Ed Brayton is a freelance writer and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
This story just makes me laugh. At a museum in Tallahassee, Florida, there is a display of a confederate flag hanging from a gallows; the piece is titled The Proper Way to Hang a Confederate Flag. Sounds like a provocative and entirely justified artistic statement to me, pointing out the long legacy of racial lynchings in the South after the Civil War. But to the "southern pride" folks, apparently, anything calling attention to history amounts to persecution:
A Confederate flag hanging from a noose on a 13-foot gallows will remain on display despite protests from the Sons of Confederate Veterans, who call it an affront to Southern heritage."The Proper Way to Hang a Confederate Flag" by black artist John Sims is "offensive, objectionable and tasteless," Robert Hurst, commander of the local camp of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, said Friday.
Now call me crazy, but it seems to me that slavery and the long history of lynchings that accompanied it and continued for a century after it ended is offensive, objectionable and tasteless; a piece of art that calls attention to that history and the injustice of it is perfectly reasonable. And I love this notion of "Southern heritage", which is really a code word for "white Southern heritage." The vast numbers of black slaves upon whom the entire South built that "heritage" certainly have a right to give voice to their own history, do they not? But here's the really messed up part:
Hurst said he has discussed the possibility of taking legal action.Florida statutes say it is unlawful to "deface, defile or contemptuously abuse" the Confederate flag, but say it is also illegal to prevent the display of the flag "for decorative or patriotic purposes."
A law that is clearly and unquestionably unconstitution under Texas v Johnson; good luck with that legal action, pal. And please don't hand me that nonsense about the Civil War being about "state's rights"; the only "right" they sought to protect was the "right" to own human beings and force them to labor. Go tell Frederick Douglass about the "state's right" to make his life belong to someone else rather than him. And do I even need to mention that the STACLUless have their panties in a bunch over it? JonJayRay writes:
To many Southerners the Confederate flag is a memorial to the brave men among their ancestors who fought to defend their hearths and homes against Northern tyranny. Even Abraham Lincoln in his famous Gettysburg address did not refer to the war as fought in the name of ending slavery. And one assumes that even Southerners can be allowed to have feelings. But their feelings don't count, apparently -- unless they are black or homosexual of course.
Gosh Jon, who said Hurst doesn't have a right to feel whatever way he wants about the display? He can feel anything he wants about it - anger, rage, confusion, sadness, you name it - and he can express those feelings all he wants, even in a major media outlet like Fox News. Is someone trying to stop him from doing so? Of course not. Hurst, on the other hand, would like to prevent the artist from expressing his feelings through this piece. Perhaps your silly claims of persecution are just a bit misplaced here?
And I don't know which Gettysburg Address you've been reading, but the one I've read certainly does speak of ending slavery. What on earth do you think Lincoln was referring to when he spoke of the nation being "conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal" and said that the war was necessary for America to have "have a new birth of freedom"?
It was slavery that so obviously violated and made impossible the founding premise that all men were endowed with an equal right to life and liberty, and it was slavery that had to end in order for that founding premise to become a reality. And the confederate flag was and is a symbol of those who fought, first and foremost, for the preservation and perpetuation of that evil institution. Those folks in the South who want to cling to it as a symbol of their "heritage" may, of course, continue to do so all they want. But those who were victimized under that symbol also have every right to express their rejection of it and to continue to point to the legacy of violence and brutality that is symbolizes. And if you want to try and make yourself out to be the poor victim of persecution when they do so, you only make yourself look incredibly foolish.
Comments
It's rather interesting that many of the same people who persist in waving the Confederate Flag of treason were the first to object to anti-Vietnam war demonstrators waving the Vietcong flag.
Posted by: SLC | March 20, 2007 9:35 AM
The Stars and Bars are a symbol of treason.
How is that not obvious?
Posted by: Lettuce | March 20, 2007 9:42 AM
Oh, Ed. You're in for it now. Yankees just don't realize how deep the Lost Cause mythology runs in the heart of Dixie. The interesting thing to me is how much it informs today's right wing. The God-ordained hierarchy, the heroic soldier and pater familias defending that, a martial sense of honor, women and slaves "protected," and the good and decent ones loyal, freedom (for the free man), and states rights, mostly the "right" to enact all sorts of oppressive law to maintain this hierarchy.
You're right, of course. Which is why you're about to suffer the slings and arrows of those offended. ;-)
Posted by: Russell | March 20, 2007 9:44 AM
Personally, I don't think Sims went far enough. The REAL Proper Way To Hang a Confederate Flag is with a damn red-neck Confederate conservative in the noose.
Posted by: J-Dog | March 20, 2007 9:45 AM
Don't belittle our suffering during the War of Northern Aggression.
Posted by: Chris F. | March 20, 2007 10:14 AM
The War of Northern Aggression??? Didn't the south fire the first?? Someone explain how shooting cannons on Fort Sumter was not agression? I think one could say it was the War of Southern Aggression.
Posted by: Tulle | March 20, 2007 10:19 AM
Tulle, apparently you aer not up on the latest history. The first shots on Sumter fired by a northern instigator. Lincoln provoked the south into firing the first shots.
The above was said in all seriousness by one of the afore-mentioned redneck confederates on the 'Thoughts from Kansas' blog.
Cheers.
Posted by: fastlane | March 20, 2007 10:28 AM
The confederates were traitors, and they're lucky Lincoln didn't string up every last one of them. Hanging enlisted men as traitors would have been a stretch (so to speak), but certainly the officer corps of the Confederate army and the political leadership of the CSA could have been hanged.
