects an emotional response. In emotional response we all have a tendency to become blinded by our emotions and doing more harm than good, even committing errors in the effort. I cannot say that I know anyone who is not guilty of this fault, myself certainly among those at fault. While physics suggest that “for every action, there is an equal, but opposite reaction,” it is not necessarily human nature. Primitive human nature, perhaps, but we are humans advanced a bit beyond the primitive. Though the primitive nature is still in the background, do we not/should we not strive, especially with our ability as “advanced” humans, to reason and aspire for more than “push back?” What angel of our nature shall rule us? The better or the worse?
This said, how has all of the “push back” over the flag benefited heritage and how has it also damaged it? Do you see Confederate heritage better today or worse than it was 20 years ago? What might have been done differently, in lieu of blatant push back, to do more good than bad? What can be done better in the future to gain respect and be taken seriously? Personally, I don’t see that “push back” has resulted in good or understanding.
Richard Williams
June 10, 2009
“we are humans advanced a bit beyond the primitive.”
That is debatable. The 20th century saw more brutality of man against his fellow man than all centuries before. We do dress up nice though.
“Do you see Confederate heritage better today or worse than it was 20 years ago?”
I see it the same. I don’t let the conduct of others rule what I think or believe about a particular issue. I honor my Confederate ancestors who fought, bled, and died for their homes and families, the same as I did 20 years ago. What others do in that are is their business, not mine.
Regardless of where one stands, there is no question that Southerners in general, and Confederate heritage types in particular, are impugned daily in the media, by late night comedians, SOME academics, etc. The loud voices are always the ones that are heard, but certainly does not mean they speak for the majority. That goes for both sides of the issue.
But the more the battle flag is belittled by its detractors (“put it in a museum” types) the more you will see the high profile displays. Get used to it.
And yes, I still maintain it is human nature. The “Rebel flag” is just that – Rebel. It appeared at the fall of the Berlin Wall, the collapse of the Soviet Union and other “rebellions” worldwide against authority. That’s the way many still see it and I think that is part of what is driving the prominent displays. Push back.
What else would you expect the descendants of CSA soldiers to do?
Kevin
June 10, 2009
“What else would you expect the descendants of CSA soldiers to do?”
I guess I don’t necessarily expect them to do anything. This seems to get us back to an implicit assumption that a certain kind of behavior by descendants ought to or are expected to behave in a certain way. I think what Robert has effectively pointed out is that how people identify with the past falls on a wide spectrum.
“But the more the battle flag is belittled by its detractors (”put it in a museum” types) the more you will see the high profile displays. Get used to it.”
Since I have called for this I might as well respond. I don’t see this as “belittling” the flag; in fact, it seems to me to be one of the only ways to guarantee that it will be interpreted in its proper historical context. If it’s a Civil War era display than the connection with the soldiers will be emphasized. On the other hand if it’s a civil rights display it might be connected to the “massive resistance” movement. But to simply label it as belittling seems a bit extreme. John Coski of the Museum of the Confederacy has called for such a move and I would never suggest that his intention is to belittle anything.
Richard Williams
June 10, 2009
“I don’t see this as “belittling” the flag”
Neither do I. I’ve given to efforts to restore Confederate flags, one at the MOC. But my disagreement is with those who suggest its the “only” place for its display.
Nonsense. That would preclude those who display it for heritage purposes from doing so. Its a free speech issue as well.
“it will be interpreted in its proper historical context.” The problem is, there are multiple interpretations. Mine would not be the same as yours. Who decides?
Kevin
June 11, 2009
Richard,
You don’t see this as belittling the flag, but that is just what you said:
“But the more the battle flag is belittled by its detractors (”put it in a museum” types) the more you will see the high profile displays. Get used to it.”
You’ve become my favorite postmodernist.
Richard Williams
June 11, 2009
Now, now Kevin. Don’t cherry pick my words. I also added:
“my disagreement is with those who suggest its (museums) the “only” place for its display.”
For clarity, is that your position – that the flag should only be displayed in museums? If so, do you favor laws to enforce it or are you just suggesting that’s the only place it can be properly “interpreted?”
Those are serious questions. That is not a leading question. But since you and others have suggested that, how else would that process be enforced?
“You’ve become my favorite postmodernist.”
