Friday, September 27, 2013

Like They Care About Honoring Confederate Soldiers

Brooks Simpson posts an entry on his flog titled, "Should We Honor Confederate Soldiers? How?"

As of this writing, 64 comment have been posted in reply. I've skimmed post and comments, and while they don't warrant an in-depth analysis and discussion, a few things deserve mention.

First, who is "we"? I don't see it defined? Is "we" Confederacy-haters? The general public? People in the USA? On Planet Earth? In the entire flippin' universe?

Second, what's the point of the exercise? To reach a consensus and then try to force that "how" on everyone? What if the consensus violates Free Speech (i.e., getting the feds involved in dictating the "how")?  What if the consensus is something Confederacy-haters disagree with?

Unless something concrete results, this question, and the replies, are so much wasted bandwidth -- the digital equivalent of hot air.

The only entry in the comment thread that really catches my eye comes from Michael Rodgers, who sez,
"Flaggers’ main argument is that Confederate flags shouldn’t be removed from where they are flying anachronistically and against protocol because they have been flying at those places anachronistically and against protocol for some time (perhaps decades).

"Flaggers argue that taking the Confederate flags down from where they fly anachronistically and against protocol is somehow an admission of tarnishment of their flag that sends us all on a slippery slope of tarnishment that must result, they argue, in the taking down the Stars and Stripes too (slave ships and all that). Since that last step is nonsensical (they don’t bother to argue, but that’s the drift), we shouldn’t ever take down any flags that the previous generations ever flew regardless of how anachronistic or against protocol the flying was."
Actually, the Flaggers' main argument applies to only one instance -- two battle flags on the facade of the Pelham Chapel. But what I really want to address is his carping on "anachronistically and against protocol". says anachronistically relates to anachronism, the entry for which is:
[uh-nak-ruh-niz-uhm] Show IPA

1. something or someone that is not in its correct historical or chronological time, especially a thing or person that belongs to an earlier time: The sword is an anachronism in modern warfare.

2. an error in chronology in which a person, object, event, etc., is assigned a date or period other than the correct one: To assign Michelangelo to the 14th century is an anachronism.
Well, golly, that makes the Chapel itself an anachronism.

And what is an earlier time? Except for the measureless "present moment" all time is an earlier time so everything is an anachronism....

Okay, enough silly philosophizing, My question is --  are Confederate battle flags the only objects, the display of which must be determined by, um, chronisity (to coin a term)? If so, why? If not, what else should chronisity apply to?

And as for "against protocol" -- who sets protocol, and what are their credentials/authority? The VMFA? As far as I can determine, the VMFA's raison d'ĂȘtre. is art, not history.

Here's another question I'd love to have answered. Since the VMFA had no problem for YEARS with the SCV displaying flags anachronistically and against protocol on the Pelham Chapel -- why did they suddenly, out of the blue, up and decide to prohibit them? How did that process take place and what caused it?

While Rodgers doesn't mention this, others have mention the "historical inaccuracy" of nylon flags (as if they know the fiber content of all flags flown by heritage advocates). But who's to say that either side, or both, during the war wouldn't have ordered and used nylon or even polyester flags if those fibers had been available?

IMO, Rodgers is nit-picking, as anti-flag, anti-Confederates are wont to do. They pick and choose what is history, and then declare that anyone who thinks differently, who has a different view -- and who's activities and activism do not conform to their arbitrary views -- are not 'historically accurate" and their views should be drowned out, and their activism hounded out, of existence...


  1. This thread was predictable in its phony moral posturing relative to, of course, slavery. As if slavery wasn't perfectly legal in the United States. Naturally, Ignorant Al Mackey (the gift that keeps on giving) had some very stupid things to say (but remember, this is the same dunce who insists there was no Union of States under the AoC). Hilariously insisting that slavery was universally condemned in the 19th century, and likewise insisting that 19th standards of morality were the same as our 21st century standards, Al asseverates:

    "You talk about current morality, but even as far back as the 18th Century, slavery was seen as an evil thing....One can claim this is current morality only if one wishes to ignore what the folks at the time actually said and thought..."

    Well, here's what U.S. Grant said and thought about slavery:

    "...the overwhelming majority of the people of the north had no particular quarrel with the institution of slavery..."

    And here is what Lincoln said and thought:

    "...I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I HAVE NO INCLINATION TO DO SO..."

    Regarding the Fugitive Slave Law (which Lincoln described as "running and catching niggers"), Lincoln said and thought this:

    "...I would give them (slave-owners) any legislation for the reclaiming of their fugitives..."

    OK, OK, enough of dumb Al,perhaps he is too easy a target. Now then, if you view the question from the opposite direction, it is easy to conclude that Union soldiers deserve only eternal damnation. Their "cause", and their leader, were pure evil. Collectively, they were nothing more than a band of violent lawless looting invaders. Lincoln's armies did what the Armies of Genghis Khan and Oliver Cromwell did before him, and the armies of Hitler and Mussolini did after him. The idea of conducting total war to "preserve the Union" is laughable on its face. What Union? The Union armies were perfectly willing to kill every man, woman and child in the Confederacy; you can't have much of a Union with everyone slaughtered. What Lincoln wanted is what all political-military tyrants want; material resources. Plain and simple.

  2. Whereas, my colleagues prefer to engage in intellectual debates back forth with the enemy, I prefer to just cut to the chase.

    Forget all the intellectualism. Let's have a public boxing match to decide what's best for the Confederate soldier. Money goes to the restoration of a Confederate grave.

    On one side, the Unreconstructed Southerners of 2013. On the other side, the so-called defenders of the Confederate soldier who really just hate the Confederate soldier.

    And, they really hate that poor, corn-fed, hayseed, dumb, White trash Southerner most of all. You see, he is isn't book learned like the Floggers and the Southern plantation gentry. He's just a dumb country boy defending home and hearth. Had it not been for him, the Southern intelligentsia could not have fought the War.


Comments are welcome, but monitored.