A few hangings after the Civil War might have prevented a century of terrorist lynchings.
I'm against the death penalty in all cases but treason (making war on one's country), by the way.
Posted by: Chuck | March 20, 2007 10:36 AM
Your suffering during the war?
That war ended 142 years ago pal. You're entitled to whatever feelings you might have towards what took place and you're entitled to defend that flag which in the eyes of the most of the world symbols slavery. But if you choose to belittle the suffering of those kept in slavery (which you're also entitled to do), by not recognizing all of the symbolism attached to the confederate flag, expect to get called on it.
I foresee that words such as racist, bigot, ignoramus and possibly ones refering to certain parts of human anatomy might be used.
Posted by: Ernst Hot | March 20, 2007 10:47 AM
I'll repost something that I said on another blog.
As I watched the debate of the battle flag in my home state one thing became clear to me, the anti-flaggers were incapable of putting forth arguments that could persuade even moderate flaggers. Couple this with the fact that the anti-flaggers that got the most air time were not from Georgia, and a large percentage of persuadable people were turned off.
Basically yankees had zero insight into how to make a persuasive argument to southerners. Anti-flaggers focused more on condemning, deriding, and misreading the south then they did on uplifting it.---One may even think that this was on purpose, because if the south actually changed, who would they have to insult?---Zig-Zag Zell, before he went crazy in his attempt to save the now dead GA Democratic party, actually wrote a good opinion in the NY Times about this phenomenon.
Arguments against modern southern politics that focus on deriding the south are going to encourage moderate southerners to become defensive and defend policies that they probably wouldn't defend otherwise. Insulting a people makes it difficult to persuade them.
Here are two different talking points about the battle flag, can you guess which one is more likely to be effective?
"The Confederate flag is a symbol of slavery, hate, and murder and should be removed from the state flag."
"The Confederate flag is not an inclusive symbol. The state flag should represent all citizens of the state, not just some citizens."
You can get into plenty of arguments as to whether the Confederate flag is a symbol of slavery, hate, and murder. But I have yet to encounter someone who would argue that it is inclusive.
Posted by: Reed A. Cartwright | March 20, 2007 10:50 AM
Surely the reason it is not inclusive is because of what it symbolises - ie a war fought to continue slavery. Sure it's slightly softer rhetoric, but it's just obfuscation. What would you say to someone who asked why it's not inclusive?
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | March 20, 2007 11:19 AM
A clever rationalization.
Can you iterate the reasons it is "not inclusive"?
Posted by: rpsms | March 20, 2007 11:21 AM
A clever rationalization.
Can you iterate the reasons it is "not inclusive"?
Don't troll. It's not appreciated.
Posted by: gwangung | March 20, 2007 11:28 AM
Arguments against modern southern politics that focus on deriding the south are going to encourage moderate southerners to become defensive and defend policies that they probably wouldn't defend otherwise.
Such as...?
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 20, 2007 11:37 AM
gwangung: I appreciate your favoring my request for expansion of his idea over the same request from Ginger Yellow.
Its is clear the flag is "not inclusive" because it is a symbol of slavery, hate, and murder. Or rather, state sanction of such.
Mr. Cartwright ought to elaborate on what his alternative "uninclusive" argument ought to include, rather than the obvious slight-of-hand.
Posted by: rpsms | March 20, 2007 11:49 AM
I doubt that "inclusiveness" will strike any chords with the people arguing for display of the Stars and Bars. That's another lefty multi-culti concept that has no currency outside that milieu.
Posted by: Reality Czech | March 20, 2007 11:52 AM
I would say that as a symbol for white southerners, it excludes black southerners. I really think it is pointless to argue what the CBF symbolizes, because as an emotional symbol different people will see it different ways and trying to argue using reason has no effect on an emotional argument. But I think that most people will agree that it is a symbol for white southerners, regardless of what it "truely" symbolizes.
Well the "old" Georgia flag is one such instance.
Posted by: Reed A. Cartwright | March 20, 2007 11:55 AM
Actually, that's "Dr. Cartwright".
Posted by: Reed A. Cartwright | March 20, 2007 11:57 AM
This post is not really about whether state or local governments should fly the confederate flag (though they certainly shouldn't) or about whether an individual has the right to fly that flag (though they certainly do); it is about the ridiculous argument that using that flag in a manner that southerners don't like makes it offensive and thus potentially illegal (and it's certainly not). On a higher level, it's about the notion of universal victimhood.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | March 20, 2007 12:13 PM
So the idolaters are at it again, this time with the Confederate flag. The Confederate flag cannot be desecrated? Why not? It's just a piece of cloth. It represents a people who were racist and bigoted. To use it today shows that you are racist and bigoted. There are no redeeming qualities to what it represents - the politicians who seceded from the Union did so to ensure the survival of their "peculiar institution" - they said so themselves at the time. The Confederate flag - the Stars and Bars or the battle flag - was the flag for the army that fired on the Union flag. This flag was the flag for the KKK and other organizations to keep the freed slaves in their place. If those who are so proud of their "Southern heritage" had not been those who were so intent on denying the freed slaves their civil rights, then there might be some mitigation and respect for the flag. But using the flag as a member of the KKK then and now say you just want your Southern heritage respected is a disconnect. That Southern heritage and flag are wrapped up in the white sheets of the KKK. The Confederate flag has suffered the same fate of the swastika - it will always be remembered for the burned crosses, lynchings, race riots, bombings, and murders of the terrorist organization KKK.