Coming from you Kevin, I’ll take that as a great compliment. How’s that modernity thing working out these days?
;o)
RGW
Kevin
June 11, 2009
Richard,
I’m glad you see it as a compliment. As to your question, yes I do believe that a museum is the best place for the flag for a number of reasons. No, I do not believe that laws are necessary to regulate its display. A free society can work that out for itself as it is currently doing.
Richard Williams
June 11, 2009
“No, I do not believe that laws are necessary to regulate its display. A free society can work that out for itself as it is currently doing.”
I’m glad we’re in agreement there. Is it the fact that some are offended by the flag? If so, that’s a slippery slope.
chris meekins
June 11, 2009
Always interesting to see the thread and thoughts.
One question though, I thought this was the War Between The States not the War of the Rebellion. I don’t recall contemporary Southerners ever ceding the issue of that interpretation. The were not in rebellion in their view they were merely carrying out the tenants of the Constitution. Northern states were the ones queering the deal.
Ironic that the flag becomes a symbol of rebellion when those firebrands who charged out with secession did so to conserve their view of the Constitution.
Maybe I have failed somewhere along the way to understand this but I believe that at least some of my teachings plow along this line of thought.
Not debating the right or wrong of the interpretation mind you just saying that first out did not like the term rebel and all that it implies. Naming things is such a huge form of power.
Richard Williams
June 11, 2009
Chris:
I have no problem with the term “rebel.” If one “rebels” against what one sees as tyranny, its not a derogatory term.
As Benjamin Franklin said: “Rebellion against tyrants is obedience to God.”
I suppose it depends on the intent. “War of the Rebellion” was the US Govt’s official term and carried a political (negative) connotation.
I’m A Good Old Rebel carries a completely different connotation. The term has also been romanticized in popular culture.
chris meekins
June 11, 2009
Yes but the intellectual underpinnings for secession was the conservation of the Constitution not rebellion against it. Thus it is ironic that Lincoln’s view of the act becomes synonymous with the intent of the actors rather than their own. Post war its a different ballgame and I would agree that owning the word rebel as a name is not a negative thing. Its just not at all what they were after at the outset.
If enforcing the Constitution and its amendments is tyranny then we are all lost.
NARA’s prologue had an article about the naming of the war and you will find a piece on the same at the NC Civil War 150 webpage. Along with depictions of flags. But we should agree to disagree now and save ourselves so time and Cenantua some space. I appreciate your willingness to exchange ideas Richard.
Richard Williams
June 12, 2009
“Yes but the intellectual underpinnings for secession was the conservation of the Constitution not rebellion against it.”
I agree. The South saw their rebellion as being against Lincoln’s usurpation of the Constitution.
“If enforcing the Constitution and its amendments is tyranny then we are all lost.”
Again I agree. Thanks Chris.
RGW
cenantua
June 12, 2009
“The South saw their rebellion as being against Lincoln’s usurpation of the Constitution.”
Now, now Richard… that should read “Part of the South.”
Best, Robert
Richard Williams
June 12, 2009
Robert:
Well, I think you’re being a bit over-sensitive to that perspective, but for your sake I’ll reword that to say:
“The Confederacy saw their rebellion as being against Lincoln’s usurpation of the Constitution.”
How’s that?
RGW
cenantua
June 12, 2009
Richard, Nahhhh, not over-sensitive, just cautious about such broad historical expressions when I know that there is significant evidence to the contrary. Even when you say “The Confederacy” there are questions that come along with that. As a government, sure, but as a people, that can be debated. Some Southerners of the deep South reacted to the election of Lincoln in anticipation to what might come, but not actual usurpation of the Constitution. Likewise, a large number of people of the upper South may have reacted to Lincoln’s call for troops, but were more focused on the idea that Union troops were coming to their lands, not so much focused on the Constitution. Again, I prefer a bottom-up view (based on the views of the people), not the top-down. It’s easy to focus on the top down, but that breeds generalizations. I’d actually like to expand on this in another post.
Richard Williams
June 12, 2009
“Even when you say “The Confederacy” there are questions that come along with that. As a government, sure, but as a people, that can be debated. ”
Come on Robert, that’s bordering on the ridiculous. I suppose you would have a problem with “The United States is at war in Iraq?”
I suppose we need to always be sure and add the caveat, “As a government, sure, but as a people, that can be debated.”