Posted by: bc | March 20, 2007 12:42 PM
I think however that almost everyone who would reject the idea that the Confederate flag is a symbol of slavery, would dismiss "not inclusive" as pointless political correctness.
Posted by: Stephen | March 20, 2007 12:56 PM
Huh? Black people and others don't want it removed from the flag because it's not inclusive. Countless flags around the world are not fully inclusive. The Welsh, for instance, are excluded from the Union Flag. People want it removed because it no matter what it means to an individual white southerner, it by definition glorifies a racist secessionist movement. You can't possibly begin to have a sensible debate about the issue, or indeed this art censorship issue, without looking at what it symbolises. Indeed, how can you have any discussion at all about its use in a work of art without considering what it symbolises?
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | March 20, 2007 1:04 PM
The Confederate flag is a symbol, and symbols do not have objective, unchanging, and verifiable meanings. A symbol can mean one thing to one person, and something completely different to another, and no amount of argument will prove one side and disprove the other.
That said, I think the "work" of "art" in question was tasteless, juvenile, lazy, and unworthy of anyone's attention.
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 20, 2007 1:10 PM
You'd be surprised. The point of talking about "inclusiveness" is that it is a better way to frame the debate and more likely to convince moderate southerners, who despite better judgment, still react defensively to people whose entire argument is about how whites in the south are pieces of shit.
Posted by: Reed A. Cartwright | March 20, 2007 1:11 PM
Reference please?
It seems counterintuitive that the majority of southern people that died in the war were slaveowners.
I submit that the redeeming value that it represents is the value placed by descendants on the dead of that conflict and the values that the dead attempted to uphold -- similar to the type of emotion someone may display or feel when the stars and stripes is burned, urinated or shat upon. Some might say that the southern dead are piled at the altar of states rights and property rights and that the constitution was interpreted by the north to such a degree that secession was legal and moral as a battle over the tyranny of the northern majority.
I myself get quite verklempft whenever I think upon the southern nobility of character.
Posted by: Ted | March 20, 2007 1:12 PM
Back to the art itself, I think that I like the work of art. It is very creative and thought provoking. The most objectionable part to me is the use of "proper" in the title.
I'm just waiting for other artists to respond with their own versions, using the American flag, the UN Flag, the Iraqi flag, the "Christian" flag, etc.
Posted by: Reed A. Cartwright | March 20, 2007 1:15 PM
On one side, the confederate flag IS a symbol of slavery and oppression, treason and murder.
On the other side, the confederate flag is an insult to the memory of all of those Union soldiers who died to destroy the rebellion.
The Confederate states were formed by treasonous members of the United States government. Their armies were led by treasonous members of the United States army. They all took oaths to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, they all broke those oaths.
The confederate flag is, or at least should be, an insult to southern blacks, northern blacks, AND northern whites. Hell, it should be an insult to any patriotic American since it is celebrating treason against our Constitution, and everything it stands for.
Posted by: dogmeatib | March 20, 2007 1:23 PM
That said, I think the "work" of "art" in question was tasteless, juvenile, lazy, and unworthy of anyone's attention.
Are you serious? Remind me never to take advice on art from you.
Posted by: Will | March 20, 2007 1:24 PM
Raging Bee, if you find it tasteless or not, it is still a work of art. Art is to evoke emotions. Good art will give you a response unique to you. I find this work clever, you find it tasteless. I think the artist suceeded. As my sister (an artist) said when I asked her what is art, "Art is what an artist does".
Posted by: Tulle | March 20, 2007 1:25 PM
Reed, others copying it with other flags would not have the same emotional impact, as other flags are not associated with lynching as strongly as the Confederate flag.
Posted by: Tulle | March 20, 2007 1:29 PM
It is true that our culture connects lynching with the Confederate flag, but a couple years ago I looked at some statistics from a lynching history project and was surprised how common lynchings were across the nation. Native Americans and Asian Americans were also victims of lynching, sometimes at rates as high or higher than African Americans.
Despite public perception lynching of minorities was an American problem, not just a southern problem.
Posted by: Reed A. Cartwright | March 20, 2007 1:35 PM
I hope Ed does not mind if I show off some of my art. I hope it effects each person in their own personal way. I took the photo and did the image processing myself.
Posted by: Tulle | March 20, 2007 1:36 PM
Raging Bee,
Personally I find it a powerful display. Consider the frustration disenfranchised southern African Americans felt for a century. Think of the fear inspired by lynchings of "uppity niggers" who wanted to change the status quo.
If you look at the picture of the exhibit, it's quite subtle and at the same time shocking. I look at it and it almost immediately puts a wry smile on my face.
After hearing about the Florida law, the words "ROAD TRIP!" popped into my head. Anyone have a zippo I could borrow?
Posted by: dogmeatib | March 20, 2007 1:37 PM
I agree with you Reed, but art is all about perception.
Posted by: Tulle | March 20, 2007 1:38 PM
So, Tulle, your comment was more about the difference between decent art and hack art? I can agree with that. Of course, I'd love to watch how people react to a UN flag in a similar piece of art. (Assuming, people would even recognize the UN flag.) I'm am surprised about the number of people who really believe that the UN is going to fly the black helicopters into the countryside and take their guns away.
Posted by: Reed A. Cartwright | March 20, 2007 1:44 PM
I actually know John Sims a little, although just in passing. I used to rent office space in an art gallery here in Sarasota, Florida (where he's from) and we had a show of his works when I first moved in. John is really interesting guy and, as you might expect, enjoys provoking people. I imagine as an African American this particular piece is close to his heart, but he also had several other flag themed pieces that were equally interesting, like an Iraqi flag done with USA colors and some other pieces I don't recall now. I'm quite sure he's loving the attention on a sate wide and national level - it certainly provoked some talk here as well when he showed it earlier, although since Sarasota is mostly inhabited by rich snowbirds from the north, there wasn't anyone claiming that Confederate flag was being desecrated.
I'd never heard that there was some antiquated Florida law against desecrating the CSA flag, and I don't know if John knew either, but I'll bet he'd be all over a little Confederate flag burning. As would I come to think of it...
Posted by: Rick Dakan | March 20, 2007 1:57 PM
Reed, no my point is what you "see" in any artwork is a reflection of yourself. Your experiences, learning and even some your genes reflect off the artwork and that is what you "see". No two people will get the same perception of an artwork. The better the art the more of yourself comes back into your perception of it. Hmmm... I guess you are right, but I see it as more of a continuous function between great art and hack art. I tend to be toward the hack side, that is why I am a software engineer and not an artist.
Posted by: Tulle | March 20, 2007 2:05 PM
"Of course, I'd love to watch how people react to a UN flag in a similar piece of art."
It wouldn't really make any sense, surely. When did the UN lynch anyone? Now you might be able to construct a serviceable piece about Rwanda with say a machete wielding child and the UN flag. Is that the sort of thing you mean.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | March 20, 2007 2:25 PM
Of course, I'm a damnyankee, except in baseball fandom, yet...
(1) The Civil War/War Between the States is indeed about more than slavery.
(2) It has been [insert history book reference] suggested that there was a single Anglo-American war whose major phases have been (a) English Civil War; (b) American Revolution; (c) American Civil War.
(3) The Civil War/War Between the States succeeded in uniting the balkanized country as much as Lincoln hoped. Before it, there were, de facto, 3 nations: (a) the industrialized North, (b) the "West" that supplied cattle and crops to the North, and (c) the cheap labor/aristocratic South. Afterwards, the econoimies and transportation infrastructures were unified.
(4) Vice President of the Confderacy: Judah P. Benjamin: The Jewish Confederate, by Eli Evans "Judah Philip Benjamin (1811-84) was descended from the Sephardics, Spanish Jews who flourished for three hundred years on the Iberian peninsula in the "Golden Age..."
(5) As a First Amendment Absolutist, I defend to the death the rights of artists to exhbit "offensive" art.
(6) "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" decision expected from the U.S. Supreme Court in June 2007.
(7) Allman Brothers, Creedence Clearwater, Charlie Daniels Band, Lynyrd Skynyrd, William Faulkner, together again at last!
Posted by: Jonathan Vos Post | March 20, 2007 2:29 PM
To you and me it wouldn't make a lot of sense, but to a lot of people it would. There are a sizable number people in the US who believe in wild conspiracy theories about the "evil" UN.
Posted by: Reed A. Cartwright | March 20, 2007 2:31 PM
Ed, I have to disagree with you a bit in your implication that the Civil War was primarily about slavery. Like it or not, the Civil War actually was about "States' rights"; specifically, it was in reaction to taxation of state productivity by the federal government. Now, admittedly much of that productivity was achieved on the backs of slaves, but that doesn't mean that the war was, by proxy, about slavery.
After all, the Northerners weren't all that much better - there is a reason the Underground Railroad ended in Canada, don't you know.
Posted by: Brian | March 20, 2007 2:33 PM
Creedence?
Posted by: Ted | March 20, 2007 2:39 PM
Brian,
Where are you getting the cause of the Civil War being about taxation of state production?
As for the Underground Railroad ending in Canada... First, that's not quite true, it wasn't a uniform route, many branches of it ended in northern states. Also, due to legislation and court decisions, it was no longer safe for the Underground Railroad to end in the north. The fugitive slave act effectively forced northern law enforcement to aid southern slave hunters to find runaways (though often then "help" was questionable). The Dred Scott decision made it very dangerous for escaped slaves to stop in the north. It basically declared all northern anti-slavery laws unconstitutional. The war came before a slave owner had a chance to challenge one of the state laws, but given that decision, I believe the effort would would have been inevitable.
But really, I'd like to hear how the Civil War was actually about taxation of state productivity.
Posted by: dogmeatib | March 20, 2007 3:27 PM
Re Chuck
I agree with Mr. Chuck to the extent that the top leaders of the Confederacy should have been hung. I would have hung Robert E. Lee, in actual fact one of the most incapable commanding generals in history, from the highest yardarm.
Posted by: SLC | March 20, 2007 3:29 PM
Of course the Civil War was about state's rights-- the supposed right of states to enslave human beings.
Posted by: Will | March 20, 2007 3:47 PM
>>in actual fact one of the most incapable commanding generals in history
Upon what evidence do you base this assertion?
Posted by: dogmeatib | March 20, 2007 3:50 PM
Gee, I always thought the Civil War was about Lincoln's platform of no NEW slave states. When elected he had no intention of freeing existing slaves. I never understood why the south suceeded. They had nothing to gain and everything to lose.