Please, this is overkill.
I’m done. Your word will be the last.
RGW
cenantua
June 12, 2009
“Come on Robert, that’s bordering on the ridiculous. I suppose you would have a problem with ‘The United States is at war in Iraq?'”
Now, who is putting words into my mouth? Nice way of turning this from a discussion about people of the past to making the absurd supposition about my thoughts on contemporary issues. Is this really a way to discuss history?
I find it interesting that you find it so easy to dismiss the thought and then compare the contemporary people in-place under a 230 year old government with the people living within the geographic boundaries of a brand spanking new government of the Confederacy, not even five years old at the date of its end. Putting the two groups of people within the geographic boundaries of said governments under a glass and making such a parallel comparison is rediculous. The situations of the respective populations during the two wars are distinctly different, Richard. Surely you must realize this, or do you? Do I even need to state the obvious? For one, the government of the Confederacy was very new. Was this government formed under a truly democratic process? There wasn’t a referendum in every state, and even with a referendum over secession, there is evidence of coercion. When was the last time that we went to the polls under such a situation? While some Southerners certainly found nothing wrong with the government of the Confederacy and were quick to embrace it, let’s be sure to realize that many, Unionists or not, did have problems with it.
So, overkill? Where’s the historical evidence that can support your opposing argument?
S. Campbell
June 16, 2009
I know I’m a bit late coming in on this, but I’ve been keeping away from the computer as much as possible. Life’s better that way, I think.
I must say that one thing that I admire about you Robert is that you do try to find and keep to the historical facts. I think we’ve discussed the topic before, on how the individual felt at that particular time, at that physical place. We’ll never know why people chose to do what they did. They just did. The thing is, they NEED to be remembered. No matter what.
Now what I’ve seen for a long time on here is that you are understanding of the folks that lived a long time ago, no matter what their choice, but you don’t seem to be as understanding of the people that are living now.
You said, “Nice way of turning this from a discussion about people of the past to making the absurd supposition about my thoughts on contemporary issues. Is this really a way to discuss history?”
I think it might be a way to discuss history, because you got to know where you’ve been before you can know where you’re going. At least that’s the first thing that popped into my head when I read that.
I know H.K. Edgerton. Not real well, but I know him well enough to have had some good talks with him. I have his number and can call him anytime. I also know that he tells the truth, no matter what. When people get pissed off sometimes they say things in a way that might come across as something else to other people.
Something else that hasn’t really been talked about when it comes to this flag. The reporter from the Bristol Herald Courier that wrote the story had already called the NAACP to get a reaction from them before the flag ever went up the pole and that can be gathered from just reading the story. She was looking to sensationalize it and stir up controversy. It was also her first week at that paper and I’m sure she was trying to impress her new employer. How’s that for understanding all sides of history. I know all this stuff because I was there and I was one of the ones that helped put the pole together, stood in cow manure and held a string with a rock hanging from it to plumb the pole and helped take care of the finances for the project. The one thing that I kept hearing during those long days on that hill and at the ceremony was how all our grandparents, however many greats they were would be proud of what we did. I know I was constantly thinking of my 2nd great grandfather when we were up there and how he would have called us sissies for complaining about being tired and sunburnt.
When I see how many messages a day people are posting in forums like this, I think it might do everyone some good to spend less time with their noses in books and eyes on the computer and spend more time getting their hands dirty doing something for someone else.
No offense, but I probably won’t post anything here again. Not because of anything anybody said, just because I’m tired of the virtual world and want to spend more time in the real world.
Peace.
cenantua
June 16, 2009
Mr. Campbell, Your input and comments will be missed and I hope you will continue to visit and comment whenever time permits. My objective is to embrace all aspects of our Southern heritage and try to understand it as best I can. All should be honored, but as we honor an ancestor, we should take care to honor that which the ancestor would want to be honored, not in haphazard form. That’s no easy task, especially as we move further and further away in the number of generations and our family trees grow greater in size and diversity than in earlier generations. When do we realize that we have ancestors that had different opinions at the same point in time and how shall we best deal with the differences and respect both when honoring one? When we recognize the complexities of the past, we can begin to appreciate the complexities within ourselves, and this should set some new guide for the ways in which we honor the people of the past.
Peace to you as well… and to us all.