Posted by: Tulle | March 20, 2007 4:16 PM
Tulle,
There were a variety of reasons why the south seceded, many of them were symbolized by Lincoln. One huge one was their loss of political power. This may have been emotional, rather than rational, for most southerners, but the election of Lincoln signaled the end of an era of southern dominance. For the first 75+ years of our nation the south had dominated our government, enjoyed representation far beyond their numbers in the house, artificially delayed non-slavery friendly expansion through the doctrine requiring one slave state for every free state and through that managed to gain great power over the senate; dominated the presidency and the supreme court. The election of Lincoln, while in and of itself would have been a dead-end day one lame duck presidency, signaled the end of that domination.
Posted by: dogmeatib | March 20, 2007 4:36 PM
Oy, dogmeat, now I'm gonna have to go dig through my old sources from college...
Just so you know where I come from - I'm a Yankee by way of California, Ohio, Missouri, Michigan, and finally upstate New York (for 15 years, interrupted only by a year's stay in South Carolina). I am generally annoyed by Confederate Flag wavers, and was dismayed to find the Confederacy alive and well during my stay in SC (Charleston).
At any rate, I mostly take issue with Ed's implication that this is somehow a black & white, cut & dried issue. There wasn't some magic line drawn above which good folks viewed slavery as unconscionable. The abolition movement was modest in the North at best (and was supported mostly by business owners, who recognized that flooding the job market with freed slaves would drive wages down).
I'm less making an assertion about the issue, and more calling for perspective - the North wasn't an innocent bystander in the slavery issue.
Posted by: Brian | March 20, 2007 5:52 PM
Re dogmeatib
My comment about Robert E. Lee was taken from the following volume.
"Grant and Lee - A Study in Personality and Generalship," Major General J. F. C. Fuller. The quotation is on page 8 of the Preface. General Fuller after retiring from the British Army became a well known military historian, most renown for his 3 volume "A Military History of the Western World." However, General Fuller is also well known as one of the first to advocate the use of tanks in warfare and to devise the tactics for their employment therein. As a top military adviser to the British high command in the First World War, he was responsible for the development of what is known as Plan 1919, which would have been put into effect if the war had lasted into 1919.
General Fullers' criticism of Lee is mostly based on two observations.
1. Lee was totally incompetent as a quartermaster general; as a for instance, his troops went barefoot while 30 miles away in Richmond, warehouses were bulging with shoes.
2. Lee was no strategist. His focus was entirely on the Virginia sector of the Civil War, even though he was supposed to be Jefferson Davises' top military adviser. He had nothing to offer as to what should be done in the Western sector of the war. Further, his invasions of the North accomplished nothing, except to subject his command to extravagant casualties which it could ill afford. I would add that his acquiescence in the removal of General Johnston by Jefferson Davis and his replacement by the incompetent Hood probably cost the Confederacy any change of emerging independent from the Civil War as it is possible that Johnstons' defensive strategy might have staved off the capture of Atlanta by Sherman. Had that happened, it is likely that Lincoln would have lost the election. The reelection of Lincoln ended any chance for a negotiated settlement.
Now if Mr. dogmeatib doesn't like British criticisms of American Generals, I would suggest he consult, "Robert E. Lee - the Marble Man," by Thomas Connelly or any book on the Civil War by historian Grady McWhinney (personal note - I took a course in American History from Prof. McWhinney when he was a visiting assistant professor at Berkeley a million years ago)
Posted by: SLC | March 20, 2007 6:31 PM
A flag is a piece of cloth. If there is a right to make a statement using the US flag, guess where I stand on the Battleflag. Use is, abuse it, stick in their faces, how they feel is their problem. People will put whatever meaning to it they want, thats what makes it art.
Posted by: Jufulu | March 20, 2007 6:32 PM
Brian wrote:
But I never said nor implied any such thing, nor does your statement change the truth of anything I said in my post.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | March 20, 2007 7:16 PM
Ha, if all of you yankees and yankee-minded idiots who have no power of deduction, believe that yankees fought a war and died by the thousands to free slaves, I have a bridge that I'd like to sell to you. And if you also believe that Sims is an artist, I have another bridge or two that I'd like to sell to you. Go ask the Native Americans what a benelevolent people they believe the yankees to be. After all, Custer was a Union officer. Too bad the natives didn't get to teach a few more yankees some manners!
Posted by: Connie | March 20, 2007 7:34 PM
"Dear Mr. President:
"At the Republican Convention I heard you mention that you have the pictures
of four (4) great Americans in your office, and that included in these is a
picture of Robert E. Lee.
"I do not understand how any American can include Robert E. Lee as a person
to be emulated, and why the President of the United States of America should
do so is certainly beyond me.
"The most outstanding thing that Robert E. Lee did, was to devote his best
efforts to the destruction of the United States Government, and I am sure that
you do not say that a person who tries to destroy our Government is worthy of
being hailed as one of our heroes.
"Will you please tell me just why you hold him in such high esteem?
Sincerely yours,
Leon W. Scott"
Eisenhower's response, written from the White House on August 9, 1960, reads
as follows:
"Dear Dr. Scott:
"Respecting your August 1 inquiry calling attention to my often expressed
admiration for General Robert E. Lee, I would say, first, that we need to
understand that at the time of the War Between the States the issue of Secession
had remained unresolved for more than 70 years. Men of probity, character,
public standing and unquestioned loyalty, both North and South, had disagreed
over this issue as a matter of principle from the day our Constitution was
adopted.
"General Robert E. Lee was, in my estimation, one of the supremely gifted
men produced by our Nation. He believed unswervingly in the Constitutional
validity of his cause which until 1865 was still an arguable question in America;
he was thoughtful yet demanding of his officers and men, forbearing with
captured enemies but ingenious, unrelenting and personally courageous in battle,
and never disheartened by a reverse or obstacle. Through all his many
trials, he remained selfless almost to a fault and unfailing in his belief in God.
Taken altogether, he was noble as a leader and as a man, and unsullied as I
read the pages of our history.
"From deep conviction I simply say this: a nation of men of Lee's calibre
would be unconquerable in spirit and soul. Indeed, to the degree that
present-day American youth will strive to emulate his rare qualities, including his
devotion to this land as revealed in his painstaking efforts to help heal the
nation's wounds once the bitter struggle was over, we, in our own time of
danger in a divided world, will be strengthened and our love of freedom
sustained.
"Such are the reasons that I proudly display the picture of this great
American on my office wall.
"Sincerely,
Dwight D. Eisenhower"
Posted by: Brock Townsend | March 20, 2007 7:58 PM
"Let me begin on a personal note. I am a 56-year-old, third-generation, African American Washingtonian who is a graduate of the D.C. public schools and who happens also to be a great admirer of Robert E. Lee's."
http://vaudc.org/lee-defense.html
Posted by: Brock Townsend | March 20, 2007 8:02 PM
Connie wrote:
This is a nonsense answer. No one here is claiming that "yankees" are perfect, nor is anyone arguing that those in the North were motivated solely by slavery to go to war. Nothing you said changes the simple and irrefutable fact that the Civil War was necessary to bring slavery to an end and that there is a legacy of brutality, including slavery itself and the long post-Civil War history of lynchings, that is aptly protested by the piece of art discussed above.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | March 20, 2007 8:03 PM
BRIG. GEN. JOHN S. BROWN, USA Ret., was chief of military history at the U.S. Army Center of Military History from December 1998 to October 2005. He commanded the 2nd Battalion, 66th Armor, in Iraq and Kuwait during the Gulf War and returned to Kuwait as commander of the 2nd Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division, in 1995. He has a doctorate in history from Indiana University.
Robert E. Lee at 200
By Brig. Gen. John S. Brown, U.S. Army retired
_http://www.ausa.org/webpub/DeptArmyMagazine.nsf/byid/KHYL-6WGJKT_
(http://www.ausa.org/webpub/DeptArmyMagazine.nsf/byid/KHYL-6WGJKT)
Posted by: Brock Townsend | March 20, 2007 8:04 PM
Brock-
I do not doubt that Robert E. Lee had a great many laudable personal characteristics; that has precisely nothing to do with this post, nor does the assertion of that fact in any way dispute the truth of anything I've said.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | March 20, 2007 8:04 PM
Robert Edward Lee, My View
Robert Edward Lee, in my estimation, was the greatest man this nation has ever produced. He graduated from the United States Military Academy without a single demerit, a feat that has been unequaled to this day. He also was second in his class and achieved the coveted cadet rank of Adjutant. He served over thirty years in the United States Army and General Winfield Scott stated that Lee's exploit before the Battle of Contreras in Mexico was "the greatest feat of physical and moral courage" he had ever known. General Scott marked him for high command and thought the cost would be cheap if the United States could absolutely insure Lee's life at the cost of five million dollars a year. He proclaimed that Lee "was the very best soldier I ever saw in the field."
In 1856, as dark clouds loomed, Lee stated that "There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil."
When war finally came General Scott offered him command of the Union Army, but Lee, after pacing the floor all night, decided he could not fight against his own people. Lee's final written words to General Scott were "Save in defense of my native state, I never desire again to draw my sword."
After leading the Army of Northern Virginia to many victories against overwhelming odds, he surrendered and asked his men to go home and be good citizens. A while later he was offered $50,000 for the use of his name by a northern insurance company, but Lee politely informed them "Sirs, my name is the heritage of my parents. It is all I have, and it is not for sale." He also stated that concerning his previous actions "I could have taken no other course without dishonor, and if it were all to be done over again, I should act in precisely the same manner."
In 1868, the New York Herald proposed nominating Lee for President, but Lee was by then President of Washington College where he had but one rule and that was "every man must be a gentleman."
Theodore Roosevelt characterized Lee as "the very greatest of all the great captains that the English-speaking peoples have brought forth." Winston Churchill stated that Lee was "one of the noblest Americans who ever lived."
In closing, I think the words of General/President Eisenhower would be appropriate concerning a question as to why he kept a picture of Lee in his office. He stated that Lee "was noble as a leader and as a man, and unsullied as I read the pages of our history......From deep conviction I simply say this: a nation of men of Lee's calibre would be unconquerable in spirit and soul."
Brock Townsend
Posted by: Brock Townsend | March 20, 2007 8:11 PM
"......the simple and irrefutable fact that the Civil War was necessary to bring slavery to an end....."
Ed:
Not my view. Slavery was ended without violence in other countries, and was not THE cause of the War as evidenced by the Corwin Amendment.
"In 1861 President-Elect Lincoln worked in support of and wrote letters to state Governors asking them to ratify the _Corwin Amendment_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corwin_amendment)
which would have forever protected slavery as it then existed. In December, 1862, he offered gradual compensated
emancipation with slavery lasting until 1900. Neither Georgia nor any other Confederate state accepted either offer because the war was being fought over economic exploitation of the Southern agrarian states, not slavery."
37thtexas.org
Brock
Posted by: Brock Townsend | March 20, 2007 8:20 PM
The marriage of convenience between Dixie Democrats and Republicans in the 60s required moral compromises on the part of Republicans. The legacy of those compromises includes the politics of belligerent resentment of 'the other,' an obsession with using government to promote parochial white southern evangelical Christian culture and a disdain for courts becasue they don't advance southern white culture while supressing other cultures the way corrupt police, small minded citizens and kangaroo courts routinely did in the south.
We aren't supposed to notice or mention that the south is still very close to its roots in a culture that featured the intermingling of Christianity and a deep pride in social and institutional racism embedded in a vigilante, lynching culture that idolized the small mind. This still matters to some of us because the culture of the small southern mind is still very much at war with a just American society.
Posted by: Dr X | March 20, 2007 8:22 PM
No one was tried for treason after the War because the best legal minds advised against it, as they thought the US would lose which would show that, in fact, states did have the right of secession and the War had been fought on a false premise from the beginning. That is way Jefferson Davis was let go, pure and simple.
Posted by: Brock Townsend | March 20, 2007 8:25 PM
SLC,
I'm not sure why you seem to take such offense to my inquiry, I disagree with your assessment and your source. While I am now familiar with the author, I haven't read the work. But I can state the following:
First, his shortcomings as a quartermaster hardly impact his strengths as a tactical battlefield and theatre commander. McClellan was an incredible quartermaster, honestly, who would you rather have lead your troops in to battle?
Second, I would partially agree with the assessment of the invasions of the north. The 1862 campaign may have had major strategic implications but for poor security. The 1863 campaign was a waste, a win at Gettysburg would have done little more than lengthen an unwinnable war.
Third, I find it hard to blame Lee for the strategic failings of the Confederacy as a whole given the limitations of communication, the convoluted chain of command, and the fact that Lee was, for much of the war, limited to commanding the Army of Northern Virginia.
I am personally neutral towards Lee, I don't particularly admire him or dislike him.
Posted by: dogmeatIB | March 20, 2007 9:08 PM
No Ed, you're wrong. Who said Northerners aren't racist, then or now? Do you think good old Saint Abe liked black people?
Racism isn't a Southern invention. The Confederate Battle Flag didn't invent racism, didn't cause racism, and does not now perpetuate racism.
How naive and innocent to stoutly claim the North isn't racist!
Racism is alive and well because of big dumbos like you and poor little no-talent professional victims like Sims.
Posted by: Kathryn Sowder | March 20, 2007 9:23 PM
Kathryn Sowder wrote:
So where's the part where I'm wrong? Can you quote anything I've said that even suggests that I think any such thing? I bet you can't. I am amused as hell at the endless string of straw men being attacked here.
Wonderful. Now when you find anything I've said that even hints at those things being false, feel free to let me know.
You're right, that would indeed be naive and innocent. Good thing I never said anything even remotely like that. Are you getting tired of beating the hell out of that straw man yet?
Once again, we have people who insist on arguing with the Ed in their head rather than the actual Ed. I know that's a lot easier to do, but it makes you look quite absurd.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | March 20, 2007 9:34 PM
You rude obnoxious, liberal's are proving who has the anger and hate built in. Yankees are so entirely incongruous to Southern people that they and their descendants will ever be our natural enemies.
I hope y'all get "Mr." Hillary elected, she be y'all's downfall. : ^ ))))
Posted by: PoP | March 20, 2007 9:38 PM
HAHAHA!!! No way is there an Ed in my Head!!!!!
Posted by: Kathryn Sowder | March 20, 2007 9:44 PM
Re dogmeatIB
I am sorry if Mr. dogmeat1B took offense at my response to his inquiry as to what I based my assessment of Robert E. Lee on. I merely meant to provide him with the requested information. I can assure him that I did not take any offense whatsoever at his inquiry which was entirely reasonable.
1. I am entirely in agreement with Mr. dogmeat1B as regards McClellan. General McClellan was a totally incompetent battlefield commander which he proved on numerous occasions. As General Fuller states in the volume I cited, when his right was attacked on day 1 of the 7 day campaign, if he had had an ounce of generalship, he would have marched in and taken Richmond.
2. Another problem which was not cited by Fuller but has been cited by Connelly is Lees' apparent unwillingness to learn from his mistakes (quite unlike Grant in that regard). Case in point, the attack on day 7 of the 7 days campaign on Malvern Hill and the attack on Cemetery Ridge on day 3 of Gettysburg. In the first instance, he launched an attack on a strong Union position and absorbed 5,000 causalities in an hour, failing ultimately to take the position. On the second instance, he apparently learned nothing from the previous years failure at Malvern Hill and launched an attack with 15,000 men (Picketts' Charge)on a strong Union position along Cemetery Ridge. In this case, his forces took 7,500 casualties and again failed to take the position. The mistake made was the same in both instances; he failed to understand the power of the bullet, namely the devastating effect of rifled musketry on unprotected advancing troops in line and the advantage it gave to troops standing on the defense. I should mention that General Fuller, in other books he wrote, has pointed out that the failure of the British, French, and German High Commands to study and realize what happened in the American Civil war cost the lives of millions of their youth in the First World War (where rifled musketry was augmented by breech loading and machine guns). In addition the Gettysburg attack was poor tactics to begin with as, even if Pickett had succeeded in gaining a lodgment on Cemetery Ridge, the reinforcements to exploit such a breakthrough were too far away (> 1.5 miles), because of the failure of the Confederate artillery to silence the Union artillery which had been placed on the reverse slope of Cemetery Ridge.
Posted by: SLC | March 20, 2007 10:27 PM
Re Brock Townsend
Mr. Townsends' link to the article written by General Brown is much appreciated. I have already made several assertions, supported by historians not cited by General Brown which are in partial disagreement with his article. At this point, I don't think that this is the appropriate blog for a further extension of this discussion, although I am certainly prepared to contest several of General Browns' claims and assertions. However, such a discussion would be several times as long as the original article and would involve a careful analysis of every battle conducted by General Lee. It is quite obvious that General Brown is from the Douglas Southall Freeman school of Civil War History; I'm from the Thomas Connelly school.
Posted by: SLC | March 20, 2007 10:39 PM
Well, Ed, sorry, but I got the impression that when you wrote:
"And please don't hand me that nonsense about the Civil War being about "state's rights"; the only "right" they sought to protect was the "right" to own human beings and force them to labor."
you were basically saying Confederates were pro-slavery and Yanks were anti-slavery. Which wasn't entirely true, was all I was sayin'.
Posted by: Brian | March 20, 2007 11:44 PM
Let me see if I have it correctly: Yet another ignorant whiney product of the imperial federal propaganda machine is bellyaching about the bad ol' Confederate flag. So what else is new? What isn't new, but is conveniently ignored by sheeple such as the author of the article and the sheeple who agree, is the following about the U.S. flag:
The U.S. flag flew over many slave ships. The Confederate flag flew over none.
The U.S. flag flew over nearly nine decades of slavery, including in the North. The Confederate flag flew over four years of slavery, but was in the process of being phased out.
The U.S. flag flew over atrocities committed against Southerners AND Northerners during the so-called Civil War, and flew over the rape and pillage of the South afterwards, euphemistically referred to as Reconstruction.
The U.S. flag flew over the attempted genocide of American Indians.
The U.S. flag flew over the abandonment of prisoners of war in Vietnam.
The U.S. flag is flying over approximately 45 MILLION murdered unborn babies (and counting) since abortion became legal.
The U.S. flag is flying over illegal immigration which is destroying America.
That was just a partial list, so don't feed me garbage about the Confederate flag. It doesn't wash. I suggest that the author and those who bleat in agreement get a real history lesson and learn the truth. Of course, that would require having the guts to stop sucking up to political correctness. No, sheeple don't like hearing the truth.
The knee-jerk reaction to those of us defending the truth is to accuse us of being members of the KKK or whatever white supremacist group. Wrong. I'm not a member and don't want to be, but go ahead and grasp for something; you'll find a false label to apply to us. That's what you people do, isn't it?
Posted by: Rodney Combs | March 20, 2007 11:52 PM
Yankees fought for democracy,Confederates fought for Representative Republic.Yankees are the treasonors NOT the Confederates.Read the "Declarition of Independence" that is the document that the Constitution was fashioned from.Yankees need to get a real education on TRUE history instead of repeating democratic propaganda.
Posted by: Vindiciamus | March 21, 2007 12:09 AM
In 1866 (just after the war) the new regular army formed some regiments of former slaves. Along with the rest of the segregated army these "buffalo soldiers", with their new found freedom helped annihilate upward estimates to one million Plains Indians. All in the name of manifest destiny.
It's ironic how the North was supposedly so antislavery but so pro-genocide.
Posted by: MarkL | March 21, 2007 12:19 AM
Posted by: Baratos | March 21, 2007 12:36 AM
Indeed, I hear the Confederates would have no part in that nasty slave trade!
Posted by: Troublesome Frog | March 21, 2007 12:43 AM
Wow, we have a collection of half truths, twisted facts, omissions, misrepresentations, exaggerations, and outright lies to support the Confederacy. Truly an impressive collection.
Rodney, you can't selectively remove the culture that created the Confederacy from its role in the United States importing slaves and then point to it as "proof" that the Confederacy was somehow superior. Also the genocidal campaign against Native Americans began long before 1865 and INCLUDED that same confederate culture. Point in fact, the southern hunger for land to increase the available land for cotton production played a major role in the 1830 Indian Removal act and the Trail of Tears. At the same time southern slave owners were debating whether the Cherokee should be removed today, or should have been removed last week, in the north there was opposition to removal. The core of this failed movement eventually became the core of the abolitionist movement.
Vindiciamus, what precisely is a treasonor? While the DECLARATION of Independence is one of our most important founding documents, it isn't the law of the land. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say, "When in doubt, refer to the Declaration of Independence." Finally, I find it truly amazing that you would suggest someone else needs "to get a real education."
MarkL, a million Plains Indians? You're joking right? As I pointed out to Rodney, the genocidal campaign against Native Americans began long before the post civil war period, it began long before the United States was even created as a country. To blame the north for continuing the genocidal campaign of others, in the defense of the south, is again, laughable.
Posted by: dogmeatib | March 21, 2007 12:49 AM
PoP wrote:
I love it when folks like you show up to put your ignorance and stupidity on display. You can't even put together a coherent sentence, as the above clearly demonstrates. There is no need for the comma, nor is there a need for the apostrophe in "liberal's" (apostrophes show possession, not plurality). If you want to shake the stereotype of the South being defended by a bunch of semi-literate hicks, you might want to try taking remedial grammar.
Incongruous? Never use a large word when a diminutive one would suffice. Especially if you don't know what it means.
I don't have the slightest desire to see Hillary elected; the chances of me voting for her are slim and none. And slim isn't feeling so well. Your presumptuousness only makes you look even more foolish.